GD Article: Foley, SnT

[Easy]

Burrito, Burrato.

Foley is S&T;, gotta admit his "watered down" version does look prettier

[jamo]

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

Well, yeah.

[boogielicious]

Other than the finish, they are very similar. The camera angle makes it look more different than they really are, especially the first photo. Being lower, you can see Foiey's eyes, so it looks like the shoulder plane is higher.

I actually do the Foley finish even though I try to do all S&T.; My upper body flexibility is not great, so I do finish as high.

[RC]

Assume a fictional book:

The Judge turns to the defendant and says, "you cannot win this case, a slightly more restricted hip turn is not sufficient to show a new swing." "You have infringed upon another's property, and this is a Cease and Desist order." "I encourage you to work out a licensing and royalty agreement post haste, or return to a antiquated business like the reverse "C." "No book deal for you." Case closed....

I don't think anyone has ever patented a golf swing, that would create nightmares for sure. But to claim only 5 percent is silly.

[Harmonious]

For all who think these two swings are almost identical, and that Foley is such a jerk: What percentage should he have said he used of S&T; (rather than 5%). What would have satisfied you? I'm sure some will say anything less than 100% is unsat, but that's not realistic. Judging from the photos shown here, and only those photos, and not whether he spent hours/days/years with the S&T; instructors, or read their books, or watched their DVD's, I would say 25% of Foley's swing looks comparable to the S&T; swing, no more.

[allin]

For all who think these two swings are almost identical, and that Foley is such a jerk: What percentage should he have said he used of S&T; (rather than 5%). What would have satisfied you? I'm sure some will say anything less than 100% is unsat, but that's not realistic. Judging from the photos shown here, and only those photos, and not whether he spent hours/days/years with the S&T; instructors, or read their books, or watched their DVD's, I would say 25% of Foley's swing looks comparable to the S&T; swing, no more.

One of the things I like about the S&T; book is that they don't really claim that they are teaching something revolutionary or truly new. They identify historical precedents and other sources as inspiration for their perspective. They are not claiming that this is the only way. If power is your only goal, probably not the right method. If ball striking is your priority then it has a lot to say. If you want to be a high ball hitter? Maybe other teaching perspectives offer more. Whatever you choose give them credit for presenting their views in a manner that is cohesive, well reasoned, and has proven successfull for a bunch of people.

[bwdial]

The biggest difference I see is that the horizon in the S&T; shots is butt level, while the horizon in the Foley shots is about mid calf.
Apples... meet oranges.
Without down the line and face on shots, using a camera stand or tripod to keep the camera at a consistent height relative to the subject, and using a lens with the same focal length, this comparison is an exercise in futility.

[jamo]

The biggest difference I see is that the horizon in the S&T; shots is butt level, while the horizon in the Foley shots is about mid calf.

Yeah the camera angle especially messes with the shoulder pitch pictures.

[senorchipotle]

Well, yeah.

is there a pro on the face of the earth who teaches a ''weight back'' swing?

[jamo]

is there a pro on the face of the earth who teaches a ''weight back'' swing?

No, but there are millions of people out there who employ the "weight back" swing. If I missed the point of your post then, my bad.

[senorchipotle]

No, but there are millions of people out there who employ the "weight back" swing. If I missed the point of your post then, my bad.

shanks was talking about how both foley and plummer/bennett teach a ''weight forward'' swing. my point was that there is not a good swing that isn't ''weight forward.'' you can look at bobby jones' from 70 years ago and he is clearly leaning forward in the backswing.

[jamo]

shanks was talking about how both foley and plummer/bennett teach a ''weight forward'' swing. my point was that there is not a good swing that isn't ''weight forward.'' you can look at bobby jones' from 70 years ago and he is clearly leaning forward in the backswing.

Yeah my last post came out wrong. I meant to say that there are millions of crappy golfers out there that employ a weight backwards swing. Now I don't know where I'm going with this. Back to topic?

[iacas]

they've come up with a "flying wedge" and

Actually, the Flying Wedge(s) come from the Golfing Machine. Specifically, 6-B-3-0-1 and 7-3 (more the former). S&T; is heavily based in TGM terms and MORAD as well, as both are "systematic" and "scientific" ways to approach and classify the golf swing.

For all who think these two swings are almost identical, and that Foley is such a jerk: What percentage should he have said he used of S&T; (rather than 5%).

He didn't need to give a percentage. And if he had, well, given what I know about how much time he's taken and how many questions he's asked and so on, 30% would be the low end. An unbiased guy

says here it's 85%. If someone doesn't see a lot - and I mean a lot - of similarities between those two swings, I think that person is on crack. And it's just four little slides. Perhaps I'm biased because I know the stuff that isn't on the four little slides - all the other stuff he's learned and teaches the exact same way. But those slides strike me as pretty damning.

I'm sure some will say anything less than 100% is unsat

Anyone going over 85% is nuts, and I think even Richie goes quite a bit too far. No way it's 100% - that'd be stupid. Anyone saying 100%... THEY would be the ones on crack, and nobody's said anything like that in the stuff I've seen.

Frankly, I think it's pointless to put a number on it. And Mike and Andy don't want credit - they just don't want to have a guy make up a bunch of crap.

is there a pro on the face of the earth who teaches a ''weight back'' swing?

Uhm, yes. Virtually everyone else.

They don't teach it at impact but the problem is they teach it during the backswing (and even setup) and then they have 90% of their students unable to get far enough forward at impact. So yes, tons of people teach a "weight back" swing. "Coil into your right side" or "Get your left shoulder over your right knee" or blah blah blah. Easiest question yet. Now, here's my final word (hopefully) on "Foley vs. S&T;" or whatever it's called. Foley has apologized for his actions (not publicly, but fine) and words and, at Mike and Andy's suggestion, is going to "team up" with them in terms of "what they say." Rather than attack, defend, attack, defend, they're going to say "yeah, we teach a very similar swing, we've learned a lot together and from each other, and we think the swing we're teaching is good stuff." This thing was never about bashing Foley's style or teaching. It was simply a bit about Foley having a brain fart and acting a bit like a jerk, and the little fallout from that. In the end, all the S&T; people I know were excited and still are excited that Tiger's going to be incorporating more S&T; stuff into his swing. It's a win for S&T; and it's a win for Foley. This whole thing has tried to create a "loser" when we don't really need a "loser." Everyone can win - Foley has Tiger, Tiger will get better, and Mike and Andy's pattern can get more validation. A rising tide raises all ships, and a very S&T-ish; swing is the rising tide, and the boats are Mike, Andy, and Foley (and other S&T; and I suppose "Foley" instructors if there are any).

[Joeyvee]

Why I don't read the golf mags. It's a shame really. But I just can't. Same reason I don't listen to old grumpy fisherman about how braided line is terrible. They're ignorant

[Shanks A Million]

Actually, the Flying Wedge(s) come from the Golfing Machine. Specifically, 6-B-3-0-1 and 7-3 (more the former). S&T; is heavily based in TGM terms and MORAD as well, as both are "systematic" and "scientific" ways to approach and classify the golf swing.

I was actually aware of this, but the S&T; guys use the term so well, hell, I just gave it to them. I mean, golfing machine, S&T;, all of them, to me, are more logical, scientific methods of teaching. We need a catch all term, "Stack and Tilt" sounds pretty silly. We should come up with names like

classical swing methods, and formal semantic swing methods... Those are my ideas for names for the methods of teaching .

Uhm, yes. Virtually everyone else. They don't teach it at impact but the problem is they teach it during the backswing (and even setup) and then they have 90% of their students unable to get far enough forward at impact. So yes, tons of people teach a "weight back" swing. "Coil into your right side" or "Get your left shoulder over your right knee" or blah blah blah. Easiest question yet.

Yes! Thank you! I didn't really want to go into it, because it's all pedantic in my words, but you nailed it. Traditional swing teaching tells us to move the weight back, but that's something I don't do. To me, it's just too damn easy to keep it back there! (Disclaimer: S&T; does advocate a transfer of weight backwards, but it's smaller, and thus we come to the semantics of average vs midway between extremes. S&T; is nowhere near the extreme, but it's more forward than average. The same definitions cause problems for defining "liberal" and "conservative.")

[mvmac]

Foley's latest interview on a Canadian Sports Radio show
http://www.fan590.com/ondemand/media...18_084455_1084

[Stretch]

Now, here's my final word (hopefully) on "Foley vs. S&T;" or whatever it's called.

Good news and a good outcome, if it actually does come out that way. But, listening to that interview, I didn't think it actually did at all. He says he and Mike and Andy are "cool" and gives them a nod as "innovative guys" -- but then is straight back to his bit about how there's nothing new under the sun and he worked all this stuff out himself years ago. And who are these unnamed "people trying to take credit for what's been, like, fifteen years of (me) going to work at seven and coming home at eight, you know?"

Have to say that, generally, the guy comes off as either a complete space cadet or just kind of a dumbass.

[Stretch]

Have to say that, generally, the guy comes off as either a complete space cadet or just kind of a dumbass.

Thought about it for a while, decided that might be too harsh and went back and listened to the whole clip again. Realized I'd actually missed the best bit, where he says that reading Nelson Mandela's autobiography is really helping him to deal with his persecution by Charlie Wi.

So, um, yeah.