Yff Theos

Show me, please. Where did I write that ballstriking is less important than putting. You are imagining things. I said there are other things important in scoring on tour besides ballstriking alone which is 1) putting skills and 2) mental skills. Perhaps it is clearly proven to you. There are solid proven arguments that even the best ballstriking is not enough to succeed. It depends if this is a putt for birdie or for par, imo.

Who is the troll? Me? Because I have my point of view and I have courage to dispute? Are you mad? Who said it does not? But imo you all underestimate both putting skills as well as mental aspects a lot. Both factors can make the best ballstrikers lose.

Again, my point is that if McIlroy and Spieth had been properly coached mentally they would not have played such ridiculously bad holes. Being OWGR#1 has nothing to do with it. I meant besides the three prominent ones only Koepka was a major winner. I forgot about Thomas and his PGA Championships win. Not the way McIlroy or Spieth did. Correct me if I am wrong I have never heard them ever had such a bad double-digit par4 or almost double-digit par3 hole. He had it that time at Augusta for sure. I never said he has it on a constant basis. He is really mentally strong but I saw a shy rookie with red cheaks at Augusta that year. Sometimes mental coaching can help even the strongest players and he could have easily ended with a bogey or a double there.

Of course, it counts despite I have never heard about it. You had to search it as well, as I see. But this is something different than the collapse of the three mentioned players. Rose played poorly this second nine but never experienced what did Spieth or McIlroy on 1 ridiculously bad hole. Imo, if they were better prepared mentally they would not have lost so stupidly so many strokes because of weak mindset and still could have been in play I did it because these three lost spectacularily while I believe they could do better with a mental coach in these particular situation. besides, Rose is a major winner, these other guys (except Koepka) aren't. Anyhow, I think it is better to have one good mental coach that not have such.

No. Never said it does not. I said that poor putting can spoil the best display of ballstriking. I always heard that poor putting was the biggest obstacle for those who aspired to the tour. You cannot prove your assumption. Yes, that is a fair statement. I would add being in a good mental form. Yes, but he also lost a lot because of his lousy putting. I heard he play badly because of lack of acceptajnce and hostility towards him. Mental thing. I base my assumptions on opinions of people who, I believe, were better qualified to express opinions back there than you are now: at least, because they witnessed them hit shots and play. OK, sounds good. Well, OK you can always blame ballstriking quality for necessity of using short game, therefore I agree. What I meant were mainly his chipping/pitching childish errors/yips. I know many wizards of a given game who never were able to show all potential in real time matches while being much more above others during training hours or sparrings. I believe golf is not different and there were such examples. It is only your opinion.

Perhaps this is why three most prominent of the listed players (McIlroy, Spieth, Johnson) happened to collapse mentally spectacularily at least once. I have never heard Justin Rose lost an important tournament due to his weak mental side.

I like to take into account various points of view while talking about ballstriking on the highest level. While I know that some stories from the past can be exaggerated I also believe in all of them there is a seed of truth, the more these opinions usually were formulated by knowledgable people. On the other hand, in my opinion, pure statistics are important means to determine the quality of ballstriking but even they never reveal the whole truth. Gross scores can be even more misleading, not talking about longevity of terms of playing on tour. My definition for ballstriking is the ability to play desired shots on command. I presume noone intends to drive the ball into the woods instead fairways or outside greens. Myth no.1.: these who play long on tour are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never played there or play shortly there; Myth no.2.: these who win more are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never win or win less; Both of the above are as ridiculous myths as one can imagine. Moreover, both can be easily busted with the same arguments: # scoring is a derivative of tee-to-green play, short game and putting; there are many examples of great ballstrikers who scored not so well because of problems with putting (Ben Hogan, Moe Norman, George Knudsen, Mac O'Grady, not so long time ago Sergio Garcia) or even short game (today's Tiger Woods); # scoring depends highly on mental side; there are many examples of great ballstrikers who scored poorly because of problems in this sphere and I believe golf is no different from all other sports and I know some prominent examples of great artists during training hours, in sparrings or on the ranges who fail when they start real playing for something important (prizes, money, reputation, et caetera). Ergo: it is not so easy to judge or compare ballstriking quality of players, especially from different generations.

Where on the forum can we discuss freely various meanders of ballstriking class without being threatened then?

I like the above post. One Moe Norman was supposed to be even better ballstriker to Hogan and he was also alone (like Mac is presented here) and accomplished nothing on tour.

OK. 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. 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". 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.

Well, yes, slightly, very slightly over and out. However, not as much as for example Jones or Snead. 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. 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. OK, I see this. Hands more forward, shaft shallows. Logical.

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. 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. OK, clear. I should have used the expression "short of parallel but on plane". Well, most probably I would have been kicked out that way or another. 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. OK, clear. Thanks for the explanation. 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. All the best in 2018, guys.

@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.

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. 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). 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? Hmm...I thought (as per McCord video) that p3 is 90 degrees while it could reach 100-110 at p4 because of momentum. OK, will verify this these days. 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.

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. 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.

I said p1-3 is being important, that's for sure, not p2-p3. You surely have me discouraged to use your silly a-points, then I will use correct p-ones. What does Hogan's takeaway to do with this? We talk Mac's takeaway. Revert to my earlier posts, I guess you did not read them. Yes, because I guess this move would help them to have better statistics. Not under 50% of FIR and GIR of the pros you admire. I said lots of good teachers use Mac's principles WHEN TEACHING. Again, if you want to have an argument, prepare well. Here you are, what I see: p1-p2: outside takeaway with closed feet p2-p3: hinged wrists to approx. 90 deg. p4: laid off look p4-p5: return on plane without changing angles much p5-p6: shallowing the clubface p7-p8: angled hinge p9: recocking See what I posted above, think, then try it with your own swing then come back to me.

Haha, hilarous, lol. I am back to the topic then. What a childish play. As I pointed out, why don't you recognize late Mac's closed feet stance at address in almost all footages?

I was forced to acknowledge a warning to be able to post. I can see my last post (as well as several important posts in the discussion) had been removed without a reason.

Good. You can only discuss ideas that you like. In case someone bring arguments to what you're speechless, the only one thing you can do is to delete posts. Briliant. From my very first post I tried to discuss Mac's ideas. What I encountered? That I put Mac on a pedestal despite I was ensured there is a place to discuss everything I want. Moreover, I was threatened to be banned from the forum, something it was not done even on the other shitty forum. In response to what, when I tried to defend my point of view bringing sane arguments, when returning I have seen the discussion is removed because someone in charge did not like what I said. Look back to my posts and to the discussion (unless my posts have been removed recently to help protagonists of this forum win. It is a joke.

That is the point. I am here to discuss Mac's ideas.

Lmao...banning me permanently. Boy, listen to me and think. Banning me for what? For pointing it out that I said you're nothing compared to Mac? Supposedly this is the forum for freethinkers, much better than wrx ever been. In the end it appeared it is the same old shit, named the owner always is right. When you were right I gladly accepted and admitted. When I was right I felt I should have not been there despite the promises it was the place for freethinkers because of you and your friend working together as Pixie and Dixie. Ban me immediately.

Let me explain it to you, I am the best example. I was looking for a model pattern that I could use in my teachings. I chose Mac as my basic pattern. He set a pattern that was used by many, including your friends from S&T. I still can see prominent pros that use Mac's patterns. If you are able to present to us an interview or speech in which Mac O'Grady says that the current technique (which is iridiculous n many examples) is what we all want to know -- I'll think it over. Unfortunately for you, you can present nothing in this spirit instead of putting yourself on a pedestal higher than Mac was on this forum.

Certainly he did better than you. Noone speaks about your trend that does not exist, yet everyone in the serious golf community knows Mac and MORAD.

Yes. However, there are different skills to be required from certain groups of instructors. I personally divide them into coaches, real time instructors and inventors. Butch Harmon is rather a coach for accomplished players, he is not famous from fixing ordinary people (I remember I read somewhen he could not fix a student similarily to Haney's attempts). The most common are real time instructors whose skills are measured on the basis of their possibilities to help a student. Mac belongs to the group of inventors who set new trends and looks for new solutions; it is required from such people to be able to perform what they endorse more than in the remaining two groups I see lots of "golf swing theoreticians" who cannot perform what they endorse which is sad. The swing looks good. To my eye it lacks a better left side extension between p5 and p9 but it is only my opinion.

Well, of course there are, say, minorities uncapable of doing standard things. My experiences are not wide enough to take that into account as an argument against teaching a given choosen pattern. What I see, two great teaching pros famous from their 'fachkenntnis' that I follow must have a favourite one swing pattern (which is, by the way, not very far from late Mac). It is very visible when looking at their students' swings. I can see them on a daily basis on Instagram. I agree that the priority for a teacher is to make a student a better player but apparently some pros believe that teaching a given favourite pattern accomplishes that goal. And I repeat: I mean a basic pattern without going into details. This is what many famous instructors did: Foley did, Hardy did, S&T guys did, to name a few. If the basic pattern is universal enough I see no obstacles to teach it to rookies as a set of the main swing principles. OK, let us end the discussion of Mac's ballstriking. He surely was a good one and probably one of the best from all golf swing instructors. He could play on the highest level and that is why he is much more reliable to me than these who couldn't sniff it. Well, maybe so, but I can see slightly closed feet stance in almost all down-the-line swings of late Mac.