“Let’s be honest about this, it’s not like he was flushing it with Hank."
Robert Lusetich talks to Sean Foley who is less than bashful in sharing his views about Tiger's swing. Sit back and prepare for an entertaining read! My highlights:
“This is nothing against Butch (Harmon, who was Woods’ coach at the time) but trying to go back to that would be a huge mistake,” Foley said.
So much grey area. If he would just take a stance. I know, I know, he works for Tiger now. Wait...he works for Tiger now!
Naturally, I think it's brilliant of Tiger to let Foley talk all he wants. He's clearly smart, interesting and just provocative enough to get the focus on golf and the kind of petty dramas we've missed over the last year.
There's a whole bunch more of great interest in Lusetich's story, but personally I've always wondered when someone would question the origin of Stack and Tilt, a watered-down version of which Foley is accused of using.
Plummer and Bennett developed a system of hitting a golf ball called Stack and Tilt, which calls for players to keep their weight on their front leg throughout the swing.
Though hailed as revolutionary, it was met with derisive condemnation by the teaching establishment. Nonetheless, several players who switched to Stack and Tilt won on the PGA Tour, giving the method legitimacy.
Foley admits that he enjoyed discussing the intricacies of the swing with Plummer and Bennett, whom he likes and respects, but ultimately, he credits them with “maybe 5 percent” of the inspiration behind his own, very similar, swing ideas.
“Andy and Mike are very bright guys, but how much of what they teach is Mac O’Grady?” Foley said of golf’s Bobby Fisher, a tortured genius who’s spent years breaking down the secrets of golf.
“And how much did they take from (Sam) Snead and (Ben) Hogan? And how much of it is taken from (Isaac) Newton?”
Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 08:31 PM
Reader Comments (90)
S&T, O'Grady, Golfing Machine, and Foley teach that is easier to be consistent if there is no dramatic weight shift or sway off the ball.
Foley may be correct, in that staying centered over the ball is a more effective (or consistent) way to strike it than say, moving off the ball like Harmon teaches. But as long as golf is around, you'll have guys continuing to do it both ways. The scorecard doesn't care what kind of swing you have, nor does the AP story on the tournament wrap.
It's the S&T guys who are full of themselves. They think they "invented" a swing that will be "standard procedure" in one year. Give me a break. Get real! Foley's cool, because he's not BS-ing anyone. No one is going to invent another wheel.
WORD!
Word, you've clearly never met Mike and Andy, who routinely credit every influence that came before them - including Mac O'Grady. As I understand it, Mac has a rule about not sharing his information with PGA Tour players - or any of the "unwashed and unworthy" or something - which is why they were booted from his favor. Heck, Mac pre-emptively booted a friend of mine because he had conversations with people on a forum somewhere. He's eccentric - smart and capable, but eccentric - and we all know that. They committed no great offense beyond sharing and giving credit where due.
Additionally, the very use of the pictures they used to derive their swing pattern credits the older players (Hogan, Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus, Nelson, etc.). They don't claim to have "invented" anything except a way of assembling all of the pieces together, and they're incredibly humble about even that. They are perhaps a bit delusional about it being "standard procedure" in the way that people who believe so strongly in themselves tend to be.
Foley's "5%" comment is rubbish. Piano music uses the same keys and pedals, but arrives at a different result. If we apply that analogy to instructors on the PGA Tour and their methods, Mike and Andy created a pattern of playing notes and called it "Greensleeves." Foley watched them play the piece repeatedly, asked them a bunch of questions about which fingers hit what notes at what time, and is now playing "What Child is This." to his players. :-P
So I'm sorry, but you almost couldn't be more off base in what you've said and you couldn't be saying it about two nicer guys who, I might add, teach more guys on Tour than anyone and have never solicited anyone.
Please people.
I worked with Mac for 18 months, he is the best teacher on the planet, and that S & T crap is not what Mac taught.
I am sure they are nice guys, and some guys have won while under their tutelage, but they have left the S & T in droves lately.
Look at the statistics, how many improved their ball striking statistics while S & T'ing? Baddeley got worse, and he has subsequently left, as have many others.
S & T is great for lofted irons, but you can't drive well using that crap
Agreed, the S&T is akin to Natural Golf, works for some. The big difference between S&T and Natural Golf is that S&T actually has its "inventors" (cough) on the range each week at PGA Tournament stops, and has around 20 Tour Players using it. So Plummer and Bennett are out there each week touting their swing is going to be "standard procedure" (their words) in "one year." (again, their words). Now Foley comes along and steals their thunder, if you will, grabbing attention by helping Tiger and teaching a method that is based on a combination of the things Snead, Hogan (all the greats did), like what S&T kind of did, like what Mac O'Grady did before them. Except O'Grady and Foley weren't stupid enough to give their swing a "name" and try to market it as a revolution that they came up with (out of the blue!)...when you do that, you turn many people off.
Plummer and Bennett are smoking cheeba if they truly think that S&T is the ONLY way. One would think they tout it as such because they want to cash in on their swing and marketing of it. But if they actually really believe that S&T will be standard procedure in one year, or that it will take over golf, that's insanity. There will never be one swing for all in golf. People who cling onto these swing fads like religion are pathetic. You have to find a swing that works for you. And then realize that there's a lot more to a round of golf than your golf swing, and pretty is as pretty does. End of story.
Word, EXACTLY.
Signed,
Jim Furyk, Kenny Perry (and many others, pro and amateur)
I agree with this. I think its utility gradually decreases as you move through the bag from wedge to driver.
Bennett and Plummer's mistake was slapping a name on a golf swing and marketing it. That just turns folks off. I play a lot of golf, and whenever someone says "Stack and Tilt" someone else eventually has some snide remark about it, like "Stack and Hack." Is that fair? No. They don't even know anything about the swing. (I personally think S&T is very effective, but it is by no means for everyone). But that's what happens when you give a swing a name and market it as your own. It DOES look like an invention. And there in lies their conundrum. There aren't trademarks, patents or copyrights on golf swings. Foley can teach what he wants, and he appears to be quite good at it. And the more S&T backers cry about Foley, the more most folks are going to be turned off by S&T.
It has been stated ad nauseum that most people don't have the wrist strength to successfully imitate Hogan and as a result, they "learn" how to slice the golf ball.
There is much to what Hogan had to say, but I still think if you want to imitate a swing, look towards Sam Snead. But, that's my opinion and as Word stated so eloquently above, a lot of good golf is about finding a swing that works for YOU. (Putting is a lot too, witness the older Hogan years.)
If not overdone, S&T has the capability of the swinger staying centered throughout a longer portion of the swing. Less leg action with large muscle emphasis.
Works for me when I have some continuity in playing time/practice.
"others" victimize my scorecard, wnen I don't get out much.
I do have a 'tune up ' pro of national 100 stature that I occasionally get a look from, but long ago , he gave me a couple of 'go to' lessons, so when I get out of whack, it only takes about 1/2 hour to get all well again. .
I say once you have a reasonable, repeating swing, go play golf, learn to score. Life is too short.
digsouth
as to TW, good for him. yawn.
The lessons are cheap because there aren't any, but it is more than made up for in lost balls.
S&T works as well with the driver as with any other club out there. People who say otherwise are doing it incorrectly. Troy Matteson is second in GIR for the year. Garrett Willis is 14th (and was fifth last week), and J.J. Henry is in the top 30 as well. Willis is in the top 10 in driving accuracy and Alex Cejka is 15th. Troy Matteson is around the top 25 in driving distance, too, and JJ is T11 in total driving.
NONE of the players Mike and Andy teach swing alike. S&T is simply a pattern - you can choose to apply as many pieces to a swing as you want. Tiger will not look like Charlie Wi or Troy Matteson or Alex Cejka or Dean Wilson or J.J. Henry - but the pieces he'll get from Foley (inward hand path, steeper shoulders, and perhaps more linear hips) are straight from the S&T pattern. Every good player already has 70% or more of the S&T pattern in their swings already - and that's not because Mike and Andy are trying to take credit for everything, but simply how the pattern came about - by classifying the things expert players did well and the things poorer players didn't do well.
S&T isn't a "one size fits all pattern." Mike and Andy will tell you the same thing. It's a pattern - and it has 10, 20, whatever different pieces. You apply the proper piece to the proper golfer and their swing improves. Remember, MORAD and S&T both stem from The Golfing Machine, which isn't "one swing" but which is literally "every" swing - every pattern can be described with The Golfing Machine. S&T is just a preferred set, a "pattern" of the most efficient motions.
The O, you can't "try it on the range." People who "try it on the range" aren't doing it right. We don't teach people "the S&T swing" when we teach them, we tell them their hands aren't on plane, or their translating off the golf ball, or their weight is not getting far enough forward at impact and that's why they're hitting the ground before the ball, etc. It's not an "all or nothing" approach.
BTW, I agree, Hogan did a lot well. People seem to forget how centered he really was, and how linear his hips were. Hogan's swing is great, and... http://tinyurl.com/25dueca (JPEG image). :-P
Charles, I would guess that fewer than 1% of readers here have anything close to Snead's flexibility and core strength...making it difficult to get in his top of the backswing position and do his "squat" with bowed legs on the downswing...all in a swing that lasts 1.2 seconds. I saw him play in 1981 and he still had those swing features. Copy his rhythm, for sure. But his swing motion? Very hard to do.
I am one of the fortunate ones...@60 I can touch my hands flat to the ground and (seriously) rotate my shoulders almost 180*.......
while I have a flat swing , ala Hogan, I was self taught from the book, I tend to have a slight OTT move, and I was blessed to get a couple of lessons from Harvey Penick years ago, and I specifically asked him for help on OTT: he said , and I'll never forget.....
"What's wrong wth over the top? Sam Snead comes over the top on every swing".
So I concentrate on my grip, grip pressure, and my elbow position , and let it fly.
More thinking than that can get into that Charles B ball hunt mode of play.
BTW, Foley may be announcing firing TW before the back 9 today.
I see TW missing the cut, and serving margaritas at his tournament, along with free Techron samples.
He's burned out, and who can blame him? Sometimes it is best to walk away. No shame in admitting defeat.
digsouth
I never said anything like that. But I will say this: S&T is the first pattern anyone can think of that explains HOW you keep your head still - by standing up and tilting to the left (for a righty) as you rotate on the backswing. Jack Nicklaus tilted left when Jack Grout would grab his hair.
"Andy and Mark" (seriously?) don't act like they've started golf instruction, but they're right when they point out that modern golf instruction has created generations of slicers instead of people who draw the ball. They're right in that they point out that the grip is not a "true fundamental" because people have won majors with all sorts of grips. Etc.
"Generally speaking the more convoluted the method, the less quality competitive golf the teacher played."
I might agree with that... but I'd also point out that S&T is one of the simplest methods out there. I came at golf instruction from a scientific viewpoint, and I really dig the classification work done by Mike and Andy.
It's a massive understatement to say that there continue to be a lot of misconceptions about S&T out there. And yet Tiger will work on things that are straight out of the S&T playbook: hands more in, shoulders steeper, and hips more linear (hopefully)... And he'll get better.
Anyone who has seen Andy's cell phone and the text messages he's gotten from Sean Foley - or seen Sean Foley pestering Mike and Andy on the ranges with video of his students - knows how full of crap he is when he credits them with "5%." Preposterous. Ask Foley about the Charlie Wi drill he showed Tiger during the PGA. That alone is probably more than 5%.
If Golf Digest hadn't saddled Mike and Andy with a name for their pattern, they'd simply be known as the instructors who teach more than anyone else on the PGA Tour. Sean Foley, if he can pull this off, will manage to teach the same stuff without being saddled with the name.
I'm bewildered by the number of tour players that can't seem to admit defeat. Instead they'll all choose to give the same five minute b.s. interview to Kostis and other TV folk. Makes me wanna come at them through that TV screen and give their heads a good shake.
What is the opposite of linear hips? Curvy hips?
The issue at hand is he is stating that he came up with the stuff. Not Homer, Mac, or Mike and Andy.
Thats is the only issue.
Ive seen if for several years now. He only asked one sided questions.
Let's just find out what the 95% is first, and what are the changes for the ( Morad and Stack Patterns)
However at Orange County national, he saw a Mac tape giving a lesson.
I'm speaking up only because there have been people whom have given there lifes work to the organization to the information.
Dana, thanks for reminding everyone of the original topic: that Sean Foley is talking out of his rear. :-)
Thanks.
While we all suffer defeat in a round via a bogie or X, we all get on that horse expecting to birdie the next hole.
The glass IS always half full !
As to Foley/Woodsetc.... Hey TW is his own man, and can do what he wants, but it seems to me that he has had bigger fish to fry than winning a trophy or 2 this year. He needs to forgive himself. I think he's a POS, but my opinion is unimportant.
With that said, I believe in the power of forgiveness and again, TW must be having several revelations a day: things he'll never do again, places he went with his wife, etc....... and to play at a level that he 'expects', may just be a bit of sensory overload.
then you add in the 'swing changes'......he'd probably do better with a Bruce Lietzke approach. Know your shot: make it work. Add it up. Go home.
digsouth
But what do you mean, "you can't try it on the range"? Where else would you try it? The movie theater? The locker room? Certainly not on the course for the first time.