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

[JustOne]

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]

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

 

[chrisd]

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]

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 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,.....

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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

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!

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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

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

 

[JustOne]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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'.

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]

It really depends on what you mean by Fundamentals.

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

 

[Hobbit]

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]

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

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.