Horses for Courses
Manuel de la Torre. Courtesy: Golf.com
My most recent post on Stack and Tilt elicited a few comments. But the most eloquent came from Ed LeBeau.
Ed wrote that Stack and Tilt can be traced back to the teachings of Ernest Jones who learned to play golf and then teach the game with just one leg.
It happened to be his left leg and he was a right-handed golfer. So you can see how Mr. Jones learned a golf swing that didn't involve a weight shift to his right side.
Whether Bennett and Plummer agree that their method is the direct descendent of Ernest Jones' method doesn't matter at all. It would be too easy to become involved in and trapped by a semantical argument of technique.
What is important is how a lack of weight shift to the right side doesn't deter a golfer but can result in a superior shot for that golfer.
Ed points out at the end of his comment that Jones' teaching method inspired one Manuel de la Torre to adopt and teach the same principle.
De la Torre happens to be one of the finest teachers in the world. His view is as simple as that of Jones and perhaps Bennett and Plummer, as well.
The golfer uses a swinging motion rather than a hitting motion. De la Torre also refers to the downswing as the "forward swing" and emphasizes that the club travels toward the target.
In this whole discussion of which method might be the Holy Grail, let's not forget one critical point: there are many paths to God. In this case, God is the 250 yard drive down the middle. If one path leads you to that golfing heaven, why bother to dissect why it works better than another method?
Is there one style among painters? Writers? Architects? Of course not. Yet there are wonderful painters, great writers and amazing architects.
I like to shift my weight on the backswing. I feel I can get a lot more oomph into my downswing and therefore into the back of the ball.
But there's no disputing that Ernest Jones and Manuel de la Torre discovered other ways to move the ball a long way down the middle.
They cannot be overlooked.
The opportunity to “tinker” with your golf swing serves the human curiosity and creates the possibility for improvement. The notion that there are many “paths to God”, a golf shot that is straight, on the correct trajectory, and travels the maximum distance attainable by a given golfer is a matter of physics and can be produced by using the golf club in only one way. If Jones and de la Torre contribute anything to golf it is eliminating the unnecessary confusion and frustration that can result in thinking that there are many possibilities to achieve that result. Ball striking machines produce identical results shot-after-shot because they use the club in a consistent manner. Jone and de la Torre a merely stating the obvious–learn to focus on the club (not the body) and learn to swing it consistently.
One final note: Many players are allured by the idea of causing their weight to shift during the forward swing for added speed. While it is arguable that shift the weight forward does add to the speed of the club, overlooked is the imprecision that it produces. When you shift the weight rearward during the backswing the center of your swing shifts rearward and no longer is aligned with the ball (the swing cannot return the club to the ball). The golfer then must shift the weight forward so that his center arrives back at its address position at the precise moment that the club impacts the ball. Too early and the ball flight is off to the right. Too late and the ball flight is off to the left. Bottom line is this: While the speed of your weight shift may be 2 or 3 miles per hour, it is a poor trade for the imprecision and inconsistency it enables in our ball contact.
Well put, Ed. By “many paths to God”, I meant that the club can be swung back and down in any manner so long as the clubface arrives square at the ball, of course. I think of the swings of Ray Floyd, Jim Furyk, Lee Trevino, Doug Sanders, Arnold Palmer and many others (remeber the reverse C finishes of the 70s?). They were all distinct – if not downright odd – but got/get the job done. Your thoughts on the weight shift are very interesting, I must say. Thanks for commenting.