Quote:
Originally Posted by
cbrian 
If we are talking about the label, then yes, I would agree that there is a "model" or "a swing." If we are talking about the information and how a good instructor is going to implement that, then I would say no, its not "a swing." It becomes an understanding of the measurements and how you can apply those to the individual to make "his" swing better.
Nah. I don't buy it. You can't call "the information" "stack and tilt" and application of information is to create an end result: a swing. Stack and Tilt is an inline, elbow-plane, centered pivot golf swing.
The "information" is physics, geometry, biomechanics. It's TGM and MORAD. It's classification and categorization. The end result of which is a swing or a pattern or a method of swinging a golf club.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cbrian The whole label thing is double edged. It seems very hard to get the information out there without a label. However, with a label you become an easier target. Those with vested interests bypass the information and focus attention on the label. Because of that, I think one has to stay open minded and be cautious when criticizing another's explanation of what the system means to him or her.
I disagree that it's difficult to get the information out there without a label. Why couldn't it simply be "what Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer teach"? What's the name of the Haney method of swinging a golf club? He doesn't have one because he's never labeled it, even if he teaches the same thing to everyone. What about Leadbetter? Harmon, does he have a method? Hardy won't teach anyone a two-plane swing unless you really force him to, but he gets credit for having "two" models.
I can stay open minded all day but it doesn't change the fact that S&T is a swing. There's a video called "Charlie Wi hitting all the positions," and the site and domain name themselves say "swing."
Lately people have tried to redefine it because they find themselves getting backed into corners a bit, but it is what it is: a swing. If you don't "hit all of the positions" you don't have a "Stack and Tilt Swing." You can be working towards it, and others who don't have an "S&T Swing" can apply a piece or two from the ten words, for example, and that's good for them, perhaps, but it's a swing.
If you wanted to list, what, all 24 components from TGM you could do that. There's not a lot of flexibility in the model, and frankly, that's a big part of the reason why we've "evolved" beyond a single-swing way of instruction.
