You Won’t Believe How Easy These Swings Look…

I don’t myself, and I’m the one in the video!

These swings are from Monday, when I went to the range to get in some swing work and to focus on that “One Major Move” with the right arm and side.

I wasn’t swinging all-out, probably in the low-170 mph range with the regular driver (I had the radar out to keep an eye on the speed), but when I got home to look at the video, I was scratching my head.

I’ll be honest, it looks to me as though I’m barely swinging.


This is how quiet and relaxed one can look while generating professional-grade speed on their swings – so how does a swing like that get 170 mph ball speed when the PGA Tour players are JUMPING out of their shoes to get the same velocity, or even less, considering the average ball speed on Tour is around 165 mph?


The answer, of course, is LEVERAGE, and when leveraged properly, you get all of the good stuff that comes with higher club impact and ball speed, without all of the negative effects of what happens when you’re trying to get the speed with brute muscle power and compensations.

As I said in the trailer for the “E = MCS” video – it doesn’t get any simpler than this…


Back Pain or Back Injury Swinging a Golf Club?

Lacking Power, Speed, Distance and or Consistency? 

Need A Swing That Is More Easily Maintained?


If You Answered “Yes” To Any Of The Above Questions, The Answer Is In The Formula For The Golf Swing:

“E = MCS” The Swing Video

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “You Won’t Believe How Easy These Swings Look…

  1. Harleyweedwhacks

    My swing looks effortless even though I swing hard. Looks slow, so it makes me wonder how I’m able to hit the ball 280. Looks Like I’m swinging 90 MPH but in reality it’s more like 112. Weird how a proper swing looks effortless and an improper swing looks forced and strained.

    Mostly the rhythm, which comes from proper mechanics, and the subconscious mind making the swing, is why it looks so effortless to swing 115 mph or more.

    I believe MCS is the most natural swing I’ve come across, mostly because it has so few moving parts to create massive leverage, and this is how Sam Snead, greatest winner of his time, swung. He was considered a natural swinger, and most people when they asked him how he learned to play, he simply said, “I don’t know I just draws it back and hits it.” Funny how when people naturally set up to a golf ball, MCS is what they get. MCS is NATURAL, and it comes easy for those like me who were self taught.

    Have you ever noticed how graceful the fastest athletes are, such as runners? they run what looks like effortlessly, but they’re so damn fast and accurate that it’s hard to believe they’re going that fast. I think this happens when we get out of our own way and just perform the motion subconsciously. Once you get the swing down, let go and swing subconsciously. While out performing, you can’t think technique.

    1. D Watts Post author

      This is the thing, HWW – there is nothing new under the sun, and our bodies are shaped, built and move the same way they did 1,000 years ago.

      Hence, any motion has already been refined and perfected, so the idea of the “Modern Golf Swing” coming about 20 years ago, should have been laughed at.

      I’ve found nothing new with MCS – rather, I’ve gone back to the days of the greatest classic swingers and simply removed any personal flaws each one may have had (because no one has a perfect swing, you can only have a perfect model, and try to emulate it as best you can)… and what was left was the MCS model of today.

      If there’s anything “new,” it is only the “new” aspect of a swing model that is completely mechanically-correct, from beginning to end, based on historical great swings, with the personal flaws removed from each one.

      Doesn’t get any simpler than this.

    1. D Watts Post author

      This is why a great athlete is so mesmerizing when they are in motion. It’s poetry to the eye.

  2. Terry

    Looks great!
    Any chance to get on a launch monitor, Deej? Would be really interesting to see some other numbers (ie AOA, path, spin, launch, etc)

    1. D Watts Post author

      Thanks Terry – that’s what I plan on doing the rest of this summer. I’ll get some numbers, but right now, I’d rather get myself a personal launch monitor, as I don’t relish the idea of just going somewhere for a “fitting.”

      A one-time reading wouldn’t do much good, I want to get a series of sessions with the numbers to see if I’m raising my game. Hope to do that sometime in August.

  3. Laser

    “The answer, of course, is LEVERAGE”

    –Don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m going to offer some information. I’m not doing it just to be right…after all, it’s your blog and you can phrase it any way that you want. However, when you make the GOLF magazine cover-story, or when they do a TV show about you on Golf Channel, wouldn’t it be better to be correct?

    First of all, to apply leverage, you need a fulcrum. No fulcrum = no leverage.

    Bob Toski, former Tour winner and long-time coach (pupil was Tour winner Ken Duke) wrote a book that offered the formula for the force that is applied to a golf ball. There are only two components: 1) mass of the clubhead (optimized by hitting the sweet-spot), and 2) velocity of the clubhead.

    That’s it. Leverage never produces speed. In fact, the output speed of leverage is less than the input speed (you sacrifice speed for lifting power).

    You might object that a long-drive contestant uses a longer club, so doesn’t that provide a longer lever? No, it doesn’t. The longer club simply increases angular VELOCITY. With the same input, there is a greater velocity at the ball, if the user can produce the same quality of contact.

    Right arm has no fulcrum, and thus no leverage. If somebody thinks that the left arm or club provide leverage, maybe they should watch Mike Austin disprove it:

    (1:01)

    Of course, you can keep saying “leverage” on your blog…but if you say it on TV, you might wish that you didn’t. Take this in the spirit that it was offered.

    1. D Watts Post author

      So much that is wrong, here, but I’ll take a stab at all of this flawed logic:

      First of all, to apply leverage, you need a fulcrum. No fulcrum = no leverage.

      The Fulcrum is the C7 vertebra, and therefore you have a lever – either or both of the right & left arms.

      Also:

      Right arm has no fulcrum, and thus no leverage

      Yes, it does, actually, and it’s called the “elbow joint.” Extending the right arm uses that fulcrum.

      If you take a rope that is taut, attached to a movable object, you can move the object by either turning the torso away and pulling with the left arm (assuming the object is to your right) or turning the torso to the left and pulling with the right arm.

      This isn’t the place for a physics lesson, but if either Toski or Austin believed there is no leverage in the golf swing, they would have failed the basic course miserably. You cannot swing or throw without leverage, which is provided by either or both of the elbow extension in an arm and the turning of the torso.

      You can leverage the swing with either the left or right or both arms, and Austin in the video was demonstrating the right arm action – since he was rotating around the C7, he was using both the torso rotation and the right arm extension to leverage the club.

      Anyone with whom I’ve worked personally can attest that when they tried to swing using just the arms, they had very little power – when I then instructed them to use the weight transfer into the left foot from the top, the leverage and therefore power increased by orders of magnitude.

      So unfortunately, I must reject every premise offered in your comment, Laser, and as for Toski:

      Bob Toski, former Tour winner and long-time coach (pupil was Tour winner Ken Duke) wrote a book that offered the formula for the force that is applied to a golf ball. There are only two components: 1) mass of the clubhead (optimized by hitting the sweet-spot), and 2) velocity of the clubhead.

      Toski’s formula for the force application to the ball, while technically correct in the literal sense, completely leaves out the mechanical leverage that moves the club in order for the club head to strike the ball – unless you and he think the club swings itself, something is creating the motion for the club head to apply force to the ball.

      A silly and illogical premise, with all due respect. It’s like saying the formula for a cannonball applying impact force is entirely in the cannonball’s mass and velocity – without the cannon and the gunpowder, there is no velocity.

      You also cannot calculate the trajectory, distance traveled and impact force generated by a cannonball without taking into account the cannon’s firing angle and amount of gunpowder being used.

      Without swinging the club by applying leverage to it, either correctly or incorrectly, there is no motion in the club head.

      So, the answer is “Leverage”, and the reason golf swing instruction is in such sorry shape is because this primary principle isn’t even being taught.

      So, I will continue to say “Leverage,” which can be applied properly or improperly.

Comments are closed.