it seems like there is a shift from old school teaching to the new breed of instructors that utilitze all the newest technologies and science of biomechanics to redefine the fundimentals of the golf swing. seems akin with what online poker instruction did.

what do people think of instructors like sean folely, wayne defransesco, etc. compared to butch harmon, leadbetter, hank haney and alike.

it just seems like there is still so much contradicting instruction on the golf swing, and i dont know if it has to do with media influence or politics, but none has become the clear authority on being THE fundimentally sound approach.

several years ago, so called poker pros would advocate betting or raising for information. we now know(through better breed of players and teachers and sites like 2+2) that this approach is fundimentally wrong.

yet alot of golf industry people still seem to dismiss the use of technology and spread blatant misinformation about the golf swing. i.e. golf channel brandel chambelie, johnny miller, all the stupid konica swing vision breakdown b.s. it is so bad sometimes the video clearly shows the opposite of what the announcer is saying.

like poker, golf takes a lifetime to master and one can sure get lost listening to all this noise.

anyone who is listening to Johnny Miller for swing advice is LOL

Technology can help, but cant replace time and repetition, I feel like too many people are too caught up in re-creating tour player swings(that all have flaws btw) and not PLAYING golf.

Oh and not to pick on small stuff but Brandel is very knowledgeable on the swing, weather or not he can teach it is a different story.

tobdog

OP, I may come back and offer more comments later, but I think a lot of what you said is spot on. Technology is changing the way the game is taught, and those that don't adopt it will get left behind. More than ever it is possible to know exactly what is happening in a swing and what causes what to happen.

The new S&T DVD is using technology in a way that I think will soon be commonplace in good instruction. They are using Trackman, force plates, and 3D modeling to explain what is happening in every piece of the swing. Regardless of your thoughts on S&T as a swing, the level of data will be unlike anything that's ever been shown.

No matter where technology goes there will always need to be an art element to teaching. There is a correct mathematical play for every spot in poker (I think??). With golf instruction you will always need to take a players abilities into account and work with what they can and can't do. So while even if somebody does "solve" the golf swing there is no way everyone will be able to do it. Just like everyone can't play perfect poker.

And without going into too much detail (because I can't) a fair amount of what Foley the current god says is wrong. I will not go into detail further so don't ask as it would betray trust between myself and another person...but in my opinion and that persons opinion there are things Foley is flat out wrong about. I like Tiger's action right now and it obviously is way better than it was with Haney, but there are still things Foley has wrong.

Much of the old school teachers and players simply haven't learned enough about the way things really work. Much like (and don't flame if this is a terrible comparison) Doyle Brunson has or had an old school mindset. It has been a long time since I browsed Super System but what I took away from it was "just raise and get them to fold. If that doesn't work, just bet more." While that probably worked in the past I doubt it would work on Ivey or Cates.

Yea I don't really think OP was meaning to talk about how teachers teach, just more what they teach. The understanding of poker theory has indeed come a long long way from even a decade ago and as technology continues to improve our understanding of the golf swing will improve as well.

So in a word. Yes.

almost too much good info around these days. but i do think some of the real basics to an excellent swing can be learnt much more easily on your own these days.

just don't overdo it. i was comapring all kinds of chipping and pitching advice until i simplified to basically hit down on the ball and a few other very basic thoughts.

one old guy who explains things extremely well is raymond floyd FWIW

I agree that some people might have physical limitations which prohibit them from executing a fundimentally sound swing. and for them, perhaps a quick fix might allow for them a more enjoyable round.

however, for others who are physically capable or even somewhat athletic, i feel like we should be striving to reach our maximum output with our swing. to me it seems like modern technology and science are revealing what sequence of actions the body must execute in order to generate the maximum force of a rotary motion----> to smash a white ball.

and this information seems to dispel a lot of the old theories and swing techniques.

on the flip side... jim furyk.

with talent any swing can get the job done. however there's a reason why jim furyk will never be top 10% driving distance but a mcilroy who is much shorter and not much more built will always bomb it by jim. more fundimentally sound swing.

i guess my main point is that, i hope with the advantages of modern technology that golf instruction goes through a revelation much like that of poker.

golf is hard enough, all the garbage info out there just makes it that much harder.

basically this.

its funny when some of those old school golf pros mock instruction through video, flight monitors and other technology in favor of a "feel" approach.

reminds me of somthing like the "old school poker pros" mocking internet pros with their hud/s and poker stoves. lol

just because you know how to swing a golf club doesnt mean you know whats going on when you swing a golf club

maybe its just me, but i see him contradict himself often.

Brandel definitely acts like he knows a lot about the golf swing but I contend there is way too much evidence showing that he's simply not very knowledgeable. Like many in an authoritative position, he is taken at his word in many cases.

Which leads me to my next point. I know this is just a internet golf discussion forum, and it maybe doesn't really matter, but it's important for you to remember that a lot of people on here take what you say as gospel. This is similar to how thousands watching Johnny Miller assume everything he says must be correct because he's on TV and used to be really good at golf.

It's not fair to the people on this forum or to Foley for you to make such a blanket statement without any sort of facts or real argument or evidence. Whether or not Foley is wrong is of very little importance. What matters is that many people view your OPINIONS as FACT and refusing to discuss your opinions or support your arguments whether or not you have a good reason is simply bashing an instructor.

The exact same thing goes for dagolfdoc who recently posted about how well Brandel came off in a facebook argument and how impressed he was with him. Despite me asking him to support his claim with a post and two PMs he has yet to say anything.

Back in the day when I used to make poker instructional videos I was extremely critical of the information dispelled by other video instructors. While this made me relatively unpopular with management, I felt and still feel that people in a position of authority need to be very careful about voicing their opinions without evidence to support it or the ability to explain themselves more thoroughly when questioned.

Granted, the opinions of ship and/or dagolfdoc on a small internet forum is a bit different than paying for poker instruction but I think the principle is the same. It's not that you can't say Foley is wrong or Brandel was impressive and then provide no support, it's just important that you realize that many of your "fans" will automatically agree.

In some cases, I feel that is exactly what the authority figure wants.

Agree jk3a, I'm always very skeptical and very rarely take what someone says as a fact without some proof or argument to back up their position. People are full of it way to often and just rattle off nonsense. Not saying that is what ship is doing but it is pretty crappy to bring up something like "a lot of what Foley says is wrong" without being able to go into more detail.

Yes, agreed, Brandel is a joke. Only argument you can make for him is that talking about the swing in 15 second increments is really hard, and doing it in a way to drive ratings is even harder. But then you have things like his Playing Lessons episode with Romo where he just was flat wrong about some major things.

Wholeheartedly agree with this. Not sure why ship would be hesitant to share what his instructor thinks. It's so unlikely it's a unique perspective anyway; not to mention that there is plenty of criticism of Foley today from the progressive teaching crowd.

Your Boss, any links to people discussing Foley's teaching? Would just like to see what people agree/disagree with. I obviously don't have any inside knowledge or much insight in general as to what Foley's exact swing philosophy is, I can only see what his students do and make assumptions based on how they are swinging the club.

When I look at Tiger and Mahan I see a lot of good stuff and there appears(especially in Tiger) to be a big TrackMan presence. I think I saw a quote from Foley after Bay Hill where he talked about how it was just a matter of time before you saw these results when you pair Tiger with the science behind the swing. I certainly don't see anything that I would consider flat out "wrong" so wish Ship could expand.

NXT, if you just search for "Foley wrong" on wrx you will get some threads. It's tough over there because you get a lot of filler from people, but there are some posters who are really really knowledgeable and have questioned some of the things Foley was working on with TW. It's not like there is a single thread I can point you to, it's just random comments within threads discussing TW.

The Trackman issue is interesting. If you believe what you read, Foley had no idea about Trackman until after he started working with TW, but now uses it heavily.

ETA: This thread has some good stuff mixed in with the garbage.

Rory not much more built than Furyk??? You should adjust the settings on your TV.
Actually I hadn’t really thought of myself as a figure that most would just listen to about the golf swing. I have been quite clear that I am not a teaching pro and often deflect swing questions to NXT or golf doc who I know have a much greater understanding of not only the swing, but how to convey thoughts accurately. That is the main reason I rarely, if ever, comment in the “help my swing” threads. If there is something glaringly obvious that I feel like I can get my point across quickly on I do but otherwise I stay out of those threads. Listen to me on how to play the game yes, but not how to swing. So I will be more careful of things I say I guess.

Which leads me to my next point….the reason I said anything at all about Foley was for the exact same reason you said I should be careful. I just wanted guys here to recognize that just because Tiger and Mahan are having success that does not mean that every single thing that comes out of Foley’s mouth is 100% accurate. I didn’t want people here to think that what he says is fact just like you say people think that everything I say is fact. I hesitated when I posted about Foley since I knew this would happen, but I didn’t think that my saying that would be that big of a deal or shocker. The reason I said I won’t go into it further is because unlike most people I have used my real name and names of my friends. Some of which have worked with Foley and thus my knowledge of what I believe to be flawed. If my buddy wants to come on here and discuss his views he can, but his views are his work product and even though people don’t think there is much new information out there I can also assure you that is wrong. Some guys (my buddy has a masters in biomechanics and is real smarts) have dedicated themselves to truly trying to learn what is correct in the golf swing and not just how to make money like a Haney. So for me to divulge his information would be wrong (ldo) and thus I am not going to do it..

I will say that I shouldn’t have said what I did I guess, but putting Foley down really wasn’t my goal. It was to let guys know to be skeptical of almost everything in life and do your own research. I felt the need to say that because I saw a guy on the range on Tuesday doing the Tiger peel it left rehearsal on the range and that **** just cracks me up. Same goes with the left leg snap back that tilts me so much.


Agree with all of this. But as above the point of my comment was more to…well, you know.

Because my buddy has spent 10’s of thousands on his education and thousands of hours in the lab refining his ideas. In my opinion you will know them soon and it is not my position to harm his business. I do think his perspective is unique and I have NEVER heard some of his thoughts and ideas anywhere else. He is a ****ing stud.

There are some pretty hilarious posts in that thread.

Ship, do you believe that there is some method out there that is the absolute best biomechanical way to swing? Just curious, I don't know anything about instruction, have never talked to a teacher, have never even had a single golf lesson in my life

it definately seems like half of what brandel says is to drive up ratings. either that or he really has something against tiger and foley.

i remember for a while him and miller were very critical of tigers head movement. saying his swing issues were steming from his head moving vertically too much. they kept saying the head needs to stay stationary.
then the guy in that facebook agruement shows various swing footages of brandel, miller, even hogan lowering their heads during the swing. now brandel says some head lower is ok.

Not sure if this should go here or the TW thread, but new video of Wayne D tearing Johnny apart. So awesome when he uses their own footage.

I really don't know because every person has their own unique abilities. I would say that for each person there is a perfect way to swing the club and I highly doubt there is one perfect way for everyone.

But that is pure conjecture.

I honestly have no idea how you could harm his business by saying what he thinks is generally wrong with what Foley teaches. To be honest whatever he thinks is wrong with Foley is probably over the heads of 99.9% of people here, including myself. It has to be relatively technical, I assume it's not something as simple as pitch vs punch elbow or even simpler like centered pivots.

And I think the paranoia that because people know your name that your criticism of Foley's method will get back to him and....what?

I love reading about golf swings. If someone says "hey TW hands are too in at P3 causing this issue blah blah blah" and they know what they are talking about that's interesting.

jim furyk is 6'2" and 185 lbs.

well when rory first came out he was definately more pudgy and couldnt have weighed more that a buck 60. even then he was bombing it by furyk.

im not bashing furyk. i love guys with unorthodox swings that make it work. my point was, maybe furyk, with his tall and wiry frame, would be able smash the ball alot farther with a more fundimentally sound swing.

what else explains a much shorter, pudgy framed 19 yr old kid smashing it 40 yds by him. he's generating much more club head speed through his delivery which leads one to believe his action is better.

I completely agree that Jim would hit it further if he had a better swing, but he probably wouldn't hit it as straight. I was more just pointing out that Rory is in way better shape than Furyk. Size is not what makes you hit it far, timing and mechanics are...I think that is the point you are making and I clearly agree with you. Then when you combine good mechanics with size you get Gary Woodland.

this is what i was alluding to. im not keen on foley's teachings and philosophy. however i do believe more of the modern day instructors are (correctly in my opinion) utilizing the science behind physical motion in order to properly acheive the maximum output of energy in a golf swing. i feel like this topic wasnt even in the conversation a few years ago.

this newly revealed information also seems to dispel alot of older swing thoughts that have become institutionalized as fundimentals.

as much as each player can have different swing paths and overall appearence, one cannot refute the science of biomechanics and such. these are more of the fundimentals im talking about.

i.e. the swing is a rotary motion and like a boxer's punch you aquire power from the ground up. a topic like this is so crucial but i hardly hear it talked about. on tv at least.