Stack and Tilt??? Is it a hoax????

[tristanhilton85]

I kind of had fun with my last post but in all seriousness, mvmac's last post really shows a lot.

In the original post it says that he read around 10 instructional books and they all said something different about grip, stance, posture, alignment, etc.  In my opinion, this is where S&T really gets it right... those things aren't really fundamentals.  Look at the pictures mvmac posted above, all of those guys are doing the real fundamentals and that is why all those pics look similar.  There are certain things that ALL good golfers do regardless of the patter/method they subscribe to, and those things are GAPS, which is obvious since all those players have different variations of them.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Since you might not be as familiar with the information, all the S&T guys are on the left

Uhhh.... ;-)

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by iacas

Uhhh.... ;-)

Yes, even I get confused sometimes I got Charlie Wi and Hoffman mixed up, it's now fixed

[slabm7]

Stack and Tilt may not be for everyone but it greatly increased my ball striking consistentcy. I still have a problem with it off the tee but my iron play has never been better. I adopted the S&T philosophy half way through this season and after a couple hours on the range had the basics down and started shooting some of my lowest scores in the last half of the season. I broke 80 for the first time thanks to the S&T.; I plan on playing with it a bit more in the offseason and get more consistent.

[Mr. Desmond]

As to the back issue, when I used a more traditional swing, I would hurt my back or it would be sore for the entire day afterwards.

Since converting to S&T, my back feels great after a range session. Glad I'm learning S&T.; It looks as if it will save my back.

As to learning S&T, I don't have an instructor nearby -- but have learned from the S&T book, this forum, and various web sources. I have not yet purchased the DVD's. Any swing is tough to self-teach, but use the above resources and video so you will get feedback.

Also, read the book several times -- you will pick up more detail each time -- detail you need.

[boogielicious]

OUTLAW,

I recommend Evolvr.  It is less expensive that local instructors and you go at your own pace.  I have sent all kinds of video to them from driver to wedge, pitching, sand shots etc.

[gwlee7]

Originally Posted by mchepp

Many of the comments here from the others are dead on.

My suggestion is do your own research. Jeff Mann's (perfectgolfswingreview) is one perspective, one that you could argue doesn't like the claim that Golf Digest made about S&T and he harbors a grudge because of that claim. He also has never taken a lesson from a S&T instructor.

After a year or so of your own research I would like to hear your opinion of the swing. I bet it is different.

This guy is perhaps the most "over rated" self proclaimed "expert" on the entire internet.  When confronted, he'll finally admit that he doesn't even play golf.  He just hits a few balls on the range from time to time.  He is a medical doctor who is intersested in the golf swing.  He's a lot like that "Darius J." fellow who likes to argue biomechanics on some other forums.

[mchepp]

Originally Posted by gwlee7

This guy is perhaps the most "over rated" self proclaimed "expert" on the entire internet.  When confronted, he'll finally admit that he doesn't even play golf.  He just hits a few balls on the range from time to time.  He is a medical doctor who is intersested in the golf swing.  He's a lot like that "Darius J." fellow who likes to argue biomechanics on some other forums.

Not sure I would call him over rated because to be over rated you need to be rated in the first place. Jeff does has his place. He is very well versed in TGM and if you had a question regarding TGM he would be a great person to give his perspective. Secondly he questions everything. This is important because for something to truly pass the test of time it should be peer reviewed and questions should be answered. He has many challenges but once you know what and who you are dealing with he is not all that bad.

My problem with him is he will bait and then attack teachers. Not a fan of that.

As for Darius I like what Jeff Mann said about him once, he writes "word salads". They are very complicated sentences that I cannot understand so I mostly ignore them.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by mchepp

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwlee7

This guy is perhaps the most "over rated" self proclaimed "expert" on the entire internet.  When confronted, he'll finally admit that he doesn't even play golf.  He just hits a few balls on the range from time to time.  He is a medical doctor who is intersested in the golf swing.  He's a lot like that "Darius J." fellow who likes to argue biomechanics on some other forums.

Not sure I would call him over rated because to be over rated you need to be rated in the first place. Jeff does has his place. He is very well versed in TGM and if you had a question regarding TGM he would be a great person to give his perspective. Secondly he questions everything. This is important because for something to truly pass the test of time it should be peer reviewed and questions should be answered. He has many challenges but once you know what and who you are dealing with he is not all that bad.

My problem with him is he will bait and then attack teachers. Not a fan of that.

As for Darius I like what Jeff Mann said about him once, he writes "word salads". They are very complicated sentences that I cannot understand so I mostly ignore them.

Seriously? This comment in an S&T thread? Pot, meet kettle.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Seriously? This comment in an S&T thread? Pot, meet kettle.

Truthfully, I don't see many S&T or former S&T instructors actually baiting people. I have seen them attacking bad information (and sometimes that overflows into attacking the person, which is not cool), but I think attacking bad information is a good thing. It's better than sitting around quietly saying nothing. But I come from science, where such "attacks" on information are not personal and are done for the greater common understanding.

P.S. Plus, what Stretch says.

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Seriously? This comment in an S&T thread? Pot, meet kettle.

Hahaha. There's truth in that, although the argument inevitably devolves into simply who threw the first jab.

It's all just noise anyway. Live how you like. Swing how you like. Be excellent to each other.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Seriously? This comment in an S&T thread? Pot, meet kettle.

I don't see many S&T or former S&T instructors baiting people. Your bizarre feelings of resentment or something may lead you to believe it, but I don't think it happens. I have seen them attacking bad information (and sometimes that flows into attacking the person, which is not cool), but I think attacking information is a good thing. It's better than sitting around quietly saying nothing. But I come from science, where such "attacks" on information are not personal and are done for the greater common understanding.

I was replying specifically to schepp's comment. I don't know if he's an S&T instructor or an evolver employee or whatever, but I've read enough material on the S&T website (and their various promotional materials) to say what I said with complete confidence.

[mchepp]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I was replying specifically to schepp's comment. I don't know if he's an S&T instructor or an evolver employee or whatever, but I've read enough material on the S&T website (and their various promotional materials) to say what I said with complete confidence.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I do not think that S&T has attacked in the same manner that Jeff Mann has, but again that is only my opinion. The S&T crowd has gotten overzealous at time there is no doubt.

If you look around I have at times been critical of S&T.; Especially how they did the Golf Digest article and only release bits of the swing at times. I am not an instructor, I am not involved with Evolver, and I don't even use the S&T swing. Do I use parts? Yes, but most good ballstrikers do.

I know the swing decently well because I have done research on it as I suggested above

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by mchepp

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I was replying specifically to schepp's comment. I don't know if he's an S&T; instructor or an evolver employee or whatever, but I've read enough material on the S&T; website (and their various promotional materials) to say what I said with complete confidence.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I do not think that S&T; has attacked in the same manner that Jeff Mann has, but again that is only my opinion. The S&T; crowd has gotten overzealous at time there is no doubt.

If you look around I have at times been critical of S&T.; Especially how they did the Golf Digest article and only release bits of the swing at times. I am not an instructor, I am not involved with Evolver, and I don't even use the S&T; swing. Do I use parts? Yes, but most good ballstrikers do.

I know the swing decently well because I have done research on it as I suggested above

I'm not very familiar with Jeff Mann, so there might be more weight behind your critique of his bait and attack method. I'll back off since I can't really compare the two.

Regarding information put out into the ether by A&P; - has anyone ever seen someone actually advocate the finish position on the right in the image below? Could someone misinterpret a tip and have it lead to the catastrophe on the right? Possibly, but it seems to be portrayed as something being actively taught by "traditional" teachers.

[Quinn07]

I am still trying to figure out when Phil became a righty (referring to MVMACs post of pics).....

[mvmac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Regarding information put out into the ether by A&P; - has anyone ever seen someone actually advocate the finish position on the right in the image below? Could someone misinterpret a tip and have it lead to the catastrophe on the right? Possibly, but it seems to be portrayed as something being actively taught by "traditional" teachers.

This comes close lol.  The pic of Andy and Mike, Mike in the red, is more about what students do wrong how a student can mis-interpets an instructor saying to followthrough with your right shoulder out over your left foot and don't have your hips slide forward at all.  It's an exaggeration, not the best example

This comes close lol.

Fado demonstrating what he thinks impact looks like on the left.  Him winning the British Open on the right

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn07

I am still trying to figure out when Phil became a righty (referring to MVMACs post of pics).....

Analyzr software, it's great.  Can flip images

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Regarding information put out into the ether by A&P; - has anyone ever seen someone actually advocate the finish position on the right in the image below? Could someone misinterpret a tip and have it lead to the catastrophe on the right? Possibly, but it seems to be portrayed as something being actively taught by "traditional" teachers.

If you expect to get any disagreement from me or Mike or Dave on that, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I think the initial Golf Digest article in 2007 was "bad" in two ways. First, they explained the swing they wanted with exaggerated positions that scared people off (Baddeley did look like he was tilting towards the target). Second, the examples of the "conventional" swing were so grossly exaggerated that it made me question what they were selling if they had to exaggerate "the other way" so badly. I'm on record as having said that back then, too.

But that was over four years ago, dude. Time to move on.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Regarding information put out into the ether by A&P; - has anyone ever seen someone actually advocate the finish position on the right in the image below? Could someone misinterpret a tip and have it lead to the catastrophe on the right? Possibly, but it seems to be portrayed as something being actively taught by "traditional" teachers.

If you expect to get any disagreement from me or Mike or Dave on that, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I think the initial Golf Digest article in 2007 was "bad" in two ways. First, they explained the swing they wanted with exaggerated positions that scared people off (Baddeley did look like he was tilting towards the target). Second, the examples of the "conventional" swing were so grossly exaggerated that it made me question what they were selling if they had to exaggerate "the other way" so badly. I'm on record as having said that back then, too.

But that was over four years ago, dude. Time to move on.

I know it's old. Unfortunately no matter how you search for S&T images, tips, or reviews, good ol' Google finds that image and shows it pretty early in the list. Not too many people put a date filter on their searches.

And I didn't even mention the awful swing sequence of Aaron Baddeley because I can't recall him ever actually swinging that way. It's meant to illustrate the differences or perhaps the feelings, but real swings with real results might have been better. The wonder of the internet is that once it's out there, it's repeatedly taken out of context.

Just like Nick Faldo's youtube drill that mmvac added. Nick's obviously exaggerating the weight forward and the weight back, and perhaps his drill is meant to reinforce what he's feeling at impact even though it isn't likely his actual impact position. Then when he could alleviate all confustion - by adding a slow motion FO view of that nice crisp iron shot at the end - the video switches to the DTL view. This of course does nothing to illustrate what his drill was supposed to reinforce. Was the switch done on purpose during editing? Maybe his impact looks closer to S&T than he's comfortable with?!? I suspect mine does.