Great swing yes but Hogan was doing this years ago.

How would he of known you filmed that ? Entitled jig just watch the video and move on who cares you filmed it nobody

Love Rick, played a lot of golf with him throughout the years

you were very lucky to watch him up close!! where was it? must have been great to see??

Why didn't Mac won more tournaments? Is it activities away from the course? Paralysis by analysis or just no desire to win.

David J Demons in the head and a lousy putter

Almost won the 87 US Open

Because he forgot to play golf, he played golf swing.

Nice backwards thinking comment. Goes right along with the earth is 6000 years old and Mary was a virgin. It's been 2 years .Hopefully you have seen the light and regret that comment or at least regret giving yourself a thumbs up for it. We are here to watch golf and not for a lesson on repressing intellectual progress and free thinking. If you want that there are plenty of countries in the desert that want you.

Great swing but this man was a complete nut job that bang anything in skirt.

@@TheNYgolfer You're gay.

I'd agree. Nice enough rhythm and some good positions but nothing many other touring pros do. I've always found his teaching very poor.

Winning and knowing how to swing the golf club is two different things...he is a genius at the golf swing...far underrated at it, but well respected. Why do people always think that genius has to look the part? Read the book Quiet by Susan Cain for some insight....

Mansion, this is an ignorant comment. First, Mac did win on the tour. He would have won more but he was and is a terrible putter, plus he is not an intuitive or natural scorer or course manager. He can hit the ball great and flight it as he wants. And his way of talking can be a little confusing to some who are unfamiliar with features of his system, but it is well researched and I've seen it perform well and under pressure. The vast majority of the principles that define the contemporary golf swing -- especially the way they are to work together -- is owed to Mac. Hard to call the most influential teacher of our time -- notice I didn't say 'most successful' -- overrated. What he teaches requires commitment, but unlike a lot of bandaids, if you stay with it you will become a very good ball striker. I've been playing for almost sixty years now, and my scoring between the age of maybe 17-70 didn't vary by more than 3 or 4 strokes on average, but I am a far better ball striker now than I ever was; and a result golf is a lot more fun. I can't play from the tips anymore or have fun doing so, but i can hit a 150yd 8i better than I ever could before. Mac is not the only great teacher. Mileage always varies, but he is special.

Frankly, I don't even know what this means. Is his teaching based on misconceptions. Do people get worse who work with him. Have you ever taken lessons from him. Does he not understand something about the swing, the relevant biomechanics, physics, etc. What makes it poor in your mind. @@stevepising

I should clarify poor as overly complex. I think he is one of those guys that has a technical mind and he's let that get into his teaching. He's also an unusual character, quirky to say the least and that also gets in the way. I have to say that your comment - "The vast majority of the principles that define the contemporary golf swing -- especially the way they are to work together -- is owed to Mac. Hard to call the most influential teacher of our time -- notice I didn't say 'most successful' -- overrated."Utter nonsense. Sorry, I don't wish to be rude but that is untrue. There are many other instructors more influential and O'grady did not define the principles of the contemporary swing as you put it.

You're kidding right. He regularly drove the ball over 300 yds before everything was juiced. He can hit the ball through all 9 windows. I've seen him do it regularly. You are obviously repeating something you heard no doubt related to the derivative stack and tilt swing which is like the 3rd grader's cliff notes to Morad. As for where he lives now: Japan. He comes to the US a few times a year for 3 day clinics and even more rarely for longer ones. Attend one even if you don't buy into his approach, because it is a treat to be around genuinely creative and original thinkers in any field; and if you love golf spending 3 days with him is like spending time with a Picasso or a Judd or a Pollock even if it is not the sort of work you would purchase for your home -- if you could! If any of us could.

Jules Coleman completely agree. Mac could flat move it. He catches a lot a flack from all these keyboard warriors because he is a bit eccentric and all of his knowledge is overload to a lot of people. If they knew the work, money and time that he put into the MORAD system then they would understand why he unloads all his knowledge. He’s put so much work into this, it’s his baby so to speak and he is/ was proud of his work. He wanted people to know his work, he wasn’t just gonna give you some half ass statement on a position in the golf swing. He was gonna give you the position and he was going to explain the why and how everything worked in correlation from one position to the next. There are many instructors that I came across in my days of playing through the 90’s that were MORAD guys or took parts of Mac’s MORAD system and blended it will their own approach to teaching. I worked with Mike Bender back in the day and Mike had a lot of Mac’s influence to his approach to teaching. Mac is/ was The Godfather if the modern swing as it was through the 90’s and through the 2000’s. Instruction is going through another shift these days but Mac was the man back in the day and his influence on golf instruction in undeniable.

@@julescoleman5438 As someone who has seen him often. Does he advocate keeping the same ball position for all clubs? If so why is this contrary to standard teaching/thinking? I'm curious as to why...

@@wodenoftheangles3339 I can't speak for him on ball position. there are two parts of ball position both relating to distance from a fixed point. The ball will always change at least one of these. That is distance from the golfer's stance line, and that will be as a result of length of the club. Longer the club, the farther away from stance line OTBE. The other position depends on two factors. First, which fixed point you pick to measure from. The second depends on where in the arc you intend to hit the ball. There is a third related to these and that is whether you want to open/close/etc. your stance. If one thinks the bottom of the arc is somewhere around the lead shoulder joint/armpit, then many teachers believe that for all clubs that you want to strike on a decending blow, the ball position does not change significantly at all with regard to this particular fixed point: variations owing to relative angle of descent. What changes is how far you move your back foot back from the front foot. This will have the effect of making it appear that the ball has moved in your stance, but relative to the bottom of the arc, if there is any change at all it is insignificant. That is the way I think of it and teach it. I am in no position to speak for Mac on this or anything else. He is eloquent enough on his own. I also think that most instructors share this general approach to ball position. There is some difference among teachers on distance from the ball since there are different views on proper stance posture and extension of arms, but less difference I believe on ball position distance from the bottom of the arc. Hope that is helpful.

@@julescoleman5438 Thank you for the detailed and insightful feedback, Jules. I'm aware of the conventions on ball position as you so succinctly described. And I generally agree with them. I landed on this Mac video because I've been experimenting (with very good success) adopting the 'inside takeaway'. It seems a taboo in modern teaching these days yet so many of the game's greatest did this move (Jones, Nicklaus, Snead, Player, Daly and Mac and more...! lol) however I've been undecided on ball position - with my normal slightly advanced (target-wise) not quite getting the same compression. Guess I'll keep digging in the dirt... Thanks again for taking the time to reply - 'appreciate it.