TGM mentioned in golfdigest.com about Mac O'Grady

[Burner]

Birdie,
No analogy- forget about golf. I'm actually starting to build some chairs but not sure where to start. Either refer me to another website or maybe you can answer my question- should I build them in wood or steel, or some combo? Simple question- can't imagine it's going to be that difficult for you to give me some guidance before I start building. By the way, I'm independently wealthy- so cost of materials etc. is a non-issue for me. I'd just like to build a chair that works well. I may know golf but I don't know chairs- so looking for your help in this.

Before anyone here can give you sound advice we would all need to know a little more.

For example, Easy Chair, Dining Chair, High Chair, Pushchair, Wheelchair or what?
Rigid, soft, mid-way between the two?
Recliner or non-reclining?

That having been established we need to know:-

How you approach the chair prior to sittiing in/on it?

Your alignments and posture immediately prior to making your sitting motion?

Your "follow through", i.e how you settle in/on the chair, having just sat?

You now see the problems we are all experiencing in fulfilling your need for advice on chair building, not having any of this information available to us.

You see, chairs, like a golf swings, are individual and peculiar in their manufacture in order to best fit the needs of the particular individual for who they are intended.

BTW, the likelyhood nowadays of encountering a Mongolian Monk in Mongolia far outways any such incidence in Pakistan. You sure he was Mongolian?

 

[mrodock]

Burner is on the money!

 

[Mike O]

Principles

Mike O man....lol....

I think I got second analogy loud and clear (Mac, right?)....(cept for this part: "when you purchase a chair from him the actual book will be printed on the chair!")

?

...

Ya but this one lost me a bit:



I take it that has to do with Snead vs. Hogan...no?

If so, I got the "chopped hand off half-way through career and lost 10 years" etc...

But I think I missed most of the rest of your main points....

Could you explain?

The "book written on the chair" was just a reference/play on Mac's personality. He's not one to just do the norm. So I was just goofing on that- that he "wouldn't just publish and print a book in the normal way"- he likes to do stuff over the top- making it unique, mysterious etc.

The main part of the passage that you're not quite sure you got- was - that it's the principles of movement that you want to "model"- that both Snead and Hogan share i.e. the similarities. The differences are the things that are unique to them and only them- and are not things that you should "model". So if you're trying to "model" one guys swing- then you're on the wrong track.

Then I was pointing out that if you think you need 80% of one and 20% of another- you've got the same problem- not looking at the principles- just looking at the specifics. That's the issue that I was pointing out. On the big picture - it doesn't matter if you make the High Chair out of wood or metal- both materials are hard, and provide enough strength to support a baby.

You can see the same problem in Burner's post- He can't tell you if it should be wood or steel- unless you tell him it's say a High Chair- even then he wants to know what kind of baby, and so on and so on. His post essentially says - There are no principles- I can't tell you the best swing for you unless we know how big the golfer is, how flexible, what kind of shot he's playing, what the weather like outside, what kind of clubs are you using, what kind of ball material, what kind of lie, "you see.... golf swings are individual and peculiar". You know doubt need to understand everything possible about any given subject matter- so you need the principles and the specifics- but my issue is you don't throw out the principles- that's the ground work that you need to undertand and not forget while you dig into the detail. You can mold steel or wood into a proper frame for a high chair or any other chair- beyond that principle - you certainly could specify details that might work require additional changes to meet the end users specific requirements- if you're custom fitting a chair to someone. For Burner there are no principles and the more we can break it down to the details, the more knowledgeable we show ourselves to be- The implied view from his post - whether realized by him or not is this: There are no principles- what works for you doesn't necessarily work for me- because we are different. That ignores the fact that we are both human and we do have common principles of movement that exist- while within those common principles there are certainly sub-categories where there are differences- but that doesn't invalidate the common principles that are still there.

In summary, I was just commenting on a few of the posts in the thread that said "Who should I model?", "The ideal swing is 80% Snead- 20% Hogan"- To me those questions/comments should be obvious to anyone reading them, that the person is way off base on their approach to improving their game. That's what I was trying to point out.

The same principle shows up in this thread- look at the following three comments/questions/posts 1) "Who Should I Model?", 2) "The ideal swing is 80% Snead- 20% Hogan", 3) Burner's post- "We need more information". Would you say they are all different? That none has really any relation to the other? If you do, then likewise I would say that I think you missed something. They all are similar in that they show a consistent principle of ignoring principle- yet they all are different in that they display that in a different way.

 

[tongzilla]

Good points Mike. Sameness (1-J) and Differences (1-K).

Could all great golf swings actually be the same, but because of the different physical abilities, personalities, conditions, etc., they all look different?

 

[mrodock]

Could all great golf swings actually be the same, but because of the different physical abilities, personalities, conditions, etc., they all look different?

Important similarities, absolutely! Same if they had the same anatomy, can't imagine it.

Matt

 

[tourdeep]

oh no, not Tiger, then who?...

Who do you think average golfers should model. I'm asking in general and I know that there are a ton of variables.

Hi Self,

While looking at Sam snead info, I ran across this article. Thought you might be interested in it...



Tiger vs. Sam Snead (2 very different golf swings and what’s best for you)
Friday January 13, 2006 | 05:20:49

You have probably heard the phrase, "I want to be like Mike." This is a reference to wanting to play basketball like the great Michael Jordan. Kids all over the world began wagging their young tongues out while going for a picturesque lay-up. Not wanting to think about the many tongues that got accidentally bitten as a result of this phenomenon, this article will tell you why you shouldn’t want to be like Tiger Woods.

Tiger has developed a new swing over the past two years. His swing has been carefully constructed since he dropped the coveted golf coach, Butch Harmon. It must be said that this is most definitely not a diss on Tiger. He’s truly great, and I am no one to judge his decision to change his swing. He wanted to get better, and felt the change would help him get there. Has he gotten better? I’ll let golf commentators everywhere debate that. Instead, I will analyze his new swing, and tell you why YOU and I should never attempt to replicate it.
The key to an accurate repeatable golf swing is many things. Spacing, flexibility, strength, balance, and several others contribute to a swing. The problem I have been witnessing lately is the need to be like Tiger. Even club professionals feel the need to sell this swing. The problem is, no one has the time to master his difficult swing. He has made his swing more difficult to replicate. Instead of trying to be like Tiger, handicappers should be learning from the great Sam Snead.

Click this link to see Tiger’s old swing: This is a beautiful example of how to swing a golf club. His arch comes up at a higher angle; look again at where his elbow is pointing on his backswing. Pointing slightly behind him, it helps his swing arch remain rather high. This is much easier to repeat for a handicap golfer. The problem lies within his new swing. (Again, I am not saying Tiger shouldn’t do it just you) His back elbow is now pointing at his back hip. This levels off his swing arch, and adds more torque behind it. It is a much more difficult swing to master.

Click here to watch Sam Snead’s swing: There is only one word for these two swings, effortless. This is what we should be trying to replicate. As repeatability goes, it is much easier.

Now look at a still to see the difference in Tiger’s new swing: Notice how his elbow has dropped and is now pointing to his backside hip. While allowing for more tension in his muscles to be created, it encourages slicing the ball. For everyone other than Tiger, it will introduce an inside-out swing. This is a major downfall for players before attempting the Tiger swing. Why make your swing harder?

 

[birdie_man]

Oh ok I get the point now Mike. That's why the Imparatives are such a good thing to know eh.

Thanks for that.....makes sense to me.

he likes to do stuff over the top- making it unique, mysterious etc.

Like driving behind old people to teach himself patience? lol

(is this actually true?)

 

[rundmc]

Was this the one you were looking for ????

 

[Mike O]

Power

Was this the one you were looking for ????

Yes, but I want to make sure that the power hookup is massive to take me out immediately- that way Richard I'll be able to put you out of my mind! I know I'm already out of my mind!

 

[alani]

disrupt the circular orbit of the clubhead?

tgm mentioned on golf digest http://www.golfdigest.com/newsandtour/index.ssf?/newsandtour/20060707fields.html

"O'Grady, who took lessons from the late Homer Kelley, author of The Golfing Machine, has expanded upon Kelley's work. "We can confidently say what happens in the golf swing," O'Grady said. "Our research was an extension of Kelley's book. We found Kelley was 70 percent right on. Our research show's Snead's the model for the full swing -- it's like 80 percent Snead and 20 percent [Ben] Hogan. With the short game, it's Seve [Ballesteros], and in putting it's Nicklaus."

It's my understanding that Homer showed we only have to learn ONE SWING from putter to driver. Kelley's great work is open for all to see (for the price of the book). I wonder if the same will apply to O'Grady?

As a new poster here I have a question. For a swinger doesn't directing the #3 pressure point at the Aiming Point disrupt the circular orbit of the clubhead?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Ah...

For a swinger doesn't directing the #3 pressure point at the Aiming Point disrupt the circular orbit of the clubhead?

Nope.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Let me make my POINT please.

Snead had a neutral grip.

Mac has a strong grip and teaches a strong grip.

Snead had a "classic address position" with the butt of the club at the waist.

Mac has his hands VERY LOW and teaches VERY LOW hands.

Snead at the top has very little LEFT SIDE LEAN.

Mac NOW has plently left side lean and teaches the same.

Snead aimed right.

Mac doesn't and doesn't teach it.

I could go on, but why?

When I used to teach every talented player the pattern that Ben Doyle prefers (i did this 1987-1991or2), EVERY ONE I TAUGHT LOOKED THE SAME.

To me, it is just pure marketing.

But if you can sell SUPER LOW HANDS, when next to ZERO "Top 10 of all time" players DID THIS———or you can sell SUPER HIGH HANDS when to ZERO "Top 10 of all time" players DID THIS, you are one HELL of a salesman.

And this business is full of them.

 

[alani]

Nope.

At what point in the swing do you start directing pp#3 at
the aiming point (for a Swinger)?

 

[Brian Manzella]

I agree with you Denny...but.

When you talk about marketing , Mac has Zero desire to be famous through his teaching.

But, the Major Mags ADVERTISE for him.

That is my point.

He does not teach as low of hands as he once did.

Thank God.

Mac has the goods-—Any teacher who seeks to be better, must study Mac's ideas.

I agree.

And I will go to one of his deals one day.

But, he ought to come study me if he wants to be the best to, eh?

 

[wanole]

for all the self proclaimed great ball strikers here there sure isn't a lot of money being made on the tour by any of you. Sheesh. Talk about some with ego issues.

 

[tourdeep]

I am tour deep!

for all the self proclaimed great ball strikers here there sure isn't a lot of money being made on the tour by any of you. Sheesh. Talk about some with ego issues.

which tour do you play on?

 

[matt]

I remember seeing him with very low hands in some older swing sequences. However, I saw him hit a tee shot on a par 3 at the recent Senior Open and his hands were in a much more "classic" address position - at least when viewed from down-the-line.

And on this particular tee shot, he either underclubbed by 2 clubs or thoroughly mishit it.

 

[bantamben2]

Snead had a neutral grip.
so does mac last time i checked if at the top of your swing you have a flat left wrist and a cluface paralell to your forearm you probably have a nuetral grip there is many ddifferent definitions of nuetral but macs grip is definately not stronger than sneads

Mac has a strong grip and teaches a strong grip.

Snead had a "classic address position" with the butt of the club at the waist.

wrong even with a driver sneads club pointed below his waist and with a short iron his hands where directly below his shoulders just as mac teaches and sets up

Mac has his hands VERY LOW and teaches VERY LOW hands.

never heard him preach low hands just having your hands under shoulders but depends on how much waist bend you have

Snead at the top has very little LEFT SIDE LEAN.

snead practically invented the lean left or more straight up look at the top that is where mac got that look from

Mac NOW has plently left side lean and teaches the same.

dont disagree with that see last line, mac teaches turning around your spine and if you dont set up with alot of axis tilt say with a short iron this is the look you get

Snead aimed right.

mac has a closed stance and does teach it as well if this is what you mean by aiming right. although he aims and teaches to aim at the target if yo plan on hitting a straight shot although your stance is closed to that line for other reasons that have to do with the pivot


Mac doesn't and doesn't teach it.

I could go on, but why?


When I used to teach every talented player the pattern that Ben Doyle prefers (i did this 1987-1991or2), EVERY ONE I TAUGHT LOOKED THE SAME.

To me, it is just pure marketing.

But if you can sell SUPER LOW HANDS, when next to ZERO "Top 10 of all time" players DID THIS———or you can sell SUPER HIGH HANDS when to ZERO "Top 10 of all time" players DID THIS, you are one HELL of a salesman.

And this business is full of them.

mac definately does bend from the waist more than most maybe since johnny miller this might be what you are seeing and most videos of him out there are of short irons. I do not want to argue with you brian i enjoy this sight and the interchange of golf knowledge but as you said you have never worked with him, so i just wanted to reply to what you have heard or glimpsed what he teaches, also these replies are from what he teaches now i do not know what he taught 5 years ago so i cant reply to that. and you are correct this buisness is full of teachers that are really just salesman

 

[birdie_man]

Here's a few of Snead:

http://asafgolf.free.fr/images/golf/swings/snead_profil.jpg
http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/87698/1/3061627

Here's Jodie Mudd (taught by Mac I think):

Here's one of Mac:

 

[bantamben2]

that is pics with a driver if anyone has the book how to play golf it has alot of pictures of snead with mid and short irons he is more bent over and has his hands under his shoulders with a driver he reached out more. here is the best i could find on the net this looks like a longer iron maybe 3 or 4 http://www.historicgolf.com/page_photo.cfm?photoid=1497 look at the rest of the sequence compared to macs pictures. and about jodie yes his hands are low but he bends more at the knees than mac