Shawn Clement or Stack and Tilt for a Beginner?

[MuniGrit]

24 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?

 

That is the number one reason in my opinion why someone is a 18 or higher handicap vs a low double digit handicapper. It doesn't do you any good to take lessons and not practice. Romano got better, Rush, Phelps. What is with this website and guys hating on the most successful instructors? Jealousy?

[2turnswish]

12 minutes ago, 2turnswish said:

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.

Went and researched new technical data on ball flight, Golftech, and after reading the words and looking at the diagrams of their version of "ball flight" rules, it as exactly as JJ said it was! It's not the opposite at all. Not sure why they drew such a conclusion? Their diagrams prove JJ and others right. We're always trying to reinvent the wheel. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, 2turnswish said:

Grip, the one that works for you, alignment, stance, posture, and finding the low point.

There's a lot more to a golf swing than that, of course.

1 hour ago, 2turnswish said:

Again if a person cannot visualize the written or drawn text, then a competent instructor will help.

I think it goes well beyond just that, and think good instruction helps prioritize and helps students improve far better than they can get just by trying to teach themselves.

1 hour ago, 2turnswish said:

And tempo, tempo, tempo.

Which tempo? Nick Price? Freddie Couples?

1 hour ago, MuniGrit said:

Romano got better, Rush, Phelps. What is with this website and guys hating on the most successful instructors? Jealousy?

Romano didn't get much better at all. Wasn't his goal to break 80 or something and then he never did it, or he did it from really short tees somewhere or something, weeks later?

Where's the hate? It's a discussion. I don't think Hank Haney's a great instructor, no. So you get to have an opinion, but I don't?

Jealousy? Not at all.

1 hour ago, 2turnswish said:

Went and researched new technical data on ball flight, Golftech, and after reading the words and looking at the diagrams of their version of "ball flight" rules, it as exactly as JJ said it was! It's not the opposite at all.

You sure about that?

Links and quotes… (the first has the relevant quote right there in the embed: "Unfortunately John Jacobs gets the ball flight laws wrong."

http://www.golfmagic.com/forum/golf-instruction/john-jacobs/43657

Recent technology has pretty well determined that : 1. The angle of the clubface determines ball flight direction. 2. Swing path determines the shape. Thus one can hit a draw with and open face. Jacobs seemed to have things the other way around. Comments?

http://adamkolloff.com/the-wong-ball-flight-laws/

For years players and teachers had it wrong. John Jacobs, one of the world’s top teachers from England, advocated that swing path had more influence than clubface in the ball’s starting direction. His theory was eloquently illustrated in one of the most influential golf books of all time, Practical Golf. Fortunately for him, there wasn’t enough advanced technology like we have today to test his widely accepted opinion.

http://forum.brianmanzellagolf.com/golfing-discussions/5612-john-jacobs-tom-watson-clubface-pull.html

John Jacobs was a very good teacher of golf. But HE DID influnence the BOGUS "Ball Flight Laws" that Gary Wiren and The Toski Flick combo promoted to the DETRIMENT of golf and golfers everywhere.

http://www.bettergolfcoach.com/newballflightlaws.htm

For almost the entire history of golf instruction, and certainly since the publication of John Jacobs’ Practical Golf in 1972, the ball flight laws have been set in stone. The PGA manual of golf, and generations of golf professionals have believed that, a well struck golf shot will start on the path that the club was swinging along, then change direction towards where the clubface was looking at impact.

Here's the problem… if you're going to base your entire teaching philosophy on ball flight, and you have what causes the ball flight almost entirely backward… doesn't that greatly inhibit your ability to teach properly?

Ball is starting a little right of the target and over-curving left. Fix using the "old" ball flight laws? Swing out more to the right!

1 hour ago, 2turnswish said:

It's not the opposite at all. Not sure why they drew such a conclusion? Their diagrams prove JJ and others right. We're always trying to reinvent the wheel. 

Can you shed some light on the above?

[iacas]

The rest of this conversation, having nothing to do with Shawn Clement or S&T or anything related, really, has been moved here:

[Mr. Desmond]

23 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

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

Over the years, being on the Hank Haney Golf Ranch during the '90's-early 00's, and being taught by some of his right hand men, I will say that Hank can look at a swing and form a laundry list of issues/what needs work. But his instruction techniques? Meh. Didn't work for me. His instructors said little to nothing, they'd move you into a position, they would ignore basics ... He had a lot of detractors in the DFW area where he was based for a long time. Hank is a great marketer, good eye, but instruction? If you can find one of his guys that actually knows how to teach the golf swing ... good luck. "Swing out to the right; Your body will do the rest." Heard that. 

[2turnswish]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Over the years, being on the Hank Haney Golf Ranch during the '90's-early 00's, and being taught by some of his right hand men, I will say that Hank can look at a swing and form a laundry list of issues/what needs work. But his instruction techniques? Meh. Didn't work for me. His instructors said little to nothing, they'd move you into a position, they would ignore basics ... He had a lot of detractors in the DFW area where he was based for a long time. Hank is a great marketer, good eye, but instruction? If you can find one of his guys that actually knows how to teach the golf swing ... good luck. "Swing out to the right; Your body will do the rest." Heard that. 

Not a fan of Haney either, believe he strayed from JJ's fundamentals, which isn't unusual for students. I placed my swing right on JJ and now shoot par golf for my appropriate yardage. Age 66 and only started serious golf 4 years ago, had huge faults, JJ's swing thoughts and principles corrected everyone. I also liked Byron Nelson's book and Tommy Armour's. My best to you.

[Secretmove]

I didn't know who Clement was, I recognized the name as some golf guru, I googled him just now, he has a lot of work out there.  The website "wisdom in golf" smells kinda pretentious.  So I have to take a pass on Clement. 

Stack and Tilt is IMO the most important book since Hogan's 5.  I wish I had read that when I was a kid, I wouldn't be working in a cubical now.  Just the part on what controls ball flight, face vs club head direction, is worth the price.  What's the number one fundamental of golf?  Answered.  Without that, forgetaboutit.  With that, all else falls in place.  Plus now, with YouTube, you can watch Mike hit balls and copy his moves.  Its a great base to start from. 

Andy and Mike were The Golf Machine students when on the mini tours, with bad effect, they have learned at the feet of the great O'Grady, and have taken one of his 29 swings that have the best effect for Amateurs and published Stack and Tilt.  Great way to start the game I would think, you can put your own spin on it as time goes on. 

[Etzwane]

8 minutes ago, Secretmove said:

I didn't know who Clement was, I recognized the name as some golf guru, I googled him just now, he has a lot of work out there.  The website "wisdom in golf" smells kinda pretentious.  So I have to take a pass on Clement. 

 

I agree with the other part of your message (I do work with a S&T instructor, have the book and videos and expect this is a good way to start for beginners) but Clement's teaching is not bad, just not good for me and (I think) my body type. It's a lot more of an up-and-down arm swing that can work with people that have a good rythm.

[Secretmove]

I was a skinny kid and if possible too flexible, I was doing the only swing out there, arms straight up, sway to sway.  But I had "good rhythm".....what ever that is.  Huge flip, huge early extension, way steep, toe first divot, but good rhythm, once or twice every 5 years I would putt the lights out and all the ducks and stars align, and I'd win a tournament.  The rest of the time I couldn't break 80.  Or 85 or what ever age appropriate snowman. 

So, compare that to a guy drives 8 hours, gets out of his car takes two practice swings and shoots 65 on an impossible course set up to humiliate pros.  (John Daiy)    Malaska says every sport is based on rhythm, timing or whatever you want to call it.  I say eliminate all possible rhythm dependent moves.    If you're sway to sway, that's timing.  if you lift your arms, you have to time the....whatever the opposite of that is.  At least SnT eliminates those two main timing variables. 

Off topic: have you seen some of those Clay Ballard videos?  Is he Jimmy's son?  I still have the hideous flip, and I have to fight the right arm shooting out, seems he's got lots of  answers that make sense, i'm working on some of his videos, I've never heard of getting the hands low at p6 and raising up to P7, but I can see Tiger doing that for sure, shallowing the low spot in the swing.   

Also, I think ones height/build has EVERYTHING to do with what ever swing model you choose.  A tall guy can Stack and not weight shift, produce the same club head speed as the sway sway, and be much more consistent a ball striker.  On the other hand, Charlie Wie was a shorter guy looks like, probably 5 10 or something.  So looks Mike Bennett.    A tall guy should not try to swing like Hogan.  Mac yes, Hogan no.  What was Hogan, about 5'9" or something? 

 I would say Sean Foley took Stack and Tilt and sold that to Justin Rose as a base line, then later he added ground pressure science.  Seems to be working ok. 

Another off topic, and perhaps this has been explored in another thread, the right side swing of Peter Senior and Rod Pampling.  If I could choose now a model for me as a kid, it would be Rod Pampling.  The Australians, is seems,  are big on no weight shift back and using ground pressure.  That's an interesting model, but I don't know if its too advanced for a beginner. 

 

 

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Secretmove said:

I would say Sean Foley took Stack and Tilt and sold that to Justin Rose as a base line, then later he added ground pressure science. Seems to be working ok.

I wouldn't.

[Yff Theos]

My vote goes to S&T. Shawn Clement otoh seems to be a much better communicator than all S&T guys I have listened to.