Sean Foley's Tip for contact.

[mdl]

Quote:

  mvmac said:

lol I guess you don't know who Sean idolizes and who Andy and Mike studied under for several years.  His name is Mac O'Grady

Look at the S&T; book and there are plenty of pictures of these players, that's where Mac, Andy and Mike developed their patterns, by looking at the "classical" swings.

To be fair, they might say that's who they looked at to develop S&T;, but most of those classic guys had HUGE weight shift onto the back foot on the back swing.  I know their story is they tried to distill out of the array of different swings of the masters through the ages, but still, if you personally think the old Snead style sway back and through swing is the pretty, smooth looking style (which equals "athletic" somehow?), S&T;'s going to look overly constrained and snappy.

[iacas]

  mdl said:

Originally Posted by mdl

To be fair, they might say that's who they looked at to develop S&T;, but most of those classic guys had HUGE weight shift onto the back foot on the back swing.

No they didn't. Jack kept his head steady (Jack Grout grabbed fistfulls of his hair). So did Hogan. Arnie says it was the most important thing he learned in golf.

And weight and pressure aren't the same. They all undoubtedly increased pressure in the right foot on the backswing... just as Mike and I do in our swings.

  mdl said:

Originally Posted by mdl

I know their story is they tried to distill out of the array of different swings of the masters through the ages, but still, if you personally think the old Snead style sway back and through swing is the pretty, smooth looking style (which equals "athletic" somehow?), S&T;'s going to look overly constrained and snappy.

(Video moves slightly in the frame so the line is drawn from the same branch in the background downward.)

[EverythingGolf]

....And here is Bobby Jones!! Centered!!

[mvmac]

  mdl said:

Originally Posted by mdl

Quote:

if you personally think the old Snead style sway back and through swing is the pretty, smooth looking style (which equals "athletic" somehow?), S&T;'s going to look overly constrained and snappy.

First off I might argue that S&T; is least constrained because you allowing the hips to turn and rear knee to release some flexion.  Compared to other instructors that want you to maintain address knee flexion throughout the back swing, to me that would be the most constrained.

Back to the Snead.  Yes increased pressure in the right foot on the backswing, but not much sway here.

Here is the video so you know I'm not trying to cheat :)  Please take a look at what he does and not what he FEELS

And Jack keeping the head steady

[bwdial]

  soon_tourpro said:

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

Jack Nicklaus, sam snead, ben Hogan before accident, arnold palmer.

Tiger can hit it so out of bounds also.

still not an athletic swing.

Didn't Ben Hogan win the vast majority of his majors after the accident?

[mvmac]

  bwdial said:

Originally Posted by bwdial

Didn't Ben Hogan win the vast majority of his majors after the accident?

Accident was Feb 2nd 1949.  Can only imagine if he was able to play in the PGA in '53

Wins (9)

Year	Championship	54 Holes	Winning Score	Margin	Runner(s)-up
1946	PGA Championship	n/a	6 & 4	n/a	Ed Oliver
1948	U.S. Open	2 shot lead	-8 (67-72-68-69=276)	2 strokes	Jimmy Demaret
1948	PGA Championship (2)	n/a	7 & 6	n/a	Mike Turnesa
1950	U.S. Open (2)	2 shot deficit	+7 (72-69-72-74=287)	Playoff 1	George Fazio , Lloyd Mangrum
1951	Masters Tournament	1 shot deficit	-8 (70-72-70-68=280)	2 strokes	Skee Riegel
1951	U.S. Open (3)	2 shot deficit	+7 (76-73-71-67=287)	2 strokes	Clayton Heafner
1953	Masters Tournament (2)	4 shot lead	-14 (70-69-66-69=274)	5 strokes	Ed Oliver
1953	U.S. Open (4)	1 shot lead	-5 (67-72-73-71=283)	6 strokes	Sam Snead
1953	The Open Championship	Tied for lead	-2 (73-71-70-68=282)	4 strokes	Antonio Cerdá , Dai Rees , Frank Stranahan , Peter Thomson

[Old1964]

  mvmac said:

Originally Posted by mvmac

And Jack keeping the head steady

Do you advocate that the ball be played from the same position as Jack does in his video?  In either case, do you see any problem in doing so?

[bwdial]

  mvmac said:

Originally Posted by mvmac

Accident was Feb 2nd 1949.  Can only imagine if he was able to play in the PGA in '53

Wins (9)

Year

Championship

54 Holes

Winning Score

Margin

Runner(s)-up

1946

PGA Championship

n/a

6 & 4

n/a

Ed Oliver

1948

U.S. Open

2 shot lead

-8 (67-72-68-69=276)

2 strokes

Jimmy Demaret

1948

PGA Championship (2)

n/a

7 & 6

n/a

Mike Turnesa

1950

U.S. Open (2)

2 shot deficit

+7 (72-69-72-74=287)

Playoff 1

George Fazio,  Lloyd Mangrum

1951

Masters Tournament

1 shot deficit

-8 (70-72-70-68=280)

2 strokes

Skee Riegel

1951

U.S. Open (3)

2 shot deficit

+7 (76-73-71-67=287)

2 strokes

Clayton Heafner

1953

Masters Tournament (2)

4 shot lead

-14 (70-69-66-69=274)

5 strokes

Ed Oliver

1953

U.S. Open (4)

1 shot lead

-5 (67-72-73-71=283)

6 strokes

Sam Snead

1953

The Open Championship

Tied for lead

-2 (73-71-70-68=282)

4 strokes

Antonio Cerdá,  Dai Rees,

Frank Stranahan,  Peter Thomson

Six out of nine... that counts as a vast majority, right?

[iacas]

  bwdial said:

Originally Posted by bwdial

Six out of nine... that counts as a vast majority, right?

I don't think he was disagreeing. I think Mike was supporting your post. :-)

[mvmac]

  bwdial said:

Originally Posted by bwdial

Six out of nine... that counts as a vast majority, right?

Quote:

  iacas said:

I don't think he was disagreeing. I think Mike was supporting your post. :-)

Yes exactly and like I said, could have been 7 out of 10 if the PGA wasn't scheduled so close to the British Open back then

[bwdial]

I know... I was just pointing out the ridiculous nature of the original post.  I just like sticking my online tongue out.

[mvmac]

  Old1964 said:

Originally Posted by Old1964

Do you advocate that the ball be played from the same position as Jack does in his video?  In either case, do you see any problem in doing so?

Driver should be further forward in order to get a positive AOA.  This is more of a "modern" way of doing it due to today's ball and clubs.  Good thread http://thesandtrap.com/t/44307/hitting-up-or-down-with-the-driver-in-an-inline-pattern

[bobsuruncle]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

And Sean doesn't teach S&T.; He learned a lot about geometry and whatnot from MB and AP, but that's all one can accurately say about "what he teaches."

Q: is Sean's teachings more akin to what may be termed the "right sided swing"?  This is a teaching method out of Australia by Gary Edwin (website: http://www.garyedwingolf.com.au/), and popularized by players like Peter Senior, Rod Pampling, among others.

[iacas]

  bobsuruncle said:

Originally Posted by bobsuruncle

Q: is Sean's teachings more akin to what may be termed the "right sided swing"?  This is a teaching method out of Australia by Gary Edwin (website: http://www.garyedwingolf.com.au/), and popularized by players like Peter Senior, Rod Pampling, among others.

No, I don't think so at all. Foley lists his influences in his DVD and they're Mark Evershed, Leadbetter (he saw him on the range and decided as a kid to be an instructor), Bennet/Plummer, and some other people, but I am almost positive one is not Gary Edwin and that Foley's understanding is not similar to the "right sided swing."

[Brunogolf]

In seeing what Sean does with his players Evershed would seem to have the biggest influence. Evershed is probably the ablsolute best in the business but his personality rubs some the wrong way.  Its strange that his work isn't talked about more on this site.

[mvmac]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

No, I don't think so at all. Foley lists his influences in his DVD and they're Mark Evershed, Leadbetter (he saw him on the range and decided as a kid to be an instructor), Bennet/Plummer, and some other people, but I am almost positive one is not Gary Edwin and that Foley's understanding is not similar to the "right sided swing."

Agreed

[Open-Faced Club Sandwedge]

  mvmac said:

Originally Posted by mvmac

First off I might argue that S&T; is least constrained because you allowing the hips to turn and rear knee to release some flexion.  Compared to other instructors that want you to maintain address knee flexion throughout the back swing, to me that would be the most constrained.

Back to the Snead.  Yes increased pressure in the right foot on the backswing, but not much sway here.

Here is the video so you know I'm not trying to cheat :)  Please take a look at what he does and not what he FEELS

And Jack keeping the head steady

I think a lot of people have trouble understanding the difference between weight shift and sway.  You can (and most beginners do) shift the weight to the right foot by swaying to your right.  Or you can shift weight to the right foot without swaying, by rotating in the backswing and countering, and then reversing this rotation using the right foot.  Every golf swing includes this transfer of forces.  Lastly, you can shift weight to the right foot without swaying or rotating, just by easing the pressure on the left foot (in some cases lifting the heel).  Now, if that's how you shift weight to your right foot, you won't be in balance, and your body will start to move to your left.  But of course, this is exactly what happens in a golf swing.

So it can be confusing to look at the top of Snead's backswing, and look at his left foot, and clearly see there's no weight on it.  But you can see, by circling his head and drawing a line from his right foot to his right hip, that he hasn't swayed really at all.  He's "stayed left", and in the downswing he goes further left.

-Andrew

[mdl]

Fair enough. I shouldn't have used the word sway, since the old guys kept at least the head centered, and mostly the core too. But I don't back away from the claim that a lot of the old guys had very significant weight transfer to the back leg during the back swing (as Mike noted about Snead), and while I agree that eliminating the extra work of transferring so much weight back and forth makes it easier to have a consistent swing, if you're dedicated to the look of that visually very clear loading of weight onto the back foot before exploding forward through the ball (looking more like a smooth baseball swing that way to my eye), then I still maintain it's at least consistent to not like the look of S&T;, even if most of the actual mechanical elements are the same or similar.