Andy Plummer & Mike Bennett Interview w/C. Rose

[Richie3Jack]

I was going to post this on my blog, but I don't think I can embed it.

www.charlierose.com/view/content/10775

I liked the interview and for a person with somewhat pedestrian knowledge of the swing, I thought Rose did a good job interviewing.

But, I hated those still pics they showed early on. I thought it was downright deceptive and while there are some things that do not make me a fan of the S&T swing, I think I've given it a very fair chance as far as my perspective on it and I think it's a very viable pattern for a lot of golfers.

But, those still pics were extremely deceptive and I don't like that.

Does Jack really look like that still pic they showed?



or Hogan?



I certainly do not think so.

I stil think the S&T guys, by and large, are good for the game of golf. I'm not the type that likes to 'write people off', but I was very disappointed in them showing those pics to try and sell the product.




3JACK

[imperfectgolfer]

I think that Bennett/Plummer manifest the same phenomenon in their book. They identify certain non-key elements of their swing pattern in many famous golfers of the recent/remote past, in an attempt to generate the incorrect impression that famous golfers in the past have used a variant of the S&T swing. However, those golfers never manifested the key features of the S&T swing - i) a leftwards tilted upper torso at the end-backswing and ii) an assertive left-lateral pelvic/butt thrust action needed to reverse the tilt.

Jeff.

[TeddyIrons]

This is the first time I've ever listened to these guys. I have to say, I found them completely untrustworthy - just my opinion. Those images were in fact very deceptive, taken from 45 degrees to the left of the caddie view, making it look like golfers are leaning to their left on the backswing.

They start by claiming that the old golf flight laws were bad and the reason so many golfers couldn't improve. Huh? and what does stack'n'tilt have to do with that?

The other contention I have is that stack'n'tilt is easier for the less able golfers to learn. Really? From discussions I've seen in stack'n'tilt threads, students are requiring a lot of guidance.

Tiger Woods hits it a lot to the right. So that's because he doesn't use Stack'n'Tilt, right?

I just don't get it. They are claiming that the classic great golf swings of the past were not the best way to hit a golf ball, except of course that they all had some Stack'n'Tilt elements to them. I agree with all the criticism that passes their way. Glad I saw this.

[kevcarter]

Sorry guys, no disrespect intended, but I disagree...

I think pictures of great players through the years can be found that prove or disprove just about every swing method in the game. I don't believe P&B are using their selected pictures to "sell" their method, but I believe they are being used as a visual tool to help people understand the positions they are looking for.

Perhaps I am just naive, but I see the use of these pictures totally differently than you guys are expressing. I am a fan of S&T, just like I'm a fan of MANY great teachers and teaching concepts. No right, wrong, or best.

Just my opinion...

Kevin

[imperfectgolfer]

Kevin,

I think that Bennett/Plummer should be free to promote their S&T swing style, but I think that their S&T swing style is distinctive and that it requires very specific biomechanical motions/postures. Those very specific features are not found in famous golfers such as Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and Ben Hogan.

For example, on page 7 of their book they have a series of photos of 6 golfers with the caption-: "these golf legends illustrtate similar hand path, with the hands passing through the body at the base of the right biceps". It is true that those golfers took their hands "deeper" in the backswing, but it is not causally due to the same biomechanical factors involved in the S&T swing (a leftwards-tilted and extended spine and a ferris-wheel type of shoulder rotation). In fact, they feature Gary Player in that series and he has a very flat shoulder turn.

Jeff.

[kevcarter]

Jeff,

I don't think the fact that their teaching is a distinctive, and what many consider innovative, requires us to hold them to a higher standard than any other teachers.

Again, JMO.

Kevin

[imperfectgolfer]

Kevin,

I agree - they shouldn't be held to a higher standard of "truthful representation" than other golf instructors.

I think that other golf instructors, who incorrectly claim that famous golfers use their swing style, should also be admonished for misrepresenting reality. For example, Jim Hardy incorrectly claims that Hogan was a Hardy OPS-style golfer.

Jeff.

[kevcarter]

Who defines "truthful?"

Many body types, many different mental make ups. No right, wrong, best. Do what works for you and what you can repeat. P&B have gotten a lot of folks excited about golf again... I'm not S&T, but I enjoy their work.

Kevin

[imperfectgolfer]

Kevin

I think there is no "gold standard" for the definition of "truthfulness" in the field of golf instruction. It's like politics - there are only opinions!

However, a golf instructor creates an "aura" regarding his golf instructional teaching when he makes certain "questionable" claims.

For example, in their book, Bennett/Plummer have a chapter where they compare their S&T swing to the traditional/conventional swing. I think that it is a good idea to make this comparison, because it allows a reader to more clearly discern the differences between a S&T swing and the traditional/conventional swing. However, do you think that they have fairly (truthfully) represented the traditional/conventional swing in their comparison?

Jeff.

[kevcarter]

Jeff,

In my opinion, this thread is a personal assault at Mr. Bennetts's and Mr. Plummers integrity, not just a discussion of their methodology. It makes me uncomfortable, and I think this forum is better than that. I think P&B truly believe in their ideas, and are not expressing anything that is not "truthful." Perhaps it goes against what many believe, but personal attacks on instructors should remain on other forums, not here.

I believe Richie calling their teaching methods "deceptive" demands that those who enjoy their work stand up for them as people. I'm not going to argue the bio-mechanics, you OWN me when it comes to discussing the golf swing, but I will not be part of a forum that goes after other teachers integrity. That was done to me recently on another forum, and it's just plain wrong, as well as hurtful. We are gentlemen here, not a wolf pack.

Kevin

[imperfectgolfer]

Kevin

I think that you are misconstruing 3jack's use of the term "deceptive".

I don't believe that he was claiming that Bennett/Plummer's S&T teaching is "deceptive". I think that he is stating that they are being "deceptive" in linking their S&T swing methodology to the swings of famous golfers who do not use the S&T swing methodology.

I see that a similar thread is happening at BM's forum. It would seem that a number of golf forum members there also "feel" that B/P are overly biased in their public presentation of their S&T swing methodology, and that they are being consciously (or unconsciously) "deceptive".

Whether this type of criticism should be openly debated in this forum is a good question. I don't have an answer. My main focus is on vigorously debating the intellectual basis of different golf instructors' recommendations regarding golf swing mechanics/biomechanics.

Jeff.

[kevcarter]

Jeff,

You are most likely 100% correct, I have taken statements the wrong way before, and will again. It just rubbed me the wrong way...

Thanks Man,

Kevin

[gmbtempe]

Richie,

I have made the same complaint about the book pictures on wrx...I think I am pretty unbiased when it comes to SnT. I like some of it, think a lot of it is very viable, but other pieces give me pause.

The pictures though are a different story in the book. For example the inside hand path and flat arms in the backswing photo's are taken an angle that is not down the line and even a guy like Lee Trevino can be made to look this way at those camera angles. The also do this for the centered spine and tilt at the top of the swing. I think they could have proven their point with more honest pictures.

In the same book they tell you in order to get the correct camera footage you need to properly set up the camera down the line and perpendicular in the caddy view.

[kevcarter]

I am clearly in the minority of the folks I respect. My apologies for questioning the original post. I KNOW neither Richie, Teddy, Jeff or Greg have an agenda...

Kevin

[imperfectgolfer]

I think that 3jack is "correct" to question the wisdom of assessing whether a golfer has a leftwards-tilted spine when using a camera angle taken from about 45 degrees right-of-center.

What should be the "correct" camera angle?

A forum member at BM's forum expressed the following opinion-: "Michael, the lateral flexion of the spine to the left is most visible when the camera is at a right angle to the shoulder turn. The closer the camera is to that angle the more noticeable the lateral flexion is. Extension vs. forward flexion is much more noticeable from face on."

I think that he is totally wrong - 100% wrong. I think that leftwards/rightwards spinal tilt should be assessed by a camera angle that is face-on (perfectly perpendicular to the ball-target line presuming that the body stance is parallel to the ball-target line), while one needs a DTL view to assess the degree of spinal bend (degree of forward flexion).

Jeff.