Sean Foley's Teaching

[mcdanrl]

Hey guys is Sean Foley a S&T; guy? After watching some of his videos he seems like he has some S&T; stuff in his teachings. Just curious.

THanks,

RLM

[glock35ipsc]

I would say he incorporates a lot of S&T; principals into his teaching methods, but I wouldn't necessarily say he is an S&T; guy.

[MiniBlueDragon]

He's S&T; in terms of a large chunk of the information he has and uses to teach. He does like to mix it all up with other stuff though and baffle everybody with his "descriptions" of the swing.

[x129]

Are they S&T; principles or are they TGM/MORAD/... principles that S&T; is used?  S&T; wasn't created out of thin air. People got pissed when Sean create P&B; for 5% of his teaching. But if you think of S&T; as 90% other stuff and 10% P&B; refinements (lets not quible about the exact percentages) then 5% of a swing is a lot.

At the end of the day, swing patterns are not where a teacher adds a ton of value. Being able to get your student to execute that pattern is.

Originally Posted by glock35ipsc

I would say he incorporates a lot of S&T; principals into his teaching methods, but I wouldn't necessarily say he is an S&T; guy.

[Zeph]

S&T; is TGM/MORAD, Foley is S&T;, S&T; is Foley, Foley is TGM/MORAD, S&T; is S&T;, Foley is Hogan, Hogan is S&T.; You could go round and round like this forever. I would rather say that there are a lot of commonalities between the mentioned teaching methods/systems/patterns. Foley won't say he's teaching S&T; principles (maybe) because S&T; has got a bad rep with the media. It doesn't really matter what we call this and what we call that, but what is actually taught. If you look at the patterns, Foley teach a lot of the stuff S&T; does. No wonder too, since he got a lot of help and tips from Bennett and Plummer. P&B; got a lot of help from Mac O'Grady, who got it from TGM. Combined with stuff each person found or made up himself and other sources. Sean Foley does not teach the S&T; system per definition, but he uses a lot of the same parts.

[mchepp]

I would say that I don't even know what S&T; is anymore. I read now they are calling a measurement system instead of a swing, so I don't know what to think.

I would say Foley is not S&T; (at least the way I understood S&T; from the book which is now claiming it is not S&T;, but maybe S&T; 2.0 will shed some light on this) I think Foley likes the path to be much more left than the original S&T; 1.0 swing. I think Foley does like a centered pivot, and the clubface going back back, up and in, and many other similarities so it may at times appear he is teaching the S&T; 1.0 swing.

[newtogolf]

You're not the only one.  When I first read the book Mike and Andy were very clear that it was a golf swing with specific attributes as stated on their old website;

"Developed after 20 years of research by swing teachers Andy Plummer and Mike Bennett, the Stack and Tilt Golf Swing is a revolutionary golf swing that keeps your weight stacked over the ball for pure contact shot after shot."

S&T; took some criticism from those with other swing methods but it appears the critiques have resulted in Mike and Andy obfuscating what S&T; is.  I've now seen it be referred to by them using words like; theory, fundamentals, method, a system of measuring.  It doesn't appear Mike and Andy know what it is or what they want it to be seen as now so it makes determining who is and who isn't S&T; very difficult at this point.

Originally Posted by mchepp

I would say that I don't even know what S&T; is anymore. I read now they are calling a measurement system instead of a swing, so I don't know what to think.

I would say Foley is not S&T; (at least the way I understood S&T; from the book which is now claiming it is not S&T;, but maybe S&T; 2.0 will shed some light on this) I think Foley likes the path to be much more left than the original S&T; 1.0 swing. I think Foley does like a centered pivot, and the clubface going back back, up and in, and many other similarities so it may at times appear he is teaching the S&T; 1.0 swing.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

You're not the only one.  When I first read the book Mike and Andy were very clear that it was a golf swing with specific attributes as stated on their old website;

"Developed after 20 years of research by swing teachers Andy Plummer and Mike Bennett, the Stack and Tilt Golf Swing is a revolutionary golf swing that keeps your weight stacked over the ball for pure contact shot after shot."

S&T; took some criticism from those with other swing methods but it appears the critiques have resulted in Mike and Andy obfuscating what S&T; is.  I've now seen it be referred to by them using words like; theory, fundamentals, method, a system of measuring.  It doesn't appear Mike and Andy know what it is or what they want it to be seen as now so it makes determining who is and who isn't S&T; very difficult at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mchepp

I would say that I don't even know what S&T; is anymore. I read now they are calling a measurement system instead of a swing, so I don't know what to think.

I would say Foley is not S&T; (at least the way I understood S&T; from the book which is now claiming it is not S&T;, but maybe S&T; 2.0 will shed some light on this) I think Foley likes the path to be much more left than the original S&T; 1.0 swing. I think Foley does like a centered pivot, and the clubface going back back, up and in, and many other similarities so it may at times appear he is teaching the S&T; 1.0 swing.

I think at least of smidgen of the backlash was brought on by . . . their exaggeration of poor instruction for effect, not too subtly suggesting every non-S&T; instructor taught that way, not acknowledging the many good instructors whose work is timeless (i.e. still being read, absorbed and put into proper practice every day by people with the ability to think for themselves), throwing previous students (even those struggling with injury or with raising new families) under the bus while propping or misrepresenting the playing records of a select few journeymen pros even though it was clearly stated that the records of professional golfers was not relevant, and generally sounding like arrogant douc**nozzles while legions of people oohed and aaahed at their super slow motions videos. At least that's what it looked like to me, but I never cared for kool aid even as a child.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

S&T; took some criticism from those with other swing methods but it appears the critiques have resulted in Mike and Andy obfuscating what S&T; is. I've now seen it be referred to by them using words like; theory, fundamentals, method, a system of measuring.

I agree. It's a golf swing.

Though I think that Sean Foley learned more than "5%" of what he knows now from Mike and Andy, it's probably closer to 5% than 35%. It's all speculation on my part, of course, and it was still rude and ridiculous the way Sean explained it (why put a number on it?), but Sean teaches S&T; as much as Golf Evolution teaches S&T.; It's one of the swings we know, and while virtually everything we like tends to be close to the same plane and with a centered pivot (see the five keys thread), there are plenty of variations in there.

Edit: s_m posted while I had this loaded and before I'd written, but I'd largely agree with his post too. I said in 2007 that I didn't like the original article, the name has always been a double-edged sword, and so on. I agree with him that some of the backlash comes from those things, but at the same time, it may have been the best strategy for them to be confrontational, mildly abrasive (which is funny because you'll never meet two more soft-spoken dudes), and so on. There are books like "Crossing the Chasm" that in fact say that's virtually the only way to go. Note that we're not planning to be abrasive, etc. with 5SK - rather, we're looking to be a bit more inclusive, because we'll allow for more than "one golf swing" if the five keys are satisfied/met.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

S&T; took some criticism from those with other swing methods but it appears the critiques have resulted in Mike and Andy obfuscating what S&T; is. I've now seen it be referred to by them using words like; theory, fundamentals, method, a system of measuring.

I agree. It's a golf swing.

Though I think that Sean Foley learned more than "5%" of what he knows now from Mike and Andy, it's probably closer to 5% than 35%. It's all speculation on my part, of course, and it was still rude and ridiculous the way Sean explained it (why put a number on it?), but Sean teaches S&T; as much as Golf Evolution teaches S&T.; It's one of the swings we know, and while virtually everything we like tends to be close to the same plane and with a centered pivot (see the five keys thread), there are plenty of variations in there.

Edit: s_m posted while I had this loaded and before I'd written, but I'd largely agree with his post too. I said in 2007 that I didn't like the original article, the name has always been a double-edged sword, and so on. I agree with him that some of the backlash comes from those things, but at the same time, it may have been the best strategy for them to be confrontational, mildly abrasive (which is funny because you'll never meet two more soft-spoken dudes), and so on. There are books like "Crossing the Chasm" that in fact say that's virtually the only way to go. Note that we're not planning to be abrasive, etc. with 5SK - rather, we're looking to be a bit more inclusive, because we'll allow for more than "one golf swing" if the five keys are satisfied/met.

I agree with a confrontational approach being good for business, because who out there even remotely familiar with the world of golf instruction doesn't know who A&P; are or what S&T; is (or whatever it is they interpret it to be)? When people estimate and debate what percentage of a certain player's new swing or his coach teaching methods are S&T;, I'd say it's pretty much been established as a staple brand in the golf business much like a "TaylorMade" or "Callaway". Kudos to both of them. Marketing genius and a sound golf swing. Sort of like Leadbetter without all the Leadbetter.

[mchepp]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I agree with a confrontational approach being good for business, because who out there even remotely familiar with the world of golf instruction doesn't know who A&P; are or what S&T; is (or whatever it is they interpret it to be)? When people estimate and debate what percentage of a certain player's new swing or his coach teaching methods are S&T;, I'd say it's pretty much been established as a staple brand in the golf business much like a "TaylorMade" or "Callaway". Kudos to both of them. Marketing genius and a sound golf swing. Sort of like Leadbetter without all the Leadbetter.

To me though, if you are going to throw out the hater-aid then you need to be able to handle the criticism. They seem to have struggled with all the hate they got, likely because as iacas said they are very nice guys.

Anyways, we took this thread WAY off topic. Sean Foley deserves some high praise with the work he has done with Tiger.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by mchepp

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I agree with a confrontational approach being good for business, because who out there even remotely familiar with the world of golf instruction doesn't know who A&P; are or what S&T; is (or whatever it is they interpret it to be)? When people estimate and debate what percentage of a certain player's new swing or his coach teaching methods are S&T;, I'd say it's pretty much been established as a staple brand in the golf business much like a "TaylorMade" or "Callaway". Kudos to both of them. Marketing genius and a sound golf swing. Sort of like Leadbetter without all the Leadbetter.

To me though, if you are going to throw out the hater-aid then you need to be able to handle the criticism. They seem to have struggled with all the hate they got, likely because as iacas said they are very nice guys.

Anyways, we took this thread WAY off topic. Sean Foley deserves some high praise with the work he has done with Tiger.

Oh I doubt they struggled too badly, and not because for every hater (not saying anyone here is - just pointing out what I've witnessed on this forums and others) theres a handful of zealots, but because they're basically showmen I suspect. Was it PT Barnum who said, "I don't care what you say, just spell my name right"?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mchepp

Anyways, we took this thread WAY off topic. Sean Foley deserves some high praise with the work he has done with Tiger.

I said before and I'll say again I'm surprised that it's taken as long as it has.

Foley seemed to spend a long time making the backswing look better and doing little to fix the downswing. That gave us a Tiger Woods that, after eight months of work, had an HSP of +10 with his driver. Great.

His recent swings have looked good, but I'm baffled at how long it took to get to where he is now. None of us really know the extent of his injuries in 2011 - he hit the ball well at Augusta last year. So perhaps that can explain some of the slower progress. Heck, it may explain all of it. Because, really, if Tiger's actually "close" now then he's really only been working with Foley since September 2010 - April 2011 + the latter half of 2011 when he was able to swing a golf club again. Right? So in that light that's not too bad.

So I've talked in a circle. :)

[ohiolefty]

Foley's as S&T; as the guy who teaches me is - and the gentleman's in his 80s and never refers to any book or 'system' when teaching the golf swing.

As much as I am skeptical of S&T; (mainly because of how P&B; come off, some of the literature/media they've put out, etc.) a lot of what they're communicating is sound and matches most modern conceptions of an athletic, powerful, balanced, stable golf swing. I think if you're talking to someone about your golf swing and there aren't certain things they're telling you that match S&T; (especially not moving off the ball) I'd be very skeptical of everything they say.

[Brunogolf]

There really isn't that much S&T; in what Foley teaches far more Evershed then any singular pro.  The one beef that Foley should have though is with P&B; not giving him any credit over time they've spent together.

[Leftygolfer]

What are the differences between stack and tilt and Foley.  I can't see any.  Maybe some big made up words and the lack of stigma.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ohiolefty

Foley's as S&T; as the guy who teaches me is - and the gentleman's in his 80s and never refers to any book or 'system' when teaching the golf swing.

Well, he's probably a fair bit closer than a lot of people, but whatever. Questions like this are almost metaphysical. How many of Sean Foley's thoughts will fit on the head of a pin?

Originally Posted by Brunogolf

The one beef that Foley should have though is with P&B; not giving him any credit over time they've spent together.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would P&B; owe credit to Foley? They didn't seek him out and ask him ten thousand questions and show him video of Hunter, Sean O'Hair, Tiger, etc. The reverse of that is true.

Again, the whole 5% thing was over-dramatized, but he simply shouldn't have put a number on it.

[mchepp]

Originally Posted by Brunogolf

There really isn't that much S&T; in what Foley teaches far more Evershed then any singular pro.

I would say Foley uses almost the entire S&T; backswing, and then uses much of what Evershed teaches in the downswing. I could put a number like 50/50 but I would be making that up. But you are right Foley should be giving credit to both B&P; and Evershed.

That being said what Evershed teaches is not all that far away from S&T.;