S&T 2.0 DVDs and Pressure/Weight Forward - An Examination

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

What do you think?

What do I think? To this point we've been happy to let everyone form their own opinions about the "correctness" of the data in the S&T; 2.0 DVDs… But since you asked, and in case it's not obvious already:

• We think that the 81% above is highly inaccurate; not for weight, not for pressure.
• We think that implying that if a golfer gets his weight farther forward he can hit it farther is not going to serve golfers well, particularly when long drive guys (who care quite a bit about hitting the ball far) are far more likely to put weight and pressure on the trail side (largely so they can generate a positive AoA - they still transfer some pressure forward in the downswing).
• Troy himself said in the video that he "felt like it was 65/35" and immediately added "but it probably wasn't that high."
• "Measurable facts validated independently" is not an accurate statement if the data itself is not accurate. If someone tells us that he's verified that the value for g (~gravity) on the surface of planet earth is 1.4 m/s^2, we aren't going to believe him regardless of how much "data" he has to back it up.
• Troy toed the ball, which helped it draw. Minor point not really worth getting into - it still would have drawn with centered contact, but it could have easily cut if it was hit just as far on the heel as it was on the toe.
• This wasn't the fastest clubhead speed recorded. See above. Small point (0.4 MPH worth).

This image demonstrates why we believe one should be very careful when presenting data, particularly when it's used in cause-and-effect scenarios.

The premise here is that the more weight you put forward, the more you can "crush it." The problems are two-fold, in our opinion:

1. The data itself is not trustworthy. It's highly unlikely Troy is 81% forward with weight or pressure:
2. A clear cause-and-effect relationship has not been established. Troy would need to hit many golf balls, varying weight locations but controlling virtually all other aspects of his swing and impact conditions, to begin to "prove" much of anything in this regard. And as we know, hitting up with the driver produces longer tee shots than hitting down, and so one could easily make a logical argument that even at the same clubhead speed - even at a slightly reduced clubhead speed - Troy could hit the ball farther with his weight back slightly to allow him to hit up on the golf ball.

We have seen several comments from S&T; instructors that indicate that they are either not questioning the data shown in the S&T; 2.0 DVDs or simply believe it to be accurate.

Truth be told, we don't know what to say about that. We think the information, photos, etc. above are fairly compelling.

[Billy Bondaruk]

Im not really completely buying what your saying here. I think you should post this at the Bio- Mechanics Group on FaceBook I would love to hear their comments since they are completely Bias. Then you can really stand by this study to take down two guys that have been trying to better the game of Golf.

[SloverUT]

You mean completely umbias? Furthermore...why do you think people here are bias? Not like every member here is drinking 5sk kool aid. Besides..every person here can make their own dvisions just as you have.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Billy Bondaruk

Im not really completely buying what your saying here. I think you should post this at the Bio- Mechanics Group on FaceBook I would love to hear their comments since they are completely Bias. Then you can really stand by this study to take down two guys that have been trying to better the game of Golf.

Hi Billy, what parts are you "not buying"?

[Billy Bondaruk]

Sorry unbiased not bias or (umbias Slover UT) and I never said you couldn't make up your own mind. I also don't think this is about Koolade. It's about a very old system that has been around since the early 1900's and a few groups of people that are marketing a simular system with thier own logos attached for the simple fact of building business. However, since I am as well In the business of instruction, My purpose in reading this post is to get it right, weather that's for you SloverUt or not, you drink what ever Koolade you want. Now, on to the next question, and thanks for asking, mvmac, I' m not really buying that swing catalyst can tell us what this study is showing. If you got on those force plates and did a true Stack and Tilt swing, you would tilt left extend and rotate. Erik was flexed forward on his 3 rd exaggerated attempt with enormous hip rotation forward. Not very Stack and Tilt would you agree? Anyway, how about doing a flamingo drill on the new toy(swing catalyst ) and stopping at the top. Without moving the body at all, put pressure onto the rt ball of the foot and then take it off to see what the numbers show. Old force plates show that as a tour pro takes the club back their weight goes from 100%at address to 125% that's just in the take way. They are pushing downward. We're talking about pressure here and even thou this study was done in slow motion, it doesn't mean that the subject, Erik wasn't pushing into the plate under his right foot harder than necessary, if he was inclinded to do so. Especially since its about 5sk and the completion, Stack and Tilt. Pressure is an interesting thing. Take a pit bull for example and measure how much pressure they have in a square inch of their jaws as they are chewing something. You can stand with a nice tilt left as a right handed player and create pressure under the ball of the rt foot. But like I said I dont have a swing Catalyst to show you those numbers. And for the record, I'm Not trying to defend Stack and Tilt here or dismiss what 5SK is saying. I just want to better the game make some money and not try to Rip someone else apart in the procession since the theory came from the 1900's anyway.

[Harmonious]

Correct grammar, spelling, punctuation and the use of paragraphs can do wonders to make yourself better understood, Billy.  I tried to follow your ideas, but gave up trying to decipher the code.

[iacas]

Now, on to the next question, and thanks for asking, mvmac, I' m not really buying that swing catalyst can tell us what this study is showing.

Of course it can. It displays pressure and effectively "sums" the pressure to show what foot the pressure exists under. It synchronizes it with video or displays it "live." It's very simple technology, and very easy to understand. It's basically a force plate, with the percentage of the total force displayed for each foot, with the added "pressure display" to show WHERE the forces are occurring.

Originally Posted by Billy Bondaruk

If you got on those force plates and did a true Stack and Tilt swing, you would tilt left extend and rotate.

And you'd see, if Grant Waite's swing is representative (it's used as "the model" in the S&T; 2.0 DVDs):

• PRESSURE shift 65% RIGHT during the backswing and even late in transition.
• WEIGHT would shift to about 53% RIGHT at the top of the backswing (A4).

Perhaps you missed the earlier thread where we demonstrate pressure with Ms. Petterson and Mr. Waite (both making relatively centered pivots), but this thread exists partly because the response many had to that video and thread was "that's pressure, we're talking about weight." So this thread demonstrates "weight."

This is basic level stuff that's explained in the first post Dave, James, Mike and I authored.

When Dave Wedzik gets on the plates and makes an "S&T; swing" pressure shifts right, as does weight slightly. When James Hirshfield gets on the plates and makes an "S&T; swing" pressure shifts right, as does weight slightly. When I get on the plates and makes an "S&T; swing" pressure shifts right, as does weight slightly.

Originally Posted by Billy Bondaruk

Erik was flexed forward on his 3 rd exaggerated attempt with enormous hip rotation forward. Not very Stack and Tilt would you agree?

That was the point, Billy. You have to make THAT swing - a swing NOBODY who can break 100 makes - to get 81% pressure FORWARD at the top of the backswing with a relatively centered head.

Originally Posted by Billy Bondaruk

They are pushing downward.

Yes, beneath their trail foot, because the knee and hip are extending, which pushes against the ground. But this occurs in a dynamic motion (i.e. an actual golf swing). If you stop moving the only thing you can do is measure weight - again, Grant was 53% right at A4.

Originally Posted by Billy Bondaruk

We're talking about pressure here and even thou this study was done in slow motion, it doesn't mean that the subject, Erik wasn't pushing into the plate under his right foot harder than necessary, if he was inclinded to do so.

It would be impossible to push without either or both of these two things occurring:

1. A quick, small spike in the numbers under the foot that was getting the added pressure (a subtle push that you might not see).
2. Visible, noticeable motion as a result of the "pushing."

There's no way to "push into the plate" continually without a ceiling or something above you that you can push against. It's basic, simple physics.

Originally Posted by Billy Bondaruk

I just want to better the game make some money and not try to Rip someone else apart in the procession

Billy, as Dave, James, Mike and I said - we want golfers to get better. Bad information hurts EVERYONE in the game - the golfers, the golf instructors who believe them, etc.

A sense of irony is sorely lacking among some people since all that was done here was to point out some information, and let everyone decide for themselves whether it's accurate or not.

[SloverUT]

Correct grammar, spelling, punctuation and the use of paragraphs can do wonders to make yourself better understood, Billy.  I tried to follow your ideas, but gave up trying to decipher the code.

He was to busy trying to correct my one typo via cell phone to do that. In the few posts I've seen billy make here and on facebook he eludes to the fact that he thinks 5sk is using others ideas to profit. I think we can all agree that none of the 5 keys are new concepts. However, I feel 5sk expanded on those concepts by illustrating the importance of those concepts in comparison to others. They have done this via research and using data. Every golf system out today uses concepts that havebeen taught in the past to some extent. Now if you agree this site is not bias, then you are right. It is my decision on what I want to believe or not believe. I feel the 5sk guys have done a good job in presenting info and letting the public make conclusions themselves. I feel that us as much as we can ask from any professional group. Regardless, my initial post came off arrogant and that was not my wish. I simply was trying to illustrate that this site's members are not biased toward any one system.

[Stretch]

Don't have a dog in this fight. I've learned a great deal from S&T; materials and think that "community" has done golf instruction a service by consistently calling out people who are trafficking bad information (old ball flight laws, keep the flex in the trail leg etc.) By the same token, though, you can't simply declare your own ideas off-limits for critical examination. Either defend them, openly and without rancor -- or admit error, adjust and move on. Circling the wagons and framing the debate in personal terms (ie. "attack on Mike and Andy") just makes it look like S&T; can dish it out, but can't take it.

[Justforgolf]

this is awesome data! great to see amateurs and pros gives you more insight of what the pros are doing.

[BostonBrew]

Not sure if this is the proper thread to post this question. So please feel free to move it to its proper location.

I was thinking about the S&T; swing last night and I have a few general curiosities.

In  the "traditional" (for lack of a better term) school of thought, I've always heard that the weight shift from the back leg to the forward leg was what helped generate a lot of power. I always thought about it in relativity to pitching a baseball. A pitcher winds up and loads up on his back foot before launching forward with all his weight and "whipping" the ball towards the plate. I figured the golf swing was the same. Load up, transition weight towards the target, "whip" the club through.

My understanding of the S&T; swing though is that the weight goes toward the target on the backswing and then stays there through the downswing. So my questions are:

Am I missing a key move in the S&T; swing?

What is the "power move" in the S&T; swing?

This site and forum is the first time I've had any exposure to this school of thought and I'm always intrigued by swing theories and thoughts. I appreciate any insight.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by BostonBrew

My understanding of the S&T; swing though is that the weight goes toward the target on the backswing and then stays there through the downswing. So my questions are:

Am I missing a key move in the S&T; swing?

What is the "power move" in the S&T; swing?

I would suggest reading the first post in this thread again and this post http://thesandtrap.com/t/64993/weight-forward-using-swingcatalyst-and-sam-balance-lab-to-explain-pressure-throughout-the-swing

[BostonBrew]

Originally Posted by mvmac

I would suggest reading the first post in this thread again and this post http://thesandtrap.com/t/64993/weight-forward-using-swingcatalyst-and-sam-balance-lab-to-explain-pressure-throughout-the-swing

Honestly, I didn't go back that far. Should have though. That was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

[poolman88]

Really good article and explanation! Your correct about the poor understanding and how they contradict one another whether that was simply a mistake on their part or not i don't know.. I adopted the pattern when it first came out years ago, even with the book and their 1st video i never had a good understanding on the weight and transfer of pressure through the swing. Their explanation leads players to believe that most of the weight stays forward throughout the entire swing yet watching mike hit shots in the 1st dvd from face-on you can clearly see that his weight does transfer to the back leg as he reaches the top, without elaborating more on it besides the term "weight forward"  i think lead players (myself included) to struggle. The 10 or 15 min video on youtube of Grant's swing and how the weight moved back as he swung to the top and how fast it should move forward into the downswing gave me a 100% better understanding that 2 dvd's and the s&t book combined. Keep up the good work.. 

[iacas]

Thanks @poolman88.