Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sing Golfer

stack and tilters - you might want to shoot this guy questions

Note: This thread is 3306 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!

25 posts / 1729 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

Zzzzzzzz.

Roger was talking to some of us on Twitter. I respect him as a journalist about as much as I respect... well, let's just say not so much. I'll leave it that.

Summary of the article: "Does Foley teach S&T;? No."

And that's all you get.

Share this post


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

Old argument is old.

It can be argued that Foley has stolen the core of S&T;, re-done the paintwork, swapped the alloys and is calling it his own creation.

Likewise it can be argued that Foley used S&T; as a base idea, went back to view many classic golf swings, as Andy and Mike did and is basing his teachings on those swings. That just happens to be a similar opinion to the one S&T;'ers subscribe to.

In either event regurgitating the same arguments over and over does nothing to further Foley, nor the S&T; swing.

Here, have some common sense from Morgan. Let's see if we can do likewise with golf swing types:

"Oh nice, I like how you're keeping your weight forward to compress the ball..."

"Oh nice, I like how you can shift your body weight and get it back perfectly to get that extra power..."

"Oh nice, I like how you're not subscribing to any one swing and are just letting your body strike the ball as it feels right to..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting a bit tedious, yeah. I don't care if Foley calls it S&T; or not, but when two instructors are teaching a lot of the same stuff, and one is made a hero and genious for teaching Tiger, and the other is laughed at, it bothers me.

Share this post


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



Originally Posted by Zeph

This is getting a bit tedious, yeah. I don't care if Foley calls it S&T; or not, but when two instructors are teaching a lot of the same stuff, and one is made a hero and genious for teaching Tiger, and the other is laughed at, it bothers me.


Where are you getting this?  Foley is no hero or genius.  If he and Tiger succeed greatly, it will be only to return Tiger to where he was 10 years ago.  And where are these laughers you are talking about?  You seem just a bit defensive over a swing concept/system/organization that, unless you have misled us, you have no financial interest in.  If S&T; works for you, why do you care what anyone else thinks about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I don't think they deserve the amount of negative comments from the media that they get. I am defensive of the concept because I see that it works, and I think the guys are explaining the golf swing better than anyone, which from a learning perspective is of value to everyone, regardless of swing style. If someone makes a good explanation, founded in physics and geometry, for why S&T; is not a good pattern, fine, but so far nobody has done that. It is like if I went to a new resturant, ate food I brought myself, and gave the resturant a bad review the next day in the paper. I never ate what the resturant had to serve. Just like the people in golf magazines and on TV generally talk about S&T; in a negative fashion, but failing to explain why.

Also, I think S&T; as a pattern, and the way they explain the golf swing is something especially amateurs will be able to gain lots from. I think S&T; is a good thing for golf, but it is being treated badly, which is why I defend it. One of the reasons Mike and Andy started this project was because they think golf is too difficult for amateurs, they are struggling too much and the instruction do often not help. I don't mean everyone should read their book, but if an instructor can explain what goes on in the swing, why and what to fix, it makes things easier. I've had personal lessons with instructors that probably knew what they were doing, but unable to explain it to me. So I left the lessons having gained very little knowledge, and without results.

Many think S&T; is about to go away, but I believe and hope it is getting stronger. Foley teaching Tiger is a good thing, unfortunately the media is trying to knock it down. The reason it will live on and expand is that it works, and the people involved have a sincere wish that golf becomes easier for everyone. If it doesn't get as much attention in the media, fine, but there have been too much negativity. Not only of course. There have been articles that are positive to S&T; where Mike and Andy have been allowed to explain what it is about. People listen to Nick Faldo and Brandel Chamblee, which is why I don't appreciate that they are talking about things they don't know anything about in prime time on NBC. That goes for everything really, not just S&T.; If you are going to criticize something through the media, make sure you got some valid points and know what you are talking about.

Share this post


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

And personally, I just think it's overdone. All of it. I think Roger Schiffman puts the words "Stack and Tilt" in articles because it's a lightning rod. If you add "Foley" or "Tiger" to it, it just makes the lightning rod bigger.

I don't really enjoy indulging him. At the end of the day, I teach people to hit the golf ball better. Or score better. Or whatever.

Share this post


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

You make a very passionate defense of your position, which I can appreciate.  However, sometimes it's helpful to just take a step back.  S&T; has gotten a lot of publicity (good and bad) ever since they jumped on the scene.  Whether strictly for marketing purposes, or because they truly feel their teaching is revolutionary, I don't know.  But it certainly seems that Bennett and Plummer have openly tried to make their methods controversial.  To the golf instruction establishment, this may have seemed like the scene in Caddyshack when Rodney Dangerfield storms into the Country Club.  You would have to expect some pushback.

As for your criticism of the media (I've bolded your comments), they are paid to comment on the topics of the day. You might think they are incorrect, I might think they are right on, it's irrelevant to you or me. The bottom line is what works for you and what works for me. There are many pathways to the top of the mountain.

I'm always amused at the political pundits when their side is defeated.  Their standard response is:  "Well, the voters clearly didn't understand the issue."  To use your restaurant analogy, what about the reviewer who eats a meal at the restaurant, doesn't like the food, and writes a bad review. Should the restaurant owner say: "Well, that reviewer just doesn't know what he is talking about and doesn't truly appreciate the great food I serve.  He shouldn't be negative. I know what is best."  It's fine to be a maverick, but don't expect that everyone will see things your way.

Originally Posted by Zeph

Because I don't think they deserve the amount of negative comments from the media that they get. I am defensive of the concept because I see that it works, and I think the guys are explaining the golf swing better than anyone, which from a learning perspective is of value to everyone, regardless of swing style. If someone makes a good explanation, founded in physics and geometry, for why S&T; is not a good pattern, fine, but so far nobody has done that. It is like if I went to a new resturant, ate food I brought myself, and gave the resturant a bad review the next day in the paper. I never ate what the resturant had to serve. Just like the people in golf magazines and on TV generally talk about S&T; in a negative fashion, but failing to explain why.

Also, I think S&T; as a pattern, and the way they explain the golf swing is something especially amateurs will be able to gain lots from. I think S&T; is a good thing for golf, but it is being treated badly, which is why I defend it. One of the reasons Mike and Andy started this project was because they think golf is too difficult for amateurs, they are struggling too much and the instruction do often not help. I don't mean everyone should read their book, but if an instructor can explain what goes on in the swing, why and what to fix, it makes things easier. I've had personal lessons with instructors that probably knew what they were doing, but unable to explain it to me. So I left the lessons having gained very little knowledge, and without results.

Many think S&T; is about to go away, but I believe and hope it is getting stronger. Foley teaching Tiger is a good thing, unfortunately the media is trying to knock it down. The reason it will live on and expand is that it works, and the people involved have a sincere wish that golf becomes easier for everyone. If it doesn't get as much attention in the media, fine, but there have been too much negativity. Not only of course. There have been articles that are positive to S&T; where Mike and Andy have been allowed to explain what it is about. People listen to Nick Faldo and Brandel Chamblee, which is why I don't appreciate that they are talking about things they don't know anything about in prime time on NBC. That goes for everything really, not just S&T.; If you are going to criticize something through the media, make sure you got some valid points and know what you are talking about.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to go with Zeph here on many points -- golf instruction, in general, needs to investigate and embrace new ways of thinking, even if the way is not old. I have found in golf, and nowhere else except politics, that people say they do one thing when they are actually doing something else. The difference is, in politics, they know it; in golf, they don't realize they're doing something else.

Having been through Haney, Hardy, TGM, et al, I can speak to the inconsistency in golf instruction. In general, the game is made too hard by many instructors. Stack 'n Tilt, or many elements of it, combined with TGM -- seems to make the game reachable in terms of a higher quality and consistency of play. My theory is the less moving parts one has in a swing, the better, and S&T; seems as if it has less moving parts while still retaining the essential fundamentals.

Share this post


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

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

I've got to go with Zeph here . . . .



How could anything in the OP's link have warranted Zeph's defensive rant? The author introduces the readers to some facts and rumours and solicits opions. Pretty tame, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case, like others, if you live the sword you die by the sword. Truth be told most of what you believe to be negative publicity is not necessarily so as all these methods are getting exposure versus still being underground. Your biggest problem is usually when they stop talking about you and then you blend into the sea of anonymity and become just another of the hundreds of teaching pros that haven't marketed a name for their beliefs and methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTA: [quote]Next week we'll hear from Bennett himself, as well as other prominent players and teachers, on whether Stack & Tilt is good or bad for tour pros and average golfers.[/quote] Talk about asking the hard questions... What do you think Bennett is going to say about whether S&T; is good or bad for average golfers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Harmonious

You make a very passionate defense of your position, which I can appreciate.  However, sometimes it's helpful to just take a step back.



Well, all I do when it comes to discussing this topic is post rants like this on the forum, which a fairly limited amount of people read. So I don't get too worked up over it.

When it comes to you believe this and I believe that, I see your point, but I'm not talking about one swing philosophy being better than the other. There is a difference between saying "this chair is blue", when the chair in fact is red, and saying "I believe a liberalistic society would be perfect". I respect anyone to have their own opinion, but there are some things you can't have an opinion about. I also don't appreciate when someone say that your opinion is wrong. I'm not saying there is one way to play golf or that everyone should be doing the S&T; pattern, but at least let them do their thing and see what happens, not run a campaign to put it six feet under. Of course nobody is running such a campaign, but the majority have a bad impression of S&T;, most of which is based on false presumptions.



Originally Posted by Harmonious

To use your restaurant analogy, what about the reviewer who eats a meal at the restaurant, doesn't like the food, and writes a bad review. Should the restaurant owner say: "Well, that reviewer just doesn't know what he is talking about and doesn't truly appreciate the great food I serve.  He shouldn't be negative. I know what is best."  It's fine to be a maverick, but don't expect that everyone will see things your way.

A bad review on bad food (which still is a subjective opinion) is perfectly acceptable as long as he eats the food. My point is that S&T; is being criticized for things that are just plain out wrong. Not wrong from a philosophical perspective, just plain out wrong. You obviously don't see what I'm trying to say, hope this helps. I'm no fanatic or anything, and I welcome anyone to express their opinions about the golf swing, as long as it is based on facts. Golf has traditionally been based on wrong facts. Like the ball flight laws. Everyone was (and still is) saying that the initial direction of the ball is along the swing path. What we know now that the clubface is responsible for 70-90% of the initial direction. There are lots of similar examples in golf teaching where one persons feelings are taken as a truth. Ben Hogan is another example. His book is very famous and most agree it's a good book, but he did things he wrote he didn't in the book, or did differently. The book is made based on his feelings and thoughts, but not all of it was true.

Share this post


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

Originally Posted by B-Con

Talk about asking the hard questions... What do you think Bennett is going to say about whether S&T; is good or bad for average golfers?


;-) No real comment, but that's funny.

Share this post


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



Originally Posted by sean_miller

How could anything in the OP's link have warranted Zeph's defensive rant? The author introduces the readers to some facts and rumours and solicits opions. Pretty tame, I'd say.



I think Zeph was posting not particularly to the OP, but to the criticism of S&T; in general. And I wouldn't classify his post as a "rant." Rants are run-on paragraphs full of passion, emotions, and purposely ridiculous statements. His post was anything but ...

Share this post


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



Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

I think Zeph was posting not particularly to the OP, but to the criticism of S&T; in general.



He might be a good representative of the people the author was addressing when he solicited comments and questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's all this talk about Stack and Scatter??  It's like, golf has been around for a long time, then all of a sudden there's this new miracle way to hit it, not only straighter, but longer.  I've yet to see one LPGA tour player stack and tilt, and if there are any, you never see them playing well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's all this talk about Stack and Scatter??  It's like, golf has been around for a long time, then all of a sudden there's this new miracle way to hit it, not only straighter, but longer.  I've yet to see one LPGA tour player stack and tilt, and if there are any, you never see them playing well.

The name is new, maybe the entire swing as a package is kind of new (don't know enough to comment), but no one claims that the techniques it teaches are new. Why LPGA? What about the S&T; pros in the PGA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 3306 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...