Mac O'Grady: Off the Deap End?

[roper1313]

I hadn't seen this posted yet so I thought I would. Enjoy

 

http://www.startribune.com/golf/story/1268278.html

[SheriffBooth]

[mattbbaker]

What a nut...he is just angry that he is not good enough to win or play in the high stakes, high pressure game anymore. This is typical of "has been athletes" that never reached the top tier in their sport. You will never see a top player make such remarks once their heyday is over. They accept the fact that someone else will take the throne and remember when they were king. Grady should apologize over his statement and just accept the fact that he reached the end of his short rope years ago. The fact is that players are just better bc of conditioning and extensive scientific study on swings etc. Yes technology has made the ball fly further, but how can he say the ball doesn't curve...I witness slices, hooks, and worse everyday when I watch the gaggle of players at the local range. Hell I am a scratch player and trust me, I can make it curve and not on purpose. Anyway thanks for the article.

[lutherham]

Can someone please run a WITB for the Mac Attack? Once my roommate in college told me that Paul Casey will win more majors than Tiger Woods & The Golden Bear. I thought that was the dumbest golf argument I had ever heard. I stand corrected. The USGA and PGA have made courses longer/more difficult to combat the technology boom and scoring averages are still roughly the same. I really dont feel the need to go on, because I am sure you will all cover everything I am thinking. By the Way....Nice 73 Mac. Maybe you should pick up some new sticks!

[keith723]

That is disappointing. It's hard to believe some people are willing to try and strip away Tiger's greatness and hand it over to technology advances in the game. Sure it has improved a lot of things but what about when Tiger was growing up?? Was he not using similar equipment than that of Jack and Arnie and still shooting in the 70's by age 10??

 

I'm not saying Tiger is better than Jack and Arnie but you simply cannot say that Tiger is not in the same league because he is. As far as records go...nobody cares about longest drive, etc. We care about # of majors won. Jack competed against the field just as Tiger is doing now so that is a straight comparison. All the current players are using the same technology as Tiger is and that is what matters.

 

You also have to consider ways in which technology can hurt the players. Drying systems on greens that suck the moisture out of the putting surface and other such advances that allow course designers and the PGA Tour to make the courses more difficult. What about the 300 yard par 3??

 

Tiger will probably get a great laugh out of this and Jack has confirmed on countless occasions the caliber of player that exists in Tiger Woods. The guy has the most game of this era and the trophy case to prove it.

[patrickw25]

It's actually kind of hard to comment on because the article is so poorly written. Do you think O'Grady actually said this:

 

O'Grady said technology is the reason for players' success today. A change in the drivers' grooves from a V shape to a box shape allows golfers to hit the ball farther with more spin.

 

Or is the guy writing the article just misunderstanding what O'Grady said?

 

 

And then this:

 

O'Grady, who won two PGA tournaments from 1983-89, made his own nearly impossible shot Monday when he hit into a hazard on the fifth hole.

 

He called an official after a disagreement with a player in his group about where McGrady had to drop, which he did three times before making the shot.

 

I'm not even sure what the author is trying to say there. That little anecdote made no sense whatsoever in the context in which it was written.

 

 

This, on the other hand, is just pure lunacy straight from O'Grady's mouth:

 

What Michelle Wie is doing is not humanly possible.

 

I beg to differ! I, sir, have flirted with 88 more than my fair share of times! (yeah, so maybe he could have picked a better example?)

[vulture20076]

I think the attack on Tiger was completely unjustified. In fact, I'd argue that many of his most vocal critics are the "older generation" of players or golfing enthusiasts who have a territorial attitude about "protecting their own", namely the stars of their generation. If anything, Tiger would more than likely separate himself further from a great majority of the field in any given event with old technology. There are certainly swings out on tour that would have a hell of a time controlling their ball flights with the traditional balata golf balls and some of the less forgiving equipment. I truly believe Tiger could tear around a 7000 yard course with a 1990 Taylor Made Burner, some old school Titleist forged blades and a Titleist Tour Balata and it would be of no significant disadvantage to him. I can't say the same thing about every single player in a given field.

 

On the other hand, some of what he says about technology has an element of truth to it. On one hand, it is true that the PGA Tour has made an enormous attempt to combat the technological advantage by stretching courses out into the 7200-7500 yard range. However, at the junior and collegiate level, there are still alot of events held at traditional courses and junior golfers with the extra 25 yards (I think a fair assessment over even technology 10-12 years ago) have developed an entirely different mentality towards shotmaking. While we can argue about the "scoring" clubs all we want, any reasonably low handicap golfer can play a 6500 yard course and it is now essentially a "pitch and putt". I look at the Scoring Averages of guys who play on my former collegiate golf team and you might find the entire starting 5 within a shot of what our #1 guy averaged back in the early-mid 90's. More to the point, the winning scores in our conference event started going under par a few years back, while in the mid 90s a score in the low 220's would usually take first. This illustrates to me what the technology has done. These schools are essentially getting the same caliber of player as 10-15 years ago, yet the courses have not been altered to challenge the new technology.

[scores]

He's is not wrong at all!!! however the conditions of the course's have changed.....irregation, faster greens!! etc..

 

I kinda agree with him the game is changing for the worse.. I enjoy the new equipment however if you go back and look at Jay when he played in the ryder cup at either Oak Hill or Rochester(i forget) you will see a different golfer.

 

He struggled and never really never challenged in majors!!

 

He hit it nowhere but was friends with the captian and the European (week)team kick us hard!!!!!

 

For tournament play they have to change the rules...

 

SORRY GUYS but anyone that was playing this game 20 yrs ago will understand whats going on...

[kwcsports]

Mac O'Grady is a has been, that has no idea how todays game is played. He was nobody 20 years ago and his status has not improved. Nuff Said.

[jared]

He's is not wrong at all!!! however the conditions of the course's have changed.....irregation, faster greens!! etc..

 

I kinda agree with him the game is changing for the worse.. I enjoy the new equipment however if you go back and look at Jay when he played in the ryder cup at either Oak Hill or Rochester(i forget) you will see a different golfer.

 

He struggled and never really never challenged in majors!!

 

He hit it nowhere but was friends with the captian and the European (week)team kick us hard!!!!!

 

For tournament play they have to change the rules...

 

SORRY GUYS but anyone that was playing this game 20 yrs ago will understand whats going on...

 

Bla bla bla bla bla....bla bla....please. Here is the biggest issue I have with all of these arguments. What people love to talk about in the Jack V Tiger debate in regards to equipment is how much better Jack would have been. What the fail to understand is that....if Jack had the new equipment so would everyone else in his era...thus making them all equally better.

You have to remember Tiger was playing technologically inept equipment for years and still doing things no one else could. Equipment helps a guy like David Toms out a whole hell of a lot more than Tiger Woods. If persay you went to ANY type of ball...Tiger is always going to hit it further than most that is simply indicative of his talent level. Just like if you were to take the baseball and make it harder to hit out of parks. ARod would still hit more HR's because that is what he does better than everyone else.

I'll pose this question: The worlds number 2 golfer certainly is not a bomb and gouge player and competes on every level on every type of course doesn't he? Call me an idiot when it is only people who bomb the ball winning tournaments its simply not true.

[Konklifer]

If this was someone who had made any kind of impact on the game it would be worth the debate. The guy is a nobody.

[Asleep]

Mac has great respect for Mr. Nicklaus' 18 majors titles (and his 19 second place finishes in majors.)

 

His opinions on the ball & the grooves are shared by two greats of the game:

 

 

Well, I think that the grooves are an issue, they've always been an issue. When we talked a minute ago with the driving -- two years ago when the Top 5 were not in the top 110 of driving accuracy and they were the top players, it didn't make any difference. So obviously it was more important then to hit the ball long than it was to hit it straight. Grooves will obviously play a thing. I mean, I see television and I watch the guys playing out of rough like this and I see the ball go, shooooom. I say, God, there's no way in the world we could ever do that. I guess I could do it today because I could get those clubs. I still don't play with those clubs. I play with V grooves and I have all my life just because I like the flight of a golf ball. I personally have never liked the flight of what a U groove does because it's square grooves or whatever you want to call them.

 

Out of the rough I like to be able to take the ball and play my trajectory and throw it up softly. Sure, the way they do it today, they've tried to combat the effective what they do, they get them harder than they could get them, with all the technical ways they can dry out greens today, to where you almost need them. Do they have an advantage with them around the green? Probably so. I think the U grooves are about that much of a problem (indicating one inch), and I think regardless of what the USGA is saying, I still think that the ball is 85 to 90 percent of the problem and would solve 85 to 90 percent of our problems. And then I know that the USGA and the PGA Tour and the R & A are working on golf balls that go shorter all the time. They are going through that to try and test the manufacturers who are making them to find out what results they get back from that kind of a situation.

 

Now, if they thought -- of course they're going through U grooves all the time, they're going through the trampoline effect of drivers. Obviously if they took a driver and made it smaller, the size of the face would make it smaller and you couldn't have the trampoline effect that you have today. All those things are factors. But I would say the U groove is probably about that much, the driver is about that much and the ball is about that much. That's my own opinion. That's opinion from observation. We have had the USGA here last year and spoke to our Captain's Club and gave us a great presentation. They felt that it was probably 80 percent grooves and head and a small part ball. They do far more research than I do. I don't do research, but I've played the game and seen it played for too many years, and I see what's happened. That's my feeling. ---JACK NICKLAUS

 

 

Nearly 20 years after a lawsuit filed by Phoenix-based Ping resulted in the approval of its Eye2 irons, the USGA is proposing a change that would limit the amount of spin that square, or U-shaped, grooves impart on a golf ball.

Arnold Palmer's role

Arnold Palmer is a driving force in the re-examination of an issue that appeared to be settled two decades ago.

 

Palmer wagged a finger at Dick Rugge, the USGA's senior technical director, telling him that allowing square grooves was a huge mistake because they minimize the importance of driving accuracy.

 

"It was a short conversation," Palmer said after the proposal was announced. "He didn't agree with me at first, but after doing a little research, he came around."

 

After two years of research, lab tests and numbers crunching, the USGA issued two reports totaling nearly 300 pages. They concluded that driving accuracy on the PGA Tour no longer equates to low scoring because golfers are able to hit shots out of the rough and make them stop on greens as a result of the size and sharpness of grooves in today's irons.

 

That has led to a "bomb and gouge" mentality in which players hit the ball as far as they can off the tee, with little concern for accuracy. Vijay Singh, one of the world's top players, has said his chances of making birdies are better if he hits wedges and short irons out of the rough than medium irons from a fairway.

 

U- and V-grooves produce the same amount of spin from the fairway, but are dramatically different on shots from the rough.

 

Tour data shows that during the 1980s, driving accuracy was nearly as important as putting in producing low scores. Today, Rugge said, there is almost no correlation between hitting fairways and low scoring.

 

Last year, Tiger Woods ranked 139th in driving accuracy but was first in greens in regulation. Among other top players, Phil Mickelson ranked 160th, Retief Goosen 176th, Ernie Els 171st, Singh 153rd and Sergio Garcia 129th in hitting fairways.

 

 

Maybe they're just whiney old guys......or perhaps they have a point. :bad:

[jared]

Mac has great respect for Mr. Nicklaus' 18 majors titles (and his 19 second place finishes in majors.)

 

His opinions on the ball & the grooves are shared by two greats of the game:

 

 

Well, I think that the grooves are an issue, they've always been an issue. When we talked a minute ago with the driving -- two years ago when the Top 5 were not in the top 110 of driving accuracy and they were the top players, it didn't make any difference. So obviously it was more important then to hit the ball long than it was to hit it straight. Grooves will obviously play a thing. I mean, I see television and I watch the guys playing out of rough like this and I see the ball go, shooooom. I say, God, there's no way in the world we could ever do that. I guess I could do it today because I could get those clubs. I still don't play with those clubs. I play with V grooves and I have all my life just because I like the flight of a golf ball. I personally have never liked the flight of what a U groove does because it's square grooves or whatever you want to call them.

 

Out of the rough I like to be able to take the ball and play my trajectory and throw it up softly. Sure, the way they do it today, they've tried to combat the effective what they do, they get them harder than they could get them, with all the technical ways they can dry out greens today, to where you almost need them. Do they have an advantage with them around the green? Probably so. I think the U grooves are about that much of a problem (indicating one inch), and I think regardless of what the USGA is saying, I still think that the ball is 85 to 90 percent of the problem and would solve 85 to 90 percent of our problems. And then I know that the USGA and the PGA Tour and the R & A are working on golf balls that go shorter all the time. They are going through that to try and test the manufacturers who are making them to find out what results they get back from that kind of a situation.

 

Now, if they thought -- of course they're going through U grooves all the time, they're going through the trampoline effect of drivers. Obviously if they took a driver and made it smaller, the size of the face would make it smaller and you couldn't have the trampoline effect that you have today. All those things are factors. But I would say the U groove is probably about that much, the driver is about that much and the ball is about that much. That's my own opinion. That's opinion from observation. We have had the USGA here last year and spoke to our Captain's Club and gave us a great presentation. They felt that it was probably 80 percent grooves and head and a small part ball. They do far more research than I do. I don't do research, but I've played the game and seen it played for too many years, and I see what's happened. That's my feeling. ---JACK NICKLAUS

 

 

Nearly 20 years after a lawsuit filed by Phoenix-based Ping resulted in the approval of its Eye2 irons, the USGA is proposing a change that would limit the amount of spin that square, or U-shaped, grooves impart on a golf ball.

Arnold Palmer's role

Arnold Palmer is a driving force in the re-examination of an issue that appeared to be settled two decades ago.

 

Palmer wagged a finger at Dick Rugge, the USGA's senior technical director, telling him that allowing square grooves was a huge mistake because they minimize the importance of driving accuracy.

 

"It was a short conversation," Palmer said after the proposal was announced. "He didn't agree with me at first, but after doing a little research, he came around."

 

After two years of research, lab tests and numbers crunching, the USGA issued two reports totaling nearly 300 pages. They concluded that driving accuracy on the PGA Tour no longer equates to low scoring because golfers are able to hit shots out of the rough and make them stop on greens as a result of the size and sharpness of grooves in today's irons.

 

That has led to a "bomb and gouge" mentality in which players hit the ball as far as they can off the tee, with little concern for accuracy. Vijay Singh, one of the world's top players, has said his chances of making birdies are better if he hits wedges and short irons out of the rough than medium irons from a fairway.

 

U- and V-grooves produce the same amount of spin from the fairway, but are dramatically different on shots from the rough.

 

Tour data shows that during the 1980s, driving accuracy was nearly as important as putting in producing low scores. Today, Rugge said, there is almost no correlation between hitting fairways and low scoring.

 

Last year, Tiger Woods ranked 139th in driving accuracy but was first in greens in regulation. Among other top players, Phil Mickelson ranked 160th, Retief Goosen 176th, Ernie Els 171st, Singh 153rd and Sergio Garcia 129th in hitting fairways.

 

 

Maybe they're just whiney old guys......or perhaps they have a point. :bad:

 

Then how do guys like Furyk or Toms or Tim Clark even have a chance?

[TheCapedAvenger]

Mac has great respect for Mr. Nicklaus' 18 majors titles (and his 19 second place finishes in majors.)

 

His opinions on the ball & the grooves are shared by two greats of the game:

 

... (edited for the sake of my scrollbar)

 

Maybe they're just whiney old guys......or perhaps they have a point. :bad:

 

 

Yep, I think its the first one.

[Asleep]

Then how do guys like Furyk or Toms or Tim Clark even have a chance?

Those guys win when they make more birdies than the other guys that week. :ok:

 

Maybe [Palmer and Nicklaus] are just whiney old guys......or perhaps they have a point. :)

Yep, I think its the first one.

Okay, we'll let Mr. Palmer and Mr. Nicklaus know that The Caped Avenger says they're crybabies. :bad:

[Kentsp1]

It's been well documented that O'Grady is somewhat of a nut job. This doesn't surprise me one bit. This is also the same man who pleaded with the PGA to allow him to play a tournament both left and right handed while using a different name for the left handed "person". He also changed his name multiple times explaining that every person has multiple personalities. Can't disagree with his talent and his knowledge of the game, but WOOOW. He is definitely a few clubs short of a full set. :bad:

[freddiec]

I do agree that technology has completely changed the game. I'm not sure if its really for the good or not. If you don't agree, go hit an old persimmon driver down a 420 yard par 4 with a balata ball and come back and we can talk about it. Its quite shocking the game we used to play 20 years ago, its nothing like what we play today.

[jared]

I do agree that technology has completely changed the game. I'm not sure if its really for the good or not. If you don't agree, go hit an old persimmon driver down a 420 yard par 4 with a balata ball and come back and we can talk about it. Its quite shocking the game we used to play 20 years ago, its nothing like what we play today.

 

I agree but the golf courses are not what they were either. If you look at a tournament like Augusta, if Augusta was setup the same way it used to be golfers like your Tiger, Phil etc would win every year. The rough was shorter the course was shorter it would totally bring out the longer hitters. If anything accuracy in majors is in higher demand now than ever before. The courses are made to guard against long hitters. Look at when Tiger won the british a few years back only using a 2 iron off the tee. The point I am trying to make is go ahead and change the technology if anything the only person your going to be helping is going to be the Tigers and Phils because they will still hit it further and still have shorter clubs in.

You can talk about grooves all you want a PW gets out of rough a lot easier than a 5 iron.

[sync71]

I agree that the equipment has changed the game tremondously, which is obvious. But I don't think it's right for O'Grady to bring Tiger or Wie down like that. Tiger has been doing amazing things with a golf club for a long long time. And Wie hasn't been playing very well right now but playing that well when she was 14 and 15 is amazing and I think it is humanly possible.

 

And like others Woods is competing against a group of guys that have the same equipment advantages as everyone else. Just like Jack and Arnie had the same clubs as the people in there era. And we can go back as far as the days as Harry Vardon or Bobby Jones. They are also making other things harder such as the courses. Some of these distances are way up there and everyone is competing on the same course and scoring averages are around the same.

 

So sure the equpiment has changed the game but I can't say whether is good or bad. I'm sure I might see it differently as a 15 year old amateur compared to Jack who is obvisouly amazing. But until O'Grady starts beating Tiger he should be talking like that. And I want to see whats in his bag..pics anyone?

 

It's been well documented that O'Grady is somewhat of a nut job. This doesn't surprise me one bit. This is also the same man who pleaded with the PGA to allow him to play a tournament both left and right handed while using a different name for the left handed "person". He also changed his name multiple times explaining that ever person has multiple personalities. Can't disagree with his talent

 

...and that puts the icing on the cake!

[Jaliveto]

A set of mp60's, 905R driver, vokey wedges, a cameron putter, and a prov1x ball. I'll shoot you par or better on a good day.

 

A set of small blades, persimon woods, blade putter, and a balata ball(or worse). I 'll shot you a 82+ on a good day.

 

Technology has made us all better. Everything that has been made in the last 10 years has been made to help us hit it straighter and longer.

 

Golft courses haven't gotten that much longer. You are still playing the ole country club that your dad played and was built in 1945. Your just doing it with better equipment.

 

The PGA hypes it up. They play plenty of sub 7000 yards courses.

[Sean2]

There are approximately 6,000,000,000 people on earth. O'Grady is just one, and it's just his opinion, which he is entitled too...good, bad, or indifferent. If you disagree, no need to call him names. And frankly who cares what he thinks?

[gators78]

My response

 

1) Tiger has the best mind in the game, and would find a way to beat anybody. He changed his game (with Hank) to hit it a mile to be more competitive. When he wanted to (ie 2000) he has an effortless swing that can do anything with a golf ball. Changing equiptment would have NO impact on how many majors the man would have.

 

2) We'll have to wait and see what the V groove ruling by the USGA has to say. Until then its all speculation. What i do know is that i sat on the 16th tee at Oakmont, a par 3, and watched the exact same ball flight for 15 (no exaggeration) groups, or 45 people, and I saw the exact same ball flight. I think golf would be more exciting if they brought back the shotmaking aspect. In a recent golfweek article about shotmaking Joe Durant commented that its gone, all people worry about now is high/low as far as shotmaking is concerned.

[dispatch096]

technology has changed the way that we play the game, but were shooting the same scores.

[hayam]

Well Mac is 56 year old? Its physically demanding to play in PGA?... he scored pretty good compared to a lot of senior counterpart. He is a golf mechanic , not really a player, its a huge difference playing and teaching. He can beat 99% of us here playing left handed. Not much people can still compete and teach at the same time in PGA.

 

He meant that the new ball spin less sideway, the new ball still hooks or slice but not as much as the old ones. The groove problem also been pointed out by other Great. Its a good point that you do not have to be in the fairway , just LONG to be able to play well, now its a putt putt contest for the pros.

 

In fact , Arnold Palmer said something similar, Jack Nicklaus said something similar, Even Greg Norman said something along that line. About Equipments destroying or changing the game...

 

But I do agree, with the change in equipment , balls , groove, Tiger Woods would find some way to make it to the top again. Its in his personality to be able to win. Thats where his true strength lies, Making things happen.

[akilroy]

A set of small blades, persimon woods, blade putter, and a balata ball(or worse). I 'll shot you a 82+ on a good day.

 

I agree with the idea of equipment seriously impacting the game. As a former pool player, or anyone thats seriously played pool, I have a quick and simple analogy:

 

Take two people and make them practice on two different pool tables. One is a little bar table and the other is a full size table with slick felt. Being equal men of equal talent... the guy practicing on the larger table will have a more refined game.

 

THIS... is why I practice with old, small blades and an old Toney Penna driver and compete with cavity backs and a blimp on a stick driver. The blades MAKE me keep my swing within a smaller error range...

 

But with O'grady... tis a shame... the man used to be some kind of top of the mountain, altruistic swing guru... and I really wanted to see him be the first person to have a set of clubs with right AND left handed clubs... odd numbers right handed... even numbers left... double faced driver..... but thats just me.

 

Kilroy

[jared]

A set of mp60's, 905R driver, vokey wedges, a cameron putter, and a prov1x ball. I'll shoot you par or better on a good day.

 

A set of small blades, persimon woods, blade putter, and a balata ball(or worse). I 'll shot you a 82+ on a good day.

 

Technology has made us all better. Everything that has been made in the last 10 years has been made to help us hit it straighter and longer.

 

Golft courses haven't gotten that much longer. You are still playing the ole country club that your dad played and was built in 1945. Your just doing it with better equipment.

 

The PGA hypes it up. They play plenty of sub 7000 yards courses.

 

Completely whole heartedly disagree. You mean to tell me that equipment is the difference between scratch and a 12 handicaper? Your crazy. The length of the courses is just part of it my friend. The length of the rough the pin placements the speed of the greens all of these things have changed. If your statement was true half the players on tour would not be good enough to play on tour. I got news for you...Tiger etc etc would have been just as good 40 years as good as he is now. All equipment has done realistically is even the playing field letting shorter hitters hit the ball further. Thats why the fields are deeper there are more talented golfers than ever before. Look at Cabrera the guy was probably 100000-1 to win the Open, you never know who is going to step up that given week.

 

Look at golf circa 10 years ago when i played in college. I used a balata ball, I used a 1st generation GBB and ping eye 2's. I played a lot better back then.

[rosskoss]

Er....don't all the players have the same advantage when it comes to equipment? It's not like Tiger is playing with some magic clubs. He's using the same blades he's been using for a while and yes, the new drivers let you hit it a mile but the courses are longer as well.

[jared]

Er....don't all the players have the same advantage when it comes to equipment? It's not like Tiger is playing with some magic clubs. He's using the same blades he's been using for a while and yes, the new drivers let you hit it a mile but the courses are longer as well.

Exactly. Not to mention the driver tiger used for years was about the length of a 3 wood and the guy used a spinner ball and his irons are no bigger than was jack used.

[Jaliveto]

Didn't say anything about tiger or the other pros. I stand by what I said. I've played both sets of clubs and both balls I mentioned. There is that much difference. We(the amatuers) are not playing 7200 yards courses. Most all courses in my area of 6800-7000 from the back tees and they never play that long.

 

I'm just honest about my game. technology has made me much better.

[jared]

Didn't say anything about tiger or the other pros. I stand by what I said. I've played both sets of clubs and both balls I mentioned. There is that much difference. We(the amatuers) are not playing 7200 yards courses. Most all courses in my area of 6800-7000 from the back tees and they never play that long.

 

I'm just honest about my game. technology has made me much better.

 

Then your not really a scratch golfer. Your equipment is not giving you 10 strokes a round. If you truely are a scratch golfer you are only 3-4 strokes per round from being tour caliber. Thus insinuating that a tour caliber golfer would shoot around 77 with inferior equipment...and to that i call BS.