The Stack and Tilt Golf Swing

[TN94z]

4 minutes ago, Antneye said:

Not yet, but from my research it seems that the 5sk stuff kind of builds on some of these concepts so I figure its not a bad place to start ($10 on Amazon) and then I can go deeper if I like what I am seeing.  At minimum it doesn't seem like it can hurt.  I'm not ready to jump into a more expensive program just yet.

5sk has much more simple concepts to me. And it's not necessarily more expensive as the information can be found here. 5sk is basically the 5 top fundamentals that every good player has. In my opinion, I would take a look at these before the SnT. Check out this link:

Tons of info there.

Edited April 20, 2017 by TN94z

[Antneye]

Just now, TN94z said:

5sk has much more simple concepts to me. And it's not necessarily more expensive as the information can be found here for free. 5sk is basically the 5 top fundamentals that every good player has. In my opinion, I would take a look at these before the SnT. Check out this link:

 

Tons of info there.

Thanks!  I will check this out as well.

[JetFan1983]

4 hours ago, Antneye said:

I just bough the book and am hoping to see what I can integrate into my swing.  I have really struggled in the past year and my handicap is not moving forward at all.

As someone who has done both, IMO Five Simple Keys is significantly better. And 5SK instructors are much more qualified to help you than a Stack and Tilt Guy is. I'd look into a lesson with a 5SK guy, and wouldn't waste my money on a S&T guy. Just my opinion, and I hope that helps.

[boogielicious]

16 hours ago, JetFan1983 said:

As someone who has done both, IMO Five Simple Keys is significantly better. And 5SK instructors are much more qualified to help you than a Stack and Tilt Guy is. I'd look into a lesson with a 5SK guy, and wouldn't waste my money on a S&T guy. Just my opinion, and I hope that helps.

@Antneye

I agree with this. I started with S&T and read the book, got the videos and practiced it. Then I took a clinic with Dave W. and Erik, who were sort of affiliated with S&T at the time, and they taught more along the 5SK line of thinking. They eventually developed 5SK.

S&T has kind of morphed into a very specific swing pattern. Whereas, 5SK is not a swing pattern, but the commonalities that all good swings have. 5SK teachers work with your swing to improve it so you can become proficient at the 5 Simple Keys and play better golf.

[scopek]

20 hours ago, JetFan1983 said:

As someone who has done both, IMO Five Simple Keys is significantly better. And 5SK instructors are much more qualified to help you than a Stack and Tilt Guy is. I'd look into a lesson with a 5SK guy, and wouldn't waste my money on a S&T guy. Just my opinion, and I hope that helps.

IMO, I think saying that a 5SK instructor is "much more qualified" then a S&T is an over generalization. This is nothing against 5SK's approach. There are great S&T instructors and I'm sure there are bad S&T instructors. If you go down the S&T route you have to find someone that has a good reputation and who you'll work well with. I think the issue is that some S&T instructors get too caught up on teaching the swing in one way and become rigid about what they're teaching. I've worked with S&T instructors who are not rigid. You can try to learn S&T from a book and the videos, but unless you're incredibly talent, I think it's a waste of time. You really need a good instructor. 

 

[JetFan1983]

3 hours ago, scopek said:

IMO, I think saying that a 5SK instructor is "much more qualified" then a S&T is an over generalization. This is nothing against 5SK's approach. There are great S&T instructors and I'm sure there are bad S&T instructors. If you go down the S&T route you have to find someone that has a good reputation and who you'll work well with. I think the issue is that some S&T instructors get too caught up on teaching the swing in one way and become rigid about what they're teaching. I've worked with S&T instructors who are not rigid. You can try to learn S&T from a book and the videos, but unless you're incredibly talent, I think it's a waste of time. You really need a good instructor. 

 

Actually no, they're ****ing terrible.

Edited April 21, 2017 by JetFan1983

[ghalfaire]

I am not sure I should post this here or start a new thread called "your authentic swing".   I was watching a LPGA tournament the other day and Judy Rankin was discussing Inbee Park's swing.  Her comment was, paraphrased here, find a swing that works for you and learn how to repeat it.  I like this advice, perhaps controversial but since we are all individuals it would seem to make sense.  I have seen a lot of non classical swings over the years by some pretty good golfers and believe Ms. Rankin has a good point.  Seems to me It is all about how to achieve the correct impact conditions. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, scopek said:

IMO, I think saying that a 5SK instructor is "much more qualified" then a S&T is an over generalization.

I don't think so.

S&T instructors, by and large, know ONE way to do things. They get a bunch of things wrong. They try to solve things the wrong way, and it's a pattern that's evident among many of them: there are a number of times when "shoulder more down" or "hands more in" are prescribed when they shouldn't be.

Though S&T purport to know how the spine works in three dimensions… they get it wrong ALL THE TIME. They think the spine extends and side tilts some 35° each. They're wrong.

5SK instructors understand better how the spine works, and they're not teaching ONE swing.

Are there exceptions in both directions on both sides? Yes. Generally speaking, though, I'd avoid S&T instructors. They willfully ignore facts.

[Antneye]

On 4/21/2017 at 2:19 PM, iacas said:

I don't think so.

S&T instructors, by and large, know ONE way to do things. They get a bunch of things wrong. They try to solve things the wrong way, and it's a pattern that's evident among many of them: there are a number of times when "shoulder more down" or "hands more in" are prescribed when they shouldn't be.

Though S&T purport to know how the spine works in three dimensions… they get it wrong ALL THE TIME. They think the spine extends and side tilts some 35° each. They're wrong.

5SK instructors understand better how the spine works, and they're not teaching ONE swing.

Are there exceptions in both directions on both sides? Yes. Generally speaking, though, I'd avoid S&T instructors. They willfully ignore facts.

But don't you conceptually agree with the swing laid out in the book even if there are better instructional methods available?  I have not read this whole thread, but in the beginning you seemed to be highly supportive of this.  Can you provide a cliff notes overview of your stance in this thread?  

 

BTW....I've been looking at a lot of your 5sK content and think it is very good.

[iacas]

On 4/24/2017 at 9:56 AM, Antneye said:

But don't you conceptually agree with the swing laid out in the book even if there are better instructional methods available?  I have not read this whole thread, but in the beginning you seemed to be highly supportive of this.  Can you provide a cliff notes overview of your stance in this thread?

Yes, the S&T swing, done properly as written in the book, achieves all 5 Keys.

They get a few things wrong (the pressure shifts to the back foot, the spine doesn't bend or extend 35°, etc.) but the motion demonstrated achieves the keys.

[Antneye]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Yes, the S&T swing, done properly as written in the book, achieves all 5 Keys.

They get a few things wrong (the pressure shifts to the back foot, the spine doesn't bend or extend 35°, etc.) but the motion demonstrated achieves the keys.

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. 

[Antneye]

So I'm reading the book and trying to think about it in relation to what I have read about 5sk. So far, I think my initial thoughts that 5sk is an offshoot of these concepts seems valid.... Ultimately I may find that thought to be wrong, but that's where I am right now. 

I am on page 48, and am basically following their concepts, but I just ran into this paragraph that has me baffled. Anyone care to try to explain this better? This is in the section that talks about set-up. A picture would have been appropriate for this section. 

"your hands should be opposite the inside of your left thigh, with the grip of the club over the inside part of your left ankle from your perspective. Combined with the correct ball location, this position creates a slight forward lean of the shaft from the face-on-view."

Huh? 

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, Antneye said:

So I'm reading the book and trying to think about it in relation to what I have read about 5sk. So far, I think my initial thoughts that 5sk is an offshoot of these concepts seems valid....

It's not.

23 minutes ago, Antneye said:

"your hands should be opposite the inside of your left thigh, with the grip of the club over the inside part of your left ankle from your perspective. Combined with the correct ball location, this position creates a slight forward lean of the shaft from the face-on-view."

Pretty straightforward to me.

Handle forward, toward your left thigh, or from your eyes over your left ankle.

[Antneye]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

It's not.

 

I did not mean that in a negative way. I hope it did not come off that way. I am really enjoying your content. 

 

Thanks for the clarification though. I just could not follow the way they described it. 

[boogielicious]

25 minutes ago, Antneye said:

I did not mean that in a negative way. I hope it did not come off that way. I am really enjoying your content. 

 

Thanks for the clarification though. I just could not follow the way they described it. 

You've seen threads about S&T, Moe Norman's swing, single plane, two plane, A plane, etc. swings. The proponents of these swings show PGA players who've used them. They were all used successfully by good players. And although they appear to be different, they all had certain fundamental things in common. These are the 5 Simple Keys. 

5SK is not a swing method. The  5 Simple Keys are the fundamental components of every good golf swing. What is great about it is it allows 5SK instructors to work with your body, your ability, your aestheticism and help you improve your golf swing. And it removes all the quirky components required by an individual swing method that your body may never be able to achieve.

[Antneye]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

You've seen threads about S&T, Moe Norman's swing, single plane, two plane, A plane, etc. swings. The proponents of these swings show PGA players who've used them. They were all used successfully by good players. And although they appear to be different, they all had certain fundamental things in common. These are the 5 Simple Keys. 

5SK is not a swing method. The  5 Simple Keys are the fundamental components of every good golf swing. What is great about it is it allows 5SK instructors to work with your body, your ability, your aestheticism and help you improve your golf swing. And it removes all the quirky components required by an individual swing method that your body may never be able to achieve.

I am seeing exactly that. I still don't think there is any harm in me reading this book as it will help me fix some flaws that I have in my swing. I m trying to take a more holistic view of my golf swing than I have over the years. I am trying to be a little more open than I have in the past where I would only think in terms of Hogans book and think I know everything. I think some of the items described in this book can help me, but I am thinking about it in terms of what 5sk teaches. 

Am I wrong in thinking about it in that fashion? 

[boogielicious]

27 minutes ago, Antneye said:

I am seeing exactly that. I still don't think there is any harm in me reading this book as it will help me fix some flaws that I have in my swing. I m trying to take a more holistic view of my golf swing than I have over the years. I am trying to be a little more open than I have in the past where I would only think in terms of Hogans book and think I know everything. I think some of the items described in this book can help me, but I am thinking about it in terms of what 5sk teaches. 

Am I wrong in thinking about it in that fashion? 

Not at all. I read the book and still have it. I would recommend just skimming the more confusing technical stuff though. IIRC, there was a chapter that really confused me and I am a chemical engineer used to difficult, confusing technical talk!

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Antneye said:

Am I wrong in thinking about it in that fashion? 

Nobody's said anything like that.

It's a good book. Just avoid most of the instructors, and take some of their "facts" with a block of salt.