Wi lays the smack down!

[majorchamp]

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.

I have heard the words "Stack and Tilt" more times in the past 3 weeks on the golf channel then the last 3 years. I have seen online golf articles specifically dicussing Stack and Tilt plus Mike and Andy all this this bruhaha went down.

like I said, any publicity is good publicity.

[O.B. Right]

I would save the bold talk until Sunday afternoon. There's a lot of golf left to play and, by then, we could be talking about Charlie Wi, Dean Wilson and the "Stack and Collapse" . .you, know . .if that were to happen.

[iacas]

He said Mike Weir was one of the

Uh, past tense. That's the point I was making. WAS (or WERE), not IS (or ARE). And by the statistics he's quoting, they were bad or THE worst. Seriously, what are you arguing? Facts? Seems pointless to me.

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.

He didn't mean it that way. They're "friends" in the very real sense of the word.

Here's a comment from another person somewhere:

In response to a question, Wi supported his swing coach. He believes his friends, Mike & Aaron, would be doing better if they hadn't changed. He is likely to have debated it with them. This isn't news, it's opinion. More candid than critical.

Yup. Only thing I'd have changed in that is that it's an opinion based on facts. The proof is in the pudding.

[majorchamp]

Uh, past tense. That's the point I was making. WAS (or WERE), not IS (or ARE). And by the statistics he's quoting, they were bad or THE worst. Seriously, what are you arguing? Facts? Seems pointless to me.

So when he said they were the "WORST" he is referring to pre-S&T;?

[iacas]

So when he said they were the "WORST" he is referring to pre-S&T;?

In the words of Alicia Silverstone in

Clueless (or if not her, almost anyone during that time frame): "Like, duh." They WERE bad ballstrikers, and while working with Mike and Andy they improved not only that but their world rankings, won more money and tournaments, and got laid more often. Okay, maybe not the last part, but the rest is pretty easy to understand.

[Stretch]

Jamo's put his finger on it, as usual. This story is really about Foley. Anyone with more than a passing interest in the S&T; pattern knows that he basically teaches the method while (sensibly) staying very far away from the name. So when Tiger went to him, it was assumed in the S&T; camp (fairly reasonably, I think) that they might start to enjoy a little more respect from the golf mainstream, especially if Tiger subsequently gets his game back together and resumes winning ways.

Then Foley apparently decides that he's going to take all the credit for himself. Or at least 95% of it. And has the gall to try and excuse his blatant duplicity by (falsely) claiming Plummer and Bennett ripped off Mac O'Grady in exactly the same way, so it's all good. To guys like Charlie (and Erik), who know how much time P&B; actually spent helping Foley develop "his" system, that must have been just a total kick in the nuts. Is anyone seriously surprised that Charlie wanted to try and set the record straight when given the opportunity to do so?

[iacas]

Jamo's put his finger on it, as usual. This story is really about Foley. Anyone with more than a passing interest in the S&T; pattern knows that he basically teaches the method while (sensibly) staying very far away from the name. So when Tiger went to him, it was assumed in the S&T; camp (fairly reasonably, I think) that they might start to enjoy a little more respect from the golf mainstream, especially if Tiger subsequently gets his game back together and resumes winning ways.

QFT.

Seriously, the thread could end here.

[iacas]

Ryan Ballengee wrote some crap and since their website stupidly makes you wait 24 hours to post, my response goes here instead.

I feel like I'm responding in much the same way as Charlie Wi - someone says something that's full of lies, mistruths, assumptions, and is just crap, and I feel the need to set the record straight.

Source: My "Comment"
What drivel.

"The merits of the swing aren't my debate. It's how Plummer and Bennett have handled themselves." The only thing they've actually done that you mention in your article is putting stats on their website showing how the players they instructed improved under their tutelage. Wow, that's evil. What dirty bastards, being proud of their work and the play of their players! Jerks!

Ryan, did you do any research when writing this article? Or are you just trolling for hits?

You start by saying the swing has "disappeared" from the PGA Tour. Why do Plummer and Bennett teach more PGA Tour pros than any other instructor(s) out there? Why are they on the road 40+ weeks per year with their players? Why do other players working with other instructors routinely ask their opinions or thoughts on thigns? Why did the players rank them T3 in a recent Golf Digest survey ranking top instructors? The facts don't align with your statements.

Did you email Bill Pennington to ask who "orchestrated" the article? No, I presume not, but that doesn't stop you from making an assumption and then using that assumption to badmouth two pretty nice guys. It was a fairly written article, so it must have been "orchestrated" by Bennett and Plummer? Nice try, Ryan.

You ask "What legitimate golf swing has its own site?" Hank Haney has one. Butch Harmon too. David Leadbetter, yep. Brian Mogg, yep. Brian Manzella does too. The Stack and Tilt website is simply Mike and Andy's site - as well as a site which promotes other instructors - just as Hank, Butch, David, Brian(s), and others have sites.

"It was an ignorant pitch at best," you say. If factual performance charts are ignorant, I'm curious how you'd describe your own article. Weir was not hampered by injuries in 2009 and he wasn't in early 2010. He also wasn't injured in 2004 or 2005, either. You're attributing "ignorance" and malice to a factual performance chart. Golf geeks produce them - mentally or in bits or physically - all the time. We look at GIR stats, putting stats, driving accuracy or distance stats... Telecasts tout a player's rise and fall. But to you this equates to "throwing someone under the bus"? They're "desperate to hang onto whatever traction" they've gained? Because of a chart which shows that players tend to improve when working with them?

"Plummer and Bennett complain that Foley - among other teachers - rip off portions of their method." Ryan, where have they done this that you've seen? Really, where? And instead of saying that they "complain" perhaps you could have looked into the story to see if these "complaints" had any legitimacy? No... that might require some work on your end. Much easier to just sit there and make things up, isn't it?

"It's that kind of shot across the bow, emblematic of the brash arrogance of Plummer and Bennett,"

So what Charlie Wi says - when asked the question - in reference to the asinine comments of Sean Foley is "emblematic" of brash arrogance by two completely different people? You seem unaware that nobody who actually knows Bennett or Plummer would ever describe them as either brash OR arrogant, right?

I should have stopped reading at "cult members." Pure drivel, Ryan.

[sacm3bill]

Ryan Ballengee wrote some

Well written response. Hopefully you'll be posting it on that site once the waiting period is over?

[newtogolf]

I'm a bit confused, and maybe to guys like Eric this will seem like a stupid question, so I apologize in advance. My understanding is;

1) S&T; is not a new concept, it is a pattern derived from practices and teachings of many past golfers such as Hogan, Nicklaus, and Snead to name a few.
2) In order to utilize S&T; you don't have to incorporate all of the elements of the pattern, just the ones you want to.

If my understanding is correct then how do you categorize a golfer as a S&T; golfer and one that isn't? If they worked with Plummer and Bennett does that mean they are forever S&T;? It seems S&T; has created quite a bit of controversy as I'm reading a book by Jim McLean (The Eight-Step swing) and while he doesn't explictly call out S&T;, he references "fad" methods throughout the book and seems quite annoyed they get any attention.

[Zeph]

If my understanding is correct then how do you categorize a golfer as a S&T; golfer and one that isn't? If they worked with Plummer and Bennett does that mean they are forever S&T;?

Most golfers work on parts of S&T;, but that does not mean they are working with the S&T; style. S&T; is a swing philosophy based on the best players in the world, and to make the swing easier. Most PGA players got some parts of what S&T; prescribe in their swing. Who is working on S&T; moves? Considering most guys work on some part of it, that is difficult to say. Those working on those parts as S&T;, taught from the philosophy of B&P;, I would say work on S&T.; Everyone else don't work on S&T; as a swing style, but they still work on parts of S&T.;

If S&T; didn't involve the "stay on your left side", I wonder how it would have been recieved. As far as I've read from people commenting on S&T; negatively, most are mentioning the weight shift. Nobody is "forever S&T;", Baddeley and Weir are proof of that. You can change your swing to get as far away from S&T; as possible, but you'd have to swing a combination of Ryan Moore, Paul Casey and Jim Furyk to do it, not something I would recommend. Is Tiger forever "Butch" because he worked with him? No. More than anything, S&T; explains things very well, better than most I would say. So, trying to fix stuff in your swing will be easier. For the highly gifted PGA players, managing their mistakes is a big part of being one of the best.

[iacas]

Well written response. Hopefully you'll be posting it on that site once the waiting period is over?

I doubt it. By tomorrow I'll have other things to do. Ryan's never written an article that I've seen that's been well done. I think ignoring him is likely a better response than "participating."

1) S&T; is not a new concept, it is a pattern derived from practices and teachings of many past golfers such as Hogan, Nicklaus, and Snead to name a few.

It's based on what they DID, not their "practices and teachings." They all swung the club fairly differently, but they had pieces in common, as all great players do. Mike and Andy categorized these and put them into a pattern of compatible pieces. For example, Nicklaus didn't have deep hands at the top of his backswing, but most players did, so they threw out that part of Nicklaus's swing... and so on down the line, basically.

A golf swing pattern is like a piece of music (with lots of room for drum solos and personal "flair"). The notes are the same for all the great players - Mike and Andy just noticed that a lot of the great players tended to play the same chords or something. It's a terrible analogy but I think you know what I mean.

2) In order to utilize S&T; you don't have to incorporate all of the elements of the pattern, just the ones you want to.

Just the ones you NEED (which might be different than "want"

).

If my understanding is correct then how do you categorize a golfer as a S&T; golfer and one that isn't?

I don't try to. The only real definition that makes any sense is "someone who is working with an S&T; instructor." I mean, Tiger Woods and every other PGA Tour golfer already do the majority of the things from the pattern, but are they all S&T;? Not by a long stretch. And very, very, very, very, very few "S&T; golfers" do every piece of the pattern. I, for example, don't brake the finish quite yet, but I consider myself an S&T; golfer.

So on the PGA Tour, an S&T; golfer is one who is working with Mike and Andy. On our level, it's one who is trying to apply the principles - in whatever amount - from the pattern. But really, I don't see much point in categorizing people that way.

If they worked with Plummer and Bennett does that mean they are forever S&T;? It seems S&T; has created quite a bit of controversy as I'm reading a book by Jim McLean (The Eight-Step swing) and while he doesn't explictly call out S&T;, he references "fad" methods throughout the book and seems quite annoyed they get any attention.

S&T; isn't a fad. It's not Natural Golf or some of those other goofy things that have come along. A fad is something like "The No Backswing Golf Swing" (that was a year or two ago, right?). S&T; is based on tradition. It's about as anti-faddy (heh) as it gets.

If S&T; didn't involve the "stay on your left side", I wonder how it would have been recieved. As far as I've read from people commenting on S&T; negatively, most are mentioning the weight shift.

I'd put the "tilt left" part above the weight left part. Most people who haven't done much research into the pattern think that you're supposed to actually tilt towards the target at the top of your backswing.

More than anything, S&T; explains things very well, better than most I would say. So, trying to fix stuff in your swing will be easier. For the highly gifted PGA players, managing their mistakes is a big part of being one of the best.

That's what I like about S&T; - that everything is measured. Dan Carraher describes S&T; as simply "a means of measurement." I'd call it a pattern for hitting a golf ball with a near-optimum combination of control and power with fairly wide ranges that can accept lots of room for personality.

It's a one-plane swing, so I tend not to like two-plane swings personally, but if a player can do those and find a way to not wipe across the ball, then you work with that if it's not the #1 priority or the thing they need fixing (if it ever needs "fixing").

[newtogolf]

Nobody is "forever S&T;", Baddeley and Weir are proof of that.

Thanks for the response. I'm guessing the "stay on the left side" is fairly unique to S&T; then? Is Foley considered to be teaching S&T; because he is instructing golfers to stay on the left side? Seems like a gray area where some attack Foley for not giving credit to Plummer and Bennett, but it also seems possible to take some techniques of S&T; and combine them with other techniques to create a unique pattern. It seems similar to Adkins trying to take credit for any diet that restricts carbohydrate intake.

[Zeph]

I'd put the "tilt left" part above the weight left part. Most people who haven't done much research into the pattern think that you're supposed to actually tilt towards the target at the top of your backswing.

That shows the madness in all of this, that S&T; is bashed for something that is not even true. There are many who have critizised S&T;, but how many have done so with facts and fundamentally sound theories, both on geometry and the golf swing? Not too many.

Thanks for the response. I'm guessing the "stay on the left side" is fairly unique to S&T; then?

Not at all. There are many out there that teach centered centers, but none have been in the media as much as S&T.; In the company of the more conventional teaching, favouring the left side is not as common. Remember that a lot of good golfers do this, have done this for ages. It's just that instructors don't always explain it the best way. Just saying "stay on the left side", instead of "keep your centers centered", is a way of misinterpreting S&T.; People believe S&T; tells us to tilt the upper body towards the target on the backswing, moving the weight 80% forward. That is just plain out wrong.

Is Foley considered to be teaching S&T; because he is instructing golfers to stay on the left side? Seems like a gray area where some attack Foley for not giving credit to Plummer and Bennett, but it also seems possible to take some techniques of S&T; and combine them with other techniques to create a unique pattern. It seems similar to Adkins trying to take credit for any diet that restricts carbohydrate intake.

Yes and no. Favouring the left side is a S&T; principle, but there have been people using it before S&T; too (which is why it became a part of S&T; in the first place). Foley is considered to be teaching large parts (more than 5% anyways) because he has spent a lot of time with Mike and Andy, and asked them a lot of questions. What he teaches is also very similar to S&T.; If some instructor out there who had never heard of S&T; incidentially teach a lot of it, that does of course not mean he stole it from Mike and Andy. The problem with Foley is that he learned a lot from Mike and Andy, and then went on to bash them and S&T.; They have not asked for credit (though it would not have been outrageous if he gave them some), but you'd at least expect him not to bash them and S&T; the way he did.

[Harmonious]

Foley is considered to be teaching large parts (more than 5% anyways) because he has spent a lot of time with Mike and Andy, and asked them a lot of questions. What he teaches is also very similar to S&T.; If some instructor out there who had never heard of S&T; incidentially teach a lot of it, that does of course not mean he stole it from Mike and Andy. The problem with Foley is that he learned a lot from Mike and Andy, and then went on to bash them and S&T.; They have not asked for credit (though it would not have been outrageous if he gave them some), but you'd at least expect him not to bash them and S&T; the way he did.

Where is the source for this S&T; "bashing" you say Foley has done? Is it this article?

http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/...r-Woods-090210 I've read it and it doesn't sound like Foley is doing any bashing. He does sound arrogant, to be sure, but I don't see the negativity in it. Is this the part you take issue with? " Foley admits that he enjoyed discussing the intricacies of the swing with Plummer and Bennett, whom he likes and respects, but ultimately, he credits them with “maybe 5 percent” of the inspiration behind his own, very similar, swing ideas. “Andy and Mike are very bright guys, but how much of what they teach is Mac O’Grady?” Foley said of golf’s Bobby Fisher, a tortured genius who’s spent years breaking down the secrets of golf. “And how much did they take from (Sam) Snead and (Ben) Hogan? And how much of it is taken from (Isaac) Newton?” If there is some other article that directly quotes Foley (and not some blogger's opinion) as bashing S&T;, I haven't seen it. Not saying it isn't out there.

[jamo]

" Foley admits that he enjoyed discussing the intricacies of the swing with Plummer and Bennett, whom he likes and respects, but ultimately, he credits them with “maybe 5 percent” of the inspiration behind his own, very similar, swing ideas.

I think this is the part people are upset about. Especially the first paragraph.

“And how much did they take from (Sam) Snead and (Ben) Hogan? And how much of it is taken from (Isaac) Newton?”

And this part is just stupid. Why would anyone every develop a swing method if they didn't think the best players adhered to at least some of it?

[iacas]

Where is the source for this S&T; "bashing" you say Foley has done? Is it this article?

Yes, and I'll respond to other parts because Zeph and jamo have responded to some others.

I've read it and it doesn't sound like Foley is doing any bashing.

It is bashing. He's completely downplaying how much he's learned from Mike and Andy and then claims that they are doing the same thing as him by not giving credit. They give credit to Mac O'Grady all the time, and to Ben Hogan, etc. Look in their book, talk to them...

" Foley admits that he enjoyed discussing the intricacies of the swing with Plummer and Bennett

"Discussing" is misleading. Bennett and Plummer NEVER approached Foley - he was always coming up to them with questions. He kept showing them video after video of Sean O'Hair (mostly) and asking them "what next?" Then he'd run to O'Hair and tell him and be back the next week for more. Andy's got hundreds of text messages and emails from Foley on his phone. "Discuss" implies the learning was going both directions. What's worse, Foley apparently was bashing S&T; to Sean O'Hair while basically teaching him the entire pattern, so O'Hair goes out and says a bunch of stupid stuff too.

, whom he likes and respects, but ultimately, he credits them with “maybe 5 percent” of the inspiration behind his own, very similar, swing ideas.

5% is a gross understatement.

“Andy and Mike are very bright guys, but how much of what they teach is Mac O’Grady?”

Enough that they credit him - and Snead and Hogan and Nicklaus and Palmer and tons of good players - all the time. Mac is thanked right there in the book, and is given credit for starting them on their path helping them to develop their way of categorization and classification.

So not only does he not give credit where due, but he lies about it and takes pot shots at two guys who helped him over the course of months and hundreds of hours.

[sean_miller]

Foley sounds like a tool, but the worst thing (imvho) about the controversy this weekend, is that a guy having a pretty decent tournament probably didn't need any extra distractions. Charlie Wi was one putt away from Atlanta - he looked exhausted on the back nine.