Yff Theos

It would be perfect. And it is possible with small personal amendments. You like some patterns, some patterns you hate and ridicule. Teaching is an art but it must have a solid base from that all deviations can be easily controlled. I am noone important.

OK, enough for me of this. I guess I said what I wanted, and heard what I needed. You won't convince me with your arguments, and viceversa. Have a great and safe holidays.

No, you are not. You honestly are one hell of a passionate dude whom current golf teaching needs. You have lots of accolades who stand behind you even when you're wrong. It's a treasure. However, you are sometimes annoying and oversstimating yourself, but I prefer this than the bullshit attitude of other fora. Moreover, I can only dream of your experiences and contacts with important guys. But it seems you hide a grudge to Mac, prolly because he kicked you (and Mike) out somewhere. It is my prediction only, I am not a psychologist. That's why you negate Mac's impact as well as impact of older generation. And I can assure you, Tigers and Rorys of today would watch such Hogan in awe with open mouth hit balls on the range, despite all enormous advantages science brings today Nope. But I am too old for "an expert friend who prefers to remain anonymous" arguments. It is not rocket science. 1) stand erect close enough to the wall so that the toes of your feet touch the wall (and your knees do not because they are not flexed); 2) without changing anything just bend your spine laterally as you create primary axis tilt; 3) now flex your knees simultaneously just to see that it is your trail knee that touches the wall as the first; 4) try to adjust the trail feet position so that your both knees touch the wall at the same time. Gotcha?

Mac was a PGA Tour player. According to you, each of them is an excellent ballstriker. I assume you put your conversation with an anonymous friend of yours over what was publicly stated by McCord, who was closer to Mac than all your friends combined? Heh. Yes it is, but without upper body flex that would change nothing. Lower part of the body is in the stance of golf. Why examples of Weekleys of todays as one of best ballstrikers then? Besides, as I said before, Mac is my hero as the teaching master and inventor, not as player or ballstriker. There are lots of examples on this forum where you ridicule major winners as teachers. Hypocrits at best.

So, perhaps we should've started with the definition of a ballstriker. According to my definition (which is placing the ball mostly where I want) there is a helluva lot of not great ballstrikers on tour. In the terms of comparing to amators, all of them are excellent ballstrikers. Comparing to my definition: only very few. No, it is not any truth in the sense of truth. It can be your truth though. No, I am not lazy. I just want you to show me these multiple ways of setting parallel knees IN A GOLF SWING ADDRESS. I can see that the relation between knees and feet position is reciprocal or you perform an odd stance that cannot be called a golf adress stance. That's all. Try with no spine flex forward.

He could. And he is a PGA Tour winner. It was my opinion, so, quoting yourself, it's an opinion, so I can be right or wrong. It's just my opinion. But I can back it up, too. Insulting people does not make you look wiser. Quite the opposite, dude. Examples, please.

Please, do. It is mainly a putter's and longhitter's tour nowadays, imo. On what basis? I told you that you cannot rate ballstriking based on results only. Show me Mac's stats such as FIR, avg. drive length, GIR. This would be decisive, not his stroke results. Hogan could end with 100% FIR and GIR with a decent length off the tee and lose the tournament because of lousy putting. Push your feet to touch the wall with the big toes, then perform the primary axis tilt as in address. Then flex both knees and notice which one touch the wall AS THE FIRST. It will be the trail knee. Therefore, you would need to retract the trail foot to make both knees touch the wall at the same time. It is me who is tired of your ignorance in this point.

You're simply wrong. What's vastly overrated are perhaps Mac's achievements and here I do agree 100%. As I told you before, the very swing (although unreally good) is not responsible alone for the results. Someone said Hogan would have won more majors than Jack if he had his caddie putting for him. As regards the very swing, O'Grady's one is one of the best ever, it is hard to find someone who can sniff how to play well that denies it. No, it has to be because of the more flex in the trail knee which is obvious at address. It is a simple geometry. OK, will remember for the future this nuance. Thank you.

My vote goes to S&T. Shawn Clement otoh seems to be a much better communicator than all S&T guys I have listened to.

I understand you will counter anyone trying to put anyone on a pedestal. Otherwise it would seem you are a Mac hater. 183 cm according to the net sources. Slightly perhaps, yes, not vastly in any case. After all these posts before yours you should have known. DTL view, knees level in relation to the baseline. I am astonished someone can doubt it is of no importance.

It cannot start down into the ground because of the built-in loft and friction between the face and the ball surface. It is odd to discuss what has already been well proven, but many forget that the initial direction is not 100% where the face points, but ca. 80% or so. Sometimes it is easier to teach a not so advanced pupil to curve the ball with the image of closing/opening clubface instead of clubface/path relationship because it is rather difficult to change a grooved path on command.

You now what ? You are rude. I did not deserve to be offended this way, I guess. Being sometimes slow and addicted to a hero does not mean I am a troll or persona non grata. I will answer in your style then: if you were as intelligent as you think you are, you'll deduct that the "level knees" idea concerns target view, not face on one (which would be dumb, I agree). A straight correlation "level knees" with "trail foot slightly retracted" should be enough, don't you think? Have a good night, Erik.

It surely makes sense. At least to McCord and me,lol. You misunderstood what I meant to say: you can have level knees only with a slightly closed feet in relation to the target because of primary tilt. Try it yourself. I meant people who ridicule other types of feet position than parallel to the target, definitely not you and your colleagues. Why such a bizarre idea? I learn here and enjoying my time. You are a very knowledgable man, perhaps your ego is too big though :)

A great thread with classic pics and wisdom.

And one thing more: you wrote Mac got it right with as I adviced on the other forum, it is a very overlooked but important thing: to have level knees at address which can be achieved ONLY with a slightly closed feet stance. Knees movement affect hips movement. It seems people are totally ignorant in this sphere which is not good. In anticipation of some comments: I know that many greats played with open feet and I would have not tried to change that, but obviously pay attention to this fact with a beginner.

It is a great tool!

Well, I believe in all legendary talks there is a seed of truth but right, I am more interested in Mac as inventor and instructor than him as a player. OK. Interesting. Did Mac really categorized himself as 4-barrel hitter ? In triple-barrel patterns the sequence is 1-2-3. And I try to understand the bold. Can you explain what do you mean ? Thanks. Well, perhaps easier but imho more dangerous with more room for subsequent errors as, for instance, too low takeaway. I understood why Mac wants to do it that way thatnks to McCord videos. Agreed. Agreed, I think. Pitch from 3-4 to 6-7 can be just a fairy tale. Nevertheless, I am not a fan of going punch or push from 4. Not familiar with CP/CF that much to confirm it. Yes, that can be the biggest error of all you mentioned. But I believe it is TGM error that Mac could just "adopt". I cannot comment it. A great list. I would add the contribution to the (1) length of backswing without overswinging and (2) importance of the tempo. Thanks for this post, Mike.

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.

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.

Very nice videos. Bravo!

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.

Surely they can follow the same basic principles for each section of the swing, imo. Thanks. I will visit all soon.

I think adding the hinges with some explanation as concerns clubface action (reference: closure rate per section is a good thing): HH, VH and AH.

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.

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. Yes, but I wanted to learn why he prefers to start this way. I do not buy the argument of binocular vision here. Me neither. I just want to discuss and memorize important basic pieces of information about each section of the swing. 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.