or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Swing Thoughts › S&T 2.0 DVDs and Pressure/Weight Forward - An Examination
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

S&T 2.0 DVDs and Pressure/Weight Forward - An Examination - Page 2

post #19 of 67

Yea.... I'm kind of eating crow here now learning that S&T isn't the infallible swing philosophy I once thought it was. Of course, now, I have to feel like I'm shifting my weight onto my back foot on the backswing and staying in flexion for_ev_er. And I haven't talked to Mike (mvmac) about this in a while, but I probably have to feel like I'm just swinging my arms down and not using my lower body at all on the downswing, but I cannot confirm that at this time.

 

Yea, that's what can happen when you're told to stay forward the whole time in your swing, and you practice it over and over again for over a year. Oops.

 

At least my brain can still gather enough information to know when I'm wrong. The learning really never stops in this crazy ass game, does it?...

post #20 of 67

This is both refreshing and frustrating to see at the same time.  Back when this site was mostly advocating SnT I got the CD's/books and thoroughly read up on their swing.  I front loaded my weight and got strange looks at the course all the time, along with comments about how awkward it was.  I defended it saying they had #'s to back it up.  Now I feel as though I wasted a year learning a swing method that was largely not true.  Well I suppose 1 year is better than 10.
 

post #21 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post

This is both refreshing and frustrating to see at the same time.  Back when this site was mostly advocating SnT I got the CD's/books and thoroughly read up on their swing.  I front loaded my weight and got strange looks at the course all the time, along with comments about how awkward it was.  I defended it saying they had #'s to back it up.  Now I feel as though I wasted a year learning a swing method that was largely not true.  Well I suppose 1 year is better than 10.
 

 

I don't think you can write off all of S&T. They were combatting head movement, weight back, spin outs, etc. Honestly, those are as common as faults get in this game. But the trick is though, knowing when the student has gone from "doing that common crap" and entering into the "over-doing all the S&T good stuff" realm. I'm not sure if you were a S&T student or a self-teacher though. Big difference there. I can't really speak for the self-teachers because who really knows what those guys are doing.

 

But yea, working with incorrect data presents a huge problem for everyone involved. Once one learns it, it's time to analyze it. And if it holds up, one changes what one teaches to improve. If one decides to ignore it, then wow. That is pretty obtuse. That's like being told there's an iceberg a mile down from the path your ship is on, and saying "nah, let's just keep this same course, guys."

post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetFan1983 View Post

 

I don't think you can write off all of S&T. They were combatting head movement, weight back, spin outs, etc. Honestly, those are as common as faults get in this game. But the trick is though, knowing when the student has gone from "doing that common crap" and entering into the "over-doing all the S&T good stuff" realm. I'm not sure if you were a S&T student or a self-teacher though. Big difference there. I can't really speak for the self-teachers because who really knows what those guys are doing.

 

But yea, working with incorrect data presents a huge problem for everyone involved. Once one learns it, it's time to analyze it. And if it holds up, one changes what one teaches to improve. If one decides to ignore it, then wow. That is pretty obtuse. That's like being told there's an iceberg a mile down from the path your ship is on, and saying "nah, let's just keep this same course, guys."

 

I am not saying all of SnT is bad, obviously some of it is true.  But one of their biggest components was putting the weight forward from the start and keeping it that way.  I am self taught and this I tried to do in all my practice/outings etc.  As you are well aware I am sure... doing something over and over again for a year will take some time to undo. 

post #23 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetFan1983 View Post

I don't think you can write off all of S&T. They were combatting head movement, weight back, spin outs, etc. Honestly, those are as common as faults get in this game. But the trick is though, knowing when the student has gone from "doing that common crap" and entering into the "over-doing all the S&T good stuff" realm. I'm not sure if you were a S&T student or a self-teacher though. Big difference there. I can't really speak for the self-teachers because who really knows what those guys are doing.

 

Precisely correct, JF. I'll say that golfers are likely better off being too far forward than too far back. At least they have a chance to strike the ball solidly.

 

The problems arise when the feel of weight forward throughout the swing becomes the reality - the golfer is actually 65% forward at the top of their backswing, or their head goes down and forward. That's when things go awry, when "weight forward" is thought to be the main solution to problems.

 

P.S. Slover, I know you're trying to get to our 5SK school with Rob McGill - believe me, it won't take as long as you think, and as the above says, you're starting from a better spot than a lot of students.

post #24 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Precisely correct, JF. I'll say that golfers are likely better off being too far forward than too far back. At least they have a chance to strike the ball solidly.

 

 

Yea. The funny thing is, I feel like S&T would be considered very good again if they simply understood what you've been preaching about in this opening post.

post #25 of 67

Obviously everyone knows my thoughts on this thread and this data as I have been a part of the compilation...so no need to discuss the quality of the post. I think the replies are telling though. We are careful to do our "research" in areas that can truly help golfers and, based on the replies here, it seems this is a subject that matters. The perception may be totally different depending on who you ask but the real point is to give golfers accurate information they can use to improve. Sometimes, to do this, one must question another's information. Others have done the same many times and it will continue to be done.  That is how we ALL continue to improve.  

 

I have said many, many times that I LOVE when the merits of our system are presented in "unfriendly confines". It makes us all better and if we make changes because of it then so be it. That is EXACTLY how it should be.

post #26 of 67
The issue isn't that they don't understand the pressure data -- let's be real here, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the data in the DVDs varies too much to be accurate. Even easier to figure out when someone does the research for you and explains it to you, so IMO they understand there is an issue with their numbers. -- The issue is that they understand and refuse to change. In their own words nothing has changed since day one.

They don't have an interest in providing the best information possible. They have an interest in proving they were right. I wish them luck in their quest.
post #27 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by david_wedzik View Post

Obviously everyone knows my thoughts on this thread and this data as I have been a part of the compilation...so no need to discuss the quality of the post. I think the replies are telling though. We are careful to do our "research" in areas that can truly help golfers and, based on the replies here, it seems this is a subject that matters. The perception may be totally different depending on who you ask but the real point is to give golfers accurate information they can use to improve. Sometimes, to do this, one must question another's information. Others have done the same many times and it will continue to be done.  That is how we ALL continue to improve.  

 

I have said many, many times that I LOVE when the merits of our system are presented in "unfriendly confines". It makes us all better and if we make changes because of it then so be it. That is EXACTLY how it should be.

 

This post hits the nail on the head and really shows the true feelings of my original posts.  I am not really that upset that I have to re-work my swing, it simply wasn't great to begin with :).  But what is troublesome is that high handicappers are presented with many different systems in their quest to get better and how do you tell which one is right?  For example, the perfect golf swing, SnT, 5SK's, etc.  These are all systems I've come across in the 9 months I've been playing golf.  As a beginner it is hard to tell which person's information is accurate and which is not, especially considering I don't have easy access to systems such as trackman 

to do research.  A few months ago I would have thought that just about everything SnT was telling me was based on accurate research and numbers and that it would be a good system for me to learn.  As it turns out, to an extent, this was simply not the case. 

 

Now I am onto 5SK and I am enjoying it.  The instructors seem to be very educated, willing to learn, and also willing to check their own data to see if the information is correct.  However, is it possible that their data is skewed as well?  I don't think that it is but in truth it is possible.  Due to the internet it is easy to get wrong information and right information.  The problem is deciphering which one is right and which is wrong.  As a person that is not experienced it is often hard to tell. 

 

That is why I think 5SK is on the right path.  Having instructors that are willing to learn, admit their mistakes, and who present their information in a professional manner. 

 

But I am getting a bit off topic so will try to steer it back that way.


Edited by SloverUT - 3/24/13 at 12:41pm
post #28 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

I'd like to thank Dave Wedzik, with whom I've talked most about this and who has done almost as much in researching this as I have, as well as Mike McLoughlin and James Hirshfield.

 

Yes thank you very much for putting the time you have into researching this information that we can ALL learn from.  I'm sure it's clear but even though Erik was the one to post this, it's something we (Golf Evolution) all stand behind and contributed to.  Very proud to be part of the team and look forward to more great things to come.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by david_wedzik View Post

Obviously everyone knows my thoughts on this thread and this data as I have been a part of the compilation...so no need to discuss the quality of the post. I think the replies are telling though. We are careful to do our "research" in areas that can truly help golfers and, based on the replies here, it seems this is a subject that matters. The perception may be totally different depending on who you ask but the real point is to give golfers accurate information they can use to improve. Sometimes, to do this, one must question another's information. Others have done the same many times and it will continue to be done.  That is how we ALL continue to improve.  

 

I have said many, many times that I LOVE when the merits of our system are presented in "unfriendly confines". It makes us all better and if we make changes because of it then so be it. That is EXACTLY how it should be.

 

Exactly Dave, we welcome debate, it's only going make us better in the end.  If I'm wrong about something, I want to know about it. Dave, like you've said in all the 5SK schools/clinics, if a student can come up with a 6th Key, you want to hear about it.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post

This is both refreshing and frustrating to see at the same time.  Back when this site was mostly advocating SnT I got the CD's/books and thoroughly read up on their swing.  I front loaded my weight and got strange looks at the course all the time, along with comments about how awkward it was.  I defended it saying they had #'s to back it up.  Now I feel as though I wasted a year learning a swing method that was largely not true.  Well I suppose 1 year is better than 10.
 

 

Well you may feel like you wasted a year, maybe you did if you just worked on loading left but you take away the weight forward on the backswing, Andy and Mike have some good information to share and I have certainly learned from them.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JetFan1983 View Post

Yea.... I'm kind of eating crow here now learning that S&T isn't the infallible swing philosophy I once thought it was. Of course, now, I have to feel like I'm shifting my weight onto my back foot on the backswing and staying in flexion for_ev_er. And I haven't talked to Mike (mvmac) about this in a while, but I probably have to feel like I'm just swinging my arms down and not using my lower body at all on the downswing, but I cannot confirm that at this time.

 

Yea, that's what can happen when you're told to stay forward the whole time in your swing, and you practice it over and over again for over a year. Oops.

 

At least my brain can still gather enough information to know when I'm wrong. The learning really never stops in this crazy ass game, does it?...

 

Yes let me be clear, for JF he was side bending at too fast a rate and trying to make sure his weight was forward, so his head was going down and forward.  Which is just as bad as the head moving too far to the right (maybe worse).  So to him the left shoulder moving to the sternum (a centered pivot/stable axis) feels like he stays in flexion forever.  With things being centered, it's going to make it easier for him to transfer (Key#2) rather than back out of the shot.

post #29 of 67

I'll state again my appreciation to all who have contributed, researched, and drafted the original post.

 

Although I've spent over a year reading the S&T book, and reviewing S&T 2.0 DVD, and watching countless youtube and sandtrap videos, I do not think my time or learning has been wasted in the least.

 

It seems the champions of the S&T method wanted to exaggerate the method and give out wrong data to empathize the exaggeration or justify their theories - OK - I've seen other instructors do the same thing so as not to confuse the masses, or ... whatever in this case. Of course, as Erik and others have pointed out, once you start doing the exaggeration (and I have), that leads to substantial issues (and it has).

 

I love the fact that Erik, Dave, and others have pointed out the issues - it has and will lead me back towards a more fundamental and solid swing. It doesn't take that long to make the adjustments. I mean, I'm adjusting daily as a learn and re-learn the center pivot swing. I just put myself in front of a mirror with a mini-club and rehearse the moves. I'd rather know the facts that have them hidden from me.

 

Thanks again, guys.


Edited by Mr. Desmond - 3/24/13 at 6:57pm
post #30 of 67
I do the same, rehearse in front of a mirror, and I can keep my head still, it's when I go to the range that my head moves forward...
post #31 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post

Yes let me be clear, for JF he was side bending at too fast a rate and trying to make sure his weight was forward, so his head was going down and forward.  Which is just as bad as the head moving too far to the right (maybe worse).  So to him the left shoulder moving to the sternum (a centered pivot/stable axis) feels like he stays in flexion forever.  With things being centered, it's going to make it easier for him to transfer (Key#2) rather than back out of the shot.

 

Yea, well said.

 

And I just want to be totally clear that I'm not bitter or anything about S&T. There are still a million things I've learned from that system. And I'm not knocking any teacher specifically. It's more so a constructive criticism of certain aspects of their general philosophy, which left unchecked and unexamined, have led to some student issues in the wider sense. That's certainly not what good golf instruction is about. That's exactly what S&Ters sought to avoid in the first place. But again, I'm not beating any sort of drum for the mob to haul out the tar and feathers. I guess, deep down, I still hold out hope that further examination of the OP by their brain trust will lead them down a path towards improvement. The opportunities for continued learning are clearly out there right now. It's almost like -- and I say this for every profession out there -- one cannot be considered a great teacher if one is not also a great student too. And I think perhaps that that last point is MIA at the moment. If a person is going to forget to keep learning, he might as well slap an expiration date on his butt right now.

post #32 of 67

This is my first post on the forum, but I've been an active reader for over a year.

 

A bit about my history.  I'm 35 years old and have been playing since high school.  My game peaked during graduate school where I was regularly shooting in the low 80's, not uncommonly in the high 70's.  I never calculated a handicap unfortunately.  In the intervening years I've been able to play less and less due to work and family considerations, and I noticed deterioration in my swing consistency and ball-striking, where I was previously very consistent with my irons, if not challenged for distance.  Looking back, I think I've always had a bit of outside-in and have had difficulty ending up with my "weight forward" at impact.

 

Last year, when I found this forum, I attempted to adopt the SnT system, bought the book, hit the range and all of that.  I was self taught, as a certified instructor was not available in my area.  The reasoning made sense, but I was never able to transtlate it to consistent ball-striking.  In retrospect, I was probably putting too much "weight forward" and overly lowering my head over my left knee, and doing some unnatural compensation just prior to impact.  I have to say it felt pretty awkward, and gave rise to the longest string of shanks I've ever experienced in one round!

 

So after a long hiatus, I decided to revisit my swing mechanics and visit the forum once again.  I must give Erik and David kudos for collecting some objective data, making a break from SnT dogma in light of new evidence, and developing a seemingly improved system based on that data.  Importantly, you've hit the nail on the head regarding the collection of accurate and reproducible data.  However, I think it would pay to revisit the terms being used, regarding weight and pressure.  I feel it's a shortcut the way that weight and pressure have been parsed out and defined, making it easy to understand for most, but challenging to come to grips with for those of us with more of a background in the sciences.

 

The one thing that is constant is the body's mass, not weight!  Weight is a measure of the force exerted by gravity on a particular mass.  In your static photos at various swing alignments, the pressure plate measurements are truly reflective of the action of gravity alone, the force at each measureable point on the plate, in some unit of weight/area.  So why do these numbers change during the swing, even though the golfer's position is similar?  You've already aptly pointed out that very little of the change in pressure measurements can be accounted for by changes in gravitational force right-left distribution.  So the only explanation is rotational forces which are changing during the swing.  As the golfer rotates around an axis in a plane diagonal to the ground, there are centripetal forces at work.  The club head wants to fly out tangential to the arc of the swing plane, and the golfer exerts centripetal force sagitally to keep it in place via the grip and shaft.  A diagonal plane can be broken down into vectors that are parallel to and perpendicular to the ground.  The differences we see on pressure plate measurements are due to the additional force vectors that are perpendicular to the ground, or parallel with gravity.  The horizontal vector is of course not measureable by the plates since they only sense what is vertical to them. 

 

In summary, my understanding is that static pressure=gravity and dynamic pressure=gravity + rotational force.  Now I'm not nearly smart enough to even attempt to quantify the math such that it fits the data you've acquired.  But I think that if you're attempting to take a more scientific, data driven approach to the swing mechanics, you need to use terminology appropriately.  It's not just semantics, it's a demonstation of clear understanding of the subject matter, and using terms correctly gives you more broad credibility.

 

All that said, I watched a bunch of your videos online and hit the range yesterday.  I used your soda (pop) bottle drill, the 2-ball drill, and pretended I had a squishy ball under my left foot.  I even tried keeping my right toes up a bit on the backswing.  A lot of things clicked!  My contact was not only solid, but consistent on the club face until I fatigued.  Ball-flight was right down my intended target line on the way up at least.  I was in a pressurized golf-dome only 70 yards deep, so I could only see the first half/third of the ball flight.  I'm heading to Scottsdale in a week and hope to get at least one round in as well as some time on a warm, grass range.

post #33 of 67
Thread Starter 

USCMatt,

 

I have a background in the sciences as well and I fully understand the differences between weight and pressure (and mass - though as neither the earth's mass, nor ours, nor our distance from the center of the earth changes appreciably during a golf swing, weight is reasonably constant as well a1_smile.gif). We've talked at length about how weight and pressure (and even force) are different, but at the end of the day the point of communication is to be understood. If we spend too much time (time we've already spent, again) defining terms, that's not going to get to the actual point nor will it help make golfers better.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by uscmatt99 View Post

So why do these numbers change during the swing, even though the golfer's position is similar? You've already aptly pointed out that very little of the change in pressure measurements can be accounted for by changes in gravitational force right-left distribution. So the only explanation is rotational forces which are changing during the swing. As the golfer rotates around an axis in a plane diagonal to the ground, there are centripetal forces at work.

 

In summary, my understanding is that static pressure=gravity and dynamic pressure=gravity + rotational force.

 

I think what you say has some truth to it, but the biggest reasons why we see pressure shifts has more to do with one side of the body extending (pushing into the ground by decreasing flex) while the other side of the body (during the backswing especially) increases flex. There's a link where we discuss "pressure vs. weight" in the SwingCatalyst video, and there are several other pages discussing this throughout the site.

 

Remember too that if we're rotating something around some center that's near the center of our body (say, our hips for example), for every bit the right hip goes up, the left hip goes down, so the rotational forces tend to cancel each other out when the axis of their rotation is roughly centered in our bodies. The rotation of the arms and clubhead is not "canceled out" during the swing (we don't have arms out the back of our torso), but they're swinging UP, too, so their forces are oriented upwards on the trail side.

 

The rotational forces contribute little to the golf swing - the extension and flexion of the knee, hips, ankle, etc. add a great deal.

 

And again, what causes the numbers has been discussed elsewhere at length, so it's off topic for this thread.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by uscmatt99 View Post

All that said, I watched a bunch of your videos online and hit the range yesterday.  I used your soda (pop) bottle drill, the 2-ball drill, and pretended I had a squishy ball under my left foot.  I even tried keeping my right toes up a bit on the backswing.  A lot of things clicked!  My contact was not only solid, but consistent on the club face until I fatigued.  Ball-flight was right down my intended target line on the way up at least.  I was in a pressurized golf-dome only 70 yards deep, so I could only see the first half/third of the ball flight.  I'm heading to Scottsdale in a week and hope to get at least one round in as well as some time on a warm, grass range.

 

That's the reason we do this stuff - to help golfers get better. Like you said above, by understanding what good golfers actually do, we can make golfers better. Feels aren't real, and golfers can be mislead when trying to swing using someone else's feel.

 

A bit is being said (by very few people, admittedly) about how we're just being mean, but I think most will find the OP very level-headed and fact oriented, without any personal comments, emotion, etc. It's simply a presentation of some facts, and we ask you to decide for yourselves at the end whether we've made a credible case that the information in the DVDs is inaccurate.

 

Thanks for your comments, Matt, and welcome to the site. I'm glad you've left lurker mode, and I'm jealous if you live anywhere warm. :D

post #34 of 67

Erik,

 

Thanks for the reply.  I didn't realise there was another thread where that was all discussed, I would have posted there instead.  My apologies.  I still need to go through some of the other threads in this subforum.  And thanks again for all of your hard work, and putting your data and observations out there for criticism.  Open discussion is the quickest way to the truth.

 

And I just want to reiterate, thanks so much for calling it like you see it.  I think you'll take this 5 Simple Keys method a long way, maybe with some modifications as more data becomes available and this is applied to a broader spectrum of golfers.  It's such a refreshing approach to teaching golf, I may even want to take a lesson again a3_biggrin.gif

post #35 of 67
Surprised none of them have come here to say anything Have they said anything to you or online?
post #36 of 67

Excellent posts/video iacas.  The 80%+ video was eye opening compared to S&T.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Swing Thoughts
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Swing Thoughts › S&T 2.0 DVDs and Pressure/Weight Forward - An Examination