2bGood

from the title I thought you ball landed on another tee - the little wooden kind.

I was in "fun" tournament once where we had a fairly hefty calcata (avrg $700 per player), a massive rain storm came in and we had puddles all over the greens, but they would not shut down the tournament. Sure as hell we chipped and flopped form the green to get over the puddles and shook our heads each time

Yes they are all real Foley quotes - the article though is April fools

3-4 as I like to travel light. If I loose one or two I grab some more at the turn. I never yet lost all my balls but I am sure I could borrow one, or I always find a few while playing even if I loose my own. In a tournament I carry a few more as I can't swap in a different ball.

http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/2011/04/01/nicklaus-turns-to-foley-to-prepare-for-masters-return-on-25th-anniversary-of-1986-win/

For me, my "Dream ace" would be from an elevated tee between 150 and 165 yards with an 8 or 7 iron. Nice draw that releases a few feet into the hole. Long so that it feels like long shot, short enough that i can see it. Luckily this is a pretty common par 3 length and I have two that fit this description at my home course.

Yes you should give up.

I was at a golf tournament a few years back and I can't recall how "the rule" came up, maybe someone hit a duff short of the tees, but someone in our group joked about "the rule" in the presence of two female volunteers. These were younger ladies that worked for me so when they asked what "the rule" was I passed on telling them, as I tend not to make off colour jokes/comments like that to employees. I said something like "you don't want to know" and every one in our group continued to make jokes about "the rule" with out saying what it was. As the day passed every one was drinking and having a good time and I guess these ladies kept joking around about the ladies tee rule without ever knowing what it was. As they told me later at dinner, a rather drunk guy tee shot was short of the ladies tee and when they joked about "the rule" he showed them what it was. Lucky for him they were good sports, but they did give me a hard time about not warning them.

Few smiles, no laughs yet.

Might be your chance to learn to do your own work! With Epoxy, Ferrules, Grips, Grip Tape, solvent, heat gun and a hack saw you can do all the work you need except loft and lie changes. You would save a tonne of money and most of us that do our own basic work find it very rewarding.

Yep cold is just like that.This winter I forgot that, I have been working on some swing changes and for a while I was getting frustrated that I lost distance, holiday in ea warm place last month and I discovered I was club longer then last summer and 2 clubs longer then in the cold.

I would just drop near the tree and then find a tiny sprinkler head in the tree and then walk around for 20 minutes until I find a spot that I would like to drop the ball.

I can't say i find this odd. Lots of golfer would not let a stranger hit their driver. As it was 910 it was likely pretty new, and as you list yourself an 18 capper I am sure you would leave some doubt in the guys mind. To be honest I would never ask a stranger to hit his club, if asked by a stranger it would be 50/50 if I would say yes, depending on lots of factors. As for buddies, I think nothing of it, even if they do suck.

Agreed.

It worked for Oracle

What a 'stupid' I am! I should know better then to jump in to S & T debate. Okay guys here are my responses - have at em! Quote: Originally Posted by david_wedzik Look this is a very good example of a before and after...of course it doesn't PROVE he can do it every time but it does prove that he can do something he couldn't do 15 minutes before that. And btw he had NEVER compressed a ball before this practice session...I can assure you of that. Good for him - my only point was that this does not PROVE what the OP claimed it did. Quote: Again...an example...should we post youtube videos 19 hours long showing 30 minutes of before and the guy's next 41 practice sessions in time lapse photography? I know this sounds flip but you need to be realistic. Actually it would be kind of cool to see a swing transform in time lapse. But in truth with so many variables going on I am not sure you could ever really prove that S & T made some one a better golfer. Why did this guys old swing suck? Was it the pattern? Was it how he was taught the pattern? The teacher has to take as much or more credit as the pattern. Not to sound silly, but confidence in your swing can also make a huge difference, I don't think anyone could disagree that the placebo effect in golf helps allot. Quote: So if you wouldn't have the issue, don't have the issue... who cares what it's called? The mechanics and geometry we teach are the same not matter what it is called. And frankly the name hurts as much as it helps. Everyone knows we teach based on the components of the pattern but we teach what WE believe in the Golf Evolution way. If what we teach stops helping students we will do it differently. I agree 1000% Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Zeph Why is that though? I'm not looking for an argument, I want to know where in the S&T; pattern you lose the clubhead speed, which obviously is the reason for the lack of distance. People have said you can hit it as far as anyone with the pattern, but if not, what are the reasons? High arms and dropping the club could perhaps gather up a bit more speed, maybe a weight shift back give a bit more power when coming through. All in all I don't think it is a big issue. Dustin Johnson got a pretty centered pivot, he's currently #2 on the driving distance. I do see that the top 10 on driving distance got higher hands than S&T; would suggest, perhaps that is where they get it from, more travel distance for the club. Or maybe it's just the timing, lag and speed created with the body. Two-plane swings demand a bit more timing to drop the hands. With a one-plane swing, you require less timing, making the chances of swinging on plane and hitting the ball in the middle of the clubface greater. I find it incredible that Furyk is the most accurate guy on tour, but he's got a tremendous talent to make it work. A one-plane swing is easier and more reliable for an amateur, and you can still hit it pretty far. There is a video IIRC on Youtube of James hitting it 300 yards. Point of impact on the clubface is a big factor when it comes to distance, the more you hit it towards the sweetspot, the farther it will go. Having a drop of the arms can make that timing more difficult. The simple answer for me is you have a smaller arc and less weight transfer with S & T then some other patterns. I started this off by saying "on a well executed swing" so that takes timing, contact, swing plane etc out of the conversation. As I said before though, in the real world where all these factors come in to play on average i believe S & T is as at least as long as any other pattern Quote: Originally Posted by iacas I'll have to continue to disagree, in general. "Power" is fundamental #2 in what we teach and we routinely get more speed out of people. I have more speed. Just got a call from a guy who's been taking lessons who is blown away by his increased speed. Go back to my post Eric - how many students do you get who are executing their pattern "well" already when they come to you? Considering that many pattern are difficult for even a pro to execute well most of the time, I would have to assume very few. That what I like about S & T, it is just an easier way to hit the ball. Quote: Again, it's not the swing we'd teach if power mattered MOST, but among the swings out there, I disagree. Tiger's switched and added a lot of components from S&T; (whether you want to call it that or not - his shoulders are steeper, he's making a centered turn, his hands are more inward, etc.), and he's picked up distance throughout the bag. He's commented on it several times (and he's not like Phil Mickelson, who claims to gain 30 yards every time he gets a new driver...). The PGA Tour pros have gained distance since switching, and they were arguably some of the best "normal" swingers out there already. Consider the fact that translating off and back onto the ball (moving back and and then forward) per the "normal" swing is a slower way to swing than staying centered. I can't say I agree, I still think - Bubba swinging his crazy swing and doing it well vs Bubba doing a S & T swing well, the first Bubba hits it longer. Then to get the 'many' swings I talked about above, just insert other names for Bubba – many will be longer, many will be shorter. If you go back to what I said I can't even see how anyone could argue against such a general statement: """"" a well executed S & T swing is not as good as many other swings when well executed (ie. it produces slightly less distance than many other swings), Lets flip my statement to the car world - a well running Audi S5 is not as good as many other well running sports cars (ie it is slightly slower than many other cars). Now is this statement 'not even close to correct'? I not sure how many unique swings are out there -hundreds? thousands? millions? Are many longer then a pure S & T (when well executed)? Yes. Do remember we are talking about a well executed swing - if we had some sort of maltby playability factor for swings -S & T might look like this: Distance: 4/5 Workability: 4/5 Forgiveness: 5/5 (not needed in this discusion - as we are only talking about well executed) Athletisism required: 4/5 (not needed....) Bubba Swing Distance: 5/5 Workability: 5/5 Forgiveness : 1/5 (NN) Athletisism required :1/5(NN) My whole point is that if you can a guarantee that you will execute the swing well every time - S & T is not for you. For the 99.99999% of golfers that can't execute a swing well every time they may want to look into S & T.

Eric I think we agree on S & T far more then we disagree. Agree: Good pattern with allot to offer Agree: That the swing is good for golf overall Agree: The name / marketing has caused some problems that may have been avoided with a different approach Disagree: I think the "normal" (what ever that is) swing offers more potential distance, still I agree with you in the real world, for most golfers, they would average as good or better distance with the S & T because of better and more consistent contact. (I actually think we agree here) Anyhow you asked me to explain why I think people involved with S & T are doing it for self interest. For one there is a business end to stack and tilt and many of the people promoting it have a personal interest in the pattern. You are a S & T instructor, if you had 0 students that want to learn the pattern, would you still teach it? I would say the same thing about golf in general - many of the people promoting it are doing it for self interest. Less golfers less golf jobs. When some one gives a free clinic to kids, it is done on some level to 'share' the game but on some level to assure there golf customers in the future. If you ignore the business side of things you still have the great feeling a person gets by helping other people. I have some good Buddhist friends that often remind me that I should thank people for allowing me to help them, as I gain more by giving help then they receive by getting help. It sounds corny, but as a teacher yourself I am sure you 'get' what I am talking about. Oh yes and back to the business side, you have to help yourself before you can help others. Anyhow like I said above - there is nothing wrong with self interest.

On the surface that seems like a pretty smart move, Medicus does a good job of selling . Period. It also makes a tonne of sense to me now as the S & T marketing sure does have the Medicus touch (both bad and good). Thanks, I find this information very helpful.

Not that I know of. As far as I am aware you have nothing to do with AM Golf Associates . S & T is registered to AM Golf Associates, Mike Bennett is the legal principal of the company. On paper it it would appear Bennett has final say on how S & T is marketed. Does he exercise his right? I have no clue. As this is about what 'I think' not about fact, my assumption is that Bennett does have final sign off and as much input as he chooses. The company may be set up in different way then what appears on paper and the may have some agreements I know nothing about. I am not sure what their goals are and what they defined as success. If making money was their goal, then no I think they would have made less money. If the goal was to get the swing known, again I think they would have been less successful. If the goal was for the swing to be accepted by more of the mainstream golf community, again I think they have done a good job of this. If the goal was to alienate the least amount of people (or the smallest percentage of people) then yes they could have done this better, but at only at a cost of less people knowing about their swing in total (ie different marketing approach = 500 support swing, 50 (10%) push back, actual approach = 1000 support swing, 250 (25%) push back. I am already dumb enough to get into the stack and tilt debate, I am not going to jump into the "what is good journalism" debate. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to make that call. Do I think the article the OP linked to is any good? Not really.

You got it - it is supposed to be a swing with less chance for error. My $.02 is it does achieve this. As for me being cynical, you got me there, I do think allot of people involved with stack and tilt are doing it for self interest (not that there is anything wrong with that). I give A & P full credit for a great pattern and great marketing, I can't think of any other pattern that has been branded like theirs. BTY I am someone who likes the S & T pattern, I am not committed to everything about it, but I do like it and think it has great merit.

You got give the S & T folks some of the fault here. They have not marketed the swing as a "modern look at Ben Hogan 5 lessons", they have called it a "Revolutionary golf swing", they proudly display the quote "...contradicts almost everything being taught in the game today." S & T's own marketing is based on 'false facts', what they are teaching isn't new and revolutionary, what they are teaching is an older style of swinging that they are presenting in a new way, S & T does contradict almost everything being taught, it has far more in common with good patterns then it does contradict them. I still go back to assertion that there is nothing wrong with S & T as a pattern, it is just the marketing that has caused the push back. I don't even think there is anything wrong with the marketing/branding, it is done a great job of getting buzz about the swing and making A & P money,but it is easy to see why many people are turned off by it and by extension write off the pattern (at their own loss).

I have trouble carrying a branded bag or wearing a branded hat, if I don't have at least one club from that manufacturer I wouldn't do it. I know it is silly. I use sun mountain bags so I can ho any club.

Works better with a solid rubber ball you can grab at any dollar store. and BTY if you do step #2 twice you have a BOGO

53 minutes for those TWO holes. Ouch!

Isn't S & T based on what tour pros do? So is it a surprise that you see Tour Pro using the elements? It is like a restaurant putting fishing and chips on the menu because people like them and then say people like fish and chips because it on their menu.