Wi lays the smack down!

[sean_miller]

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..."

Yeah, I suspect if Mike could have found a way to get some more distance off the tee, and had made some more clutch putts, he'd still be with S&T.; Right now he's a mess - his Sunday scoring average relative to Friday/Thursday indicates fitness, health, and stress issues. We know he's injured now, but how long was he struggling with injuries.

To address the thread, I think using one player's skill or success to prove another player should do something is a slippery slope. If someone was to say that since Charlie Wi is having a great week, people should get stacked (I realize nobody actually said that), someone else could argue that if Dustin Johnson hadn't had that brain cramp in the bunker, Tiger Woods should go back to Butch Harmon. That would be crazy, but if Charlie wins this week, let's wait and see what new threads pop up.

[iacas]

Yeah, I suspect if Mike could have found a way to get some more distance off the tee, and had made some more clutch putts, he'd still be with S&T.;

That implies he lost or at least didn't gain distance with S&T.; He certainly didn't go backwards, and in fact gained distance. His three best years were the years he was taught by Mike and Andy. He supposedly "switched" away from them so that he could "get back to using his natural rotation to hit the ball farther" (there was some article about it early this year I think) and he's hitting the ball shorter than he has in a long time.

None

[sean_miller]

Two loosely related (to this story) things here:

Very interesting. I think (like I "know" shit) that S&T; can be as technical as you want it to be. The ball flight (i.e. start of flight) laws for example, can be understood on a very basic or rudimentary level, but people with physics degrees can take any subject to a level of detail that loses most people.

[majorchamp]

“Aaron Baddeley was the worst ball-striker on the PGA Tour,” Wi said. “He won three times with Andy and Mike, and they also took him to inside top 20 in the world. And if that’s not good enough for Aaron, well, it is what it is. “And also Mike Weir—he was also one of the worst ball-strikers on tour, and he won two times with Andy and Mike and made $6 million in two seasons, and he thought that wasn’t good enough. If you look at it, they’re not here this week. So maybe they should be working with Andy and Mike. And they’re friends of mine, too.”

Really bothers me when people refer to others as "friends" when that usually isn't the case, more of acquaintances. No friend of mine, whether they are trying to be factual or not, would throw me under the bus publicly in the media like Charlie did.

I don't follow the stats very closely, but were Aaron and Mike "really the worst ball strikers on the tour"? I mean seriously, they were the worst or one of the worst? Seems a bit dramatic. I think Charlie could have chosen better words especially if they are "friends", especially when answering a media question regardless of whether you are defending your teachers or not. I think going a bit further from the "worst ball striker" comment was the addition to:

And if that’s not good enough for Aaron, well, it is what it is...... and he thought that wasn’t good enough.

Again, Charlie could have chosen much better words when referencing his "friends". He could have left it as:

"I know Mike and Aaron struggled a bit before learning S&T;, and struggled after leaving the S&T; principles. But under Mike and Andy they did quite well. I personally think they should get back with Mike and Andy as I believe it will help bring their game back"

As mentioned earlier by Erik, there isn't a ton of material out and about referencing Mike and Aaron bashing S&T;, so to call them out like that was a bit dramatic. Calling out Foley is perfectly fine IMO.

oh well, my 2 cents. Erik, just out of curiosity do you know P&B; and Charlie personally?

[iacas]

Very interesting. I think (like I "know" shit) that S&T; can be as technical as you want it to be. The ball flight (i.e. start of flight) laws for example, can be understood on a very basic or rudimentary level, but people with physics degrees can take any subject to a level of detail that loses most people.

Yep.

And while talking about Weir is somewhat related, let's stick to the topic itself if possible.

[Harmonious]

This is really a tempest in a teapot. Every good instructor takes ideas from other instructors. Probably goes back to Old Tom Morris and Harry Vardon. Whether Foley disavows using the S&T; philosophies now is totally irrelevent to whether the teachings of S&T; are worthwhile. Getting all defensive about it does nothing but reinforce some of the stereotypes about S&T; aficionados (cultish) when it should be an opportunity to spread the positive message about S&T;, if that's what you truly feel. I remember similar defensiveness from Natural Golf (Moe Norman's swing) devotees when that was the latest and greatest. Don't think you want to go down that road.

As far a Charlie Wi's comments. If he said those things about fellow tour players, he was very unprofessional. It only adds to the negativity.

[whatwhatwhat]

wow sounds like he completely lost it...lol...apart from cbs who bashes S&t;? I think people get way too sensitive about this, I find it hard to believe mike and andy get upset what casual golfers and idiot instructors have to say. After all they are the ones with the money in their back pockets. I also think ballstriking is over-rated for pga professionals too, its nearly all mental and short game skills for these guys at that level.

[Zeph]

I also think ballstriking is over-rated for pga professionals too, its nearly all mental and short game skills for these guys at that level.

Having confidence in your ball striking is the best way to get in a good place mentally. Just look at Tiger. When he hits it good, he plays good. When he hits it poorly, he plays poorly.

[Gordon McTavish]

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

He sounds like a bit of a fool. Throughout the Stack & Tilt book, comparisons are made to guys like Hogan and Nicklaus, with demonstrations about how they exhibit the moves Bennett and Plummer teach. Unless I'm mistaken, Hogan was regarded as a rather competent ball-striker.

[kafka01]

Having confidence in your ball striking is the best way to get in a good place mentally. Just look at Tiger. When he hits it good, he plays good. When he hits it poorly, he plays poorly.

Tiger himself said, he cant outplay these guys anymore with ballstriking (with the improved equipment over the last years) so he has to get it done around the greens.

[Easy]

Charlie Wi came on a bit strong there. There's no need to bash Mike and Aaron, the stats speak for themselves but awesome stuff on calling out Foley. Anyone who is knowledged on the golf swing, knows Foley is full of it when he says he adopted 5% of S&T; principles. That's weak.

I have to agree with Baddeley being one of the worst ball strikers on tour, that guy has had to rely on his awesome short game (especially putting) for too long. He's really turned into a pga journeymen and he had so much promise when he was younger... I think the worst thing Aaron did was be the face of "stack and tilt." When all the negative media came pouring in he must of copped the most criticism out of all the S&T; players. When everyone is whispering in your ear how bad S&T; is that has got to play with your head and cause doubt when you don't perform. Too much pressure for a guy like Badds.

Tiger himself said, he cant outplay these guys anymore with ballstriking (with the improved equipment over the last years) so he has to get it done around the greens.

Got any sources? Just curious.

[iacas]

Every good instructor takes ideas from other instructors.

That's not in doubt. But Mike and Andy are quick to credit the people they've learned from and Foley takes the approach of trashing them, apparently. Mike and Andy are nice guys and help Foley out, and he turns around and makes up lies and bullshit?

Whether Foley disavows using the S&T; philosophies now is totally irrelevent

It's not irrelevant. It's exactly the thing to which Charlie was responding. What Foley said started this.

Getting all defensive about it

You can call it "getting all defensive about it" but, what, someone tells lies about you or someone you care about or respect and you're going to sit back and let it slide without sharing the facts of the matter?

when it should be an opportunity to spread the positive message about S&T;, if that's what you truly feel.

He did that too. He pointed out that Mike and Andy helped Aaron and Mike, and have helped Charlie. He pointed out how much they've helped Foley, too.

I remember similar defensiveness from Natural Golf (Moe Norman's swing) devotees when that was the latest and greatest.

Not the same. Natural Golf never came close to doing anything on the PGA Tour, let alone finishing 1, 2, 3 in one event or winning eight or nine times in a few years.

I also think ballstriking is over-rated for pga professionals too, its nearly all mental and short game skills for these guys at that level.

What you think is, in cases like this, irrelevant. Stats bear out what's important, and greens in regulation is among the top determinants in success on the PGA Tour. Putting is second on that list.

There's no need to bash Mike and Aaron, the stats speak for themselves but awesome stuff on calling out Foley.

See, try as I might I don't see it as "bashing" them. He said they WERE poor ballstrikers and the stats showed that to be the case. Is it bashing Charlie to say he hit a weak, thin second shot into 18 today (before his great par save) or that he missed a birdie putt on that par five? That he hit the ball into a hazard? People get too uptight about simple facts. Facts are facts. Would it be rude to say "Charlie Wi missed six of 22 cuts this year?" No. Rude to say "Charlie couldn't close the deal at the AT&T; when he had a real chance to win?" No. I don't see it as bashing him. It's pointing out a fact that the press seems to forget.

Foley didn't have stats or facts on his side, so what he said was bashing Mike and Andy, who'd done nothing but give of their time and knowledge for over a year now.

Anyone who is knowledged on the golf swing, knows Foley is full of it when he says he adopted 5% of S&T; principles. That's weak.

Yeah, I love how much of a pass Foley got for starting this. Everyone apparently forgets that it's his bull to which Charlie was responding. Foley lies and makes shit up and throws two nice guys under the bus without any factual basis and nobody really seems to care. Charlie defends guys he cares about, has the truth on his side and cites some basic facts, and is getting slammed as "unprofessional."

Makes no sense to me.

I think the worst thing Aaron did was be the face of "stack and tilt."

Yeah, not necessarily a great move in hindsight. But then again I think that hindsight makes a lot of the moves look obviously bad. Naming it is the other most obvious one.

P.S. I'm hoping for a Wie/Wi Sunday. Knock on wood for both.

[kafka01]

Got any sources? Just curious.

Sorry no, but as far as i recall he said it in an interview.

But its only logical - what did you thought Tiger was thinking when Y.E. Yang pulled out a rescue to fire it over the tree at the pin at the 09 PGA ("Oh crap, i´m toast"). Sure Tiger could have done it with a long iron too (maybe), but if the other guys on tour could do it that easily they would just stick with their long irons - instead they are taking advantage of more forgiving clubs (rescues, game improvement irons, fairway woods that you can hit so high and far it makes you dizzy) to mask up their swing shortcomings vs. solid strikers and thereby leveling the playing field when it comes to ballstriking.

[iacas]

But its only logical

It's not logical, no. Tiger is a better ball striker and believes that when he fixes his swing (again) he'll again be a better ball striker.

This doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand. Let's get back to that.

[Fat Slice]

I think part of the problem with S&T; is that a lot of PGA players (for now) think it's a gimmicky fix instead of a system worth learning and honing for life. For that reason, you haven't (yet) seen the top talent commit 100% to S&T;, only some marginal guys. Now, for being marginal guys, the improvement under S&T; has been nothing short of miraculous. To say that S&T; guys haven't won a lot of tourneys is ignoring that people have drastically improved under the system. My preditction is that as the system gets more respect (which will be hard considering all the bashing) and *better* players start using it, you will see lots of victories. Just a prediction, nothing here scientific.

[iacas]

I think part of the problem with S&T; is that a lot of PGA players (for now) think it's a gimmicky fix instead of a system worth learning and honing for life.

That statement doesn't mesh with the reality which put Mike and Andy third in a poll of players on the PGA Tour of top instructors.

The group that doesn't respect them and from my experience doesn't understand what they're actually teaching includes some golfers and a lot of teaching pros. But then you have guys telling someone to swing more to the right when they're battling duck hooks like the guy I watched a few weeks ago.

For that reason, you haven't (yet) seen the top talent commit 100% to S&T;, only some marginal guys. Now, for being marginal guys, the improvement under S&T; has been nothing short of miraculous.

Yeah, but think about it too - if you're a top guy, why change? Tiger's the only real guy that's ever undergone swing changes while at the top. Duval kinda, but he had an injury and was on the way down before he started monkeying around. Bobby Clampett maybe. A few others, but most dance with the girl that brought 'em.

To say that S&T; guys haven't won a lot of tourneys is ignoring...

Depends on what you mean by "a lot," particularly considering the types of players they are. They've won more than Tiger has this year. Is that a lot? :)

[majorchamp]

See, try as I might I don't see it as "bashing" them. He said they WERE poor ballstrikers and the stats showed that to be the case.

no....

He said Mike Weir was one of the WORST ball strikers on tour, and Aaron was THE worst ballstriker on tour. That is a whole hell of a lot different then "poor". Lets clear that up. Again, maybe he used the term "friend" very loosely, maybe he just means many of the guys on tour are his "pals" and its a "hi / bye" relationship, but whatever. When it comes to dicussing your playing competitors that are "friends", I still think phrasing to the media is important. You can still stay factual yet respectful.

[jamo]

I will say this...Plummer and Bennett are getting more attention for S&T; then they could ever dream of. Only way they could probably get more attention is if Tiger himself flat out stated he was doing S&T; :)

It seems to me like Sean Foley is actually getting most of the attention. Mike and Andy are actually getting kind of the short end of the stick. But like you said, certainly more attention that before.