There has been a great deal of discussion on the concept of the Stack & Tilt golf swing in recent months because of the success seen with some of the students of Andy Plummer and Mike Bennett. Although I don't see this concept completely embraced by "The Golfing Machine" crowd, it does have some roots in the book. Andy Plummer was a student of Homer Kelley who wrote the famed yellow book. I myself have a copy of the book and read it quite often.
Along with Baddley, Faxon, and Wier they aparently have another 15-20 students that are touring professionals. They've studied with several of the "Greats" like Tom Tomasello, Mac O'Grady, and Craig Harmon.
Those are some impressive names. Far be it from me, a small time swing swami to say anthing to butt heads with those names. Instead I want to look at the idea for what it is. Maybe there's something good to be learned from it, or perhaps it's all hogwash.
The pirmary gist of the S&T swing is that you stay predominantly on your front foot through your whole swing. There is no weight shift to speak of. The arguments is that if you shift your weight back, you have to shift your weight forward.
Lets stop right there for a second. I can think of a HUNDRED things in my daily life where I shift my weight from back to forward and vice versa. My all time favorite to compare a golf swing to is walking. If I want to develop any sort of energy going forward, I HAVE to get back FIRST. Just staying forward is like having your elbow below a board you're going to hit a nail into. Sure you can do it, but anyone can tell there's much less force behind the swing.
Continuing on...
Picturing two points, one between our shoulders and one between our hips, will give us an approximate location of our spine. According to Plummer and Bennett they want this straight up and down. This requires that the hips and the shoulders rotate on those two points.
Well now this is quite interesting. The shoulders I can understand, the hips however, I do not. In order for something to rotate around a point, ther must be sufficient force holding that point in place. In other words, a teeter totter has the bar running through the middle of the board, and that bar is solidly posted into the ground. A swing set has a bar running above the chains, that the chains hook into. That bar is solidly founded into the ground. A door has a frame which the hinges are screwed onto, and that frame doesn't move.
Now unless you have a rod stuck up your a$$, there is nothing stable for you to turn your hips around!
This is why I ALWAYS say your left hip rotates around your RIGHT THIGH on the backswing, then your right hip rotates around your left thigh on the forward swing. Those two points are anchored because your legs act as posts stuck to the ground.
So, how do Plummer and Bennett get around this problem? Well a shifting foundation of course! Why not have REALLY active legs. Straighten the right on the backswing, and straighten the left on the forward swing! Surely by doing symetrical movements in both the back and forward swing with our legs we can keep the hips rotating around that middle point.
Sorry, doesn't work like that. In fact the only way this could work is if BOTH legs were straight the whole time. You see, since the left leg is bent on the backswing but the right leg straightens out, the left hip will go LOWER than the right hip. Then on the forward swing since the right leg is bent and the left leg straightens out the right hip will go lower than the left. Now your hips are wobbling instead of turning. DOH!
Now lets look at the arms.
As it's described by Plummer and Bennett, the arms swing around the body instead of away and up. In short they want the arms to swing flatter than the usual "Turned Shoulder Plane". This isn't uncommon to see, however I think there's a specific reason they want this direction with the hands. Generally a person with a more upright axis tilt will take the club steeply and outside of the shaft plane at address. By trying to flatten out the path, they're simply offsetting this inclination.
This can also feel quite powerful taking it more around your body. You can use your turn to generate speed and be less reliant on your arms. For those folks with an improper release, this will feel like a godsend. All they have to do is turn their body and "boom" the clubface is square.
The problem in the past of just teaching this arm swing and letting people turn is that in general as amateurs swing forward and rely on a lot of upper body rotation, they try to PULL their arms around and lean forward with their upper body. With the S&T method, you have already set yourself up with a forward lean. You might be thinking, well that's disaster promoting disaster. Why would you want to have a swing that purposely does something bad? The diference is in the hips and weight shift.
This will require some self demonstrating. If you stand up right now and put all of your weight on your left foot, but keep just the toe of your right foot on the ground, try to twist your hips as fast as you can.
Now put both feet on the ground and go 50/50 with your weight over each foot. THEN try to twist your hips as fast as you can. You will notice that your hips cannot turn as fast when you have all your weight on your left foot.
In effect the Stack and Tilt concept SLOWS DOWN YOUR HIPS and does not allow for you to open up your body too fast.
A forward leaning tilt with quick hips is the #1 cause for a person to swing the club on an outside to in swing plane. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it any other way. All that Plummer and Bennett have done is come up with a way to avoid leaning AND quick hips.
For what it's worth, the leaning forward axis tilt tends to go away during the swing because the hips will shift forward and the upper body will try to counter balance this. If you stay on your left let the whole time though, you won't quite get a reverse pivot, you'll just be straight up and down with your upper body stacked over your hips on your left foot.
The swing works, and I think I've explained in some detail why it works, but I hope you can also understand the bug in the ointment here. You're trying to stablize TWO AXIS points instead of one. And you're trying to do that by having a very awkward and wobbly hip action. This is very bad for your accuracy.
Further, you're having to make a correction in your plane by using an inefficient arms swing that has no release. This produces a lack of distance.
For those better golfers who are in deperate need of trajectory control, this swing will also present some serious problems. Since this swing requires the tilt of the spine to be so precisely positioned over the ball, you cannot exagerate the angle to increase or lower the trajectory. In short, you can't hit over the trees without some expert flipping.
To the high handicap player, they might see some benefits to this swing since it does offer less active hip rotation and almost a sure fire way of bringing the club on an inside path to the ball. It negates the biggest areas of concern for a slicer. Your average HOOKER of the ball will find this swing most troubling but have a relatively similar finish to their swing.
To explain how Baddley, Weir and Faxon all found "success" with this would take a lot more in depth analysis... but I will say in short that A) Baddley's swing was already very vertical with his axis tilt so this isn't that big of a change for him. B) Weir hasn't exactly been climbing the scoreboard lately, but I haven't really been paying that close attention to him.... and C) Faxon isn't renouned for having a good swing to begin with. This actually WOULD be an improvement to the swing he's been trying to take the course for most of his career. Harsh to say, I know.. but I don't think Brad would argue the point much. He's always known his full swing to be the bain of his golfing career.
Along with Baddley, Faxon, and Wier they aparently have another 15-20 students that are touring professionals. They've studied with several of the "Greats" like Tom Tomasello, Mac O'Grady, and Craig Harmon.
Those are some impressive names. Far be it from me, a small time swing swami to say anthing to butt heads with those names. Instead I want to look at the idea for what it is. Maybe there's something good to be learned from it, or perhaps it's all hogwash.
The pirmary gist of the S&T swing is that you stay predominantly on your front foot through your whole swing. There is no weight shift to speak of. The arguments is that if you shift your weight back, you have to shift your weight forward.
Lets stop right there for a second. I can think of a HUNDRED things in my daily life where I shift my weight from back to forward and vice versa. My all time favorite to compare a golf swing to is walking. If I want to develop any sort of energy going forward, I HAVE to get back FIRST. Just staying forward is like having your elbow below a board you're going to hit a nail into. Sure you can do it, but anyone can tell there's much less force behind the swing.
Continuing on...
Picturing two points, one between our shoulders and one between our hips, will give us an approximate location of our spine. According to Plummer and Bennett they want this straight up and down. This requires that the hips and the shoulders rotate on those two points.
Well now this is quite interesting. The shoulders I can understand, the hips however, I do not. In order for something to rotate around a point, ther must be sufficient force holding that point in place. In other words, a teeter totter has the bar running through the middle of the board, and that bar is solidly posted into the ground. A swing set has a bar running above the chains, that the chains hook into. That bar is solidly founded into the ground. A door has a frame which the hinges are screwed onto, and that frame doesn't move.
Now unless you have a rod stuck up your a$$, there is nothing stable for you to turn your hips around!
This is why I ALWAYS say your left hip rotates around your RIGHT THIGH on the backswing, then your right hip rotates around your left thigh on the forward swing. Those two points are anchored because your legs act as posts stuck to the ground.
So, how do Plummer and Bennett get around this problem? Well a shifting foundation of course! Why not have REALLY active legs. Straighten the right on the backswing, and straighten the left on the forward swing! Surely by doing symetrical movements in both the back and forward swing with our legs we can keep the hips rotating around that middle point.
Sorry, doesn't work like that. In fact the only way this could work is if BOTH legs were straight the whole time. You see, since the left leg is bent on the backswing but the right leg straightens out, the left hip will go LOWER than the right hip. Then on the forward swing since the right leg is bent and the left leg straightens out the right hip will go lower than the left. Now your hips are wobbling instead of turning. DOH!
Now lets look at the arms.
As it's described by Plummer and Bennett, the arms swing around the body instead of away and up. In short they want the arms to swing flatter than the usual "Turned Shoulder Plane". This isn't uncommon to see, however I think there's a specific reason they want this direction with the hands. Generally a person with a more upright axis tilt will take the club steeply and outside of the shaft plane at address. By trying to flatten out the path, they're simply offsetting this inclination.
This can also feel quite powerful taking it more around your body. You can use your turn to generate speed and be less reliant on your arms. For those folks with an improper release, this will feel like a godsend. All they have to do is turn their body and "boom" the clubface is square.
The problem in the past of just teaching this arm swing and letting people turn is that in general as amateurs swing forward and rely on a lot of upper body rotation, they try to PULL their arms around and lean forward with their upper body. With the S&T method, you have already set yourself up with a forward lean. You might be thinking, well that's disaster promoting disaster. Why would you want to have a swing that purposely does something bad? The diference is in the hips and weight shift.
This will require some self demonstrating. If you stand up right now and put all of your weight on your left foot, but keep just the toe of your right foot on the ground, try to twist your hips as fast as you can.
Now put both feet on the ground and go 50/50 with your weight over each foot. THEN try to twist your hips as fast as you can. You will notice that your hips cannot turn as fast when you have all your weight on your left foot.
In effect the Stack and Tilt concept SLOWS DOWN YOUR HIPS and does not allow for you to open up your body too fast.
A forward leaning tilt with quick hips is the #1 cause for a person to swing the club on an outside to in swing plane. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it any other way. All that Plummer and Bennett have done is come up with a way to avoid leaning AND quick hips.
For what it's worth, the leaning forward axis tilt tends to go away during the swing because the hips will shift forward and the upper body will try to counter balance this. If you stay on your left let the whole time though, you won't quite get a reverse pivot, you'll just be straight up and down with your upper body stacked over your hips on your left foot.
The swing works, and I think I've explained in some detail why it works, but I hope you can also understand the bug in the ointment here. You're trying to stablize TWO AXIS points instead of one. And you're trying to do that by having a very awkward and wobbly hip action. This is very bad for your accuracy.
Further, you're having to make a correction in your plane by using an inefficient arms swing that has no release. This produces a lack of distance.
For those better golfers who are in deperate need of trajectory control, this swing will also present some serious problems. Since this swing requires the tilt of the spine to be so precisely positioned over the ball, you cannot exagerate the angle to increase or lower the trajectory. In short, you can't hit over the trees without some expert flipping.
To the high handicap player, they might see some benefits to this swing since it does offer less active hip rotation and almost a sure fire way of bringing the club on an inside path to the ball. It negates the biggest areas of concern for a slicer. Your average HOOKER of the ball will find this swing most troubling but have a relatively similar finish to their swing.
To explain how Baddley, Weir and Faxon all found "success" with this would take a lot more in depth analysis... but I will say in short that A) Baddley's swing was already very vertical with his axis tilt so this isn't that big of a change for him. B) Weir hasn't exactly been climbing the scoreboard lately, but I haven't really been paying that close attention to him.... and C) Faxon isn't renouned for having a good swing to begin with. This actually WOULD be an improvement to the swing he's been trying to take the course for most of his career. Harsh to say, I know.. but I don't think Brad would argue the point much. He's always known his full swing to be the bain of his golfing career.
