Mac O'Grady Swings

[Yff Theos]

1 hour ago, billchao said:

My point is you don't need to swing like Mac to play golf well.

If anything, an ordinary golfer is going to have a harder time learning and maintaining the more complex movements of a CP swing, IMO.

Yes, you don't. Golf is the game of scoring, not the contest for pretty swings. I am in awe with Mac's swing not only because it looks pretty but mainly because it seems to a be very well organized human motion, so to speak. I really do not know what to respond to such statements; I simply want to discuss his swing and philosophy. It is the second forum that I see problems with it, I am not sure why.

CP swing might be more complex overall but, if a golfer has already a decent pivot it is not that hard to go CPish in a general sense. According to my experiences, it is much more profitable for a student to learn how to pivot well even if it takes more time than necessary.

[Lihu]

16 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, you don't. Golf is the game of scoring, not the contest for pretty swings. I am in awe with Mac's swing not only because it looks pretty but mainly because it seems to a be very well organized human motion, so to speak. I really do not know what to respond to such statements; I simply want to discuss his swing and philosophy. It is the second forum that I see problems with it, I am not sure why.

CP swing might be more complex overall but, if a golfer has already a decent pivot it is not that hard to go CPish in a general sense. According to my experiences, it is much more profitable for a student to learn how to pivot well even if it takes more time than necessary.

Actually, you're in the right place to discuss his swing, but making generalizations from discussing his swing might be the main reason for a lot of contention? Everyone here seems to be saying that it might have worked for him, but not likely to work for other people?

I have no idea because all the terminology and acronyms are meaningless to me.

 

 

I'm a lurker on that other forum where you somehow got banned? I have no idea how someone posting like you managed to do that on that other forum? I couldn't find any of the posts you made where you could possibly get banned from it? I can only guess that the discussions likely got a little bit heated?

You seem pretty level headed, but obviously rubbed some people there the wrong way?

[Yff Theos]

30 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Actually, you're in the right place to discuss his swing, but making generalizations from discussing his swing might be the main reason for a lot of contention? Everyone here seems to be saying that it might have worked for him, but not likely to work for other people?

I never negated that. Until now, I said that IN MY HONEST OPINION his swing contains elements that could make learning swing easier. I said that a proper takeaway is important. I said that having #3 Accumulator Angle (the angle between the shaft anf the left forearm) is important. In the future most probably I shall say that closed feet stance at address is important. I shall say that having a sweep motion procedure (gradually increasing angles) is important. Etc, etc.

I did not say that I am Mac O'Grady. I did not say I want to swing exactly as him. I did not say copying his swing is the cure for all problems. But certainly its analysis can help many.

I say that his swing is better than all swings I have ever seen in some key aspects. I do not say that he was the best golfer ever.

Hope everything is clearer now.

[Lihu]

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

I never negated that. Until now, I said that IN MY HONEST OPINION his swing contains elements that could make learning swing easier. I said that a proper takeaway is important. I said that having #3 Accumulator Angle (the angle between the shaft anf the left forearm) is important. In the future most probably I shall say that closed feet stance at address is important. I shall say that having a sweep motion procedure (gradually increasing angles) is important. Etc, etc.

I did not say that I am Mac O'Grady. I did not say I want to swing exactly as him. I did not say copying his swing is the cure for all problems. But certainly its analysis can help many.

I say that his swing is better than all swings I have ever seen in some key aspects. I do not say that he was the best golfer ever.

Hope everything is clearer now.

Well, the parts that don't need translation are perfectly clear.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Look, Ogrady failed q school what sixteen times?

I've never tried to qualify (I wouldn't make it), and yet I know more about the golf swing than probably every player on the PGA Tour, so…

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

As an outsider I look at his swing and go yes pretty geometry.  I have to question the results under pressure.

He would probably tell you his failings as a player are what spurred him into learning as much about the swing as he could, in his way. So you've got it backward, in a way.

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

It goes TGM to Morad to S and T and then there's the copycat S and T people like Foley was.

No. On many levels.

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

All this crew was talking about once Tiger got this Morad offshoot stuff he was gonna be unbeatable about 6-8 years ago. Member?

No. But this is nowhere near the first time you've made shit up like that.

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

I remember all the big talk when Plummer and Bennet came out.  Basically that was all Morad.  If it was better it would have taken off instead of dying out imo.

No, it wasn't "basically all MORAD."

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Its a belief that if you have a certain geometry your skill will increase which is mistaken.

That's also "bad info" on many levels. Of course certain geometries will lead to better golf. You can't play great golf with your shaft leaning backward at impact through the set, and so getting the shaft leaning forward through impact when the ball is on the ground is almost always going to lead to better golf.

[Patch]

I don't have a dog in this discussion, but I do have a question. Are any modern day swing instructors teaching anything that is "very" simular to what those those two old timers,  de la Torre, and Earnest Jones taught? 

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, Patch said:

I don't have a dog in this discussion, but I do have a question. Are any modern day swing instructors teaching anything that is "very" simular to what those those two old timers,  de la Torre, and Earnest Jones taught? 

Yes, but @Patch, as you know, that's not really the topic here.

Feel free to start another topic. I'm sure @Jack Watson would enjoy talking about Ernie again.

[Yff Theos]

Back on the right track and to Mac's swing. I wonder what is your opinion of his backswing that relies on gradual increasing of the angle between left arm and the shaft (from 30 deg at setup through 45 at A2 and to 90 deg at A3) *. It corresponds to the difference between full sweep and snap loading in TGM (10-22.A vs. C). McCord says that this is the most safe way to load, the more there is not a big difference in angles between A3 and A4 and practically only the shoulder girdle move everything. Assuming that the first part of the downswing (between A4 and A5) it is also the shoulders that move everything all is rationally organized. Imo, there is another advantage: the hit impulse at the top does not exist. The only disadvantage I can see is that snap loading procedure + float loading may (MAY !) bring higher swing speed at the bottom. Unfortunately, I have no possibilities to confirm that statement empirically.

Please discuss.

 

* in fact, it is decreasement of the angle from 180-30 = 150 deg at A1, 180-45 = 135 deg at A2 and 180-90 = 90 deg at A3); when arm is in line with shaft the angle is 180 deg

[colin007]

@Lihu cf=centrifugal release, cp=centripetal release

@mvmac Dustin Johnson has an early wrist set no? Imho prolly a lock to be hall of fame.

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, colin007 said:

@Lihu cf=centrifugal release, cp=centripetal release

Thanks, now, what's the difference? Other than the force vector direction that is?

 

[colin007]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Thanks, now, what's the difference? Other than the force vector direction that is?

 

If I have it right, mainly cp is feeling like swinging left by turning the body, arms more connected to body, and cf is letting the arms come off a bit and throwing the arms sending the path out to the right.

Edited November 22, 2017 by colin007
Spelling

[Lihu]

45 minutes ago, colin007 said:

If I have it right, mainly cp is feeling like swinging left by turning the body, arms more connected to body, and cf is letting the arms come off a bit and throwing the arms sending the path out to the right.

Thanks.

Just to see if I understand it, here’s what I think it means in a personal example? Seems like I’m more of a CP swinger now. Took forever to get there, and now I’m trying to put CF back into my Swing with my trailing arm accumulator? I’m trying to put some extra Swing into the arms through impact, probably got all the terminology messed up.

[Jack Watson]

I seem to remember it having to do with the baseline of the plane and also lead arm orientation.

Thing is angular momentum is the most important thing not cp cf.

[Lihu]

36 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

I seem to remember it having to do with the baseline of the plane and also lead arm orientation.

Thing is angular momentum is the most important thing not cp cf.

Momentum or just the velocity at impact? Does a more massive arm have an advantage over a less massive arm for example?

[mchepp]

19 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Back on the right track and to Mac's swing. I wonder what is your opinion of his backswing that relies on gradual increasing of the angle between left arm and the shaft (from 30 deg at setup through 45 at A2 and to 90 deg at A3) *. It corresponds to the difference between full sweep and snap loading in TGM (10-22.A vs. C). McCord says that this is the most safe way to load, the more there is not a big difference in angles between A3 and A4 and practically only the shoulder girdle move everything. Assuming that the first part of the downswing (between A4 and A5) it is also the shoulders that move everything all is rationally organized. Imo, there is another advantage: the hit impulse at the top does not exist. The only disadvantage I can see is that snap loading procedure + float loading may (MAY !) bring higher swing speed at the bottom. Unfortunately, I have no possibilities to confirm that statement empirically.

Please discuss.

 

* in fact, it is decreasement of the angle from 180-30 = 150 deg at A1, 180-45 = 135 deg at A2 and 180-90 = 90 deg at A3); when arm is in line with shaft the angle is 180 deg

In my opinion there are about 5-7 people on here who can "discuss" this with you and the 2 most qualified @iacas and @mvmac have already told you they think they like some of the basics Mac had but have moved on to what they consider better information.

One thing I will add. Mac has been discussed on golf forums for what I would say is about 10 years now. Dana's old forum, Richie3Jacks forum, WRX, and I am sure a few others and the conclusions are all the same. Outstanding understanding of the golf swing using the tools of that time, but (and it is a BIG but) the information was so locked away it only came out in fragmented bits and therefore was rarely helpful. Then everyone started arguing that your random bit was old and someone went to a school recently and heard Mac changed it and that bit was all wrong. And then that teacher would be kicked out by Mac and the vicious cycle would often degrade to name calling. So I think everyone who knows something about MORAD has lost interest in debating a moving target when more interesting stuff has emerged.

One thing you and I can agree on is that there are some beautiful MORAD swings. 

 

[Yff Theos]

6 hours ago, mchepp said:

In my opinion there are about 5-7 people on here who can "discuss" this with you and the 2 most qualified @iacas and @mvmac have already told you they think they like some of the basics Mac had but have moved on to what they consider better information.

OK, that is why I want to discuss it. If someone can argue that this is not the best way AND BRING ARGUMENTS TO SUPPORT IT I am all ears.
 

6 hours ago, mchepp said:

ne thing I will add. Mac has been discussed on golf forums for what I would say is about 10 years now. Dana's old forum, Richie3Jacks forum, WRX, and I am sure a few others and the conclusions are all the same. Outstanding understanding of the golf swing using the tools of that time, but (and it is a BIG but) the information was so locked away it only came out in fragmented bits and therefore was rarely helpful. Then everyone started arguing that your random bit was old and someone went to a school recently and heard Mac changed it and that bit was all wrong. And then that teacher would be kicked out by Mac and the vicious cycle would often degrade to name calling. So I think everyone who knows something about MORAD has lost interest in debating a moving target when more interesting stuff has emerged.

Well, I hear you and I was told similar opinions on the other forum. I decided then not to look for an exact MORAD discussion, so to speak, but to discuss Mac's swing on the base of publicly available sources, such as McCord vids. I like to discuss the swing with everyone, not only literallists.

 

6 hours ago, mchepp said:

One thing you and I can agree on is that there are some beautiful MORAD swings. 

Yes, there are.

[Mr. Desmond]

^^^

The best argument against Mac is Mac himself. He is constantly changing his theories and practices. Hardly anyone knows what he's working on except the few pros that he hasn't kicked out of his group. Mac is supposedly bipolar, so the temper and mood flares.

[Jack Watson]

@Yff Theos

The argument I am making is that there is no 'best way'

Theres ways that match individual tendencies/swings better or worse but really that's about it.  

Over the years many many golfers fell in love with Hogan/Snead.  Mac obviously did.  Not one duplicated their swings or results.  

A good golf swing can have many different geometrical relationships at various points.  These variations in kinematics do not correlate to ability in a 1-1 ratio though.

So my argument is that your perspective is flawed.