The reason for that is, they had near-optimal models in the featured swings, and if not for the head shift to the right that you would see viewing these swings face-on, this is exactly the way you want to swing and leverage the club.
I’ve said before that if you took Mike Austin’s swing model and shifted the bias from centered to right-biased to eliminate the head shift on the back swing, then you’d be looking at basically the same thing with the MCS floating pivot model.
And the more I break down what I’ve been developing over this winter with regards to simplifying the MCS model, I’m left saying, “Yup… almost the same thing…”
You’ll notice that in this particular swing of Austin’s he doesn’t have as high a left heel lift on the back swing, and he has the delayed right heel lift through impact, which is closer in look from his later years when compared to Dunaway’s action:
That isn’t a coincidence, either – the closer any swing gets to what I would call optimal action in leveraging and proper power production, naturally the more similarities you will get until the swing models look virtually identical.
I found this out when I completely abandoned both the Dunaway and Austin swing models years ago to figure out a model with a stable swing point on the back swing.
What I found was that this was the only thing with both Dunaway’s and Austin’s swings that made them problematic, in my personal view. If you’re shifting laterally during any part of the swing, consistency will be an issue, and in a game as precise as golf when it comes to shot-making, that’s basically the deal-breaker.
Now, the funny thing is, I have explained their down swing action and it’s even in the “MCS – Dropping The Hammer” video where I explain to David D. the proper sequencing of the down swing:
There was a concept I talked about years ago while studying Austin’s model, which I called the “left foot stomp,” which was close to the way I would describe it, but not quite.
You can see clearly that there’s something going on with the leading side, even with right-dominant swingers like Austin and Dunaway, and not just on the left-handed action of yours truly.
So, what exactly is that aspect of the down swing that is getting everyone tied in knots?
It’s the eternal issue of the full-body swing – in order to swing properly, you can’t be using one side of the body dominant over the other.
Both sides must work in unison, and I have figured out how to explain this in the proper setup as well as breaking them apart as I used to, with the left and right sides isolated.
What I see is the crucial aspects of the swing have all been covered by the MCS swing videos, but each one seemed to have tackled a different part of the swing, whether it was the address, the back swing pivot or the down swing.
Now, what is required to finish all of the research and model-making is to take the MCS swing and, like the original MCS video did years ago, explain the setup through the swing finish in sequential order rather than build upon a previous video.
I’m still working on the presentation for the model itself, but that’s what the next few weeks are for.
The great thing is, I have a few consultations in the next couple of weeks, so I’ll be testing out which of various ways to explain the swing and setup to some people who are already familiar with the MCS swing model.
So, with the exact same swing model, I will get multiple opportunities in the coming weeks to see in real time which explanations are most easily understood and implemented, but I’ve simplified the concepts of the swing so much that, the only way really to get this wrong is in the setup.
Once you’re set up, you should be good to go.
More to come!