TGM, MORAD, WAITE, 5SK etc vs. HOGANS FIVE LESSONS

[RBA21]

First off, let me say that I have the upmost respect for all golfers and especially those who have spent countless hours trying to figure out the ideal way to swing a golf club. I personally have spent many many hours studying film on Mr. Hogan as well as his book, Five Lessons. I've also had extensive training from TGM & Morad instructors as well as instruction from Grant Waite. While I know that TGM, Morad, Waite Mayo golf, etc. all have their differences, in my opinion, they're all at the top of modern day instruction. I find myself going back and forth between methods (modern swing vs. Hogan fundamentals) and want to hear everyone's thoughts on why one method is better than the other.

So, the intention of this thread is to discuss the similarities/differences and pros/cons of Modern day instruction (TGM, MORAD, WM golf, etc.) vs. the fundaments set out by Mr. Hogan in Five Lessons.

[mchepp]

I will give my two cents on each of these. I don't think I can directly debate because 5 lessons is book and books are left up to the reader to interpret. Interpretation leads to many forum debates and likely no agreements. Hogan is certainly one of the best golfers every to play the game, but that does not mean reading a book by him will do you any good? I feel that Hogan has many good pieces in his book, but they are more or less breadcrumbs of Hogan's real secret, hard work.

The others you mentioned are live instruction on video and in person. Except TGM. TGM is really only a classification system. There are some imperatives, but hardly one way to swing taught in that book.

MORAD is likely to get you tons of heated debate but very little substance unless someone is willing to share secrets and even then someone will jump on here and say that that info is out of date and/or wrong. I truly wish that Mac would publish his work because of the treasure troves of information contained in there, but that is his choice. He did the research he gets to decide what to do with it.

I really like what Grant is doing. I think that he is doing a nice job incorporating Trackman.

[mvmac]

What a question!  First off, I think golfers improve more by trying to identify and improve their priority piece rather than buying into a method.

To your question, it's tough to compare Hogan, MORAD, TGM, 5SK, Waite/Mayo because it's an evolution.  Hogan's "fundamentals" are basically "this is how I swing".  TGM attempts to apply science to the golf swing and begins to classify the components of golf so that they can be categorized into a measurable, workable swing model. MORAD is an investigation of how the body conforms to the geometry required to hit a ball.  It builds upon the geometry and classification laid out in TGM.  Mac did research on importance of the eyes, body's balance system and a lot of taxonomy.  Mac's system, at least the way he teaches it, is waaaay too rigid.  I think a Mac school might be beneficial for an instructor to attend and learn cause and effect of certain movements but can be too much information for most golfers.  Mac gives you a laundry list of things you need to do, like I said earlier, I believe in focusing on a priority piece.  But there is no doubt that golf instruction is much better off for having Mac involved.

So with Hogan, TGM and MORAD, there is a lot time spent with taxonomy using pictures and video.  With 2D info you can make pretty good guesses but you're still guessing. Now we have 3D information like AMM, Swing Catalyst, Biomechanics guys like Dr. Kwon come in and add their knowledge to the pot.  Obviously the other difference is that we (5SK) and Waite/Mayo use 3D ball flight measurements from Flightscope and Trackman.  Utilizing these tools, there is a lot less guessing and instructors like 5 Simple Keys and Waite/Mayo can further the understanding of what's really going on to perform an efficient golf swing and how that golf swing relates to producing solid, predictable ball flight numbers.

In case you haven't seen it RBA21 http://thesandtrap.com/t/64993/weight-forward-using-swingcatalyst-and-sam-balance-lab-to-explain-pressure-throughout-the-swing

[birlyshirly]

I think there are 2 different attitudes with which people approach a question like this.

One is to assume that these are all different, competing methods of learning golf. The other is a belief that all these different methods, or philosophies, are trying to explain fundamentally the same thing - albeit from different angles.

I'm in the latter camp myself - and so I expect to see more commonalities, or at least consistencies, than differences in these systems.

I still think 5 Lessons is a great bedrock of instruction. If someone was looking for an overview of the golf swing, I'm not sure where they'd get a better one. Inevitably, some moves are open to exaggeration - and I think it's hugely helpful, if not essential, to have a teacher who can pick up on the small ways in which people tend to get off track.

Also, some people get hung up on the details - as if the book is going to give you the blueprint to repeat Hogan's swing. I thought the book was pretty clear on that NOT being the case. It's an attempt to catalogue the few things that all effective swings have in common. I'd always suggest reading it in that spirit - and comparing what you think you've read to what you think you see in good swings and players - if you're not sure how much emphasis a particular point deserves.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

I'm in the latter camp myself - and so I expect to see more commonalities, or at least consistencies, than differences in these systems.

I do as well.

I'm going to get my kiddo ready for school here soon so I'm going to force myself to be as brief as possible. I'll second what Mike said, too, as that'll save me some typing.

5 Lessons - Great if you want to swing like Hogan thought he swung. Easily misinterpreted.

TGM - Great in 1960. Outdated as hell now. Also not "instruction." Lots of incorrect info and missing pieces.

MORAD - The ultimate in method instruction, except the method is constantly changing with Mac's whims. Too much emphasis on "looks pretty."

Grant's done good things. We've obviously had the pleasure to work very closely with him, and I think he'd say the same for us. What he - and 5 Simple Keys® ( you should really look into this) - have done is take a TGM background, to take some MORAD knowledge, and add a whole lot more to evolve and continue to grow. Grant is what I call a fellow "explorer." Explorers are constantly looking for new information.

For example, the whole "center of mass versus center of pressure" talk that's going on in certain Facebook groups among instructors? It's old news to a few of us, and our observations, predictions, and rudimentary experiments were spot on. Grant was highly interested in that information when we shared it with him. That's why we were able to get him on the SwingCatalyst at the PGA Show. That's why he bought a SwingCatalyst of his own. (And heck, 99% of golf instructors still have no idea what we're talking about, and won't ever see this study, work, research, etc.).

Grant's also not beholden to the MORAD way of doing things, in terms of how EVERY swing must look EXACTLY the same. He in fact takes a much more "5SK-like" approach - fix the student's priority, let them do whatever other "personality" type stuff they have in their swings, and just focus on a few key things to improve their golf. It's a system of teaching (prioritizing, that is) that works for everyone from beginners to PGA Tour players. 5 Simple Keys® is heavily based on prioritizing the five things (and yes, even PGA Tour players will have to work on Keys #1 or #2 sometimes).

Anyway, long story short, you've listed an odd mix with TGM, MORAD, and 5 Lessons. A lot of the instructors I respect - a lot of the "explorers" out there - happen to have a TGM and/or MORAD background, but that's largely because they're EXPLORERS. They're constantly seeking knowledge and truth. They're looking in every crevice and mining for whatever gold is available. That means TGM. That means MORAD. That means anything that seems to have some sort of logic or truth to it. So that's often the reason why good instructors have that background - because there's only so much out there.

P.S. The side of instruction - perhaps the MORE IMPORTANT side - is communication, and it's completely lacking from this discussion. It warrants mentioning, though. How you are with people is important. It's why Butch Harmon is still a good instructor, and why he continues to get so many good students on the PGA Tour.

[RBA21]

Originally Posted by mvmac

What a question!  First off,  I think golfers improve more by trying to identify and improve their priority piece rather than buy into a method.

I agree. The more I learn about my own swing, the more I finding out that there are certain area that are a big deal for me and where I need to devote the majority of my time practicing.

Quote:

To your question, it's tough to compare Hogan, MORAD, TGM, 5SK, Waite/Mayo because it's an evolution.  Hogan's "fundamentals" are basically "this is how I swing".  TGM attempts to apply science to the golf swing and begins to classify the components of golf so that they can be categorized into a measurable, workable swing model.  MORAD is an investigation of how the body conforms to the geometry required to hit a ball.  It builds upon the geometry and classification laid out in TGM.  Mac did research on importance of the eyes, body's balance system and a lot of taxonomy.  Mac's system, at least the way he teaches it, is waaaay too rigid.  I think a Mac school might be beneficial for an instructor to attend and learn cause and effect of certain movements but can be too much information for most golfers.  Mac gives you a laundry list of things you need to do, like I said earlier, I believe in focusing on a priority piece.  But there is no doubt that golf instruction is much better off for having Mac involved.

NO doubt in my mind that MAC knows as much (probably more) than anyone on the planet right now regarding the golf swing. I've seen bootleg tapes of him giving lessons and swinging and the info is awesome. What I don't understand though, is that if he has so much control over the golf ball, why are his scores not reflecting it? I'm in no way talking bad about Mac here, I love his golf swing, I just don't understand! Most people will argue that he's just a terrible putter, but I don't buy it. I'd be curious to know what his GIR stats are for competitive golf in the last 10 years. Again, let me re-iterate, i'm not talking bad about Mac, i'm just trying to understand what's really going on. The only player I can think of with a MORADish swing with any success at the professional level is Robert Rock and he swings it very very close to Mac.

Hogan, on the other hand, was very successful transferring the game from the practice tee to the golf course. Over time he built a swing that he could trust and one where he could really control the golf ball under any amount of pressure. This is what I'm after. No one has ever duplicated Hogan, nor will they. In my case, I've simply tried to implement his fundamentals as I interpret them from the book along with lots of video. I find that most instructors out there reference Hogans fundaments but hardly implement them. I also think that most out there (as I have at times) abandon Hogans fundamentals because they find it too difficult or uncomfortable. In my opinion, his golf swing is the best ever. I know most golf gurus will say Snead (and I love Snead) but I'm not convinced.

As for TGM, I would say that there's a lot of guys playing the tour with some sort of TGM background, but I cant think of one that is a hardcore TGMer. When I was playing the mini tours, all the guys out there were talking about Boo Weekley and how he hit better than anyone. I hear he has a background with TGM but I'm not positive about that.

I know Grant himself had some success out on tour and he's now working with some guys out there. CHIII and Summerhays are just a couple that come to mind. I really liked what he had to say about my swing as he pointed out a few things that I couldn't figure out on my own.

Overall, I guess i'm just a little weary of the modern day golf swing because we haven't really seen anyone dominate or play really well consistently who uses this type of swing.

Quote:

So with Hogan, TGM and MORAD, there is a lot time spent with taxonomy using pictures and video.  With 2D info you can make pretty good guesses but you're still guessing.  Now we have 3D information like AMM, Swing Catalyst, Biomechanics guys like Dr. Kwon come in and add their knowledge to the pot.  Obviously the other difference is that we (5SK) and Waite/Mayo use 3D ball flight measurements from Flightscope and Trackman.  Utilizing these tools, there is a lot less guessing and instructors like 5 Simple Keys and Waite/Mayo can further the understanding of what's really going on to perform an efficient golf swing and how that golf swing relates to producing solid, predictable ball flight numbers.

In case you haven't seen it RBA21 http://thesandtrap.com/t/64993/weight-forward-using-swingcatalyst-and-sam-balance-lab-to-explain-pressure-throughout-the-swing

I've been following you guys (5SK) for the last couple of months and really like what you guys are doing.

I looked at this briefly but will take a more in depth look a little later today. Thanks for the comments!

[Mr. Desmond]

This is what a television personality said about people taking up Hogan:

I'VE WATCHED golfers try to copy Ben Hogan's golf swing my whole life. The results are almost never good, and it's often disastrous. If you copy Hogan's flattish plane and his weak grip but don't cup your wrist and adopt his body motion--which was distinctive and which he didn't cover all that well in Five Lessons--you're going to be in a world of hurt.

....

.

.

Brandel

[RBA21]

Originally Posted by iacas

I do as well.

I'm going to get my kiddo ready for school here soon so I'm going to force myself to be as brief as possible. I'll second what Mike said, too, as that'll save me some typing.

5 Lessons - Great if you want to swing like Hogan thought he swung. Easily misinterpreted. I highly agree that the book can easily be misinterpreted!

TGM - Great in 1960. Outdated as hell now. Also not "instruction." Lots of incorrect info and missing pieces.

MORAD - The ultimate in method instruction, except the method is constantly changing with Mac's whims. Too much emphasis on "looks pretty." Yeah I hear that some of Macs stuff is getting a little extreme. That think that I want is a superficial swing that "looks pretty." I wouldn't care if I looked like Charles Barkley if I could have complete control over the golf ball!

Grant's done good things. We've obviously had the pleasure to work very closely with him, and I think he'd say the same for us. What he - and 5 Simple Keys® (you should really look into this) - have done is take a TGM background, to take some MORAD knowledge, and add a whole lot more to evolve and continue to grow. Grant is what I call a fellow "explorer." Explorers are constantly looking for new information. I'm definitely going to look into 5KS more.

For example, the whole "center of mass versus center of pressure" talk that's going on in certain Facebook groups among instructors? It's old news to a few of us, and our observations, predictions, and rudimentary experiments were spot on. Grant was highly interested in that information when we shared it with him. That's why we were able to get him on the SwingCatalyst at the PGA Show. That's why he bought a SwingCatalyst of his own. (And heck, 99% of golf instructors still have no idea what we're talking about, and won't ever see this study, work, research, etc.).

Grant's also not beholden to the MORAD way of doing things, in terms of how EVERY swing must look EXACTLY the same. He in fact takes a much more "5SK-like" approach - fix the student's priority, let them do whatever other "personality" type stuff they have in their swings, and just focus on a few key things to improve their golf. It's a system of teaching (prioritizing, that is) that works for everyone from beginners to PGA Tour players. 5 Simple Keys® is heavily based on prioritizing the five things (and yes, even PGA Tour players will have to work on Keys #1 or #2 sometimes).

Anyway, long story short, you've listed an odd mix with TGM, MORAD, and 5 Lessons. A lot of the instructors I respect - a lot of the "explorers" out there - happen to have a TGM and/or MORAD background, but that's largely because they're EXPLORERS. They're constantly seeking knowledge and truth. They're looking in every crevice and mining for whatever gold is available. That means TGM. That means MORAD. That means anything that seems to have some sort of logic or truth to it. So that's often the reason why good instructors have that background - because there's only so much out there. I think I'm a lot like you guys in that I am and explorer who has background of all sorts. I just want to continue to learn and eventually build a swing where I can control the golf ball. I hit it good now but that's not good enough. I want to hit it great.

P.S. The side of instruction - perhaps the MORE IMPORTANT side - is communication, and it's completely lacking from this discussion. It warrants mentioning, though. How you are with people is important. It's why Butch Harmon is still a good instructor, and why he continues to get so many good students on the PGA Tour.

[RBA21]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

This is what a television personality said about people taking up Hogan:

I'VE WATCHED golfers try to copy Ben Hogan's golf swing my whole life. The results are almost never good, and it's often disastrous. I agree. If you copy Hogan's flattish plane (I actually think Hogan was on plane and not flat) and his weak grip (covered in depth in Five Lessons) but don't cup your wrist (Although not covered in his book, I think that the cupped wrist is irrelevant and was only used to increase speed)  and adopt his body motion--which was distinctive and which he didn't cover all that well in Five Lessons--you're going to be in a world of hurt. (To me, the lateral motion of the hips was not covered well enough in Five Lessons. He mentions transferring the weight back to the lead foot buts that's about it.)

I want to say again that I don't advise trying to "look like" or "copy" Hogan. Hogan did what worked for Hogan. However, I do believe that by mastering the fundaments as he sets out in his book, one can then have their own personal variances on the swing that makes it swing work for them.

....

.

.

Brandel

[cipher]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

This is what a television personality said about people taking up Hogan:

I'VE WATCHED golfers try to copy Ben Hogan's golf swing my whole life. The results are almost never good, and it's often disastrous. If you copy Hogan's flattish plane and his weak grip but don't cup your wrist and adopt his body motion--which was distinctive and which he didn't cover all that well in Five Lessons--you're going to be in a world of hurt.

Brandel

Kind of a silly point by Brandel. Who actually tries to copy everything he did?  I naturally have a flatter swing plane, do not cup my wrist, and seem to play OK.

Originally Posted by RBA21

I actually think Hogan was on plane and not flat

I think he just had a flatter plane than most.

[RBA21]

Yes, in appearance Hogan did have a flatter swing than most but only because of his height, build and posture. Nearly all of the great ball strikers in history have had their left arm matching their shoulder plane at the top of the backswing regardless of stature. It Brandle Chamblee is the one who made that comment, I think you can pretty much disregard it entirely. I disagree with almost everything he says. Just my opinion :)

[birlyshirly]

But did Hogan swing on anything like the plane he describes in his book? Much flatter surely, at least in the '50s.

[Hacker James]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

But did Hogan swing on anything like the plane he describes in his book? Much flatter surely, at least in the '50s.

I'd have to re-read the appropriate chapters in the book, but I believe he made mention that different players are going to have different planes i.e. flat vs upright, but the distinction he made was to make sure you did not raise up from the plane you started out with or in his words not to "Shatter the glass".  He also stated that the plane on the downswing was "tilted" in a different orientation than at address, something about the glass standing on its corner.  Again, I would have to read the passage(s).

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by RBA21

NO doubt in my mind that MAC knows as much (probably more) than anyone on the planet right now regarding the golf swing. I've seen bootleg tapes of him giving lessons and swinging and the info is awesome. What I don't understand though, is that if he has so much control over the golf ball, why are his scores not reflecting it? I'm in no way talking bad about Mac here, I love his golf swing, I just don't understand! Most people will argue that he's just a terrible putter, but I don't buy it. I'd be curious to know what his GIR stats are for competitive golf in the last 10 years. Again, let me re-iterate, i'm not talking bad about Mac, i'm just trying to understand what's really going on. The only player I can think of with a MORADish swing with any success at the professional level is Robert Rock and he swings it very very close to Mac.

Going to be hard to find anyone playing at a high level with a very Macish swing because Mac wants you to swing it down and to the left.  Could make you a great short iron player but you'll struggle with hitting it high enough with the longer clubs, can also end up hitting some wipey cut shots.  Just been my experience with guys coming from Mac and knowing Robert Rock's Trackman numbers.

I watched Mac play in the Long Beach Open the last two years and he is a bad putter.  It's not the yips or anything like that, I just don't think he cares much about putting.  His warmup for both his rounds this year was just hitting some drivers on the range.  Never hit another club or made it to the putting green.  He's also 62 years old and shooting in the low 70's is pretty good.  For one nine he only hit one "bad" shot and shot 4 over.  His priority right now is teaching and working on his own swing.  I don't think he practices playing golf/shooting good scores.  When he was younger I'm sure it was different but Mac has admitted to not having such a strong mental game or right temperament to consistently play well on tour.  It's all about comfort level.  It's easier for him to be the ball striking guru, teach at his schools and be the expert, than to try and grind it out on tour.

Originally Posted by RBA21

Hogan, on the other hand, was very successful transferring the game from the practice tee to the golf course. Over time he built a swing that he could trust and one where he could really control the golf ball under any amount of pressure. This is what I'm after. No one has ever duplicated Hogan, nor will they. In my case, I've simply tried to implement his fundamentals as I interpret them from the book along with lots of video. I find that most instructors out there reference Hogans fundaments but hardly implement them. I also think that most out there (as I have at times) abandon Hogans fundamentals because they find it too difficult or uncomfortable. In my opinion, his golf swing is the best ever. I know most golf gurus will say Snead (and I love Snead) but I'm not convinced.

Yeah Hogan practiced certain shots he would hit on the course and rehearsed them for hours on the range.

Originally Posted by RBA21

As for TGM, I would say that there's a lot of guys playing the tour with some sort of TGM background, but I cant think of one that is a hardcore TGMer. When I was playing the mini tours, all the guys out there were talking about Boo Weekley and how he hit better than anyone. I hear he has a background with TGM but I'm not positive about that.

I think Boo Weekley is a former Mark Blackburn student, TGM/Mac guy.  Heath Slocum also works with Blackburn and he strips it.  But neither one of those guys could tell you what the 4th Accumulator is.

[birlyshirly]

Originally Posted by Hacker James

I'd have to re-read the appropriate chapters in the book, but I believe he made mention that different players are going to have different planes i.e. flat vs upright, but the distinction he made was to make sure you did not raise up from the plane you started out with or in his words not to "Shatter the glass".  He also stated that the plane on the downswing was "tilted" in a different orientation than at address, something about the glass standing on its corner.  Again, I would have to read the passage(s).

I think that's pretty accurate. But the visual that Hogan used, of a pane of glass running from the ball to the shoulders, always seemed to me a better reflection of what other pros were doing than Hogan himself. I sometimes think that Hogan's point about the plane was NOT the precise angle of inclination - but just the idea of planar motion. That as the club moves back from the ball, it must move steadily up vertically and back away from the target line. That might have been a novel view of the swing in the 1950s. Heck, Colin Montgomerie always says that he "felt" his swing to be in a straight line, back and through.

Hogan does say that the arms should swing on the same plane as the shoulders rotate. I can't buy that - either conceptually, as necessarily the best way to swing, or empirically, as a fundamental underpinning all effective swings. And, allowing that Hogan did appear to have his left arm and shoulders in a single plane, I still don't think that that single plane was aligned through the ball - I think it was considerably shallower.

Similarly, despite the endless discussion about "supination" - I wonder if he wasn't simply saying that the hands and arms need to rotate through impact.

[RBA21]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

But did Hogan swing on anything like the plane he describes in his book? Much flatter surely, at least in the '50s.

Hogan wanted to FEEL like he turned his SHOULDERS on this imaginary plane of glass, but in realty he turned his shoulders a bit more level relative to the inclined pane of glass as indicated in Five Lessons.

[RBA21]

Originally Posted by mvmac

I think Boo Weekley is a former Mark Blackburn student, TGM/Mac guy.  Heath Slocum also works with Blackburn and he strips it.  But neither one of those guys could tell you what the 4th Accumulator is.

I just laughed so loud that my wife turned around and looked at me like I was crazy. That's awesome. Gotta love Boo though, that guy is nuts!