BLOG: The Biggest Lie Ever Told in Golf Instruction History

[adamscot89]

I think Brian's quote is a perfect example of why stacking or staying centered doesn't really help. There is a reason this is under all of his posts!!!

Use your Pivot to snap your Kinetic Chain, and to assist your arms, hands and club with creating the proper "D" Plane for the selected shot.

You may be able to stack someone in the backswing and move their low point forward, but you take away their pivot and any chance they had a making a good downswing. Without that proper pivot the only shot they are going to hit is going to be low with no spin and it's only going to go 3/4 of the distance they could potentially hit the ball with a good pivot, not to mention the divot that would probably make your superintendent cry.

Imagine if a baseball player tried to "stack" because he was flying out to much, so he doesn't fly out anymore but now he can't get the ball out of the infield and he grounds out to the shortstop all day.

Point being, there may be a method a fixing a particular problem, but that method may cause so many other problems or leave other problems unaddressed that it is not actually beneficial.

Keep up the good work Brian!

 

[Brian Manzella]

There's been a point missed all right....geez!!!!

I think the point has been missed entirely on the stack and tilt.

This thread is not specifically about s&t, it is about ANY so-called centered, or left SHIFTing pivot, and the lie:

The Best or maybe only way to move a hackers low point forward, is with a (so-called) centered, or left shifting pivot.
​

And I have made my point a dozen different ways, and still....

But I have more.

All other things being equal, if done correctly, it (s&t) will move low point forward.

So will Haney's pattern, Lead's pattern, Harmon's pattern, Ballard's pattern, etc. etc.

hacker with a monster cast that bottoms out 4 inches behind the ball will now bottom out one inch behind.He still hasn't fixed his throwaway but he now hits the ball heavy rather than duff.

No.

It doesn't guarantee anything.

Geez.

Here is one I have used a few 100 times talking about this subject:

Ben Doyle's Maximum Participation Pattern

1. Ball way forward.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

2. Set-up well behind the ball.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

3. Top of the backswing pivot, well behind the ball.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

4. Long patient sit-down position.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

5. No downswing hip slide allowed.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

6. If the plane line is fudged any, it is always too inside-out.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

7. Head has to stay way behind the ball through impact.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

8. Right Foot has to stay on the ground through impact.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

9. He wants no forward leaning shaft at impact.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

Yet, in the 22 years I have known Ben and hundred of his students, and evaluated their golf swings, their seems to be only two flaws with their swings.

1. Slightly too inside-out

2. Low point TOO FAR FORWARD!

Hmmm....

Apparently, all of those AXIOMS are not very axiomatic.

 

[ej20]

Brian,

I think S&T and similar patterns are valid for some players.It doesn't eliminate swing flaws but it promotes a steeper path into the ball.Hitting down in other words.There are always going to be a good majority of golfers,amatuers in particular,that are always going to have some degree of throwaway,no matter how you teach them.The hit instinct is very hard to overcome for most.S&T will help them play better as you can still hit down with throwaway.I am addressing the average weekend hack,not the obsessed golf fanatic that post on this forum.

You mention the hundreds of Bens students that have had success with his maximum participation pattern.What about the others who just can't get it and quit?

Learning the correct swing is easy to say but not so easy to do.....for the average hack.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Brian,

I think S&T and similar patterns are valid for some players.It doesn't eliminate swing flaws but it promotes a steeper path into the ball.Hitting down in other words.There are always going to be a good majority of golfers,amatuers in particular,that are always going to have some degree of throwaway,no matter how you teach them.The hit instinct is very hard to overcome for most.S&T will help them play better as you can still hit down with throwaway.I am addressing the average weekend hack,not the obsessed golf fanatic that post on this forum.

You mention the hundreds of Bens students that have had success with his maximum participation pattern.What about the others who just can't get it and quit?

Learning the correct swing is easy to say but not so easy to do.....for the average hack.

Why limit yourself by conceding that some will always have throwaway? I strongly disagree. I think thats a copout.

 

[ej20]

Kevin,there is just no way you can get low point in front of the ball with a forward ball position without a good measure of trigger delay.

Some just can't learn this,especially the average player who has no time to practice.

I'm all for doing it right but what do you do with these people?

 

[Brian Manzella]

I'm all for doing it right but what do you do with these people?

Fix 'em.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Kevin,there is just no way you can get low point in front of the ball with a forward ball position without a good measure of trigger delay.

Some just can't learn this,especially the average player who has no time to practice.

I'm all for doing it right but what do you do with these people?

If you bend the shaft even a little in the transition, you can get low point in front of the ball without alot of trigger delay.

Skill retention, getting concepts right, taking it to the course, trusting it, etc........another story.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Ouch.

I think S&T and similar patterns are valid for some players.

Why do you feel the need to defend s&t?

I have said a dozen times in this thread that I like some of this pattern, just not the left shifting.

Miller Barber's swing is a valid pattern for some players too.

Really.

it promotes a steeper path into the ball. Hitting down in other words.

So does Scott Hoch's swing.

If I was designing a pattern strictly for "steep path into the ball" it would look NOTHING like the one you keep mentioning.

There are always going to be a good majority of golfers,amatuers in particular,that are always going to have some degree of throwaway,no matter how you teach them.

No.

I don't have ANY students who have worked with me for any reasonable length of time, leaning the shaft backward at impact.

The hit instinct is very hard to overcome for most.

Not if you can teach a lick.

(it) will help them play better as you can still hit down with throwaway.

Anything might make a hacker a better hacker.

Including moving the ball way back in the stance, something I have NEVER resorted to.

I am addressing the average weekend hack,not the obsessed golf fanatic that post on this forum.

You don't know much about who reads and posts on this forum.

You mention the hundreds of Bens students that have had success with his maximum participation pattern. What about the others who just can't get it and quit?

I teach something like the Maximum Participation Pattern to about 3% of my students. I'd bet that those folks would give you a tough time on the course, though.

Ben's teaching doesn't need me to defend it, but I said NOTHING about the success of his students, and in fact mentioned some drawbacks. What I did say stands:

Ben has NO STUDENTS with low points too far back.

None.

Learning the correct swing is easy to say but not so easy to do.....for the average hack.

Not with the help of a good teacher, who DOESN'T BASTARDIZE, and has a clue.

 

[rogerdodger]

If you designed a pattern for steeper swings, Brian, what would it contain? I see no reason why a steeper swing has to eliminate the pivot. Hoch lifts his left heel and clearly shifts to the right. He hardly is a model for S&T.

 

[Brian Manzella]

If you designed a pattern for steeper swings, Brian, what would it contain? I see no reason why a steeper swing has to eliminate the pivot. Hoch lifts his left heel and clearly shifts to the right. He hardly is a model for S&T.

Never Hook Again 2 is a "steep-ish" pattern, and controls low point beautifully.

It isn't for everyone though, nor do I use it on everyone.

 

[ej20]

Brian....I am not defending S&T at all.I have said all along it's a more a band-aid pattern and might be useful as a last resort for the player that just can't get a forward leaning shaft on a regular basis.That's hardly an endorsement.If I said this on other sites,i would have been hung,drawn and quartered!

My point about Ben has been missed.I am glad for his long term students that have learned to do it right without compromise.But if you are telling me he has had no students that just don't get it,well,i am not that naive.He is probably a great teacher as are you but he aint JC.

A huge part of teaching is the talent and the work ethic of the pupil,not just the teacher,although of course a good teacher is invaluable.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Response #2,345

Brian....I am not defending (it) at all.I have said all along it's a more a band-aid pattern and might be useful as a last resort for the player that just can't get a forward leaning shaft on a regular basis. That's hardly an endorsement.If I said this on other sites,i would have been hung,drawn and quartered!

It is NOT a "Band-aid" pattern, and for the 10000000000th time, this thread is NOT about those guys, or their pattern.

This reminds me of Brian's Golf Forum Rule to Myself #4:

Don't even mention anybody else. Even if you slice and dice 'em into little worthless pieces, if you spell their name right, it free advertising for them.

This thread is about the LIE, and although a few people have taken me on on it, they lost this debate a few pages ago.

But, they (you this time) continue....

My point about Ben has been missed.I am glad for his long term students that have learned to do it right without compromise.

Whether of not Ben's students "learn to do it right without compromise" is correct or not, I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING LIKE THIS IN THIS THREAD!!!!!!

Either I am nowhere near the writer I think I am, or some folks need reading comprehension skills training.

Yikes!

But if you are telling me he has had no students that just don't get it...

What I said is there are ZERO Ben Doyle students that I have witnessed (100's of them) that have low point before the ball after spending a decent amount of time with him.

The point I was making is ANY TEACHER should be able to do this very easily without any left shifting, or zero shifting.

I am not that naive, (Ben) is probably a great teacher as are you but he aint JC.

Where did I say anything like that?

I sort of thought I was being a little to critical of Ben.

THE POINT about Ben was simply that according to "pop instruction" and you, most of what Ben teaches—and you could throw several similar teachers in a group with him (including BManz circa 1987-1991)—is supposed to make it HARDER to move low point forward, but I assure you, Tom Ness doesn't have any flippers either.

Flipping—for the most part—is about the HANDS and about a PIVOT that is powerful enough to not encourage the HANDS to "misbehave."

Whew!

 

[Clearwater]

Anyway...

This thread is about the LIE, and although a few people have taken me on on it, they lost this debate a few pages ago.

But, they (you this time) continue....

I didn't know this "debate" was "lost". I prefer, and enjoy, reading all of the GREAT information on your forum instead of "debating" this topic any further.

That said, I am working on a new low point concept that EVEN the BM CANNOT possibly refute.

 

[Brian Manzella]

I didn't know this "debate" was "lost".

That's OK, nobody wants to debate me anyway.

The last two guys to win were both PHD's

I prefer, and enjoy, reading all of the GREAT information on your forum instead of "debating" this topic any further.

I think that would be the best route.

That said, I am working on a new low point concept that EVEN the BM CANNOT possibly refute.

That should be every teacher's goal.

 

[Guitar Hero]

Ben Is The Man!

Here is one I have used a few 100 times talking about this subject:

Ben Doyle's Maximum Participation Pattern

1. Ball way forward.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

2. Set-up well behind the ball.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

3. Top of the backswing pivot, well behind the ball.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

4. Long patient sit-down position.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

5. No downswing hip slide allowed.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

6. If the plane line is fudged any, it is always too inside-out.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

7. Head has to stay way behind the ball through impact.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

8. Right Foot has to stay on the ground through impact.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

9. He wants no forward leaning shaft at impact.

(supposedly makes it harder to move low point forward)
​

Yet, in the 22 years I have known Ben and hundred of his students, and evaluated their golf swings, their seems to be only two flaws with their swings.

1. Slightly too inside-out

2. Low point TOO FAR FORWARD!

Hmmm....

Apparently, all of those AXIOMS are not very axiomatic.

This is a tour pro pattern. I am sure the tour pros do not have problems with it. I see Ben as more of a real deal teacher to the tour pros than the weekend golfers but I am sure he has helped many weekend golfers as well. I watched him work his magic for three days at the 2009 PGA Show and I learn something from him every year he is at my booth. Ben is one smart cookie!

 

[Clearwater]

Dispute this one big boy...

BM,
With all of your harsh words and after many nights of crying myself to sleep because of them, I will give it one more try...I'm still not sure how to teach proper ball position yet, if you can give me some tips that would be greeeeaaaat.

I'm sure you will let me know what you think.
SwingAcademy.com

 

[Brian Manzella]

I'm sure you will let me know what you think.
SwingAcademy.com

Looks good to me.

With all of your harsh words and after many nights of crying myself to sleep because of them, I will give it one more try...I'm still not sure how to teach proper ball position yet, if you can give me some tips that would be greeeeaaaat.

Hmmm....

Now we are discussing ball position?

 

[iseekabetterswing]

I've watched some of your stuff, Clearwater, and...

I hope you learn something from Brian.

 

[Clearwater]

Wow...

I hope you learn something from Brian.

I have learned a TON from Brian and many others who contributes to the site, especially in regards to geometry. I love this site and the banter the BM likes to deliver. I promise that I will never have all of the answers, but I will be trying to figure them all out. Thank you for being concerned about me though.

 

[Brian Manzella]

A little understanding goes a long way.

Nick,

You are a method teacher, and in this thread, I was critical of your method's leaders lesson fix for Mr. Finch of Golf Digest.

Some folks think I am too critical of other teachers, but if you read through all of this sites stuff, you'll see I am critical of myself very often.

I hate to do a poor job. I have given my share of bad lessons over the years. I have improved a lot though. You will too if you keep self scouting.

On this site, I have taken many bullets, but most all of them are from certain methodology apologists, so forgive me for the Ginsu treatment.

I am fair at least, no?

Also, this entire thread was based on the fact that I heard how shifting left, or not shifting at all was THE way or maybe the ONLY way to cure the golfer who flips it so bad that they have a low point too far back. Of course, after 27 years of having ZERO problems moving low point forward, with the kinda ironic situation of actually having to adjust my teaching the last few years to move low point BACK for many of my students, I was ready to voice my opinion and back them up.

And I think I made my point fairly well.

I also said that I like many elements of your method's pattern.

But, it wasn't an advertisement for it either. Ya'll get plenty of those.

You see, there are at least two completely other METHODS out there that try to control low point by subtracting pivots. I was talking about them as well, I hope you know that.

I am glad you say you learn some things from this site. I obviously do more sharing on this site then any other that I can see.

I want GOLF to improve, and GOLF INSTRUCTION to improve.

Why?

Because I love golf. And because if golf instruction improves, it helps my business.

I think like most methodologies, you have a very narrow view of the swing. That makes it easier to train you guys, and makes for a neat little "window" to see swings through.

I've been there, and I'm sure you guys think, "yeah, but his stuff wasn't as good as our stuff." Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But you miss way too many people seeing through a small window.

I suggest you look at swings of Danny Lee, Landon Colling, and Jamie Sadlowski.

You'll see the future, and you can plan for it.