Wi lays the smack down!

[iacas]

Nobody dare sit down and talk to them because they are afraid M&A; might shatter some of their teachings, and being able to both explain and prove it too.

Indeed. There's a reason they teach more guys on the PGA Tour than anyone.

And there's a reason they were ranked third among PGA Tour players as the best instructors out there. They're some of the few teachers who other players working with other instructors will take to lunch to pick their brains. FWIW, if Mac O'Grady weren't so nutty, he'd get a bunch of attention on Tour too. They owe a lot to Mac O'Grady, and they say as much nearly every chance they get.

Wi's comments are refreshingly honest. The golf media is used to hearing what they want to hear (Mickelson) or diversion (Tiger)

Yep, and this will probably serve as yet another example of "the media says they want players to be more honest, but then when they are they just smack them down."

Charlie's a nice guy. A smart guy. Clearly he felt the need to stick up for his peeps. People - including the media - have used "Baddeley and Weir have left!" as a way of showing that S&T; stinks. Maybe the guys just made a stupid mistake. After all, their stats bear that out. Maybe the fault lies with Badds and Weir, not with the instruction that got them winning and into the top portions of the world rankings. Charlie Wi clearly felt the need to point that out. Besides, he said they WERE among the worst ball-strikers. Per Andy's stats, they were. He didn't say they still suck.

[mdbuschsr]

I don't know anything about how all of this has transpired over time. I will say it's about time we see some honesty and damn the torpedoes. I get really tired of hearing/reading comments that are so censored and politically correct. Say what you mean, mean what you say and stand by it!

[Rexx]

The comments about Baddeley and Weir were unwarranted and unprofessional -- if I had a "friend" like that... And refusing to say Foley's name is childish. He had a chance to show some class and composure (like Andy and Mike have done so far), but decided they needed 'protection' instead of support. Some of you are not looking at this objectively.

[Jell0b0y]

Yea he possibly shouldn't pulled Weir and Baddeley into it but when your passionate about something and believe its being attacked then emotions come out. I believe the stuff about Baddeley and Weir leaving is being used against Mike and Andy (by the media) and also the Foley's comments rubbed him the wrong way. Charlie is a firm believer in S&T; (like me) and when you see something you believe being shown in a negative light it gets to ya. I wish he would have saved it for Sunday and used it as more of motivation to win this weekend.

[walk18]

The comments about Baddeley and Weir were unwarranted and unprofessional -- if I had a "friend" like that... And refusing to say Foley's name is childish. He had a chance to show some class and composure (like Andy and Mike have done so far), but decided they needed 'protection' instead of support. Some of you are not looking at this objectively.

So Charlie telling the truth is unprofessional, but Foley's comments weren't? I see.

[Dad-2-3]

The comments about Baddeley and Weir were unwarranted and unprofessional -- if I had a "friend" like that... And refusing to say Foley's name is childish. He had a chance to show some class and composure (like Andy and Mike have done so far), but decided they needed 'protection' instead of support. Some of you are not looking at this objectively.

Since when is giving your opinion "unprofessional"? I like it when somebody calls it like they see it.

edit: looks like walk18 and I crossposted. LOL

[iacas]

Some of you are not looking at this objectively.

Everything you said up to that point is fine. It's your opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone (or anyone) who doesn't agree with you isn't looking at it objectively.

Here's an "objective" look at your comment... Charlie clearly felt the comments about Baddeley and Weir were warranted. His instructors have been attacked because Badds and Weir left, but the truth is: a) they were crappy ballstrikers before they worked with B&P; b) they won and had lots of success with B&P; c) they've fallen off the face of the earth since leaving B&P; Were they professional? Again, he was simply pointing out facts. Is it "unprofessional" to point out that Tiger's putting has gone to shit and that, at times this year, he couldn't find the fairway with a compass, map, GPS, and a trained guide? I don't think so, but I'm a fan of calling a spade a spade. I'm a scientist, and if something is basically fact, it's not wrong to cite it. Yes, I get that there's context, but he was asked the question , and he answered it in a factual manner. Refusing to say Foley's name is "childish"? Maybe. Or maybe he's just so disgusted by Foley that he doesn't want to say his name. If you feel strongly about someone saying their name is a powerful thing (strongly isn't just negative - people in love say their partner's name and it makes them feel good, and the opposite is true of people that strongly dislike others). He decided, apparently, that they needed "defending." That's different than "protection." Subtly, but to me the distinction matters.

Yea he possibly shouldn't pulled Weir and Baddeley into it but when your passionate about something and believe its being attacked then emotions come out.

He was asked about "some people have started and left" and even if he didn't say their names, people would know who he was talking about. So what's the harm in being clear about the fact that only TWO "people" (barely enough to make it plural) have left and who they are?

I believe the stuff about Baddeley and Weir leaving is being used against Mike and Andy (by the media)

It has been. Heck, people on this forum have used it as a way of bashing stuff. Again, perhaps it was a mistake on their part (the numbers bear that out).

I wish he would have saved it for Sunday and used it as more of motivation to win this weekend.

Ditto, and I'm still pulling for a win, but if he's not interviewed on Saturday or Sunday the opportunity would have passed him by.

So Charlie telling the truth is unprofessional, but Foley's comments weren't? I see.

Yeah, and if it goes on too long it'll become a fifth grade "he started it!" type thing, but Foley's comments must have so pissed off Charlie that he simply couldn't sit idly by while someone's out there telling blatant lies.

And we know two wrongs don't make a right, but Charlie didn't lie. He didn't make things up. He talked about how good his coaches are and shared some facts. He didn't even say "Tiger should work with Mike and Andy if he actually wants to get better" or anything like that. Foley's comments were far more of a "wrong" than what Charlie said. Again, people, he was asked the question. He didn't run up there and just start talking smack on people. Look, I'm not 100% cool with this. I worry about the backlash, even though the backlash against Foley's comments was somewhat muted. Charlie got a whole thread about it, but people barely noticed Foley's comments, and again Foley's were far more incendiary, untruthful, and flat out ridiculous. It may just be a tempest in a teapot, it may spill outside the teapot. But Foley basically lied and Charlie called him on it while also pointing out that a lot of the rest of the backlash against his instructors has been unwarranted and/or not based on facts. Regardless of how you feel about whether he should have said something or not, I think you'll all agree it's going to be interesting for the next few days, weeks, maybe months.

[DarkPrince]

Just turned on the golf channel like 5 minutes ago and clips of Wi's interview were up, then they asked Brandol Chamblee 'critique' the S&T; swing which kind of turned more into just bashing. I'm not a convert or a follower of S&T; but I still get the concepts and understand/respect it since it actually does make sense :P But I have a feeling that Chamblee is more of a square peg round hole/doesn't quite get it so he spends his time arguing against it guy. He basically just said that anyone on S&T; isn't hitting with power or finesse, only hitting it solid due to not moving off the ball. He also calls them the worst ballstrikers on tour :P

[Stretch]

He basically just said that anyone on S&T; isn't hitting with power or finesse, only hitting it solid due to not moving off the ball.

I only hit it solid due to not taking both hands off the club through impact. Is that frowned on too?

[Zeph]

The comments about Baddeley and Weir were unwarranted and unprofessional -- if I had a "friend" like that... And refusing to say Foley's name is childish. He had a chance to show some class and composure (like Andy and Mike have done so far), but decided they needed 'protection' instead of support. Some of you are not looking at this objectively.

His comments on Baddeley and Weir was not an attack at them, he just said it like it is. He mentioned Baddeley and Weir because them leaving the S&T; camp has been used as a way to bash S&T;, when there is nothing really that cause for such a thing. Have anyone ever bashed some other coach because two of his students left?

Aaron Baddeley 2004: 200th on the World Ranking Aaron Baddeley 2005: 175th on the World Ranking (Enter S&T;) Aaron Baddeley 2006: 85th on the World Ranking Aaron Baddeley 2007: 17th on the World Ranking Aaron Baddeley 2008: 40th on the World Ranking (Exit S&T;) Aaron Baddeley 2009: 130th on the World Ranking Aaron Baddeley 2010: 203rd on the World Ranking Mike Weir 2005: 50th on the World Ranking Mike Weir 2006: 48th on the World Ranking Mike Weir 2007: 35th on the World Ranking (Enter S&T;) Mike Weir 2008: 21st on the World Ranking Mike Weir 2008: 17th on the World Ranking (Exit S&T;) Mike Weir 2009: 33rd on the World Ranking Mike Weir 2010: 107th on the World Ranking More of the S&T; record here: http://stackandtiltgolfswing.com/the-record/ Both climbed up the ladder during their time with B&P;, and dropped like a fish once they left B&P.; Of course, if you leave one swing philosophy to chase another, it will in most cases take some time to get right , but Baddeley and Weir still struggle. If you look at their record, it's clear they did not have any problems making the change to S&T;, both of them climbed the OWGR right away and won multiple tournaments. Another testament to how S&T; is easy to learn when you get the proper instruction. There is no hocus pocus, every part of the swing can be explained, both how and why. One of them commented that S&T; got too detailed, which is part of why they left the system. Fair enough, I think a lot of players on the Tour are afraid of getting too technical and detailed, but I'm sure B&P; could've just given them drills and not explained the why's if they wanted to. Regardless of their game after S&T;, how can you talk down on those two who instructed them during their most successful period in the career? How is it possible to do anything but praise B&P; for raising the level of their game a lot? They left S&T; for some reason, but from that moment, anything they do or achieve has nothing to do with S&T; (except maybe that they did learn a lot about the golf swing during their stay with B&P;). Is Butch Harmon a bad instructor because Tiger didn't win as much when he left him? Only the media and world of golf that bash B&P; and S&T;, because it is what it is, are responsible. S&T; has been attacked from many angles, but all they do is pull crap out of their heads and put it on TV, and the people in front of the screen buy it. Some things Charlie said might cause more harm than good to S&T;, but he said it like it is and how he feels. As a friend and student of B&P;, he must be sick of all the negativity around them, and how Foley bashed them, after they helped him a lot. If anything, all the attention S&T; is getting, after quite some years now, it proves that there must be something in it. You can put a search on Google and find hundreds of swings and philosophies, but I doubt you can find one with as much media attention as S&T.; That is because people see that S&T; works, and the media keep trying to push it into the dirt. The media is really powerful, there is no other way to critizise and give a theory such a bad reputation without having top names helping. Quickly I can mention Nick Faldo, Hank Haney and Butch Harmon, who have commented to Golf Digest or something like that how S&T; is not really good. The irony behind it is that S&T; is a compilation of moves the best players through the ages of golf have done. If you don't like S&T;, you obviously don't like Hogan, Snead, Nicklaus, Woods or Palmer either. If you like them, but not S&T;, you don't know what S&T; is and should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies.

[walk18]

Just turned on the golf channel like 5 minutes ago and clips of Wi's interview were up, then they asked Brandol Chamblee 'critique' the S&T; swing which kind of turned more into just bashing. I'm not a convert or a follower of S&T; but I still get the concepts and understand/respect it since it actually

Well then I guess somehow a guy is (currently) leading the BMW without power or finesse. It must be a miracle! :P

[iacas]

He basically just said that anyone on S&T; isn't hitting with power or finesse, only hitting it solid due to not moving off the ball. He also calls them the worst ballstrikers on tour :P

They hit it solid, but they're terrible ballstrikers. Oh, and one of them leads the PGA Tour in GIR. Yeah, huh? And again, does everyone not remember the AT&T; at Aronomink this year? They kept marveling at how far Charlie Wi - little ol' Charlie Wi - kept hitting the ball.

[kafka01]

When i joined this forum and S&T; was slowly surfacing the attitude towards it was a lot less pushy and aggressiv than it is now. Now why is that? If you have a good product/idea/conecpt there is really no need to go this way - it might just scare people away.

Now lets talk about ballstriking. Why didnt the S&T; guys on tour didnt achieve proper success (winning lots of tournaments/majors?). Is it because S&T; produces bad ballstriking? Probably not, the stats would tell you if you look it up, but it doesnt matter, e.g. year in year out you will find Phil Mickelson´s ballstriking way below par. But still he manages to rack up more wins in the last couple years than all the S&T; guys together. And thats because ballstriking doenst count a cent nowadays anymore when you basically can pitch&putt; your way around the course. The shortgame is way more important than ballstriking. And i cant really recall that guys like Mike Weir, Aaron Baddeley OR Charlie Wi are great short game players in this regard. Of course they win from time to time - everybody on tour has its week when they putt out all the lights, but there shortgame is not on the highest level, so they can´t compete every weekend.

And then trying to argue that S&T; is responsible for a win, or on the other hand when they struggle, imo is just plain wrong!

[Jell0b0y]

He basically just said that anyone on S&T; isn't hitting with power or finesse, only hitting it solid due to not moving off the ball. He also calls them the worst ballstrikers on tour :P

That's pretty much all I here when watching these show is how the harp on something they truly don't want to understand. I remeber when Dean Wilson was the Sunday leader in tournement earlier this year and the comments the annoucers were making that the swing was accurite but no power just cracked me up. I can't see how a so called expect can comment on anything with out trying it first. I have to admit the infomerical for S&T; made me laugh pretty hard and pass it up but since i took up the swing in June (thanks to Iacas and this forum) I have gained 2 club lengths and became way more accurite and all with out going to a PGA professinal for instructions.

I truly think that's why Charlie said what he did. Its the constant trashing and people like Foley who made the comment he did that warrents the comments from Charlie. I might not have mentioned names but that's just me but I give Charlie Kudos for doing what he did and is was well over due.

Ditto, and I'm still pulling for a win, but if he's not interviewed on Saturday or Sunday the opportunity would have passed him by.

You make a good point about the opportunity passing him by.

[iacas]

When i joined this forum and S&T; was slowly surfacing the attitude towards it was a lot less pushy and aggressiv than it is now. Now why is that? If you have a good product/idea/conecpt there is really no need to go this way - it might just scare people away.

Less pushy and aggressive? It's been attacked and/or misrepresented since it was introduced. Charlie got "aggressive" because Sean Foley behaved like a moron. Additionally, the world's best player is adopting a lot of S&T; pieces this year, so that additionally helps to explain why it's more in the forefront in 2010 than in 2009.

Now lets talk about ballstriking. Why didnt the S&T; guys on tour didnt achieve proper success (winning lots of tournaments/majors?).

Huh? They've improved. What do you mean "didn't achieve proper success"?

But still he manages to rack up more wins in the last couple years than all the S&T; guys together. And thats because ballstriking doenst count a cent nowadays anymore when you basically can pitch&putt; your way around the course.

That's a pretty silly argument to be making. Phil doesn't win on weeks he has poor ballstriking, and Phil is incredibly talented - more so than virtually every other golfer. You're not comparing apples and apples.

The easiest way to compare apples to apples is to track long-term (more than one event at a time) play of the same player. Aaron Baddeley, Mike Weir, Charlie Wi, Troy Matteson, etc. have all improved under S&T.; Look up the results.

The shortgame is way more important than ballstriking.

No, greens in regulation is the most important. Second in importance: putting. Total of 70% or so, and driving distance and accuracy make up the remaining 30%. GIR and putting account for the bulk of what determines who wins each week. Nobody wins because their scrambling percentage is really high for the week. The guys who hit greens and make putts win. And hitting greens is ballstriking.

[kafka01]

Driving Accuracy//Driving Distance//GIR:

Mike Weir 2005: 63.69 // 276 // 61.95 Mike Weir 2006: 64.10 // 277 // 66.47 Mike Weir 2007: 63.82 // 283 // 63.03 (Enter S&T;) Mike Weir 2008: 62.86 // 280 // 64.62 (Exit S&T;) Mike Weir 2009: 62.67 // 276 // 62.36 Mike Weir 2010: 53.83 // 266 // 57.89 Aaron Baddeley 2004: 53.08 // 279 // 58.17 Aaron Baddeley 2005: 53.32 // 278 // 60.84 (Enter S&T;) Aaron Baddeley 2006: 60.73 // 277 // 58.26 Aaron Baddeley 2007: 60 // 284 // 60.35 Aaron Baddeley 2008: 59.45 // 282 // 62.02 (Exit S&T;) Aaron Baddeley 2009: 56.80 // 282 // 59.26 Aaron Baddeley 2010: 55.78 // 290 // 63.67 I dont know about you guys, but to me these numbers tell me, that "ballstriking" (S&T; or not) pretty much has nothing to do with your world ranking. The relevant stuff happens around and on the green! Unless of course you play really bad like he does in 2010.

etc. have all improved under S&T.; Look up the results.

I have for Mike Weir, i would for the other players, but thats a bit time consuming - i dont see any improvement in these numbers sorry.

Huh? They've improved. What do you mean "didn't achieve proper success"?

Troy Matteson: 1 win 2006 / 1 win 2009

Charlie Wie: No wins Mike Weir: 1 win 2007 Aaron Baddeley: 1 win 2006 / 1 win 2007 I dont even know or care when these guys switched to S&T; (beside the last two obv.) but if i look at their success records i would have to say - these are typical mediocre PGA tour players.

[sean_miller]

His comments on Baddeley and Weir was not an attack at them, he just said it like it is. He mentioned Baddeley and Weir because them leaving the S&T; camp has been used as a way to bash S&T;, when there is nothing really that cause for such a thing. Have anyone ever bashed some other coach because two of his students left?

I think Weir shoud be left out of the discussion. He played his best golf (by far) years earlier and was on the way down when he went to S&T.; Did he learn some valuable things with S&T;? Sure he did. But he has always been a short driver (relatively speaking - I'd love his driver stroke) and rlied on course management and putting. His flat stick was letting him down more and more. Just like the honeymoon phase with a new driver/wedge/putter he wanted a change from S&T.; He was trying to recapture the feeling he had on the course in 2003/2004 - confident. I haven't read too much that's negative about S&T; coming from Mike (not saying he hasn't - I just haven't read it). And now he's fighting injuries. I honestly think using the career of Mike Weir as a testimony of S&T; is not completely accurate, since that wasn't the peak of his career. Baddeley on the on other hand - yeah, it seems like he made a mistake by leaving.

[iacas]

I think Weir shoud be left out of the discussion. He played his best golf (by far) years earlier and was on the way down when he went to S&T.;

You can't just leave people out, no. Mike and Andy aren't going to leave people out. If they have a guy who does worse, they'll not pretend "oh, it wasn't us..."

Nobody's claimed Weir or Baddeley had NO success before they joined up. Weir won the Masters in 2003 of course. But then struggled, improved under S&T;, and is again struggling.

I haven't read too much that's negative about S&T; coming from Mike (not saying he hasn't - I just haven't read it).

He's not said too much, no. Frankly, neither has Baddeley. Nobody's saying Weir and Baddeley went out and trashed Mike or Andy or the swing. Their departure, however, made the press feel like they could, though.

I honestly think using the career of Mike Weir as a testimony of S&T; is not completely accurate, since that wasn't the peak of his career. Baddeley on the on other hand - yeah, it seems like he made a mistake by leaving.

Why does it matter at the peak of the career? Weir was playing poorly, improved under S&T;, and has gone down since leaving. Perhaps he'd have won two majors if they got him "at the top of his game" - maybe none. Maybe three. Who knows? All we can do is use the facts that exist, and that chart exists and is a fact. He was (relatively) lousy, he got (relative, again, to himself and his peers) better, and he's (relatively) lousy again.