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.
But at the same time people have demonstrated the variations of the pattern since the name was created. If it is just "a swing" then how can you have variations? In my opinion, what is marketed is different than what is taught. What is marketed is a simplified pattern that is aimed at your average golfer. Basically what they thought would benefit the most golfers. What is taught varies from player to player. The result is the player's swing.
I consider S&T to be a condensed version of some of the information, but not so condensed that it can be locked down into one possible swing. I feel the player can take bits and pieces and create his or her own swing.
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.
That is what it was until they started to take it to the public. Then, as I understand it, they were told they needed a name.
And maybe I'm different because of how I learned the information and how to teach it. No need to go into that story, but, as you know, I didn't just get to copy what I had seen. I had to figure it out the hard way. However, I think that should be an example of how it can mean different things to different people.
Ultimately I don't care... a definition doesn't change anything for me.
