Baddeley Wins at Riviera

[The Flush]

I just ordered it yesterday for $12 with free Amazon Prime shipping.

Originally Posted by iacas

Please don't. We have plenty of threads on these topics. Find them and comment in them if you must, but truthfully, go buy the book and read it first. It's $16 or so. Read up first. We'll still be here.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by iacas

Please don't. We have plenty of threads on these topics. Find them and comment in them if you must, but truthfully, go buy the book and read it first. It's $16 or so. Read up first. We'll still be here.

Personally, I would like to see a thread on each type of instruction.  I think things get so S&T-centric; here that a lot of good ideas are never even discussed.  Differing viewpoints are dismissed out of hand and the poster is villified by the self-appointed golf-thought police.  There are many ways to swing the club; what method works for one person may not work for another.

The instruction forum can be a valuable resource.  I would hate for it to become only an S&T; Instruction forum.

[Mr. Desmond]

People seem to be raving about Badd's putting ... but the stats don't show it.

54th in Putts/GIR

35th in Putts per Round

___

3rd in GIR

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by reb68

I don't know who is now teaching him now but it cant be Bennett and Plummer. His arms arent stuck behind his body in the takeway (too deep). He is now much wider (arms in front from DTL). This is the part of S&T; that I have always questioned. With him back to swinging like he did 4-5 years ago, I believe he will win A LOT. He is one of the best putters on tour and his full swing looks as good as Elk in his prime.

FYI, I think elements of stack and tilt are good. Just not the arm depth which is encouraged and the reverse pivot move going back. I always resented the fact that they ndoctored photos to make their theory have creedence. Hogan did not do this, and no good player ever has.

Interesting, because Tiger, under HH's tutelage and relatively flat plane, according to critics, was criticized for getting stuck. Now the same critics are saying with the steeper plane and deeper arms, Tiger is unstuck.

So your contention is at odds with so-called experts. I don't think you're right on 60's Hogan, either. Also, reverse pivot with S&T;? I see you were schooled on that.

Badds as one of best putters on tour? Not last week. Last week's stats are 54th in putts/GIR and T35th in putts per round, and 28 total on Sunday.

His GIR at 3rd is the good stat (and sand saves).

Okay.... back to it. Good luck!

[The_Pharaoh]

Completely untrue. Surf this website and you will find a wealth of info on other types of instruction. Also, differing viewpoints are not dismissed out of hand. Erik has written post after post after post arguing his case and explaining why he doesn't believe in other types of instruction.

Things get so S&T-centric; on here because the administrator is a S&T; instructor. Erik and gang defend 'their' theory because they believe in it. They also back up their theory with solid arguments, trying to explain why they believe in what they believe and why they believe others are wrong. And ALWAYS based on the correct ball flight laws. Anyway, it's not really S&T;, it's more like why they believe the hands should travel on a more circular path around the body, why there is no weight shift to the non-target foot on the backswing, why there is no rolling of the wrists through impact etc.

Btw, I am not a S&T; groupie, as a pro I like to inform myself of what is out there. A lot of S&T;, or what they believe in, is very difficult to dispute and I say this having gone to the practice range to try it out. Some of it has worked for me, some of it hasn't. But I come on here to learn from people I believe know what they are talking about and can help me better understand the golf swing.

Quote:

Personally, I would like to see a thread on each type of instruction.  I think things get so S&T-centric; here that a lot of good ideas are never even discussed.  Differing viewpoints are dismissed out of hand and the poster is villified by the self-appointed golf-thought police.  There are many ways to swing the club; what method works for one person may not work for another.

The instruction forum can be a valuable resource.  I would hate for it to become only an S&T; Instruction forum.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Personally, I would like to see a thread on each type of instruction. ... Differing viewpoints are dismissed out of hand ...

Disagree on the latter. I give reasons why I dislike something.

As for the former, I would like to see threads like that as well. But of the patterns or philosophies the guy posted, the only one he mentioned that would be new is Hardy's stuff... and he's free to start that thread. What we don't need are more threads on Foley, S&T;, TGM...

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

People seem to be raving about Badd's putting ... but the stats don't show it.

Yeah he didn't putt all that well. The announcers kept saying it, though, so people bought into it. He didn't strike the ball super well either - couple of flares off to the right. He just wasn't challenged and everyone else was busy making little mistakes as well. Like Freddie's double early in the round. Tournament was basically over there.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Interesting, because Tiger, under HH's tutelage and relatively flat plane, according to critics, was criticized for getting stuck. Now the same critics are saying with the steeper plane and deeper arms, Tiger is unstuck.

FWIW It's tough to discuss Hank's "plane" because Tiger was never really on a consistent plane. He had a big loop going on in his swing with Haney and going from above plane to below plane is how he got "stuck." "Dropping into the slot" slightly overdone is "stuck."

[walk18]

Originally Posted by reb68

What pitcher or quarterback throws by loading his front foot and then reversing course.

Jay Cutler.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by walk18

Jay Cutler.

Condredge Holloway

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Completely untrue. Surf this website and you will find a wealth of info on other types of instruction. Also, differing viewpoints are not dismissed out of hand. Erik has written post after post after post arguing his case and explaining why he doesn't believe in other types of instruction.

Things get so S&T-centric; on here because the administrator is a S&T; instructor. Erik and gang defend 'their' theory because they believe in it. They also back up their theory with solid arguments, trying to explain why they believe in what they believe and why they believe others are wrong. And ALWAYS based on the correct ball flight laws. Anyway, it's not really S&T;, it's more like why they believe the hands should travel on a more circular path around the body, why there is no weight shift to the non-target foot on the backswing, why there is no rolling of the wrists through impact etc.

Btw, I am not a S&T; groupie, as a pro I like to inform myself of what is out there. A lot of S&T;, or what they believe in, is very difficult to dispute and I say this having gone to the practice range to try it out. Some of it has worked for me, some of it hasn't. But I come on here to learn from people I believe know what they are talking about and can help me better understand the golf swing.

Well, I think you have proved my point.  If there has been any serious discussions about any other swing philosophy other than Stack & Tilt, I must have missed it.  What I find is that other teachers are ridiculed as being total idiots;  guys with pretty decent c.v.'s like Leadbetter, Kostis, Haney, Breed.  Foley is vilified because he didn't give all credit to S&T.; Whenever I have raised the point that they might know something about teaching golf, I get slammed.

I know next to nothing about S&T; and have never had an unkind word to say about the S&T; philosophy.  But I know a little something about golf, the main thing being that there is no one absolute way to strike the ball efficiently.  All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have those discussions here.

[Zeph]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Well, I think you have proved my point.  If there has been any serious discussions about any other swing philosophy other than Stack & Tilt, I must have missed it.  What I find is that other teachers are ridiculed as being total idiots;  guys with pretty decent c.v.'s like Leadbetter, Kostis, Haney, Breed.  Foley is vilified because he didn't give all credit to S&T.; Whenever I have raised the point that they might know something about teaching golf, I get slammed.

I know next to nothing about S&T; and have never had an unkind word to say about the S&T; philosophy.  But I know a little something about golf, the main thing being that there is no one absolute way to strike the ball efficiently.  All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have those discussions here.

I understand that it is how the discussions come onto people, but I want to point out a few things.

The ridicule of people like Leadbetter, Kostis etc. are usually based on something they have said and done. Like the ball flight laws. We know what is correct, so when a top instructor goes out saying the complete opposite, people react. The whole ideology behind S&T; is that golf instruction has been faulty for a very long time. And as far as I'm concerned, the guys do a pretty good job at explaining why. People like Mike, Andy, Dave and Erik don't go around preaching S&T; because it's what make their living (at least not all of it), they do because they believe it, they are convinced this is a good thing for golf. And a lot of this is explained, in fact, most of it is explained in some way, often by using geometry and hard facts, like videos.

Those things go beyond S&T;, a lot of it is things that are just plain wrong, regardless of which swing philosophy you embrace. It does put people in a bad light when they say one thing, then go on to do something completely different. And that is a big problem with golf, players and instructors saying they do one thing, then do something else. S&T; does a pretty good job at explaining things in a matter which makes sense, by using angles on high speed videos and high tech equipment.

Tiger Woods is pretty good at golf right? He's won a bunch of tournaments and majors. If he said in an interview that the initial direction of the ball is primarily dictated by the swing path, would he be wrong? Would he be right just because his CV is only compared to one other person ever to have played golf? "His CV is so good, he's been playing golf all his life, surely he can't be wrong". Nobody is saying the instructors don't have merits or success, but that does not mean they are correct about everything. Mike and Andy probably got a couple of things wrong too.

Saying no other swing filosophy is accepted on this forum is not fair, because Erik invite anyone to discuss anything related to golf. You may have to defend a theory against him, myself and others, but that's what a discussion is all about. The reason there is so much S&T; stuff here is that Erik is doing a damn good job at explaining it and helping us understand how it works. Anyone else can create a thread on any kind of swing and discuss it to whatever end, it's just that nobody does, at least not to the lengths of which S&T; has been discussed.

Nobody will get slammed for having a discussion about a swing theory, just make sure it stays relevant and respectful. Things often escalate to an argument where one side keeps repeating a question while the other keeps explaining it. Erik has stated over and over that he welcomes any discussion when it comes to the golf swing, so nobody is holding you back. Nobody is saying there is one way to play golf, but S&T; has a ground philosophy of making golf teaching easier, both for the instructor and the student. They have one pattern they believe in and want to teach. It is a pity that S&T; has become a beating bag for the golf world, because all experience I've had with the people involved tells me that they only want to help people get better at golf. They make well documented arguments for anything they do, but when preaching to people that in no way want to listen, it's hard to make an impact in this business. Having the NBC lapdogs out to bash the pattern on the air doesn't exactly help.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Well, I think you have proved my point.  If there has been any serious discussions about any other swing philosophy other than Stack & Tilt, I must have missed it.

Honest question: why haven't you started some discussions?

Originally Posted by Harmonious

What I find is that other teachers are ridiculed as being total idiots;  guys with pretty decent c.v.'s like Leadbetter, Kostis, Haney, Breed.  Foley is vilified because he didn't give all credit to S&T.;

I know that's how you see things, but I'll ask one more time that you open your eyes a little. Undoubtedly there's some truth to what you're saying, but from where I'm sitting, we don't (or I don't, and I definitely try not to) call a person an idiot - but I will talk about something specific that I don't like, something specific they said or taught or demonstrated or whatnot.

Foley's not vilified by me. I want the guy to do well, and I've said it repeatedly. I called Tiger going to Foley and said things like "I hope he goes there, he'll make the changes he needs to make" almost a year ago.

I want these broader discussions. Harmonious, start them if you want. Or bring some people to the site who can start them and carry them on. I'll ask questions, and I'll say why I think something doesn't make sense or work as well, and you can tell me to stick a sock in it or you can refute what I say... In Breed's words, "let's do this!" I'm up for it.

And yes, there are a lot of different swings out there. We talk all the time about "what would we fix if Jim Furyk came to us for a lesson" or Fred Couples or anyone. Heck, what would we do if Rocco Mediate came to us for a lesson?

And the answer is always - "we'd ask him why he came to us for a lesson. A shot that's bothering him, he wants more distance... what?" Then, using physics, geometry, and whatnot, we go from there.

Originally Posted by Zeph

Mike and Andy probably got a couple of things wrong too.

Here's one: early on, six or seven years ago, they used to want the club shaft 20 degrees in at P2 and have since gone away from that.

Originally Posted by Zeph

Saying no other swing filosophy is accepted on this forum is not fair, because Erik invite anyone to discuss anything related to golf. You may have to defend a theory against him, myself and others, but that's what a discussion is all about. The reason there is so much S&T; stuff here is that Erik is doing a damn good job at explaining it and helping us understand how it works. Anyone else can create a thread on any kind of swing and discuss it to whatever end, it's just that nobody does, at least not to the lengths of which S&T; has been discussed.

Be fair to Harmonious, here, though. Surely Zeph you know what I'm about to say is true: it's got to be tough, daunting, and seem a lot like we don't want to discuss anything else here but S&T.; There are a lot of S&T; related threads, in part because I feel I have educated many of you on the topic...

I don't know how to make this clearer. Propose some things to me. Here's an idea: append a thread title with "(NI)" meaning "no iacas" and I'll stay out of it. Discuss whatever other swing theory/pattern/philosophy you want in that thread and I'll respect the title. If you have other ideas, lay 'em on me. The last thing I want is to stop being challenged. When I cease to be a student of the game, someone should shank a ball at my temple or something and put me out of my misery. People ceasing to be "students of the game" is how we got where we are right now in golf instruction.

And Harmonious, you keep saying that you know next to nothing about S&T.; Shouldn't you perhaps learn a little bit so you know where many of us are coming from, if you want us to discuss Leadbetter's swing, or Haney's, or whomever's?

Originally Posted by Zeph

Erik has stated over and over that he welcomes any discussion when it comes to the golf swing, so nobody is holding you back. Nobody is saying there is one way to play golf, but S&T; has a ground philosophy of making golf teaching easier, both for the instructor and the student. They have one pattern they believe in and want to teach. It is a pity that S&T; has become a beating bag for the golf world, because all experience I've had with the people involved tells me that they only want to help people get better at golf. They make well documented arguments for anything they do, but when preaching to people that in no way want to listen, it's hard to make an impact in this business. Having the NBC lapdogs out to bash the pattern on the air doesn't exactly help.

Seriously, I don't know how to make it clearer. I want debate, discussion, and the free flow of ideas and thoughts.

And the policy goes both ways: if I ever say anything wrong, I want people to take me to task the way we'll take something Haney says to task, or Breed, or whomever. I'm a big boy. I'll either stand up for myself if I don't believe I was wrong, or admit it and learn and move on.

I'd make a focus group, a think tank, something to figure out how to go about this best, but Harmonious, you're it... how do you want to proceed? Tell us. If it's reasonable, we'll do it.