Stack and Tilt IS TRADITIONAL

[nevets88]

What does S&T; have to say about spine angle? I know about weight distribution, deep hands, straight back leg, etc... The basic tenets I think. Is spine angle different at address and downswing/impact?

[boogielicious]

I am an "average" golfer who starting working on S&T; in January. I've read all the "books" and find that S&T; is 90% similar to all the other good methods taught. All the good methods try to put in the proper position at impact.

What has worked wonders for me is the weight forward and inside hand path. I'm consistently hitting in the high 80s as opposed to the 100s last fall due mostly to good ball striking and keeping the ball in the fairway.

Eric is responding to the naysayers who don't take anytime to understand what S&T; is teaching, which has to be frustrating. As for marketing, Andy and Mike are trying to make a living teaching golf, so marketing is expected.

[TempoIsKey]

He never said grip isn't important. Let me direct you here:

Thanks for the redirect, but I was refering to the first post of "this" thread. The below plainly states that they are not important. Think about the number of things you hear from modern instruction which are not only detrimental but PROVABLY WRONG. "Your weight should be behind the ball to hit a draw."

"You need to have the perfect grip. Same for your stance, posture, alignment..."

"You want to get 'width' in your backswing." Then they demonstrate width as straight back... "Stay in your spine angle." Utter garbage. "Keep your chin up. Straight spine." "Release the club to hit a draw." "The ball starts on the direction of your swing path." Ben Hogan knew the truth. "Rotate your shoulders flat. Get your left shoulder over your left foot." The list goes on... and EVERY ONE of those things can easily be proven to be detrimental at best or flat out WRONG. They aren't opinions, either - they're facts borne out of either science or study of the most "traditional" golfers out there - Hogan, Snead, Palmer, etc.

[JML22]

Isnt the main difference from "conventional" and S&T; is that instead of rotating your lead shoudler back you dip it to keep it over your front hip

[JetFan1983]

What does S&T; have to say about spine angle? I know about weight distribution, deep hands, straight back leg, etc... The basic tenets I think. Is spine angle different at address and downswing/impact?

This Golf Evolution video answers your question:

[Stretch]

Thanks for the redirect, but I was refering to the first post of "this" thread. The below plainly states that they are not important.

We're getting hung up on semantics here. Obviously you have to hold the club somehow, obviously you have to address the ball somehow, obviously you have to pick some general aim point. In that sense, these are fundamentals of the game. The point is that it is demonstrably possible to become an elite golfer using almost any combination of these: tour players' grips range from very weak to very strong, stances from way open to way closed, alignments are all over the place. S&T; merely suggests therefore,

that unless these factors are directly impeding a golfer's ability to execute an effective swing , you can more profitably focus instructional efforts elsewhere.

[CoolBreeze20]

Iacas isnt saying grip, posture and stance are not important. He may just have worded it wrong in his OP. I took him as meaning that focusing on one and one ONLY of each of those is bad advice. You have to find what works for you, and that takes experimentation.

[saevel25]

So basically what i can see the man difference are in how the upper body works in the swing.

I think what the big issue they should make is that what people is hard to explain. I think most people find it difficult to mentally visualize what the golf swing should be. Becuase the image of 5:29, is nothing i think when i think staying in spine angle. Because my golf swing doesn't do that, i know it doesn't. I think this generalization is a little rough critism.




To me the only differences in these swings is that Tiger is a bit less of his left side, but not much at all. The positions are nearly identical. But i think the difference in our ability to learn the golf swing is our ability to get the feeling and visualization. Thats the key, Tiger has such a key sense of his own golf swing that he can get to this point. We are not as good as that, and going to Pro after Pro, and going to different people creates a mosaic that causes issues. I can see how you say your's is more traditional than the modern swing, but your generalization of the modern swing should be classified as to much information. Basically stack and tilt defragmented the golf golf swing.

Oh if you ever want to cut images out of videos from Online, get Pixlr Grabit for Firefox, amazing stuff. Very easy to use, just put the box over your video, click grab it and bingo you got the image. ;b

[iacas]

So with that said, are you saying that the fundamentals that Ben Hogan so adamantly talks about in his book in the first two chapters, are not particularly valuable or important?

Again, I'm saying that if you want to learn to swing like Ben Hogan, you should do that.

But I doubt Paul Azinger would have made it on the PGA Tour let alone had the success he had with Ben Hogan's grip or posture. People are built differently. I'm saying that there's no "one" grip, posture, stance, and alignment. And Stretch answered this really, really well already, so I'm done talking about the GAPS. Wait, actually I have one more thing to say on that... Grip, alignment, posture, stance - GAPS - because I understand the "true fundamentals" I can take a bizarre grip, stand too far from the ball, aim right, and do something else and STILL: a) hit the ball, then the ground b) hit the ball reasonably far c) control the curve It may be a bit tougher, but again, unless one of the GAPS parts are INHIBITING your ability to do a, b, or c, we don't care. If grip was as important as some people make it out to be, tournaments would be over on the first tee - the best grip would win. Or the best overall setup, or alignment... it's not that important. Golf isn't a photo contest - it's a dynamic sport that requires A, B, and C.

What does S&T; have to say about spine angle? I know about weight distribution, deep hands, straight back leg, etc... The basic tenets I think. Is spine angle different at address and downswing/impact?

Your "spine angle" changes throughout the entire swing. It does in EVERY good golfer's swing. Every good golfer EXTENDS his spine on the backswing. Every good golfer rotates (duh). And every good golfer SIDE TILTS to the left. The worst (the ones who translate way off the ball and have very flat shoulder turns) don't side tilt much, but they still do. The ones who keep their heads very steady side tilt the RIGHT amount for the swing I'd prescribe which makes it easiest to hit the ball, then the ground (the first "fundamental" of playing good golf).

Isnt the main difference from "conventional" and S&T; is that instead of rotating your lead shoudler back you dip it to keep it over your front hip

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.

I can. Every other S&T; instructor can as well.

We're getting hung up on semantics here. Obviously you have to hold the club somehow, obviously you have to address the ball somehow, obviously you have to pick some general aim point. In that sense, these are fundamentals of the game. The point is that it is demonstrably possible to become an elite golfer using almost any combination of these: tour players' grips range from very weak to very strong, stances from way open to way closed, alignments are all over the place. S&T; merely suggests therefore,

QFT.

Iacas isnt saying grip, posture and stance are not important. He may just have worded it wrong in his OP. I took him as meaning that focusing on one and one ONLY of each of those is bad advice. You have to find what works for you, and that takes experimentation.

Also fairly accurate. Thanks.

Look, guys, S&T; is traditional. The "modern" swing is full of hocus pocus and a bunch of "guessing." Instructors don't know what causes things. They don't have measurements. They just guess, wait for the student to luck out and hit a good one, and then say "see! you did it! good!" And no, I don't include EVERYONE in that "modern instructors" group, but 98% of instructors probably belong in it.

I think what the big issue they should make is that what people is hard to explain. I think most people find it difficult to mentally visualize what the golf swing should be. Becuase the image of 5:29, is nothing i think when i think staying in spine angle. Because my golf swing doesn't do that, i know it doesn't. I think this generalization is a little rough critism.

I'm not even sure what you're saying.

NO GOOD GOLFER "stays in their spine angle." NONE. Good golfers tend to maintain their inclination to the ground, but NONE stay in their spine angle. And the S&T; book and DVDs do the best job of explaining this. The best. Better than any book out there, ever written.

The positions are nearly identical.

Yup.

But i think the difference in our ability to learn the golf swing is our ability to get the feeling and visualization.

If I told you that you needed to tilt to the left more in your backswing, then you're telling me that you can't do that? Look at the video I filmed of Dave "tilting to the left." You can't do that? You can't visualize it when it's right there in the video?

Of course you can.

I can see how you say your's is more traditional than the modern swing, but your generalization of the modern swing should be classified as to much information.

No, I'd say the modern swing should be classified as "guessing and HORRIBLE information."

Basically stack and tilt defragmented the golf golf swing.

No, Stack and Tilt threw out all the bullshit that doesn't make sense geometrically, physically, or scientifically.

Someone asked me if we make students better. Our rates of improvement are MILES better than anyone else. Sometimes it's so easy it feels like cheating, because when you have the right information and you know where to start with a student, IT IS EASY. But here's more proof of the improvements we can make in students. This P8 isn't perfect, but, uhhh.... the one on the left sure as heck isn't. And yes, SAME GUY:

[saevel25]

I was saying, when he generalized were most people are when they try to maintain spine angle. I don't do that. I also find his explination of spine inclination tough to understand. But from the video it looks like it just keeping centralized in the swing, the left hip tucks back, which straightens the right leg.

But, i think the major arguement againts S&T; is because it has a defined name. I am not saying thats bad, but i think it scares people. All the pro's out there do not label there methods, they sell themselves as instructors of golf, not of swing type.

I honestly like how simple it is, i will probably look at my swing closer and add in a few things. Being and egingeer, i am programmed to be simple. Complexity bogs down the system.

Sorry if i am big consfusing on my explainations, i find it hard to visually put into words what i am describing about my issues with the golf swing.

[nuck81]

It's not the message of Stack and Tilt that bothers me. It's the Messengers. The pretentiousness, and the approach that Stack and Tilt is the only "real" way to play, and everything else is "wrong" is really off putting. I'd probably buy some Stack and Tilt stuff as I love all the different philosophies and and theories of the Golf Swing. But I'm worried I'd immediately turn into a giant d------bag

[Jonnydanger81]

It's not the message of Stack and Tilt that bothers me. It's the Messengers. The pretentiousness, and the approach that Stack and Tilt is the only "real" way to play, and everything else is "wrong" is really off putting. I'd probably buy some Stack and Tilt stuff as I love all the different philosophies and and theories of the Golf Swing. But I'm worried I'd immediately turn into a giant d------bag

Getting the book ($15 off Amazon delivered) is a smart move. You don't have to live and die by what they say, but a lot of the facts on ball striking and swinging in general are worth reading. As for the marketing, if they said "S&T;: Another way to swing" or something like that, then no one would be intersted. They don't sell drivers that "Hit the ball as long as every other driver out there". Regardless, 100% worth the read.

[Stretch]

It's not the message of Stack and Tilt that bothers me. It's the Messengers. The pretentiousness, and the approach that Stack and Tilt is the only "real" way to play, and everything else is "wrong" is really off putting. I'd probably buy some Stack and Tilt stuff as I love all the different philosophies and and theories of the Golf Swing. But I'm worried I'd immediately turn into a giant d------bag

Oh please. Do it, don't do it, who cares? It's not like the S&T; mafia are going to come to your house and leave a horse head in your bed.

Personally, I like that the method has a clear belief system that its adherents are willing to openly debate. Maybe that's pretension in your book.

[nuck81]

Getting the book ($15 off Amazon delivered) is a smart move. You don't have to live and die by what they say, but a lot of the facts on ball striking and swinging in general are worth reading. As for the marketing, if they said "S&T;: Another way to swing" or something like that, then no one would be intersted. They don't sell drivers that "Hit the ball as long as every other driver out there". Regardless, 100% worth the read.

Amazon you say? I will pick it up then. I have a few more Bob Rotella books to get, and want to get Nicklaus book as well.

This one? http://www.amazon.com/Stack-Tilt-Swi...6392780&sr;=8-1

[Jonnydanger81]

Amazon you say? I will pick it up then. I have a few more Bob Rotella books to get, and want to get Nicklaus book as well.

Yup, that's the one. It's short and to the point, kind of how they want the swing to be thought of. There's a lot of info about swinging and ball striking in general. They do a good job of not laying it on too thick with the "This is the only way to swing" stuff too. If you want to take in as much info as you can about the golf swing, it's worth it.

[iacas]

The pretentiousness, and the approach that Stack and Tilt is the only "real" way to play, and everything else is "wrong" is really off putting.

Yeah, Mike and Andy are

soooooo pretentious. They're the two most humble guys you'd ever meet. The most non-confrontational. You don't have to be pretentious when common sense, history, geometry, and physics are on your side. You're just speaking the truth and helping those who listen. The full S&T; swing isn't for everyone. But every average player can improve by implementing at least one of the pieces. I think perhaps you're seeing things the way you want to see them. You're not going to find a post on here where I or anyone else says that this is the only "real" way to do it. I'll say that's how I prefer it, and WHY I prefer it that way. I'll also say that people are wrong, but those aren't opinions - those are facts. Is 10 > 4? Yes - it's a fact. Nick Faldo has the ball flight laws wrong - fact. Your spine doesn't maintain its same flex throughout the swing - fact. I like a quote from Dizzy Dean... an old, old baseball pitcher. He said "it ain't braggin' if you can do it." Everything I say about the golf swing has a reason. I can explain it and it is grounded in truth, reality, etc. You can see it as pretentious if you want - but again I think you're seeing things the way you want to see 'em. P.S. Yes, S&T; has a target because it has a name. Mike and Andy teach more PGA Tour players than anyone else. Yet because they have the message that golf instructors have provably been teaching people poorly for years, they're somewhat ostracized. They can't crack the top 100 list of teachers despite, again, teaching more PGA Tour players than anyone else. Guys are always asking them questions - guys they don't teach. Camilo Villegas asks all the time about straightening the right knee on the backswing, for example. Sean O'Hair's coach is making a good name for himself integrating what he's learned from Mike and Andy. There are 50 S&T; teachers or so in the world, perhaps. Golf Evolution has three of 'em... and our students improve. That's not pretentious - that's just fact. Again, I get almost giddy at times because it's no longer hocus pocus - it's science, and it's EASY. P.S. Buy the book. I think it's the best golf book ever written. Bar none. Well, except maybe Golf in the Kingdom, but that's not instructional.

[david_wedzik]

If grip was as important as some people make it out to be, tournaments would be over on the first tee - the best grip would win. Or the best overall setup, or alignment... it's not that important. Golf isn't a photo contest - it's a dynamic sport that requires A, B, and C.

REALLY...REALLY well said! Two points that can't be stressed enough or explained enough.

I was saying, when he generalized were most people are when they try to maintain spine angle. I don't do that.

Actually, I GUARANTEE you do to some large extent. If you didn't your head would be moving about 18 inches towards the rear foot in your backswing and your handicap would likely be 35 and not 10. Seriously not meaning to be rude or confrontational. I know that you don't feel like you do this or know you do it but you do to a large extent, I am sure of that.

It's not the message of Stack and Tilt that bothers me. It's the Messengers. The pretentiousness, and the approach that Stack and Tilt is the only "real" way to play, and everything else is "wrong" is really off putting.

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.

The full S&T; swing isn't for everyone.

I would pretty much say it is for everyone or at least say that 90% (or so) of the main principles would help everyone get better.

Great thread - great discussions overall - keep it up everyone! Dave

[saevel25]

Actually, I GUARANTEE you do to some large extent. If you didn't your head would be moving about 18 inches towards the rear foot in your backswing and your handicap would likely be 35 and not 10. Seriously not meaning to be rude or confrontational. I know that you don't feel like you do this or know you do it but you do to a large extent, I am sure of that.

Actually, my swing from about two years ago to about a year ago my head would move down and back in the downswing. I shot about 10-15 over par on average. But there were times when it would balloon alot, which bothered me. It required a ton of timing on my part, and if i didn't, it usually a day of snap hooks. If i was good, then i would hit alot of greens. So i have worked hard on it. I guess i probably took on some of the stack and tilt principles, they seem sound in what has been successfully used by best players through out history.

I will probably get the book and give it a read.