# The DEFINITIVE S&T video...........



## JustOne (Dec 4, 2012)

This is from *2009*.... and the same old issues keep going around and around on the forum as if no ones ever heard them before (Mike Wier left, it's bad for your back, the pros don't use it.... etc etc) so *IF* you watch the entire 23 minutes it might help give you an insight into what was known/understood 3 WHOLE YEARS AGO (not that I'm suggesting that you've missed the boat.......) 

To understand this video is to:

1) Realise that pros taught the wrong thing to their students for a long time, despite some of the books having the correct information in them.. it basically got lost in translation and what were apparent swing 'fixes' actually became things that made the game HARDER to play. Pros hated it as it made them look silly, they didn't have the answers that their students wanted.... and would subsequently throw all kinds of criticism at it (not much has changed).

2) The spine tilting to the LEFT means that it's leaning TOWARDS THE BALL, not towards the target (rotate your shoulders 90 degrees to the right, now tilt to the left!)

3) It's not possible to teach golf (or learn to fix your own swing) if you don't know the ball flight laws

4) The fundamentals of the game that everyone has been taught are NOT grip, posture alignment etc as every player on tour has a different grip, posture or alignment... so they can't by definition be fundamentals.. not that it's recommended to go too far off the 'beaten track'.

5) To shift your weight off the ball (to the right) means you have to shift it back again... and time that move perfectly. That move alone makes the game harder to play for the 'average' golfer who doesn't stand on the practice ground for 8hrs/day. If you don't shift your weight you MUST tilt your shoulders (and therefore spine) towards the ball.

6) Combined with trackman (backed up by technology) what they have said HAS changed golf.


Here's the *2009* video...

[video]http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10775[/video]


If you have any questions or don't understand any part of it feel free to ask.


----------



## palindromicbob (Dec 4, 2012)

Interesting. I actually am beginning to think that I may be using S&T principles without even realizing.


----------



## chrisd (Dec 4, 2012)

I watched the video in it's entirity this morning, but it doesn't really explain S&T or any of it's concepts. It is purely a question and answer session which I personally found quite uninformative. I accept that ball flight laws are important as is swing plane and many other additional swing characteristics, but, this clip didn't say much that helps to understand why most coaches/player are wrong and S&T converts are right. They are right, imo, to say that you can take elements from S&T and use them with a swing and I personally think a lot of coaches have done that (maybe unwittingly). A lot of coaches now shy away from a backswing that noticibly loads over the right knee with what I would describe as a sway. Most seem to advocate a centered sturnham and turn as "in a barrel" not exactly S&T but getting closer to some of it's principals (I think).

My coach - Paul Page at Kingshill - is a disciple of the Hogan swing (Ben that is , not Hulk although it may have looked like that to you) but varies the teaching allowing for the physical dexterity of the pupil. This I believe is improving my ball striking and overall play. I could go to 10 different coaches and they would all make me change something or other and that would be the same if the top 10 world ranked golfers went to a new coach as it's vital that a coach changes things or he isn't earning his fee - the change may just be the "placebo" effect that And Plummer talks about but as Tiger found out, changing does not always improve things.

I personally believe that if you took a non golfer and taught him/her any "method" of golf swing, lets say S&T in this example, they would become a proficient golfer and their progress would tend to be limited by, the time devoted to practice and playing, willingness to learn and stick with the method, ambition, fitness and other obvious factors. Most of the really good players I see all hit the ball well, get round the course in low numbers but ultimately most are restricted from further improvement but something other than than the quality of their swing. On Saturday I played with Chris (5 h/c) Adam (5 h/c) you and Richardc (17 h/c) and strangely, even with those low handicaps on a tough day I didn't think anyone actually struck their irons much sweeter than RichardC who isn't the accomplished golfer of the others I mentioned, doesn't do a swing following any guru as far as I know, but  with great hand eye co-ordination put club on ball well. Also, the golfers I mention all had vastly different swings for similar handicaps but each swing worked for them.

I think that there isn't a magic formula for golfers, no swing that is perfect, and that the better golfers, even up to the world number 1 gets a basic swing that works and keeps refining it but as Plummer acknowledges that you can just use different elements, and putting them together and seeing if it improves your game, it may be S&T in it's entirity but I can understand that the problem that labelling the S&Tswing with a name causes


----------



## JustOne (Dec 4, 2012)

Great post Chris, totally understand where you're coming from and agree with it, physical dexterity, the fact that everyone would tweak your swing, and the video itself..... apart from this part...



chrisd said:



			I personally believe that if you took a non golfer and taught him/her any "method" of golf swing, lets say S&T in this example, they would become a proficient golfer and their progress would tend to be limited by, the time devoted to practice and playing, willingness to learn and stick with the method, ambition, fitness and other obvious factors. Most of the really good players I see all hit the ball well,.....
		
Click to expand...

I don't think you can take a golfer and teach him any swing and expect him to be proficient. Some swings are far harder to master and become proficient at. If you're going to teach someone then wouldn't you choose a swing pattern that was the easiest and most reliable at least to get them to a 'proficient' level?... then you can add the detail as necessary.

Your last line in the quote above about better players hitting the ball well is because they HAVE tried to master their swings and learned (over time) how to get the club on the ball.... how good might they be if they'd learned that right at the beginning?


----------



## chrisd (Dec 4, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Great post Chris, totally understand where you're coming from and agree with it, physical dexterity, the fact that everyone would tweak your swing, and the video itself..... apart from this part...



I don't think you can take a golfer and teach him any swing and expect him to be proficient. Some swings are far harder to master and become proficient at. If you're going to teach someone then wouldn't you choose a swing pattern that was the easiest and most reliable at least to get them to a 'proficient' level?... then you can add the detail as necessary.

Your last line in the quote above about better players hitting the ball well is because they HAVE tried to master their swings and learned (over time) how to get the club on the ball.... how good might they be if they'd learned that right at the beginning?
		
Click to expand...


For sure we are pretty much agreed James, but I do think that the majority of good players are just that, because they have better than average hand/eye co ordination and that is why Richardc struck the ball so well in my opinion with a swing that is less than Luke Donald. Cookelad had a vastly different swing than Chris (Sandy's other half) but they both play off the same h/c and both scored within 1 point of each other.

I stand by the bit you disagreed with in as much as all golf swings have, by nature, a large degree of similarity and almost every golfer can hit a ball, so, if you take a 12 year old and teach them S&T from day one they will take to it just like any different swing method. It only becomes fine tuning and repetition and that answers your last comment in that, yes, they might be better still but how good someone can become is a finite matter and there is really no way of knowing "what could be" it's a bit like saying "would we be better off if we hadn't joined the EU" you cant ever know what something would be if the course of action had been different.

Where other people may disagree, and I have no personal view on S&T being good or bad, is, whether you are right with the stance that S&T is "learning right at the beginning". I suppose my view is that there are many ways to hit a golf ball and what works best is the best, especially at amateur level. I don't know what my swing looked like to you but it has evolved partly by coaching and partly by the aging process and limitations caused by that process which means I can still play 27 holes on Saturday and 18 on Sunday on the odd occasion!


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 4, 2012)

Something I have noticed over the years is that MOST golfers dont transfer their weight well or are inconsistant in doing it.   This fault leads on to a number of problems including: inconsistency, fats, thins, tops, skied, low and weak shots .  If you can improve this problem and get the golfer striking the ground consistently infront of the ball then they will have a good chance of playing better golf. 

Weight transfer is not the only major fault but is one of them, I would hazard a guess as maybe the most common one.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 4, 2012)

Interesting historical vid and I agree with a lot of what they are saying...

But if you are going to use this as S&T is the way - which seems apparent from the claims in the OP, please get a few claims actually 100% correct. And there's a few questions that aren't really explained by some of what they say.



JustOne said:



			1) Realise that pros taught the wrong thing to their students for a long time, despite some of the books having the correct information in them.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, that's certainly the case for US coaches - Leadbetter et al - but UK coaches were using the correct Ball Flight Laws, so should have been creating superior players. Why weren't they?



JustOne said:



			3) It's not possible to teach golf (or learn to fix your own swing) if you don't know the ball flight laws
		
Click to expand...

Well, they seemed to do a pretty good job of it! Especially the greatest exponents of the game at the time, who preached and applied the incorrect method, yet somehow manufactured the correct results!



JustOne said:



			4) The fundamentals of the game that everyone has been taught are NOT grip, posture alignment etc as every player on tour has a different grip, posture or alignment... so they can't by definition be fundamentals.. not that it's recommended to go too far off the 'beaten track'.
		
Click to expand...

H'mm. I still consider them as set-up fundamentals. Fundamental does not mean 'only one way'! And Pros would likely ne changing something about these for every shot too.



JustOne said:



			5) To shift your weight off the ball (to the right) means you have to shift it back again... and time that move perfectly. That move alone makes the game harder to play for the 'average' golfer who doesn't stand on the practice ground for 8hrs/day.
		
Click to expand...

S&T requires a weight shift too (I seem to recall a phrase 'start with weight slightly left and move it further left', so that has to be timed perfectly also.



JustOne said:



			6) Combined with trackman (backed up by technology) what they have said HAS changed golf.
		
Click to expand...

Trackman really provided the evidence that supported what Cochrane and Stobbs had written in 1967/68 - and the UK PGA had had as recommended reading for PGA instructors since then.


In summary, nothing new (in the OP); just another version of history.

Now I'm not saying that S&T is not an easier/better way to learn/play. However, years of shifting weight to effect ball games means much of it is counter-intuitive to me. Happy to accept that I need to hit down on the ball, particularly irons. Also ok with the ball flight laws, but neither of those 2 tenets are unique to S&T!


----------



## thecraw (Dec 4, 2012)

I'd love to argue over a few of those points too but really don't wish to take it off track. James has a passion about S+T and I take my hat off to that. 

People of the S+T world good luck with your golf swing!


----------



## JustOne (Dec 4, 2012)

thecraw said:



			I'd love to argue over a few of those points too but really don't wish to take it off track.
		
Click to expand...

Fire away, this is the right place to do it.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 4, 2012)

Foxy, you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

UK coaches had the right ball flight laws but they didn't implement them, lost in translation mate, I said that in my OP, do I need to dig up UK instructors on Youtube preaching the wrong ball flight laws to prove it... we've *all* seen the Justin Rose stuff. 

Yes, there were great players, they were the best at what they did. Faldo used to practice 8hrs/day, is that what you'd recommend to Billy no mates with his 28 h/cap who wants to make solid contact with the ball?

You can see the fundamentals as you like (and I'm sure you will) but if you can have strong grips, weak grips and neutral grips then the grip CAN'T be a fundamental.

Yes S&T has a weight shift, but not backwards away from the ball.. you're being pedantic now, arguing for the sake of it, probably at your own detriment.


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 4, 2012)

Any one see butch harmons bit in last months golf world? Teaching how to hit a draw? Ha! Rubbish. Old ball flight laws. From butch? What chance have we got? 

I think if you take up golf for retirement, you are not going to practice much, you are not physically gifted, then s&t will give you way better results, and far more quickly than a conventional swing.

RichardC is a freak. His ball striking is stupid good for a 17 handicapper who never plays.


----------



## stevek1969 (Dec 5, 2012)

Interesting watch but to be honest i still don't get it same with all this ball flight laws for me thats far o technical for a game i think is difficult enough.
I do have the book and did start to read it but realised its not for me, but good luck to anyone who follows it and James keep posting more on it, i might get it one day.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 5, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Foxy, you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

UK coaches had the right ball flight laws but they didn't implement them, lost in translation mate, I said that in my OP, do I need to dig up UK instructors on Youtube preaching the wrong ball flight laws to prove it... we've *all* seen the Justin Rose stuff. 

Yes, there were great players, they were the best at what they did. Faldo used to practice 8hrs/day, is that what you'd recommend to Billy no mates with his 28 h/cap who wants to make solid contact with the ball?

You can see the fundamentals as you like (and I'm sure you will) but if you can have strong grips, weak grips and neutral grips then the grip CAN'T be a fundamental.

Yes S&T has a weight shift, but not backwards away from the ball.. you're being pedantic now, arguing for the sake of it, probably at your own detriment.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you Mr Pot.

So much in there to continue to be pedantic (aka accurate!) about, but I won't bother

Mr Kettle..

BTW. You should cut down on the repetition.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Dec 5, 2012)

I think the weight shift thing has merit, I have never actually been taught to weight shift in ANY of my lessons actually.

I would have been interested but the way its usually pitched, just like the video, puts me off as it comes off too gimmicky.

I really think it could have done a lot better, A LOT LOT better, if it had not been marketed in the "Old American Shopping Channel" style.


----------



## One Planer (Dec 5, 2012)

I think the point James makes about the set-up fundimentals has merit.

If something, take grip as an example, is variable (weak, neutral, strong, Bubba) how can it be a "fundimental" aspect if there are muiltiple ways of doing it?

The same as alignment, Open, square, closed etc. 

I'm not for one second saying they should be ignored, that would be stupid, but fundimentals.... I'm not so sure.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 6, 2012)

Gareth said:



			I think the point James makes about the set-up fundimentals has merit.

If something, take grip as an example, is variable (weak, neutral, strong, Bubba) how can it be a "fundimental" aspect if there are muiltiple ways of doing it?

The same as alignment, Open, square, closed etc. 

I'm not for one second saying they should be ignored, that would be stupid, but fundimentals.... I'm not so sure.
		
Click to expand...

It really depends on what you mean by Fundamentals. 

I take Hogan's approach that these are 'foundation' type fundamentals. Attributes that can be checked - the actions that cause the result. These need not be unchanging though - indeed Hogan actually made 'adjustments'.

S&T defines the fundamentals as:

ability to hit the ground in the same place each time.
enough power to play the golf course
ability to control the curvature of the ball

I've also seen a set of 3 'fundamentals' advocated by a 'high profile' UK PGA Master Professional.
1. Ball position
2. Shaft Alignment
3. Optimum Bio-Mechanical Swing Plane.

Personally, I find (2 of) the S&T ones rather unmeasurable. They also seem, to me, to be results rather than 'foundations'.

Irrespective of what you consider Fundamentals, the rule of thumb that if you have a second bad round, then check your fundamentals, holds imo.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 6, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			It really depends on what you mean by Fundamentals. 
Personally, I find (2 of) the S&T ones rather unmeasurable. They also seem, to me, to be results rather than 'foundations'.


Click to expand...

I agree they are desired outputs but surely these are fundamentally fundamental to the fundaments (Sorry for the repetition )

Messers Plummer and Bennett do supply the inputs for the student to obtain the desired outputs (More of an accurate description than 'results IMO)


----------



## JustOne (Dec 6, 2012)

Foxholer said:



			It really depends on what you mean by Fundamentals.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to look at what you need to achieve in EVERY swing? ...and list those things.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 7, 2012)

Crikey! My head hurts. Interesting stuff, all of it valid for some players and some not so much for others.

1) The PGA changed how they taught Pro's to coach quite a while ago after recongising that the one style fits all is the wrong approach. There has always been good and bad coaches, irrespective of the style of swing they teach.

2) Tilting left... Well explained but what happens if after tilting, and during the swing, the player leans back a touch. What I'm getting at is there are several variables in the (3 dimensional) swing where a player may have one fault but add in something else that counteracts it. There's so much going on in there...

3) Ball flight laws... I haven't got a clue about ball flight laws, nor am I interested in learning them. As I hit the ball I can tell you if its going right, left or straight. If I want to hit it either way, more often than not I can. You don't need to know the ball flight laws to know how to work the ball, you just need to know swing path, club face and hands/arms.

4) Fundimentals.... that's subjective but I'll go with what the 'established' fundimentals are. I don't think they've done me any harm down the years.

And in point 4 you actually (accidently?) touch on what I believe is the truth in golf. So many pro's have different grips, alignment, posture, swingspeed and swings, e.g. Furyk et al, that there isn't one way to play the game. 

5) Shifting weight... again, as with all movements in the swing, it all depends on how much weight along with all the other variables in the swing. It is possible to have the weight centred, or more to the left or right but still produce the end result of the ball finishing where you hope. It might not be pretty or conventional at times but there's enough evidence out there of unconventional swings producing good results, Furyk...

So just what makes a decent golfer? Quite simply, a good score at the end of the round. Does a golfer need to have lessons to be a good/excellent golfer? Personally, I don't think they do need a lesson but I would say they need the basics, lets not call it fundimentals, of grip/stance/alignment. After that its about hard work on the practice ground and out on the course.

And finally, I got to 2 without a lesson and played as a Cat 1 for 15 years before my 1st lesson. What did the pro change? He 'suggested' I change from a quirky baseball grip that saw the thumb of the left hand laid on top of the finger tips of the right hand to a more conventional overlap. The change was made, and that afternoon it was used in a scratch match without any problem but more importantly it proved to me that either can work. And it is that 'either can work' that is important.

S&T is a proven method, and I certainly don't have a problem acknowledging that, but it isn't the only method out there that works. And because of that I don't have a problem acknowledging the other methods as being equally valid. All that is needed is a repeatable, powerful, swing that gives the right results - doesn't matter what the method is. After that its about shooting the numbers, and that includes putting and bottle.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 7, 2012)

Hobbit said:



			3) Ball flight laws... I haven't got a clue about ball flight laws, nor am I interested in learning them.
		
Click to expand...

I respect that but you are a long learned golfer who doesn't really have a need/interest in it any more, you're happy with what you do already because you've achieved enough in your game over the years to make you (kind of?) happy with it, would you do it the same if you started RIGHT NOW?

I played to a decent level without knowing the ball flight laws and have regretted all those wasted years ever since I found out what the truth was and just how easy it is to play golf. I've seen all my mates over the years throw their cash at teaching pros that were basically teaching them a load of rubbish, fleecing their cash off them once per month for a 'quick fix' that wasn't even getting their swing remotely to where it should have been. 20yrs later and they are still rubbish.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 7, 2012)

JustOne said:



			I respect that but you are a long learned golfer who doesn't really have a need/interest in it any more, you're happy with what you do already because you've achieved enough in your game over the years to make you (kind of?) happy with it, would you do it the same if you started RIGHT NOW?

I played to a decent level without knowing the ball flight laws and have regretted all those wasted years ever since I found out what the truth was and just how easy it is to play golf. I've seen all my mates over the years throw their cash at teaching pros that were basically teaching them a load of rubbish, fleecing their cash off them once per month for a 'quick fix' that wasn't even getting their swing remotely to where it should have been. 20yrs later and they are still rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

What would I do different if I took up the game today? I would have loved to have the coach I found in the late 80's. He was a little different to the genre at the time in so much as he didn't teach the one size fits all. He worked at what you had, irrespective of handicap, and gave you a game that could make you happy.

Would it have changed how I played the game, or my ambitions within it? No, I've loved the game and what I've achieved. I might not have won anything significant but its been a blast. And hopefully there be a lot of years of play ahead. They might not be as a Cat 1 but hey, if the handicap goes up so be it. Getting churned up about handicap is one of the things that stops people achieving.

Mates not achieving stellar results; some coaches are ... disappointing and some are great. Equally, some people never become good because its just not a sport that they will ever be good at whatever opportunities they get.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 7, 2012)

Hobbit said:



			...hopefully there be a lot of years of play ahead. They might not be as a Cat 1 but hey, if the handicap goes up so be it. Getting churned up about handicap is one of the things that stops people achieving.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but it IS easier to say that when you've been low, in fact I got to the stage when I thought... "I don't even WANT to be low any more" 

... just preparing my entry form for the Trilby Tour :mmm:


----------



## Captain_Black (Dec 7, 2012)

I do have trouble with my weight shift or rather lack of it, I find trying to time the weight shift correctly almost impossible.
The way I play is to keep most of my weight on my front foot & to keep a constant ball position & just adjust my stance width according to the club I am using.

Where I differ from the S&T is that I tend to lean my spine away from the target, if I try to stand straighter or even lean slightly towards the target, my swing feels very cramped.


----------



## One Planer (Dec 7, 2012)

Captain_Black said:



			Where I differ from the S&T is that I tend to lean my spine away from the target, if I try to stand straighter or even lean slightly towards the target, my swing feels very cramped.
		
Click to expand...

I don't follow you here CB. 

If you take Charlie Wi as an example, as he's the patterns poster boy:







He doesn't lean his spine towards the target, it only changes flex.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 7, 2012)

Captain_Black said:



			if I try to stand straighter or even lean slightly towards the target, my swing feels very cramped.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any swing on the planet that advocates leaning towards the target. If you did that your swing would be REALLY steep and/or you'd have great difficulty transferring your weight with your hips stuck underneath you. There are swings that suggest a slight hip bump towards the target at address (kind of into a reverse K position) but again once you've bumped your hips forward that little bit they tend to get stuck there as it's hard to bump them TWICE if you know what I mean.

I would say that what the shoulders are doing will to an extent control what you can/can't do with your hips.. if your shoulders have moved to the right in your backswing then should you decide to bump your hips your head would be miles to the right still.. and likely you'll get trapped on your back foot. Don't know if that helps but it just an observation.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 7, 2012)

Waiting for my post from 20 minutes ago to be authorised by a mod :mmm:


----------



## thecraw (Dec 7, 2012)

Captain_Black said:



			I do have trouble with my weight shift or rather lack of it, I find trying to time the weight shift correctly almost impossible.
The way I play is to keep most of my weight on my front foot & to keep a constant ball position & just adjust my stance width according to the club I am using.

Where I differ from the S&T is that I tend to lean my spine away from the target, if I try to stand straighter or even lean slightly towards the target, my swing feels very cramped.
		
Click to expand...

Just swing properly then buddy must be simpler than tilting your spine, worrying about angles etc.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 7, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Waiting for my post from 20 minutes ago to be authorised by a mod :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

ooh, it's just arrived...... post #25 

(feels like I've just received a letter! ...all excited now)


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 7, 2012)

Gareth said:



			I don't follow you here CB. 

If you take Charlie Wi as an example, as he's the patterns poster boy:







He doesn't lean his spine towards the target, it only changes flex.
		
Click to expand...

His spine is leaned toward the target. This piece cannot be seen from this view.


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 7, 2012)

Please find picture attached.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 7, 2012)

SamQuirkePGA said:



			His spine is leaned toward the target. This piece cannot be seen from this view.
		
Click to expand...




I'm going to have to believe you there.. not that I want to  but I respect your opinion.. :thup:

I have it as such... (back of pelvis to back of neck)

[click pic to enlarge...]





I don't agree with your lines on the other pics (that I just noticed you posted) either... for example the one of Sean O'hair the base of his spine would be in line with the seam in the bum of his trousers... unless he puts his trousers on sideways? and our shoulder blades and shoulders aren't our spine. You seem to have the top of each line very much away from the base of the neck (allowing for spine curvature?) even if my line finishes where yours does neither are beyond vertical,... in my opinion. O'hair would be bang on vertical and Wi just a sniff inside.

Edit:

I've just remade your pics and I would (personally) put the spines here.... [again, click pic to enlarge...]


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 7, 2012)

SamQuirkePGA said:



			Please find picture attached.
		
Click to expand...

Is there a bit of journalistic licence being used with these 2 photo's? To me, if you look at the belt loops/centre seam on the trousers, the line superimposed on the pics doesn't match up with where I'd expect the spine to be.


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 7, 2012)

To illustrate from a different view or as Brandel Chamblee said the wrong camera angle, which is precisely the point!


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 7, 2012)

Hobbit said:



			Is there a bit of journalistic licence being used with these 2 photo's? To me, if you look at the belt loops/centre seam on the trousers, the line superimposed on the pics doesn't match up with where I'd expect the spine to be.
		
Click to expand...

Unless the pics were X-ray its difficult to get it correct, I appreciate what your'e saying. "journalistic licence" is not my intention.

The 3D data provides enough evidence for this description / picture being discussed.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 7, 2012)

I don't see a lean towards the target in any of those pics Sam (towards the ball? Yes) in fact they are all really non-conclusive.

(the blue line you had on the back of Sean O'Hair actually leads into his back right pocket) 

From the back at a glance both would look like they are leaning left to a casual observer though.


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 7, 2012)

3D Data for players is far superior in this instance than pictures.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 7, 2012)

3D modelling would certainly be more conclusive than a few lines on pics, as force plates are/were for determining the weight shift.


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 7, 2012)

Unfortunately I'm not a liberty to share the 3D info I have from Tour Players / force plate data is readily available and confirms how a centred should turn is described.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 7, 2012)

Back of pelvis to back of right shoulder?






If I draw that onto the O'Hair/Wi pictures they come up even less tilted towards the target. And that Hogan pic doesn't take into consideration a turn of more than 90 degrees with the shoulders (for what it's worth it's feasible that the right shoulder could be even closer to the target on a bigger shoulder turn).

*Assuming* the Hogan picture has the hips and shoulders at the top *aligned* with the picture below, an extension of that yellow vertical line would put his spine as such...(long yellow line) however, if we take a line to the back of his shoulder blades (closer to your position) then we could claim that Hogan was also leaning towards the target (red line).... he wouldn't be happy!


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 7, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Back of pelvis to back of right shoulder?

View attachment 3781




If I draw that onto the O'Hair/Wi pictures they come up even less tilted towards the target. And that Hogan pic doesn't take into consideration a turn of more than 90 degrees with the shoulders (for what it's worth it's feasible that the right shoulder could be even closer to the target on a bigger shoulder turn).

*Assuming* the Hogan picture has the hips and shoulders at the top *aligned* with the picture below, an extension of that yellow vertical line would put his spine as such...(long yellow line) however, if we take a line to the back of his shoulder blades (closer to your position) then we could claim that Hogan was also leaning towards the target (red line).... he wouldn't be happy! 

View attachment 3782

Click to expand...

Got to think 3D not 2D


----------



## JustOne (Dec 7, 2012)

I would add that if the level of detailing required for a *tour players* swing to control their ball flight (higher, lower or better dispersion) meant that they (for example) implemented a 3 degree tilt targetwards as it was needed FOR THEM then I'd certainly go for that, but for Mr Average and saying that it's normal I'd certainly (personally) stick with vertical else we'll get people leaning 20 degrees targetward by the end of the day  I can always reconsider if any 3D modelling is published


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 7, 2012)

JustOne said:



			I would add that if the level of detailing required for a *tour players* swing to control their ball flight (higher, lower or better dispersion) meant that they (for example) implemented a 3 degree tilt targetwards as it was needed FOR THEM then I'd certainly go for that, but for Mr Average and saying that it's normal I'd certainly (personally) stick with vertical else we'll get people leaning 20 degrees targetward by the end of the day  I can always reconsider if any 3D modelling is published 

Click to expand...

Agree. In order to achieve centred many would have to feel 20 degrees, I've pictures of Brad Faxon working on this with Charlie Wi.
Steve Elkington would start with his right leg straight and right hip high to overdo, he called it "the prop".


----------



## JustOne (Dec 8, 2012)

OK, I've got what you are talking about - I think...and it's to do with the curvature (position) of the thorasic spine....

In this limited (rough and ready) quality picture I made then there's an arguement to say that when my feet are facing forwards and I've rotated my upper body (pic on the left) that my *thorasic is closer to the target* than my lumbar vertbrae or sacrum, and likewise when I side tilt to the left (pic on the right)

[click pic to enlarge....]




nb: no flexion in the pic, that I'm aware of 

In which case I agree with you and the targetwards angle could be as high as 15 degrees (less if I had 5-10 degrees flexion) and *IF* you measure it that way. However there is NO manipulation of the swing or spine to achieve this and I wouldn't describe it as having the spine tilting towards the target.. it's NEUTRAL for the individual.... or semantics.


(late reply as the forum disappeard for 10 mintues there) 


I would personally see it slightly different (as I'm awkward) and wouldn't effectively take the 3d curvature of the thorasic into the equation as it goes targetwards without manipulation due to it's shape... thus giving me a vertical spine angle as such... blue line.


----------



## thecraw (Dec 8, 2012)

After reading all that, angles here there and everywhere, 3 degrees, 20 degrees etc etc I'd give up!

James I do on the other hand admire and acknowledge your understanding and knowledge of the S&T swing. Again  reading this thread from start to finish its certainly clear you ken your S&T swing process and I take my hat off to that. Therefore I will not be commenting or throwing silly comments into any of your threads from now on.

Respect where its due. 


:fore:


----------



## JustOne (Dec 8, 2012)

thecraw said:



			After reading all that, angles here there and everywhere, 3 degrees, 20 degrees etc etc I'd give up!

James I do on the other hand admire and acknowledge your understanding and knowledge of the S&T swing. Again  reading this thread from start to finish its certainly clear you ken your S&T swing process and I take my hat off to that. Therefore I will not be commenting or throwing silly comments into any of your threads from now on.

Respect where its due. 


:fore:
		
Click to expand...

I appreciate that Crawford although I don't see knowing the angles any more technical than someone who knows that you need to have your clubs 2 degrees more upright or that you need an extra wrap of tape or indeed someone (that's you) who's prepared to pull 6 different shafts out of their driver over the Winter to evaluate which one is best for him :thup:

What the thread does show if you follow the last 10 or so posts is that I'm prepared to fight my corner even with someone who is not only PGA qualified but probably one of the most qualified S&T instructors in the Country and whom I happen to have a LOT of respect for.

Semantics perhaps but Sam said in post #29 that the players spine is 'leaned' towards the target which I don't believe to be true. Yes I am positive it's 'angled' towards the target in a biomechanical measurement but it's not leaned. When you are standing bolt upright your spine is technically 'angled' backwards, it's not leaned (see pic below) and I believe the same to be true in this case. Splitting hairs on a definition perhaps.... see it's not only Bob that I discuss (dispute) things with ... and if Sam comes back with something that clarifies his point such that I find myself agreeing with him then *I will* without argument, although I think that at the moment we are BOTH correct


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 8, 2012)

JustOne said:



			OK, I've got what you are talking about - I think...and it's to do with the curvature (position) of the thorasic spine....

In this limited (rough and ready) quality picture I made then there's an arguement to say that when my feet are facing forwards and I've rotated my upper body (pic on the left) that my *thorasic is closer to the target* than my lumbar vertbrae or sacrum, and likewise when I side tilt to the left (pic on the right)

[click pic to enlarge....]

View attachment 3783


nb: no flexion in the pic, that I'm aware of 

In which case I agree with you and the targetwards angle could be as high as 15 degrees (less if I had 5-10 degrees flexion) and *IF* you measure it that way. However there is NO manipulation of the swing or spine to achieve this and I wouldn't describe it as having the spine tilting towards the target.. it's NEUTRAL for the individual.... or semantics.


(late reply as the forum disappeard for 10 mintues there) 


I would personally see it slightly different (as I'm awkward) and wouldn't effectively take the 3d curvature of the thorasic into the equation as it goes targetwards without manipulation due to it's shape... thus giving me a vertical spine angle as such... blue line.

View attachment 3784

Click to expand...

Boom!


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 8, 2012)

thecraw said:



			After reading all that, angles here there and everywhere, 3 degrees, 20 degrees etc etc I'd give up!

James I do on the other hand admire and acknowledge your understanding and knowledge of the S&T swing. Again  reading this thread from start to finish its certainly clear you ken your S&T swing process and I take my hat off to that. Therefore I will not be commenting or throwing silly comments into any of your threads from now on.

Respect where its due. 


:fore:
		
Click to expand...

It is not for the player to know the detail but the instructor to interpret this into manageable information.


----------



## SamQuirkePGA (Dec 8, 2012)

JustOne said:



			I appreciate that Crawford although I don't see knowing the angles any more technical than someone who knows that you need to have your clubs 2 degrees more upright or that you need an extra wrap of tape or indeed someone (that's you) who's prepared to pull 6 different shafts out of their driver over the Winter to evaluate which one is best for him :thup:

What the thread does show if you follow the last 10 or so posts is that I'm prepared to fight my corner even with someone who is not only PGA qualified but probably one of the most qualified S&T instructors in the Country and whom I happen to have a LOT of respect for.

Semantics perhaps but Sam said in post #29 that the players spine is 'leaned' towards the target which I don't believe to be true. Yes I am positive it's 'angled' towards the target in a biomechanical measurement but it's not leaned. When you are standing bolt upright your spine is technically 'angled' backwards, it's not leaned (see pic below) and I believe the same to be true in this case. Splitting hairs on a definition perhaps.... see it's not only Bob that I discuss (dispute) things with ... and if Sam comes back with something that clarifies his point such that I find myself agreeing with him then *I will* without argument, although I think that at the moment we are BOTH correct 




View attachment 3787

Click to expand...

I concur.


----------



## Dorian (Dec 8, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Semantics perhaps but Sam said _*in post #29 that the players spine is 'leaned' towards the target which I don't believe to be true. Yes I am positive it's 'angled' towards the target in a biomechanical measurement but it's not leaned. When you are standing bolt upright your spine is technically 'angled' backwards, it's not leaned (see pic below) and I believe the same to be true in this case. Splitting hairs on a definition perhaps.... *_see it's not only Bob that I discuss (dispute) things with ... and if Sam comes back with something that clarifies his point such that I find myself agreeing with him then *I will* without argument, although I think that at the moment we are BOTH correct 

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has brought this up yet.  But wouldn't/shouldn't you just use the term 'centre of gravity'?

I may not know too much of golf but I've done some years in martial arts which require control over your CoG.  That is what I feel I'm trying to do when I swing.  People go on about controlling them in different ways, but essentially you're not controlling any point on your skin, your spine, nor your sternum - it is an imaginary (for want of a better term) point within your core that you want to pivot on.  For example: pivoting around your spine would just create a centrifugal force with your throax, affect your balance, and put extra strain on muscles.  Pivoting around your centre would cause less strain and probably less unwanted movement (head height, swaying, etc).

Just a novices thoughts on the matter


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 8, 2012)

Your spine is a fixed pivot. You can use it to rotate about. It is like a stick, poked through your body.

If you can rotate about any other axis, you are a bit unusual.


----------



## Dorian (Dec 8, 2012)

murphthemog said:



			Your spine is a fixed pivot. You can use it to rotate about. It is like a stick, poked through your body.

If you can rotate about any other axis, *you are a bit unusual.*

Click to expand...

Wouldn't be the first time I'd heard that


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 8, 2012)

murphthemog said:



			Your spine is a fixed pivot. You can use it to rotate about. It is like a stick, poked through your body.

If you can rotate about any other axis, you are a bit unusual.
		
Click to expand...

Not really.  Your spine is not anchored to the ground so you cannot pivot around it. The only reference you have to the ground is your feet and you have to use these as a reference point.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 9, 2012)

Dorian said:



			I don't think anyone has brought this up yet.  But wouldn't/shouldn't you just use the term 'centre of gravity'?
		
Click to expand...

Center of gravity doesn't define the position of the spine Dorian, only where your center of gravity is.


----------



## Dorian (Dec 10, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Center of gravity doesn't define the position of the spine Dorian, only where your center of gravity is.
		
Click to expand...

That's the point I was making.

Others were talking about rotating around the spine.  If you do you will inherently get weight transference between legs.  Rotating around your centre should, theoretically, incur no transference (which, from what i know, is what S&T is looking to produce).  It's not necessarily a natural movement - if it was we'd all be playing like Luke Donald.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 10, 2012)

Dorian said:



			That's the point I was making.

Others were talking about rotating around the spine.  If you do you will inherently get weight transference between legs.  Rotating around your centre should, theoretically, incur no transference (which, from what i know, is what S&T is looking to produce).  It's not necessarily a natural movement - if it was we'd all be playing like Luke Donald.
		
Click to expand...

I don't mean my answer to be knobby or argumentative (so *please* don't take it as such) but I'm not quite understanding what you're saying?

In these two pictures how could I tell at a glance where their exact centers of gravity are? Could I see that it was a bit too far forward or a bit too far back?

If I stand straight up on one leg on a set of scales it would tell my weight, if I lean my upper body to the left I can stay on the scales and they still tell my weight, is my COG still centered? If it is then my spine is in a BAD position to hit a golfball, if it isn't centered where is it?... and how can I tell?, same if I lean to the right.







I can say that the principle of S&T is to keep the head steady and in order to do that the shoulders have to turn in a circle, we have to come out of our forward flexion (bent forwards towards the ball) into a side flexion else our head would move to the right as we turn. That means technically we are NOT turning around our spine.

If our spine ran through the center of our body then we *could* turn our shoulders 90 degrees around our spine (A in the picture below) but our spine is located towards the rear or our torso so by turning the shoulders (and keeping the head still) the spine will move to the right, closer to the target (picture B).

[click pic to enlarge..]



...so whilst (I think) I kind of agree with what you're saying pertaining to a centered turn and/or not turning around the spine, I'm not sure what you're implying with regards to COG or why that term should be used?


----------



## Dorian (Dec 11, 2012)

JustOne said:



			I don't mean my answer to be knobby or argumentative (so *please* don't take it as such) but I'm not quite understanding what you're saying?

In these two pictures how could I tell at a glance where their exact centers of gravity are? Could I see that it was a bit too far forward or a bit too far back?

If I stand straight up on one leg on a set of scales it would tell my weight, if I lean my upper body to the left I can stay on the scales and they still tell my weight, is my COG still centered? If it is then my spine is in a BAD position to hit a golfball, if it isn't centered where is it?... and how can I tell?, same if I lean to the right.







I can say that the principle of S&T is to keep the head steady and in order to do that the shoulders have to turn in a circle, we have to come out of our forward flexion (bent forwards towards the ball) into a side flexion else our head would move to the right as we turn. That means technically we are NOT turning around our spine.

If our spine ran through the center of our body then we *could* turn our shoulders 90 degrees around our spine (A in the picture below) but our spine is located towards the rear or our torso so by turning the shoulders (and keeping the head still) the spine will move to the right, closer to the target (picture B).

[click pic to enlarge..]
View attachment 3817


...so whilst (I think) I kind of agree with what you're saying pertaining to a centered turn and/or not turning around the spine, I'm not sure what you're implying with regards to COG or why that term should be used?
		
Click to expand...

Basically I'm trying to make the point you're making, but I'm probably not using the correct terminology.  I'm thinking of a turn centered as in 'A' in your second image.  I reckon that should limit head movement moreso than rotating around the spine.

I took it from other peoples posts that they thought it was a turn using the spine as an axis.  Whereas I think a turn around your vertical centre (not CoG as I mis-stated earlier) will optimise the movement of the swing.  Am I making any sense yet?!?


----------



## G1BB0 (Dec 11, 2012)

the more I watch pro's the more it looks like s&t... maybe its just me in my old age


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 11, 2012)

Dorian said:



			Basically I'm trying to make the point you're making, but I'm probably not using the correct terminology.  I'm thinking of a turn centered as in 'A' in your second image.  I reckon that should limit head movement moreso than rotating around the spine.

I took it from other peoples posts that they thought it was a turn using the spine as an axis.  Whereas I think a turn around your vertical centre (not CoG as I mis-stated earlier) will optimise the movement of the swing.  Am I making any sense yet?!?
		
Click to expand...

What is a vertical centre? There is an element of turn at the hips. Its not big but as the left knee dips in and the right leg firms up there is a hip turn. And there is the shoulder turn, which is far more obvious. However, there is no way on God's earth you can keep, say, T3 vertabrae square to where you were facing at address and have T2 rotate thro' 90degrees.

Without wishing to punch big holes in any of what's been posted I'd like to remind everyone that golf is not a game of perfect. Depending on your physical make up, some will overswing and some will have a 3/4 swing. Depending on how far that swing goes the centre of gravity may move either way but the strength in the muscles will maintain the stance - a comparison can see some people lean way over but not over balance because of the strength in the legs and torso, whilst other would overbalance.

There's too much over complication in golf teaching, and there isn't a one size fits all. What may be a S&T backswing and most of the way back down may well resemble something very different at the top of the follow thro'. But if the last few inches thro the ball is down the target line and has power the end result will be just what you want. Giving it a label of S&T, 2 plane or power fade/draw only describes the type of swing, not the result.

Golf is a results based sport, just as in virtually every sport, and what you achieve is more important than how you achieve it - were back to Jim Furyk's swing...


----------



## JustOne (Dec 11, 2012)

Hobbit said:



			Without wishing to punch big holes in any of what's been posted I'd like to remind everyone that golf is not a game of perfect.
		
Click to expand...

There's some irony in that if you consider that you just wrote 3 paragraphs slating a swing option. S&T is a swing option. Because the golf swing isn't perfect does S&T become a non-viable option worth constant dismissal? Yes we could all swing like Furyk but then golf WOULD be a game of perfect as we'd have no choice. A perfect game is what has been taught for 50yrs as there really weren't any other choices available we all basically got taught (indeed brainwashed?) the one way, but now we DO have other swing styles available surely that fits with _your_ concept, perfectly.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 11, 2012)

Dorian said:



			Basically I'm trying to make the point you're making, but I'm probably not using the correct terminology.  I'm thinking of a turn centered as in 'A' in your second image.  I reckon that should limit head movement moreso than rotating around the spine.

I took it from other peoples posts that they thought it was a turn using the spine as an axis.  Whereas I think a turn around your vertical centre (not CoG as I mis-stated earlier) will optimise the movement of the swing.  Am I making any sense yet?!?
		
Click to expand...

Yep, and I agree.


----------



## JustOne (Dec 11, 2012)

Hobbit, I'd like to know... if you had to pay for your son to have golf lessons would you take him to (and part with your hard earned cash) the pro who teaches some wobbly looking swing and indeed wants him to swing the club up vertically like Furyk?


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 11, 2012)

JustOne said:



			There's some irony in that if you consider that you just wrote 3 paragraphs slating a swing option. S&T is a swing option. Because the golf swing isn't perfect does S&T become a non-viable option worth constant dismissal? Yes we could all swing like Furyk but then golf WOULD be a game of perfect as we'd have no choice. A perfect game is what has been taught for 50yrs as there really weren't any other choices available we all basically got taught (indeed brainwashed?) the one way, but now we DO have other swing styles available surely that fits with _your_ concept, perfectly.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure where in 3 paragraphs, or previous posts, I've slated S&T as an option. What I have said is that it isn't the only option. The irony is I recommended S&T to a guy on another forum last night because he has too much lateral movement. I like the way S&T quietens the lower body and see it as an ideal option for someone who dances a jig on their backswing. I think you've missed my point entirely in that i'm a proponent of whatever produces the right results... "now we do have other swing styles available surely that fits with your concept, perfectly." It would appear we do actually agree...

Would I take my son to a pro that teaches Jim Furyk's swing? As he's already a pro with a fairly full teaching diary I don't think he needs my help. And, again, I think you've missed my point about Furyk's swing, my point being it doesn't have to conform to a perfect anything providing the results are what the individual wants, i.e. a low score.

"There's hearing and there's listening," and maybe you need to reread my previous posts and "listen" to what's in them. I've never slated S&T, only suggested time and again that S&T isn't the only option. And in para 3 I do list S&T as an option.

"There's none so blind as those who will not see."


----------



## JustOne (Dec 11, 2012)

Maybe I'm just not seeing/understanding your reference to Furyk's swing Hobbit, or the reference to the perfect swing. I know there's more than one way to skin a cat but the other options are more messy and get blood all over the sink.

I'd still like to know (and let's pretend for a moment that your son IS looking for a golf coach ) whether you'd take your son to a golf pro who taught a swing that looked like a box of frogs?


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 12, 2012)

JustOne said:



			Maybe I'm just not seeing/understanding your reference to Furyk's swing Hobbit, or the reference to the perfect swing. I know there's more than one way to skin a cat but the other options are more messy and get blood all over the sink.

I'd still like to know (and let's pretend for a moment that your son IS looking for a golf coach ) whether you'd take your son to a golf pro who taught a swing that looked like a box of frogs?
		
Click to expand...

I think where we fundamentally disagree is I don't think the other swings are messy and involve blood all over the sink. Look at all the different pro's picking up Â£millions with the various swings that are out there. The mere fact they are consistently picking up money is a good indication that their swing produces the goods. Furyk is an extreme that proves the point that there is "more than one way to skin a cat." Is there a perfect swing out there? I don't think there is but there are a few swings that consistently produce the goods.

Would I take my son to a coach that taught a Furyk-esque swing, even knowing that its possible to be a multi-millionaire off it? No, definitely not. Its too quirky and has too many moving parts for me to trust it. It requires exceptionally good timing to get all those moving parts in the right place at the right time. Having the timing/tempo is a little different than having the swing. Compare Nick Price's blur to Ernie Els lazy swing... anyway, timing and tempo is for another thread on another day.


----------

