Lee Westwood leaves Sean Foley

[billchao]

Westwood was with Sean for only  7 months. Geeze, this isn't that big of a deal. Honestly, lee was a pretty good ball striker to being with. His putting is what let him down.

I thought the article said the reason they were parting ways was because Westwood felt his ball striking was starting to wane? I totally agree with you that it isn't a big deal, though.

[k-troop]

I never thought Westy and Sean were a good fit.  Westy was one of the best ballstrikers on tour in 2010, 2011, 2012...then he sucked early last year, but brought it back (presumably Foley deserves some credit for that).  It's his putting that has kept him from winning majors, though.

[bplewis24]

saevel125....I have been informed by PM that this is a groupthink forum so your comment does not surprise me....very much appreciate it however

If this were a groupthink forum, I probably wouldn't be welcome here.  I go against the grain enough without being attacked for it to know this isn't the case.  Let's not confuse verifiable or objective ignorance with subjective opinions/debate.

If that is considered off-topic I will delete it and just follow up by saying that sometimes, psychologically, folks need a fresh change if they haven't reached the level of success they were expecting.  Foley has been pretty successful, and Westwood has been pretty close several times, so it's not like their relationship was a complete disaster.

[Wansteadimp]

I never thought Westy and Sean were a good fit.  Westy was one of the best ballstrikers on tour in 2010, 2011, 2012...then he sucked early last year, but brought it back (presumably Foley deserves some credit for that).  It's his putting that has kept him from winning majors, though.

I'd argue it's actually his chipping that's the real problem, he doesn't chip it close enough and leaves himself too many missable putts. He often looks like he has no feel around the greens at all.

[Mr. Desmond]

At least Foley has an open spot to screw with fit Luke Donald....

[Mr. Desmond]

I'd argue it's actually his chipping that's the real problem, he doesn't chip it close enough and leaves himself too many missable putts.

He often looks like he has no feel around the greens at all.

As a casual observer and listener, that's what I've seen/heard about Westy's game -- maybe a short game guy like Utley, Stockton, et al, can shave some strokes ...

[hopefulhacker]

As a casual observer and listener, that's what I've seen/heard about Westy's game -- maybe a short game guy like Utley, Stockton, et al, can shave some strokes ...

Ya it's strange that he hasn't teamed up with a specific short game coach. I think he realises it's a weakness and I believe his move to relocate to America was primarily so he could work on this area. He seemed to have some initial success in this area shortly after his move but it looks like he has reverted to norm.

[Stretch]

He's already been with a bunch of short game coaches, Mark Roe and Tony Johnstone most recently I think, but it doesn't stick because he doesn't like practicing his short game. He likes striping balls.

[phan52]

Much ado about nothing, since the only thing that kept Westwood from winning Majors was his chipping and putting. Probably too late for him to change his focus on his practice habits.

[Nosevi]

Doesn't it go a tad deeper than a personality clash? I think it's more of a clash in the way in which they see the game of golf. I think there's truth in what Lee says - he is more old school. I think he sees golf as both an art and a science, I think Sean sees it merely as a Science.

Lee swings the club how Lee swings the club - it's individual and it's hardly by the numbers. Sean does everything by the numbers. I think Lee probably went to Sean because he saw what great results he can get. But then it probably became apparent that unless Lee gave up his individuality in his swing it was never going to work.

What do you think would have happened if Arnold Palmer had gone to work with Sean? Or Lee Trevino? Or Seve? Or........

Many coaches now see golf as a science and IMO a little of the 'art' has gone out of it. Sean is the epitome of this approach and for someone like Lee it was never going to work.

[Valleygolfer]

Doesn't it go a tad deeper than a personality clash? I think it's more of a clash in the way in which they see the game of golf. I think there's truth in what Lee says - he is more old school. I think he sees golf as both an art and a science, I think Sean sees it merely as a Science.

Lee swings the club how Lee swings the club - it's individual and it's hardly by the numbers. Sean does everything by the numbers. I think Lee probably went to Sean because he saw what great results he can get. But then it probably became apparent that unless Lee gave up his individuality in his swing it was never going to work.

What do you think would have happened if Arnold Palmer had gone to work with Sean? Or Lee Trevino? Or Seve? Or........

Many coaches now see golf as a science and IMO a little of the 'art' has gone out of it. Sean is the epitome of this approach and for someone like Lee it was never going to work.

Who cares. They don't see things the same. Lee hired him, not the other way around. The way I see it Lee made the mistake if there was a mistake. Sean is analytical from the get go. Lee thought he wanted to change and couldn't work with Sean so he decided to move on. Nothing to see here folks...

[Nosevi]

Who cares. They don't see things the same. Lee hired him, not the other way around. The way I see it Lee made the mistake if there was a mistake. Sean is analytical from the get go. Lee thought he wanted to change and couldn't work with Sean so he decided to move on. Nothing to see here folks...

I don't care much either mate, just think it says more about how some golf coaching is going more and more towards a cold science and less and less of an art form these days - Sean Foley typifies this approach (from what I've seen, read and been told).

Rhythm, timing and balance vs angles, percentages and vectors. My handicap is dropping pretty fast, transferring it to the US way of working it out I'm on about a 2 in less than a year from getting my initial handicap. I get coached by the head pro of our national academy and he's forever telling me to stop being so technical, stop being so interested in the numbers. I tend to get hung up on smash factors, decent angles and spin rates. We actually work pretty well together as he stops me being too blinkered but I can see how the 2 approaches could easily clash rather than complement each other.

So, no not important at all in and of itself but perhaps more so from a 'art vs science' view point.

[bplewis24]

Rhythm, timing and balance vs angles, percentages and vectors. My handicap is dropping pretty fast, transferring it to the US way of working it out I'm on about a 2 in less than a year from getting my initial handicap. I get coached by the head pro of our national academy and he's forever telling me to stop being so technical, stop being so interested in the numbers. I tend to get hung up on smash factors, decent angles and spin rates. We actually work pretty well together as he stops me being too blinkered but I can see how the 2 approaches could easily clash rather than complement each other.

You're conflating statistics with swing science.  Your instructor telling you to stop obsessing over smash factor isn't the same as telling you to stop caring about the science behind your swing.

[Nosevi]

You're conflating statistics with swing science.  Your instructor telling you to stop obsessing over smash factor isn't the same as telling you to stop caring about the science behind your swing.

No, I care about it, it's science that makes the ball move after all.

But I've seen young guys being coached to death who have technically very sound swings....... but look like robots. And I've seen guys with somewhat personalised swings (being kind :) ) that all fit together and it just somehow works for them. There is no perfect swing, just a perfect swing for you and I'd argue that everyone is different but many coaches don't seem to see this.

I remember being told by one pro that the 'fundamentals' were Grip, Alignment, Stance and Posture. I asked him about Colin Montgomery's very weak grip and Freddie Couple's very strong one. I asked about Lee Trevino's open stance and about Hogan's picture of a slightly closed stance for a long iron or Driver. Some players have a very narrow stance, some a wide one, posture is variable too........ So what's so fundamental about the fundamentals?!?

You must have seen this vid, I'd argue it shows players who are or were better golfers than many if not all the experts out there. They did it their way, I think the age of modern coaching is stifling that a bit:

[tooc]

Harmon is the man, I think Westwood should take a close look, but agree it more about putting and mental side

[newtogolf]

Based on the interviews I've seen of Foley, he is more of a zen guy and Butch is more about mechanics.  I imagine Westwood listening to Foley for a few hours and asking himself what the hell did Foley just say.

[jclark]

Based on the interviews I've seen of Foley, he is more of a zen guy and Butch is more about mechanics. I imagine Westwood listening to Foley for a few hours and asking himself what the hell did Foley just say.

I do that! He talks in cryptic phrases that don't make sense!

[SteveBamford]

Based on numbers, it looks like Westwood's putting got worse last year and his long game is about the same. I didn't pull up the numbers though, I'm basing this on a reputable source who compiled them. I wonder if there's a public database where you can input dates for strokes gained for so and so and get the numbers and do a comparison.

.Spot on.  Yes Lee has never won a Major Championship, but the guy is class and he's a brilliant ball striker.  His weakness has always been his short game and his swing doesn't need re-engineering.  If he can work and take learnings around his short game, whilst keeping his prestigious ball striking, he can win tournaments on the PGA Tour.  However, for me, he won't win a Major unless he's handed one on a plate.