|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 24, 2010 14:09:12 GMT -5
I have received and reviewed Foley's Next generation DVD.
It is very basic and very uncontroversial.
I learnt no new insights because there is nothing revolutionary in his teaching philosophy, and it can best be described as S&T-lite.
It doesn't recommend any controversial S&T move - i) elevating the right hemi-pelvis in the backswing; ii) arch-extending the spine to vertical, or beyond vertical, in the backswing; iii) assertive "butt-tuck-under-spine" pelvic thrust maneuver in the downswing.
I think that it has much more in common with Dan Carraher's teaching than the teaching espoused in the S&T book.
Interestingly, he recommends a rightwards-centralised backswing action for his driver swing, so that the clubhead attack angle can be less downward.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 24, 2010 14:44:29 GMT -5
I have received and reviewed Foley's Next generation DVD. It is very basic and very uncontroversial. I learnt no new insights because there is nothing revolutionary in his teaching philosophy, and it can best be described as S&T-lite. It doesn't recommend any controversial S&T move - i) elevating the right hemi-pelvis in the backswing; ii) arch-extending the spine to vertical, or beyond vertical, in the backswing; iii) assertive "butt-tuck-under-spine" pelvic thrust maneuver in the downswing. I think that it has much more in common with Dan Carraher's teaching than the teaching espoused in the S&T book. Interestingly, he recommends a rightwards-centralised backswing action for his driver swing, so that the clubhead attack angle can be less downward. Jeff. So does David Orr, even with a SnT based pattern he says its a 60 percent weight rear foot on the set up. Thats much different then I have seen from the Golf Evolution teachers.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 27, 2010 21:19:34 GMT -5
Jeff,
How would you compare the backswing and spine tilt motions that Foley describes to those taught by Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer? I assume the disk covered these?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 27, 2010 22:26:53 GMT -5
Greg,;
Foley is very vague - and he doesn't even mention the spine. He vaguely states that he wants to stay centralised and turn his shoulders more steeply. Looking at his personal swing - he is intermediate between a rightwards-centralised backswing action and a vertical centralised backswing action, so he doesn't use any excessive arch-extension maneuver in his swing. He also keeps his right knee flexed and he doesn't deliberately uplift the right pelvis at the end-backswing.
His downswing pelvic motion doesn't include a "butt tuck under the spine" pelvic thrust maneuver, and it is much more rotary.
I plan to write a review paper comparing his swing style to the S&T swing and the traditional swing early next year.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 31, 2010 23:03:50 GMT -5
Jeff,
I guess I am reading this DVD is just mired with mistakes and poorly edited sections......................is it worth any type of critical review?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Dec 31, 2010 23:55:44 GMT -5
Greg, It is not the DVD that deserves a critical review - it the basic idea of a S&T-lite swing style. Unfortunately, Sean Foley did a poor job of describing the details underlying the fundamentals of his swing style choices and a I actually concur with Erik's criticism in the following review. thesandtrap.com/b/training/next_generation_with_sean_foley_dvd_reviewHowever, it is an important swing style that I cannot ignore, because it is a very viable choice for many golfers. Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Dec 31, 2010 23:58:47 GMT -5
But is one left "guessing" what he is trying to say, then having to fill in the blanks with their own guess as to what he means? I have not seen it but thats just the general impression.
Is Iteach SnT lite? I am trying to get a reference since I worked with him for a weekend.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Jan 1, 2011 0:47:46 GMT -5
Greg,
I think that Dan is S&T-lite, but far less lite than SF.
Jeff.
|
|