Strasburg

[Looper]

Imagine how much better he could be if, instead of turning his weight back then forward, he remained stacked throughout!

[MikeLowry5]

He doesnt have to worry about swiping the ground in the same spot with his hand on the follow through. This makes no sense and that's why it doesn't have any responses.

Why has this become a S&T; mass orgy here?

[ajschn06]

I think stack and tilt is lame, just another gimmick to make money. Learn how to swing a club yourself, none of this "you gotta try this swing" garbage...

[Looper]

First: it was posted in fun, after a few beers and watching young Mr. Strasburg - - and I really wasn't expecting any responses.

On a more serious note, I'm returning to serious golf after a long layoff - - only to discover, as you mentioned, this mass S&T; orgy.

Waay back when I was but a young caddie and learning to play golf (in the '70's), the pro at the club (who is still a very good golfer and had some success on the Senior Tour) and I were talking about generating power and consistency in the golf swing. One of the things he admired, and even modeled after, was major league pitchers. How they rhythmically turn their weight to the right and then the left, with a strong follow through - - generating awesome power and consistency. And how this can be applied to the golf swing.

If anyone wants to generate a powerful and consistent pitching movement, almost without thinking about it you will naturally rotate and weight to the back then forward. Without even worrying about "mechanics". And yes, while you don't have to worry about hitting the same piece of ground consistently with a club - - pitchers do have to consistently hit the same catchers mitt, positioned 60.5' away, with the ball. Good pitchers don't yank themselves backward then lunge forward, etc. But it is a natural rotation and weighting to the back then front.

I'm new to S&T; (reading about it) but to me, this keeping the weight somewhate forward to start then increasing the forward weight throughout the motion just seems so unnatural. It must work to some extent, sure. And I tried it at the range (though I'm sure very incorrectly). And I do get the way it almost forces you to hit the ball first, then the ground, resulting in compression of the ball, etc.

But wow, look at all the mechanical explanations that apparently go with learning it (the S&T;) - - the right amount of hip slide, tilting of the spine, shooting your butt up correctly, and so on. Good grief!

From my experience, a nice rotational swing (somewhat like a pitcher) where you turn away from the ball and then back through it can work very well (also compressing the ball) - - and is so simple! Sure you can get over-analytical with this swing as well. But in my (long ago) experience anyway, a golf swing can be taught no more complicated than a nice pitching movement. I think if Harvey Penick read up on S&T; and how students were going crazy with this hyper-mechanical analysis he would just sadly shake his head and say "here we go again".

So for those who are pursuing S&T; I wish you well.

Anyway, IMHO the golf swing is much more intuitive, athletic and natural than that method. And I was reminded of this while watching Stephen Strasburg.

[ajschn06]

  Looper said:

Anyway, IMHO the golf swing is much more intuitive, athletic and natural than that method. And I was reminded of this while watching Stephen Strasburg.

I fully agree with that concept on a swing. But boy, that was something special. Even as highly regarded as he was, I couldn't have imagined anything like that. I've seen a lot of baseball in my day, and never in my life have I seen someone with "pure stuff" like that. Some people come to mind like Josh Johnson, Beckett a few years ago, King Felix, but I think Strasburg has the best stuff in baseball, he just has to put it all together and learn how to pitch.

[DavidFehertysBike]

I played around with it on the range awhile back. I stuck the club strait in the ground every time, lol.

[kfowler]

  ajschn06 said:

Learn how to swing a club yourself...

Please tell me you're joking. I spent 20+ years learning to swing the club myself. The only thing I excelled at was sucking. It took committing to lessons and an instructor to get me where I am today.

[iacas]

  ajschn06 said:

I think stack and tilt is lame, just another gimmick to make money. Learn how to swing a club yourself, none of this "you gotta try this swing" garbage...

You think it's lame but you know nothing about it. Congratulations!

  Looper said:

One of the things he admired, and even modeled after, was major league pitchers.

Pitching has almost

nothing to do with a golf swing. Your first clue should be the fact that baseball pitchers take a giant step towards home when they pitch. They end up in a ton of forward flexion, they're throwing a ball above or near their heads and not hitting one on the ground. They use one hand and not two. I could go on, but that's plenty. Heck, golf probably has more in common with badminton than throwing a baseball.

  Looper said:

I'm new to S&T; (reading about it) but to me, this keeping the weight somewhate forward to start then increasing the forward weight throughout the motion just seems so unnatural.

It may or may not be unnatural. But Ben Hogan did it (look up his diagrams on page 73 - where's his slide off the ball with his shoulders AHEAD of the center of his hips?) and the best players in the world get well forward at impact. The worst players in the world have their weight right. The best left. Nearly perfect direct correlation.

  Looper said:

And I do get the way it almost forces you to hit the ball first, then the ground, resulting in compression of the ball, etc.

Gee...

  Looper said:

But wow, look at all the mechanical explanations that apparently go with learning it (the S&T;) - - the right amount of hip slide, tilting of the spine, shooting your butt up correctly, and so on. Good grief!

Those explanations - many of which are MISSING from other golf texts in favor of advice like "keep your head steady" and "turn around your spine" - are what make S&T; compelling. They can tell you HOW to keep your head steady and HOW to turn around your spine.

  Looper said:

From my experience, a nice rotational swing (somewhat like a pitcher) where you turn away from the ball and then back through it can work very well (also compressing the ball) - - and is so simple!

You clearly don't understand what S&T; is about. It's as rotational as it gets on the backswing. Your weight still goes right (because your arms, chest, torso, etc. go right) on the backswing, but without the translation you see in older instruction.

  Looper said:

Anyway, IMHO the golf swing is much more intuitive, athletic and natural than that method.

And I think you don't really know what S&T; is about.

  DavidFehertysBike said:

I played around with it on the range awhile back. I stuck the club strait in the ground every time, lol.

Yeah, well, you weren't doing it right.

Golfers don't improve much if at all with conventional teaching. It's hocus pocus and "magic." S&T; studied the swings of the greatest and worst players, distilled the central elements that were key to almost all of them, and put together a system of "best practices" in effect for hitting the ball solidly, with distance and control of the curve. You're kidding yourself if you don't think every PGA Tour pro has at least 80% of the elements embodied by S&T.; And most PGA Tour pros are much higher than that. Probably my only post in this thread. I'm okay with actually discussing things, but if you think the golf swing is like a pitching motion and you don't think S&T; is "rotational" among several other obvious misconceptions, you probably aren't willing to be convinced of your misconceptions.

[DavidFehertysBike]

  denver_nuggs_15 said:

I don't really know much about S&T;, but I know a little bit about pitching mechanics. Pushing off the inside of your right foot, getting hip-shoulder separation, starting the downswing/throw with your hips, transferring weight to the left foot. Yep, almost nothing to do with a golf swing. I don't think the motions are comparable at all, but you can certainly apply concepts from a pitching motion to a golf swing.

Harper wont be in the majors for at least 2 or 3 years.

[Looper]

  iacas said:

Pitching has almost

And on this point we'll have to agree to disagree. From a standing motion both golfers and pitchers are trying to get a ball moving forward as fast and accurately as possible. No one is throwing a ball at them, etc. So if you are so focused on some of the mechanics and not the athletics to see the similarities, well fine.

  iacas said:

It may or may not be unnatural. But Ben Hogan did it (look up his diagrams on page 73 - where's his slide off the ball with his shoulders AHEAD of the center of his hips?) and the best players in the world get well forward at impact. The worst players in the world have their weight right. The best left. Nearly perfect direct correlation.

I did say that the natural golf swing gets forward during (and at) impact. Just that the weight goes back on the backswing, before coming forward - - somewhat like a pitcher. And this, I contend, is the most natural way to propel something forward, generating speed and consistency.

Watch Mr. Hogan from 1:10 - 1:30 and listen to the commentary.

  iacas said:

Gee...

But at what costs and complications? And, I think, difficulties for the average person.

I think S&T; may be a good range exercise - - to really emphasize the compression of the ball, and the ball/ground sequence.

  iacas said:

Those explanations - many of which are MISSING from other golf texts in favor of advice like "keep your head steady" and "turn around your spine" - are what make S&T; compelling. They can tell you HOW to keep your head steady and HOW to turn around your spine.

And Hogan's book does that fine without all the unnatural weight forward, spine angles moving around, butt flying up a the right time stuff.

  iacas said:

You clearly don't understand what S&T; is about. It's as rotational as it gets on the backswing. Your weight still goes right (because your arms, chest, torso, etc. go right) on the backswing, but without the translation you see in older instruction.

I never said that S&T; wasn't rotational - - just that there are better and simpler ways to perform a natural rotational swing.

  iacas said:

And I think you don't really know what S&T; is about.

And that's one of the key problems - - the over complexity and unnaturalness of S&T.; It requires way too much mechanical contortions to get there.

  iacas said:

Golfers don't improve much if at all with conventional teaching. It's hocus pocus and "magic."

Hmmmmm. Lot's of people were playing some excellent golf well before S&T; if my memory serves okay.

Just like any other contorted and over-hyped fad, S&T; now claims to be some new revelation under the sun. It will generate some money for it's evangelists for a time. More money for those called upon to correct it later. And then fade away. . .

  iacas said:

S&T; studied the swings of the greatest and worst players, distilled the central elements that were key to almost all of them, and put together a system of "best practices" in effect for hitting the ball solidly, with distance and control of the curve. You're kidding yourself if you don't think every PGA Tour pro has at least 80% of the elements embodied by S&T.; And most PGA Tour pros are much higher than that.

Which proves nothing about the S&T; instructional method, even if true.

  iacas said:

Probably my only post in this thread. I'm okay with actually discussing things, but if you think the golf swing is like a pitching motion and you don't think S&T; is "rotational" among several other obvious misconceptions, you probably aren't willing to be convinced of your misconceptions.

Well, sir, then please feel free not to post here again.

= = = = = = = And can someone tell this newbie how a golf swing thread ended up being moved to a non-golf forum???

[Phil McGleno]

  Looper said:

From a standing motion both golfers and pitchers are trying to get a ball moving forward as fast and accurately as possible. No one is throwing a ball at them, etc. So if you are so focused on some of the mechanics and not the athletics to see the similarities, well fine.

You may as well have simply said that "both are sports." You're an idiot if you think that the similarities go much deeper than that. Erik pointed some out already, but there are far more dis-similarities than similarities. You can only talk in the most general of terms to try to hold your comparisons together, but even the basic premises are different - throwing a ball with one hand above your belt versus hitting one with two hands below your belt. And the accuracy tolerances for golf are MUCH, MUCH higher than a baseball.

Heck, if I was so bothered I could probably find as many similarities between using chopsticks and hitting a pitch shot as you have between golf and throwing a baseball.

  Looper said:

Just that the weight goes back on the backswing, before coming forward - - somewhat like a pitcher.

"Somewhat" like a pitcher? How about this. A pitcher from the stretch - his foot comes nearly straight up, keeping him fairly well centered, and then he pushes hard towards the plate. Gee, if we're going to talk in super-vague terms like that, it sounds just like S&T; - centered, then a big push forward.

Besides, Erik told you the weight goes back in an S&T; swing too.

  Looper said:

And this, I contend, is the most natural way to propel something forward, generating speed and consistency.

If you want the most speed in the golf swing you want the most extension and the most catapult action. Sliding around a ton simply leads to inconsistency. And in baseball, again, pitchers don't need anywhere near the consistency a golfer needs.

  Looper said:

Watch Mr. Hogan from 1:10 - 1:30 and listen to the commentary.

Gee, he swings exactly like S&T; in that portion - his shoulders turn on the inclined plane, his head stays centered, and like Erik said, his weight goes right because his chest and arms go right on the backswing.

  Looper said:

I think S&T; is a good

And I think you don't understand the golf swing very well at all.

  Looper said:

And Hogan's book does that fine without all the unnatural weight forward, spine angles moving around, butt flying up a the right time stuff.

Yet we have people slicing the ball like crazy. We have instructors giving tips like "get behind the ball to hit a draw." Gee whiz, buddy, some people want to know how to keep their head centered and still. You clearly don't. Good for you.

  Looper said:

I never said that S&T; wasn't rotational - - just that there are better and simpler ways to perform a natural rotational swing.

A purely rotational swing has the shoulders working exactly like they do in S&T.; You can't hit the ball anywhere though or with good compression because a purely rotational swing has your hips just rotating and not pushing forward.

Erik used a word I like too - translation - do you understand what it means in terms of the golf swing or even a pitching motion?

  Looper said:

And that's one of the key problems - - the over complexity and unnaturalness of S&T.;

Uh, the entire ••••ing golf swing is unnatural. S&T; is as natural as it gets - as simple as it gets. You're out of your depths.

  Looper said:

It requires way too much mechanical contortions to get there.

Ha ha ha ha ha. It requires LESS mechanical contortions than the swings it replaces. What's tougher - swaying back right and then back left or just staying centered and then going left? What's tougher - trying to swing along a constantly changing plane or just turning your shoulders in a circle? What's tougher - to hit a golf ball while your head is moving to and fro or to keep your head centered and hit a golf ball?

You've confused the explanation of what your body does - and what the bodies of the best players in history did - with mechanical complexity. Tiger Woods side tilts and extends his back in addition to rotating on the backswing. He may not know it, but he does it.

  Looper said:

Hmmmmm. Lot's of people were playing some excellent golf well before S&T; if my memory serves okay.

That's not the point. S&T; classifies and measures the moves people made. You think S&T; is new. I consider it precisely the opposite - it's as old as it gets because it's the study of what greats throughout history have done.

  Looper said:

It will generate some money for it's evangelists for a time. More money for those called upon to correct it later. And then fade away. . .

You're an idiot.

  Looper said:

Which proves nothing about the S&T; instructional method, even if true.

Yes, it does. But I see why Erik thinks you're not worth his time. You're not.

[denver_nuggs_15]

  Looper said:

And can someone tell this newbie how a golf swing thread ended up being moved to a non-golf forum???

The thread is titled Strasburg. That kind of sounds like a baseball thread, even though we are discussing certain swing mechanics.

To DFB, You're right that Harper won't be in the bigs for a few years. He's one player that I'm actually going to keep track of in the farm leagues, though. He's got so much raw talent, it'll be interesting to see just how good he'll end up being. I've heard about some attitude issues with him, so that may hurt him a little. But, damn he's incredible! Batted over .600 in high school, almost .450 in junior college, mid-90s fastball, stole 3rd from 1st twice, throws guys out at second from his knees, 500 foot homers...and he's still 17! Too bad Scott Boras is his agent.;)

[denver_nuggs_15]

Very sorry for two posts in a row, Erik. Butch's post was made while I was typing my previous response, and I couldn't figure out how to multi-quote his post in an Edit.

  Phil McGlenno said:

You may as well have simply said that "both are sports." You're an idiot if you think that the similarities go much deeper than that. Erik pointed some out already, but there are far more dis-similarities than similarities. You can only talk in the most general of terms to try to hold your comparisons together, but even the basic premises are different - throwing a ball with one hand above your belt versus hitting one with two hands below your belt. And the accuracy tolerances for golf are MUCH, MUCH higher than a baseball.

There are a lot of similarities that I think you're missing. Pitchers push off the inside of their right foot, start their forward/downward motion with their hips, create separation between their hips and shoulders (X-factor IIRC), and transfer their weight to their left foot. In some respects, a golf swing and a pitcher's motion overlap. I'm sure you know a lot about the golf swing, but from reading your post, I don't believe you know enough about a pitcher's motion to fairly compare it to a golf swing. You're just looking at what the pitcher is doing - throwing a ball - and not all of the individual motions and intricacies that go into it - pushing off, rotating, etc. I think if you do a bit of research you'll find that there are mechanics that are applicable to both the golf swing and pitching form.

[iacas]

  denver_nuggs_15 said:

I don't believe you know enough about a pitcher's motion to fairly compare it to a golf swing.

"Butch" was a AAA pitcher in the 1960s and 70s. He's a part-time coach - specializing in pitching - for his collegiate alma mater.

I'm not going to debate that pitching has some similarities. I will debate that the similarities are overwhelming enough that we can learn much from them. Given the differences between a shot putter and a discus thrower, the discus thrower has more in common with a golf swing, biomechanically. A baseball HITTER has more in common with a golfer than a baseball PITCHER does, and a baseball hitter doesn't even have as much in common as you'd think. When comparing pitchers to golfers you quickly start to get into vague sentences like "weight shift" (true of every sport, so irrelevant or redundant). Dinner's not ready yet so here goes: - Pitchers push off the inside of their right foot So does almost every other sport. Even when you roller skate. Besides, I could argue that you push off the outside of your right foot - that's where the rubber is. - start their forward/downward motion with their hips So does a football player, a guy hitting a slap shot, a discuss thrower, etc. And I'd argue they all start more with the knee or even ankle than the hips. - create separation between their hips and shoulders Again, same as all sports. - transfer their weight to their left foot Same in virtually all sports. What's different about throwing above the belt than hitting something below is the direction of motion. Gravity plays a role in the golf swing that it doesn't play in pitching or throwing a football, for example. Besides, all you did was give four examples of "weight shift." Anyway, gotta clean for company/dinner.

[DavidFehertysBike]

  denver_nuggs_15 said:

The thread is titled Strasburg. That kind of sounds like a baseball thread, even though we are discussing certain swing mechanics.

I was watching his post draft interview and just thought "this dude has JD Drew written all over him" LOL I just read the nats are talking about moving him to right so he might be up sooner. Atlanta did something similar with Jason Heyward and that got him up quicker. If he stayed at catcher it would be at least 3 years, probably more. I have no doubt he is going to rip up minor leauge pitching while he is down there, but scouts say he has the typical left handers hole ( outside at the knees) so he'll have to work on that some so he doesnt get exploited in the bigs. Im looking foward to his arrival in the show, too. But there is always gonig to be some hotshot international player coming out of nowhere because teams dont have to rule 4 forgien born players.

[jamo]

  denver_nuggs_15 said:

Too bad Scott Boras is his agent.;)

You can say that again. I very much dislike Boras, but in an odd way I really do respect the man.

  DavidFehertysBike said:

I was watching his post draft interview and just thought "this dude has JD Drew written all over him" LOL

Oh JD Drew, such a tease. I don't see Harper doing that. And if he does, we up here in Boston will be more than happy to pick him up 10 years from now.

And I doubt they will keep Harper at catcher. Put him in right field and he will gun runners down left and right. Not sure if he has the athleticism to play SS or 3B, but imagine that arm (96 MPH fastball arm) at one of those positions.

[denver_nuggs_15]

To DFB, I really do hope Harper plays OF. He's definitely got the arm to play RF, but I'm not sure if he's fast enough to be a big league CF. LF would just be a waste for his defensive talent IMO, so RF makes the most sense. And plenty of great hitters have played the outfield. I hope the Nats don't let him play C since it'll just number his days. Obviously, catcher is one of the most important positions in all of baseball, and I'm sure he's good enough defensively to be a top guy behind the plate, but I think most of his worth is in his bat. The only other position I could see him playing is 1st, but for some reason I think the Nats would rather have a pure power hitter there than the prototypical 3-hitter that Harper should be. What's your guess, what position does he get called up to the bigs as?

To jamo, I don't really ever see him playing short. He's never played it at a high level from what I've heard, so it would be a large transition. As for 3B, a lot of catchers move there, but remember Zimmerman is signed until 2013 IIRC. I don't think there have been many trade talks involving Ryan Zimmerman, and I doubt the Nats will move their gold glover to another position.

[jordangolf]

that man is amazing