I Tried The Mike Dunaway Model Today & More!

Yes, it’s odd that I have never tried to actually swing the Mike Dunaway model up to now, you might think.

However, remember that I spent years trying to replicate the swing of his mentor Mike Austin and concluded years ago that it wasn’t optimal from a playing golf standpoint because of the shifting head.

I had spent all of that time on one of the swings and of course, once I moved on from one, I didn’t try the other… however…

I also said, after a long time looking at Mike Dunaway’s slightly differing swings over the years, that one of his swings looked very much like the MCS model, with just a little head shift.

So, I finally decided to give it a go, and I was fairly pleased with the results.

I actually swung both swing today, the standard MCS model and Dunaway’s, so I likely didn’t nail either one perfectly after two weeks off swinging (and five weeks off before the two days I did swing in Chicago two weeks ago).

I still got some great drives (the Dunaway drives were absolutely mashed, I could feel a slight difference at impact from the standard MCS model) and I’ll be sharing the video once I’ve looked through it and found the best ones overall.

For now:

I also made an adjustment to make my MCS standard model a little more Hoganesque with the back swing pivot, and it actually shallowed out my left arm angle at the top and also the down swing plane!

More on that later, and of course more on swinging’ like Dunaway, but I wanted to share the gifs now while I work on the video.

More to come!

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

10 thoughts on “I Tried The Mike Dunaway Model Today & More!

  1. Mr. McJohn

    Interesting shift in model. Dunaway has the look to him like he swings from the neck, rather than the head, which to me explains the difference between pure leverage and leveraged accuracy.

    Dunaway appears more natural to me, more according to how the head and spine connect in a good turn of the shoulders (base of the neck, rather than the top of the head as the pivot point).

    What do you think of swinging from the neck rather than the from the head? I’m curious on your thoughts, as we are discussing optimal technique, and I’m beginning to think that the base of the neck is more optimal from a physiology standpoint…

    1. D Watts Post author

      This is the dilemma that cannot and will not be overcome, MMJ – the stable head is optimal for accuracy/consistency & repeatability. The shifting head model is the “swinging for the fences.”

      In between the two is to be found anyone’s personal preference. I can only do the research and present my findings and point out other pertinent research.

      But which model or style is best? That’s an opinion and I don’t do opinion. One is optimal for accuracy and the other gives the greater leverage and power. I will leave it up to everyone to choose which one they want.

    2. Dal ANDREW

      “base of the neck” Sounds very close to C-7 that we have heard mentioned before. Is there a more valid swing foundation than; ‘Swing the 7 around C-7?’

  2. Roger

    If you look at your four pics above by your title WAX GOLF you demonstrate perfectly the 4 o’clock to 10 position of the club shaft what mike austin and mike dunaway teaches. The difference I see in your video now is the nice straighter right leg at the top of backswing where if you look at the top four pics you have more of a squat position meaning your right knee is much more flexed at the top of your backswing

    1. D Watts Post author

      The difference I see in your video now is the nice straighter right leg at the top of backswing where if you look at the top four pics you have more of a squat position meaning your right knee is much more flexed at the top of your backswing…

      You’re absolutely correct, Roger. The header top position has more knee flex than is optimal and I have been working on that exact thing for a while. Good eye! 😀

  3. Jay Mozek

    Austin didn’t espouse a shifting head. Although he said he did when he really wanted to hit a long one. You can laterally shift the hips without shifting the head. He called it ringing the bell. The idea is that the legs extend the spine providing a solid post to rotate around, like a door hinge. It certainly allows me to have a larger pivot with out any strain on the lumbar spine. From what I can see the MCS model is very similar in results in the impact position.

    1. D Watts Post author

      Hi Jay, welcome and thanks for leaving a comment!

      I know about the “ringing the bell” aspect, I studied the Mike Austin model for years, in fact the first videos I made were on the Mike Austin golf swing. In fact, my oldest readers originally came to my blogs looking for info on Mike Austin because there wasn’t much to be found in Youtube’s early years.

      I couldn’t make the method he taught work for me, which was why I left that camp around 2013, but I would agree with you that the MCS model is very close. In fact, I have said for years that MCS is the Austin swing without a head shift, but that my model works better with the Hogan pivot action in keeping the head as stable as possible on the back swing pivot.

      So, if you say Austin had a swing with no head shift and that it’s very similar to the swing model I espouse – I’d have to agree with you! 🙂

      1. Jay Mozek

        Yes I do say that 🙂 By the way, I love when you rip into the modern swing. I enjoy those posts. I have also incorporated what others such as Mike Malaska teach which is minimal fore arm rotation and keeping the face square to the
        swing plane. It has really helped me. My misses are straight. I think the idea of incorporating concepts of other sports into the swing is common sense. Keep up the good work!

Comments are closed.