Mac O'Grady Swings

[DaveP043]

54 minutes ago, iacas said:

C'mon, @Yff Theos… far better ballstrikers than Mac O'Grady have different pieces in their swing. I don't really understand the fascination with ONE guy, particularly when his own model shifts and changes over time, and can't even really ever be nailed down.

 

39 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

It appears that the discussion about Mac O'grady is not very welcomed also here despite I am not polluting other threads with Mac and TGM here. It is a pity, but OK, I can live with that. I prefer not to have a dejavu and to be expelled from this forum as well.

I know for (almost) certain you won't be expelled from this forum, I've not read you being anything other than inquisitive and polite, even if you are a bit persistent on this subject.  But I think its a fair question...Why the fascination with this one player and his swing?

[iacas]

50 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

It appears that the discussion about Mac O'grady is not very welcomed

That's not true.

Except for some MORAD fan club site (that doesn't seem to exist), you'll find that we're quite open to it.

I just see little point, myself, in going down the Mac rabbit hole. His takeaway is not unique to him, nor is it something everyone should copy, or has to copy to play good golf, etc. Nor is it even top 20 in a lot of people's problems.

I'm pragmatic. I don't have time to get down in the weeds and give a shit whether Mac felt pressure in his left pinkie finger from 2 to 3.3 or whether it was more a matter of shifting his left inner ear fluids. That's a bit sarcastic, but the guy is over-mystified. Hundreds, thousands of people have better golf swings than he does.

50 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

It is a pity, but OK, I can live with that. I prefer not to have a dejavu and to be expelled from this forum as well.

We don't do that here. You've not received a warning or anything.

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

But I think its a fair question...Why the fascination with this one player and his swing?

That. Why?

[Yff Theos]

I think I have already answered the question here: because imho Mac O'Grady's philosophy is the most consistent and logical of all current methods for teachers and because also imho his swing is the best I have seen. I am familiar with TGM and now I go a bit further and concentrate on knowing Mac's principles so that my pupils can build good swings and play good golf. Some are followers of Ballard, Hardy, Harmon, etc. and I did not meet any hostility towards their accolites. I do not know why, TGM and O'Grady threads puts people in a very emotional way. If I am not interested in something, I do not feel need to go to such threads and express my negation. That is all.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

I think I have already answered the question here: because imho Mac O'Grady's philosophy is the most consistent and logical of all current methods for teachers and because also imho his swing is the best I have seen.

• How can you say it's consistent and logical when:
  1. it's changed several times over the course of time.
  2. some of the things he does simply because he thinks they look good.
• How are you defining "best"? Thousands of golfers have better swings than he does as evidenced by the results they generate.

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

I am familiar with TGM and now I go a bit further and concentrate on knowing Mac's principles so that my pupils can build good swings and play good golf.

So you're an instructor? Then I think it's even MORE important for you to climb out of the Mac rabbit hole.

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

Some are followers of Ballard, Hardy, Harmon, etc. and I did not meet any hostility towards their accolites.

I've studied Mac quite a bit in my time. More than those instructors you just listed combined. @mvmac has studied him more than I have, and has attended clinics, talked with him on the phone, etc. One of my former colleagues and co-workers had the username "MORADMan."

You're not meeting "hostility" here, either.

But @mvmac can tell you things… and you should give what he says some weight.

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

I do not know why, TGM and O'Grady threads puts people in a very emotional way.

You're really not understanding my background if you think that I'm anti-TGM, anti-O'Grady, etc. just on the face of it, without a LOT of personal experience and knowledge.

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

If I am not interested in something, I do not feel need to go to such threads and express my negation. That is all.

I'm trying to help you. I've been in a similar place where you appear to be.

[mvmac]

9 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Mike or everyone, is someone here familiar with the notion "bunny hop"? I have read somewhere that this is how Mac calls the very start of the swing.

In the context of Mac I haven't come across it very much. In the context of golf swing theory, I think it's a move you see a lot of good players have. Nicklaus talked about rebounding off his left side into the backswing in his book. Some instructors now would call it a COM "flow" (center of mass, where your belt buckle is). Alex Noren, Spieth, Stenson, Tiger have visible trigger moves before they take the club back.

This guy or Bobby Jones might have had the best "triggers" in the history of the game.

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

It appears that the discussion about Mac O'grady is not very welcomed

It's fine to discuss but we also want to make sure you don't put him on a pedestal. Speaking from experience here.

6 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

I think I have already answered the question here: because imho Mac O'Grady's philosophy is the most consistent and logical of all current methods for teachers and because also imho his swing is the best I have seen.

There are a lot of smart and capable instructors out there right now, and their info is legit. 

Mac certainly moved things forward but any information you'll find out there about MORAD now is outdated. It's fine to learn what Mac was about by it's by no means the best information out there. Mac was just using cameras, photos and his own experience, can't compete with the tech they have today. 

Again not saying the Mac information can't be valuable, he got a lot of things right but if you wanted to get the most out of your time and money, going down the MORAD road isn't the way to go.

An instructor the other day sent me a swing of a MORAD instructor, very model looking swing, hit all the positions, and I just shook my head that I use to think that was the swing that I wanted.

Being an expert in MORAD is like being fluent in Latin. Once you get past the basics it's not very practical.

5 hours ago, iacas said:

But @mvmac can tell you things… and you should give what he says some weight.

Yep

 

[Yff Theos]

Listen, I am not here to fight or to prove I am right over dead bodies. If it helps you, let us say it is my actual hobby to study Mac's swing. I often use the abbreviation "imho" because I do not want to impose my way of thinking to anyone else. I was fascinated with the simplicity of principles that McCord (and Mac himself) articulated during their clinics that are available on YouTube. The fact that the info changes (being  distant to today's MORAD events I am not aware of that and that is why I do not feel it) proves that the idea is in progress as it should be provided these are minor changes that I believe they are.

Also I have my eyes and ears open for new things but, as a metodic man, I would like to have a base system for my teaching method. None of existing big teaching pro names (and I studied lots of them) convinces me to do it better than TGM and MORAD based ones. All the successful teachers of today that I admire and follow are certainlly TGM- and MORAD-trained which sort of confirms my choice is good, however, if you are so kind to introduce me to the work of someone whom you regard as the best I will gladly study it.

[Yff Theos]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

How are you defining "best"? Thousands of golfers have better swings than he does as evidenced by the results they generate.

The result is a derivative of long shots, short game and putting. I heard Mac was one of the best ballstriker that ever lived and it is no short game and putting I want to learn from him.

2 hours ago, mvmac said:

In the context of Mac I haven't come across it very much. In the context of golf swing theory, I think it's a move you see a lot of good players have. Nicklaus talked about rebounding off his left side into the backswing in his book. Some instructors now would call it a COM "flow" (center of mass, where your belt buckle is). Alex Noren, Spieth, Stenson, Tiger have visible trigger moves before they take the club back.

Yes, but I wanted to learn why he prefers to start this way. I do not buy the argument of binocular vision here.

9 hours ago, iacas said:

I'm pragmatic. I don't have time to get down in the weeds and give a shit whether Mac felt pressure in his left pinkie finger from 2 to 3.3 or whether it was more a matter of shifting his left inner ear fluids.

Me neither. I just want to discuss and memorize important basic pieces of information about each section of the swing.

2 hours ago, mvmac said:

Mac certainly moved things forward but any information you'll find out there about MORAD now is outdated. It's fine to learn what Mac was about by it's by no means the best information out there. Mac was just using cameras, photos and his own experience, can't compete with the tech they have today. 

Just curious: please tell me one example where Mac was wrong comparing to one of these high-tech discoveries. A concrete example without too much talking.. It will help me to understand your way of thinking.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Listen, I am not here to fight or to prove I am right over dead bodies.

Nobody's fighting you. We're trying to help, and cautioning you.

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

I was fascinated with the simplicity of principles that McCord (and Mac himself) articulated during their clinics that are available on YouTube.

I don't know if I'd call Mac's process "simple." The guy in the video below is having to repeat, what, 17 checkpoints or something? And at the same time, sure, it's "simple" because it's one swing.

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Also I have my eyes and ears open for new things but, as a metodic man, I would like to have a base system for my teaching method.

Try 5 Simple Keys®. Seriously.

You want a blend of TGM, Mac, and modern understanding? 5SK was created by 1) Chuck Evans, who helped write and publish the seventh edition of TGM and is one of the foremost experts in the world on TGM. 5SK was created by 2) Dave Wedzik, a TGM and Mac follower, who spent quite a bit of time with Mike Bender, Mike Bennett, etc. Those two got a LOT of help from me, @mvmac, and James Hirshfield, who was the aforementioned "moradman".

It's a system but not a single swing.

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

None of existing big teaching pro names (and I studied lots of them) convinces me to do it better than TGM and MORAD based ones.

Your mistake is looking at some of the "big name" people (and looking for a "method" per se). The best teachers have a "method" to helping every student without having a single "method" if you know what I mean. They have a system.

Lots of good instructors out there have gone well, well beyond Mac. You're looking in the wrong place if you're only looking at, what, Harmon, McLean, Haney, Leadbetter…

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

All the successful teachers of today that I admire and follow are certainlly TGM- and MORAD-trained which sort of confirms my choice is good, however, if you are so kind to introduce me to the work of someone whom you regard as the best I will gladly study it.

The point is they've all moved on from it, too.

You're talking right here with two people who are well versed in MORAD and TGM (again, Mike did more MORAD than me), and who moved on. And you're not "gladly studying" it - you're (in your words) fighting what we're telling you.

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

I heard Mac was one of the best ballstriker that ever lived and it is no short game and putting I want to learn from him.

He wasn't. It's a myth. He's cultivated it, whether actively or not. Golf has always loved these "mythical figures" who have "all the secrets."

Just as with Ben Hogan… there are no secrets. Mac wasn't the game's best ballstriker. Neither was Grant Waite. If they were, they'd have won far, far more often. Mac wouldn't have tried 17 times to qualify for the PGA Tour back in the day when it was substantially easier to make the PGA Tour. He'd place better in the local and regional events in which he plays, too.

Mac's obviously a "good" ballstriker given that he made the PGA Tour at one point, but he's not one of the top hundred of all time.

You're putting him on a pedestal.

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Me neither. I just want to discuss and memorize important basic pieces of information about each section of the swing.

They're the basic pieces of ONE swing, and a swing that's a moving target.

I just don't see the point. As I said, I don't have the time in the day to discuss or think about one swing. I have hundreds of swings to manage. Those swings have five things in common.

Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods had far more successful swings than Mac O'Grady. Both were great with long irons, Jack a bit better with the driver, and Tiger a bit better with the shorter clubs. Both proved that they were way better ball strikers than Mac by their play: they didn't struggle to even earn a PGA Tour card.

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Just curious: please tell me one example where Mac was wrong comparing to one of these high-tech discoveries. A concrete example without too much talking.. It will help me to understand your way of thinking.

You're not understanding "our" way of thinking. I'll make a few points here as simply as I can.

• While it's true that many, many, many good instructors have a Mac background, it's also true that every one of those instructors has moved well on.
• Mike and I (and Mike far more than I) spent years studying Mac's stuff. Again, Mike more than I. Take a look at the images below. It may be the single largest collection of Mac videos anywhere.
• Going down the Mac rabbit hole is a waste of time. It's one swing, and an ever-changing one at that. Great players - truly great players, unlike Mac - did LOTS of different swings. You may be better off studying the swing of Colin Montgomerie than Mac O'Grady.
• It's not about what Mac got "wrong" necessarily, because I will give him credit in saying that he's changed things he's felt were wrong. If you want one example, though, the S&T guys took from Mac the idea of how the spine works in 3D, and they got that one wrong: it doesn't side bend 35°, and it doesn't extend 35° either: nowhere close in either direction. Mike likely has a more comprehensive list, but at the same time, asking where Mac got something "wrong" is asking the wrong question: the idea that there is "one swing" is categorically wrong.
• There's a whole bunch of actual science out there. Pay attention to that.
• In fact, while you're chasing Mac stories and participating ONLY in this topic, you're missing out on a bunch of great content elsewhere on this site. I don't brag very often, but I'm a smart guy, and I kinda know what I'm talking about in the golf swing. So is @mvmac. So is @david_wedzik.

These aren't short videos, either. Many are over 90 minutes long:

Good timing, though. I had to connect the drive to add several more videos. Here's one:

Again, that's teaching ONE swing. And a swing that changes over time, sometimes because it suits Mac's whim or fancy.

Here's another:

Look, if you find yourself looking at that second video, a grainy, scratchy, black-and-white video with the silhouette/reflection of someone recording from a computer screen while a golf tournament and a woman and a baby are chattering away in the background for more than about five seconds, you're down the rabbit hole, and you're not doing yourself any favors.

---

Here's the deal, ultimately, on discussing Mac here on TST: you're welcome to do it, you just might not get much of a response. I won't speak for @mvmac (though I think he feels similarly), but I will say that for me discussing ONE swing particularly when it's being used as a model is not a good use of my time. I'm beyond that phase of my life, and I don't know that I took much away from it.

So, you're welcome to discuss it, but I think you're missing out. You're missing out on a LOT of research done by a LOT of smart people. You're missing out on better ways to go about teaching and understanding the golf swing.

[Vinsk]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nobody's fighting you. We're trying to help, and cautioning you.

I don't know if I'd call Mac's process "simple." The guy in the video below is having to repeat, what, 17 checkpoints or something? And at the same time, sure, it's "simple" because it's one swing.

Try 5 Simple Keys®. Seriously.

You want a blend of TGM, Mac, and modern understanding? 5SK was created by 1) Chuck Evans, who helped write and publish the seventh edition of TGM and is one of the foremost experts in the world on TGM. 5SK was created by 2) Dave Wedzik, a TGM and Mac follower, who spent quite a bit of time with Mike Bender, Mike Bennett, etc. Those two got a LOT of help from me, @mvmac, and James Hirshfield, who was the aforementioned "moradman".

It's a system but not a single swing.

Your mistake is looking at some of the "big name" people (and looking for a "method" per se). The best teachers have a "method" to helping every student without having a single "method" if you know what I mean. They have a system.

Lots of good instructors out there have gone well, well beyond Mac. You're looking in the wrong place if you're only looking at, what, Harmon, McLean, Haney, Leadbetter…

The point is they've all moved on from it, too.

You're talking right here with two people who are well versed in MORAD and TGM (again, Mike did more MORAD than me), and who moved on. And you're not "gladly studying" it - you're (in your words) fighting what we're telling you.

He wasn't. It's a myth. He's cultivated it, whether actively or not. Golf has always loved these "mythical figures" who have "all the secrets."

Just as with Ben Hogan… there are no secrets. Mac wasn't the game's best ballstriker. Neither was Grant Waite. If they were, they'd have won far, far more often. Mac wouldn't have tried 17 times to qualify for the PGA Tour back in the day when it was substantially easier to make the PGA Tour. He'd place better in the local and regional events in which he plays, too.

Mac's obviously a "good" ballstriker given that he made the PGA Tour at one point, but he's not one of the top hundred of all time.

You're putting him on a pedestal.

They're the basic pieces of ONE swing, and a swing that's a moving target.

I just don't see the point. As I said, I don't have the time in the day to discuss or think about one swing. I have hundreds of swings to manage. Those swings have five things in common.

Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods had far more successful swings than Mac O'Grady. Both were great with long irons, Jack a bit better with the driver, and Tiger a bit better with the shorter clubs. Both proved that they were way better ball strikers than Mac by their play: they didn't struggle to even earn a PGA Tour card.

You're not understanding "our" way of thinking. I'll make a few points here as simply as I can.

• While it's true that many, many, many good instructors have a Mac background, it's also true that every one of those instructors has moved well on.
• Mike and I (and Mike far more than I) spent years studying Mac's stuff. Again, Mike more than I. Take a look at the images below. It may be the single largest collection of Mac videos anywhere.
• Going down the Mac rabbit hole is a waste of time. It's one swing, and an ever-changing one at that. Great players - truly great players, unlike Mac - did LOTS of different swings. You may be better off studying the swing of Colin Montgomerie than Mac O'Grady.
• It's not about what Mac got "wrong" necessarily, because I will give him credit in saying that he's changed things he's felt were wrong. If you want one example, though, the S&T guys took from Mac the idea of how the spine works in 3D, and they got that one wrong: it doesn't side bend 35°, and it doesn't extend 35° either: nowhere close in either direction. Mike likely has a more comprehensive list, but at the same time, asking where Mac got something "wrong" is asking the wrong question: the idea that there is "one swing" is categorically wrong.
• There's a whole bunch of actual science out there. Pay attention to that.
• In fact, while you're chasing Mac stories and participating ONLY in this topic, you're missing out on a bunch of great content elsewhere on this site. I don't brag very often, but I'm a smart guy, and I kinda know what I'm talking about in the golf swing. So is @mvmac. So is @david_wedzik.

These aren't short videos, either. Many are over 90 minutes long:

Good timing, though. I had to connect the drive to add several more videos. Here's one:

Again, that's teaching ONE swing. And a swing that changes over time, sometimes because it suits Mac's whim or fancy.

Here's another:

Look, if you find yourself looking at that second video, a grainy, scratchy, black-and-white video with the silhouette/reflection of someone recording from a computer screen while a golf tournament and a woman and a baby are chattering away in the background for more than about five seconds, you're down the rabbit hole, and you're not doing yourself any favors.

Damn. That is one elegant post. 

[Yff Theos]

37 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nobody's fighting you. We're trying to help, and cautioning you.

I don't know if I'd call Mac's process "simple." The guy in the video below is having to repeat, what, 17 checkpoints or something? And at the same time, sure, it's "simple" because it's one swing.

Try 5 Simple Keys®. Seriously.

You want a blend of TGM, Mac, and modern understanding? 5SK was created by 1) Chuck Evans, who helped write and publish the seventh edition of TGM and is one of the foremost experts in the world on TGM. 5SK was created by 2) Dave Wedzik, a TGM and Mac follower, who spent quite a bit of time with Mike Bender, Mike Bennett, etc. Those two got a LOT of help from me, @mvmac, and James Hirshfield, who was the aforementioned "moradman".

It's a system but not a single swing.

Your mistake is looking at some of the "big name" people (and looking for a "method" per se). The best teachers have a "method" to helping every student without having a single "method" if you know what I mean. They have a system.

Lots of good instructors out there have gone well, well beyond Mac. You're looking in the wrong place if you're only looking at, what, Harmon, McLean, Haney, Leadbetter…

The point is they've all moved on from it, too.

You're talking right here with two people who are well versed in MORAD and TGM (again, Mike did more MORAD than me), and who moved on. And you're not "gladly studying" it - you're (in your words) fighting what we're telling you.

He wasn't. It's a myth. He's cultivated it, whether actively or not. Golf has always loved these "mythical figures" who have "all the secrets."

Just as with Ben Hogan… there are no secrets. Mac wasn't the game's best ballstriker. Neither was Grant Waite. If they were, they'd have won far, far more often. Mac wouldn't have tried 17 times to qualify for the PGA Tour back in the day when it was substantially easier to make the PGA Tour. He'd place better in the local and regional events in which he plays, too.

Mac's obviously a "good" ballstriker given that he made the PGA Tour at one point, but he's not one of the top hundred of all time.

You're putting him on a pedestal.

They're the basic pieces of ONE swing, and a swing that's a moving target.

I just don't see the point. As I said, I don't have the time in the day to discuss or think about one swing. I have hundreds of swings to manage. Those swings have five things in common.

Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods had far more successful swings than Mac O'Grady. Both were great with long irons, Jack a bit better with the driver, and Tiger a bit better with the shorter clubs. Both proved that they were way better ball strikers than Mac by their play: they didn't struggle to even earn a PGA Tour card.

You're not understanding "our" way of thinking. I'll make a few points here as simply as I can.

• While it's true that many, many, many good instructors have a Mac background, it's also true that every one of those instructors has moved well on.
• Mike and I (and Mike far more than I) spent years studying Mac's stuff. Again, Mike more than I. Take a look at the images below. It may be the single largest collection of Mac videos anywhere.
• Going down the Mac rabbit hole is a waste of time. It's one swing, and an ever-changing one at that. Great players - truly great players, unlike Mac - did LOTS of different swings. You may be better off studying the swing of Colin Montgomerie than Mac O'Grady.
• It's not about what Mac got "wrong" necessarily, because I will give him credit in saying that he's changed things he's felt were wrong. If you want one example, though, the S&T guys took from Mac the idea of how the spine works in 3D, and they got that one wrong: it doesn't side bend 35°, and it doesn't extend 35° either: nowhere close in either direction. Mike likely has a more comprehensive list, but at the same time, asking where Mac got something "wrong" is asking the wrong question: the idea that there is "one swing" is categorically wrong.
• There's a whole bunch of actual science out there. Pay attention to that.
• In fact, while you're chasing Mac stories and participating ONLY in this topic, you're missing out on a bunch of great content elsewhere on this site. I don't brag very often, but I'm a smart guy, and I kinda know what I'm talking about in the golf swing. So is @mvmac. So is @david_wedzik.

These aren't short videos, either. Many are over 90 minutes long:

Good timing, though. I had to connect the drive to add several more videos. Here's one:

Again, that's teaching ONE swing. And a swing that changes over time, sometimes because it suits Mac's whim or fancy.

Here's another:

Look, if you find yourself looking at that second video, a grainy, scratchy, black-and-white video with the silhouette/reflection of someone recording from a computer screen while a golf tournament and a woman and a baby are chattering away in the background for more than about five seconds, you're down the rabbit hole, and you're not doing yourself any favors.

---

Here's the deal, ultimately, on discussing Mac here on TST: you're welcome to do it, you just might not get much of a response. I won't speak for @mvmac (though I think he feels similarly), but I will say that for me discussing ONE swing particularly when it's being used as a model is not a good use of my time. I'm beyond that phase of my life, and I don't know that I took much away from it.

So, you're welcome to discuss it, but I think you're missing out. You're missing out on a LOT of research done by a LOT of smart people. You're missing out on better ways to go about teaching and understanding the golf swing.

Thank you for this post, the time to write it as well as these films. I appreciate it. Yes, I am currently deep in the rabbit hole because I will watch them many times. Bear in mind I am NOT dealing with teaching accomplished players, that is why a SIMPLE BASE MODEL OF ONE SWING is completely enough. I do not want to move on now because I am curretly researching Mac's ideas which does not exclude possibilities to learn from modern tools.

As far as missing out things, I have been here on this forum a few days and have not seen lots of new threads in the instruction subforum, certainly nothing groundbreaking. I rather dislike to speak about completely not important for me things such as what colour is Tiger's shirt or what Brandel or whomever else has recently said. On the other hand, I will participate in a good discussion about certain aspect of swing theory, with pleasure I will learn and comment the 5SK System; please tell me where I can find basic info and place for discussing it. Thank you.

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Bear in mind I am NOT dealing with teaching accomplished players, that is why a SIMPLE BASE MODEL OF ONE SWING is completely enough.

Any time the number of students you teach is > 1, you've got to look at more than one swing.

I almost took a screenshot of four guys attending a Mac clinic in one of the videos. One guy was 6'2" and weighed maybe 160 pounds. Another was 5'8" and weighed at least twice that.

How on earth are those TWO students going to have model Mac swings?

Dave can't move his left arm as far across his chest as I can. I can move it way, way across. How can he and I have the same golf swing?

15 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

As far as missing out things, I have been here on this forum a few days and have not seen lots of new threads in the instruction subforum, certainly nothing groundbreaking.

You want groundbreaking things to happen every "few days"?

15 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

I rather dislike to speak about completely not important for me things such as what colour is Tiger's shirt or what Brandel or whomever else has recently said.

I gave you that link before.

[Yff Theos]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Any time the number of students you teach is > 1, you've got to look at more than one swing.

I almost took a screenshot of four guys attending a Mac clinic in one of the videos. One guy was 6'2" and weighed maybe 160 pounds. Another was 5'8" and weighed at least twice that.

How on earth are those TWO students going to have model Mac swings?

Surely they can follow the same basic principles for each section of the swing, imo.

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I gave you that link before.

Thanks. I will visit all soon.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Surely they can follow the same basic principles for each section of the swing, imo.

Why not just follow or strive to achieve five? Which backswing is better at A2?

Maybe it doesn't even matter.

Both golfers got into a good position at A5, 6, and 7.

[Yff Theos]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why not just follow or strive to achieve five? Which backswing is better at A2?

Maybe it doesn't even matter.

Both golfers got into a good position at A5, 6, and 7.

Neither is good, imo. I think it cannot matter in case of very accomplished players whose not ideal swings are like the second nature. Weekend players can have further issues associated with such too inside or too outside takeaway.

[iacas]

54 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Neither is good, imo.

Well, you and I may never agree on that then. You can't put people into a box. It doesn't work that way. Change Ray Floyd's backswing just to fit a single model that you have and we might have never heard of the guy.

What would you change about this?

Because if your answer is "she's too far inside and too flat," then I'd ask why that matters when she then gets here reliably:

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

I think it cannot matter in case of very accomplished players whose not ideal swings are like the second nature. Weekend players can have further issues associated with such too inside or too outside takeaway.

They can, but that doesn't mean they all will, or that you should help someone best by saying "okay, first thing is that your checkpoints at 2 are way off." You have to see the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is never going to involve only one way to swing the club, or rigid confinement to "checkpoints" that must look like one model or else they're not "good" according to you.

[Yff Theos]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Well, you and I may never agree on that then. You can't put people into a box. It doesn't work that way. Change Ray Floyd's backswing just to fit a single model that you have and we might have never heard of the guy.

What would you change about this?

Because if your answer is "she's too far inside and too flat," then I'd ask why that matters when she then gets here reliably:

They can, but that doesn't mean they all will, or that you should help someone best by saying "okay, first thing is that your checkpoints at 2 are way off." You have to see the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is never going to involve only one way to swing the club, or rigid confinement to "checkpoints" that must look like one model or else they're not "good" according to you.

Well, I do agree to you in the majority. If I can see that someone is a good player with a good contact (despite compensations) I would not change just to match my model. However, as I said, a beginner who has takeaway errors USUALLY end with problems later on which is very evident in the impact zone. So I would try to correct the takeaway immediately and definitely and gladly use Mac as the model.

 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Yff Theos said:

Well, I do agree to you in the majority. If I can see that someone is a good player with a good contact (despite compensations) I would not change just to match my model. However, as I said, a beginner who has takeaway errors USUALLY end with problems later on which is very evident in the impact zone. So I would try to correct the takeaway immediately and definitely and gladly use Mac as the model.

Then IMO you have a lot to learn as an instructor.

Relying on one swing to be your model is not the way to go.

Good luck.

[Yff Theos]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Then IMO you have a lot to learn as an instructor.

Relying on one swing to be your model is not the way to go.

Good luck.

Yes, I do need lots of learning as an instructor. Life is the best teacher always! Anyhow I am glad I can learn here, this forum is much better than the other one.