Implementing Pieces of Stack & Tilt

[pixel5]

After trying out stack and tilt, I decided that going with a full-out stack and tilt swing would be bad for me. Instead, I partially adopted the swing. I am keeping my weight forward and I am keeping my head "on the ball" as they describe it on the backswing. I got to take it to the course for the first time yesterday and the results were astonishing. Keep in mind, I first started this 2 weeks ago at the driving range. I hit over 250 balls. I did not touch a club since then until playing yesterday...applying only the aforementioned parts of the swing.

My distances were 1.5-2 clubs difference. I had a long drive of 350 yards, and an average of 310-315. Here are my distance changes before and after:

UW: 100 --> 110/115
PW: 125 --> 140
9: 140 --> 155
8: 150 --> 165
6: 170 --> 185/190
5W: 215 --> 240
D: 270ish --> 315

These are the clubs I hit enough times to make a good estimate. I have always been a "sweeper", usually hitting the ball thin if I mis-hit. When I keep my weight forward I am striking the ball where I need to and taking a good size divot. I am not merely hitting the ball, but rather releasing through it...making contact at the bottom of the downswing. I shot a personal record +2, 74 (for this particular course).

The best thing about this new swing is that it has clear objectives and is very repeatable. I don't have to guess or feel around for what I am supposed to be doing. I KNOW what I am supposed to be doing on every part of the swing.

[Phil McGleno]

Uh, so why is this "Life after Stack & Tilt"?

The first two words they'd use to describe their swing are "weight forward." They use a few to describe how you move in order to keep your head still.

You sound like you're doing S&T now and you may not have understood what it was you were trying to do before. This thread should be renamed "Weight Forward Works."

[Tugglife2]

Echoing what Phil said, what are you doing in your swing that is distinctively NOT S&T?

[Stretch]

Before everyone jumps down his throat, I think the thread title is intending to imply life after (adopting) S&T, albeit partially.

There's nothing wrong with taking bits and pieces from the pattern. The book actually recommends just this partial approach as you incorporate the elements into your swing.

[iacas]

Before everyone jumps down his throat, I think the thread title is intending to imply life after (adopting) S&T, albeit partially.

That makes sense, though I must admit I took it the way others have at first.

There's nothing wrong with taking bits and pieces from the pattern. The book actually recommends just this partial approach as you incorporate the elements into your swing.

Indeed. It's nowhere near an "all or nothing" approach. If you want to get better at every step quickly, piecemeal is the only way to go.

[pixel5]

Sorry for being unclear about the title...but thats not really the point of the thread.

What I did NOT change about my swing was the swing path. I only changed the distribution of weight and 'theoretical' head position. I think people give S&T a bad rap because they try to adopt everything about the swing when they don't need to.

[iacas]

Sorry for being unclear about the title...but thats not really the point of the thread.

So what would you change the title to? Because I can do that.

[Zeph]

I don't know if you went at it yourself, I'm saying this in general, so don't take it personally. Some people try to learn S&T themselves, struggle for a while and give it up. If we put some cameras on them, I'd bet big money they did not achieve what they were trying to do, they might not even know how it really should feel or look like.

I've seen a few people say they tried S&T by staying on the left side, but hit it crappy and didn't like it. Chances are good they never got anything working. I agree with Erik that everybody don't need all the pieces if S&T.; Of course you can play good golf without it, there are many evidence of that. Some also try to fix everything at once, which rarely works out very well. Having more than one swing thought at the time can become a real mess. Also have in mind that a swing change can take a long time to incorporate. If you make a lot of changes of a short period of time, chances are also good that earlier changes start fading away as you get new parts involved.

[pixel5]

I've seen a few people say they tried S&T by staying on the left side, but hit it crappy and didn't like it. Chances are good they never got anything working. I agree with Erik that everybody don't need all the pieces if S&T.; Of course you can play good golf without it, there are many evidence of that. Some also try to fix everything at once, which rarely works out very well. Having more than one swing thought at the time can become a real mess. Also have in mind that a swing change can take a long time to incorporate. If you make a lot of changes of a short period of time, chances are also good that earlier changes start fading away as you get new parts involved.

I agree with this. I actually started one piece at a time...starting with what Plummer and Bennett push the most: weight forward. So I hit a few balls with more weight on my left side. Then I moved on to "keep your head 'on' the ball" (I can't explain it how they do). After that I was hitting great shots, so I stopped there. If I was happy with the ball flight and distance, I didn't see why I should change anything else. It has just worked for me since then.

[Leftygolfer]

I am kind of ammused by the statement of adding pieces of stack and tilt. I think you could just say adding pieces of what makes a really good move. I don't really classify a good swing as that is stack and tilt or traditional as there isn't a huge difference. Most good players stay on top of the ball yet they have this feeling (also known as an illusion) of this big wieght shift. Players that I want to swing like aren't out of the s&t; camp but seem to be very similar. One that comes to mind and I view as having a move that I would like to make is Matt Kuchar. I like the one plane, deep hands, simpleness of that move. It isn't the prettiest thing you ever saw but he is very consistant and has enough power to play.

To me the invention of stack and tilt is a marketing thing and not a "new" way to swing the club. I like what they teach and it is reality of the golf swing and not myths you are going to get from some pros. But I'm not going to call my swing a s&t; swing even after I work with a s&t; school and implement what they see as being neccessary. Name for my golf swing are "effective effiecient repeatable powerful move" or that is the goal. I have the most confidence in S&T instructors and hope to work with them in the future. I just don't want to classify my swing as this or that. I just want others to think or say, man that is a nice move you have as I am taking there money and shooting my best scores.

[Harmonious]

I am kind of ammused by the statement of adding pieces of stack and tilt. I think you could just say adding pieces of what makes a really good move. I don't really classify a good swing as that is stack and tilt or traditional as there isn't a huge difference. Most good players stay on top of the ball yet they have this feeling (also known as an illusion) of this big wieght shift. Players that I want to swing like aren't out of the s&t; camp but seem to be very similar. One that comes to mind and I view as having a move that I would like to make is Matt Kuchar. I like the one plane, deep hands, simpleness of that move. It isn't the prettiest thing you ever saw but he is very consistant and has enough power to play.

Really agree with this post. I'm always checking a number of sources (books, magazine articles, TV, videos, websites, etc.) to look for something that may work for me. I don't care what it may be called or who may be the latest and greatest marketing pro. I try out the "new" thought on the range to see whether it feels good and produces results. If it looks promising, I take it to the course the next time out to see whether it may stand up. I'd have to say 9 times out of 10 the newest and greatest idea just doesn't pan out for me. Whether that is because I didn't work on it enough, who knows.

Regarding the S&T debates that keep coming up, the only problem I have is that people seem to try to fit every successful golfer into the S&T camp, saying something like "So and so incorporates 90% of S&T". Tiger is only the most recent name that is now being firmly placed into the S&T camp by some here. Well, in reality, tour pro golfers incorporate 90% of a good fundamental swing, whether they are S&Ters;, One-planers, Leadbetterites or Haneyphiles. The other 10% is their own unique style, or how successful they are in consistently reproducing that swing. The success of that 10% is what makes the truly great ball strikers. If you saw a waist-down video of a tour pro's swing from the time his hand position reached waist high on the downswing, then through impact, you would be hard pressed to tell one from another. Might be a fun game: Guess the golfer without seeing the backswing.

[nevets88]

If you saw a waist-down video of a tour pro's swing from the time his hand position reached waist high on the downswing, then through impact, you would be hard pressed to tell one from another. Might be a fun game: Guess the golfer without seeing the backswing.

That would be fun. I guess you could narrow it down based on grip, players with a super strong grip like a Zach Johnson or Paul Azinger. Easy enough for Vijay Singh because his right hand comes off almost.

[iacas]

Harmonious, I agree with what you said, but as one of those guys who sometimes says "80%" or "90%" let me explain what I'm really saying in those cases.

EVERY pro has their weight forward at impact. Some (drawers of the ball) more than others (faders). That part is universal. Most keep their heads awfully centered, so they have the side tilting and extending down pretty well (again some more than others, most often evident in the lifting and the shoulder pitch at P4). Some maintain the flying wedge and some throw it out (none before impact, but some do it shortly thereafter). Etc. The reason why I say "90%" or 80% or whatever is because everyone can learn from the various parts. If someone struggles with drawing the ball and their weight is back, that's the piece they need. If their hands never come in and they come over every ball, then they need the hands part. If their shoulder pushes their chin out of the way and they have no pitch, they need more side tilting. S&T; is nothing more than a collection of pieces that the best players do. So it's no surprise that 80 or 90% of the swing is seen in EVERY PGA Tour player. It's just a different set of things... If there are six (there are more than six, I just don't want to type everything out) then player A might do 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 while player B might do 1, 3, 4, and 5 and C might do 3, 4, 5, and 6. I still wish it didn't have a name... then we'd be saying things like "I like a lot of what that guy does, and some of the other parts aren't what I like but obviously they work for him." The parts are all able to be implemented separately. Very, very few people are fully S&T; - but every piece in S&T; can be used in different situations to help a player improve their weak spots. Do we get a bit zealous sometimes? Probably, sure. But we don't mean it as "everyone should swing 100% like S&T.;" Rather, we mean it like "I recognize many of the things that lets him be a good player." And to re-iterate, we don't teach students the full package. They work on a piece at a time - whatever they need at the moment. Some, unfortunately, rarely move past one or two pieces.

If you saw a waist-down video of a tour pro's swing from the time his hand position reached waist high on the downswing, then through impact, you would be hard pressed to tell one from another. Might be a fun game: Guess the golfer without seeing the backswing.

It might be a lot easier than you'd think...

P.S. Guess which guy plays a fade and which one draws nearly every ball?

[nevets88]

Left draw, right fade?

Is the left guy Villegas?

[colin007]

Left draw, right fade?

i think its the other way around. see how the one on the left has spun out more than pushed forward? i could be wrong tho.

[jamo]

Left draw, right fade?

I think it's the other way around. Primarily because I'm pretty sure the right is Charlie Wi, who plays a draw, and the right is Camillo, who plays a fade.

The thing that gives the draw/fade things away is the lines, which represent the weight. Wi's weight is much more forward, hence the draw.

[iacas]

I think it's the other way around. Primarily because I'm pretty sure the right is Charlie Wi, who plays a draw, and the right is Camillo, who plays a fade.

Yes, that's right. That picture was just to respond quickly to part of Harmonious's good post, so let's not let it side-track us, please.

[colin007]

hey i got it first!!!