S&T interview (for those who've not seen it)

[JustOne]

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10775

"golf has been taught backwards..."

"as more people understand how these principles work in golf they will ask more questions of their pros and experts who perhaps won't know the answers....."

This is an old interview but worth watching if you've not seen it.

 

[One Planer]

Well they certainly answer the questions pretty well and to the point.

I love Andy Plummers' comment about Jack Niclaus not knowing about S&T comparisons to him and probably not caring :thup:

Great interview James. Thanks for posting :thup:

 

[Smiffy]

This is getting more like "Golf Happy" every day!!

 

[jdchelsea]

Before I wasn't really sure what S&T was really all about and after watching this I dont think I want to know anymore - these guys sound like salesmen trying to sell you the "magic sponge". You know one of those guys in department stores that show you a demonstration about their wonderful product then you buy one and it doesnt really work.

They tell lies (mistruths at best!)

I dont think anybody was confused about the ball flights laws and how the club and plane affected swing. Hogans book all those years ago talks about hitting the ball on an in to in club path with a square face. not much confusion there.

They suggest the traditional swing promotes/favours a slice type of swing. nonsense! If performed correctly the traditional swing should produce a straight shot. If not performed correctly then anything can happen. Its a bit like saying the S&T swing produces fat shots. because anything performed incorrectly will not give the correct results. Tiger Woods may lean toward fading the ball but others tend toward drawing the ball eg Mcilroy.

In the clip they show pictures of players to show them using elements of the stack and tilt swing but then when questioned on it say that you can get any pictures of players you want to prove a point -then why show the pictures in the first place? and the pictures themselves looked to be taken from slightly dubious angles.

They talk about S&T being a radical, revolutionary change to how golf is taught and learnt and then say you may only need certain components or tendencies of their swing to improve - hardly that radical then is it?

Their answer to why players who changed to S&T and then later gave up was wishy washy to say the least and they mumble and/or are indecisive when answering any question of any considerable depth.

Before I watched the interview I consdiered buying the book just to see what all the fuss was about but after watching that I know I'll give it a miss. If they didnt give it the vacuum cleaner salesman technique and just talked about their ideas instead of trying to sell them by using half truths they would have sounded less gimmicky to me.

 

[JustOne]

Hogans book all those years ago talks about hitting the ball on an in to in club path with a square face. not much confusion there.

That's a pull-hook!!!!. the ball should be hit when the club is travelling slightly from the inside with irons (and with a descending blow), if you square the face the ball will start straight and go left.... the face actually needs to be open a little.

You try to knock something down that you don't even understand.... fruitful :smirk:



Plummer and Bennett are quite timid people in the way their speech and mannerisms are.. you judge their knowledge on that basis?...... that's funny at best.

 

[One Planer]

They tell lies (mistruths at best!)

Where?

I dont think anybody was confused about the ball flights laws and how the club and plane affected swing. Hogans book all those years ago talks about hitting the ball on an in to in club path with a square face. not much confusion there.

Have you read this months mag?

That shows people still have some confusion regarding the ball flight laws, even some teaching pros!

They talk about S&T being a radical, revolutionary

Doesn't Andy say the word revolutionary is a little strong or not his choice of wording?

Their answer to why players who changed to S&T and then later gave up was wishy washy to say the least and they mumble and/or are indecisive when answering any question of any considerable depth.

Could the same not be said for any tour player who changes coach? Tiger Woods being a prime example. Butch Harmon, Hank Haney now Sean Foley. Does this mean Butch or Hank's teaching methods/practices are wrong? No, it just means the player wants to move in a different direction of teaching.

 

[jdchelsea]

That's a pull-hook!!!!. the ball should be hit when the club is travelling slightly from the inside with irons (and with a descending blow), if you square the face the ball will start straight and go left.... the face actually needs to be open a little.

how little do you consider to be a little open?

 

[jdchelsea]

where do they tell mistruths?!

"Well, Charlie, first, what we’re talking about is, what if I told you that all the rules that people have been taught to play golf by weren’t correct? And what if I told you that the basic premise of the game was backwards?" dont think thats true.

when they showed the picture of the golfers tilting to the left is another example of a mistruth. These photos were used purely to back up their theory but when questioned further on it they then back away from them. so they were caught out telling mistruths.

Andy plummer "The very first thing in the book says "If all the golf lessons and all the golf books and all the golf videos for the last hundred years taught people to shift their weight to the left instead of to the right, which is the opposite, we would have generations of people drawing the ball, curving it to the left."" that suggests that because people shift their weight it causes a slice which is nonsense it's because they are not performing the traditional swing correctly.

Andy Plummer "what links the best the players together is a different set of fundamentals than what’s commonly taught the average when they take their golf lesson." Thats pure conjecture.

I havent read this months mag what does it say and what are the results?

Andy does say revolutionary is a little strong but thats after about the 4th time of asking and after his opening gambit of "Well, Charlie, first, what we’re talking about is, what if I told you that all the rules that people have been taught to play golf by weren’t correct? And what if I told you that the basic premise of the game was backwards? I think that’s where some of the controversy starts. So we’re talking about changing the whole paradigm with the way the golf swing is taught to people."

you mention about people changing coaches and you're right to some degree but when you're trying to introduce a revolutionary new golf swing that is "changing the whole paradigm with the way the golf swing is taught" and you appear to have more pros changing away from your system than joining it you need to have a better answer than the mumble they came out with.

 

[One Planer]

where do they tell mistruths?!

"Well, Charlie, first, what we’re talking about is, what if I told you that all the rules that people have been taught to play golf by weren’t correct? And what if I told you that the basic premise of the game was backwards?" dont think thats true.

In your OPINION.

It's their OPINION it has.

when they showed the picture of the golfers tilting to the left is another example of a mistruth. These photos were used purely to back up their theory but when questioned further on it they then back away from them. so they were caught out telling mistruths.

Its not a mis truth. There are only so may ways you can swing a golf club. If anything he was being honest in saying that pictures can be used to prove and disprove a theory.

Like I said, unless they are swinging standing on one leg, with one arm, of course there will be similarities in various positions between traditional and Stack & Tilt swings. From what I gather all they were highlighting was the fact some of the greatest ball strikers and in history have aspects of stack and tilt in their swing, surely that's a fact rather than a mis-truth?

Andy Plummer "what links the best the players together is a different set of fundamentals than what’s commonly taught the average when they take their golf lesson." Thats pure conjecture.

How do you know?

I havent read this months mag what does it say and what are the results?

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?35227-Not-again...&highlight=BRING

you mention about people changing coaches and you're right to some degree but when you're trying to introduce a revolutionary new golf swing that is "changing the whole paradigm with the way the golf swing is taught" and you appear to have more pros changing away from your system than joining it you need to have a better answer than the mumble they came out with.

Like I said previosly about Tiger. Was a better payer when he left Buthch Harmon than he was before?

Look at Aaron Badderley. Before joing Mike and Andy he was 170th in the ranking and went down to 17th whist with them. He's not worked with them since 2009 he's now 48th.

The grass isn't always greener.

 

[jdchelsea]

Gareth

I started writing a reply with quotes and responses to your post but we could go round and round in circles here. I think it best to just leave it here because we'll never agree. I think their method, which could work very well, is not for me. I might have read into it more or even tried some of it if I hadnt felt that these two guys were trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and sensationalise the whole thing which came across to me like cheap sales techniques. If they'd simply said "we think we've come up with an easier way to swing the golf club. The traditional swing if performed correctly can achieve good results we just think ours is better" I'd have gave them more credit. Instead they basically said the traditional method is what causes slices when we all know it's the poor execution of the traditional way that causes slices as evidenced by all the great players down the years.

If you or others want to follow their method then I say good luck to you. If it helps you to improve and enjoy your golf more then who am I to criticise their method.

 

[One Planer]

I think you're right as we are of two different minds on the subject.

I agree that bold claims are made, but isn't that the same as other things in everyday life?

Each to their own has always been my view. Pleasure debating with you though JD :thup:

 

[JustOne]

how little do you consider to be a little open?

Not square. The pattern for S&T is a push-draw so the ball starts to the right, you cannot do that with a square clubface. Hogan's advice as you quoted was wrong unless you want the ball to go left.

I don't think S&T is for you, did you ever hear of Leadbetter? Try him... and remember to roll those wrists

 

[jdchelsea]

Not square. The pattern for S&T is a push-draw so the ball starts to the right, you cannot do that with a square clubface. Hogan's advice as you quoted was wrong unless you want the ball to go left.

Ok sir isaac, ignoring that you didnt really answer the question, answer me this. if a pull hook is a shot that goes left and then hooks further left and according to the new ball flight laws (and the S&T guys) the balls initial direction is dictated by the club face how can a square club face start the ball left?

 

[jdchelsea]

I don't think S&T is for you, did you ever hear of Leadbetter? Try him... and remember to roll those wrists

I assume by roll your wrists your trying to imply that the traditional swing is too hard to learn and too complicated.

First off i can't remember too much from any instruction that I've read that put much emphasis on consciously rolling the wrists.

2nd point if you think the S&T swing is so simple and easy to implement then why in all the forums of S&T discussion do we have the exact same type of analysis of peoples swing that we do of the traditional swing. In the S&Tdiscussions you have the same filming of swings, snapshots of positions, debating positions etc etc etc.

Remember that aggressive forward shift!!

 

[JustOne]

Ok sir isaac, ignoring that you didnt really answer the question, answer me this. if a pull hook is a shot that goes left and then hooks further left and according to the new ball flight laws (and the S&T guys) the balls initial direction is dictated by the club face how can a square club face start the ball left?

Funnily enough I agree, the ball starts a fraction to the right then misses on the left, to me I would call that a pull, however in standard definition a ball that starts straight then curves left is a hook, some people call it a draw? In S&T it's actually referred to as an over-draw... I wish there was some standard shot names that everyone used... it certainly has a 'draw flight' as in the ball will be drawing to the left.

I'm not disputing swinging in-to-in however you have to look at point of contact and angle of attack. D-plane shows us with an iron to get straight ball-flight you need to be swinging out-to-in slightly to negate the clubface angle when hit with a descending blow... and that's where another problem lies..as soon as you mention out-to-in people start cutting across the ball, whereas you should stand open a fraction and still hit the ball with an in-to-out path, just the plane base will be aligned more left.

Any shot that is hit with a straight face will curve one way or another unless you can literally have impact right at the apex of the arc with 0° angle of attack... well how can you hit at the apex of the arc when technically the clubhead shot be about 1" below the ground at that time (with an iron).

It's all splitting hairs I know, but in-to-in with a square clubface does not produce straight flight. For me I prefer to choose a flight pattern whether it's push-fades or push-draws it doesn't matter as either will give a consistent (predictable) flight shape.


There's a lot of 'roll the wrist' instruction out there ranging from tennis topspin shots through to stuff like 'throw a pizza on the floor' If you haven't seen any of it you are lucky! There was some in print in GM's magazine last month LOL

Not sure of why we should analyse a S&T swing any different to a conventional swing? or are you saying that we shouldn't need to seeing as it's 'so easy'?

I have no issue with you not wanting to take up the pattern, but on the basis that Plummer and Bennett appear to be a couple of knobs isn't doing yourself justice if you are not happy with your current swing.. if you are then I'm not sure I understand what you're going on about at all :thup:

Edit: I do agree that you can hit the ball just fine with a conventional swing and that the execution is poor by the majority of golfers, most don't get the weight from the right back to the left and as a result their swingpath tends to end up being out-to-in at impact as they rotate across the ball with their weight too far back... that IS the recipe for slicing... so in a way the conventional swing DOES 'encourage' people slice the ball but only through bad execution.

 

[jdchelsea]

Funnily enough I agree, the ball starts a fraction to the right then misses on the left, to me I would call that a pull, however in standard definition a ball that starts straight then curves left is a hook, some people call it a draw? In S&T it's actually referred to as an over-draw... I wish there was some standard shot names that everyone used... it certainly has a 'draw flight' as in the ball will be drawing to the left.

So we agree it's not a pull hook. ok. Not sure I would or the new ball flights laws would call it a draw though without being overly pernickety.

It's all splitting hairs I know, but in-to-in with a square clubface does not produce straight flight.

I'm trying to work out if your splitting hairs but you havent answered how open you believe the clubface should be. I imagine if you had a figure in degrees it would be almost 0 and therefore virtually a square club face.

Not sure of why we should analyse a S&T swing any different to a conventional swing? or are you saying that we shouldn't need to seeing as it's 'so easy'?.

No i'm not saying it's so easy, I'm saying it's exactly the same as it requires a complex movement of of the body and muscles. you and other s&t advocates imply the traditional swing is too complicated and that the S&T swing is much simplied but that appears, to me, to be nonsense going that the exact same technique discussions take place. So I dont see why anyone would opt for this method as it involves the same amount of technique practice and instruction coupled with the fact the best players in the world do (and have throughout history) swung the traditional way, very few pros swing S&T and pros that did swing S&T have now reverted back to the traditional swing.
As I said though thats just my opinion and view and if S&T helps you improve and enjoy the game then go for it. you asked for my opinion so I gave it.

I have no issue with you not wanting to take up the pattern, but on the basis that Plummer and Bennett appear to be a couple of knobs isn't doing yourself justice if you are not happy with your current swing.. if you are then I'm not sure I understand what you're going on about at all

It's not that they're knobs that I'm not interested in their technique. it's the (in my opinion) the door to door sales man techniques they use that involve (again in my opinion) mistruths or at the very least distorted facts designed to convince people to change to their method. If their method was as good and as revolutionary as they say it is I dont see why they need to use these tactics.
Regarding whether I'm happy with my current swing or not is irrelevant here because I believe 99% of golfers are always trying to improve their swing. How they do this will vary from person to person. I like to read golf swing theory and so that's what intrigued me to see whether S&T might be worth a read but for all the above reasons I will be giving it a miss.

 

[Piece]

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10775

"golf has been taught backwards..."

"as more people understand how these principles work in golf they will ask more questions of their pros and experts who perhaps won't know the answers....."

This is an old interview but worth watching if you've not seen it.

After reading the semi-playground scrap on this thread, I took a bit of time to look at the video. I was expecting to be preached at, but being honest I thought they came across well. After all, they were ducks in a shooting gallery, put in front of an interviewer trying defending a swing methodology that has been given a 'label', which in my eyes and came across in the interview, is something Mike and Andy didn't really want but were encouraged by the publicists to do so. I wonder how traditionalists like Leadbetter, Harmon, etc. would answer similar questions?

Previously, I didn't particularly twig the "connection" between the new ball flight laws and S&T. I'd assume they were independent until I saw the interview. So I do understand why they say that golf has been taught backwards; the old saying in golf is that the "ball flight never lies", thus if you don't know what the ball is doing and how that flight is generated, then its more difficult to correct a swing flaw. Now, the extra bit on top of this is to say that if you understand new flight laws you can still address swing flaws with the traditional swing method.

I also agree with the caveat that some parts of the S&T can be used to improve play. That makes sense and does also apply to the any swing methodology. I didn't agree with the part that Pro's abandoned S&T because they were afraid to hear the full (or something like that) facts of S&T. It came across as being something like Scientology where you needed to pay more to get the BIG KEY to success...

I think in essence they are fighting a system because their methodology has a label, where the traditional swing doesn't. Thus they are an easier target. Also, they are not helped by a small band of ardent followers who feel its their mission to disregard almost all conventional teaching and fill the uninitiated with misinformation about the tradition swing (just for the record, I'm not saying that's anyone on here!). For example, I have seen videos on YouTube that over preach S&T by filling the viewer with blatant misconceptions about the traditional swing (a five part S&T video from an internet pro springs to mind...).

For me some of the attributes of S&T can definitely help and does in the current game (e.g. forward lean on full wedges shots). The reality, in my opinion, is that every swing has attributes of S&T AND attributes of the traditional swing. When you look at pro's that use S&T, you'll see that very, very few are using pure S&T; they are in fact using a hybrid version of S&T + traditional.

Would I use S&T? I already use parts of it without knowing. I won't convert to it lock, stock and barrel, but that's not to say I won't in the future.

Cheers:fore:

 

[JustOne]

I'm trying to work out if your splitting hairs but you havent answered how open you believe the clubface should be. I imagine if you had a figure in degrees it would be almost 0 and therefore virtually a square club face.

As a personal preference I'd rather see a definite open clubface (let's say 5°) that will have less chance of squaring/rolling over than one that is too straight to start, that way the shape becomes more predictable and you only have to work on the path.

The reason I don't directly answer your question is (as a rough example, again without splitting hairs) a face that is closed 1° is left going left (pull-hook), square face is still a hook and 1° open would be a push-hook... there's a lot going on in just 2° and that's why it's so 'hair splitting'. Straight ball flight with irons is a plane base that is 5° out-to-in with a square clubface and a descending angle of attack, that in itself is enough to show that Hogan was wrong. Not sure what it has to do with S&T though as that is Trackman that you can dispute and not Plummer/Bennett.

 

[jdchelsea]

Ok what?

Straight ball flight with irons is a plane base that is 5° out-to-in with a square clubface and a descending angle of attack, that in itself is enough to show that Hogan was wrong.

the ball should be hit when the club is travelling slightly from the inside with irons (and with a descending blow), if you square the face the ball will start straight and go left.... the face actually needs to be open a little.

I'm not disputing swinging in-to-in

you started by telling me in to in swing with an open face was a straight shot and in your last post you've told me it's outside in with a square face?

What's the source of your figures got a link?

 

[JustOne]

you started by telling me in to in swing with an open face was a straight shot and in your last post you've told me it's outside in with a square face?

What's the source of your figures got a link?

No I said the ball should be hit from the inside with an open clubface...(I prefer a push-draw) if you're aligned square you get a push-draw (ball moving towards target not away from it) if you align open (approx 5°) you get straight flight.... with a 6-iron I think it's 2.5° more with longer clubs, if we do what you (Hogan) said the ball would always be moving left AWAY from the flag.

Actually here's a Trackman link for you... http://www.trackman.dk/download/newsletter/newsletter5.pdf