Mac O'Grady Model Swing

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, Douglas2963 said:

The swing sent of the player 'back on' and the comment saying this person creates as good or better impact position than Mac is an opinion, not based on facts. If I was to give my opinion it would be different but have no interest in going back and forth with opinion.

This site is one place that thrives on discussions of opinions.  The best discussions involve people who can provide specific reasons for their opinions.  To make a claim (yes, something like "Mac is the most efficient") and then to refuse to discuss the claim rationally, isn't really the best way to go about things here.  The folks who have done the research to inform their opinions, the ones who can provide examples and data, those opinions aren't simply ego-driven.  You can still disagree with them, especially if you can provide your own data and examples.  Those are the discussions I find the most entertaining and educational.

[phillyk]

3 hours ago, Douglas2963 said:

Not too interested in going back and forth with anyone on what their opinion is because opinion implies ego.

What's the point then of posting on a forum? The whole point is to discuss things, argue, debate, etc.  What's even better about this site versus others is it's interest in using facts/stats to back up their opinion.  

[NM Golf]

I would like to discuss that the outfit in that video puts to rest the debate here:

Dress Codes are officially good for the game. No one wants to see those shorts on a golf course...ever. Good god. 

Sorry  Let the discussion resume.

[klineka]

4 hours ago, Douglas2963 said:

Not too interested in going back and forth with anyone on what their opinion is because opinion implies ego.

Why are you on a forum then? That's the point of any forum I've ever been a part of.

4 hours ago, Douglas2963 said:

So in saying that and making a comment on what has been put out there, saying that lots of guys create an equally good or better impact position is based on what?  Is it worth a discussion? If so what is your basis for making this assumption. Personally not interested in hearing it

 Then why post about it on a forum?

4 hours ago, Douglas2963 said:

The best players in most cases are not the best ball strikers

This is simply not true. Can you provide evidence to back up this statement?

4 hours ago, Douglas2963 said:

Just put the Mac Model information out there for interest sake.  Read it, take something or nothing from it on not, and understand what he does and why he does it. Good basis for dialogue.  

But you aren't interested in dialogue as you stated numerous times below:

4 hours ago, Douglas2963 said:

Not too interested in going back and forth with anyone on what their opinion is because opinion implies ego.

Personally not interested in hearing it, but may make for a good discussion with others.  

If I was to give my opinion it would be different but have no interest in going back and forth with opinion.

Would just love to disagree with you . Will not however.  Case closed.  

 

So let me make sure I understand this right. You posted a video, made a very detailed and lengthy post that included your opinion like this (even though you implied in a subsequent post that you didn't give your opinion:

On 9/7/2019 at 9:13 AM, Douglas2963 said:

It may be the most efficient way to create optimum compression consistently. 

4 hours ago, Douglas2963 said:

 If I was to give my opinion it would be different but have no interest in going back and forth with opinion. 

but have absolutely no interest in personally discussing the pros/cons of the swing model and actively dismiss anyone who tries to have a discussion or share their opinion??

In other words, you expected to be able to make a post about a swing model you like, share your opinion about it, and have absolutely no interest in hearing anyone else's opinion about the topic.

Edited September 9, 2019 by klineka

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Douglas2963 said:

Enjoy your golf Kevin.  

Why are you here?

FWIW, @mvmac and I likely know far more about Mac than you do.

[Douglas2963]

5 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

This site is one place that thrives on discussions of opinions.  The best discussions involve people who can provide specific reasons for their opinions.  To make a claim (yes, something like "Mac is the most efficient") and then to refuse to discuss the claim rationally, isn't really the best way to go about things here.  The folks who have done the research to inform their opinions, the ones who can provide examples and data, those opinions aren't simply ego-driven.  You can still disagree with them, especially if you can provide your own data and examples.  Those are the discussions I find the most entertaining and educational.

Dave:  Just posted for interest sake.  Did not say Mac was most efficient.  Said he may be. 

Anyway Dave, while going back and forth with self proclaimed experts and arguing with them about who is right and who is wrong could be interesting, I will choose to pass and sign out of your forum.  

The few comments I have read so far are either in attack mode or someone just stroking their own ego. 

Constructive conversations are great, dialogue is great but not the kind of stuff I see on this forum.   

Enjoy, 

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, Douglas2963 said:

The few comments I have read so far are either in attack mode or someone just stroking their own ego. 

You'd be 100% wrong. Again, your angle is for everyone to agree with you or they are attacking. 

 

[DaveP043]

23 minutes ago, Douglas2963 said:

Dave:  Just posted for interest sake.  Did not say Mac was most efficient.  Said he may be. 

Anyway Dave, while going back and forth with self proclaimed experts and arguing with them about who is right and who is wrong could be interesting, I will choose to pass and sign out of your forum.  

The few comments I have read so far are either in attack mode or someone just stroking their own ego. 

Constructive conversations are great, dialogue is great but not the kind of stuff I see on this forum.   

Enjoy, 

You posted a swing video, and followed it with a list of over 75 specific points of interest.  You said Mac MAY be the most efficient swing, and you specifically asked for comments.  Then you declined to discuss anything.

If we're talking about "self-proclaimed" experts, you might fit the description.  I don't know your expertise or your experience, I don't know enough about you to give you a huge amount of credibility.  At least a couple of the guys who responded to your post ARE good instructors, and ARE well versed in swing mechanics, and you've chosen not to interact with them. I am definitely not an expert, so I often enjoy and learn from these discussions. But if you won't interact, there's nothing to be learned from you.  I wish it wasn't so.

As with many golf forums, you can find other threads here about Mac.  If you were to actually look, I believe you'd see there is a definite respect for O'Grady's work changing the understanding of the golf swing, for his innovations in how he studied the swing.  It is certainly reasonable to see the value in his work without putting his golf swing on a pedestal.

 

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, Douglas2963 said:

Constructive conversations are great, dialogue is great but not the kind of stuff I see on this forum.

Riiiiiiiiight. Like this:

8 hours ago, Douglas2963 said:

Not too interested in going back and forth with anyone on what their opinion is because opinion implies ego. Have a low tolerance for ego. Opinions are conclusive and create conflict. Will not tell someone I am right and they are wrong. Now dialogue is different. We are all blocked by pre-conceptions through so many factors.  To be open to the processing of information in a setting where there is no opinion formed is a great basis for learning.
So in saying that and making a comment on what has been put out there, saying that lots of guys create an equally good or better impact position is based on what?  Is it worth a discussion? If so what is your basis for making this assumption. Personally not interested in hearing it, but may make for a good discussion with others.  
The swing sent of the player 'back on' and the comment saying this person creates as good or better impact position than Mac is an opinion, not based on facts. If I was to give my opinion it would be different but have no interest in going back and forth with opinion. There are lots of ways to get the job done and in the end the best 'players' know how to make what they have work. The best players in most cases are not the best ball strikers and as we all know there are so many factors in making up the 'game' than ball striking. Mac would know that as he was not a good putter. Just put the Mac Model information out there for interest sake.  Read it, take something or nothing from it on not, and understand what he does and why he does it. Good basis for dialogue.

That's not - as every response to you pointed out - you being "open to dialog." You specifically state that you're not, and pre-judge a ton of people here who know a TON about Mac as being close-minded and stupid and having egos.

Pfffft. Look in the mirror buddy. The only person with the ego is the only person who isn't interested in a discussion, and he'll be staring back at you from the mirror.

[klineka]

26 minutes ago, Douglas2963 said:

while going back and forth with self proclaimed experts

Not a single person that has commented on this post is a self proclaimed expert. 

Everyone that has commented on this with an opinion likely has stats/facts to support their opinion.

Can you explain how people have been in "attack mode" towards you within this topic?

29 minutes ago, Douglas2963 said:

Constructive conversations are great, dialogue is great but not the kind of stuff I see on this forum.   

Can you mention/link some specific instances you have found on this forum where there hasn't been an attempt at constructive conversation/dialogue? I've been a member of this site for over 2.5 years and it's very rare that there's a topic where there isnt at least some sort of an effort to have constructive dialogue

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, klineka said:

Not a single person that has commented on this post is a self proclaimed expert.

Oh, you know he's keying on this (and badly misreading it, at that):

3 hours ago, iacas said:

FWIW, @mvmac and I likely know far more about Mac than you do.

I say that not as a "self proclaimed" anything, but simply because I know quite a bit, and Mike knows even more, and not many people in the world know much more than Mike and I (and we can name most of them).

Plus, @Douglas2963 denied earlier that Mac had different patterns. I wonder if @Douglas2963 would deny that Mac's patterns, even the CP or CF pattern, has changed over time, and isn't the same in 2019 as it was in 2009 or even 2014 (let alone earlier).

3 minutes ago, klineka said:

Can you explain how people have been in "attack mode" towards you within this topic?

It feels like it means we didn't accept everything he said as the truth straight away.

[Zippo]

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 7:32 PM, mvmac said:

There is no "Mac Model", he has three: CP, CF and Inline.

Sorry, I'm not trying to go off topic but could you explain what you mean by "CP, CF and Inline", please, so that I can learn?

[mvmac]

14 hours ago, Douglas2963 said:

Would just love to disagree with you . Will not however.  Case closed.  

You disagree there is no "Mac Model"? Well you also disagree with Mac, like I said there are CP/CF/Inline patterns.

You can call me self proclaimed but your original post has some errors and is missing some important information.

1 hour ago, Zippo said:

Sorry, I'm not trying to go off topic but could you explain what you mean by "CP, CF and Inline", please, so that I can learn?

CP would be an Inward swing direction (left for a righty), CF would be an Outward swing direction (right for a righty) and Inline would be close to zero swing direction. Each pattern involves components that compliment creating those swing directions.

CP is good for hitting low fades or pulls (steep angle of attack) and CF is good for high draws, off the tee/long irons (shallow angle of attack). Big differences are torso tilts (what Mac might call CoG locations), left arm depth at P3/P5, trail arm location at P6.

Examples: CP = Alex Noren, CF = Rory McIlroy, Inline = Adam Scott

Mike Bender teaches an early version of the CF pattern. Mac tends to favor CP with most students but played CF fades when he played his best. CF is a functional way to play golf, especially with modern equipment, with CP, not so much. 

[saevel25]

6 hours ago, mvmac said:

CF is a functional way to play golf, especially with modern equipment, with CP, not so much. 

Why is CP not as good with modern equipment? Isn’t modern equipment designed to help the steep swinging  slicer? 

[iacas]

51 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Why is CP not as good with modern equipment? Isn’t modern equipment designed to help the steep swinging  slicer? 

It's more to do with the ball spinning a bit less, and the launch and landing angles you generally get with the ball.

Plus, modern Tour players aren't playing the same equipment that the "steep swinging slicer" are playing, so I believe @mvmac meant "(for the tour player) with modern equipment, not so much."

[Zippo]

8 hours ago, mvmac said:

CP would be an Inward swing direction (left for a righty), CF would be an Outward swing direction (right for a righty) and Inline would be close to zero swing direction. Each pattern involves components that compliment creating those swing directions.

CP is good for hitting low fades or pulls (steep angle of attack) and CF is good for high draws, off the tee/long irons (shallow angle of attack). Big differences are torso tilts (what Mac might call CoG locations), left arm depth at P3/P5, trail arm location at P6.

Examples: CP = Alex Noren, CF = Rory McIlroy, Inline = Adam Scott

Mike Bender teaches an early version of the CF pattern. Mac tends to favor CP with most students but played CF fades when he played his best. CF is a functional way to play golf, especially with modern equipment, with CP, not so much. 

Thank you @mvmac. Very informative.

[billchao]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

It's more to do with the ball spinning a bit less, and the launch and landing angles you generally get with the ball.

Plus, modern Tour players aren't playing the same equipment that the "steep swinging slicer" are playing, so I believe @mvmac meant "(for the tour player) with modern equipment, not so much."

CP isn't really a good pattern for the modern driver, right?

[mvmac]

7 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Why is CP not as good with modern equipment? Isn’t modern equipment designed to help the steep swinging  slicer? 

The modern driver is best for launching it high with low spin, modern ball doesn't spin as much as a balata. Going to be giving up a lot of yards (and accuracy) swinging down and across, especially off the tee.

6 hours ago, iacas said:

Plus, modern Tour players aren't playing the same equipment that the "steep swinging slicer" are playing, so I believe @mvmac meant "(for the tour player) with modern equipment, not so much."

Yes.

4 minutes ago, billchao said:

CP isn't really a good pattern for the modern driver, right?

It's horrible.

CP is a complex pattern and a lot players that were able to actually do it lost their ability to play on the course. Noren does a modified CP so he can play golf.