I am a professional educator. If I had been a better golfer I probably would have become a teaching professional. The reason I opted for the so-called more cerebral career path ironically is becasue I did not "get" the golf swing! I knew that it would be a smoke and mirrors side show! No doubt I would have been able to convince the garden variety golfer whose inexpereince or ineptitude would be the perfect cover for the likes of me. Throw some jargon....add a little lingo... stripe a few drives and they follow like rodents to a penny whistle! I am not suggesting that you reach a master status before you can teach a novice the basics, but I am all too aware of the saying that goes something like "...those that cannot, teach!" I chose a field in which I am well trained and reasonably profficient. My resume as a mediocre player in a mediocre college golf program was simply not enough. My talent could not overcome my ignorance any longer!
My real point to make was that I believe people can be catergorized as "artists" or "mechanics" with regards to how they assimilate information. Some of my students "just get it" almost intutively, while others reach that point after much blood, sweat and tears. Genetic predisposition, conditioning or whatever some people catch on about this and the other quickly while others have to mull it over. We do not all incubate at the same rate I would suggest! It is a rare find to discover someone that is both an artist as well as a mechanic - a savant with a work ethic! I think Tiger fits that bill. Nothing about TGM's technical nature would upset his finely tuned competitve balance in my opinion. For some people more information might seem to be detrimental, while others will improve as a result. However, I do believe that innate talent (the inner artist) doing its own thing, unconsciously as it were, has a shorter battery life, than the knowledge/understanding or mechanic approach. When knowledge and potential collide...hello world!
This is where golf is truly a great game. As Mr. Kelley suggested you are going to get the ball in the hole at some point no matter how poorly you play! The ratio of mystery to complexity you exchange is mostly up to you!
I think Mr. Kelley gave us a wonderful gauge for our sincerity as it pertains to our desire to improve our games. If you cannot do basic motion for more than 10 balls in row then the jig is up! If you have not yet bought dowel sticks then then the jig is up! I recall a story...Ok partially...where Jackie Burke agreed to help an up and coming youngster. He sent him off to sink several hundred three footers in a row, or something to that effect. In essence, many people end up siezing the engine by refusing to spring for the oil change! All inevitabilities are brought to pass by some kind of effort.
Not to get too analytical but people "reject" TGM and its vernacular because the book suggests an "IS" condition in the universe as opposed to the la la land of their own fabrication. I recall a statement that Mark Twain made about how he envied the awe with which a primitive man must have viewed a rainbow, unspoiled as it were. I like Twain but what a load of (insert expletive.) For the mystically inclined there are still things that science and objectivity do not speak clearly to...the golf swing is just not one of them!
When knowledge and potential collide...hello world!
This is where golf is truly a great game. As Mr. Kelley suggested you are going to get the ball in the hole at some point no matter how poorly you play! The ratio of mystery to complexity you exchange is mostly up to you!
Great post, Okie. The quote above is particularly telling. Thanks!
What seems remarkable to me about how Stack and Tilt actually works is how people seem to be able to pick up the system after reading a magazine article and with no formal instruction. I read through a Gold Digest blog that included responses from people who had tried the system. A large number had great success, some just with their irons and down, and some across the board.
I absolutely love the Golfing Machine and this website. I haven't even been tempted to try a single golf tip, not part of the Golfing Machine since I signed up 2 1/2 years ago. I have had to work hard to learn the Golfing Machine on this forum. But it was well worth it, and I definitely enjoyed the process thoroughly. It seemed strange to me that people were reading a Golf Digest article and all of a sudden getting great results with the new system. Then there is the 4 golfers who have won their first tournament after taking lessons from Plummer and Bennett. So I reluctantly decided to see what all of the fuss was about. Last week at the range, after reading the two GD articles a few times, I gave it a personal test. From the first ball, I started hitting with more accurate compression, and alignment. Not having to retrace the precise distance to get back to the ball, was a huge benefit for me. I not only hit the irons, I also hit the woods and even my driver quite well. A second practice session also resulted in significantly improved results across the board.
This was surprising because I am a hitter, and it doesn't appear that "Stack and Tilt" has a hitters version. Today I went out and played 9 holes. I had my best driving day of the year, hitting 3 or 4 drives well passed my previous personal best hits. My hitter background should have been a real stumbling block. But it wasn't. I really do think "Stack and Tilt" is about geometry. The "Stack and Tilt" swing seems to have substantially more rotary motion in hit than my previous swing. The club is going back even shorter and even further inside. It also is going further inside on the way forward. Aside from the more consistent ball striking, the ball contact because of the more rotary swing feels better than what I was previously experiencing.
As a former wrestler, I chose to be a hitter instead of a swinger because I wanted to take advantage of my my strength. The "Stack and Tilt" swing provides additional leverage for me in my shoulders and upper torso because of the shorter distance back and through. So even though I am out of the hitting business, I don't feel I am making a hip centric gyroscopic swing. Also the proof is in the pudding, 15 yards to a 64 year old guy is a big deal and something positive seems to have clicked in, at least at this point.
Three days is not a fair test of a system. But the extra distance and consistency is tempting, along with the more rewarding ball flight. I sincerely hope this post is not deemed disrespectful of my absolute favorite website on the Net. If you think I am someone with an agenda, read my prior posts over the last 2 1/2 years and see for yourself my enthusiasm for the Golfing Machine.
I did a short-game golf clinic today for a little over a hundred kids with Brad Faxon. Prior to the clinic we were talking about "Stack and Tilt". Faxon was surpose to be the poster child for how not to swing according to Bennett and Plumber. Brad tried it for that reason and had little to no success with their Stroke Pattern. He actually got worse. He has since gone back to work with GSEM Ron Gring. Faxon had previously work with Gring when he felt he was hitting the ball the best a few years ago at the Hawaiian Open. However, it will be a while before you see him playing on tour again. Additional injuries (recently torn muscles arround his rib cage) prohibit him from making a full swing. So while "Stack and Tilt" may work for some, it is not the secret everyone is looking to discover.
BTW, Faxon has watched some of the videos on this website and is well aware of Lynn's work here and on tour.
Drew,
Pretty cool a clinic with Brad Faxon. Don't you have a big presentation coming up to the RI PGA?
Thanks for reminding me. I had better get working on it . Also presenting at the end of September will be A.I. David Orr (Annikan Skywalker) and Tom Cavicchi former New England PGA Teacher of the Year. Should be fun.
Thanks for reminding me. I had better get working on it . Also presenting at the end of September will be A.I. David Orr (Annikan Skywalker) and Tom Cavicchi former New England PGA Teacher of the Year. Should be fun.
drew as you would know...I love being in NC with David, but what a treat it is to be in New England for anyone
thanks for the words lynn ill clarify if i may....love the site. you are correct in that we advocate no backstroke weight shift. i disagree with your analysis of the shoulder turn and refer you to 2g and later 2h Shoulder motions. "the point may be made that is impossible to inscribe perfect circles while center is in motion. that is the turning shoulder. the straight line requirements of the compression point are satisfied as long as both horizonal and vertical centers move precisely in unison. directional control remain stable because both centers are moving precisely in a circle....THAT IS THE CIRCUMFERECE OF THE SHOULDER TURN." there are anatomical considerations for the shoulders to turn in a cirlcle as you know. my first question to you is how do you rectify turning the shoulders turn in a circle and transfer the weight on the backswing? translating only the hips would tilt the spine to the left....translating the hips and the head would violate the circle requirements. next, how do you reconcile the change of standard knee action from edition 2 to right anchor in later additions?? as it seems to me the right anchor flattens the hips and shoulder turn? the flatter than rotated shoulder turn change the horizonal component of the backswing and translate the axis of the shoulder turn back to the right....violating 2g(later 2h)......of course all bets are off if you allow the hip and shoulder turn to both move back equally (lunge equals sway). all the best
. Also presenting at the end of September will be A.I. David Orr (Annikan Skywalker) and Tom Cavicchi former New England PGA Teacher of the Year. Should be fun.
Linear Mode
