Jump to content
IGNORED

Sean Foley's Tip for contact.


Note: This thread is 2999 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts



Originally Posted by Brunogolf

With 3 wins in march it would be good sauce for us all to follow Foley!!!  Does he finally get some validation on here and maybe a redo of the review of his DVD?



This just in:

The DVD still sucks.

That's not to say people don't like Foley. His DVD is poorly scripted and produced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

Originally Posted by Open-Faced Club Sandwedge

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.


Those aren't weight shifts. If your CG is in the same place, you haven't "shifted your weight." Pressures can change, but your WEIGHT is still roughly centered.

The only way to shift weight and keep your feet and head in the same spot (your feet because they're on the ground, your head because you want to keep it relatively still) is to move your hips well to the right. Nobody really does that.

Originally Posted by Open-Faced Club Sandwedge

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.

Weight isn't pressure. I can move my weight LEFT and lift my LEFT heel off the ground: http://thesandtrap.com/t/48111/jack-nicklaus-on-a-centered-pivot/54#post_621950

Originally Posted by mdl

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...


The problem with that is that Snead did not have anything close to a "significant weight transfer to the back leg during the backswing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I like the principal of what Sean teaches. However, one has to understand the two key differences between an arm dominant and body dominant golf swing. One has to have a body dominant golf swing in order to get real results from what Sean teaches. I like what he has done with Tiger swing.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by Open-Faced Club Sandwedge

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

"the weight of an object is the force on the object due to gravity"

There is nothing dynamic about weight. The effect (force applied) of gravity does not change whether you are still or moving. Lifting a foot off the ground does not change my weight distribution unless I also shift my centre of gravity at the same time. If I do not shift my centre of gravity then there is no weight shift to the right, no matter how much I "coil" or "load" or these other terms that are bandied around.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by Mordan

"the weight of an object is the force on the object due to gravity"

There is nothing dynamic about weight. The effect (force applied) of gravity does not change whether you are still or moving. Lifting a foot off the ground does not change my weight distribution unless I also shift my centre of gravity at the same time. If I do not shift my centre of gravity then there is no weight shift to the right, no matter how much I "coil" or "load" or these other terms that are bandied around.

Your definition of weight is correct. However, the force of gravity can only act at the point(s) you contact the earth. Your mass and/or your center of gravity may not change, but the forces acting on your feet will definitely change if you were to distribute your weight differently.  That's where the confusion comes in.

If you lift one foot off the ground, the weight (force equals mass times acceleration, which in this case is gravity) measured on that foot will be 0.  The force measured on the other foot will be your total weight.  Your weight distribution will be 100% on one foot and 0% on the other, although your center of gravity will remain very close to your midpoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by iacas

The problem with that is that Snead did not have anything close to a "significant weight transfer to the back leg during the backswing.


Really?  Keep in mind that I'm not actually advocating the old style swing.  I'm just saying that to me at least, it looks like he's loading significant weight onto his back leg through rotation and lifting and bending the back leg backwards without shifting his center line back very much.

Whatever, I'm arguing a point in an argument where the conclusion, that only the old style swing is a pretty, athletic one, is one I don't agree with!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Your definition of weight is correct. However, the force of gravity can only act at the point(s) you contact the earth. Your mass and/or your center of gravity may not change, but the forces acting on your feet will definitely change if you were to distribute your weight differently.  That's where the confusion comes in.

I agree. And it's important to note that if your mass (your CG) doesn't change, the weight doesn't "shift" or "transfer."

Originally Posted by Harmonious

If you lift one foot off the ground, the weight (force equals mass times acceleration, which in this case is gravity) measured on that foot will be 0.

If you move the CG to be over the other foot not lifted off the ground, then your weight has shifted because your CG has shifted. Absolutely.

If you lift your foot off the ground using your muscles but don't really shift your CG, you're going to fall over unless you put the foot back on the ground pretty quickly. This is not a weight shift.

In fact, imagine that you are standing on two scales simultaneously, with your weight evenly distributed. Both scales read 100 pounds. Then, in an instant, you lift your left foot completely off the ground (before putting it back down) without laterally moving your CG . What will the scale under your right foot say at the moment your left foot is highest off the ground?

100 pounds.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

The force measured on the other foot will be your total weight.  Your weight distribution will be 100% on one foot and 0% on the other, although your center of gravity will remain very close to your midpoint.


That is incorrect.

If you're talking about your measured mass, then yes, the only scale measuring anything will be 100%, but that "100%" will still only be 50% of your measured mass.


The above discussion ignores the fact that weight isn't pressure.

For example, standing on two feet slightly wider than shoulder width apart in a crouch, I can spike the "pressure" reading under my right foot if I push off hard against it (rapidly straighten my right leg). My "weight" will move LEFT in this case but, for an instant in a dynamic system (using our muscles), the PRESSURE measured under our right foot could spike to more than our body's actual weight.

Pressure ain't weight. If the CG doesn't move, your "weight" hasn't moved.

Our bodies have muscles that can exert pressure or relieve pressure dynamically.

Originally Posted by mdl

Whatever, I'm arguing a point in an argument where the conclusion, that only the old style swing is a pretty, athletic one, is one I don't agree with!


I don't agree that only the old style swing is pretty or athletic either. I think there are pretty and athletic elements to virtually everyone's golf swing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by Harmonious

If you lift one foot off the ground, the weight (force equals mass times acceleration, which in this case is gravity) measured on that foot will be 0.  The force measured on the other foot will be your total weight.  Your weight distribution will be 100% on one foot and 0% on the other, although your center of gravity will remain very close to your midpoint.


If you lift one foot off the ground, without shifting your centre of gravity, the force (or pressure) being applied by that foot on the ground will be 0, but there has been no change in weight. You still weigh the same amount, each part of your body still weighs the same amount and there has been no weight shift whatsoever. The weight distribution is still exactly as it was before, but the amount of force you're applying to the ground via your feet has changed due to the dynamic action of lifting one of them off the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by iacas

I don't agree that only the old style swing is pretty or athletic either. I think there are pretty and athletic elements to virtually everyone's golf swing.


Clearly.  Some else posted something to that effect earlier and I was simply pointing out that if you think the shifting of a large majority of foot pressure to the back foot (even if there was only, say, a 5-10% weight shift backwards in a swing like Snead's) is a necessary element to achieve a pretty or athletic swing, then it's at east not logically inconsistent to dislike the more modern swing.

The weight versus pressure shift is an interesting distinction.  In most more modern, centered, swings, especially S&T;, teachers explicitly instruct to keep the weight split something between 50/50 and 60/40 towards the front foot, throughout the back swing.  How about pressure?  Snead may not have shifted his weight, but as part of a dynamic action he definitely shifted a large portion of the pressure to the back foot through his back swing (you can see that just from the fact that only his front toe is touching the ground at the top, and given he's not a ballerina I'd say that means most of the pressure is on the back foot at that point).  Would an instructor of a more modern swing also advocate not shifting much pressure to the back foot, gaining power with the uncoil supported by foot pressure relatively evenly distributed between the two feet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

Originally Posted by mdl

The weight versus pressure shift is an interesting distinction.  In most more modern, centered, swings, especially S&T;, teachers explicitly instruct to keep the weight split something between 50/50 and 60/40 towards the front foot, throughout the back swing.  How about pressure?  Snead may not have shifted his weight, but as part of a dynamic action he definitely shifted a large portion of the pressure to the back foot through his back swing (you can see that just from the fact that only his front toe is touching the ground at the top, and given he's not a ballerina I'd say that means most of the pressure is on the back foot at that point).  Would an instructor of a more modern swing also advocate not shifting much pressure to the back foot, gaining power with the uncoil supported by foot pressure relatively evenly distributed between the two feet?

One could argue fairly easily that Snead didn't so much "shift" pressure by lifting his heel or front foot as much as he did "relieve" pressure in his front foot by dynamically lifting his foot. Subtle - but important - distinction.

Our findings in 5SK - which we've been researching for years and will continue to research - indicates that with Key #1: Steady Head in place and a reasonable head position (not too far forward or too far back), weight distribution will remain virtually the same as at setup until late in transition to the downswing (when the hips will begin to push forward). The right knee and hip decreases flex, the left knee and hip increases flex, and the pressure (as a percentage of the whole amount of pressure in the body) under the right foot goes up beyond the 50/50 weight distribution. Numbers outside of the range we've measured in Tour pros (in either direction) typically indicate a poorer golfer (some poor golfers can get numbers in the range but tend to do so differently - perhaps by actually shifting their weight back to increase pressure rather than by decreasing flex and pushing off).

The peak pressure in the right foot is actually late in transition as the hips begin to push forward. Say around A4.25.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 11 months later...
Note: This thread is 2999 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasfeb21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • Day 505 - May 16, 2021 Played 18 holes of irons-only (hit one driver on 15) with Sculley. Really focused on some short game shots, too.
    • Seriously. Also, we saw your post earlier, @David in FL, but it's as dumb the second time as it was the first time. In addition to what Dan said above, here is another article from the WHO: The effects of virus variants on COVID-19 vaccines The text in bold is quotes from that article: The COVID-19 vaccines that are currently in development or have been approved are expected to provide at least some protection against new virus variants because these vaccines elicit a broad immune response involving a range of antibodies and cells. Hmmmm. How can we prevent future new variants of the COVID-19 virus? Stopping the spread at the source remains key. Current measures to reduce transmission – including frequent hand washing, wearing a mask, physical distancing, good ventilation and avoiding crowded places or closed settings – continue to work against new variants by reducing the amount of viral transmission and therefore also reducing opportunities for the virus to mutate. Scaling up vaccine manufacturing and rolling out vaccines as quickly and widely as possible will also be critical ways of protecting people before they are exposed to the virus and the risk of new variants. Why is it important to get vaccinated even if there are new variants of the virus? Vaccines are a critical tool in the battle against COVID-19, and there are clear public health and lifesaving benefits to using the tools we already have. We must not put off getting vaccinated because of our concerns about new variants, and we must proceed with vaccination even if the vaccines may be somewhat less effective against some of the COVID-19 virus variants. So the scorecard: Vaccinated people: Are nearly 100% protected from the majority of strains/variants of COVID-19. Are "somewhat" protected against every variant of COVID-19. Have a very low chance of catching COVID and an even lower chance of passing it on to someone. Are helping to reduce the creation of new variants. Dave's peeps: Aren't protected at all against the majority of strains/variants of COVID-19. Aren't protected against any variant. Have only a reduced chance of catching COVID-19 because other people are being good members of society and getting vaccinated. Are not helping to reduce the creation of new variants. Your "we don't know how the vaccine handles new variants" is a bullshit excuse not to get vaccinated because every vaccine out there is more effective against every variant than not getting vaccinated at all. You're being selfish while conning yourself into thinking you're being "prudent." Nobody would rationally define "prudent" the way you're choosing to. Nobody who understands the mountains of data out there. What you are calling "prudent" is what most may call "selfish."
    • If I got held up by a group of guys playing this in front of me….someone’s going home with a broken toy. Lol.
    • DAVID, MY ARTICLE BEATS YOUR ARTICLE. The most serious vaccine side effects in history have all been caught within six weeks, said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital in Philadelphia and a member of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.   Covid-19 vaccine myths: These reasons for not getting a shot don't hold up. In fact, they'll set the US back Here are some of the most popular arguments for not getting vaccinated and why doctors want to set the record straight.  
    • There’s a cruel cosmic irony in that you’re worried about the variants making the vaccine less effective when the best way to avoid further variants is to get the damn vaccine. 
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. BC-to-MI
      BC-to-MI
      (27 years old)
    2. dannyh
      dannyh
      (35 years old)
    3. Greg 504
      Greg 504
      (50 years old)
    4. Rukus43
      Rukus43
      (35 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...