So much for lessons.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Or is it chic to suggest people who worry about grip and alignment are too stupid to know that impact is still the most important thing in golf even if they never said otherwise?!?

I don't know, as chic as posting anti-S&T; comments in my swing threads on a pro-S&T; golf website? The majority of people post their swings on here to get expert advice from S&T; instructors, not to hear what you have to say to the contrary. What do you get out of posting a swing sequence of a player with his hands/arms high at the top of the backswing in reply to a post by Mike/Erik telling that player they are better off keeping their hands/arms attached to their chest i.e. not lifting them? Seriously, I'd really like to know. How do you think Mike/Erik feel? And the TS?

If your opinions were backed with solid arguments, rather than empty one-liners, they could actually be considered valuable rather than annoying. At best, you come across as a cocky troublemaker, at worst very disrespectful.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Or is it chic to suggest people who worry about grip and alignment are too stupid to know that impact is still the most important thing in golf even if they never said otherwise?!?

I don't know, as chic as posting anti-S&T; comments in my swing threads on a pro-S&T; golf website? The majority of people post their swings on here to get expert advice from S&T; instructors, not to hear what you have to say to the contrary. What do you get out of posting a swing sequence of a player with his hands/arms high at the top of the backswing in reply to a post by Mike/Erik telling that player they are better off keeping their hands/arms attached to their chest i.e. not lifting them? Seriously, I'd really like to know. How do you think Mike/Erik feel? And the TS?

If your opinions were backed with solid arguments, rather than empty one-liners, they could actually be considered valuable rather than annoying. At best, you come across as a cocky troublemaker, at worst very disrespectful.

You need a reality check.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I don't know, as chic as posting anti-S&T; comments in my swing threads on a pro-S&T; golf website? The majority of people post their swings on here to get expert advice from S&T; instructors, not to hear what you have to say to the contrary. What do you get out of posting a swing sequence of a player with his hands/arms high at the top of the backswing in reply to a post by Mike/Erik telling that player they are better off keeping their hands/arms attached to their chest i.e. not lifting them? Seriously, I'd really like to know. How do you think Mike/Erik feel? And the TS?

If your opinions were backed with solid arguments, rather than empty one-liners, they could actually be considered valuable rather than annoying. At best, you come across as a cocky troublemaker, at worst very disrespectful.

If, as you infer, this forum should only be open to S&T; proponents and their commentary, you should petition the owner of this website to make that a requirement for joining.

Until that happens, there will be folks that have differing opinions about a lot of things, including golf.  If that troubles you, maybe you are the one who should depart, and just hang out at the S&T; website. It might be a more comfortable experience for you.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

If, as you infer, this forum should only be open to S&T; proponents and their commentary, you should petition the owner of this website to make that a requirement for joining.

Until that happens, there will be folks that have differing opinions about a lot of things, including golf.  If that troubles you, maybe you are the one who should depart, and just hang out at the S&T; website. It might be a more comfortable experience for you.

Re-read my post. You have missed the point I am making.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

You need a reality check.

Hit a nerve, did I?

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Re-read my post. You have missed the point I am making.

Naw.  I've read enough of your posts.  Time for an ignore.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

You need a reality check.

Hit a nerve, did I?

Didn't read your post actually, but the words "S&T;" and "Erik and Mike feel" jumped off the page.

IF someone is actively moving toward a 1-plane weight forward push draw system, by all means nudge them toward S&T.;

Personall I think trying to turn a happy 2-plane guy (who posts his swing in good faith) step by step into a 1-plane S&T; player, that is quite disrespectful in my opinion.

Did the kool aid guy strike a nerve? I knew it would.

[sean_miller]

Can't say I agree with everything you say, but I respect your opinion nonetheless. Sometimes of course you hit the nail on the head!!

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Re-read my post. You have missed the point I am making.

Naw.  I've read enough of your posts.  Time for an ignore.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Didn't read your post actually, but the words "S&T;" and "Erik and Mike feel" jumped off the page.

IF someone is actively moving toward a 1-plane weight forward push draw system, by all means nudge them toward S&T.;

Even the guys teaching the method readily acknowledge there are other ways to swing and that all discussions are welcomed, if they're respectful. So when someone swings a certain way - clearly a 2-plane swing - and posts a video in good faith requesting fine tuning, for a someone posing as swing guru (yeah - that's you) trys to turn that guy step by step into a 1-plane S&T; player, that is quite disrespectful in my opinion.

Did the kool aid guy strike a nerve? I knew it would.

I would just like to point out that I have never claimed to be a swing guru, nor tried to change someone that is clearly a 2-planer. You invented all that because you have no comeback. Well, your comeback to me saying you were disrespectful is that I'm disrespectful. Good one!

[JetFan1983]

Wish I had a bucket of popcorn for this right now.

[The_Pharaoh]

To go with the kool aid?!

You've joined a bit late as they have now decided to ignore me.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I don't know, as chic as posting anti-S&T; comments in my swing threads on a pro-S&T; golf website? The majority of people post their swings on here to get expert advice from S&T; instructors, not to hear what you have to say to the contrary. What do you get out of posting a swing sequence of a player with his hands/arms high at the top of the backswing in reply to a post by Mike/Erik telling that player they are better off keeping their hands/arms attached to their chest i.e. not lifting them? Seriously, I'd really like to know. How do you think Mike/Erik feel? And the TS?

If your opinions were backed with solid arguments, rather than empty one-liners, they could actually be considered valuable rather than annoying. At best, you come across as a cocky troublemaker, at worst very disrespectful.

Phil, c'mon, chill out. You seem to be taking some things personally (or even personally on my behalf?).

First off, I'm personally fine with "anti-S&T;" comments if they're backed with reason. I welcome challenges. s_m is the first to admit he does a bit more sniping (light on the reason) than others, but I don't really care, and I'm certainly not going to let it irk me to the point of taking it personally. I just put out information I believe to be accurate and let everyone decide for themselves.

I also don't want this site to be "pro-S&T.;" I realize that is quite likely a stupid wish at this point, but the fact remains that I like having my opinions challenged. I've reversed myself when presented with better information. I'll defend my opinions quite strongly as well, but if someone has a better argument, that's great. My own understanding of the swing has grown and evolved. I said before and I'll say again now that I don't really teach "S&T.;" I definitely don't teach what most people think is S&T.;

It'll be "news" in 2012, but for a long time now, we've taught something fairly different, based around five simple keys. I owe a lot to Mike and Andy. I owe more to Dave. And I owe a lot to my own research, my own growth, my own understanding of the golf swing (both before and since instructing), and a lot of it to my scientific background. I liked what Mike and Andy did because they were some of the first people I encountered who didn't talk about crap like "tempo" or try to say that your grip was "bad" without being able to tell you why your grip was bad. Hell, I avoided getting into instruction for so long because there was no real system, and my scientific mind works that way. Mike and Andy built a system that had a very definite series of cause and effect, and truly encapsulated the components of a lot of great players' swings. You can do some great things within that system.

But we have students that lift their arms at the top of the backswing. We have students that do other things that aren't "just like Charlie Wi" (or Grant Waite, or whomever). For some it's a low priority fix. For others it's not even on the list.

If Jack Nicklaus came to me for a lesson, the first question would be to ask him what shot is troubling him, and then my background would kick in and I'd know that the fix isn't "your tempo was bad" or some bullshit, but rather that there's a cause, and I'd know where to look for that cause. And I'd have fourteen ways of getting Jack to feel the change, and I'd be able to explain to him exactly why that is.

We use the example of Jim Furyk all the time. You don't change anything about that guy's swing except the one tiny piece he needs to eliminate the shot he's struggling with at the moment.

So if that's how you define S&T; - as a system of causes and effects, and knowledge and understanding of that - then I lied before and I do teach S&T.; But virtually nobody calls it that, and they're right not to call it that, because if that's what S&T; is then every instructor worth their salt (which still isn't that many) is an S&T; instructor. And they're not, so it isn't the appropriate definition.

We at Golf Evolution teach the golf swing, in whatever form it is in, based on a system of priorities. Our students do not look like they swing the same way any more than Ben Hogan looked like Byron Nelson or Sam Snead or Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus. There are some simple keys I believe are tremendously beneficial (the answer isn't in TGM, either, though it's not a bad place to start guessing at them) to solving the cause-effect relationships in the golf swing, but to say I'm beholden to one particular "model" is false. (To say that Mike and Andy are beholden to one model is false, too, but that's almost beside the point.)

I commented on s_m's swing thread. My first post was an attempt at humor and my later posts, like this one , are still helpful even though he lifts his hands and is forced to make compensations in the downswing (http://cdn.thesandtrap.com/6/6b/6bcb7c4e_sean_miller.jpeg if you're interested). He doesn't need to make his swing look like Charlie Wi's.

Phil, do me and yourself a favor, and I say this with all the kindness I've got: don't get so beholden by "S&T;" that you pervert what it is or let it stunt your growth and exploration. That's not only not what the "pattern" is about, but it's not what being a good golfer or instructor is about. Grow. Learn. Challenge. And here, on this site, engage in reasonable discourse by giving your opinion and backing it up with what you believe to be reason and logic. I'm not saying you've failed to do that; just that I'd like to see more of it.

Oh, and Mike and I can fend for ourselves.

s_m, we know... we get it already. You like to provoke. That's fine. It's welcome at certain levels, you betcha. But if I could have one wish for you it'd be that your snipe jobs would have just a little more meat on them. Harmonious disagrees with me all the time and I'm grateful for it. The difference is essentially that the added meat in Harmonious' posts keeps me on my toes. Quick snipes are easier to ignore. And if that's okay with you, hey, so be it. Like I said it was my "wish," not my command. You're free to do as you please, as always.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

If, as you infer, this forum should only be open to S&T; proponents and their commentary, you should petition the owner of this website to make that a requirement for joining.

Exactly. It's not. Anyone is welcome to post here, though in my experience those instructors outside of the 5% are going to get their asses handed to them pretty quickly.

The "5%" comment refers to a sort of "inside estimation" that 95% of golf instructors are full of shit. They do little to advance their knowledge or understanding of the game. They give advice as a series of "quick tips" without truly understanding the student or the golf swing itself.

Thus, there are only 5% of golf instructors who continually strive to better themselves as well as their understanding. They give good lessons and can answer questions. They know the FACTS of the golf swing and have a solid PLAN for their students. They utilize - not always but at least occasionally - the advances in tools and science available to them.

In short, anyone is welcome to share their opinions if they can back it up. I know I'm guilty a few times of "sniping" myself, probably of doing more than sniping on occasion, but I'll always do my best to welcome anyone sharing an opinion and backing it up as best as they can . We're MEAT eaters here. So long as you offer some meat, you're welcome at the table. BYOM, I suppose.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I don't know, as chic as posting anti-S&T; comments in my swing threads on a pro-S&T; golf website? The majority of people post their swings on here to get expert advice from S&T; instructors, not to hear what you have to say to the contrary. What do you get out of posting a swing sequence of a player with his hands/arms high at the top of the backswing in reply to a post by Mike/Erik telling that player they are better off keeping their hands/arms attached to their chest i.e. not lifting them? Seriously, I'd really like to know. How do you think Mike/Erik feel? And the TS?

While Erik and I may like a lot of what S&T; has to say, we're not interested in having The Sand Trap "pro" anything.  We welcome debate and discussions that brings out the best golf information.  If we all agreed on everything, no progress can be made, last thing we want to do is be stuck in a certain way of thinking.  Erik and I are Golf Evolution guys and have "evolved" from the S&T; model or whatever S&T; is perceived as.  In a perfect world we'd prefer to see the head stay centered, left arm match the shoulder tilt at P4, hips go forward on the downswing but first and foremost is to check impact alignments and figure out the player's needs.  If a student looks like Fred Couples at P4 but controls low point, why change that?  Erik is one of the smartest swing theorists out there, the information he shares doesn't come out of thin air or says it just to make the picture nice, it's grounded in an understanding anatomy, physics and geometry.

[Golfs-for-Fun]

meh...Im lost

[iacas]

S_M, it's easy to claim that you're a "two planer" (or someone else is) and that there are "one planers" out there. More meat, please. Post a thread on the two-plane swing. What it is, why you think "it's good," etc. If you do a good job I think you'd be surprised that I (and others) agree with a lot of it. This site, like any other forum, is built around discussion, not mildly amusing one-liners.

P.S. I had a post somewhere which showed Jack Nicklaus delivering, from the top of his swing, the clubhead and his hands "straight down the plane." It was a really upright plane (duh), but it's relevant to the one-plane/two-plane discussion. Which, I should note, belongs in a new thread or another existing thread, but not this one.

P.P.S.:

Originally Posted by mvmac

While Erik and I may like a lot of what S&T; has to say, we're not interested in having The Sand Trap "pro" anything.  We welcome debate and discussions that brings out the best golf information.  If we all agreed on everything, no progress can be made, last thing we want to do is be stuck in a certain way of thinking.  Erik and I are Golf Evolution guys and have "evolved" from the S&T; model or whatever S&T; is perceived as.  We prefer to see the head stay centered, left arm match the shoulder tilt at P4, hips go forward on the downswing but first and foremost is to check impact alignments and figure out the player's needs.  If a student looks like Fred Couples at P4 but controls low point, why change that?  Erik is one of the smartest swing theorists out there, the information he shares doesn't come out of thin air or says it just to make the picture nice, it's grounded in an understanding anatomy, physics and geometry.

Suck-up.

But yeah, we've evolved. Good line. We should make that the title of our teaching group or something... Oh wait.

s_m, if you have a problem with Mike's advice to the guy (the "two-plane" guy), post in that thread with meat . If you don't, it's almost like not voting in a presidential election: you kind of forfeit your right to bitch after the fact.

P.P.P.S. Mike's avatar is of Jack Nicklaus. Has been for a few days at least. I think that says something.

[JetFan1983]

Originally Posted by Golfs-for-Fun

meh...Im lost

What you are witnessing is something of a "later chapter" in a long running discussion that many of us regulars have been collectively having together for the better part of two or three years. Its just so happening that it's taking place on your thread

I think I speak for all of us here when I say that I really hope you stick around the community because this place is a blast. I've learned so much here since joining in September of 2008.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

S_M, it's easy to claim that you're a "two planer" (or someone else is) and that there are "one planers" out there. More meat, please. Post a thread on the two-plane swing. What it is, why you think "it's good," etc. If you do a good job I think you'd be surprised that I (and others) agree with a lot of it. This site, like any other forum, is built around discussion, not mildly amusing one-liners.

P.S. I had a post somewhere which showed Jack Nicklaus delivering, from the top of his swing, the clubhead and his hands "straight down the plane." It was a really upright plane (duh), but it's relevant to the one-plane/two-plane discussion. Which, I should note, belongs in a new thread or another existing thread, but not this one.

P.P.S.:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

While Erik and I may like a lot of what S&T; has to say, we're not interested in having The Sand Trap "pro" anything.  We welcome debate and discussions that brings out the best golf information.  If we all agreed on everything, no progress can be made, last thing we want to do is be stuck in a certain way of thinking.  Erik and I are Golf Evolution guys and have "evolved" from the S&T; model or whatever S&T; is perceived as.  We prefer to see the head stay centered, left arm match the shoulder tilt at P4, hips go forward on the downswing but first and foremost is to check impact alignments and figure out the player's needs.  If a student looks like Fred Couples at P4 but controls low point, why change that?  Erik is one of the smartest swing theorists out there, the information he shares doesn't come out of thin air or says it just to make the picture nice, it's grounded in an understanding anatomy, physics and geometry.

Suck-up.

But yeah, we've evolved. Good line. We should make that the title of our teaching group or something... Oh wait.

s_m, if you have a problem with Mike's advice to the guy (the "two-plane" guy), post in that thread with meat. If you don't, it's almost like not voting in a presidential election: you kind of forfeit your right to bitch after the fact.

P.P.P.S. Mike's avatar is of Jack Nicklaus. Has been for a few days at least. I think that says something.

This isn't about my swing. If someone had a decent swing, and they're a 2-plane guy, like the one below . . .

. . . why turn them into something else. At least, why do it without any "meat" to support it. It's a two way street.

I only commented on one guy who seemed to have a very obvious 2-plane swing. Other subtle suggestions, unless they come from someone completely unqualified, I have no issue with. My swing is what it is, and if I cocked my wrists slightly or and laid the club off,  my hands wouldn't appear high at all. They're high relative to the ground because I'm 6' 2" inches tall and don't want to put a driver shaft in my 6-iron, but like I said it's not about me. It's about people enamored with the S&T; method who think any suggestion to a player posting a swing thread on this site has to be 100% consistent with "what Erik and Mike will say" (because we all know what that is right ?!?) then it's an attack on S&T.;

Other than how it's presented, what attacks have I made on S&T;? That not every player needs to use it to be successful? Why would that need added "meat"? It's obvious from countless the swing examples on youtube. It's a great way to swing. There are a lot of great ways to swing - as long they return the club head through the ball in a repeatable manner.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by iacas

Phil, c'mon, chill out. You seem to be taking some things personally (or even personally on my behalf?).

Erik, I am 100% chilled. Don't forget, I had kool aid thrown all over me earlier! ;-) I am not taking things personally at all, or even on your behalf, I know you can fend for yourselves.

I wasn't frustrated during the earlier exchange, but I am now. I'm not sure why, but you seem to be missing my point as well and then agreeing with me! I am not bashing anti-S&T; (or whatever it is called), I am bashing the empty one-liners and general lack of substance in their replies. You say it yourself below! That's my point, in case it's still unclear. I would love sean_miller or Harmonious to reply to one, just one, swing thread, adding something worthwhile to the debate. An argument for the 2-plane swing, or whatever they believe in, would be great. But what do we get instead, "well, this guy does alright for himself" and a picture of someone with his hands way above his head (look at the post above to see what I mean). Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't challenge me or allow me to grow. That is the reason why I've challenged them and look at how they have replied - ignoring me and tossing their toys out of their prams. It was to be expected as I called them on their knowledge and we've all seen they are, in your words, full of shit.

The reason I joined The Sand Trap was because I consider myself not one of the 5%. I'm not full of shit, that's a little harsh, but I'm definitely not in the 5%...yet! By coming on here as often as possible I hope to be able to get there eventually. I consider this one of the top 3 golf websites around as it is very difficult to find really good information on the internet. I offer very little swing advice as I am still learning 'my' way and I would rather not have you hand me my arse right now! I would love to offer more, as you say, but that will have to wait. I am not beholden to S&T;, I favour a one-plane swing over a 2-plane swing. I don't only follow you, Mike etc., I also follow other one-planers to get my ideas, concepts, drills etc. - Jim Hardy, Josh Zander, Jeff Ritter etc. I really hope you don't think I am here to just copy your lessons and use them on my students.

I've said my piece now and won't continue to add to this thread as we are going round in circles. If you want to reply or clarify something, feel free to PM me.