The Stack and Tilt Golf Swing

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Does one need to have watched the first set of DVDs to be able to understand the new ones or do they standalone?

Or put another way, can I get away with only having read the book before purchasing these new DVDs?

Yes, you can have zero knowledge of the previous DVD or book.  The "basics" are still there, the biggest difference is all the data and the tour players.  The first DVD went against "modern" golf instruction, now they have the numbers to back it up.

I have some "behind the scenes" video I've been asking Andy to release, maybe soon

[JetFan1983]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Does one need to have watched the first set of DVDs to be able to understand the new ones or do they standalone?

Or put another way, can I get away with only having read the book before purchasing these new DVDs?

You'll be fine. The first DVDs were as dry as dust and really didn't add a lot to the book -- in my opinion. These look fully comprehensive and much, much better. Can't wait to get my set.

I think the biggest thing the DVDs added were all the photos of high handicappers leaving their weight back and flipping. The book did a comprehensive look at what good players do but it left out the comprehensive photo series look at what all bad players do. For someone who is first being introduced to good golf instruction, seeing the difference between good and bad players -- and how pretty much both sides of the coin do a lot of the same things -- it can be really eye opening.

Overall though, Pharaoh, the original DVDs and the book correlate to about 80-90%. They are structured the same way. The only major difference (off the top of my head) is the inclusion of the photos of high handicapper mistakes. The book contains some drills too and is more useful to someone looking for a day-to-day reference.

[The_Pharaoh]

Thanks for the feedback, guys. Looking forward to getting these DVDs!

[ccmcleod]

Originally Posted by gwlee7

My wife's birthday is February 22nd.  I hope she likes the DVD set I just pre-ordered for her.

Ha! I think former clinic students should get them sooner! ;)

[james_hirshfield]

Not even the instructors are getting them sooner ;)

They are cleaner, more versed, more information, and more validated than the originals with some VERY sexy swings on there.

Happy new year to you all!

James

[bunkerputt]

That looks like my new ballflight except with the driver which is occasionally super-left if I sequence incorrectly, fail to maintain tilt on the backswing, and flip it some.  I can feel it happening, which probably means I'm consciously incompetent.

[Bob Grissett]

I know this is a late post but Andy is using an Impact Ball....great training aid...has slots for your forearms

[HeadGolfool]

I started using the S & T swing just reading the article that came out in Golf Magazine years ago.  I went form an 8 to a 4 handicap in less than 4 weeks.  My whole shot pattern narrowed and I was consistently hitting fairways and green.

By far I think it is the easiest swing to learn and I would recommend it to all average and high handicap golfers.  Even though I was always a good golfer I always had trouble getting over on my left side at impact.  S & T solved that problem and will do the same you.

I think the book is better than the video as it gets a little redundant.

[badfish74]

Originally Posted by HeadGolfool

I started using the S & T swing just reading the article that came out in Golf Magazine years ago.  I went form an 8 to a 4 handicap in less than 4 weeks.  My whole shot pattern narrowed and I was consistently hitting fairways and green.

By far I think it is the easiest swing to learn and I would recommend it to all average and high handicap golfers.  Even though I was always a good golfer I always had trouble getting over on my left side at impact.  S & T solved that problem and will do the same you.

I think the book is better than the video as it gets a little redundant.

I would have to agree with this in terms of the high handicapper.  As one myself I have been working to really learning and understanding the golf swing after years of just duffing around , and even though the swing that has been emerging isn't S&T; by the numbers, the drills and instruction contained in this thread has helped tremendously in my learning.  The forward weight drills alone I would recommend to any beginning golfer.  They did wonders for me in just the feeling alone of a correct impact position.

[Ernest Jones]

So I've implemented a lot of SnT from what I've picked up on this site and it has definitely improved my contact dramatically. Now I need to dial in the control aspect. I've just received my copy of the SnT book last night and read it cover to cover.

As my contact has improved I've gone from chronic slicer to straight pusher to slight hooker. Having not read the book my alignment and clubface were both square to the target line at address, I assume the progession of my shots gradually moving left is due to my swing path becoming more in to out. Having now read the book I can see some stuff I need to add/adjust to get a better shot at push drawing but I have a question that wasn't clear on the first read-through (I will of course be reading this book over and over again!). When setting up for a draw what is the recommended alignment? I realise that this can fall under personal preference and tendencies but as a baseline would you recommend a) neutral alignment (parallel to target line) with the club gripped with a slightly open face (+/- 10 yrds right of target) or b) a closed alignment (+/- 10 yrds right of target) with a face gripped slightly to the left of (open to) clubpath?

All things being equal, either way I assume that by adopting a slightly open face (relative to target line and closed relative to club path) my shots will end up much closer to the target and I just need to play around with the variables to find what works with my (new and improved) natural tendencies.

Whats gratifying to me at this point is that reading the book confirmed a lot of what I had figured out myself by adding elements I learned from this site plus shedding light on some of the issues I come across.

Last question for now, are the pictures of P&B; demonstrating positions all slightly exaggerated or should I be striving to look that extreme when hitting these positions? My instincts tell me that the images are exaggerated (although less so than the infamous golf digest article) to make the key elements of the swing more visible but there doesn't seem to be any indication of that in the text, unless I missed it which is quite possible as I've only read it once and I read it in one shot which is probably not the best way to take in the information!

Thanks in advance for the help and thanks for saving my golf game!

[HeadGolfool]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

So I've implemented a lot of SnT from what I've picked up on this site and it has definitely improved my contact dramatically. Now I need to dial in the control aspect. I've just received my copy of the SnT book last night and read it cover to cover.

As my contact has improved I've gone from chronic slicer to straight pusher to slight hooker. Having not read the book my alignment and clubface were both square to the target line at address, I assume the progession of my shots gradually moving left is due to my swing path becoming more in to out. Having now read the book I can see some stuff I need to add/adjust to get a better shot at push drawing but I have a question that wasn't clear on the first read-through (I will of course be reading this book over and over again!). When setting up for a draw what is the recommended alignment? I realise that this can fall under personal preference and tendencies but as a baseline would you recommend a) neutral alignment (parallel to target line) with the club gripped with a slightly open face (+/- 10 yrds right of target) or b) a closed alignment (+/- 10 yrds right of target) with a face gripped slightly to the left of (open to) clubpath?

All things being equal, either way I assume that by adopting a slightly open face (relative to target line and closed relative to club path) my shots will end up much closer to the target and I just need to play around with the variables to find what works with my (new and improved) natural tendencies.

Whats gratifying to me at this point is that reading the book confirmed a lot of what I had figured out myself by adding elements I learned from this site plus shedding light on some of the issues I come across.

Last question for now, are the pictures of P&B; demonstrating positions all slightly exaggerated or should I be striving to look that extreme when hitting these positions? My instincts tell me that the images are exaggerated (although less so than the infamous golf digest article) to make the key elements of the swing more visible but there doesn't seem to be any indication of that in the text, unless I missed it which is quite possible as I've only read it once and I read it in one shot which is probably not the best way to take in the information!

Thanks in advance for the help and thanks for saving my golf game!

You've made a great choice going to the Stack & Tilt swing you will see tremendous results as you become more comfortable.  My natural shot with it is a draw.  I set up with a square club face and don't open the face like suggested in the book.  Because you are swing from the inside if done correctly you will hit a draw naturally, you have to be careful if you get stuck on your back foot or quit rotating you can hit a big hook.  If I don't slide my hips enough and don't keep rotating I can hit a lot of pushes.  Good Luck with it!!

[nevets88]

OK, I know S & T is an evolving... just evolving. When someone asks me what Stack & Tilt is, what should I tell them it is again?

It's not a method, not a model, right? I know this has been talked about in the past, but what is the most up to date description? Thanks.

[bunkerputt]

Originally Posted by nevets88

When someone asks me what Stack & Tilt is, what should I tell them it is again?

It's a way of thinking about certain fundamental parts of the golf swing that seeks to simplify those parts to gain the greatest possible consistency and power for the greatest numbers of people of varying athleticism.  It's not a way to train your mental game, for example.  It only focuses on certain fundamental parts of the way the body moves.  It doesn't require joining a club, wearing visors, having an engram analysis, or drinking special kool-aid.

[iacas]

We've debated this amongst ourselves (Dave, Mike, James, and I) several times.

You could say it's a swing.

You could say it's a method for swinging a golf club.

I'm not sure what the distinction between those two are, but I'm fairly certain that's how I'd define it. As one of those two. Look at the URL and the title: http://stackandtiltgolf swing .com/ and "Stack & Tilt Golf Swing : The swing that is remaking golf."

It is not, contrary to what some have recently tried to say, a "system of measurements." That's bull. The metric system is a system of measurements.

I don't know "how close" to the model a swing would need to be to qualify as "an S&T; swing" (which is actually what most of our discussions have been about), but I'm virtually certain I'd call it "a golf swing" or "a method for swinging a golf club a certain way."

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by nevets88

OK, I know S & T is an evolving... just evolving. When someone asks me what Stack & Tilt is, what should I tell them it is again?

It's not a method, not a model, right? I know this has been talked about in the past, but what is the most up to date description? Thanks.

I like to keep it simple and say it's a centered pivot.  You can get into all the detail when people ask how you stay centered.

[cbrian]

Originally Posted by iacas

We've debated this amongst ourselves (Dave, Mike, James, and I) several times.

You could say it's a swing.

You could say it's a method for swinging a golf club.

I'm not sure what the distinction between those two are, but I'm fairly certain that's how I'd define it. As one of those two. Look at the URL and the title: http://stackandtiltgolfswing.com/ and "Stack & Tilt Golf Swing: The swing that is remaking golf."

It is not, contrary to what some have recently tried to say, a "system of measurements." That's bull. The metric system is a system of measurements.

I don't know "how close" to the model a swing would need to be to qualify as "an S&T; swing" (which is actually what most of our discussions have been about), but I'm virtually certain I'd call it "a golf swing" or "a method for swinging a golf club a certain way."

I think you have to define exactly what you are talking about (perspective I suppose). Are we talking about the label? The information behind the label? The way the instructor implements his understanding of the information? I think your definition of what S&T; is very much has to be based on how you answer that question.

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.

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.

[iacas]

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.

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.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by nevets88

OK, I know S & T is an evolving... just evolving. When someone asks me what Stack & Tilt is, what should I tell them it is again?

It's not a method, not a model, right? I know this has been talked about in the past, but what is the most up to date description? Thanks.

Tell 'em it's a way to smack the bejeezus out of a ball with extreme authority.