Say what you will about Stack and Tilt - it's had a lot of influence, no?

[nevets88]

Recent tip reminds me of this:

 

[iacas]

It's had nowhere near as much influence as they think it has.

[amoline]

I admit I know very little to nothing about S&T, but I don't even understand what that move would look like in a backswing, and it actually hurts my back just to look at it. In fact, it looks like purposeful early extension. Full admittance I know little about the efficacy of S&T though once again.

[Rainmaker]

I never really understood that much about stack and tilt except that it was basically sound - you just keep your weight forward instead of shifting it. 

My teacher would say - yeah, but that's not "dynamic"...you'll give up distance. We never talked about stack and tilt though. I get the feeling this idea was around before it was called Stack and Tilt. 

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

I never really understood that much about stack and tilt except that it was basically sound - you just keep your weight forward instead of shifting it.

But that's where they started to go wrong. Your weight (and certainly your force/pressure) still shifts right in the backswing (if you're a righty).

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

My teacher would say - yeah, but that's not "dynamic"...you'll give up distance. We never talked about stack and tilt though. I get the feeling this idea was around before it was called Stack and Tilt. 

It was. They can't decide whether they've distilled what golfers have always done into "12 words," or whether they're changing the paradigm of golf.

You can't have it both ways. Either you based your thing on the past, or it's new and people are converting to it.

[mchepp]

I've said it before, but I think they brought some things to light that many people did not know. The fundamentals as described to most of us (grip, alignment, stance, etc) were wrong. Their main fundamental of your low point in front of the ball for me was eye opening. It may be the one thing I learned that got me excited about golf again. I was kinda in a funk at the time and about the quit the game. I can say they taught me something, actually they taught more than one thing to be fair.  

So I benefited from them. But they lost the plot later on, started to become obsessed with being right, and took their ideas too far.

The main really good thing I found that has come from it, is it has helped to find the really smart people in golf. Many of these smart people initially liked what Mike and Andy were saying, the really smart ones have taken the good bits and moved on. So I would say their main contribution was they did identify many of the smart people that are out there today. So there's that. 

[iacas]

56 minutes ago, mchepp said:

Their main fundamental of your low point in front of the ball for me was eye opening.

That's straight golfing machine, though. And several things before that.

Just because I learned about gravity from my fifth grade teacher doesn't mean he invented it.

[mvmac]

On 6/23/2016 at 5:49 AM, nevets88 said:

Recent tip reminds me of this:

 

Not the best advice, especially with the hips. Also shows a misconception that S&T teachers fall prey to. A piece that @iacasreally brought to light (for me) is the "extension" is mostly coming from the lower body (legs,hips), not the spine.

 

S&T played a role in modern golf instruction to "look at the evidence" rather than going by what the players said the did/felt and in promoting the correct ball flight laws. Funny thing is when the new/correct evidence came out and it didn't fit their teaching philosophy they decided to stick their head in the sand. They became what they set out to change. They also got caught up in teaching "a swing" rather than using their information to work on the priority. We know this because you can easily spot a S&T swing, it looks contrived and extreme. It's unfortunate what S&T has become.

I think S&T hurt some players (mostly the "good" students) but golf instruction as a whole is better off for having Andy and Mike promote their ideas when they did. They talked about stuff that mattered and connected a lot of quality people who were looking to actually help golfers. 

[Ernest Jones]

Pros: changed a lot of the popular perceptions about the golf swing (true fundamentals). Got more of the general public to work with, and understand video.

Cons: as @mchepp so perfectly stated "became too obsessed with being right", allowed (because of the previous point) people to teach ridiculous shit to the detriment of students. Didn't fix what was demonstratably me wrong with their instruction. 

They also, as @iacas pointed out, receive a lot of credit for stuff that other people had already documented and catalogued. 

At the end of the day, I think someone just starting out will get more good then bad from their book.

 

[iacas]

On June 25, 2016 at 0:17 AM, Ernest Jones said:

Got more of the general public to work with, and understand video.

Did they?

A lot of the things they sometimes get "credit" for probably came from Mac.

Like video.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 6/24/2016 at 9:06 PM, iacas said:

That's straight golfing machine, though. And several things before that.

Just because I learned about gravity from my fifth grade teacher doesn't mean he invented it.

And also after, notably Bobby Clampett, who does give kudos to Homer Kelley. When I was learning the game I was just told to "hit down" on the ball!

[Ernest Jones]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

Did they?

A lot of the things they sometimes get "credit" for probably came from Mac.

Like video.

Yes, but I'm talking about getting these things into the mainstream. With all due respect to Mac, most golfers don't know Mac from macaroni.

 

You may have missed this part of my post:

On June 25, 2016 at 0:17 AM, Ernest Jones said:

They also, as @iacas pointed out, receive a lot of credit for stuff that other people had already documented and catalogued. 

Their ideas were not quite as revolutionary as they would like people to believe, but they did play a major role in popularizing those ideas and getting them out of the mystical "inner circle" BS and that is to the benefit of golfers as a whole. 

[newtogolf]

43 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Yes, but I'm talking about getting these things into the mainstream. With all due respect to Mac, most golfers don't know Mac from macaroni.

 

You may have missed this part of my post:

Their ideas were not quite as revolutionary as they would like people to believe, but they did play a major role in popularizing those ideas and getting them out of the mystical "inner circle" BS and that is to the benefit of golfers as a whole. 

I agree, SnT was the first golf swing method I'd ever heard talked about and unless you're a member here you likely don't know who Mac is.  

[iacas]

13 hours ago, newtogolf said:

I agree, SnT was the first golf swing method I'd ever heard talked about and unless you're a member here you likely don't know who Mac is.  

That's not really true at all.

I knew who Mac was in the 90s when I read a Golf Digest article about him. And thousands and thousands of people know who he is.

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

That's not really true at all.

I knew who Mac was in the 90s when I read a Golf Digest article about him. And thousands and thousands of people know who he is.

You're in the industry, it's no surprise you knew who Mac was.  Most golfers don't know who Mike and Andy are and they received a lot more main stream attention than Mac did.  

If you're talking about instructors and PGA Professionals then yes they probably do or should know who Mac is, but average golfers won't have a clue.  

[Ernest Jones]

7 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If you're talking about instructors and PGA Professionals then yes they probably do or should know who Mac is, but average golfers won't have a clue.  

That's my impression too. SnT did more to bring these concepts into the public consiousness. Kinda like the British Invasion did for American blues. They didn't invent it, but they did popularize it.  

The same can be said for Bobby Clampett, he just repackaged something. And in Bobby's case, it was a pretty damn small package at that.  

[iacas]

9 hours ago, newtogolf said:

You're in the industry, it's no surprise you knew who Mac was.  Most golfers don't know who Mike and Andy are and they received a lot more main stream attention than Mac did.

I was 16 when I learned who Mac was.

9 hours ago, newtogolf said:

If you're talking about instructors and PGA Professionals then yes they probably do or should know who Mac is, but average golfers won't have a clue.  

Average golfers don't know who Mike or Andy are, either. Some of you do here on TST because I/we talked about them more often for a time.

9 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

That's my impression too. SnT did more to bring these concepts into the public consiousness. Kinda like the British Invasion did for American blues. They didn't invent it, but they did popularize it.

You might be over-stating this based on your own impressions: you found about them through me, because you joined this site, a certain time ago when they were discussed more frequently.

No?

[Ernest Jones]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

You might be over-stating this based on your own impressions: you found about them through me, because you joined this site, a certain time ago when they were discussed more frequently.

No?

Perhaps. There is no question that TST is where I've learned most of what I know about golf and golf instruction. But the fact remains, for however many years I've been on this forum, I know a LOT more about SnT then I do about Mac. All I really know about Mac is that he was a little whacky. Which, IMO, is indicative of what I, and @newtogolf, have been saying; the SnT guys did more to get the information out into the public. 

No?