Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
EverythingGolf

You don't have to be super flexible and strong to do this!!

Note: This thread is 3323 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

38 posts / 3260 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

Originally Posted by saevel25

I can't stand these people claiming its if its not 100% stack and tilt than its not stack and tilt. I guess that might be true, but not everyone is going to be able to do 100% what S&T; is.

Let me put it a different way: not everyone NEEDS to do 100% of what S&T; does. I've said it before and I'll say it again: we apply the pattern fairly "loosely."

Originally Posted by 2bGood

How is that not even close to correct? S&T; gives up potential distance for better and more consistent contact.

Compared to what? A long drive swing? Yes. A "normal" golf swing? No way.

Originally Posted by 2bGood

Actually you said it proves they can play better golf if they get stacked. That video does not prove that, just shows that guy making one good swing.

If it matters, again, I don't particularly care or stand by the one video or the claims made in the first post. We see time and time again that older folks can make a centered shoulder turn, though, and that's my "proof." I don't really care to make weird claims about... whatever. I don't even know what the point is or why you're seemingly chaffed about it. Or why I'm responding. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades


Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

It's branded under duress (initially Andy and Mike wanted to call it simply 'The Golf Swing') but the actual swing thoughts themselves can all be taken separately if needed in as much as a traditional golf swing can be. With a traditional swing you start off with what they class as 'fundamentals' and you learn them until you've got them dialed-in as well as you can do. At that point you start tweaking areas of your swing to create the best swing you can for what you're capable of. S&T; is exactly like that except for the 'fundamentals' are more correct in terms of what history's best ball strikers all have in common.

The S&T; fundamentals cover the majority of the swing which makes the game more accessible to those who have a hard time trying to perfect a traditional swing.

I get that, I guess my point is that most of the reaction around S & T is more around the marketing and branding then it is the swing concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by 2bGood

I get that, I guess my point is that most of the reaction around S & T is more around the marketing and branding then it is the swing concepts.


Unfortunately that's true and it's the reason a lot of S&T; students (and even some teachers) will teach the S&T; principles to their students to get them to play better golf but won't specifically use the terminology "Stack & Tilt". I for instance am working on "taking my hands back more, keeping my weight centered like Hogan did and shortening my swing to add consistency" ;)

As soon as you mention the description above people nod in appreciation and leave you to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by 2bGood

I guess one thing that I find funny is that when someone who is supposed to be stacked,  makes a bad pass at the ball, the S & T camp says it was not an issue of the swing, but rather that it was not executed properly. Fair enough, but when someone makes a bad pass with non S & T swing you can't blame the swing, you also have to blame the execution and then if you want, go on to point out the swing they are trying to do is too complicated and they may better off with an easier swing like the S & T.


Okay, now you're just being cynical.  You're that boob who told Fosbury not to flop.  Not all golfers are 'working' on something when they play.  Something tells me the gentleman in the video wasn't trying to execute a one-plane swing or really anything in particular on his first swing.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't S&T; just trying to create a more repeatable golf swing?  Sort of a more effective, more often thing?  Isn't that the whole point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by upah

Okay, now you're just being cynical.  You're that boob who told Fosbury not to flop.  Not all golfers are 'working' on something when they play.  Something tells me the gentleman in the video wasn't trying to execute a one-plane swing or really anything in particular on his first swing.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't S&T; just trying to create a more repeatable golf swing?  Sort of a more effective, more often thing?  Isn't that the whole point?



You got it - it is supposed to be a swing with less chance for error. My $.02 is it does achieve this.

As for me being cynical, you got me there, I do think allot of people involved with stack and tilt are doing it for self interest (not that there is anything wrong with that). I give A & P full credit for a great pattern and great marketing, I can't think of any other pattern that has been branded like theirs.

BTY I am someone who likes the S & T pattern, I am not committed to everything about it, but I do like it and think it has great merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care for the drama surrounding S&T;, but I do root for the guys teaching it because I believe in what they do. The biggest part of my engagement in the pattern is applying components in my own swing, reading, discussing and learning golf and the golf swing on the internet. There are always someone wanting to discuss things that doesn't have anything to do with the golf swing, but it's their fault for starting it. If you don't like the brand, why bother discussing it? If you're interested in the pattern, discuss the pattern, not the brand.

On this forum, most of the discussions are related to the swing pattern, which is a very good thing. If you don't like the pattern or the brand, I don't see the point of taking part in a discussion about it.

Is anyone surprised Golf Evolution want to advertise their school? Or that Mike and Andy use big words to attract attention to their work? It's called marketing, and being loud is almost a necessity in these days, especially when a lot of the media is out to get you. Part of it is probably from a want to help players get better and part of it is probably from wanting to earn cash for their living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by 2bGood

As for me being cynical, you got me there, I do think allot of people involved with stack and tilt are doing it for self interest (not that there is anything wrong with that).

Can you explain what that means?

Frankly, the name is sometimes off-putting to me. If from day one I told people I believed in a centered shoulder turn and a one-plane swing, I don't think I'd encounter some of the resistance I've gotten. I don't think I'd have gotten as many people who instantly dismiss anything I have to say because they know me as "an S&T; instructor." This is particularly true in Erie, PA where people are really resistant to anything new. We have some really bad instructors in this area that we can teach circles around, yet they keep getting business because we teach S&T.;

I'm happy to discuss the pattern, as Zeph says, and I'm happy to discuss the marketing too (though my responses are probably going to be much shorter in the latter), but perhaps we can keep the discussions separate. In discussions of the golf swing, save the marketing stuff, and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Do you have to be flexible and strong to do a SnT swing?

I think you do.

I have read if you simply break SnT down its hands in backswing, left shoulder down backswing, and weight left.  The weight left everyone can do.  I don't think its easy to take your hands deep and turn the left shoulder down.  I am not very flexible but still more flexible than many golfers out there and when I do this model it sends the upper COG's left very early in the swing.

I see a lot of "well you don't have to do all the pieces" which I believe in, you don't have to do all the pieces in the MORAD model to use the methodolgy, but if the basic tenants of SnT are those I listed above and you can't do them due to flexibility issues then I think its something that could be a concern for a student.

It also seems like when I see a pretty good swing on Youtube that is a SnT modeled swing they are usually very young and/or flexible.

I have no dog in this fight and have stuck up for SnT way more times than I have been critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by iacas

Can you explain what that means?

Frankly, the name is sometimes off-putting to me. If from day one I told people I believed in a centered shoulder turn and a one-plane swing, I don't think I'd encounter some of the resistance I've gotten. I don't think I'd have gotten as many people who instantly dismiss anything I have to say because they know me as "an S&T; instructor." This is particularly true in Erie, PA where people are really resistant to anything new. We have some really bad instructors in this area that we can teach circles around, yet they keep getting business because we teach S&T.;

I'm happy to discuss the pattern, as Zeph says, and I'm happy to discuss the marketing too (though my responses are probably going to be much shorter in the latter), but perhaps we can keep the discussions separate. In discussions of the golf swing, save the marketing stuff, and vice versa.


Eric I think we agree on S & T far more then we disagree.

Agree: Good pattern with allot to offer

Agree: That the swing is good for golf overall

Agree: The name / marketing has caused some problems that may have been avoided with a different approach

Disagree: I think the "normal" (what ever that is) swing offers more potential distance, still I agree with you in the real world, for most golfers, they would average as good or better distance with the S & T because of better and more consistent contact. (I actually think we agree here)

Anyhow you asked me to explain why I think people involved with S & T are doing it for self interest. For one there is a business end to stack and tilt and many of the people promoting it have a personal interest in the pattern. You are a S & T instructor, if you had 0 students that want to learn the pattern, would you still teach it? I would say the same thing about golf in general - many of the people promoting it are doing it for self interest. Less golfers less golf jobs. When some one gives a free clinic to kids, it is done on some level to 'share' the game but on some level to assure there golf customers in the future. If you ignore the business side of things you still have the great feeling a person gets by helping other people. I have some good Buddhist friends that often remind me that I should thank people for allowing me to help them, as I gain more by giving help then they receive by getting help. It sounds corny, but as a teacher yourself I am sure you 'get' what I am talking about. Oh yes and back to the business side, you have to help yourself before you can help others. Anyhow like I said above - there is nothing wrong with self interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by 2bGood

Disagree: I think the "normal" (what ever that is) swing offers more potential distance, still I agree with you in the real world, for most golfers, they would average as good or better distance with the S & T because of better and more consistent contact. (I actually think we agree here)


Why is that though? I'm not looking for an argument, I want to know where in the S&T; pattern you lose the clubhead speed, which obviously is the reason for the lack of distance.

People have said you can hit it as far as anyone with the pattern, but if not, what are the reasons? High arms and dropping the club could perhaps gather up a bit more speed, maybe a weight shift back give a bit more power when coming through. All in all I don't think it is a big issue. Dustin Johnson got a pretty centered pivot, he's currently #2 on the driving distance.

I do see that the top 10 on driving distance got higher hands than S&T; would suggest, perhaps that is where they get it from, more travel distance for the club. Or maybe it's just the timing, lag and speed created with the body. Two-plane swings demand a bit more timing to drop the hands. With a one-plane swing, you require less timing, making the chances of swinging on plane and hitting the ball in the middle of the clubface greater. I find it incredible that Furyk is the most accurate guy on tour, but he's got a tremendous talent to make it work. A one-plane swing is easier and more reliable for an amateur, and you can still hit it pretty far. There is a video IIRC on Youtube of James hitting it 300 yards. Point of impact on the clubface is a big factor when it comes to distance, the more you hit it towards the sweetspot, the farther it will go. Having a drop of the arms can make that timing more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by Zeph

Why is that though? I'm not looking for an argument, I want to know where in the S&T; pattern you lose the clubhead speed, which obviously is the reason for the lack of distance.


If you have say 70% of your weight left at the top of the swing is it hard to rotate your pelvis open?  Is the solution to this problem a more aggressive tuck of the butt?  If your weight is left as I describe is it harder to square the hips and drive the right shoulder down plane?  I would imagine all these issues could affect PA#4?

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by JackLee

Well, I guess this is supposed to be a joke.  You instructors must be getting bored.


Bored...yes...as there is still 6 inches of snow on the ground.  Joke...no....if you can't see how much better the after is I won't spend any more time trying to convince you (oh and the video is from like 10 months ago).

Originally Posted by EW Starter

It looks to me like he is doing the same old thing that makes everyone hit the ball on top or at least badly, he is sliding his hips instead of turning them, on second shot he turns through the hips and then excellerates through the ball with lagging hands for a nice typical good golf swing. That is what a good teacher should see not the stack and tilt gimmic. Just a good take back and turn with the body leading the hands. No I am not a teacher, I have just seen enough good and bad golf swings, many have been mine.

REALLY don't want to sound full of myself here but 95% of teachers wouldn't have gotten this change in 15 minutes.  Those are just the facts.  And, yes, he slid his hips BACK and then "tried" to "turn" them through.  The instruction was to tilt more (left shoulder down) and straighten the right leg...this increased the hip turn and as he pushed his hips forward on the downstroke that, IN ITSELF, allowed the hips to open up better as well.  There was no specific instruction given to turn his hips.

Originally Posted by 2bGood

I think this is the 'joke': You have video of guy making two swings one better then the other, but that does not really 'prove' anything. I would assume the guy in the video also hit good shots before he was stacked (unlike the one they choose for the video)


Look this is a very good example of a before and after...of course it doesn't PROVE he can do it every time but it does prove that he can do something he couldn't do 15 minutes before that. And btw he had NEVER compressed a ball before this practice session...I can assure you of that.

Originally Posted by 2bGood

Actually you said it proves they can play better golf if they get stacked. That video does not prove that, just shows that guy making one good swing.

Again...an example...should we post youtube videos 19 hours long showing 30 minutes of before and the guy's next 41 practice sessions in time lapse photography?  I know this sounds flip but you need to be realistic.

Originally Posted by 2bGood

True, but the issue with S & T is it is a 'branded' swing. If it was just A & P swing philosophies we wouldn't have this issue (and A & P would have a few less dollars)


So if you wouldn't have the issue, don't have the issue... who cares what it's called?  The mechanics and geometry we teach are the same not matter what it is called.  And frankly the name hurts as much as it helps.  Everyone knows we teach based on the components of the pattern but we teach what WE believe in the Golf Evolution way. If what we teach stops helping students we will do it differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by gmbtempe

Do you have to be flexible and strong to do a SnT swing?

I think you do.

I have read if you simply break SnT down its hands in backswing, left shoulder down backswing, and weight left.  The weight left everyone can do.  I don't think its easy to take your hands deep and turn the left shoulder down.  I am not very flexible but still more flexible than many golfers out there and when I do this model it sends the upper COG's left very early in the swing.

I see a lot of "well you don't have to do all the pieces" which I believe in, you don't have to do all the pieces in the MORAD model to use the methodolgy, but if the basic tenants of SnT are those I listed above and you can't do them due to flexibility issues then I think its something that could be a concern for a student.

It also seems like when I see a pretty good swing on Youtube that is a SnT modeled swing they are usually very young and/or flexible.

I have no dog in this fight and have stuck up for SnT way more times than I have been critical.


OK in two parts (strong and flexible):

1. You definitely don't have to be "strong"...enough said there.  Not sure why anyone would question that.

2. You don't have to be "flexible" either but, in fairness, I will say that we have had a few students who, based on body type/flexibility, struggle getting their hands "in" enough while loading 4 enough (I will also say that one small variation does not mean you "can't" swing this way if not flexible...it may just be a very small variation within it). This is very uncommon though and I can make a strong argument that you will need less flexibility to use this pattern than another. Think of the hip and shoulder turn in the backstroke, etc.

One other point...if trying to take your hands in and make a centered shoulder turn moves your COG's forward you are not doing it correctly...I can't say it any simpler than that.

Originally Posted by gmbtempe

If you have say 70% of your weight left at the top of the swing is it hard to rotate your pelvis open?  Is the solution to this problem a more aggressive tuck of the butt?  If your weight is left as I describe is it harder to square the hips and drive the right shoulder down plane?  I would imagine all these issues could affect PA#4?

?


I don't see this as a problem honestly...(not 70% at p4 btw...and in fact this is where the semantics of weight and pressure come in...but we'll leave that for another time)...the golfer will still slide their hips forward and extend from the ground up (i.e. straighten the legs starting from the ankles, bring the hips back out of flexion, tuck the butt, expand the chest, raise the pelvis, etc.) and this will assist the rotation.  From a centered shoulder turn with pressure "forward" at p4 it should be no problem to drive the right shoulder down the plane.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by 2bGood

Disagree: I think the "normal" (what ever that is) swing offers more potential distance, still I agree with you in the real world, for most golfers, they would average as good or better distance with the S & T because of better and more consistent contact. (I actually think we agree here)


I'll have to continue to disagree, in general. "Power" is fundamental #2 in what we teach and we routinely get more speed out of people. I have more speed. Just got a call from a guy who's been taking lessons who is blown away by his increased speed.

Again, it's not the swing we'd teach if power mattered MOST, but among the swings out there, I disagree. Tiger's switched and added a lot of components from S&T; (whether you want to call it that or not - his shoulders are steeper, he's making a centered turn, his hands are more inward, etc.), and he's picked up distance throughout the bag. He's commented on it several times (and he's not like Phil Mickelson, who claims to gain 30 yards every time he gets a new driver...). The PGA Tour pros have gained distance since switching, and they were arguably some of the best "normal" swingers out there already. Consider the fact that translating off and back onto the ball (moving back and and then forward) per the "normal" swing is a slower way to swing than staying centered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

What a 'stupid' I am! I should know better then to jump in to  S & T debate. Okay guys here are my responses - have at em!

Quote:

Originally Posted by david_wedzik

Look this is a very good example of a before and after...of course it doesn't PROVE he can do it every time but it does prove that he can do something he couldn't do 15 minutes before that. And btw he had NEVER compressed a ball before this practice session...I can assure you of that.

Good for him - my only point was that this does not PROVE what the OP claimed it did.

Quote:
Again...an example...should we post youtube videos 19 hours long showing 30 minutes of before and the guy's next 41 practice sessions in time lapse photography?  I know this sounds flip but you need to be realistic.

Actually it would be kind of cool to see a swing transform in time lapse. But in truth with so many variables going on I am not sure you could ever really prove that S & T made some one a better golfer.  Why did this guys old swing suck? Was it the pattern? Was it how he was taught the pattern? The teacher has to take as much or more credit as the pattern. Not to sound silly, but confidence in your swing can also make a huge difference, I don't think anyone could disagree that the placebo effect in golf helps allot.

Quote:
So if you wouldn't have the issue, don't have the issue... who cares what it's called?  The mechanics and geometry we teach are the same not matter what it is called.  And frankly the name hurts as much as it helps.  Everyone knows we teach based on the components of the pattern but we teach what WE believe in the Golf Evolution way. If what we teach stops helping students we will do it differently.

I agree 1000%

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeph



Why is that though? I'm not looking for an argument, I want to know where in the S&T; pattern you lose the clubhead speed, which obviously is the reason for the lack of distance.

People have said you can hit it as far as anyone with the pattern, but if not, what are the reasons? High arms and dropping the club could perhaps gather up a bit more speed, maybe a weight shift back give a bit more power when coming through. All in all I don't think it is a big issue. Dustin Johnson got a pretty centered pivot, he's currently #2 on the driving distance.

I do see that the top 10 on driving distance got higher hands than S&T; would suggest, perhaps that is where they get it from, more travel distance for the club. Or maybe it's just the timing, lag and speed created with the body. Two-plane swings demand a bit more timing to drop the hands. With a one-plane swing, you require less timing, making the chances of swinging on plane and hitting the ball in the middle of the clubface greater. I find it incredible that Furyk is the most accurate guy on tour, but he's got a tremendous talent to make it work. A one-plane swing is easier and more reliable for an amateur, and you can still hit it pretty far. There is a video IIRC on Youtube of James hitting it 300 yards. Point of impact on the clubface is a big factor when it comes to distance, the more you hit it towards the sweetspot, the farther it will go. Having a drop of the arms can make that timing more difficult.

The simple answer for me is you have a smaller arc and less weight transfer with S & T then some other patterns. I started this off by saying "on a well executed swing" so that takes timing, contact, swing plane etc out of the conversation. As I said before though, in the real world where all these factors come in to play on average i believe S & T is as at least as long as any other pattern

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas


I'll have to continue to disagree, in general. "Power" is fundamental #2 in what we teach and we routinely get more speed out of people. I have more speed. Just got a call from a guy who's been taking lessons who is blown away by his increased speed.

Go back to my post Eric - how many students do you get who are executing their pattern "well" already when they come to you? Considering that many pattern are difficult for even a pro to execute well most of the time, I would have to assume very few. That what I like about S & T, it is just an easier way to hit the ball.

Quote:

Again, it's not the swing we'd teach if power mattered MOST, but among the swings out there, I disagree. Tiger's switched and added a lot of components from S&T; (whether you want to call it that or not - his shoulders are steeper, he's making a centered turn, his hands are more inward, etc.), and he's picked up distance throughout the bag. He's commented on it several times (and he's not like Phil Mickelson, who claims to gain 30 yards every time he gets a new driver...). The PGA Tour pros have gained distance since switching, and they were arguably some of the best "normal" swingers out there already. Consider the fact that translating off and back onto the ball (moving back and and then forward) per the "normal" swing is a slower way to swing than staying centered.

I can't say I agree, I still think -  Bubba swinging his crazy swing and doing it well vs Bubba doing a S & T swing well, the first Bubba hits it longer. Then to get the 'many' swings I talked about above, just insert other names for Bubba – many will be longer, many will be shorter.

If you go back to what I said I can't even see how anyone could argue against such a general statement:  """"" a well executed S & T swing is not as good as many other swings when well executed (ie. it produces slightly less distance than many other swings),

Lets flip my statement to the car world - a well running Audi S5 is not as good as many other well running sports cars (ie it is slightly slower than many other cars). Now is this statement 'not even close to correct'?

I not sure how many unique swings are out there -hundreds? thousands? millions? Are many longer then a pure S & T (when well executed)? Yes.

Do remember we are talking about a well executed swing - if we had some sort of maltby playability factor for swings -S & T might look like this:

Distance: 4/5

Workability: 4/5

Forgiveness: 5/5 (not needed in this discusion - as we are only talking about well executed)

Athletisism required: 4/5 (not needed....)

Bubba Swing

Distance: 5/5

Workability: 5/5

Forgiveness : 1/5 (NN)

Athletisism required :1/5(NN)

My whole point is that if you can a guarantee that you will execute the swing well every time - S & T is not for you. For the 99.99999% of golfers that can't execute a swing well every time they may want to look into S & T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I fixed your response. Please use multi-quoting when possible to avoid confusion.

Short response, because we really don't need to beat this to death...

Originally Posted by 2bGood

The simple answer for me is you have a smaller arc

I could argue the opposite. The largest arc you could make would be directly along the line of the shaft plane, after all...


Originally Posted by 2bGood

Bubba swinging his crazy swing and doing it well vs Bubba doing a S & T swing well, the first Bubba hits it longer.

You might be right. You might also be wrong... We won't really find out, so I'm not sure if there's any point in discussing it more. And as we've said, if we wanted to drive the ball as far as possible, we'd build a different swing.

I don't agree everything you said, but again... horse, beating, dead... etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades


Originally Posted by iacas

I think I fixed your response. Please use multi-quoting when possible to avoid confusion.

Short response, because we really don't need to beat this to death...

I could argue the opposite. The largest arc you could make would be directly along the line of the shaft plane, after all...

You might be right. You might also be wrong... We won't really find out, so I'm not sure if there's any point in discussing it more. And as we've said, if we wanted to drive the ball as far as possible, we'd build a different swing.

I don't agree everything you said, but again... horse, beating, dead... etc.


Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 3323 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...