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

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

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.

But, did they do more, or did I do that work for them? Aside from maybe reading their book, how much of that information did you get from them directly?

All told you're giving far too much weight to your own experiences, IMO. Golf instructors know who Mac is. Particularly the better ones (partly because better instructors tend to take on learning opportunities from anyone, not because Mac is particularly related to good instructors, per se).

The average golfer still has no clue who Mac or Mike are. Or Andy.

You're not the average golfer. You participate a good bit on forums, etc.

[Groucho Valentine]

I cant think of a more unnatural, athleticism sapping motion than that stack and tilt stuff is. And that is coming from somebody who doesn't know much about golf swings. Theswing is a unatural motion as it is, then you add that weird stuff into it. I don't know if its still a thing or not, but i hope it isn't. It always felt like a infomercial golf product to me.

 

Like THE HAMMER. BANNNNNG! 

[Hardspoon]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

The average golfer still has no clue who Mac or Mike are. Or Andy.

Heck, I'd consider myself fairly active here, and I read a good bit about golf, and still have no clue who any of those three are.

I honestly don't even know much about S&T, because...

1 hour ago, Groucho Valentine said:

It always felt like a infomercial golf product to me.

...this.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

I cant think of a more unnatural, athleticism sapping motion than that stack and tilt stuff is. And that is coming from somebody who doesn't know much about golf swings. Theswing is a unatural motion as it is, then you add that weird stuff into it. I don't know if its still a thing or not, but i hope it isn't. It always felt like a infomercial golf product to me.

Done properly, there's nothing wrong with it at all. Done properly it's a perfectly good golf swing.

[Groucho Valentine]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Done properly, there's nothing wrong with it at all. Done properly it's a perfectly good golf swing.

You could say that about any swing method though. That stack and tilt stuff always seemed like it robbed golfers of any natural athleticism they may of had and replaced it with this rigid swing mechanic. 

Edited June 28, 2016 by Groucho Valentine

[Dave2512]

I didn't feel that way when I dabbled with it. For me it was a series of patterns that allowed me to use my athleticism to produce predictable results. My problem with it was lack of local instructors and the one I did find happened to also be a GolfTec guy and he pushed me hard in that direction so it was a brief experience. The book is fine but learning golf isn't like following a recipe.  

[iacas]

49 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

You could say that about any swing method though. That stack and tilt stuff always seemed like it robbed golfers of any natural athleticism they may of had and replaced it with this rigid swing mechanic. 

That's fine that it's your impression, but I don't know that you really took the time to understand what S&T was about (nor should you necessarily have done so).

The perception - as well as the misguided way it came to be taught, and the dogma, and the stubbornness - is one of the reasons we got away from it pretty quickly.

But at its core, it's a perfectly valid pattern that can be used to great results.

[Groucho Valentine]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's fine that it's your impression, but I don't know that you really took the time to understand what S&T was about (nor should you necessarily have done so).

The perception - as well as the misguided way it came to be taught, and the dogma, and the stubbornness - is one of the reasons we got away from it pretty quickly.

But at its core, it's a perfectly valid pattern that can be used to great results.

I tried it on the range a few times out of curitostiy. Some friends and I dicked around with it years ago, too. We had a S&T challenge. It was more or less 9 holes of three scratch players chunking the ball like 30 handicaps. 

[iacas]

Just now, Groucho Valentine said:

I tried it on the range a few times out of curitostiy. Some friends and I dicked around with it years ago, too. We had a S&T challenge. It was more or less 9 holes of three scratch players chunking the ball like 30 handicaps. 

Changing your entire swing pattern is not something you "try on the range a few times." If you are a good golfer and you "tried" S&T, and you were chunking the ball, you definitely weren't doing it properly.

Again, it doesn't really matter and you're entitled to your perception, but I really dislike the idea of "I tried it…" You didn't. Not really.