Mac O'Grady Swings

[Jack Watson]

Also as to the swing posted Mac draw...

Too much knee flex at address hands too low at address shaft points at his groin?  Too close to ball.  Tush sticking out too much.  Raises handle at impact and humps a little to create space since address position was poor.

Most guys would cross line at top and collapse right arm structure trying to emulate that.  He's trapping himself without space.

Also the elbows...Left elbow too far below right too soon coming down.  

He does have a nice neutral spine through and past impact and I like that.

Starting from that address though?  He's making it more difficult than it needs to be.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Jack Watson

[Yff Theos]

13 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Too much knee flex at address hands too low at address shaft points at his groin?  Too close to ball.  Tush sticking out too much.  Raises handle at impact and humps a little to create space since address position was poor.

Also the elbows...Left elbow too far below right too soon coming down.  

Before I answer you with my arguments to wall of your points let me ask first: relative to what ? to your subjective preferences ? to a certain model you had in mind ?

[Jack Watson]

@Yff Theos

Lets just say compared to an average of the majority of great golfers of the last 100 or more years.

Some nice info here

There's no 'perfect' address but there's commonalities of great players.  Macs address there and in many of his publicly available swings is an outlier not the norm.  

Imo he's creating a requirement of a series of compensations.  Its all conceptual but imo creating space makes things easier.  He's got too many angles going for most players.

I think maybe that's a personal quirk of Mac a quirky address position.  Not saying I think it's wrong for him,  just that most people are far better served to address the ball in a way that's much more say neutral to what the majority of good players have always done versus getting basically stuck at address and having to make more manipulations to get to impact.

[Jack Watson]

This address is not making things easy either in surfing terms this is a stink bug stance.

[Yff Theos]

Everything he does has a reason -  my answers to you:

1. too much knee flex at address - they are bent enough to bring low handle at address because of creating a decent #3 accumulator angle at address (it has been already discussed in the thread);

2.  tush sticking out too much - absolutely not; it has to stick like this to have a proper weight distribution from down the line plane; if it sticks less either the upper torso will have to be less flexed (which does not correspond with the necessity of having low handle at adress) or theoverall  weight will have been shifted to toes;

3.  raises handle at impact - the address is on Hands Only Plane because of the reasons explained earlier, while his impact on the Elbow Plane which is OK and pretty classic pattern; he is still a double shifter equal to those who starts with high handle at address from Elbow Plane (like Hogan or Snead did); moreover, this is a draw pattern which requires high hands at impact;

4. most guys would cross line at top and collapse right arm structure trying to emulate that -- why? imo, there is no direct correllation between these;

5.left elbow too far below right too soon coming down - nothing is exaggerated; Mac plays from huge flexion to huge extension at impact (he maximizes the parametric acceleration that way) that's why he was a big hitter in his prime; it is a base for Stack and Tilt philosophy, by the way.

He is big on preserving angles; every player has the same number of angles but not in such a well-organized system. People who have been close to him underline how great a ballstriker he is even now when he is in his senior days. Your arguments are weak, sorry.

[Jack Watson]

@Yff Theos

Sheesh.  If that address is crucial then why does Rock avoid all that nonsense?  If it's a better way how come no greats did it?  Just saying well you need a 3 angle at address with flexed knees to be on hands plane is just terminology not functionality.  Macs deal is the whole ice skater concept.  The silly thing is he's ignoring the importance of the radius hence my comment about angular momentum which you apparently do not understand.

Again,  if you are right why didn't Mac teach Robert to address the ball like that?  If it's so great how come noe one else whose good does that shit?

Wayne D shows how Hogan and Snead and many greats return hands at impact through address.  Mac is a handle raiser which is also btw a fade move not draw.  Your perspective is flawed.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Jack Watson

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

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.

The two things I was going to say were already said.

They are:

4 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

The best argument against Mac is Mac himself. He is constantly changing his theories and practices.

If he found "the best" thing at any one point, then anything he's done to change that is moving away from what's best. And since Mac is constantly changing things, sometimes because he simply likes the way something looks… there is no one point at which you can definitively say "this is the best."

But that's the weaker argument in my opinion. The better one, and the ultimate one, is:

1 hour ago, Jack Watson said:

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

Easy as that. Jack and Tiger didn't have similar swings. They had things in common (I could name five…), but that's about it.

I think it's fine to discuss Mac stuff in small doses, but people who take the whole bottle are missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of which era Mac swing you pick (if you can even narrow it down to one era), it's just one example of a good swing. Just one of thousands of variations.

And so, ultimately, I see little value in discussing ONE swing out of thousands.

 

[Yff Theos]

31 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

@Yff Theos

Sheesh.  If that address is crucial then why does Rock avoid all that nonsense?  If it's a better way how come no greats did it?  Just saying well you need a 3 angle at address with flexed knees to be on hands plane is just terminology not functionality.  Macs deal is the whole ice skater concept.  The silly thing is he's ignoring the importance of the radius hence my comment about angular momentum which you apparently do not understand.

Again,  if you are right why didn't Mac teach Robert to address the ball like that?  If it's so great how come noe one else whose good does that shit?

Wayne D shows how Hogan and Snead and many greats return hands at impact through address.  Mac is a handle raiser which is also btw a fade move not draw.  Your perspective is flawed.

Rock has relatively short legs comparing to Mac. His handle raises as well albeit not so big as Mac which is understandable because of Rock's smaller #3 Angle.. I do not see nothing bad in handle raising between A1 and A7, it is a perfectly acceptable pattern. Lots of great strikers were handle raisers, btw, and not so much were able to return shaft on the same plane.

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

The two things I was going to say were already said.

They are:

If he found "the best" thing at any one point, then anything he's done to change that is moving away from what's best. And since Mac is constantly changing things, sometimes because he simply likes the way something looks… there is no one point at which you can definitively say "this is the best."

But that's the weaker argument in my opinion. The better one, and the ultimate one, is:

Easy as that. Jack and Tiger didn't have similar swings. They had things in common (I could name five…), but that's about it.

I think it's fine to discuss Mac stuff in small doses, but people who take the whole bottle are missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of which era Mac swing you pick (if you can even narrow it down to one era), it's just one example of a good swing. Just one of thousands of variations.

And so, ultimately, I see little value in discussing ONE swing out of thousands.

 

I understand your philosophy. When I teach someone I also do not want to change pupil's swing habits over the dead bodies. Yet if I teach a rookie I would like him to work out habits that give best chances for effortless striking which my eyes and brain found in the late Mac's swing.

[mvmac]

23 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

1. too much knee flex at address - they are bent enough to bring low handle at address because of creating a decent #3 accumulator angle at address (it has been already discussed in the thread);

2.  tush sticking out too much - absolutely not; it has to stick like this to have a proper weight distribution from down the line plane; if it sticks less either the upper torso will have to be less flexed (which does not correspond with the necessity of having low handle at adress) or theoverall  weight will have been shifted to toes;

He liked the low hands because of the way it set the #2 Accumulator at address. Hogan and Snead didn't setup like this.

It also varies on the shot/pattern he's going with or how he feels when he wakes up that morning. With CP fades he tends to stand closer with the handle lower but not as much as in the 80's. Lower handle will automatically add some more knee flex.

This was a slight inline draw, notice the differences. He can hit it good no matter how he sets up to it. 

Now you'll see him address it more like this for CP.

On 11/22/2017 at 5:35 AM, Lihu said:

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

CP - Low pull or fade pattern. Upper and lower center are "stacked" on top of each other at the top of the swing (leaning tower of pisa), then everything shifts forward and down, left shoulder stays low as it rotates left. Right arm goes into external rotation and gets as far in front of the rib cage as you can. Steeper angle of attack, more "lag" or handle drag.

CF - Medium-high draws or fades. Reverse K setup, hips turn centered, maintain the axis tilt on backswing, on downswing hips shift forward, head stays "back", elbow doesn't have to be forward, outward swing direction. Shallower angle of attack, inline release.

Or you can mix and match which is what some instructors have done.

[Yff Theos]

4 hours ago, mvmac said:

He liked the low hands because of the way it set the #2 Accumulator at address. Hogan and Snead didn't setup like this.

It also varies on the shot/pattern he's going with or how he feels when he wakes up that morning. With CP fades he tends to stand closer with the handle lower but not as much as in the 80's. Lower handle will automatically add some more knee flex.

This was a slight inline draw, notice the differences. He can hit it good no matter how he sets up to it. 

Now you'll see him address it more like this for CP.

CP - Low pull or fade pattern. Upper and lower center are "stacked" on top of each other at the top of the swing (leaning tower of pisa), then everything shifts forward and down, left shoulder stays low as it rotates left. Right arm goes into external rotation and gets as far in front of the rib cage as you can. Steeper angle of attack, more "lag" or handle drag.

CF - Medium-high draws or fades. Reverse K setup, hips turn centered, maintain the axis tilt on backswing, on downswing hips shift forward, head stays "back", elbow doesn't have to be forward, outward swing direction. Shallower angle of attack, inline release.

Or you can mix and match which is what some instructors have done.

What kind of mix do you regard as the best if any? For instance to make CP pattern easier to teach and learn?

[Buckeyebowman]

I'll probably get flamed for this since it's way over my head, but what the heck.

I haven't studied TGM or Mac O'Grady in great detail. However, O'Grady is an interesting subject. I can remember watching him a time or two when he was on the Tour.  From what I've been able to glean, he is kind of the "mad scientist" of the golf world. He could address the ball in almost any manner and manage to produce an effective swing from it.

But, I don't believe that this is a skill that can be taught. You either have it or you don't. And it's not just physical. It's how you "see" your swing in your mind, and how your body parts and the club work together.

And, FWIW, when I see someone with the posture that Jack Watson posted in #112, that screams "high handicap" to me! Where can any extension come from?

Edited November 25, 2017 by Buckeyebowman

[Yff Theos]

13 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

I'll probably get flamed for this since it's way over my head, but what the heck.

I haven't studied TGM or Mac O'Grady in great detail. However, O'Grady is an interesting subject. I can remember watching him a time or two when he was on the Tour.  From what I've been able to glean, he is kind of the "mad scientist" of the golf world. He could address the ball in almost any manner and manage to produce an effective swing from it.

But, I don't believe that this is a skill that can be taught. You either have it or you don't. And it's not just physical. It's how you "see" your swing in your mind, and how your body parts and the club work together.

And, FWIW, when I see someone with the posture that Jack Watson posted in #112, that screams "high handicap" to me! Where can any extension come from?

Extension is antithesis of flexion: in order to extend you have had to be in flexion before.

[mvmac]

On 11/24/2017 at 2:19 PM, Yff Theos said:

For instance to make CP pattern easier to teach and learn?

Yes.

On 11/24/2017 at 2:19 PM, Yff Theos said:

What kind of mix do you regard as the best if any?

Depends on the player, what shot they want to hit, etc.

On 11/25/2017 at 5:27 AM, Yff Theos said:

 in order to extend you have had to be in flexion before.

It certainly helps 

[Yff Theos]

33 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Depends on the player, what shot they want to hit, etc.

Say, straight shot, medium trajectory, no extremes. I rarely deal with accomplished players.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Say, straight shot, medium trajectory, no extremes. I rarely deal with accomplished players.

Still depends on the player, and there are a thousand ways to hit that shot.

There's nothing magical about any one Mac swing, or Mac in general.

[colin007]

10 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Say, straight shot, medium trajectory, no extremes. I rarely deal with accomplished players.

A perfectly straight shot is pretty hard to hit, no?

[Yff Theos]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

Still depends on the player, and there are a thousand ways to hit that shot.

There's nothing magical about any one Mac swing, or Mac in general.

You are right, I just would like to know Mike's answer for my question.

13 minutes ago, colin007 said:

A perfectly straight shot is pretty hard to hit, no?

Yes, but it can be just basically straigthish, not perfectly straight.

[mvmac]

9 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Say, straight shot, medium trajectory, no extremes. I rarely deal with accomplished players.

Less thoracic extension late backswing left arm would be inside baseline at 5 (not on), Robert Rock type of alignments.

9 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

I rarely deal with accomplished players.

Then I would avoid CP altogether. Even Mac won't get higher handicappers to go CP.