Stack and Tilt IS TRADITIONAL

[kennay92]

eriks pretty much saying the same thing as this, makes since.

[saevel25]

BAd thing about florida, ITS WINDY!!!!

[rogerw]

You should seriously rename this site to stackandtilt.com....

I've been on the sideline reading this thread since the beginning and have found it quite interesting. In response to your "average" or "high handicap" player question, I can tell you my experience with S&T;, not saying that it would be the same for everyone, but here it is.

I started playing golf with some level of seriousness last September. Before that only hitting one or two times a year at most from a range only, didn't play any courses. I would call that "newb". I had no instruction and was playing off of a 28 handicap by the end of the year. I live in the north so here the season really closes out completely about the end of December. I bought the S&T; DVD's and started working with them around Nov/Dec, and then got the book when it came out. I went to range when I could over the winter and started playing regularly after getting a membership at our local course around March. By May I was playing off essentially a 15-18 handicap. I was doing OK by myself, but wanted to get better quicker so I went to the Erie S&T; course on May 22 and I was shown a number of things to work on by everyone there. I brought that back with me and have been working hard on it since and am seeing a lot of improvement. Unfortunately I was hitting so many balls that I pulled a muscle in my left side a week ago and have not had a chance to play or hit really until today. I just came back from the course an hour ago and I only played the front nine due to my muscle pull, but I shot +3 for the nine. So is this good or bad performance? I don't know what everyone reading this will think, but to me it feels pretty good. In my opinion, if you listen to the pros/instructors on here, you will learn something. They are really good and what they do and know how to get their point across to their students. If you don't agree with what they say and aren't going to give their advice a shot, then you will never know and certainly won't learn anything from them. To me, maybe because I'm a software engineer and we have a tendency to be very anal, understanding the ball flight characteristics is very important and helps me to understand the swing better. This may not be the case for everyone, I don't know, I'm only speaking for myself. The next thing I want to do is sign up for evolver once I have everything I learned at the school digested so I can keep learning. I truly believe they are helping both my game, and my understanding of the physics behind the golf swing. Sorry for taking up so much bandwidth, but hopefully this was useful.

[Nick Clearwater]

BAd thing about florida, ITS WINDY!!!!

Yeah, sorry about that...I may add some more soon & maybe just reshoot these indoors. Any new video suggestions out there???

[david_wedzik]

I've been on the sideline reading this thread since the beginning and have found it quite interesting. In response to your "average" or "high handicap" player question, I can tell you my experience with S&T;, not saying that it would be the same for everyone, but here it is.

Hey Roger - thanks for taking the time to comment about your experience - glad you're doing so well - KEEP IT UP!

Dave

[iacas]

As is often the case with mini rants, things don't go as you wish.

I had hoped this thread would talk about what "traditional" is versus not, because I believe Stack and Tilt is the traditional swing . Unfortunately, it has a name, and that along with the response it's gotten by some entrenched in the "modern" swing ideas has cast aside the fact that Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer are two smart dudes who looked at some of the most traditional swings around to come up with their model.

[saevel25]

Well through the strides in technology and in swing mechanics, golf is still a conservative sport, entrenched in tradition. I can see were it will be hard to turn concepts, especially when those think what they are teaching has had pro's win tourniments and majors.

[sean_miller]

Well through the strides in technology and in swing mechanics, golf is still a conservative sport, entrenched in tradition. I can see were it will be hard to turn concepts,

Therein lies the rub - if S&T; is so traditional, why adopt it? The clubface thing is a given - but once you're aware of it . . . Players made great shots and reached near perfection, before the term was ever coined and some of the game's greatest even put out instructional books (and DVDs). S&T; has . . . who's on their team? It doesn't matter to some people how many solid players adopt it or what percentage of their swing that's consistent with it (especially since the method was reverse engineered based on those swings), what matters to many critics is championships - major championships - win a couple of those and it'll be a runaway train.

[Leftygolfer]

Nice thread. Always entertaining. The one thing I've noticed about great players is they do the same thing consistantly. They might have an ugly swing, bad grip, quick tempo, then go out and shoot a 66. Look at the champions tour. They do things 3 three things in common (control where the bottom of the swing is, have enough power to play the course, and control the direction of the ball). That is it.

[Duffed]

This is an interesting thread. I haven't really looked into the SnT concepts completely, but I must say that I do swing the golf club similarly, and have been for many years. A long time ago, a golf pro at my local range was watching me hit balls, and noticed my pronounced sway. He came up to me, and showed me how to keep more weight on my front side, and I've been doing that ever since.

Looking at some videos of Mike Bennett, his swing seems pretty simple to me. I think many get lost in all the SnT jargon, etc etc, and overthink the movement needed. IMO, It's less stacking and tilting and more swinging in a barrel. To me, Mike seems to just swing in a circle, while keeping his pivot point on his front leg. He doesn't bring his hands or the clubhead too far inside as you may think, and his plane isn't very flat either. Nor does Mike overly tilt his shoulders over his front leg, and he doesn't completely straighten out his back leg either, but he does have a fair amount of hip turn. It just looks like a fairly efficient swing, that promotes a draw. And yes, it's fairly traditional. I like it.

[nuck81]

I'd take that swing....

[Stretch]

All day long!

I'd venture to suggest that most good golf swings, whatever their classification, look fairly simple because all of the complex elements that comprise them are actually working together properly. But getting to the point where you can make it look so easy ... is hard.

[allin]

I overheard a pro - a guy whose students never improve - tell a person that he taught a "traditional" golf swing instead of "Stack and Tilt."

I agree with this last part completely. Trying to understand different ideas always helps. Sometimes it helps just because you are able to connect an idea with or choose not to apply it in a ratiional manner, Does traditional golf swing mean loose and handsy like during the days of hickory, or reverse C of the 40s to 70s? With modern equipment and balls techniqes do adjust to take advantage. It amazes me that so many claim there is only one way to swing? Tennis, Bowling, football, golf, poker all accomodate variations. Certainly there are fundamentals but there is always room for some variance.

[lionking]

As is often the case with mini rants, things don't go as you wish.

i learned my swing through golftec (mimicked after the "tour" swing) and i agree that most of the concepts and instructions are the same as those championed by S&T; (at least those that iacas writes about). i've taken a lesson on deep hands (as this guy has also), a lesson on moving the arms inward in the takeaway, a lesson on a steeper shoulder turn, a lesson on having more weight on the left (i'm right handed) at set up, and several lessons on turning versus swaying (the result is a top that looks very similar to S&T;). it really is too bad that there's a name (a corny one at that) associated with the swing that immediately conjures up misconceptions.

[iacas]

Players made great shots and reached near perfection, before the term was ever coined and some of the game's greatest even put out instructional books (and DVDs). S&T; has . . . who's on their team? It doesn't matter to some people how many solid players adopt it or what percentage of their swing that's consistent with it (especially since the method was reverse engineered based on those swings), what matters to many critics is championships - major championships - win a couple of those and it'll be a runaway train.

What's best is not always what's popular, and what's popular is not always what's best. You know this.

[microcrayfish]

The reason Stack & Tilt isn't considered traditional is because of the way it is and has been marketed. Now there are a host of reasons for this, some that have been covered in this thread, but I'm going to focus on one here - the way S&T; practitioners constantly attack other teaching methods.

First of all, let me make it clear that the issue here is perception . Regardless of the intent or the facts it is the perception that people get from S&T; and its backers that creates the problem. From this thread:

Why don't golfers improve? Because MODERN instruction is a hocus pocus voodoo ritual where an instructor stands around saying things like "your tempo was no good there" or "loosen up on your grip a little" or "turn behind the ball this time." When the student hits a good one the instructor says "good job" and when the student does poorly the instructor says "you didn't do that seventh thing out of 12 things I told you about..." He always has an out.

No. The "main difference" from where I'm sitting is that I can explain why EVERYTHING in S&T; is the way it is. EVERYTHING. The "conventional" instructors apply their version of hocus pocus and say things like "your grip was too tight there" or "slow down, that was quick" or "you picked up your head." They'll tell you "keep your head still" (some will), but they can't tell you HOW to keep your head still.

Nobody is trying to be pretentious or off putting I can assure you of that. Our ONLY real goal is to change some of the "myths" that are bantered about in golf instruction and magazines and such. I have, many times, made a point in posts to say that I don't mean to be rude or almost apologetic in my comments. I truly don't want to come across as anything but helpful as that is really what I am trying to be. The big issue is that a good part of what we teach and offer is the ONLY truth of some matters (spine changing flex or not for example). Sometimes it is tough to not be blunt in these cases.

And from the official Stack & Tilt website:

Consequently, they default to bits of jargon, handed down dogma, or cliches that have little to no bearing on the problems that afflict them.

This is because the techniques they use are so vaguely described, they are at best abstract.

Tiger Woods has missed more balls in the right rough than any player in professional golf over the last five years. Conventional teaching uses him as the model, but that model is biased toward hitting to the right.

Attacking something like this creates a separation, it’s saying “we are not like this we are different”. You don’t go around criticising something you want be to be associated with, you criticise because you want to disassociate, because you want people to see what you’re selling as different and better.

But here’s where the problem of perception comes in. The statements above are all attacking “ modern ” swing instruction, not “ traditional ” swing instruction, but most people don’t see it like that. When S&T; teachers say things like this the average joe doesn’t think ‘oh they mean S&T; is a traditional swing method and they are criticising “modern” swing methods’, what they think is that S&T; is something new because it is attacking what is old, or at least what is current. People don't immediately know that S&T; is based upon a study of great swings of the past, they only find that out when they look into it, the first impression is new and that's what sticks. And the fact is that for most people, modern swing methods are “traditional”. Even S&T;’s own website glossary defines traditional as: “ Conventional; customary; established ”. Modern swing methods are established, they’ve been taught for years and for a lot of golfers – especially new ones trying to learn the game – they are all they know. Plummer and Bennett even used the word “conventional” when they criticised Tiger’s swing above. The connection is right there, conventional = traditional, Tiger’s “conventional” swing is not what we teach, we teach something different. It’s not hard to see why people think S&T; is new and radical. People see and hear S&T; people attacking these swing methods and they think they are attacking what is traditional even when in reality they are not. But the reality of the situation isn’t what matters here, it’s the perception that is created. People perceive S&T; as new because the people who teach it constantly try and distance it from what is established. The fact that what is ‘established’ isn’t actually necessarily what is traditional is irrelevant, people think it is and that’s what matters in this case. Of course it’s not hard to get to the truth – that S&T; is mostly traditional swing instruction - but in a world where people are used to having things condensed and explained in a few sentences most people don’t go to the trouble. If S&T; instructors spent less time attacking current teaching and focused more on what is sound, provable instruction and method, based in what has worked in the past then there wouldn’t be as big of a problem with people who don’t know much about S&T; immediately seeing it as a new thing.

[iacas]

The reason Stack & Tilt isn't considered traditional is because of the way it is and has been marketed. Now there are a host of reasons for this, some that have been covered in this thread, but I'm going to focus on one here - the way S&T; practitioners constantly attack other teaching methods.

Agreed, but they're attacking modern teaching and things that are flat out incorrect - often provably so.

If you've read the book "Crossing the Chasm" you'd know that if you're going to be seen as a rebel - which Mike and Andy and their methods of teaching were after the Golf Digest article was published - that you don't shy away from it, you stay in attack mode. You stay confrontational. The truth, after all, is on your side, and you've got to fight to stay relevant. Here's a good saying too: “Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized.. In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident." We're likely right around the change over from the first to the second stage. The quote doesn't take into account that what Mike and Andy have uncovered was once regarded as the truth... So I get what you're saying about perception, but - frankly - a lot of the times that's intentional. Why shouldn't I make a stink about it when Nick Faldo doesn't even understand the ball flight laws or Peter Kostis mumbles "spine angle" twenty times in a 30-second analysis of someone's swing?

The statements above are all attacking “

Most don't, you're right. But the ones who look into it quickly discover the truth.

People don't immediately know that S&T; is based upon a study of great swings of the past, they only find that out when they look into it, the first impression is new and that's what sticks.

I agree. Which.............. is why I started this thread!

It’s not hard to see why people think S&T; is new and radical.

I agree. But in this case what's new and radical is a return to the truth.

Heh heh heh. (I'm agreeing with you more than you may know, but at the same time, I'm suggesting that some of the approach taken by Mike, Andy, me, Dave, etc. is intentional.)

If S&T; instructors spent less time attacking current teaching and focused more on what is sound, provable instruction and method, based in what has worked in the past then there wouldn’t be as big of a problem with people who don’t know much about S&T; immediately seeing it as a new thing.

Here's how that sentence should end: "If S&T; instructors spent less time attacking current teaching and focused more on what is sound, provable instruction and method, based in what has worked in the past, then hardly anyone would hear about it because controversy and brashness spark conversation, and while it may turn some people off, more are drawn to the debate and, having arrived, can see the facts as being evident."

Again, I recommend "Crossing the Chasm." I'm not saying Mike and Andy are trying to follow the advice in that book to a "t," but it seems to come into play at least a little.

[microcrayfish]

Here's how that sentence should end: "If S&T; instructors spent less time attacking current teaching and focused more on what is sound, provable instruction and method, based in what has worked in the past, then hardly anyone would hear about it because controversy and brashness spark conversation, and while it may turn some people off, more are drawn to the debate and, having arrived, can see the facts as being evident."

Yeah you're right about that and the fact that there is a need sometimes to be abrasive in order to get a point across. I have no doubt a lot of it is intentional and I suppose that in the long run it may very well turn out for the best. However, I still think there could have also been something beneficial in trying to get the establishment a bit more on side with S&T.; Controversy does get people talking but it can also turn people off who don’t want to get caught up in it, people who otherwise would benefit from what S&T; teaches. Working through established channels can ease the transition of new ideas, especially things like the ball flight laws that are irrefutable. Whether or not, or to what degree the establishment would have accepted S&T; theories if another approach was taken is another story, but it seems from the fact that non-S&T; teachers are starting to pick up elements that it could have worked.