GD Article: Foley, SnT

[jamo]

I don't think anyone has linked to this article yet, but it's Foley and SnT. I thought it was interesting, looking for thoughts on the differences between them. My opinion: I don't really see the merit of what is Foley saying about the right leg straightening.

Here's the article: http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-instr...an-foley#intro

(Like I said, I don't think anyone has put his up, but if someone has feel free to close the thread.)

[iacas]

My opinion: I don't really see the merit of what is Foley saying about the right leg straightening.

This article shows how similar the methods are.

And Foley's wrong about his right knee. It still straightens - nearly as much as Mike's - and his hips are still inclined... They're just a little bit less turned, a bit less inclined, with a slightly more flexed right knee. But not by much.

[motteler621]

This article shows how similar the methods are.

yea the right knees were nearly the same,lol.

[senorchipotle]

all good swings are 90% the same. the only real differences are hand position at the top, head, and back leg. which are pretty negligible imho.

[melchior]

Maybe this will show everyone that Foley was on crack with the 5% comment... Every slide is the same, just like the SnT guys pretty much always said.

Also, love how SnT is "controversial".

.....

[walk18]

Thanks for the link. Yeah, I'm not seeing much of a difference AT ALL. Notice how GD didn't summarize at the end and give their thoughts..

[Harmonious]

It's a matter of degree, but I see quite a bit of difference in the two swings in several of the photos. May be due to the individual swing patterns, but they are certainly different.

[Shanks A Million]

Considering no two people have ever had the same swing, we can pretty much be assured that he's both copying and not copying S&T.; Principles? Maybe. Method of teaching? Probably not. To me, the S&T is more about the method of teaching than the swing. I like the S&T method of teaching (straight talk, no vague or ambiguous terms).

[RC]

Similar, yes... but different. Foley has a more restricted hip turn, still raises his right hip (which is good) but his knees are less angled to the right at the top. The finish is very close up to waist high but Foley rises to more upright and level after impact -- which means little, the power has already been applied. You can see the influence of Plummer and Bennett in Foley's version of the swing.

[iacas]

To me, the S&T is more about the method of

While I somewhat agree, it's simply the fact that the pattern itself is based in geometry and physics and things are measured, which lends itself to being able to communicate more clearly. But on the other hand, you can communicate some completely different swing clearly and that wouldn't make it S&T or anything.

[jamo]

Similar, yes... but different. Foley has a more restricted hip turn, still raises his right hip (which is good) but his knees are less angled to the right at the top. The finish is very close up to waist high but Foley rises to more upright and level after impact -- which means little, the power has already been applied. You can see the influence of Plummer and Bennett in Foley's version of the swing.

I think a little of that has to be the fact that the Foley pictures were taken from his recent "save your back" article. Looks are deceiving, but his finish position can look easier on the back to the general Golf Digest reader.

[Phil McGleno]

I've studied the photos carefully because I wanted to try to remain objective until I had a credible amount of evidence. I also looked back at some of the original articles and the book and think I can make a conclusion.

I wish the camera angles were the same, because they're somewhat misleading. Care must be applied when comparing the images to account for differences in the camera position.

Essentially, it appears that the only things that are different is that Foley wants the right knee to remain a little more flexed in the backswing and then he wants you to let your upper body get pulled through to the finish (good point jamo on the back thing - it looks like a better position to people). Otherwise, almost no real difference.

It seems that if Golf Digest wanted to really put Foley in hot water (which I'm sure they don't, as he's Tiger's coach now), they could have really slammed him by using even more similar language. Foley's part about "leaping" or whatever is almost verbatim from the S&T book I have here, and yet in that section they chose to use a different bit from Bennett and Plummer instead of really skewering Foley.

This teacher's opinion: very, very, very similar.

This article left out a lot too - the "inward" (hate calling it that because it's on the plane, not truly "inward") hand path being key among them, and little things like HOW the shoulders turn on the angle they like.

[halcon]

Different???? How?

[Shanks A Million]

While I somewhat agree, it's simply the fact that the pattern itself is based in geometry and physics and things are measured, which lends itself to being able to communicate more clearly. But on the other hand, you can communicate some completely different swing clearly and that wouldn't make it S&T or anything.

But even if you're not following the pattern, I think S&T's strongest attribute is not the swing, but the way it's taught. Instead of "release the club" or "hit down on the ball", they've come up with a "flying wedge" and explain how to maintain it through impact, a much better method in my opinion. As to the swing itself, eh? Who knows. Like I said, no two swings are the same, but there are certainly some real similarities. Both swings are that sort of "weight forward" type of swing, with a fairly simple, clean, single plane approach.

[Keep It Simple]

I see a big difference between the two sets of photographs. When I see the S&T pics I immediately recognize the method as S&T.; Comparing them to Sean Foley's pics, Foley is NOT S&T.;

[golfro]

i actually agree with Keep It Simple on this... if this set of photos of Sean Foley wasn't a comparison photo... I'd look at it and never guess it was a S&T swing. The S&T swing on the other hand looks clear as day as S&T.;

I'm sure I'm missing parts of S&T and not understanding it thoroughly but while the resemblance is there, its just not enough for me to think "oh Sean Foley is totally copying S&T.;"

[Stretch]

We'll just have to wait for Foley's book.

[senorchipotle]

But even if you're not following the pattern, I think S&T's strongest attribute is not the swing, but the way it's taught. Instead of "release the club" or "hit down on the ball", they've come up with a "flying wedge" and explain how to maintain it through impact, a much better method in my opinion. As to the swing itself, eh? Who knows. Like I said, no two swings are the same, but there are certainly some real similarities.

as opposed to the ''weight backward'' swing that's all the rage? ;)