At the time, I called it “ultimate leverage,” I haven’t seen anything in the past week that will disprove a two years-old statement.
Turns out, I was just far ahead in theory of the practical application, but that’s usually how it goes – you develop a theory, then you prove it in practice.
And, of course, I was limited by my own physical challenges in performing the model the way I saw it, which is why I had better success having others swing according to the model than even I could – ’til now.
It’s much easier to look at someone, you see, when you have a model in your mind but have never actually seen the perfect model demonstrated, and to change their stance and motion to fit that mental model, than it is to do it to your own self.
Meaning, I would look at a swinger and say, “Hmm, doesn’t look quite right,” and I would suggest tweaks here or there to the stance.
Then, once they were in motion, I would again observe the action and say, “Hmm, doesn’t look quite right,” all because I had a mental image of what the motion should look like in its optimal form.
So, while I’ve had success molding other swings to the MCS model, I still wasn’t seeing the optimal execution.
And, never having seen it (there are great swingers who were nearly there, of course, but there was always some little idiosyncrasy or model flaw that kept me from seeing the entire swing from beginning to end the way the optimal model dictates it be done), it’s been a matter of using what I’ve learned in 12 years of swing research, watching the best swingers ever and trying to translate for you all in my videos what the optimal model is and does.
So, keep this image in mind going forward, because this is just something I created for Frank Nobilo back in January when I was closing in on this, and it is a crude illustration of mine on how the machine looks and performs:
We disagree on certain things with regards to the swing, but as I wrote previously, I enjoy talking swing with someone who looks at things differently, as it challenges me to refine my points and arguments.
It would be a very short conversation on the swing with someone like, say, Brandel Chamblee (though I am looking forward to the opportunity some time to do so), as we happen to agree on nearly every facet of the swing.
Do we agree 100%? Of course not, or the swing model you’re going to see would already have been seen, having been created and demonstrated by that person who would agree 100% with me.
What I can say is, if there is a swing model that does more than what I’m going to unveil in a few weeks, it would be nothing short of a miracle, in my eyes, and I’m betting you’ll agree when you’ve seen it.
And once you’ve seen it, I will tell you how to perform it to the best of your ability – remember that there is no such thing (that we’ve seen) as a perfect swing, only a perfect model.
But you can get very close to perfect with any model, provided it’s mechanically sound and doesn’t involve undue risk of injury, and the closer you get to nailing this model, the better you will swing, and the better results you’ll get very little work, once you’ve got it.
Easy Does It
Think of the basketball free-throw – it may take you a little time to master the mechanical action of it, but if you have good technique and a little aptitude, you can stand at the line and drain them one after another, with very little work to maintain it.
All it takes is a few minutes each practice day, and you’re good to go.
With this model, once you’ve got it, you can worry about other things, such as your putting, other parts of the short game, but there’s a reason Jack Nicklaus only needed an annual tune-up with his mentor, Jack Grout, during his younger days – he had a very sound model, pretty close to optimal, and once he had it, he was good to go.
More to come, my friends… but we’ve reached the finish line!