|
|
Post by michaelfinney on Apr 13, 2011 13:32:15 GMT -5
Which scientists were consulted by Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer with respect to developing the Stack and Tilt golf swing? I know they talked to and continue to talk to Robert Grober. I was wondering who else was consulted and who else might be giving it their scientific blessing. This is not a drive by. I repeat, this is not a drive by. It is a question that I would love to have answered.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by mchepp on Apr 13, 2011 15:47:01 GMT -5
One question for you. Why do they a scientist to give it a blessing? Did Jack Grout get a blessing before teaching Jack, or Butch have a scientist on staff when he was teaching Tiger? Heck Butch is so far from science he doesn't even acknowledge the new ball flight laws.
I fail to see why someone like Andy can't spend his youth studying and cataloging swings deciding what works what doesn't to arrive at what he (rather foolishly with the benefit of hindsight)called Stack and Tilt. Many a great instructor did not need science to create great golfers.
Please dont take me as a person who disregards science. But I had a girlfriend in college who was a court reporter she told me there was a "expert" or "scientist" who could be found to contradict each other for the right price in trials. I mean are eggs bad for me or good for me, I could find stories going either way. Just because a scientist give it their blessing does not make it fool proof.
I will also add that I do not use S&T, but I think much of it has merit.
|
|
awkrad
Beat up Radials
Posts: 44
|
Post by awkrad on Apr 13, 2011 16:01:37 GMT -5
I'm speculating, but I imagine they will have picked up/inherited a lot of Mac's research, and he had numerous sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelfinney on Apr 13, 2011 21:39:17 GMT -5
One question for you. Why do they (need) a scientist to give it a blessing? I didn't say they needed a scientific blessing. I was asking if they HAD a scientist giving it their blessing. Two different things.... |
|
|
|
Post by michaelfinney on Apr 13, 2011 21:40:24 GMT -5
I'm speculating, but I imagine they will have picked up/inherited a lot of Mac's research, and he had numerous sources. Mac had numerous sources? Let's see the list. I eagerly await this. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelfinney on Apr 13, 2011 22:50:47 GMT -5
not looking for original ideas....or claiming to have any....just want to know which "original thinkers" the stack and tilt teachers were leaning on for the science behind their pattern...
from what i gather from the defensive, deflecting responses is that there is no science behind this stuff...if there was, the names would have already been named....now come on...give me your best shot while not answering - AGAIN
|
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Apr 13, 2011 22:54:49 GMT -5
siteseer2, please knock it off. Really, I cannot tell you how much I hate suspending people or banning them. But, if I have to, I will.
I do think Mike has asked a good question.
Personally I do not know.
I think awkrad is right. All I can say is that from what I've learned, it's obvious to me that Mac spent a lot of money and time and effort to get ahold of biomechanists, optometrists, engineers, physicists, etc. And it's not something I was told and took at face value.
I really don't want to go into it more than that and I know a lot of people don't like that stance. But it's not like Mac is out there with DVD's, books, Web sites, forums and podcasts trying to actively promote his product. And there's nothing wrong with that if you're an instructor who does that. I just think if a guy isn't making his teaching services overly public and he wants thinks kept rather hush-hush, I can respect those wishes. If he was out there with a Web site like Brian's or Lynn's or Chuck Quinton's and wanted it hush-hush, then I think that would be hypocritical.
And don't give me the 'the newspapers and magazine articles' promote him argument. Those guys rip into him for being an oddity or being too technical or whatever as much as anything.
3JACK
|
|
damonlucas
Beat up Radials
3Jack Top 50 Swing & Top 20 Putting Instructor
Posts: 14
|
Post by damonlucas on Apr 13, 2011 22:55:46 GMT -5
I would second this request....Mac supposedly had some ground breaking material on eye movements/vision, and biomechanics, amongst other disciplines.
His work is obviously the main source for SnT, and as such , holds some interest for some people, including me.
|
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Apr 14, 2011 7:14:13 GMT -5
How about y'all ask Mike, Andy, and Mac? Seems like the logical thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelfinney on Apr 14, 2011 7:40:27 GMT -5
i did.....nothing so far
|
|
|
|
Post by philrosenbaum on Apr 14, 2011 9:55:42 GMT -5
Eric, You teach stack and tilt and do not know where the information comes from? I would find it very hard to teach a method without knowing where the affirmation is coming from. Maybe you can ask Mike and Andy and share with us. I am sure they would share with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbooky on Apr 14, 2011 11:09:37 GMT -5
out of curiosity .. what part or parts would to like to see scientifically backed up? and if so, why?
|
|
|
|
Post by kamandi on Apr 14, 2011 11:42:14 GMT -5
I'm not a stack and tilter, but honestly, I see absolutely no significance in the question, unless S & T has said that they have the best swing, because they consulted with scientists.
I would be wary of any teacher who says they teach the best swings, because they consulted scientists. Heck, I'd be wary of any teacher who says their swing, or teaching style, is the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelfinney on Apr 14, 2011 11:43:25 GMT -5
macbooky, don't want to go round and round with you - we've done enough of that....just looking for some names, if they exist, of scientists or golf researchers that provided bennett and plummer with some background.....robert grober - he's awesome - he likes the double pendulum and touts its benefits....as of now, that's the only name that has come up in discussion...
if i were to hear other names, i would find their research and study and draw my own conclusions - that's it - nothing more, nothing less
over time on this board and several others, i have offered up the names of the guys we have consulted with and studied...we are still just scratching the surface, but i believe we are further down the road than most - also we haven't marketed a pattern that would frighten us from doing more research (and maybe finding out what we're selling isn't exactly beneficial to the masses and/or the individual student in front of us)
the question still stands and it boggles my mind that i don't have an answer yet - some possible reasons:
1. there is no one other than grober
2. there are plenty other names, we're not going to tell you
3. there are plenty other names, we don't want to tell you because you will probably bother them
4. we really have no clue what science says, we're just winging it and hoping that a s&t player wins a few majors and we can feed our families a little better
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelfinney on Apr 14, 2011 11:49:14 GMT -5
I see absolutely no significance in the question I see LOTS of significance unless S & T has said that they have the best swing, because they consulted with scientists. You'ld be surprised what has been said |
|
