GOLF DIGEST - STACK & TILT PART TWO

JfBrshie56 · August 9, 2007

Although P&B say their positions are not exaggerated, I don't believe I've seen any of their students with a spine pointing at the target, etc. I can't help believe that they emphasize what it should 'feel' like, but that doesn't necessarily translate to actual positions (I know the article says otherwise).

People seem to have a lot of trouble with the 'leftward lean' that they showed in the original GD article (I haven't checked out the follow-up yet, but I'll probably pick it up tonight to read on a road trip). That lean is actually at the top of your backswing, where your shoulders are 90° from the target line. This means that you're actually leaning directly toward the ball, instead of down the target line. This only occurs because you're already bent at the waist -toward the ball. Every other golf swing has this same motion, B&P just illustrate it in a strange manner. People freak out about the stack and tilt, probably because they see the guy leaning down the target line and immediately get frenzied, thinking that's what they teach.

I do agree with you though, Putt4doh, there's nothing revolutionary about it, but in a time when golfers are bombarded with hundreds of minute details to try and keep track of during their swing - Stack and Tilt is something absolutely simple to take up. Yes, I'm sure they have stacks of binders and pages detailing their swing dynamics, but for the general public, a few pages in a golf magazine has brought simplicity and fun back into the golf game.

Medici999 -

Golf Digest Article #1

Medici999 · August 10, 2007

thanks for part one, now does anyone have part 2 for me please as i cant buy the magazine as im in the uk. cheers

scores · August 10, 2007

On Bads IRONS

Irons : I am not a S&T person mainly because I am not going to mess with my swing using a method out of GD .. However my irons are the same and I believe that is from hitting down on the ball!! Leading edge worn down..

I discontinued GD because i was deviating away from what I needed... too many lessons from too many people saying opposite of what the other guy said !!

I do like the setup/swing on the plummer & bennet discussion - really good by (mann) I am not a teacher but been around enough good players to know.

I wish all the best in finding whats right for them!

Newman · August 10, 2007

I've never attempted a mid-season swing change before, until I decided to try S&T. I'm so glad I did. I started it up about 8 weeks ago, and my ball striking has never been better. I've had to adjust a bit because I'm hitting a draw now (something that disapeared from my game years ago). I've gained at least one club back in distance.

The hip action in this swing is very important, especially with the driver. I'm able to tee the driver lower and I'm making much better contact on the face as a result. You can't make a half-assed swing or you'll definitely be too steep on the ball and will most likely hit a pull-hook. My best swings come from really driving the hips forward through impact. My balance is also better as a result because this swing eliminates almost all of the lateral motion in my swing that used to get me into trouble before.

One of the best swings so far was a 260 yard 4-wood that I hit off the tee on a tight par-4. Absolutely ripped it right down the middle, but it was the ball flight that surprised me. I bent down to pick up my tee, and when I stood up, the ball was still in the air. The same kind of ball flight that you see from the guys on tour. I haven't seen that in a loooong time. That made my whole round.

My scores are headed in the right direction again. More fairways and greens. I'm lovin' this swing! :tongue:

pmcg no.6 · August 10, 2007

It's nice to hear these success stories with the S&T. I've recently started taking lessons and my pro is pointing me in the S&T direction to eliminate my lateral movements and keep my head over the ball. At the end of my first lesson I noticed I was making much better contact than before. I'm hoping this will help me out.

Monty23 · August 10, 2007

Only played one round with the S&T for just my irons and shot my best round to date, 74. Now, a lot of this was due to putting well, but I did up to 9 greens from a previous average of 7.

I'm going to continue to work with it and see how it goes.

Medici999 · August 10, 2007

anyone have the second article that i could take a look at.

tiltmaestro · August 10, 2007

precisely the intention of the article....

darnoldil · August 11, 2007

Thank you Points for defining ball striking. Your definition is; closest to the pin and fairway accuracy percentage. I agree that these two aspects are a part of ball striking, I simply do not define ball striking exclusively by these two criteria.

Many of the top players are still able to keep the ball on the green out of the rough thereby diluting your statistical significance for correlation of GIR to great ball striking. Another dilution of your GIR to great ball striking correlation is the insignificance of the ranking system in different categories to begin with.

For example, the difference between first and one hundredth on the PGA tour in GIR percentage is a whopping 7%, or roughly 1.5 greens more per round, Bad's 187th ranking puts him a gargantuan 12% behind first which equates to an enormous 2 greens less per round.

Maybe par 3's hit would be a better reference but then you have Steve Elkington (a S&T guy) sitting 8th and Brad Faxon (another S&T guy) 29th.

I know, the precious fairways hit will yield some significant correlation, except Elks' is sitting 14th, and both Weir and Bad's are sitting ahead of Tiger in this category. Funny thing though is that Tiger is sitting 2nd in GIR percentage, seems like a Pearson R to me. In fact, GIR can be greatly influenced by length of the hole as a person with an 8 iron will have a pronounced advantage over a person with a 5 iron due to release issues of the golf ball but your GIR definition for ball striking doesn't account for that.

The point is this: To say that the S&T doesn't work well because Bad's doesn't hit a higher percentage of GIR's simply has too many variables to be a statistically significant correlation. Oh, by the way, Bad's is 17th in putts per GIR, beating out Tiger at 22nd (and my favorite golfer) by such an insignificant amount that it shows up as being the same. I brought this tid-bit up because fewer putts per GIR may have a correlation to closest to the pin which was one of your two defining points for ball striking.

Points · August 12, 2007

Just to clarify a couple things. I said that Driving Accuracy is not a good measure of ball striking currently because most of the best players in the world do not hit the fairway all that often. I do believe at the professional level a whopping 1.5 greens per round is significant. In a four day tournament, that is 6 more birdie chances. Finally, I believe I admitted that any type of statistical system would have some flaws.

I think if you reread my post you will notice that I never said that S and T was a bad method. I only commented on the fact that Badds was not a great ball striker. I at least attempted to define ball striking while you simply point out what is wrong. Maybe you should offer your own complete definition.

kmcg858585 · August 12, 2007

Stackand Tilt can be a great pattern for some people. Jimmy Ballard's lean right at the top pattern can fix some people. Basically stack and tilt is great for someone that leans too far right at the top and hits a hook. By leaning left and using the stack and tilt pattern they get more orthodox and trace a straighter plane line, great. It's not a great pattern for everyone, it'll hurt some players(i.e. a guy like Jason Gore who tried it who already is an over-the-top cutter of the ball). I think Bennet and Plummer seem like good teachers and I dont think this is the only pattern they teach, it's one and it can help a lot of hookers, which a lot of tour players happen to be...

slicefixer · August 12, 2007

Just to clarify a couple things. I said that Driving Accuracy is not a good measure of ball striking currently because most of the best players in the world do not hit the fairway all that often. I do believe at the professional level a whopping 1.5 greens per round is significant. In a four day tournament, that is 6 more birdie chances. Finally, I believe I admitted that any type of statistical system would have some flaws.
I think if you reread my post you will notice that I never said that S and T was a bad method. I only commented on the fact that Badds was not a great ball striker. I at least attempted to define ball striking while you simply point out what is wrong. Maybe you should offer your own complete definition.

Points, I understood what your were trying to say........and agree too.......

Baddeley IS most likely a better ballstriker than he was prior to S&T......OBVIOUSLY he think's so (and IMOP that's what REALLY counts).......and he might be better statistically, but, I'm not going to go to the trouble to do the research.........but, does he have the control over the golf ball like that of the great ballstrikers of the past........probably not.......sure hit some VERY bad shots during the final round @ Oakmont.......and the shots that he struck were predictable based on what he's worked on over the recent past.......

The problem the S&T guy's better look out for is getting too arrogant about "reinventing" the golf swing, etc. However, my buddy who just met Plummer said he was a really nice guy and very humble, which is nice to hear........

In fact and IMOP there are any number of "mistakes" in the latest GD article that certainly indicate they haven't done their homework or studied enough video........they compare players who release the golf club in HIGHLY different ways and imply they are similar. (to compare Fred to Sergio??.....yes, they both do semi-reverse pivot, but, release the club TOTALLY 100% different......btw, Monty and Fred head's work backwards AWAY from the target in the downswing and they BOTH have TERRIBLE back problems as a result of the wear and tear.).....they say Hogan's head didn't move off the ball......wrong......they say Hogan had a "reverse tilt".....LOL....nope, NOT even close........Hogan's pivot was ENTIRELY different than Snead's so to imply that they are doing the same thing is not true.........so to say they "invented" a new swing, LOL, they certainly haven't done that (and I doubt very seriously P&B have claimed they have, but GD sure did).......

One thing is for certain, they have a "unique" way of teaching.......a "uninque" method.........will work for some, will help some a LOT, will be a waste of time for some, and will destroy some others........if they help more fok's than they hurt then they will last......if they don't then they will fade.......

Points, I know you know, winning golf tournaments involves a LOT more than just a player's golf swing or ballstriking.......sure helps to have a great golf swing and strike the ball purely........however, the guy that strikes it the purest probably DOESN'T win most of the events in professional golf.......will Baddeley, etc. win some big tournaments in the future......yep......will they end up being considered some of the all time best ballstrikers by their peers......probably not, but, who know's......He's a fine player, but, there are a TON of em' nowadays......

Personally I don't think his golf swing is anywhere near as good as Immelman, Byrd, Mahan, and a few others, but, that IS MOP.....however, it IS a very good swing.......just not my personal favorite......too much movement away from the target on the downswing with the longer

clubs.......I have YET to see any video of a PGA Tour S&T guy where the head didn't move AWAY from the target in the downswing with a long club.....the stuff I have of Weir he's hitting a mid-iron and his head DOES move backwards 6" or so from where it was at the top and THAT IS a "reverse pivot" IMOP......(same for Elkington and it's through the whole bag).....in the opinion of some, it might not be........we ALL have our OWN definitions/terms.......

IMOP that's the problem with golf swing "debates," the disagreements too often involve "semantics" rather than tangible differences in technique.......after reviewing S&T MUCH more closely I now know that P&B (or at least I think so) believe much as I do......there is NO reason to "move off the ball"/"slide" in the backswing (Ballard)......hell, I've said that for MANY, MANY years and posted it several years ago both here and on BSG.......it's their "way" of teaching that's controversial.......could prove to be VERY innovative........we'll see........more power to em'........they do have the gut's to take a "stand"........which is VERY unlike some of our peers who walk the bloody fence when it comes to stating a concrete opinion on the golf swing.......as bad as bloody politicians..... :lol:

darnoldil · August 13, 2007

Thank you Points for the clarifications. It seemed that you were making a tie-in between the validity/capability of the S&T method with Bad's "poor" ball striking when I read part of your post on the first page where you said: "At the end of the day, the stack and tilt is a method which places greater empahsis on the swing than the player. All the work with Badds still leaves him as one of the worst ball strikers on tour. Luckily he can putt with anyone.."

I do not think that the S&T is the only valid swing out there, I think that there are literally hundreds of thousands of swing variations because everyone is different, so I'm not in the camp of "S&T Only". LOL!

With that said, I do take Mr. Hardy's work to heart and thus view the S&T as a type or variation of an OPS.

I also believe Scripture when it says "There is nothing new under the sun". Thus many of the things that are done were done in some form in the past. Therefore the value of golf instruction as I see it isn't about necessarily coming up with something "new" and branding it. Instead, it's about figuring out how to select and implement a collection of principles that a particular person needs. There are some excellent teachers out there that really can adjust to and help students implement what THEY need so that they actually become better. I have also seen/heard with my own eyes/ears teachers and golfers alike tear people to shreds because the person wasn't swinging the "correct" way with "the" right style or type of swing, even though they were consistently hitting the ball very well. This is just sad.

So please forgive me Points if I misunderstood what you were saying.

BTW, my definition for good ball striking is: 1. Ball first contact 2. Intended target line 3. Efficient & Consistent. For Tour Pros I add: Creating Shots to help you escape mistakes and keep your round going.

Harvey P. said hitting the ball straight was difficult enough and I think that's always a foundational start (although plenty of great ball strikers didn't hit it straight but with some curvature on it). I also believe that "golf is not a game of perfect", even though one of my best friends thinks that it should be for Tour Pros. LOL. It seems to me that often when Tour Pros get into trouble it is seldom from missing ball first contact or a loss of efficiency (power) in their swing.

I may definitely be wrong on this but it seems that Tour Pros, when they are having a bad round usually either get their distances wrong (short/long) or they are expecting/playing a particular shot and it doesn't come off as they setup/aligned for. For most of us that play golf these type of problems would be nirvana. LOL!

So I guess I'm saying that my first 3 points apply to most of us golfers. For the Tour Pros since they already have them only the last one extends to them while we would appreciatively take a simple straight or baby fade/draw shot, and a "thank you very much" tip of the hat the 2-3 times a month we play. LOL!!!

darnoldil · August 13, 2007

I just read your last reply Slice, I probably should have read it first as it would have saved me a LOT of typing. LOL!!!

slicefixer · August 13, 2007

hehehe.......thanks my friend.......your points are very valid too........we ALL have valid points to make about our passion, our game........we might not all agree, heck, we won't, but, at least in this venue we can state them and then discuss them intelligently........that's what I appreciate most about site's like this one and a few other's like it........Points is a VERY good teacher.....very, very good.......he know's his "stuff" IMOP (as do a LOT of folk's that hang out here, yourself defintiely included)........I guess my main point (no pun intended .....hehe) was that we all, myself included, sometimes react a bit "hasty" about something involving our game that we love with so much passion........ as I know I did over the initial GD article regarding S&T........when the "debate" upon a serious review is more about how we SAY it rather than the actual physical technique........anyway, I appreciate your opinion and kind comment..... :lol:

darnoldil · August 13, 2007

Thanks Slice for your immense insight. I definitely owed Points an apology it seemed and I agree with everything you said.

There is something that I would like to get Points, yourself and everyone else's thought on please: I have recently and finally found something that keeps the club on plane for me consistently in the back swing and it is really making a difference. This "something" is the result of a grip change and it is the turning of my bicep upward toward the sky (similar I realized to the image that Hogan put in his book when the two arms are wrapped together).

I have been noticing for about 2 years how many people use a strong grip and I kept wondering why as a neutral grip felt best to me. Early this year when I bought Jim Hardy's book (The Plane Truth) I noted that he says that an OPS needs to use either a neutral or strong grip but NOT a weak one, hmmmmm. Well finally last week I tried a strong grip but in order to facilitate what I have seen in past research I had to turn my trail hand bicep upwards and VIOLA!!! Since then I have found that I can turn my trail arm bicep upwards but then rotate my hand back into a more neutral position.

The scientist in me had to "test" and understand why this was happening so I looked at what my right arm was doing as it went through the back swing and noticed that by facing my bicep upwards it allowed my arm to "break" in the direction of my back swing. This resulted in the club staying on plane and finally looking like all of the pictures and videos! When I viewed my normal grip where my bicep points at a 45 degree angle up but towards the target I noticed that I could not continue the back swing AND keep the club on plane. Instead, the angle created would turn the club face downwards. To compensate I had to "break" my wrist towards the direction of the back swing to get width and to try and keep the club face from pointing down. This is the problem that I have been fighting for several years. I had to resort to different geometric take away paths and compensations to get an inside-out down swing path. The result was that I was always worried about getting my "angles" correct because they seemed to be the key for me hitting the ball. If I got stuck because I went too far back or got too far ahead of my hands coming through I would hit fat with my irons and pull the shot.

I then realized that I have done this "bicep up" setup before but by accident which would explain the on/off swing. Usually my "on" swing lasts a week or two and the "off" swing lasts 2-3 weeks before I find some "new" swing "variation" that would get me going again. All the while through each variation I would realize that I had been there and done that before. This resulted in me finally starting to ask myself this summer "WHY" was I getting away from whatever swing variation I had come up with if it was working so well? I knew the answer: Because what I thought was the problem and the answer simply wasn't, and I was probably stumbling upon something that I wasn't realizing.

The feel of this "trail bicep up" setup I know I've had and done before because it allows me to start the swing with my left side pushing my upper torso around my spine but I could never figure out why this ability would suddenly leave me. LOL! That feeling and ability to have my left side start the swing instead of having to pull the club back and around with my right hand definitely correlated with my better-to-best rounds over the past 4 years or so. I was simply unaware that it was being facilitated by my right bicep being turned upward and why it worked, so it was easy for me to get away from it and be absolutely flabbergasted as to why I was "loosing it".

A simple exercise to better visualize what I am trying to say would be to hold out your trail hand and turn your palm and bicep upwards towards the sky. Now pull your arm straight in towards your body while keeping the palm and bicep pointed up. Next, turn your arm back on a level or near level plane away from you (you are keeping the rest of your body stationary) and note how a tray would stay level on your hand like a waiter would do. Bring your arm back around and notice how you are on an inside-out path as you near your starting point again.

Now for comparison to what I was doing, hold the arm straight out from you again but turn your hand and bicep towards your target and then pull it straight in and repeat. What you will probably see is that you can't go back as far, your hand wants to rise at a higher angle than before, and that you loose your inside-out path well before you get back to your starting place. In fact by the time you get to your starting point you are on an over the top, outside-in path. The "inner circles" pathway is WAY short and happening way behind you.

To compensate for my bicep down (towards the target) I was having to open my upper torso well to the right in my stance in order to hit it straight which also creates a power leak. Thus my power would fluctuate at times as I felt like I had to really swing hard to get good distance with my irons. I also constantly fought a bad swing fault of hitting fat which I loath because of its power sapping property. On my good to great days I had no problems but on my "average" days I would hit close to 50% of my shots fat and we won't even comment on my bad days. Interestingly enough, these problems were far less pronounced with my driver as I found that all I had to do was setup with my hands way out in front of the driver so that the driver was angled back and swing level. Thus I haven't slice more than 15 times in the past 3-4 years and I hit the ball with very good distance. My driver shot would either be a push or a small fade/draw, my bad shots were hooks or a push-fade or top. As a result I adopted this "hands forward" more level type swing as my "normal" swing for my irons as well. When it was on it was ON (with the irons) and when it wasn't I hit fat and hated it and had to work harder because of the distance lost with my irons.

This is why I kept tinkering, kept seeking professional advise on and off and kept researching because nothing and no one seemed to help me get as consistent as I wanted to be in not hitting the ball fat and not having power leaks in my iron game. I'm ONE of the people that I mentioned who has been ripped by people and professionals but not helped and it didn't endear me to want to seek more help.

BTW, the S&T HAS helped me to understand swing centers and the need to get them in front of the ball but it still needed me to keep the club on plane to stop coming in steep. Before the "bicep up" setup I would try to accomplish keeping the club from being to steep by "waiting on my hands" to get through impact, pushing up as I came through impact, and it may explain why some of the S&T guys seem, or, do have their heads going backwards off of the ball through impact with longer clubs. If I got my body too far ahead of my hands or started "standing up" on the down swing before my hand got to impact it was going to be fat city all over again. Now I swing so freely, without having to "stand up" through impact, and without worry of hitting fat that I am almost giddy. I still utilize the S&T stance since it gets my "swing centers" in front of the ball at setup, because it feels better on my surgically repaired and replaced left knee to stand that way, and because I think/feel that it adds an extra degree of protection against hitting it fat. LOL!

If the "bicep up" setup is accurate then it would be nothing new, and I am sure tons of people and teachers know about it (just none of the ones I've seen caught this problem). I sure wish that someone would have noticed and told me a long time ago as it would have been nice and saved me a lot of countless hours of practice and frustration.

During Tigers' rounds this past week I looked to see where his bicep was pointing during still photos and slow motion replays and saw that his bicep was pointing skyward during the back swing also. I guess it's simply been a "duh" thing for everyone else. LOL!!!!

What does everyone think?

asdepique · August 13, 2007

I found this short S&T video:

S&T Video

rjurkowski · August 29, 2007

Regardless of how you swing, it's the results that count. This is what I know...I started using the stack and tilt swing about a month ago. Since then, I've shot 4-6 shots lower than my average every round (used to shoot in the mid-80s, now I shoot in the in high 70s and low 80s).

I'm hitting my irons 5-7yds further and much more consistently (with a slight draw as opposed to the slight fade I used to have). Interestingly, I have to fight hitting my irons too thin. This seems to contradict what others were saying about the S&T causing too steep of a swing path. For me, if I don't fully raise my hips up and through the ball on the downswing (like the S&T prescribes) I will hit the ball too thin and the club will be delofted, often resulting in for example a PW shot that has the same trajectory as a 2 iron.

The only club on which I don't use the stack and tilt is the driver. While it works with the driver, in that my shots are consistently in the fairway, I lose about 20-30 yds. of distance compared to my old swing. I'm not yet sure why...still working on that. But, for every other club there has been a definite improvement in both length and consistency.

So, S&T works for me. It may not work for the doubters, but I suspect if they really gave it a chance they'd be pleasantly surprised.

Regarding success on the PGA tour, I guess the true measure would be are the 20-30 pros currently using S&T playing better or worse than with their old swing? I know Baddely is playing better and so is Axely, and I seem to recall that Faxon is playing better than in recent years.

This would be a much better measure than comparing Baddely to non-S&Ters. Is Baddely hitting more fairways and greens then he used to before he was a S&Ter? His earnings this year compared to past years would seem to indicate that he is.