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 3

post #37 of 67

One word...evolved
 

post #38 of 67
Hi, guys.
Just how i see all this things.
I think you are somehow overacting. Yes you're right and they're wrong in all that stuff. They could be over-emphasicing the importance of having the weight forward. But, in S&T, just like in 5SK, there isn't just an isolated principle, they are relative to others, in a system. And, acording to S&T, you want your weight forward, but you also want your head still. There are S&T spectrums everywhere (see the book) where they show a player with too much weight on the left and with his head falling to the target. Obviously, you can see a big "no" under that player.
So it is not: "stack and tilt is wrong" but "stack and tilt had some wrong data that a player on his own could missunderstand". Just like any mid handicap could get wrong any system working on his own.
In the end, i see same principles with some variations. And again, i think you're overacting trying to find your own place, and forcing a public break between the two camps.
post #39 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by angel View Post

Hi, guys.
Just how i see all this things.
I think you are somehow overacting. Yes you're right and they're wrong in all that stuff. They could be over-emphasizing the importance of having the weight forward. But, in S&T, just like in 5SK, there isn't just an isolated principle, they are relative to others, in a system. And, acording to S&T, you want your weight forward, but you also want your head still. There are S&T spectrums everywhere (see the book) where they show a player with too much weight on the left and with his head falling to the target. Obviously, you can see a big "no" under that player.
So it is not: "stack and tilt is wrong" but "stack and tilt had some wrong data that a player on his own could missunderstand". Just like any mid handicap could get wrong any system working on his own.
In the end, i see same principles with some variations. And again, i think you're overacting trying to find your own place, and forcing a public break between the two camps.

Maybe part of the reason for it could be a separation from S&T teaching.   However, if they had thoughts that something was not quite right with it, and then the researched it, and found something to be inaccurate, what should they have done?  Keep it too themselves?  I don't know a lot about S&T I never bought their books or DVDs even though I have been a member of this site for a few years.  Whether or not the weight forward idea is an isolated principle or not is irrelevant to this discussion.  They seemingly put out data that they knew was inaccurate and why would you want to be associated with that?  Again I don't know but this kind of incorrect data could possibly cause some who are watching it to put themselves into exaggerated positions in the golf swing.

post #40 of 67
You're right, cipher, i'm not saying you shouldn't show that fine results of your inquiry, just that i don't see them as a great change in the system, and for my taste isn't so fair to present the s&t camp as not being open-minded.
post #41 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Surprised none of them have come here to say anything Have they said anything to you or online?

 

Plenty's been said. I'm not going to share all of it, but someone high up in their hierarchy said "here's a quarter to phone someone who cares." They've said they stand behind their numbers. They've called us names.

 

Irony is lost on this group, as "busting up bad data" is what they routinely do, and what attracted us to S&T so many years ago, and what they as a group feel they continue to do every day (though it's often the same old same old). Lately, they seem more interested in being proven right than discerning what's right.

 

One thing that's lost here is that we offered to share our findings with them a month or two ago. We offered to tell them why we thought their data was wrong, how it could be a sync issue or whatnot, and they refused. They didn't want to hear it.

 

Golf Evolution and 5 Simple Keys will never be that way. If someone has something to say, we'll listen. We're Explorers, not "haven't changed anything since 2007."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by angel View Post

I think you are somehow overacting. Yes you're right and they're wrong in all that stuff. They could be over-emphasicing the importance of having the weight forward. But, in S&T, just like in 5SK, there isn't just an isolated principle, they are relative to others, in a system. And, acording to S&T, you want your weight forward, but you also want your head still. There are S&T spectrums everywhere (see the book) where they show a player with too much weight on the left and with his head falling to the target. Obviously, you can see a big "no" under that player.
So it is not: "stack and tilt is wrong" but "stack and tilt had some wrong data that a player on his own could missunderstand". Just like any mid handicap could get wrong any system working on his own.
In the end, i see same principles with some variations. And again, i think you're overacting trying to find your own place, and forcing a public break between the two camps.

 

Thank you for your comment. I don't think we're over-reacting at all, as that implies that we've had some sort of big reaction. We've done nothing but share data and facts, and are letting everyone who reads it decide whether the "data" presented in the S&T 2.0 DVDs is accurate. JetFan can personally testify to how bad data can lead to issues and problems in the swing.

 

We never said that S&T is wrong, though I would say that if Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer believe the numbers are accurate, then their model IS wrong. The numbers in their DVDs are NOT what players do, not even their own players, and following the "data" presented will not yield the results presented.

 

Again, it's one thing to preach a feel to players (I'm not a big fan of mass-market "feels" as they'll invariably not work or be counter-productive to many), but when you assign "data" to it and claim to be "measuring" things, you're no longer preaching a "feel" but rather saying very clearly this is what players actually do.

 

5SK is measurable and achievable. Weight forward is at impact, and we understand and allow for (and explain) the weight and pressure transfers throughout the entire swing, with accurate, valid data to back it up.

 

5SK is a system, S&T is a swing. It's off topic here to discuss that, and probably pointless to do so elsewhere, but that's how I see it. We're not "forcing" a public break, we're simply doing what we've always done - explore, share our findings and thoughts, and let people decide for themselves whether we know our stuff.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by angel View Post

You're right, cipher, i'm not saying you shouldn't show that fine results of your inquiry, just that i don't see them as a great change in the system, and for my taste isn't so fair to present the s&t camp as not being open-minded.
 

Given some of what I've said above about their reactions, again I'll let others decide on how "open-minded" they are, but my mind is pretty well made up there.

 

Also, good post, cipher. Thanks for your perspective.

post #42 of 67

Well, the entire S&T Team looks ridiculous when this type of information comes out and proves that their data is incorrect.

 

Every swing model must evolve. It's okay to state "We've learned something new and are adjusting our model accordingly."

 

It happens every day in business.

 

Look at S&T - they state Trackman gave them new data showing the new old models (swing of the 1980-2005) needed evolving - in this case, backwards (and forwards), to what the best golfers had in common.

 

Why they don't look at Swing Catalyst and say to themselves, "We have new data. Let's embrace it" is a mystery to analytical thinkers.

 

I doubt if an ego-driven and emotional approach drove S&T in its early years. They might want to look in the mirror, or show data that backs up their model. Because this article has laid waste to a good part of their swing model.

post #43 of 67

Nice post Mr. Desmond.  I agree that most people would view the situation much more positively if the S&T folks adapted their approach based on new data, and were open and receptive to criticism.  New data and techniques become available all the time in the scientific community, and open discussion helps us get closer to the truth.

post #44 of 67
They have not changed anything in six years if you ask them SO expecting them to change because of this is a fools errand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscmatt99 View Post

Nice post Mr. Desmond.  I agree that most people would view the situation much more positively if the S&T folks adapted their approach based on new data, and were open and receptive to criticism.  New data and techniques become available all the time in the scientific community, and open discussion helps us get closer to the truth.
post #45 of 67
Thanks, Iacas, for your post.
Just point that i didn't say reacting but over-acting.
Anyway, i say all this seeing the subject from a great distance. In that sense, i can't see any s&t instructor leting a student get his weight too far forward. I don't know what is "behind the scene", and how the "hierarchies" (as you said, and language is never neutral) govern their enterprise, but what i see is some clever people sharing good information. Maybe at the highest levels of that hierarchy they are not that open minded, but overall picture looks like people that want to learn and change ideas, just like you.
post #46 of 67
Great work Erik J. Barzeski. I was just wondering about weight and pressure. For example, When a sprinter is in the starting block where is his weight and where is his pressure? Is it possible for weight to be leaning forward and pressure to be pushing downward and back to create a movement? Weight and pressure being so different.
post #47 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Bondaruk View Post

Great work Erik J. Barzeski. I was just wondering about weight and pressure. For example, When a sprinter is in the starting block where is his weight and where is his pressure? Is it possible for weight to be leaning forward and pressure to be pushing downward and back to create a movement? Weight and pressure being so different.

 

As we know, a runner in the starting blocks is a very different scenario than the golf swing, and I feel we've fairly extensively covered both weight and pressure in the golf swing (this post in particular deals largely with weight). Second, a sprinter in the starting blocks has his hands on the ground, so his weight is somewhat centered between his feet and his hands. If his weight (center of gravity) was forward of both of his feet and his hands weren't on the ground, he'd fall over because he's in a static position.

 

When a sprinter is running, yes, his weight can be in a different location than his pressure. Absolutely. But we understand that, and this post addresses where weight is (the previous video/post addressed pressure), and weight is NOT 67% nor 81% forward at any point during the backswings of the players shown. It is relatively neutral while pressure shifts back during the backswing, then both weight and pressure flash forward during the downswing.

post #48 of 67

Thank you for sharing the information.  Personally, the weight forward or TOO forward I should say has always been something I have (critically) payed attention to closely.  In fact, I have seen many SnT'ers at ranges literally almost falling over to the left as their weight is so incredibly forward and you can tell they don't realize they are WAY left.  This observation threw up some flags for me.  Eventually, like you have illustrated, the feel becomes real and this post clarifies the issues/dangers of that very nicely. 

 

Regarding sharing the information with the SnT boys, it looks like we are in the early stages of 5SK vs. SnT?  Does part of the 5SK objective involve capitalizing on this SnT miss step by pushing through with this new proven information?  Clearly, the 5SK & SnT relationship has become strained (which is unfortunate).  It will be exciting and interesting to see how well 5SK can further penetrate the teaching realm with this newly revealed gem.

post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith View Post

 

Regarding sharing the information with the SnT boys, it looks like we are in the early stages of 5SK vs. SnT?  Does part of the 5SK objective involve capitalizing on this SnT miss step by pushing through with this new proven information?  Clearly, the 5SK & SnT relationship has become strained (which is unfortunate).  It will be exciting and interesting to see how well 5SK can further penetrate the teaching realm with this newly revealed gem.

 

I won't get into everything, but I don't think its fair to say that we were trying to compete with them or capitalize on what they have done. I, and others, attempted to talk with them about this issue and they not only ignored what we had to say, but also made accusations about our motives. The funny thing is that these posts would likely have never existed if they had handled the situation differently. 

post #50 of 67
Thread Starter 

Deryck, Dave, James, Mike, and I are just going to continue to do as we've always done: explore, share our thoughts, and strive to make golfers better. That's all.

post #51 of 67

Subscribed!

post #52 of 67
Thanks iacas, I do understand the hand foot relationship of a sprinter, lets call that address for a golf swing. But what about transition hand off the ground body leaning forward and pressure on the blocks. More of a dynamic motion, right? We say that we can't measure weight in a dynamic system, but we can all see it, in certain examples like this. I can appreciate the numbers you guys came up with and they are surprising. There was one extreme video posted by Erik of the third swing, it looked nothing like a Stack and Tilt movement, in fact it looked like an example of what they say is very wrong. I think someone else eluded to it. It was the extreme weight forward movement he made with his pelvis forward to get like 80/20 on the left side. His body was still flexed forward to keep his head still even though it dropped. What would the numbers be if he extended his spine and tilted left, maybe way left, like head forward left with same trail leg straightening. That hip pendulum swing with head movement forward would look more like a Stack and Tilt swing and since we know from your studies at the PGA show with the swing catalyst that the straightening of trail leg adds pressure on the trail side. But, since we all don't have Swing catalyst , could you enlighten us on what those numbers would be with an extreme left tilt extension. Pressure wise of course?
post #53 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Bondaruk View Post

Thanks iacas, I do understand the hand foot relationship of a sprinter, lets call that address for a golf swing. But what about transition hand off the ground body leaning forward and pressure on the blocks. More of a dynamic motion, right? We say that we can't measure weight in a dynamic system, but we can all see it, in certain examples like this. I can appreciate the numbers you guys came up with and they are surprising. There was one extreme video posted by Erik of the third swing, it looked nothing like a Stack and Tilt movement, in fact it looked like an example of what they say is very wrong. I think someone else eluded to it. It was the extreme weight forward movement he made with his pelvis forward to get like 80/20 on the left side. His body was still flexed forward to keep his head still even though it dropped. What would the numbers be if he extended his spine and tilted left, maybe way left, like head forward left with same trail leg straightening. That hip pendulum swing with head movement forward would look more like a Stack and Tilt swing and since we know from your studies at the PGA show with the swing catalyst that the straightening of trail leg adds pressure on the trail side. But, since we all don't have Swing catalyst , could you enlighten us on what those numbers would be with an extreme left tilt extension. Pressure wise of course?

 

Billy, let's keep this simple.

 

  • If you want to talk about pressure (which the earlier video featuring Grant and Suzann did), it shifts right during the backswing. We've yet to record a swing with someone set up at all reasonably normally (i.e. not 90/10 trail foot) and making a normal backswing (i.e. not decreasing flex in the lead knee while moving their head or hips forward quite a bit) where the pressure shifts FORWARD during the backswing.
  • If you want to let the golfer's head move around as you requested, look at this image and note that this golfer (he's posing, so it's "weight") is still only 70/30 forward. His head would have to go several more inches forward to get 80/20 weight forward. If the golfer did that dynamically, letting his head move forward (I'm going to guess) 10-12 inches (which is not per the S&T swing either, of course), and decreased flex in his trail knee, that position might only register 50/50 pressure. It'd obviously be LESS than 70/30.
  • The 80/20 video I made kept my head centered. The only way to get to 80/20 was to make that motion, and doing it slowly so as to not "push" with my extending trail leg was also critical. I do not believe it is possible without falling over to make anything resembling a golf swing while dynamically achieving 80/20 PRESSURE left during a backswing.*
  • The sprinter example is a non-starter. Who cares about the transition - their weight is forward but the sprinter would literally fall over. They're not balanced. Their COP and COG are well outside of their contact points with the ground.
  • I disagree that the numbers are surprising (the numbers we're posting). But you already would have guessed that. :D

 

In other words, there's no way to get weight forward 80/20 at A4 making anything resembling a normal golf swing, and there's even LESS chance (I realize I'm saying less than zero) chance of doing it with pressure.

 

We (Dave, James, Mike, and I) created this thread because we heard from several people "they're talking about pressure, we're talking about weight." This thread deals almost exclusively with weight - hence the slow-motion (relatively "static") moves made in the videos shown, and I believe demonstrates how even weight does not tend to get outside of 50% +/- 5%.

 

* Unless you're a left-handed golfer. :D

post #54 of 67
Andy posted this on facebook a few weeks ago WHat do you think?

*
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