We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Sean Foley Swing

Of foley's students Tiger's swing seems more athletic and Mahan does not. To me any of the big bashers that stay in control look athletic like Woodland, D Johnson. Like Baddely as well.
 
smgoldstein said:
Of foley's students Tiger's swing seems more athletic and Mahan does not. To me any of the big bashers that stay in control look athletic like Woodland, D Johnson. Like Baddely as well.
Click to expand...

Old and new Baddley swing for sure. The "middle" Baddley swing was very unathletic... which is likely why he sucked with that swing. He was trying to keep an athletic/explosive move in a swing that did everything in its power to limit such athleticism and explosion.
 
arydolphin said:
Whether you like or dislike Foley's approach to the swing, this is a very good read from Golf World on him: http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2012-07/gwar-sean-foley-feature?currentPage=1
Click to expand...

That was a good read Amol, I found it enlightening and it has altered my criticism a little bit. I also found it interesting that Tiger asks about specific things and then goes and works on it by himself, he's trying to build his own swing. Chamblee's comments are spot on though about the movement though, he's a tool, but he's dead on there.
 
Nice read, always good to get some retrospective into people's lives that are in the spot light.
Chamblee is a washed up pro that could never make it on tour. Maybe if he had more attention to his swing he might still
be playing. Foley's stable has a nice cluster of wins over the past three or so years.
I think the students are making it more technical then it needs to be. They have the tool and the feel, now go out and play.
 
Tadashi70 said:
Nice read, always good to get some retrospective into people's lives that are in the spot light.
Chamblee is a washed up pro that could never make it on tour. Maybe if he had more attention to his swing he might still
be playing. Foley's stable has a nice cluster of wins over the past three or so years.
I think the students are making it more technical then it needs to be. They have the tool and the feel, now go out and play.
Click to expand...

He turned 50 a month ago and there was some talk on twitter of him playing some Champions Tour events. I'm not sure he has the nads to do it, though, given all the trash he talks about others' swings.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
Tadashi70 said:
Nice read, always good to get some retrospective into people's lives that are in the spot light.
Chamblee is a washed up pro that could never make it on tour. Maybe if he had more attention to his swing he might still
be playing. Foley's stable has a nice cluster of wins over the past three or so years.
I think the students are making it more technical then it needs to be. They have the tool and the feel, now go out and play.
Click to expand...

Im not sure that is fair criticism. I dont always agree with Chamblee, but just because someone cannot make it on tour, does not mean they dont understand the game. Sometimes some of the best out there were not the best players. FWIW, would this make Foley a tool as well, since he could not make it on tour either?
 
Tadashi70 said:
Nice read, always good to get some retrospective into people's lives that are in the spot light.
Chamblee is a washed up pro that could never make it on tour. Maybe if he had more attention to his swing he might still
be playing. Foley's stable has a nice cluster of wins over the past three or so years.
I think the students are making it more technical then it needs to be. They have the tool and the feel, now go out and play.
Click to expand...

I think Chamblee's observation of Tiger's swing is dead on though dude, he may have stunk it up on tour and failed there (or did he?) but what he's saying is true.
 
It is more of the way Chamblee says it. And in my opinion, no one, outside of multiple major winners, should be scrutinizing the worlds best player .

For some reason for me it feels OK when Faldo and to a lesser extent Miller critiques Tiger, but can't stand when Nobilo or Chamblee do it. ... I never hear Ferehity doing it....

tapp tapp tapp tappatalk
 
I thought it was a good article. I don't know enough about the golf swing to really add anything educated, but it was a good read.
 
Zenger said:
It is more of the way Chamblee says it. And in my opinion, no one, outside of multiple major winners, should be scrutinizing the worlds best player .
Click to expand...

Really? I see a couple of things wrong with this.

1. The worlds best player? Arguably ever yes, but hard to make that conclusion as of right now.
2. Only multiple major winners can scrutinize? So Butch Harmon could not, Hank Haney could not, but John Daly could?

I suppose nobody has an issue when an analyst calls him great right? So an analyst without majors can cheerlead, just not critique. No offense, but that makes little sense to me.

I dont agree with a lot of what Chamblee says, but for one to say he is unqualified to do so, because he has not won majors is absurd in my opinion. Just as absurd as saying none of those guys should ever say when he hits a good shot either.
 
JB said:
Really? I see a couple of things wrong with this.

1. The worlds best player? Arguably ever yes, but hard to make that conclusion as of right now.
2. Only multiple major winners can scrutinize? So Butch Harmon could not, Hank Haney could not, but John Daly could?

I suppose nobody has an issue when an analyst calls him great right? So an analyst without majors can cheerlead, just not critique. No offense, but that makes little sense to me.

I dont agree with a lot of what Chamblee says, but for one to say he is unqualified to do so, because he has not won majors is absurd in my opinion. Just as absurd as saying none of those guys should ever say when he hits a good shot either.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I immediately thought of Daly....
 
Wicked Cool Bearded Man said:
Do you think that the second is due to the first? I would say that you have evidence on your side as many have had trouble with the short game. I think visually however, it looks much more athletic than some others who to me look stiff.
Click to expand...

I think that it looks robotic because Foley teaches a lot of positions, on the base that if you hit those positions you'll make a good swing
 
Chambee is a golf analysis. Last time I checked, it was his job to scrutinize players. I don't agree with everything he says, but think he knows a lot about the golf swing.

Sent from my HTC One X
 
Zenger said:
It is more of the way Chamblee says it. And in my opinion, no one, outside of multiple major winners, should be scrutinizing the worlds best player .

For some reason for me it feels OK when Faldo and to a lesser extent Miller critiques Tiger, but can't stand when Nobilo or Chamblee do it. ... I never hear Ferehity doing it....

tapp tapp tapp tappatalk
Click to expand...


I'll absolutely agree that his delivery sucks, but he's more than qualified to comment on a golf swing wether it's Tiger's or Love's, he has a bit of a clue.
 
JB said:
Really? I see a couple of things wrong with this.

1. The worlds best player? Arguably ever yes, but hard to make that conclusion as of right now.
2. Only multiple major winners can scrutinize? So Butch Harmon could not, Hank Haney could not, but John Daly could?

I suppose nobody has an issue when an analyst calls him great right? So an analyst without majors can cheerlead, just not critique. No offense, but that makes little sense to me.

I dont agree with a lot of what Chamblee says, but for one to say he is unqualified to do so, because he has not won majors is absurd in my opinion. Just as absurd as saying none of those guys should ever say when he hits a good shot either.
Click to expand...

The only issue I have with Chamblee is he is a little hard headed at times. I have a hard time listening to critique from any analyst or teacher or player when they can't even get the ball flight laws correct. If you can't tell explain why or how the ball curved the way it did, you're doing a disservice to those listening by not catching up to what's been discovered in the last few years.
 
JB, you had a wicked Foley swing going today.
 
If you had to have 2 majors to criticize the top pros then we would not have the hackers paradise or this thread would we??

I think the Foley method is very technical just like the teacher. Foley has studied all kinds of data and kinthetics to develop his "philosophy" of the golf swing. You see him always using the camara(which is not a bad thing at all) and showing tiger and company different positions he needs to work on he is not saying you need to FEEL this or that.

The thing about golf swings is that no 2 are the same and what works for one doesnt neccesarily work for someone else because of body types, flexibility, size, and natural ability. Also some players are feel players like Sergio Garcia other are very robotic and techinical like a Charles Howell neither is wrong it just depends on the player.

Tiger is very athletic and very technical at the same time. He has the athletic ability to swing whatever "method" he wants and still be successful once his muscle memory is good. He is also very technical and can over anaylize his swing which gets him in trouble. Back in the early 2000's Tiger played his best golf because he was trusting his talent and athletic ability and was only making small feel changes. Now that he is alittle older his body can not handle swinging(the left knee has been injured to many times) that hard and he is now going to a very technical swing that is based on taking some pressure off the knee by getting himself in a "better" position.
 
It will be interesting what happens with Seung-Yul Noh's swing under Foley. With Harmon, his hands came in much higher at impact than at address. Wonder if Foley is going to tinker with that.
 
JB said:
Im not sure that is fair criticism. I dont always agree with Chamblee, but just because someone cannot make it on tour, does not mean they dont understand the game. Sometimes some of the best out there were not the best players. FWIW, would this make Foley a tool as well, since he could not make it on tour either?
Click to expand...

I think Chamblee is a bitter announcer and always have even before the TW critiques. My feeling about his comments on any player would be the same. I don't think he has the chops to make those calls. Now some may disagree and that's fine but I don't agree with all of his assessments and I think he allows personal feelings about a player to get in the way of being objective.
The simple fact of the matters is I just like the guy. He was mentioned in the article and came up in my response. He could have been mentioned in a piece about Adam Scott and it would have garnered the same response from me. It's not about Foley or Woods it's about a guy that used to play, retired and became and announcer.
People don't like Johnny Miller, why? They think he is pompous. That how I feel about BC.
 
I agree about BC. I think I saw Frank Nobilo facepalm a few times while Brandel went on one if his rants.
 
Trout Bum said:
I think Chamblee's observation of Tiger's swing is dead on though dude, he may have stunk it up on tour and failed there (or did he?) but what he's saying is true.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is completely on with TWs swing. He it become mechanical, pre-swing yes but when TW swings the club his angles and speed are right there. I see a very repeatable swing, what I don't see is the same game out of TW. Meaning the creativity that we used to see but as far as his swing, actual swing, it looks good
 
Why wouldn't BC have the right to comment on someone's swing? Do you question announcers in other sports who critique today's athletes without knowing what their accolades are?

Didn't think so.
 
So Foley can teach it, and he's a short, nerdy, purse carrying, never a good player Canadian for God's sake, yet Chamblee can't comment on it? There's something nonsensical aboot that.

Kevin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top