|
Post by TeddyIrons on Feb 19, 2010 16:50:07 GMT -5
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 That's true, I think Richie has given Stack'n'tilt some good honest air time, and myself I really have never delved into it and don't have a strong opinion on it. I just found the whole video dishonest, and not just the photo. The discussion on Tiger's hitting right and the ball flight laws are not a claim for going stack'n'tilt. I think if Bennet and Plummer came out and said "here is another way of doing it" then fine, I'd have no issue and would judge it on the information in there, but instead they seem to be claiming that golf is difficult because we are taught to do a weight shift and stack'n'tilt is somehow much easier and actually better than how golfers have swung a club for over 50 years. And yet at the same time, they claim good golfers did do some stack'n'tilt anyway. As an independent observer with no experience with stack'n'tilt, I'd have to say that is the least convincing adverting for a golf swing method that I have ever seen. Maybe it was badly presented and there is a lot more merit to their method than was presented in this video.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Feb 19, 2010 16:54:30 GMT -5
Kevin, I have no problem with your thoughts that the original post was an assault on their integrity. I don't know either Plummer or Bennett personally but I do question their integrity when it comes to teaching the S&T after seeing them use those pictures to validate their claims.
It's flat out deceptive and if I personally cannot ignore it.
That doesn't mean I don't think the S&T is a viable swing pattern. We've seen guys like Charlie Wi improve with it and as far as I'm concerned, Sean O'Hair has improved greatly and his swing is really about as S&T as it gets.
Now, that doesn't mean that I think the actual S&T or other people teaching/using S&T have questionable integrity. But, I think what Plummer and Bennett did was deceptive and the worst part of it is that they really don't need to do that to continue to teach top tier golfers.
From my perspective everybody makes mistakes. So hopefully they won't resort to this again.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by kevcarter on Feb 19, 2010 18:49:17 GMT -5
Thanks 3Jack!
Kevin
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 19, 2010 19:52:01 GMT -5
3jack
I can understand why you were dismayed by the Charlie Rose show.
I think that Bennett/Plummer did their credibility great harm by starting off by claiming that their swing style was revolutionary because it relates better to the "new" ball flight laws, while simultaneously claiming that traditional golf instruction was wrong because it was based on the old ball flight laws. The "new" ball flights do not really impact golf instruction in terms of how the body/arms/hands move in space, and Plummer's wrongheaded claim makes him look unnecessarily foolish.
Although I was slightly upset by their interview, I haven't let my emotional reaction bias my personal approach to dissecting their swing methodology. I have focused all my attention on the details of their S&T teaching methodology, and I disagree with many aspects of their teaching philosophy. I primarily object to their absolute necessity of having an assertive left-lateral pelvic motion to reverse the spinal tilt in the downswing, but I also think that there are other problems with their swing style. For example, I noted that Bennett/Plummer conceded that their S&T golfers have to hit down with a driver, and Plummer stated that it "was only 1 degree down". However, that is a great disadvantage for golfers who want to hit upwards when using a driver.
Another major problem I have with the S&T swing relates to Bennett/Plummer's ideas on how to hit fades/draws. I think that their ideas are wrong and I have started a thread to discuss that specific issue. I would be interested in reading David Wedzik's opinion on this issue.
Jeff.
|
|
johngrahamgolf
'88 Apex Redlines
3Jack Top 20 Short Game/Putting Instructor
Posts: 229
|
Post by johngrahamgolf on Feb 20, 2010 15:44:28 GMT -5
I was going to post this on my blog, but I don't think I can embed it. www.charlierose.com/view/content/10775I 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 Rich, Did you get a chance to read my reply on the Bmanz site? If not I will write it here again. John
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Feb 20, 2010 15:59:43 GMT -5
Rich, Did you get a chance to read my reply on the Bmanz site? If not I will write it here again. John No, I would like to see it. I started reading the thread and got a headache. I thought Mike Finney basically echoes my thoughts on it...P&B don't need deceptive pics like that to show good players with their spine in an alignment at P4 like they teach. A few months ago, Dana Dahlquist showed pics of Tiger and Phil hitting a driver on his Facebook page and then says to the effect that Tour players hit down on the driver otherwise you will go into the woods. And then he uses the then #1 (Tiger) and #2 (Phil) players in the world as an example of two golfers hitting down on the driver. I like Dana a lot. I think he's a great guy, great teacher and really good player and most of the time I agree with him. That being said, I thought it was a poor statement and a poor example because Tiger and Phil hit it all over the place with the driver. And then you here S&T guys talking about having a 'flat hit' with a driver. Just very confusing, and really not necessary. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Feb 20, 2010 16:03:43 GMT -5
Rich, Did you get a chance to read my reply on the Bmanz site? If not I will write it here again. John No, I would like to see it. I started reading the thread and got a headache. I thought Mike Finney basically echoes my thoughts on it...P&B don't need deceptive pics like that to show good players with their spine in an alignment at P4 like they teach. A few months ago, Dana Dahlquist showed pics of Tiger and Phil hitting a driver on his Facebook page and then says to the effect that Tour players hit down on the driver otherwise you will go into the woods. And then he uses the then #1 (Tiger) and #2 (Phil) players in the world as an example of two golfers hitting down on the driver. I like Dana a lot. I think he's a great guy, great teacher and really good player and most of the time I agree with him. That being said, I thought it was a poor statement and a poor example because Tiger and Phil hit it all over the place with the driver. And then you here S&T guys talking about having a 'flat hit' with a driver. Just very confusing, and really not necessary. 3JACK Not only that but David Orr teaches to have a 55/45 weight setup yet in the video B and P say its hould be 40/60 weight setup (both numbers are weight on right foot with a driver).
|
|
johngrahamgolf
'88 Apex Redlines
3Jack Top 20 Short Game/Putting Instructor
Posts: 229
|
Post by johngrahamgolf on Feb 20, 2010 16:28:20 GMT -5
Rich, Did you get a chance to read my reply on the Bmanz site? If not I will write it here again. John No, I would like to see it. I started reading the thread and got a headache. I thought Mike Finney basically echoes my thoughts on it...P&B don't need deceptive pics like that to show good players with their spine in an alignment at P4 like they teach. A few months ago, Dana Dahlquist showed pics of Tiger and Phil hitting a driver on his Facebook page and then says to the effect that Tour players hit down on the driver otherwise you will go into the woods. And then he uses the then #1 (Tiger) and #2 (Phil) players in the world as an example of two golfers hitting down on the driver. I like Dana a lot. I think he's a great guy, great teacher and really good player and most of the time I agree with him. That being said, I thought it was a poor statement and a poor example because Tiger and Phil hit it all over the place with the driver. And then you here S&T guys talking about having a 'flat hit' with a driver. Just very confusing, and really not necessary. 3JACK Rich, Basically what I said was it depends on what those picture were trying to describe. I didn't get a clear understanding from the video and I should watch it again to double check. If those pictures were being to used to discuss the position of the spine relative to the target at the top of the backswing (eg leaning left actually over extension(i think its called)) than yes those pictures are from a poor location and don't accurately show that. Aaron Badeley pics in the golf digest would qualify as a spine with over extension when he posed for those pictures. However, if those pictures are being used to show the tilting( sidebend) to the left that the spine does do, than those pictures would be correct and accurate. They would show side bend to the left rotated 45 degrees or whatever the angle was. I think like many things, this may have been caused by poor communication and a misunderstanding of how the word tilt is defined by different parties. As you know, I am not a stack and tilt teacher but, like you, I try to study everything I can get my hands on. I've had many discussions about the spine in the golf swing but wouldn't call myself an expert by any means. The key to those pics and many other I would imagine is the intent of golfer(which is almost never known) and the intent of the user. For me, so far, they have a 50/50 chance of being used correctly. Thoughts? John
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 20, 2010 18:46:32 GMT -5
John,
You wrote-: "However, if those pictures are being used to show the tilting( sidebend) to the left that the spine does do, than those pictures would be correct and accurate."
I don't understand that point. I think that if one wants to accurately quantify the degree of leftwards-tilt of the spine towards the target, then surely the camera angle must be at right angles to the plane of motion.
The phrase "tilt to the left" cannot have a different meaning dependent on a user's intent.
Jeff.
|
|
johngrahamgolf
'88 Apex Redlines
3Jack Top 20 Short Game/Putting Instructor
Posts: 229
|
Post by johngrahamgolf on Feb 20, 2010 22:36:16 GMT -5
John, You wrote-: "However, if those pictures are being used to show the tilting( sidebend) to the left that the spine does do, than those pictures would be correct and accurate." I don't understand that point. I think that if one wants to accurately quantify the degree of leftwards-tilt of the spine towards the target, then surely the camera angle must be at right angles to the plane of motion. The phrase "tilt to the left" cannot have a different meaning dependent on a user's intent. Jeff. I should have been more clear. I was referring to the sidebend that's occuring toward the ball not toward the target. Because this sidebending (tilting) is happening the entire time during the backswing(if done properly in their model(I believe)) it can be shown accurately if pictures are taken at right angles to the sternum during the backswing. I guess this topic addresses your second point, because my intent was toward the ball. Some people may use tilt relative to the target. John
|
|
|
Post by mudball on Feb 21, 2010 19:25:47 GMT -5
Wow, where have I been - what a good discussion! Deceptive is an emotive and IMO the wrong word in this context. They are using photos in many cases to demonstrate what they mean - a picture is worth a thousand words they say... ("they" being people generally not just Plummer and Bennett). They (Bennett and Plummer) have come to a conclusion about the swing and have developed a system and they are trying to demonstrate it. They are not saying Jack Nicklaus was a stack and tilter. This is absolutely no different from any other top (or lesser teachers / coashes) For example I can get my Jimmy Ballard book out and see Jimmy take other views and fit them to the concepts he is trying to explain. So don't get fixated on the photos - use them in conjunction with the words - if you get the image without the use of the image then fine you've got the point they were trying to explain about their system. So for example and to illustrate my point - people use photos to express a point. Richie has posted three photos of Jack - they look legitimate and showing Jack's swing in various stages... but on closer inspection you will see these are in fact three separate photos taken at three different times. You can tell that by the divot marks on the ground. The camera angle seems to change as can be seen by the lawn mower marks in the grass in the background. So we can suggest by the marks on the ground that the sequenbce the photos were taken is in fact the opposite of how they are shown in the sequence in the post i.e. first photo was follow through, 2nd was top of backswing and last photo taken was the address. We don't know how many other photos were taken that day or how long between those shots. So is Richie being deliberately deceptive...? I doubt it very much. We also don't know what Jack was actually trying to do - for all we know the first swing was a fade, the 2nd a top and the third a hook - we don't know do we? We can express opinions and try to come to a conclusion on the evidence but that's all it is. Also this is not the swing Jack stuck with - like most of us he continually tweaked and improved his swing. My point is that you can find evidence to express a point of view and see one event many different ways if you shoose. Plummer and Bennett (I think) are simply highlighting the key things they want to get across. Camera's and video clips can be misleading - so don't use them in isolation - look at what the ball does.
TeddyIrons - good question about the ball flight laws... my interpretation is that - in essence Plummer and Bennett would prefer to get most amateurs hitting the ball whilst the swing is coming from the inside rather than once it has moved back to the inside on the follow through. The old ball flight rules state to hit a draw - aim swing path right (i.e. aim body and stance right) and clubface left of that line (i.e. at the target) - the new ball flight rules say that the starting direction is determined more by the clubface direction than the swing path. So their view is you aim the clubface right of the target and swing out more right... this results in a shot that starts right and draws back to but does not go past the target. They would prefer you hit a push than over drew the ball to the left of the target. So that is why I believe they address this point. Their point is that by aiming the clubface left the ball is likely to start on that path - the golfer therefore thinks his swing is wrong as he set up to hit a draw but the ball started left of where he intended. They are saying this is because the golfer set up incorrectly to use the ball flight laws effectively.
Jeff - As for the debate about where to place the camera and the BM forum post - aren't you actually both saying the same thing as the guy in the BM post - I've read it twice now and I think you are in violent agreement...?!
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 21, 2010 19:53:04 GMT -5
Dave,
You wrote-: "TeddyIrons - good question about the ball flight laws... my interpretation is that - in essence Plummer and Bennett would prefer to get most amateurs hitting the ball whilst the swing is coming from the inside rather than once it has moved back to the inside on the follow through."
How can a golfer hit a golf ball after low point - if the ball is placed on the ground? The clubhead is moving up-and-inside after low point, and one cannot hit up on a ball placed on the ground.
I think that all golfers, who have an in-to-square-to-in clubhead arc (relative to the base of the inclined plane - HSP), have to hit the ball from the inside because they are placing their ball behind low point - whether they want to hit a fade or a draw.
I think that my recommended camera angle is 90 degrees opposed to the BM forum member's recommended camera angle.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 21, 2010 20:37:30 GMT -5
Although I disagree with Brian regarding many golf swing mechanics/biomechanics issues, I think that he is perfectly correct in his assessment of Bennett/Plummer's statements during the the Charlie Rose interview.
Brian correctly quotes AP as follows:
"ANDY PLUMMER direct quotes:
"What if I told that all the rules that people have been taught to play golf by, weren't correct"
"...and what if I told you the basic premise of the game was backwards."
I think that Andy was implying that i) golf instructors have used incorrect golf instructional teaching in the past - and he also ii) relates it to the "old" ball flight laws. I think that AP is wrong on both of those two issues.
One could state that one should not be surprised by Andy's claims considering the blurb statement on the front cover of their book - "The DEFINITIVE GUIDE to the SWING that is REMAKING GOLF".
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Feb 22, 2010 0:42:57 GMT -5
John,
You wrote-: "I guess this topic addresses your second point, because my intent was toward the ball. Some people may use tilt relative to the target."
I try and avoid confusion regarding "spine angles" in my writing by only using the term tilt" with reference to a spine that is angled towards/away from the target, and I only use the term "bend" to refer to variable degrees of spine angle towards the ball. I think that a face-on camera view is needed to assess spinal tilt, and a DTL camera view is needed to assess spinal bend.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by mudball on Feb 22, 2010 2:52:18 GMT -5
Dave, You wrote-: "TeddyIrons - good question about the ball flight laws... my interpretation is that - in essence Plummer and Bennett would prefer to get most amateurs hitting the ball whilst the swing is coming from the inside rather than once it has moved back to the inside on the follow through." How can a golfer hit a golf ball after low point - if the ball is placed on the ground? The club head is moving up-and-inside after low point, and one cannot hit up on a ball placed on the ground. I think that all golfers, who have an in-to-square-to-in club head arc (relative to the base of the inclined plane - HSP), have to hit the ball from the inside because they are placing their ball behind low point - whether they want to hit a fade or a draw. I think that my recommended camera angle is 90 degrees opposed to the BM forum member's recommended camera angle. Jeff. Jeff Thanks for your reply. Please refer to page 120 of their book. For those who don't have the book - I refer to "All golfers can be split into two groups as it relates to this diagram (refers to a diagram of club swinging on an arc from the inside to impact and then and arm swinging after impact back to the inside. The two arcs are painted on the ground and are relatively small arcs showing quite a large variation to the target line - I suspect this is done for effect to highlight the two sides of the swing arc): Those who strike the ball on the back side of the circle, with the club head still swinging outward, and those who make contact on the front side, with the club head having reached its apex and returning to the inside, swinging across the ball.The book then then goes on to explain how you can determine which group the reader belongs to. (Pulls and slices - hitting on the front side as they call it & pushes or hooks - hitting on the back side). So to be clear I was discussing Plummer and Bennett's view not a personal one and responding to Teddyirons question about ball flight laws and their relation to S&T. This is a very important point. Also this point is stressed in the video clip at the start of this thread posted by Richie.Now to answer your question - "How can a golfer hit a golf ball after low point - if the ball is placed on the ground?" - I see this every time I play golf - I've even done it myself. It may not be absolutely desirable but it is perfectly possible. A couple of things that make this possible are: i) The arc is not a circle laid flat on the floor it is a large circle inclined to the floor. Therefore the radius of that arc is quite large. The average divot is not significantly deep in relation to the size of the arc - it is literally millimeters to perhaps a couple of centimeters. ii) the shorter the club (e.g. pitching wedge) generally the more 'upright' the swing plane and therefore a deeper divot. Whereas with longer clubs the arc is shallower - with fairway woods the divot might be very thin and hardly break through the grass to the soil below. So I think it is quite possible to catch the ball more on the front side as they call it compared to the back side of the circle. However, Plummer and Bennett's system encompass both groups of players. But my understanding is they encourage hitting on the back side of the circle and a resulting push draw pattern. But the ball flight laws are a key corner stone of their beliefs and thoughts on the effective swing. Hence my reply to TeddyIrons question - which is a fair one - and hopefully that helps people understand their views on this. Although you just have to listen to the video clip and their interview to hear it yourself. Now I come to the second part of your response - you said: I think that all golfers, who have an in-to-square-to-in club head arc (relative to the base of the inclined plane - HSP), have to hit the ball from the inside because they are placing their ball behind low point - whether they want to hit a fade or a draw.I think Plummer and Bennett would agree with you on this and they would say that is possible through the use of a push fade. They would probably contend this is the shot Jack Nicklaus used for example. They believe this is a shot that comes from the inside and hits the ball on the back side of the circle - but they recommend aligning well to the left so that relative to the ball the club is traveling across (out to in) compared to a line drawn straight from the ball to the target. If you want a fade shape this is the preferred way of doing it in their system. It's a minor alignment to then allow the player to hit draws as opposed to having two develop two slightly different swings. Lastly, camera angles - I have read the BM post again and I still think that poster is saying the same as you. I also think you are right. A simpler and better way of saying it though is actually in their book - I refer to page 194 it simply says "For Face on images, always position your camera perpendicular to your starting line" Which is saying the same thing as the BM post but in fewer and simpler words. They had the help of a professional writer I guess I would point out that camera images are two-dimensional and are useful just like the drawing by Anthony Ravielli are in Hogan's book. But they are open to interpretation - which is what this whole thread hinges on. I don't think Bennett and Plummer are being deceptive - if anyone cares to listen to the video they actually explain this very clearly. One day we may have 3-D holograms of our swings available at the driving range... and perhaps even composite 3-D holograms of players like Nicklaus and Hogan we can stand next to at the range and compare ourselves to. In fact I've just had a business idea - got to dash...
|
|