rudygu

The angle of the club face controls the starting direction almost totally. The scenarios mentioned where the ball starts toward the target are the second one with the driver and apparently all iron shots. This would mean the swing is out to in, but the clubface is closed to the target everytime the ball starts left.

The only thing I would like to point out is to really pay attention to your alignment and face angle at setup. I know it's obvious, but it can't be stressed enough IMO. If you're like me (and probably most people) your swing path is drastically different with S&T.; I wasn't really out to in before, but now I'm a good bit more in to out - enough so that it becomes very easy to hit a wild hook if I get sloppy at setup. Especially if this is coupled with a lack of weight shift and any kind of a flip at impact. They aren't kidding when they say to open your clubface a few degrees. It's like you've been watching me swing in secret. Good to know I'm not the only one who does this.

If they are normal rubber Golf Pride style grips, it's fine. I use Dawn and hot water on mine every so often - works like a charm. However, there are some Winn grips that are very adversely effected by water. If they are made by Winn I would check on their website to make sure it's ok. They used to have very detailed care instructions online.

I struggled with this too (and still do sometimes). The key is to remember that the weight distribution at the top is only 55/45 or maybe even closer to 50/50. By the finish of the swing it's supposed to be more like 90/10 - that's a good sized shift. Also, make your backswing in front of a mirror (or video it) and pay attention to how much your hips move from address. If you don't get them shifted forward you are doomed to weak fat/thin contact with no directional control. That's been my experience anyway.

What mud have the S&T; instructors slung? To me, mudslinging consists of personal attacks against one's character. Have you read the S&T; book? After describing in depth the principles of their method and exactly how each element positively effects ballstriking, they compare it to the "conventional" model. In that comparison they simply point what they believe is wrong about that model and show how S&T; improves it. I'm sorry, that is not mudslinging. Am I mudslinging right now because I disagree with you and have taken the time to type it? As for Erik and Dave here on the forum, I've not seen anything I would define as mudslinging. Neither one has said anything personal about any golf instructor. From what I've seen, they've only pointed out flaws in the teaching methods of conventional instructors and the swing they teach.

+0.5 - 1) bring hands in deeper 2) stop picking up the right arm...keep the arms more attached to the chest 3) Maintain inclination to the ground...there's a pretty pronounced dip at the top of the backswing

I grip the club tight enough that it doesn't rotate, but not so hard it causes me to strain. Paul Casey works out a lot and prides himself on how large his forearms are. Lightly, for him, would probably naturally be a cpl psi more than the average pro.

They already have one... From the article in the OP

I don't think you'll have much luck bending a Cleveland wedge that much. They are known to be pretty brittle...a lot of people won't bend them at all. Besides this, bending it would reduce the bounce by 4 degrees, so you'd need to make sure it was still playable in that regard.

To me, Stack and Tilt is primarily about keeping your weight mostly centered and keeping your hands (and by extension, the clubhead) on plane. In addition to these, extension through impact is really stressed. They teach the simplest method they can to achieve all this. I can't for the life of me believe that anyone would be against S&T; if they really saw it for what it is. I think this is most of S&T;'s image problem. There are other factors at work, though. First is their PGA presence. Most people only see the players on the commercials that are willing to attach their names to it - and they don't carry a lot of star power. The more prominent names that have been attached to it have quit. Those who are open to S&T; look a little deeper. We see that Mike and Andy have a deeper presence on Tour than the commercials show, that there is a chance some of the players they teach wouldn't keep their cards if not for S&T;, and that their prominent dropouts haven't fared so well since they left. The other factor I see causing the S&T; image problem is that even though it's a simple swing model, you really need to have a basic understanding of the golf swing in general (and the revised ball flight laws) to see the point in changing to it. For someone who doesn't really understand why the ball flies the way it does or how certain elements of their swing cause that flight, it's easy to say "I'll stick with what's gotten me this far." or "That's not what the analysts say on TV". This is why ridiculous products like the AJ video exist...it doesn't matter what you do as long as you can manipulate that dumb little bat. I think that to make real gains in popularity the S&T; guys need to do a better job in their tv commercials of pointing out how similar their swing is to the "classic swing". In the book (I can't speak to the videos) they do an excellent job of pointing out key elements of S&T; that are the same as the greatest swings in the history of golf. They explain how they've tied these elements together and use the new understanding of ball flight laws to their advantage. It's what won me over, but I don't really get a sense of that in the tv ads.

Generally a good question, but S&T; is about as simple as a swing can get. I'd say that he will be simplifying his swing if he follows the book or videos. IMO, simplicity is the easiest way to acheive consistency.

Around here the Taylor Made Black (and Red) LDP's are going for $27-30 and the Burner LDP's are still priced around $25. I don't know who would choose the Burners at those prices.

I don't think getting stronger automatically means better scores either. But, like I said before, Tiger obviously thinks that working out and adding muscle is desireable. I have no idea whether he used any illegal substances, but I can't give him a free pass based on that logic.

Find a shot that's comfortable for you and use it as your stock shot around the green. Conventional wisdom is to keep the ball on the ground as long as possible, ie. putt whenever it's feasible and chip to a point about 1/3 of the way to the pin, letting the ball roll to the hole. Personally, I like to line up a little open to the target and open the club face up a little. I just hit a normal chip from this setup and the ball flies a little bit higher and rolls just a little less - just my preference. I'm comfortable with that shot and I use it unless I can't for some reason.

Ha, yeah I wouldn't say it in a bar down there :P I'm a long-time Cowboys hater from the 90's when they were everybody's favorite bandwagon team. Didn't help anything that my cousin and my best friend were both huge Cowboys fans and I got to hear about how great they were all the time - or that I rooted for the 49er's (bandwagon team from the 80's lol). I don't hold the same venom for them anymore...but I do think Romo is a goober.

Cool. I'm glad to see companies finally pricing premium balls lower to undercut Titleist. It's the only way they'll ever catch up...most people just aren't going to buy them for the same price as a Pro V1/x. I've been buying the Taylor Made Blacks for this same reason.

I don't know if Tiger took HGH or not and I don't really think it would help his game. BUT, look at all the muscle he has put on over the last few years. Whether he juiced to do it or not doesn't really matter - he clearly thinks that adding muscle is a good idea. The same could have been said about a lot of the behavior that has led to his recent troubles. There is plenty of evidence out there to call his judgement into question. I don't think that argument is going to spare him any trouble Like I said before, I'd be surprised if there is any evidence that he did anything illegal, but it's not going to stop the conjecture.

I second this. If you have a compatible device, it really is a good solution.

Yeah, doesn't seem like this is going to go away for Tiger. I doubt there will be any evidence that he gave Tiger anything against the Tour's drug policy, but Tiger's reputation will take another pretty big hit. Personally, I'd be surprised if Tiger was "doping", but there will be plenty enough bad publicity to cast a pretty bad light on both him and the Tour.

After all the flack he took a couple of years ago for hanging out in Mexico with Jessica Simpson while the Cowboys were still alive in the playoffs, he knew better than to push his luck with the fans and media. Either way, both the Cowboys and Romo suck.

Did it work?

Assuming the hosel counts as part of the club head, I still think that the rest of the head would have more mass and that moving it back relative to the hosel would shift the cg back as well. But, I suppose that's not an absolute. In any case, it's not what I was referring to in my first post. Like Wishon's article, I was referring to the cg with respect to the center of the shaft.

Ok, I missed this reply a couple weeks ago, but feel like this deserves a response. Do you really think the hosel weighs more than the rest of the clubhead? By a good margin, the heaviest portion of a club is the head. Moving most of the heaviest portion of the club back from the shaft .245 inches will move the cg back. About the .12 inch. - I never said it made no difference in closing the face. I just think the effect is pretty small and that moving the cg is the primary reason for offset. If you don't want to believe me, how about Tom Wishon? He's one of the most well-respected club designer/clubfitters alive. This quote comes from an article by Wishon on golf.about.com http://golf.about.com/od/faqs/f/offset.htm

Clearly, some swing models are technically more efficient than others. BUT, I don't believe that any one model is the most efficient for everyone...and I don't mean that based solely on physical condition or body type limitations. A golfer's swing needs to be unique while adhering as closely as possible to an efficient swing model. Some little part of our brain will make an inefficient (biomechanically speaking) movement more repeatable to us than the textbook movement. Obviously this should not be glaringly different than the ideal and ideal should always be the goal. But, at some point we have to quit the swing tinkering and work with what is most repeatable and consistent for us . The primary focus should be scoring - not a 100% textbook swing.

I carry 3 wedges: 47, 52, and 56, but I used to carry a 60 as well. For me, 4 degrees between my wedges was overkill - the yardage gaps were just too small and it's really not that hard to compensate by moving the ball forward or back a little bit, opening/hooding the clubface a little, or some combination of both. As soon as I'm able, I plan to switch to 47/54/60. I'm guessing that when I do the 60 won't see a ton of action, but there are times now when I'd love to be able to throw it straight up and stop fast. If you practice the Pelz/Clock wedge system with 3 or 4 wedges, I really think you could cover just about any yardage from 100ish yards in. Your 45 degree PW is strong, but my father-in-law has the AP1's and they do launch pretty high, especially if you're using the stock shafts. On a full swing, your PW probably launches similar to a 46 or 47 degree player's cavity. But, for chipping from the fringe or really close to the green it's not my preference. Since you don't play a 3 iron, I think you could get by pretty nicely with a 45/52/56/60. I would bet that the 45 AP1 and 48 Vokey wouldn't have enough of a distance gap to make 45/48/52/56/60 worthwhile. As for being nuts - that's probably a little strong, but I would never drop my 2H to add a 4th (much less 5th) wedge. It's just too valuable to me and I think that too many wedges just leads to confusion and indecisiveness.