verse214

So after reading all of your responses it's become apparent that the way you're using the word "freak" is as a simple substitute for the word "talent". So yes of course, all pro athletes have talent - And if the only reason why "freaks" had to practice was because they had to compete "with other freaks" - "normal" people like us would immediately recognize a "freak" when we saw one even if they didn't practice. Sorry, but i think your just confusing the word "freak" with "hard work and a little talent". And hard work and a little talent/luck is what makes people successful in ALL walks of life; people aren't successful by just being freaks of nature with a God given ability. Plus, if they were TRULY freaks of nature, they would NEVER have a bad round or shoot double bogeys EVER through their career. I think in order for people to really understand your point or for you to successfully state whatever it is you're trying to state, you need to define what you mean by freak of nature and you will soon see yourself that PGA tour pros are not freaks of nature but really just people like you and me.

If they are truly "freaks" then they would not have to practice nearly as much as they do and wouldn't have had to play for the years that they did; of course there will be one offs who can perform at the highest level after several years of play. Plus if they were truly "freaks" each and every single one of them would be able to tell from the moment they picked up a golf club whether they can make it on the PGA Tour. In fact, golf is the ONLY sport where at the collegiate level you still have NO idea whether you will be able to play at the PGA Tour level. There is NOTHING freakish about this - it's all hard work with a little luck. There is no common statistic among collegiate players that guarantees them a spot on the PGA tour except for one: to win both the NCAA individual tournament and the US Open Amateur in the same year and only 4 people have ever done it Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and Ryan Moore. Since there is no common statistic amongst all PGA Tour players who did compete at the collegiate level, it shows you that it is not simply talent or their "freakishness" that boosted them to the PGA Tour Level. Sure, you're naming all these big names who have played on tour, and of course these are the legends and the biggest names in golf - but you forget every other player who hustles and scrambles on tour week and after week - they are NOT freaks, but hard working golfers.

I think the above statement sumarizes what creates the 'misconception' about stack and tilt. The fact that there's a name for it makes people think that it's one formulated regiment of teaching that is the same for everyone and that creates a problem, especially in the eyes of teaching professionals, since everyone's swing and body type are different. I don't know the ins and outs of S&T;, but on the recent "Big 4" video with Harmon, Haney, McLean, and Leadbetter, the interviewer tried to get their opinion on S&T; and their conclusions was that each player has different problems in their swing and since they all have different problems, they require different solutions and S&T; (from what I understand of it), prescribes one set of solutions. Another reason is also probably because the majority of what people deem as Stack and Tilt players have a swing that looks very different from a normal golf swing and the players with more traditional looking swings that S&T; claims to be S&T; don't call themselves stack and tilters. Just a thought

Pros are not 'gods', nor are they 'freaks' - they are atheletes. If you have atheletic ability and have played in your youth-young adult years and have put in 10,000 hours of practice, you can become a top competing pro - maybe not pga tour pro, but a really friggin good golfer. To become that PGA tour pro, you just have to be able to make those shots under pressure and at that point it's all mental game. There is NOTHING freak like about these PGA tour pros. The majority of the people on this board have other things to tend to in life that prevent them from treating golf as their primary focus in life. It's the same as tennis, basketball, soccer, and any other sport. If you put in the hours, you can become a pro and if you have the talent, or just the SLIGHT edge, you can compete on the top level.

Els is not really a great example... people look at his swing and think that he's swinging so smoothly and that's why he's crushing it. sadly, the reason why he crushes it is because he's a beast... the guy is like 6'3" and 210 lbs and in shape.. he's not really a "model" pro that many of us should imitate... unless you're that big too. On the other hand, if you take a golf pro who is more of an average height - like Anthony Kim.. he's 5'11" (which is average height) and you see how explosive he has to be to be able to hit it long enough to keep up with the rest of the field... Comparing the two should show that it's not always about nice and easy and slow temp.. but more about swinging at a even keel as explosively as you can while maintaining balance. The more fit you are the harder you can swing while staying in balance... I haven't been playing for that long but ever since I started I thought that swinging smoothly was the key to distance and power since the pros make it look so easy.. but I found out I was wrong. These PGA Tour Pros are in shape. They exercise - it takes a lot of strength to be able to swing smoothly the way they do (and flexibility). The reason why I believe this is because i recently joined a golf gym in the city and I've been going through a golf-centered workout with my trainer. It is not easy - It takes a ton of strength to swing easily and smoothly the way these guys do and still crush it... that's why when someone (like us) swings smoothly their driver swing speed can still be sub 100, whereas a guy who is in shape and flexible will be able to do it at a much higher speed. Athleticism in golf is underrated and it's something that can help all of our games.

I don't think it makes a difference whether the toe is straight up or on a parallel plane to your spine angle at that point in the back swing. There are players who may have the club a little more "shut" (or more parallel or even past parallel to the spine angle) and there are players who have it closer to toe up on the backswing. I think what is important is the final position at the top of the swing. The position at the top determines how much you have to use your body to rotate vs. your arms, etc. to get the club "square" at impact. Besides, I also think that someone who has a flatter back swing (such as S&T;'ers) would have a leading edge position more parallel to the spine angle as opposed to someone with a more upright swing who would have a more toe up position. I myself have a pretty flat back swing and definitely have a more parallel to spine angle position halfway up the back swing. Of course there are exceptions to this tendency and it seems that you would have to use more wrist/hand motion going back in order to really get the club toe up. Someone who "cups" their wrist to avoid a hook will probably have a more toe up position, whereas someone who has inactive hands going back will have a more parallel position. Just what I've concluded after a quick reflection...

With a SS of 120mph, optimal launch is 13* and optimal spin is 2400.. both of these should increase as SS increase. With an SS of 111 you should be dropping the launch angle to about 12.5-13 and lowering spin another 2-300 rpm's - most likely this isn't in the equipment but can be found in your set up. With your numbers that good I would focus on making solid contact while swinging at 111mph in order to get the smash factor up to about 1.48-1.49. Nice numbers tho!!! BTW: how do you like the FT TA? do you mind me asking what the actual loft is on the one you have and how do you like it with the Fubuki 63? is there a reason why you didn't get it in the 70 gram Fubuki? Just wondering because i've been debating between picking up a FT TH/TA vs. waiting for the FT-Tour. my SS is at around 104-105 so I'm thinking about waiting for the FT Tour since I would need the extra launch....

People usually do have the reverse bounces on their wedges compared to what you have. What you can do is buy a stronger lofted wedge like a 52 in as low of a bounce as possible and then bend the loft to a 54... this will lower the bounce as well... get it?

I don't believe that these were "samples". They were made available to Callaway staff members for purchase in 2009. Also, it's quite likely he did receive the club as a tip. The majority of all clubs sold on ebay are either taken from tour vans or received from caddies or players who don't need/use the clubs. It's also pretty easy to tell what's fake and what isn't. Just make sure you use credit card when buying on ebay so you can always charge back in case of fakes. I actually went back to that guy asking if he'd take something lower than his reserve to pick that club up.. it's going to be a sick sick driver. (probably all hype but oh well... call me a sucker )

Scratch will customize for you but not for anywhere near 100. For 100 u get their 8620 cast wedge and only get to pick grind, shaft, and loft. If you're willing to pay 350 for a wedge then they'll do some customization....

I wouldn't say that Vokey's dominate the rest of the field. Technology has come a long way and the field has really leveled out, especially with wedges; I would say all of the major OEMs are about the same quality and it just comes down to preference and grinds...

The FT-9 TA or TH (for tour hosel) is only 430cc's - it has REALLY low spin and it's not something that non-pro's should really be hitting; it would be difficult to get into the air with lower swing speeds. As stated above you could definitely get one on ebay - the reason why they're not selling like hot cakes anymore at $1000 is because Callaway is coming out with the FT Tour in March which will be the exact same thing as the FT-9 TH/TA except some weight will be moved around to increase the spin a little so that low handicap players will have an easier time getting the ball up in the air. It's gonna retail for $500 when it comes out and will have the tour hosel as well. This is the FT Tour that's coming out: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT One of these sold (head only) for about $1200 a month ago... it's gonna be out soon so just wait it out..

Why don't you post a quick video of your swing. Most of the time, it's the swing and not the equipment. A few degrees of lie difference will not ruin your game no matter how you look at it and if you didn't notice it before, there's no reason to freak out about it now. Also, the individual who made the comment about Miz's: Mizuno irons are generally flatter than standard, not more upright. You usually have to bend 1* upright to meet the "standard" for american OEMs.

If he's toe down at impact and if the fitter says he is 4* too flat ... it means he needs to go upright not flat

Just a quick question: Are you SURE that you were fit correctly? How tall are you... a 4* change in lie is pretty drastic and it's possible that it's more of a needed swing change rather than an equipment change. Unless you're 6'3 or taller, I wouldn't take that fitting seriously. What kind of shot trajectory do you have now with your pings? Is Lie the only thing he recommended you customize, length maybe?

Not sure how you could think addiction to opiates/painkillers could be funny at all. I definitely agree with the poster that there could be a possibility of Tiger having issues with opiates. There have been instances in the past where he's been in public appearance his eyes have given him the look of one who is on painkillers (glassy, watery). Super addictive and can take over anyone's life. Purely speculation, of course.

It's actually a horrible analogy. In the NFL a team can totally change year to year - your opponents will be different, coaches, etc.; in Golf the best aren't competing for tour cards every year: your opponents and competitors/favorites in majors are pretty similar in consecutive seasons... The superbowl is held between two teams in an entire league that have to go through playoffs to get there; pretty much ALL of the best of the best play in the majors for golf. The closest analogy would be the tennis grand slam, winning 3 in one year and 1 in the next, however I would still say that the Tiger Slam in Golf is closer to the true grand slam than it would be if it were in tennis. Plus, if you're undefeated in the regular season in the NFL you DON'T win the superbowl. Horrible analogy.

Since you said that it happens when you get tired - i'm going to say you're standing up when you get tire while practicing or later in the round. Chances are an extra 1/2" on your shafts will do the trick.

Thanks Erik and David for the explanation; definitely answered my questions... I have not been playing for too long and have only worked with two teachers in the past. Looking back I have definitely experienced a fair share of incorrect advice from people who are not teachers or PGA members.. The things I have read about S&T; (majority on this site) have definitely helped me create somewhat of a filter so that I can know what kind of golf advice to take in and what to filter out. Great thread...

I'm not really a nay-sayer. My only point is I don't see why someone needs to ascribe to a "stack and tilt" teacher when everything taught in stack and tilt is just "good swing fundamentals". I've never had an S&T; pro as a teacher and I also have never had a lesson where the pro told me to shift my weight back or do things that S&T; claims a "traditional swing" promotes (i.e. any of the items in the chart contained in the article of the front page about the S&T; book) Also, Phil has been known to have notoriously bad full swing mechanics. If there were really such a thing as a "traditional swing", every other pro that Bennett and Plumber do not teach should exhibit these "poor" characteristics no? S&T; has been marketed as a "revolutionary" way of swinging and that is why you may have the impression that others project this radical image onto S&T;, when in actuality it is because of the way S&T; portrays itself. Also, the majority of the population would not know that Sean O Hair is an ideal S&T; candidate just because Foley doesn't call it S&T.; My current pro (part of Logical Golf founded by Robert Baker, who teaches at the facility I recently joined) studied under Foley himself for years and he actually admitted not knowing much about S&T; when he was probably teaching similar ideas himself. Sorry for the long winded post but all I'm trying to say is that I don't think that it's right how S&T; tries to promote the idea of a "traditional swing"... if all of these pics of historically great ball strikers are actually exhibiting S&T; qualities, then there really isn't and was never the "traditional swing" described as per S&T; in the first place.

OK - so i started lessons with a new pro at a fitness gym i joined and while reviewing my swing he stopped it halfway in the downswing and pointed out that it could be used as a poster for S&T; when viewed down the line (He is not an S&T; pro neither does he claim to know much about it). When viewed "face on" you can see my spine is tilted towards the target which is what he wants me to eliminate; I need to stay more centered over the ball. Earlier in this thread, it's been stated that "true" S&T; does not promote a tilt towards the target and that you stay "centered" over the ball. OK... so: I've read through most of this thread and other threads here that discuss stack and tilt and honestly, it's gotten to the point where descriptions of what S&T; are sound exactly like what a "normal" swing's characteristics are. Can someone please post a picture of what a non-S&T; swing looks like at the top of the backswing? Because it doesn't seem like there's such a thing as a "non ST" swing anymore based on the way all the S&Ters; are describing it.

I think that something like this would be great - I belong to a golf fitness gym in the city, however it costs quite a bit per month and definitely an arm and a leg for one on one training sessions. Regardless, it still does decent business. If there were a gym that offered a class like this, especially with a nominal charge, it should bring in extra interest.

Jack Nicklaus talks about this in his book "Golf My Way" and he states that the reason why he swings so upright is because he believes that the club face stays "along the target line" for longer than a flatter swing. The face may stay closer to the target line in an upright swing but it really is on the target line the same amount of time as a flat swing (a quick instant). Personally, I believe to each their own and the steepness/flatness of your swing is probably determined by your height as well as what muscles you feel comfortable swinging with. We have had amazing ball strikers at both extremes with Nicklaus being the steep and Hogan being the flat

Wait - just to make sure.. that's not your real average and you were being sarcastic right? or do you only play bethpage black in tournament conditions?

If you have an in to in putter swing and need to be able to really get the face to close on the follow through in order to square the face, a heel shafted putter is what you'll need. Phil Mick uses one - when you're at the shop pay attention to whether the ball path is pushing or pulling when you strike the ball.. the straighter the better obviously.