Mac O'Grady Swings

[Yff Theos]

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

Let me save you a lot of time from someone who has been down this road. Forget the Mac takeaway. Mac says that his CP model is based off of Snead and Hogan, yet neither of them had an early set off the ball. Mac's reasoning is that he wanted to load the wrists and right arm early and then just rotate. Cool idea but in reality you can't just zero out the wrist set, so it's actually better to do it gradually. I think he also just liked the way it looked, his takeaway stuff isn't based on any actual scientific studies.

Going with an early set/fold can be a speed lose, you "use up" the trail arm stretch shorten movement.

Only golfers in the HOF that had an early set that I can think of off the top of my head are Johnny Miller and Nick Faldo. Nicklaus, Sarazen, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Watson, Tiger, Jones, Player, Norman, Palmer, Mickelson, Singh, McIlroy, etc, had what you might call more of a "one-piece" takeaway. Meaning the butt of the club got well past the trail thigh, pivot turned the arms back, not a lot of wrist hinge, trail palm faced the ground, trail arm above the lead arm.

Yes, I know it is different to Snead's and Hogan's takeaway. I believe Mac wanted to have a bigger #3 Accumulator Angle preset at address as well as have shaft inline with left arm. Imo, it sounds reasonable and logical if we are to look for a low maintenance swing. The wrist set also gradually increases if we believe numbers quoted by McCord in one of the YouTube vids.

 

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

Then I would recommend looking into Mike Bender and what he teaches. The CP swing Mac likes isn't easy to teach players, especially higher handicappers. Bender basically teaches Mac's CF or Model 1 pattern, Bender spent years with Mac. Mac doesn't teach CF. If I had to teach one swing that's what I would do.

Could I ask why do you prefer CF over CP if the latter has more connections to Hogan and Snead? I will take a closer look to Bender's teachings anyhow. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

Just take out all the weight forward backswing stuff and there is some good info there. The feet flare, knees changing flex, grip, stacking the COG's, thrusting and tucking pelvis, all the tilt, turn, extension pieces originated from Mac (except Mac never called it extension).

Yes, this is exactly what I'd do to "normalize" S&T swing. I agree, lots of good info from Plummer and Bennet, lots of great looking swings (despite this excessive weight forward stuff and some other things like not closed feet or zeroing #3 Acc. at setup) such as for instance Grant Waite or Mike McNary. I still revert to their book from time to time.

[Lihu]

Could someone please post a translator for Macs swings here, so some of us less enlightened individuals can understand what's being posted?

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Could someone please post a translator for Macs swings here, so some of us less enlightened individuals can understand what's being posted?

As a favor to those who aren't down the Mac rabbit hole… no.

@Yff Theos, Mac isn't the be-all, end-all, he's-solved-everything type. A lot of swing types get it done, and honestly, get it done better than Mac ever did during his competitive days. And better than he's played since those days, too.

So if your answer is simply "curiosity" that's fine, but if you're actually looking to apply this stuff… I think you're giving him too much credit and weight.

[Yff Theos]

39 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Yff Theos, Mac isn't the be-all, end-all, he's-solved-everything type. A lot of swing types get it done, and honestly, get it done better than Mac ever did during his competitive days. And better than he's played since those days, too.

So if your answer is simply "curiosity" that's fine, but if you're actually looking to apply this stuff… I think you're giving him too much credit and weight.

Perhaps it is like you said that I am fascinated too much nowadays. It is temporary, I guess . Btw, I prefer late Mac's swing not the one he used during his PGA days. More than Snead's and Hogan's, not mentioning others. It is something in it that attracts me a lot. Perhaps aesthetics, perhaps simplicity...

[billchao]

3 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Could I ask why do you prefer CF over CP if the latter has more connections to Hogan and Snead?

I'm not trying to answer for @mvmac, but my understanding of the subject is that the CP swing is more athletically challenging and harder to learn than the CF swing. You can play at a high level with both so why not the simpler of the two?

[Yff Theos]

3 hours ago, billchao said:

I'm not trying to answer for @mvmac, but my understanding of the subject is that the CP swing is more athletically challenging and harder to learn than the CF swing. You can play at a high level with both so why not the simpler of the two?

Well, because of consistency of produced results? I believe CF pattern relies on higher clubface closure rate leading to two-way misses. Imo, when one already pivots well it is easier to learn CP swing. But I agree it is easier to teach CF to a guy who has problems with body rotation although I have recently seen good attempts on Instagram posted by good instructors.

[Jack Watson]

@Yff Theos

Cp cf hit v swing  etc...

None of these antiquated and mistaken false dichotomies have much relevance.  

Saying a thing like a cp swing has low rate of closure and cf has high really means little.  Also you mention that you know how effective teaching either would be based on player type?  Sounds fishy to me.

Correlating roc to skill at ballstriking is highly questionable.

Instagram and you tube are not teachers.  IMO if you really want to get somewhere it takes years of experience.  IMO you sound like a person that absolutely correlates kinematics and skill.  Modern research is beginning to find that this is not the case as previously thought.

online we all love data and some folks get all into the techy discussions about details.  

Ultimately though information is just that.  The player has to execute the shot and that doesn't happen by analyzing the number three accumulator and also it's not a deal where you simply choose how to swing based on the quality of information you know.  Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and there are variations in athletic tendencies.  

Mac was a great athlete and totally obsessed with golf.  Maybe it's easy for you to think well I like his mechanics so I will swing like that and teach what he did.

But...

Spoiler

You are not MAC!  Be you! 

 

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Saying a thing like a cp swing has low rate of closure and cf has high really means little.

Nah, it's kinda accurate. Players who are more "rotational" tend to keep their arms "on their chest" more and have a slower rate of closure and overtaking rate. Vice versa for players whose arms come off their chests a bit more.

33 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Correlating roc to skill at ballstriking is highly questionable.

I disagree. Key #5 is tougher with higher rates of closure (not measured as °/time because that biases against higher swing speeds. °/distance is better.)

But anyway…

[Jack Watson]

IMO Tiger tried to become more like Hogan with lower deeper hands at the top.  Look how jacked up his body positions are here:

This whole thing with connect arms to body and all you have to do is rotate leaves a bad taste in my mouth personally.

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

IMO Tiger tried to become more like Hogan with lower deeper hands at the top.

[mvmac]

On 11/19/2017 at 8:05 PM, mchepp said:

@mvmac I see Dana teaching one of his students who plays on the European tour (Daniel I think) what looks like some CP stuff. Does he change his pattern to hit up on the driver? I would imagine CP with the driver would not be optimum for today's drivers. Any insight you have?

Yes Daniel Im is a CP-ish player with kind of an inline downswing, he likes the way "swinging left" with his body feels. He does hit up a little with the driver. CP is not optimal for clubs over a 6 iron....typically.

17 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Could I ask why do you prefer CF over CP if the latter has more connections to Hogan and Snead? I will take a closer look to Bender's teachings anyhow. Thanks for the suggestion.

It's just a much easier pattern, easier way to swing and hit all the trajectories, especially with today's equipment. Hogan didn't have the left arm as far out as Mac wants it and Snead hit pull draws. Like I just said CP isn't good for the longer clubs, Mac never played a tournament going CP, he went with CF fades. 

It's also a complicated pattern, lots of sequencing and movements have to be in order and most importantly you need a lot of speed to do it functionally.

I could make the case Hogan had more CF pieces than CP pieces.

---

Anyway, I agree with what @iacas has been posting. Mac's info isn't the answer to the golf swing, it's an attempt in the right direction but there is better and more functional information out there.

[Yff Theos]

8 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

@Yff Theos

Cp cf hit v swing  etc...

None of these antiquated and mistaken false dichotomies have much relevance.  

Saying a thing like a cp swing has low rate of closure and cf has high really means little.  Also you mention that you know how effective teaching either would be based on player type?  Sounds fishy to me.

Correlating roc to skill at ballstriking is highly questionable.

Instagram and you tube are not teachers.  IMO if you really want to get somewhere it takes years of experience.  IMO you sound like a person that absolutely correlates kinematics and skill.  Modern research is beginning to find that this is not the case as previously thought.

online we all love data and some folks get all into the techy discussions about details.  

Ultimately though information is just that.  The player has to execute the shot and that doesn't happen by analyzing the number three accumulator and also it's not a deal where you simply choose how to swing based on the quality of information you know.  Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and there are variations in athletic tendencies.  

Mac was a great athlete and totally obsessed with golf.  Maybe it's easy for you to think well I like his mechanics so I will swing like that and teach what he did.

But...

  Reveal hidden contents

You are not MAC!  Be you! 

 

Well, Iacas has already answered some of your false statements. I will only say that there are great teachers (with MORAD past) posting short films on Instagram worth looking at where they show changes they made in their students' swings. Some are pretty good.

The only thing I do agree to you is that I am not Mac. But I never pretende3d to be, just willing to learn and discuss his swing because I believe I can find lots of good things for my swing as well as for those I will teach.

2 hours ago, mvmac said:

It's just a much easier pattern, easier way to swing and hit all the trajectories, especially with today's equipment. Hogan didn't have the left arm as far out as Mac wants it and Snead hit pull draws. Like I just said CP isn't good for the longer clubs, Mac never played a tournament going CP, he went with CF fades. 

It's also a complicated pattern, lots of sequencing and movements have to be in order and most importantly you need a lot of speed to do it functionally.

I could make the case Hogan had more CF pieces than CP pieces.

OK, I understand your point of view. I prefer CPish patterns because of better consistency, perhaps some CF ones with longest clubs (especially from the tee). But those are details, I'd like to concentrate and discuss basic things in the late Mac's swing without being a MORAD literallist, so to speak.

[RussUK]

Sorry if this has been answered elswhere or if i sound a bit dim, but what does CP and CF mean and whats the difference?

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, RussUK said:

Sorry if this has been answered elswhere or if i sound a bit dim, but what does CP and CF mean and whats the difference?

I asked for a terminology primer, but got a "no" because Erik doesn't want us to get high on mushrooms like Alice. 

[billchao]

16 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Well, because of consistency of produced results? I believe CF pattern relies on higher clubface closure rate leading to two-way misses. Imo, when one already pivots well it is easier to learn CP swing. But I agree it is easier to teach CF to a guy who has problems with body rotation although I have recently seen good attempts on Instagram posted by good instructors.

It really just depends on how well  you execute any motion. If you are good then you won't have as bad of a miss regardless of whether you are CF or CP. Jack and Tiger did ok without swinging like Hogan or Snead.

[Yff Theos]

1 hour ago, billchao said:

It really just depends on how well  you execute any motion. If you are good then you won't have as bad of a miss regardless of whether you are CF or CP. Jack and Tiger did ok without swinging like Hogan or Snead.

Yes and no. Yes, if one's as talented as Tiger or Jack (or close to it) the RoC does not matter much; no, because ordinary golfer would prefer to have a swing that does not rely on timing so much and/or to have one-way miss. But these are just details of preference, I really would like to discuss only basic things of late Mac's swing if it is allowed here. I can open a new thread if mods prefer as well.

[billchao]

5 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes and no. Yes, if one's as talented as Tiger or Jack (or close to it) the RoC does not matter much; no, because ordinary golfer would prefer to have a swing that does not rely on timing so much and/or to have one-way miss. But these are just details of preference, I really would like to discuss only basic things of late Mac's swing if it is allowed here. I can open a new thread if mods prefer as well.

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.

[Jack Watson]

Look, Ogrady failed q school what sixteen times?

He got top ten once at US Open.  Won on tour small events twice?

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

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

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

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.

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

Edited November 21, 2017 by Jack Watson