Mac O'Grady Swings

[Phil McGleno]

@Yff Theos-I do not think you know very much about Mac, and you are only sticking around because deep down you know that people here know more than you and you can learn from them-But you are so stubborn that you can not get past that.

What Mac did from P1 to P2 has almost no relevance on what happens through the rest of the golf swing.

And if you are trying to use Mac as a means of teaching average players, then HA HA HA HA. That is a horrible idea-And you will not give many lessons after awhile because of it.

3 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

I have been issued another warning, hell knows why. What I know, especially after your answer, iacas, that I do not want to argue with kids. I can answer your above points WITH EASE, but it would provoke another "warning" ROFL.

It seems to me you are issued warnings for repeatedly saying off topic shit and continuing to talk about stuff that has nothing to do with Mac and his theories.-Like that post right there that I quoted.

Put me in the-I bet you can not answer those points WITH EASE-camp.

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

P.S. There was a post about Mac's ballstriking (thus, on topic) after mine that contained no taboo words or anything wrong, yet, it has been removed, Congratulations, your forum have just reached the status of worse than wrx. Go to hell.

Uh, I saw the post, and I still see the post. It is off topic so it is not in this thread-but it is elsewhere on the site.

Do you realize how many times TODAY you have been wrong about this stuff.

[virtuoso]

Yffer, are you more interested in late Mac or early Mac? I enjoy decoding his early swings—around 86 to 90. I’ve learned quite a bit about my own swing by studying that action.

[mvmac]

Ok here is my attempt to ignore the BS and get the thread back on topic. Just discussing Mac's swing and his preferences.

15 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

The swing looks good. To my eye it lacks a better left side extension between p5 and p9 but it is only my opinion.

Thanks, yes I agree on your take.

5 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

p1-p2: outside takeaway with closed feet

Per Mac the club is either on the hands for CP or slightly in for CF.

Also the "closed stance" is only slightly closed, a couple inches.

5 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

p2-p3: hinged wrists to approx. 90 deg.

He likes about 100-110 at P3 caddy view. 

5 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

p4: laid off look

Be careful with that. He's about as "on plane" as you'll find. Shaft traces the baseline.

---

Vintage Mac swing here. Low hands, club slightly inside the hands at 2 and then a slight shift out on the downswing. Mac liked the low hands because he felt it helped him not get too far in and under with the early set/fold to 2. Radius Lock  Also @Yff Theos notice how the stance is square.

 

[mchepp]

Excellent post @mvmac. I would like to know about these often misunderstood additional pressure points. One near the armpit and one in the right ankle? I've heard about them but not seen any details. Are they imaginary? Do they actually mean anything?

Last question (for now) was or is there any component of counterfall (or named something else by him) that is a part of a CP swing?

[Yff Theos]

14 hours ago, Phil McGleno said:

@Yff Theos-I do not think you know very much about Mac, and you are only sticking around because deep down you know that people here know more than you and you can learn from them-But you are so stubborn that you can not get past that.

You see, my posts containing ad-hominem remarks (for which I want to apologize, it should not have happened) were moved somewhere else as off-topic ones, then locked (!) so that I could not answer them or edit them. Your one stays here which is kind of proof of hypocrisy and uneven treatment of posters here.

But yes, I came here to get to know Mac's ideas better and I do like to learn from wiser people than me. Yes, I admit I can be stubborn but it does not mean I am a shit-stirrer or a troll. I simply have not been convinced in some points and that is why I am reverting to them.

P.S. Choosing that forum name does not make you either an all-knowing guru or an oracle, by the way.

 

10 hours ago, virtuoso said:

Yffer, are you more interested in late Mac or early Mac? I enjoy decoding his early swings—around 86 to 90. I’ve learned quite a bit about my own swing by studying that action.

Late Mac. I think it is easier to teach and perform the principles of the late Mac pattern (especially CF as Mvmac pointed out and I tend to agree to this now although I prefer visually CP one).

 

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

Per Mac the club is either on the hands for CP or slightly in for CF.

Also the "closed stance" is only slightly closed, a couple inches.

OK, I will pay attention and will verify it these days. By the way, do you agree with me now that the late Mac feet stance was closed in almost all cases? And if yes, don't you think the parallel (not level, thanks again Iacas) knees idea is the culprit for this?

 

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

He likes about 100-110 at P3 caddy view. 

Hmm...I thought (as per McCord video) that p3 is 90 degrees while it could reach 100-110 at p4 because of momentum.

 

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

Be careful with that. He's about as "on plane" as you'll find. Shaft traces the baseline.

OK, will verify this these days.

 

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

Vintage Mac swing here. Low hands, club slightly inside the hands at 2 and then a slight shift out on the downswing. Mac liked the low hands because he felt it helped him not get too far in and under with the early set/fold to 2. Radius Lock  Also @Yff Theos notice how the stance is square.

Thanks for posting this. I guess Virtuoso will be satisfied. I thought the takeaway should be a bit outside due to the early set and low hands, but it appears it is being used a s a prevention for sucking the club inside. Interesting.

Yes, I saw some early Mac vids where his feet are parallel, not closed. Obviously he changed his mind later on.

[Yff Theos]

@iacas

I will concentrate on merits only. So these are some pic I have prepared:

This is what I defined as "outside". In closer look thopugh it is outside the feet line (which is closed to the target) but in reality it is not outside the target line. I can be wrong in this.

 

 

Isn't it laid-off ? if not: what is the antonym for accross-the-line ? Perhaps I am stuck with wrong definitions.

A very good question of yours is: " How do you shallow the "clubface"? Can you shallow the clubface without and not shallow the shaft? And if you meant "shaft" there, as you probably should have… why are you shallowing from an already "laid off look"? If you shallow from an already laid off position, now you're way under plane, and you only have from 6-7 to get back on plane (or slightly over top of it as Mac often liked).

I have thought it over and I agree to you. I was wrong here, you are right.

 

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

You see, my posts containing ad-hominem remarks (for which I want to apologize, it should not have happened) were moved somewhere else as off-topic ones, then locked (!) so that I could not answer them or edit them. Your one stays here which is kind of proof of hypocrisy and uneven treatment of posters here.

Several points of clarification:

• That post wasn't ad-hominem. He said you don't know much about Mac stuff. You don't.
• Locking a topic has no effect on the normal time lengths for editing. And of course the OT topic was locked.
• Hypocrisy: @Phil McGleno did not behave like a huge jerk. You did. His post contained on-topic material. Yours contained bickering and misunderstanding.

That out of the way…

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

But yes, I came here to get to know Mac's ideas better and I do like to learn from wiser people than me. Yes, I admit I can be stubborn but it does not mean I am a shit-stirrer or a troll. I simply have not been convinced in some points and that is why I am reverting to them.

You appear to have no actual basis to even decide whether to reject or accept a statement.

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

Late Mac. I think it is easier to teach and perform the principles of the late Mac pattern (especially CF as Mvmac pointed out and I tend to agree to this now although I prefer visually CP one).

Late Mac focuses much more on CP than CF, AFAIK.

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

OK, I will pay attention and will verify it these days. By the way, do you agree with me now that the late Mac feet stance was closed in almost all cases? And if yes, don't you think the parallel (not level, thanks again Iacas) knees idea is the culprit for this?

It is not. You were told why he ultimately prefers to have a "closed" stance with his feet. Perhaps you mistakenly used your faulty rubric to reject the idea.

The stance helped shift the baseline right. It's particularly helpful when he goes CP so he can swing left with everything and still hit the ball without much curve, and particularly with the driver so he can hit up a little.

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

Hmm...I thought (as per McCord video) that p3 is 90 degrees while it could reach 100-110 at p4 because of momentum.

If you want to learn "Late Mac" then you shouldn't really ever utter the words "Gary McCord" again. McCord, AFAIK, was out a long, long time ago.

And once again, I'll remind you that whether a player is at 90° or 110° at A3… who cares? Were these players poor because they weren't hitting those numbers?

You're wasting your time and training yourself to be a poor instructor by chasing this stuff.

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, I saw some early Mac vids where his feet are parallel, not closed. Obviously he changed his mind later on.

Yep. As he often did, sometimes for no real reason. Which, again… makes him a poor model.

33 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

So these are some pic I have prepared:

Horrible picture. Camera's maybe at the golf ball, possibly outside of even that. No real idea if his feet are closed or if so, how much.

Useless for verifying the things you're apparently trying to use it for. Clubhead of course will appear well inside his hands from that angle, even if it's slightly outside.

I see you chose to ignore these.

17 hours ago, iacas said:

Define "outside"? I don't see that here. Heck, he's inside his "closed feet," no?

Why? Just asking. Clubhead is well inside the hands there.

33 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Isn't it laid-off ? if not: what is the antonym for accross-the-line ? Perhaps I am stuck with wrong definitions.

@mvmac answered this too… except at about A3 and around A5, when the shaft is perpendicular to the ground (FO view), you can't really draw those lines because you've compressed three dimensions into two.

You have no idea where the shaft is pointing in that view. For all you know it's just inside the baseline, which would be slightly across the line.

"The plane" is where the shaft is either pointing at the baseline of the plane or parallel to it (as at A2, for example) and "laid off" is anything that puts the sweet spot beneath that plane near the top of the backswing, while "across the line" is anything that puts the sweet spot on top of that line near the top of the backswing.

If a golf shaft doesn't get to horizontal at A4, it SHOULD appear in two dimensions to be pointing to the left (for a righty, from DL).

Basic geometry.

14 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

A very good question of yours is: " How do you shallow the "clubface"?

The point there with that first sentence was that one does not shallow the "clubface." One shallows the shaft, to which the clubface is attached. If you're going to talk about Mac stuff, typing the proper things is going to be important.

14 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Can you shallow the clubface without and not shallow the shaft? And if you meant "shaft" there, as you probably should have… why are you shallowing from an already "laid off look"? If you shallow from an already laid off position, now you're way under plane, and you only have from 6-7 to get back on plane (or slightly over top of it as Mac often liked).

I have thought it over and I agree to you. I was wrong here, you are right.

Yeah, so, what does that do to the rest of what you thought?

17 hours ago, iacas said:

And ultimately, @Yff Theos… who cares about all those checkpoints? Thousands of PGA Tour pros have had far more success than Mac while doing very, very few of those things.

That still matters, AFAIK. You can dodge the question all you like, but studying Mac as a shortcut to training golfers, particularly beginners, will make you a terrible instructor. A cookie cutter guy of the worst ilk.

You didn't come on here to say "hey, look, the guy's a kook but I think he had some good ideas, and I'm a wealthy dentist who just likes to research Mac stuff as a sort of hobby, so can we talk about him for awhile?" You came on to say "I want to teach people to play golf and I want to teach them using Mac as my model, even though that model has changed over the years."

[mvmac]

12 hours ago, mchepp said:

One near the armpit and one in the right ankle? I've heard about them but not seen any details. Are they imaginary? Do they actually mean anything?

There is one in the trail arm pit, PP#5 and then there are two other pressure points in the trail arm, sub-pressure points. I've said this before but I think a better term would be "contact" points than pressure points.

There are many, many other pressure points. In the feet, in the hands. The one in the ankle would be for what he wants post impact and into the followthrough.

Are they important? Some are (grip), some are reactionary, and some are for style.

13 hours ago, mchepp said:

Last question (for now) was or is there any component of counterfall (or named something else by him) that is a part of a CP swing?

Leaning Tower of Pisa move from 3.5-4.5. Late extension of the thoracic, COGs lined up and everything moves forward and left. COGs move down as they move forward. Left side stays lower as you "turn the corner". 

To me all the good MORAD swings looked like they get "taller" at the end of the backswing. They kind of stay in flexion on the takeaway and then kick in the extension and use that to "fall" forward and then spring back up again.

6 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

By the way, do you agree with me now that the late Mac feet stance was closed in almost all cases? And if yes, don't you think the parallel (not level, thanks again Iacas) knees idea is the culprit for this?

Yes that right foot is pulled back a few inches in most recent swings, even the lefty swings. (More below)

Having said that he also sent me this swing where the feet aren't closed. The reason this is out there even though I asked people not to post publicly is that I shared these swings with a few guys in exchange for other Mac swings or school videos.

I've never heard of the parallel knees idea. Mac is doing it to set the baseline right so when he swings "out and over" on the downswing he's not completely wiping across it. Left arm location at 5 is very different with CP compared to CF.

Why would he change it as he got older? Do you think he swung faster in his 30's than in his 50's and 60's? Of course he did. He also broke his arm, never took it in to get set properly, and now he can no longer straighten it. Setting the stance a little closed is him figuring out how to go CP with a slower swing and a trail arm that can't transverse adduct the way he needs it.

6 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Hmm...I thought (as per McCord video) that p3 is 90 degrees while it could reach 100-110 at p4 because of momentum.

Couple things.

Those videos are old information, old even for Mac. You say you like the more updated Mac swings then refer to outdated info 

Also it doesn't make any sense you would go 90 at 3 and then 100 at 4. You would have to cast the club out towards the end of the backswing. Mac prefers to see a little "play" with the wrists from 3-5.

Here's Mac demonstrating for a student.

6 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Isn't it laid-off ? if not: what is the antonym for accross-the-line ? Perhaps I am stuck with wrong definitions.

With the swings that are well short of shaft parallel the shaft will appear to be aimed a little left but as @iacas said "If a golf shaft doesn't get to horizontal at A4, it SHOULD appear in two dimensions to be pointing to the left (for a righty, from DL)."

Dustin Johnson and Daniel Berger are laid off. Mac isn't.

If you said to Mac that his backswing is laid off and the club was outside the hands at P2 you would be kicked out of the circle

[Yff Theos]

54 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Why would he change it as he got older? Do you think he swung faster in his 30's than in his 50's and 60's? Of course he did. He also broke his arm, never took it in to get set properly and now he can no longer straighten it. Setting the stance a little closed is him figuring out how to go CP with a slower swing and a trail arm that can't transverse adduct the way he needs it.

Well, that is not a bad explanation. Is this transverse adduct means the pitch elbow procedure? I have found this vid when looking for an  explanation:

If yes, I would think that setting the baseline right combined with more punchy elbow is a looping over pattern (say, Bobby Jones or Sam Snead). Yet, I cannot see this loop in Mac's swings, he remains on the same plane going down even being old as for now.

 

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

Also it doesn't make any sense you would go 90 at 3 and then 100 at 4. You would have to cast the club out towards the end of the backswing. Mac prefers to see a little "play" with the wrists from 3-5.

It was my mistake, I should have said 90 at 3 and 80 at 4 (smaller angle) due to momentum. A bigger angle would be a very strange thing.

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

With the swings that are well short of shaft parallel the shaft will appear to be aimed a little left

OK, clear. I should have used the expression "short of parallel but on plane".

 

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

If you said to Mac that his backswing is laid off and the club was outside the hands at P2 you would be kicked out of the circle 

Well, most probably I would have been kicked out that way or another.

 

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

Having said that he also sent me this swing where the feet aren't closed.

Yes, I have seen this footage and that is why I said in almost all swings of late Mac instead in all swings. It looks it is a wedge or short iron swing, perhaps closed stance would enhance pulling the shot left. But it is only my guess.

 

6 hours ago, iacas said:

@mvmac answered this too… except at about A3 and around A5, when the shaft is perpendicular to the ground (FO view), you can't really draw those lines because you've compressed three dimensions into two.

You have no idea where the shaft is pointing in that view. For all you know it's just inside the baseline, which would be slightly across the line.

"The plane" is where the shaft is either pointing at the baseline of the plane or parallel to it (as at A2, for example) and "laid off" is anything that puts the sweet spot beneath that plane near the top of the backswing, while "across the line" is anything that puts the sweet spot on top of that line near the top of the backswing.

If a golf shaft doesn't get to horizontal at A4, it SHOULD appear in two dimensions to be pointing to the left (for a righty, from DL).

OK, clear. Thanks for the explanation.

 

6 hours ago, iacas said:

Yeah, so, what does that do to the rest of what you thought?

Well, I am not sure yet, but I am in the process of thinking about changing the attitude and become less dependent on Mac's swings and ideas.

 

6 hours ago, iacas said:

You didn't come on here to say "hey, look, the guy's a kook but I think he had some good ideas, and I'm a wealthy dentist who just likes to research Mac stuff as a sort of hobby, so can we talk about him for awhile?" You came on to say "I want to teach people to play golf and I want to teach them using Mac as my model, even though that model has changed over the years."

But I really wanted to use Mac as the example of perfect basic swing, you all say it is a complicated one and I see a very simple and effective pattern for teaching beginners. What I can see is that beginners tend to have an inside and low takeaway that results in over-the top; beginners have problems with wrist angles, therefore, it would be good to teach them how to hinge; beginners tend to use too much arms and retaining angle between left arm and shaft appears to be a great idea, etc, etc.

Anyhow, if I could be back in time and start again I would have done it differently.

All the best in 2018, guys.

 

 

 

 

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Well, that is not a bad explanation. Is this transverse adduct means the pitch elbow procedure? I have found this vid when looking for an  explanation:

I'll let @mvmac answer, but in general, it really helps if you stand up and do the motions. Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. Just a tip.

19 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

If yes, I would think that setting the baseline right combined with more punchy elbow is a looping over pattern (say, Bobby Jones or Sam Snead). Yet, I cannot see this loop in Mac's swings, he remains on the same plane going down even being old as for now.

Nobody's said anything about a punchy elbow. You can shift the left arm out and still swing left without going punch elbow.

19 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, I have seen this footage and that is why I said in almost all swings of late Mac instead in all swings. It looks it is a wedge or short iron swing, perhaps closed stance would enhance pulling the shot left. But it is only my guess.

Mac's stance doesn't make him pull the ball. AFAIK, it's a lot more about whether his left arm stays in a bit at 5 or shifts out at 5. He can do that (or not) from any foot alignment, particularly if his knees stay in about the same positions (which you never acknowledged is quite possible earlier).

19 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Well, I am not sure yet, but I am in the process of thinking about changing the attitude and become less dependent on Mac's swings and ideas.

But I really wanted to use Mac as the example of perfect basic swing, you all say it is a complicated one and I see a very simple and effective pattern for teaching beginners. What I can see is that beginners tend to have an inside and low takeaway that results in over-the top; beginners have problems with wrist angles, therefore, it would be good to teach them how to hinge; beginners tend to use too much arms and retaining angle between left arm and shaft appears to be a great idea, etc, etc.

Anyhow, if I could be back in time and start again I would have done it differently.

It's not too late to get off the road and switch to a better one.

[mvmac]

On 12/31/2017 at 12:53 PM, Yff Theos said:

Well, that is not a bad explanation. Is this transverse adduct means the pitch elbow procedure? I have found this vid when looking for an  explanation:

Yes right arm moving across the chest. For Mac that was an important part of the CP pattern.

On 12/31/2017 at 12:53 PM, Yff Theos said:

Yet, I cannot see this loop in Mac's swings

Watch this swing again, to me there looks like a slight "over and out" move from the top. There has to be to get the left arm where he wants it at P5.

 

On 12/31/2017 at 12:53 PM, Yff Theos said:

he remains on the same plane going down even being old as for now.

Arms/hands are different from backswing to downswing. Shaft is a bit more shallow on the downswing.

Backswing. CP vs CF.

P5, CP vs CF.

On 12/31/2017 at 12:53 PM, Yff Theos said:

If yes, I would think that setting the baseline right combined with more punchy elbow is a looping over pattern (say, Bobby Jones or Sam Snead).

Sam Snead was pitch elbow. If anything the loop over gives the shoulder joint MORE room to go external/elbow to go pitchy.

On 12/31/2017 at 12:53 PM, Yff Theos said:

Yes, I have seen this footage and that is why I said in almost all swings of late Mac instead in all swings. It looks it is a wedge or short iron swing, perhaps closed stance would enhance pulling the shot left. But it is only my guess.

Mac said it was a 7-iron.

Shorter the club the more he would tend to aim square or left. Longer clubs, baseline more right.

[Yff Theos]

55 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Watch this swing again, to me there looks like a slight "over and out" move from the top. There has to be to get the left arm where he wants it at P5.

Well, yes, slightly, very slightly over and out. However, not as much as for example Jones or Snead.

 

56 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Sam Snead was pitch elbow. If anything the loop over gives the elbow MORE room to go external.

I know he was pitch elbow, I used his example more for the loop over. However, I have never been thinking in the categories of more room for going external that helps in the pitch elbow procedure. Now I understand that many greats had the loop over instead under as for instance Lee Trevino had. Nice wisdom, Mike.

 

59 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Mac said it was a 7-iron.

Shorter the club the more he would tend to aim square or left. Longer clubs, baseline more right.

A 7-iron, hmm. he usually had feet line closed with mid-irons., but OK, I promised to myself not to pay any attention to details any more.

Baseline right with longer clubs is basically Hogan's diagram.

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

Arms/hands are different from backswing to downswing. Shaft is a bit more shallow on the downswing.

Backswing. CP vs CF.

OK, I see this. Hands more forward, shaft shallows. Logical.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

Sam Snead was pitch elbow. If anything the loop over gives the elbow MORE room to go external.

Throw your left arm off your chest and your right elbow has a TON of room, yeah.

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

Shorter the club the more he would tend to aim square or left. Longer clubs, baseline more right.

D-Plane.

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Well, yes, slightly, very slightly over and out. However, not as much as for example Jones or Snead.

Be careful comparing Jones stuff. The hickory shaft behaved and was swung differently than modern clubs. Ditto - to a lesser extent of course - any "old timer" swing, Snead included.

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Now I understand that many greats had the loop over instead under as for instance Lee Trevino had. Nice wisdom, Mike.

Loop under too much and you'll find many players who slide their hips WAY forward to keep giving their elbow "room." Even if they ultimately don't go pitch.

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Baseline right with longer clubs is basically Hogan's diagram.

That's why I posted it.

D-Plane. They didn't know it, either of them, really, but D-Plane.

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

OK, I see this. Hands more forward, shaft shallows. Logical.

? "Hands more forward"?

You've gotta be really careful with your terminology.

[mvmac]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

? "Hands more forward"?

You've gotta be really careful with your terminology.

Yeah be careful here @Yff Theos, I think you mean hands more out. 

Inward/outward would be used for DTL, backward/forward would be more common with caddy view (face-on) swings.

On 12/31/2017 at 12:53 PM, Yff Theos said:

But I really wanted to use Mac as the example of perfect basic swing, you all say it is a complicated one and I see a very simple and effective pattern for teaching beginners.

Anyhow, if I could be back in time and start again I would have done it differently.

All the best in 2018, guys.

MORAD is complicated, Mac's actual swing isn't all that complicated. At the end of the day he's doing the same things the best players have always done. Some of MORAD is really good and some of it is a style choice and unnecessary. I have video of Mac imitating Jack Nicklaus and he hits it just as good. The reason Mac's swing works isn't because of the small details, it's because of the big ones.

It's fine to learn some of this stuff or geek out on it, I just wanted to caution you against thinking Mac has all the answers or that everyone should try to do everything he says to do.

[Yff Theos]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

Be careful comparing Jones stuff. The hickory shaft behaved and was swung differently than modern clubs. Ditto - to a lesser extent of course - any "old timer" swing, Snead included.

OK.

 

8 hours ago, iacas said:

Loop under too much and you'll find many players who slide their hips WAY forward to keep giving their elbow "room." Even if they ultimately don't go pitch.

Yes, I can imagine that. Besides, I was thinking once if this loop over versus under thing is not happening because of mental attitude to the ball: these who loop over want to hit the ball from the top, these who loop under want to sweep the ball. It can be also subconscious to a degree.

 

8 hours ago, iacas said:

? "Hands more forward"?

You've gotta be really careful with your terminology.

More out, as Mike said. It happens often in my posts that I use wrong terms because Englisch is not my native language. I meant "forward" in the sense of down-the-line view and hands go right which in some sense is "forward".

 

5 hours ago, mvmac said:

Mac's actual swing isn't all that complicated. At the end of the day he's doing the same things the best players have always done. Some of MORAD is really good and some of it is a style choice and unnecessary.

OK, I am trying my best to treat Mac's swing not so seriously now. However, it is so pleasant to the eye that it seems he has more things right than for instance Fowler or J.B. Holmes if you know what I mean. Moreover, it really appears to me that it is easy to teach late Mac's pattern (some combination of CP and CF), those whom I started to instruct that way basing on my limited knowledge are doing well for the moment.

[mvmac]

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

However, it is so pleasant to the eye that it seems he has more things right than for instance Fowler or J.B. Holmes if you know what I mean.

No doubt it's a great looking swing, definitely one of the best in terms of looking cool, powerful and having great rhythm. 

Here's another way to look at it, rather than viewing it as Mac had more things right than Fowler or J.B., we should be looking into WHY you can have different looking swings that all produce great shots in competition. What are the commonalities that makes these swings work?

You could also counter your quote above of who had more things most right. Fowler and J.B. have won more, competed longer and hit better shots in tournaments than Mac. A big change with my own thinking the last several years is that there is a lot to be learned from guys that don't have "textbook" swings. Possibly more to be learned than just analyzing Adam Scott and 2000 Tiger because you're looking at the stuff that matters and not the distracting "pretty" moves.

BTW there are a few instructors that use J.B. as a "model" for certain positions and movements. Golfers have options.

[mchepp]

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

You could also counter your quote above of who had more things most right. Fowler and J.B. have won more, competed longer and hit better shots in tournaments than Mac. A big change with my own thinking the last several years is that there is a lot to be learned from guys that don't have "textbook" swings. Possibly more to be learned than just analyzing Adam Scott and 2000 Tiger because you're looking at the stuff that matters and not the distracting "pretty" moves.

Well said here @mvmac

[Secretmove]

"Fowler and J.B. have won more, competed longer and hit better shots in tournaments than Mac. A big change with my own thinking the last several years is that there is a lot to be learned from guys that don't have "textbook" swings. Possibly more to be learned than just analyzing Adam Scott and 2000 Tiger because you're looking at the stuff that matters and not the distracting "pretty" moves. "

Could it be that the physical ability to strike a golf ball with a stick is only one of many complex things that successful tour pros have to win tournaments and amass ball striking statistics on the pga tour. 

Could it be that Ball Striking stats gathered from the PGA tour have little or nothing to do with physical ability or technical perfection?  Could it be that success has more to do with mental ability and social confidence and physical confidence than being a technical genius. 

I'm asking these questions, but I already am pretty sure that most PGA pros, like Duffner for example, number 6 best ball striker before his divorce, and now what......??????..... he got kicked in the balls by some beautiful gold digger and all his self confidence he had locked in a box in his head leaked out.  Now he's what on the ball striking stats. 

O'Grady was in his time considered by his peers as the best ball striker with the most beautiful moves of anybody since Hogan.  He could hit any shot on the range better than anyone because of his technical perfection.  So what does it take to take it to the course? 

Well, I just watched a video of Elk interviewing Duff, and Duff has exactly one, count 'em, one swing thought he uses.  What is my right shoulder doing.  He swings it back perfectly flat, and then steepens the plane like all pros do.  That's it.  He's long ago found that works for him, and has locked that into a bank vault, put on blinders and ear plugs and it works for him.  Good for him, because there are 100 million "pros" who would destroy that swing and confidence in a heart beat. 

I honestly believe if I was ever playing O'Grady for money, I might have a chance, every time he hit one good, I would compliment his third accumulator or just say wow that was a perfect swing.  End of day, he'd be paying me. 

If you look at the positions O'G makes you can't do any better.  End of story.   Fowler is 5'9", is way more confident and stupid than O"G, completely unanalytical, Butch Harmon would never even think of changing any of that straight push with right leg with flip compensation, he just encourages more of what works for him.  JB holmes is an animal who should be a grave digger.   Monster strong.  Swings left and would be a slugger in the minor leagues. 

Ball striking stats on the PGA tour are about mental ability and not getting mentally in your own way.  OG is a poster child, an analytical guy who doesn't like being in the spotlight, exact opposite of McCord, you can tell videos, McCord just takes over.  Now OG is a recluse guru, who gives a crap what he is now.  If he had the mentality of Fowler, who knows how many tournaments he could have won.  Its a tribute to his talent he did as much as he did.  What would his ball striking stats be if he could have turned off all thought like the DUFF??? 

PGA tour is 99.9999% mental.  I haven't even talked about the fact the PGA tour is 99.999999999 percent right wing republican, and that encludes evangelical Christian as well.  What if Mac was a closet liberal atheist?  Do you think not fitting in socially is an asset to ball striking stats?  Who is Mac supposed to talk to when he can't make it work on the course.  He's got nobody. 

So, part of that PGA tour being 99.9999999% mental, a lot of that is fitting in to the country club scene.  A lot of that is Alpha male greed and ambition where there is an automatic response to academic mumbo jumbo:  does that make me more money or get in my way?  You almost have to be born with that genetic ability.  Did Mac hang out with Jack?  Did Jack send an invite to Mac to come over to his Mansion, hang out and talk about his theories?  F!@#$!@#$@# no he didn't.  Mac was too busy suing Beman and asking to play two ball tournaments as both a righty and lefty.  I love that.  But that's not the kind of thinking that will get you F!@Q#!$@#$@# ball striking stats on the PGA tour.