How The Launch Monitor Proves MCS Model Correct

As my long time readers know, I have always had issues with my down swing plane and club path through impact.

There were two reasons, the first of which I’ll address first here  – that I have a spinal deformity that twists my shoulders open when standing straight, leading to a steep down swing plane (what people call “over the top”) in the past, as well as a downward or negative Attack Angle into the ball with the Driver.

You can see here in a screen capture from my first ever experience with a Trackman Launch Monitor just four years ago:


Here, I had a -5.6 degree (outside-in) club path (way left) with a lesser degree face (open to the path), which created my stock power fade, but also a negative or downward Attack Angle of -2.6 degrees with the Driver.

Both of these (the over-the-top causing an the outside-in path and the negative attack angle) are problematic for the Driver (one, because of the inconsistency and because it’s difficult to drive the ball well hitting down on it with the modern driver), and would also lead to huge divots when I would swing my irons and wedges.

Aside from the outside-in path causing the pull-hook or the slice on mishits, it’s very hard on the hands and wrists to be taking big chunks out of the ground.

So, by developing the MCS Golf Swing model over the years, I was able to fix the negative Attack Angle, and earlier in the spring, I had gone so far as to have a big upward or positive Attack Angle into the ball, as seen below on the Foresight GC Quad Launch Monitor:


The problem, I still wasn’t getting the neutral to inside-out club path that is optimal for a golf swing, even when I had fixed the Attack Angle issue by adjusting the model theory on ball position.

The second reason to the physical one was that I was deviating from the MCS Golf Swing theory in my back swing pivot – I have always had very high hands and a past-parallel shaft at the top due to the way I swing back, and that can cause the shaft and club head to go left coming down due to that top position:


So a few weeks ago I decided to go all the way (why not, really?) and began to adjust my back swing pivot to align with the proper “One Major Move” in the MCS model and improve that top position:


The result was that I proved to myself in addition to anyone else who is interested in the model, that it is indeed the way to do it, because even after some time off swinging (which is when old habits can creep back into your stance or mechanics or both), I was able to swing with an in-to-out club path through the ball and do so with a positive Attack Angle:


This is what you call proof. I developed the MCS Golf Swing model to produce the optimal mechanics according to how are bodies are designed to move, and I said that if one followed the principles, they should get optimal ball-striking and results.

Now, I’m properly positive on both Attack Angle and Club Path, swinging freely and unconsciously:


So, looking at the data above, you see:

  • A positive Attack Angle of 4.7 degrees when anything around 4 degrees is the optimal (TXG  Golf technician Chris informed me of this when I was at their facility last May),
  • I now had a positive or in-out path of 0.6 degrees, which gives you great latitude to shape shots being so close to neutral but still in-to-out,
  • I got with that a back spin rate of 2131 RPM when low 2,000s is the goal and
  • With a club speed of less than 120 mph, I produced a drive that carried 309 yards and finished at roughly 330 yards.

Now, imagine I had the latest equipment and balls custom-fitted to my swing, as available to the PGA Tour players, and had fairways to drive on that ran downhill with a Stimp of 10 to give 50 yards of run, and imagine I could practice regularly to get a better Smash than 1.43 through improved impact so that I had my usual 175-180 mph ball speed when I’m in practice – up to the high 180s when I get good work in… how long would that 330 yard drive be then?!?

And I’ll repeat – from a 48 year old guy who doesn’t work out and just researches and analyzes the swing?

So, everything I have laid out in the “E = MCS” swing video isn’t just logical – the above data is the proof of the model and how it functions.

While it is a basic blueprint to building that swing – there’s a reason I call it the simplest golf swing model ever-  I am providing the proof now, having caught up with my own swing to the model itself, and will be expanding on why it works the way it does, in the next video “MCS – Project 2018.”

It’s all there in the numbers – if you want optimal ball-striking in your golf swing, you want a mechanically-correct action that maximizes performance while reducing the risk of injury, and you want to get the most power and speed and consistency in your swing – MCS is your best bet.

But then, anyone who’s been following my blogging over the years and who has swung this way already knows that!


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

2 thoughts on “How The Launch Monitor Proves MCS Model Correct

  1. Idabedda

    48 means you have two years to get it down. I think you give the senior tour a good run and let the secret that is MCS get out! Thanx for MCS, I now can play good golf for the rest of my life!

    1. D Watts Post author

      Very welcome, Idabedda, and thanks for the compliments! I don’t kid myself that I anywhere near close to thinking about playing senior golf – that would take practice and preparation on a level approaching my most intensive years of research. A fun thought though – who know what happens in the future? 😉

Comments are closed.