I was looking through some archived clips from my swing research years, and I ran across a startling series of swings from April of 2013.
2013 is the year I will always view, for whatever reason, as the year my swing research really began to pay dividends – I even told targettom in an email exchange that I don’t consider myself having made any meaningful breakthroughs in swing theory until that year.
Not that the years 2005-2012 were a waste – it just takes a certain amount of time to really start to progress with anything, and from ’05 to ’12, I was basing much of my research findings on simply observing and attempting to emulate other peoples’ swings and models.
In ’13, I declared my belief that I hadn’t yet still seen the perfect swing model in theory, and so I stopped trying to emulate swing models and began to reconstruct my own, which is why 2013 was the year of the “New MCS” modeling.
What was startling to me yesterday was that, in April of ’13, I had just devised what I called the “New MCS” swing model stance with the right bias and stable head, which was a departure from anything I’d done to date.
And this is what my swing looked like at the outset of my independent model, which would be the first “DJ Watts” model, if you will, and not one emulating others’ models:
DJ’s 1st Swing Model – “New MCS”
So, there are differences from this model to the current MCS swing model, but many more similarities.
Face On – ’13 – ’16
Aside from the slightly wider stance in the current model and my addition of the head position and attitude after ’13, they are virtually alike.
It took three years, to think, to get from the ’13 address stance to the current!
’13 – ’16 – Down The Line
There’s a little difference in the angle view in the dtl positions, but if you rotate either one to match the other’s exact alignment, you’ll again see very little difference, aside from the thickness I’ve gained in 3.5 years.
Perhaps a little more outward extension in the arm, where I now like to see a vertical upper arm, but again, not much difference to speak of.
Where you will see a big difference is in the pivot action, because when you take Ben Hogan’s “perfect pivot” action, which I figured out in late 2014, then you will see the difference beside a standard type of pivot action in the lower half of the body:
So, as I was saying before, there are infinite variations in what you would call a mechanically-correct swing (both of the swings above are that), but you will see fundamental similarities in them as well.
That goes with all motion – if you watch baseball, you will recognize certain pitchers by their silhouette alone when throwing – they will have variables that make them individually distinctive, but the similarities in their mechanically-sound pitching actions will also be there from pitcher to pitcher.
Just thought it would be interesting to show, after an additional three years of research from ’13 to ’16, how little has changed…
Want to learn more about the MCS Golf Swing Theory? Try one of DJ’s “Secrets of the MCS” video shorts available via download.
Or you can download the very latest MCS Golf Swing video “MCS – Perfect Pivot“ based on the flawless pivot action of Ben Hogan.**
**”MCS – Perfect Pivot” is Part 3 of the “MCS Golf Swing Trilogy,” now available for download!