Shawn Clement or Stack and Tilt for a Beginner?

[Tiger90]

For a beginner....stick the the fundamentals

1. Grip

2. Posture

3. Alignment

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Tiger90

For a beginner....stick the the fundamentals

1. Grip

2. Posture

3. Alignment

http://thesandtrap.com/t/54270/fundamentals-commonalities-and-prioritization

[bwdial]

I would most definitely go with Stack & Tilt.  As has already been pointed out, success on the PGA Tour is irrelevant when it comes to teaching a beginner.  However, if you think the number of golfers on the PGA Tour using a certain system is relevant, then you have to find it remarkable how many players who are already amongst the world's top hundredth of a percent of the top one percent of golfers would be willing to make the change to Stack & Tilt.

I cringe when I think of the 20 years of bad golf I played before discovering Stack & Tilt.  I always had a sway instead of a hip turn because all of the 'gurus' told me to get my weight on the right side.  This led to incredibly inconsistent ball-striking. Now that I've been working on Stack & Tilt, my ball-striking has improved tremendously.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by Tiger90

For a beginner....stick the the fundamentals

1. Grip

2. Posture

3. Alignment

oh, crap.... are those really fundamentals to make crisp contact with a golf ball?

But I think the post above directed you...

[james_hirshfield]

Exactly.

Whose grip do we copy?

Whose posture do we copy?

Whose alignment do we copy?

An educated golfer can hit great shots with multiple combinations of the above... but i BET MY BOTTOM DOLLAR, the best golfer hits the ball solid.

that should be the FIRST THING, EVERY golfer should learn, bar NONE.

CONTACT IS FIRST PRIORITY IN THE GOLFING WORLD.

James

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

oh, crap.... are those really fundamentals to make crisp contact with a golf ball?

But I think the post above directed you...

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by james_hirshfield

Exactly.

Whose grip do we copy?

Whose posture do we copy?

Whose alignment do we copy?

An educated golfer can hit great shots with multiple combinations of the above... but i BET MY BOTTOM DOLLAR, the best golfer hits the ball solid.

that should be the FIRST THING, EVERY golfer should learn, bar NONE.

CONTACT IS FIRST PRIORITY IN THE GOLFING WORLD.

James

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

oh, crap.... are those really fundamentals to make crisp contact with a golf ball?

But I think the post above directed you...

No sh** on the consistent contact being the first priority, but how does one get there?

Why would anyone try to exactly copy another player's swing or setup? Vijay Singh did a pretty good job of copying Tom Weiskopf based on swing sequences in Golf Digest, but his swing is his own and he did a pretty good job with that swing. He's the anomoly. Some people can find something worth copying because that player has a similar personaly and stature and other people copy a player just because they like him. A guy trying to turn himself into Charlie Wi gets applauded for sucn an admirable goal. Another guy trying to be Ben Hogan is generally considered a lunatic. People trying to copy Tiger Woods are told he doesn't have a great swing by one person and told he had the greatest swing ever by another. Guess that one depends on which Tiger swing we're talking about. Anyway, there are degrees of "copying". Copying a fairly neutral setup (grip and alignment) until determining that something else might be better is a bad thing to do from the start exacly why?

The slogan "feel isn't real" is used all the time for the swing (or the variant "feel ain't real") but feel and the setup are not unrelated. An experienced / knowledgable golfer can change their grip and or alignment and get around the course okay (that's debatable but let's assume it's true) when he or she KNOWS THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR GRIP AND/OR ALIGNMENT.  A brand new golfer needs to learn what a proper (for them) grip and alignment feel like. They need to become second nature every time they step up to the ball on the course without alignment aids and supporting videographer. They need to learn to trust they're aiming   the club, body, and swing path etc, where they THINK THEY ARE. done/

[mr stack]

i dont deal in anomalies.  grip,  alignment, posture, stance - variable.  control of the low point, standard.

[james_hirshfield]

Because with a "neutral grip" a golfer can still slice it in the water, or hook it in the trees, but with a closed face and strong grip, cut it next to a hole, or with an open face and weak grip, draw it next to the hole.

The attachment procedure should be looked at more closely when refining degrees for curvature, unless the structure is weak/incompatible and violates principles 1 (contact) and 2 (curve)

As to 'copying' someone's swing, you would need the applicable components to match to produce the same desired ball flight...

That is the beauty of understanding S&T or TGM. you don't need to "overhaul" someones swing. Just match the components to get them where they need to be.

I would agree with you, that the golfer should atleast be able to repeat whatever grip/posture/alignment they are using, if that changes every shot, then of course there are problems. (when i say an experienced golfer could play with any grip etc, i mean one that understands the geometry and attachments.)

James

Originally Posted by sean_miller

No sh** on the consistent contact being the first priority, but how does one get there?

Why would anyone try to exactly copy another player's swing or setup? Vijay Singh did a pretty good job of copying Tom Weiskopf based on swing sequences in Golf Digest, but his swing is his own and he did a pretty good job with that swing. He's the anomoly. Some people can find something worth copying because that player has a similar personaly and stature and other people copy a player just because they like him. A guy trying to turn himself into Charlie Wi gets applauded for sucn an admirable goal. Another guy trying to be Ben Hogan is generally considered a lunatic. People trying to copy Tiger Woods are told he doesn't have a great swing by one person and told he had the greatest swing ever by another. Guess that one depends on which Tiger swing we're talking about. Anyway, there are degrees of "copying". Copying a fairly neutral setup (grip and alignment) until determining that something else might be better is a bad thing to do from the start exacly why?

The slogan "feel isn't real" is used all the time for the swing (or the variant "feel ain't real") but feel and the setup are not unrelated. An experienced / knowledgable golfer can change their grip and or alignment and get around the course okay (that's debatable but let's assume it's true) when he or she KNOWS THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR GRIP AND/OR ALIGNMENT.  A brand new golfer needs to learn what a proper (for them) grip and alignment feel like. They need to become second nature every time they step up to the ball on the course without alignment aids and supporting videographer. They need to learn to trust they're aiming   the club, body, and swing path etc, where they THINK THEY ARE. done/

[2turnswish]

I agree that this follows the Stack and tilt method. I gave this a try. Then searched elsewhere and found, IMO, the best instructor ever, John Jacobs. His book, "Practical Golf", put me on the pathway to understanding the fundamentals, the swing, and teaching yourself. 66 and play right around par everyday. Also incorporated Byron Nelson's thoughts and Tommy Armour's. Ageless gold. Simple, easy, smooth, and repeatable. My $.02.

[Patch]

Strickly learning by a book, I'd have to say books by Earnest Jones, and/or de la Torre would be good starts for a beginner. That said, I have not read all the books on golf instruction. Especially newer  instruction. It is highly probable that there is better written instruction out there for the beginner. 

With personal instruction, I would lean towards the stack, and tilt method, but only after a series of group instructions on the basics of the golf swing. This assuming the instructor is qualified to teach that swing, and the student has the intelligence to understand the instruction. 

I am also very fond of learning the game backwards. Learning to putt well first, and working one's game backwards to the tee box. I believe this is one of the quick way for a golfer to break 90 consistently. It's my belief that learning the shorter swings first, leads to an easier understanding of the longer swings. 

[2turnswish]

Read both Jones and De la Torre and enjoyed the books. Still have them among my golf section. Read Hogan, Faldo, Runyan, Els, Bobby Jones and viewed his videos, Watson (which I highly recommend), Venturi, Alex Morrison, Casper, Player, Jack, Vardon, Mickey Wright (which is a great one), Palmer, Sanders (Compacr golf)and dozens more. But IMO John Jacobs condenses the understanding to simplicity and self teaching, diagnosing errors, and  correction. Nicklaus ingrained really identifying the target line, Hogan instilled the  "Glass Plane", and several finally got me to realize smooth is longer. But it was Tommy Armour's unique way of writing that brought home the right hand and knee's valuable assest to the "swishing" through the ball that retained and unloaded the lag, the stored power effortlessly. It was therapeutic and very fun to develop a swing that helps you compete and score. Of course many hours spent on the short game really took strokes off. 

[Lime Shark]

On 11/27/2011 at 5:28 PM, michaeljames92 said:

Umm. i've watched a lot of Mark Crossfield's videos, and he doesn't even know the ball flight laws. I commented on one of his videos what the real laws are and he stated that "I am entitled to my opinion"

 

 

 

 

He is entitled to his own opinion. He's not entitled to his own facts.

Ball flight laws a physics, not opinion.

[2turnswish]

31 minutes ago, Lime Shark said:

He is entitled to his own opinion. He's not entitled to his own facts.

Ball flight laws a physics, not opinion.

We're in agreement. My conviction will always be with John Jacobs and his way to practical golf, using ball flight to diagnose your swing and make corrections if needed.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

We're in agreement. My conviction will always be with John Jacobs and his way to practical golf, using ball flight to diagnose your swing and make corrections if needed.

Ultimately every good teacher improves ball flight. So, while the reverence for JJ is well placed… it's not really all that informative.

[MuniGrit]

On 12/5/2011 at 6:08 AM, sacm3bill said:

 

 

 

 

 

All those famous instructors are just fine tuning golfers who are already extremely talented.  I'm not sure any of them, or their theories, are going to be able to help beginners or high handicappers - does anyone think Hank Haney helped Romano, Limbaugh, or Barkley?

Nobody has been able to help Barkley. He helped the other 2.

[2turnswish]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

Ultimately every good teacher improves ball flight. So, while the reverence for JJ is well placed… it's not really all that informative.

Actually JJ gives a golfer everything they need, to give themselves the tools to improve their ball flight, you don't need an instructor. And when you're done digging it out of the dirt, you own your swing and can make in round corrections. Not to say going the personal instructor is wrong, just not necessary, if a person wishes to go it alone. JJ has several books out and they give a complete knowledge on striking and controling the ball, all based on ball flight. Plus course management and mental aspects. 

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

Nobody has been able to help Barkley. He helped the other 2.

Rush got better because he actually began practicing and hitting balls, which he'd never done before. Which other got better? Ray Romano?

7 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

Actually JJ gives a golfer everything they need, to give themselves the tools to improve their ball flight, you don't need an instructor. And when you're done digging it out of the dirt, you own your swing and can make in round corrections. Not to say going the personal instructor is wrong, just not necessary, if a person wishes to go it alone. JJ has several books out and they give a complete knowledge on striking and controling the ball, all based on ball flight. Plus course management and mental aspects. 

I think you're over-selling it. Ball hooking too much? Stop swinging in to out too much. But there are a bunch of ways that can be done.

I will give JJ all the respect he deserves, but he didn't "solve" golf, nor did he make it so that the average person can improve like they would with a good instructor.

There's a lot of evidence out there that says JJ didn't even get the ball flight laws correct: he thought the ball started where the path was.

[2turnswish]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Rush got better because he actually began practicing and hitting balls, which he'd never done before. Which other got better? Ray Romano?

I think you're over-selling it. Ball hooking too much? Stop swinging in to out too much. But there are a bunch of ways that can be done.

I will give JJ all the respect he deserves, but he didn't "solve" golf, nor did he make it so that the average person can improve like they would with a good instructor.

There's a lot of evidence out there that says JJ didn't even get the ball flight laws correct: he thought the ball started where the path was.

No not overselling at all. JJ is genius enough to know fundamentals are the building blocks of a reliable swing. So no matter where you might be starting, beginner or many years into the game with many swing faults, uncompensated, going back to square will set you right. Grip, the one that works for you, alignment, stance, posture, and finding the low point. These are tried and true and will be forever. From this base changes in ball flight can be made. He teaches different lies and adjustments, short game, and putting. A complete knowledge is there for any student. Again if a person cannot visualize the written or drawn text, then a competent instructor will help. Keep it simple, the best way. And tempo, tempo, tempo.