Right now there is no cheating in golf because we don't ban anything. Gary Player

We got several very nasty letters about Gary Player’s statements that steroids have made their way to the PGA Tour. Here is the nice part of Wisconsin reader Dave Riffey’s letter:

The comments of Gary Player are evidence of an aging old man who has lost his way. Typical, is his lack of intestinal fortitude to give the names.

Paul Andre Van Reenen of St. Catharine’s Ontario took the occasion to criticize Player for not doing enough to fight apartheid. That's a discussion for another day. (The fact is, Player's recent efforts have been acknowledged by Nelson Mandela).

Graned, Player seems to love attention and his comments in Carnoustie shed little light on the question. As Golf World’s Ron Sirak pointed out, he left the story on the floor. He should have named names if he was going to come forward with these accusations.

Player defends himself in this coming week’s Golf World:

“Tiger Woods and other top players have been calling for testing, so why the big fuss when I say something. All I’m saying is that we have to have a policy. Lots of golfers have taken things like beta blockers and many have said so⿿Right now there’s no cheating in golf because we don’t ban anything. Once we start testing the ones who are taking things are going to stop. That’s the beautiful thing about having a policy."

Just one person’s opinion, but much of the upset over Player’s comments seem to me to be rooted in denial. The world of golf would like to think itself holier and cleaner than thou, or at least than other sports. Okay, then let's prove it. Player was simply saying if you do test, you’ll find something or put a stop to what he believes is already there.

Deane Beman used to say that the Tour had drug testing. It was called the four-footer. Player says that’s not good enough any more. A lot of drug experts agree with him.

--Bob Carney

The pelvic thrust takes some of the steepness out of the swing...The pelvic thrust allows the hips to keep turning, which keeps the clubface closing at a constant rate and the hands swinging in a circular arc. Andy Plummer and Mike Bennett

We continue to get lots of mail on Stack & Tilt. Roger Ward of Ontario, Canada says...

"I've been using the swing on and off for over 30 years because I have never been able to shift my weight onto my left side with my 'normal' swing."

Ward pulled an old Golf Magazine piece by teacher George Buck and sent it along. Buck, in his article, wrote that better golf could be achieved by...

...keeping your weight on your left side, which is where it is when the ball is hit, and by not pronating your wrists and thus opening and closing the clubface.....and keeping the clubface square througout the swing

Senior Editor, Instruction Peter Morrice, who wrote the New Tour Swing piece in June based on the teaching Andy Plummer and Mike Bennett, says Buck had the Stack but not necessarily the Tilt. Morrice says Plummer and Bennett point out that the swing is not based entirely on the element of keeping the weight left. They point to the move at impact as described in the Golf Digest story:

Lower Body Swings Up The upward thrust of the lower body that releases the hips...also helps deliver the club to the ball. Because the body is leaning on the front side, the club comes down steeply and will crash into the ground unless the swing shallows out. The pelvic thrust takes some of the steepness out of the swing.

The upper arms stay on the rib cagecage, and teh ahnd path comes from the inside. The pelvic thrust allows the hips to keep turning, which keeps the clubface closing at a constant rate and the hands swinging in a circular arc. The club releases without any conscious hand or arm action. At impact, the swing centers are in front of the ball, so the club catches the ball first and then cuts a divot.

In contrast to Buck's teaching, there is no effort to "keep the clubface square" throughout the swing.

On the other hand, it's clear that the debate over the benefits of a pronounced weight shift has been going on for some time. For interesting comment on Stack & Tilt, and lots of it, check out the GolfWrx and Geoff Shackelford blogs. A version of the swing is also captured onhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ23m2X-L3Q

--Bob Carney
(photo: J.D. Cuban)

For the many, many of you who've been taken with young Kyle Lograsso, the five-year-old who's used his love of golf to help him fight and overcome eye cancer, the recent HBO Real Sports program on Kyle is a must. It's episode #124, and still available on HBO on Demand. Frank Deford was the reporter.

A transcript doesn't do it justice, but here are few snippets...

On his first meeting with instructor Bob Huber:

BOB HUBER: Well, he called he said, "I got a three-year-old boy, I'd like to have you look at him."  I said, "Sure.

Voiceover
And that's when local instructor Bob Huber first saw it: a pint-sized replica of Tiger Woods.

BOB HUBER:
I just had 'em, put-- gave some ball-- golf balls there on the practice range, and he started hitting them, and-- and it was like, "Wow."
FRANK DEFORD:
Did you know that he had-- was missing an eye?
BOB HUBER:
His dad told me that.  But, when I watch him swing I don't even notice there's any handicap at all. It doesn't appear in his golf stroke or in the way he plays golf.

Surprisingly, the toughest part of the game for Kyle hasn’t been trying to overcome his limited depth perception.  He’s already shot a remarkable 41 for nine holes.  But rather, it’s learning to accept the fact that even prodigies occasionally miss shots.

KYLE SOT “How did that not go in?”

Of course, while having a prosthetic eye doesn’t make golf any easier⿿it makes being a little brother to his older sister Kristen a lot more fun⿿.

KYLE LOGRASSO:
I put my eye in a cereal box.
FRANK DEFORD:
You put your eye in a cereal box.
KYLE LOGRASSO:
Yes.  And Kristen put cereal in her bowl, and-- and she-- she taked a big bite and she says like; There's something in here.  And she screamed so loud that she even ate my eye

Worth revisiting....

--Bob Carney

Compared to the rest of golf, putting looks easy ... Putting is not that simple. It demands constant attention to practice. Paul Runyan

Reader Steve Long asks a question that I've never heard before. He wants to know if there has been any instruction by teachers or tour pros recommending...

bending over to the point where the spine between the shoulder is near to horizontal. If the spine...is tilted far enough then the spine will be on the same axis that the swing plane is on

Steve thinks that if you bend over far enough, creating that similarity to the swing plane, you will make the motion of putting more natural and subject to fewer "delicate adjustments."

I heard that Bobby Locke putted this way and Nicklaus bent over quite far.

Steve, you point to two great putters and we'd never recommend that you don't experiment with their methods. Locke, certainly created a mini-swing with his putts, the object of your suggestion. Nicklaus bent over, I think he's said, to be able to see down the line of the putt better. He was, apparently, strongly right-eye dominant.

The one instructor who I've heard recommend something akin to what you're saying is Paul Runyan, who always recommended that you "get close to your business," in putting and chipping. He would not, I don't think, recommend "standing tall" as some instructors do. What you say seems consistent with his advice.

Thanks for the letter. Perhaps our readers will have other comments about your tip.

--Bob Carney

To keep the spine over the ball, which is the goal, the player has to tilt to the left during the backswing. Andy Plummer and Mike Bennett

It was a good weekend for Stackers and Tilters. Besides Mike Weir's T-8 at Carnoustie, Charlie Wi tied for second in Milwaukee and Tom Scherrer won the Nationwide Tour's Price Cutter Charity Championship, his first win in seven years. Not everyone, however, is ready to embrace the method. Dallas instructors Sue Shapcott and Carrie Sperling are definitely leaning "no" on the New Tour Swing as promulgated by Andy Plummer and Michael Bennett.

Warning: This is a bit heavy-instructional:

First,the article’s presentation of the “conventional swing” bears little resemblance to the swing top instructors advocate. For example, Hank Haney preaches that the ball, hands and left eye should be stacked on top of each other at address. Haney’s philosophy seems to be directly contradicted by the illustration of the “conventional” set up where shaft points to the left hip, the hands are in front of the ball and the eyes. And no reputable instructor we know advocates the finish that you presented in the article as “conventional.” Plummer and Bennett are selling their method as simplercompared to the “conventional swing,” but in reality they also create an extremely steep down swing that will make it harder for most golfers to hit a driver off a tee. In addition, the stack and tilt involves maneuvering the upper and lower body in an extremely precise manner to avoid hitting a fat shot as a result of not “springing up” with the legs or not driving the hips forward enough. A golfer using the stack and tilt would also be prone to hit thin shots by “springing up” too soon. The conventional swing also requires precision in its execution. Although Plummer and Bennett claim that the conventional swing will result in the club grounding out behind the ball, if a golfer moves the hips laterally to begin the downswing, the club will not bottom out behind the ball even though the spine may stay slightly behind the ball at impact. Finally, the photo used to illustrate the finish of the conventional swing sums up our criticism ⿿ that is in no way a “conventional” finish. Weight on the right side? Arms on the chest? If there are golf instructors teaching this “conventional” method, we haven’t run across them.

We're not saying every instructor is teaching the conventional positions we showed. Those positions come as much from what golfers do with the instruction they get as from the teachers themselves. If you tell a student to "stay in the shot," for instance, he never releases his lower body toward the target. I don't think that's what the teacher wants, but that's what the student does. When a teacher says "finish with the club over your shoulder," he might not mean to collapse the arms on the follow-through, but that's what we see. It's the students' interpretation of the teaching as much as the teaching itself.

As for Stack & Tilt creating a swing that's too steep, look at what we say about the downswing. As long as the player stands up on the downswing, thrusting his hips forward and upward, the swing shallows out. You're right, without this move, the swing would be too steep. You also mention that "springing up" too soon causing thin shots. Thin contact comes from the weight being behind the ball or the arms bending or wrists breaking through the shot. If the weight and the swing centers are forward, the player can stand up without fear of hitting the ball thin.

Interesting debate. I know two things for sure. 1. The phones of Andy Plummer and Mike Bennett are ringing off their hooks. 2. A lot of amateurs are self-administering Stack & Tilt and getting great results, at least based on their letters to us. It's not for everyone, I'm sure. But it seems to be helping a lot of us who are also looking for good weekends.

--Bob Carney

(photo: J. D. Cuban)

The litmus test for the 2007 Open Championship will be your judgement of Sergio Garcia. Was that a collapse we witnessed or a valiant near-miss that would have, could have, been won with an up-and-down par on the brutal 18th had that putt that hit the hole gone ahead and spun in. I suspect that our readers and viewers in general will be markedly more sympathetic to Sergio than the media will, or maybe, in his heart of hearts, Sergio will be to himself.  Here's a post to this blog early today by mbriganti protesting harsh remarks by Brandel Chamblee on the Golf Channel:

I just want to say that I've been listening to the Golf Channel for the past hour and I'm sick of the comments from Brandel Chamblee regarding Sergio's press conference and performance.  Brandel has had multiple comments regarding Sergio's development, maturity, being disapointed at having lost, etc.  I think Brandel Chamblee should take a good long look at his own accomplishments before he decides to cast stones at someone who played with passion, enthusiasm, and fire this week.  Sergio gave us the first Open Championship to be excited about, not involving Tiger, in many years.   Chamblee hasn't done anything I can remember other than providing a number of mindless comments on the Golf Channel for which I can't believe he gets paid.  I offer.... Brandel... At least Sergio's been there and is someone we all root for. Johnny Miller's comments aren't always well received, but at least he's been there.  Competed.  Won.  What have you done?  Sergio was great, handled his loss with a lot more dignity and class than many would have, including you.  Just a thought... 

For two other views of Sergio's Open, read Golf World's Ron Sirak  and John Hawkins. Here's Hawk:

Convenience-store logic suggested that when Woods wasn't around to terrorize him, Garcia would finally wrap his arms around that elusive maiden major. Last Sunday was a Tiger-free zone. Sergio led Steve Stricker by three, and among the seven guys tied for third, a whopping six strokes back, just one, Ernie Els, had done a grand-slam jig before. This would be easier than wadding up a little piece of paper and tossing it into that woman's belly button. His beer commercials may feature plenty of eye candy, but his major losses are getting hard to stomach. Only one player in Sunday's final four pairings, came in higher than Garcia's 73 -- Stricker, who missed three three-footers on the front nine and closed with a 74. "It seems like every time I get into this position, I have no room for error," Sergio moaned. "This is not the first time, unfortunately. I'm playing against a lot of guys out there, more than are in the field."

--Bob Carney

Bob Locke--nice name--writes about the coverage of the Paul McGinley rules question involving a sprinkler head.

I'll probably not be the first to point out a rules error by the TNT announcers and regarding Paul McGinley choosing to putt over a sprinkler head on hole #3 at the Open. Since Paul is putting from off the green, he is not entitled to relief from the sprinkler, and he played correctly. Only if he was on the green would he get "line of play" relief. See rule 24-2a.

Thanks, Robert. You added that you liked the coverage. We've been debating that around the water cooler today and so have our readers. Here's Mike Warner of York, Pennsylvania, who's not awarding it, and especially Paul Azinger, four stars:

Paul's comments about Tiger's 2nd round OB T-shot on No. 1 was ridiculous. He spouted off that Tiger had no chance of winning after that blunder. Given Tiger's track record and capabilities he should know better. Tiger ended the 2nd round 7 strokes behind choke-king Sergio and nothing was ever mentioned that Tiger did keep it together, even with his B game. Then late in the round on Sunday when Sergio was stagnant and struggling Zinger said " he has to make one sooner or later; it always comes down to putting ". I guess except in Tiger's case. Zinger falls way short when compared to Johnny or Nick and I can't see how he hangs around. He's shallow, nervous and uninteresting, and lacks charm, charisma and wit of his counterparts.

I like the Nick/Zinger combination, Mike. My gripe was his hemming and hawing on Gary Player's drug comments. But you're right that Zinger needs a foil. Otherwise, he comes off as a bit unleavened.

For more on the coverage and the last day, check out Geoff Shackelford's minute-by-minute Sunday blog.

--Bob Carney

Following up on yesterday's reader comments about the hefty fees charged by some of instructors on Golf Digest 50 Greatest Teachers list, here's the other side of debate.  Tim Schoch of Scotch Plains, New Jersey says his work with Hank Haney two decades ago made all the difference:

My high-handicap buddies recently grumbled that a PGA teaching pro is overkill for their game.  Is it true?  Won't it take forever before the new swing changes "stick"?

I'm just the hacker to answer that, and I’ll travel back 20 years to do it.

In 1987, Hank Haney spent a week teaching me, a nobody with an over-the-top swing and a handicap with an exponent.
Back then, editor Al Barkow ran a contest in his golf magazine [the old Golf Illustrated] called "Ask Hank Haney's Help." Readers were encouraged to write in and explain creatively why their game needed Hank's help. The best letter would receive one week of Hank's instruction at PGA West.

My letter won out of more than 950.

What I expected from Hank were swing-plane lectures and one-footed drills. What I received was an hour a day with a gracious Hank Haney who patiently and brilliantly began to anesthetize my flailing mess of a swing with logic, examples, praise, and joy. By improving my understanding of the golf swing, I soon began to see something brand new: hope! Following each inspiring lesson, I'd gleefully work for hours practicing what he preached. Then, I took it to the course. Before I left PGA West, I shot 84, 10 strokes lower than my best score of the previous two years. Also, I appeared on the magazine cover with Hank, and my diary of the experience was published. My best prize of all is one that all high-handicappers can easily receive from their PGA pro: a lesson in how fulfilling it is to understand better golf, then play it. 
Because of "my" PGA teaching pro, I've had 20 years of hope, instead of 20 years of hacking.

Well said, Tim. And despite a bit of struggle at Carnoustie, I think a fellow named Tiger would happily co-sign your letter.

--Bob Carney

(Illustration: Apple, Chris Riley)

"I feel like it's more efficient. It's a heavier strike of the ball. It's a little bit longer."  Mike Weir on his swing changes.

For the second consecutive major, you can bet teachers Andy Plummer and Mike Bennett will be watching a lot of Open coverage over the weekend, as a Stack & Tilt advocate, Mike Weir, contends. Their other star pupil, Aaron Baddeley, who contended at the Open, is off this weekend, but Weir's a serious challenger. Lorne Rubenstein does a thorough job tracking the former Masters Champ's climb back to contention.

Meanwhile, the raves from readers about Plummer and Bennett's  New Tour Swing continue. I hear teachers privately dismiss Stack & Tilt, but it has a lot of converts among amateur golfers.

The latest, from Phil Burnett, at Thermal, California:

I read and reread the Stack and Tilt method of hitting discussed in the July issue. After six trips to the range and about 700 fades and draws with irons and woods, I can easily say that this method works and it works well. There is absolutely no loss in distance, in fact, there was a definite gain of 5-10 yds on my irons. Rather than change my club selection for a distance, I just swing at 3/4's pace to achieve the distance with greater accuracy. 

    Learning the swing was easy though the weirdness of the uneven weight distribution at the start of the swing takes longer to accept. My swing thoughts are "60-40" and "buckle" to remind me of the face forward finish with the lifting of the hips. I may lose a little momentum without shifting to my right side, but the more consistent contact with higher compression onto the turf gives my shots better length and control.  My number one problem of hitting fat is completely gone. Physically, there is greater stretching on both shoulders which caused soreness for a couple of weeks. I have also found that I play the ball closer to me with my arms more relaxed teeing most irons off my left heel a la Jack Nicklaus. On the driver, since my legs need to move quicker to get to the open-lifting position at contact, I 've had to break my wrists a shade quicker to square up the face which has given me some extra head speed.  If you look back at the August issue of Golf Digest showing Brett Wetterich slugging the ball you'll see that he is doing a classic Stack and Tilt swing. The shadow between his leg stays completely centered throughout the backswing showing that he never shifted to inside right.

    I was surprised to read the comments about the Stack and Tilt by your top teaching professionals. They were luke warm at best with one being downright negative. I would venture a guess that none of them have spent enough time to get past the uncomfortable set up.  Any technique that simplifies a complex maneuver should be given fair consideration as another way for people to swing.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: J. D. Cuban)

If you expect a miracle, you should expect to pay for one. Teacher Derek Hardy

Our August list of 50 Greatest Teachers, with Butch Harmon at No. 1, and the accompanying lists of best in each state,  has prompted plenty of comment. Some readers are taken aback by the top teachers' fees. Others have names they'd like to add:

Carl Lombardo of Mt. Tabor, New Jersey, was, well, surpised at No. 2 David Leadbetter's fee:

Reading this article on America's greatest teachers...not really surprised at most of the fees charged...one comment please, Hey Mr. Leadbetter, God is not worth $10,000.00 a day.  You have the gall to charge that for half a day?  This type of stuff is what is going to kill golf as it was.

Not sure I agree, Carl. Leadbetter and the teachers of tour players are in a niche by themselves and frankly most are as busy as they want to be. The fee is merely a gilded hoop through which newcomers must jump to get their time. I admit it's a long way from the days when the golf professional couldn't set foot in the clubhouse, but I'm not sure it's ruining the game. If an amateur is committed to improving, there are lots of great PGA and LPGA teachers out there to help him or her. Bob Bath, an Ontario, Canada master teaching professional--his email is Golf Yoda-- makes the point well in his letter:

The list of the top 50 teachers must be quite an honor. How many of these teachers can turn a 20 handicapper into a 2 within a season? That would be the best teacher in my mind. That teacher does  not exist as their are not enough students willing to take advice and make it work. If the average person went to see some of these top teachers at the rate they charge, and all the student left with at the end of the day was they have poor alignment and a weak grip, well I would have to say that person would be disappointed as they would expect a miracle. If you think I am wrong ask the person why they spent $2000 over $70 to get that advice. They must have thought for that price there must be something special to hear. The average teacher at a much more affordable rate would be able to detect such simple flaws. The list you have come up with has many great teachers that teach great players that are very committed to any change. I hope the average player can see this so they trust us little guys to help them with their game.

I'll end on this great letter from Robert Link of Sycamore, Illinois.

I noticed a contradiction and omission in your Best Teachers in Your State insert.   Tim Hacker, (whom you cited on pg 162 for procuring replacement golf equipment for the Greensburg, KS high school golf team after their tornado ordeal), was not listed for the state of Georgia.   I can't think of any definition of "Best Teacher" that would preclude his efforts!

Link refers, of course, to the moving Brad Wetzler story in August in which Hacker's work is cited. Robert, I agree. Hacker's on my Greatest Teachers list for sure.

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Getty Images/David Cannon)