This posting is actually just an elaboration on the comment responding to peterallenby2013’s comment on yesterday’s posting.
peterallenby2013 has been a long-time and much-appreciated (by me) member of WAX Nation and I was struck by his kind words in the comment he left.
It takes mental strength to open the mind to the notion that there are other avenues to explore in whatever the endeavor or point of view. Doing so strengthens viewpoints and if you leave the ego outside of the equation, a chance to become better, whatever the endeavor.
I am loving this DJ!
While I believe his claim to my having any type of mental strength is highly exaggerated (unless he’s referring to my monumental stubbornness when I put my mind to something), I can expand slightly in my own response to him, taking the comment I left him and adding a little below:
No ego at all, Peter!
My golf swing journey has never been about ego. It began as a search for what I would now term the optimal golf swing because the golf swing instruction I had had to that point was not working for me.
Of course, once I figured out in my research that the so-called “Modern Golf Swing,” which had been what I was taught in the late 90’s, was completely bogus and unworkable from a mechanical-soundness angle, it became largely a journey of sussing out which type of Classic Golf Swing model was the best way to swing.
It has taken me down many roads, most of them with dead ends, and the current MCS model is, as I’ve always said when building or highlighting a model, the best possible way I could see to swing a club based on empirical research as well as studying the best swings of the greatest players in the history of the game.
I’m looking at Dunaway’s swing now with new eyes and I’m seeing that much of the difference between his swing and the current MCS is actually in my personal execution of the current MCS model.
If people have followed my instructions with regards to the MCS model, they’d actually be swinging much closer to Dunaway than I have been. My swing has always been just my swing, and the model of MCS is much better than my own swing, and you’ve all seen that the closer I got to the model, the better my own swing has gotten, technically.
Here are some examples:
On the swing plane, I improved my own swing by following the MCS guidelines to get my right arm tighter and my left arm shallower at the top of the back swing – then when I went back and compared Dunaway/Austin’s swings, I found that they already had the same tight positions, so here, my own swing was lacking and MCS squared with Austin/Dunaway.
Next, I have been looking at the stance and posture, and despite my saying the other day that Dunaway’s swing was so different from the average swing because of the stance, the MCS stance should actually be the same, if you follow the way I describe and demonstrated it with the “butt-back, erect posture” method.
If you look at my stance with the Kettle Bell, it is pretty close to the way you would stand to perform Dunaway’s swing:
The more I look at and compare the theorectical MCS model to Dunaway’s, the more I can see that, aside from stance width and pivot action (MCS’ stance would be wider & the pivot action Ben Hogan’s “Perfect Pivot action vs the Dunaway/Austin “ringing the bell” action), there shouldn’t be much difference between the two.
So, I want to replicate Dunaway’s swing, then see what the actual differences are between it and the theoretical MCS model – and if I find something in there to improve the MCS model even more, then it’s a win-win for everyone.
It’s All About THE SWING…
This is where Peter’s reference to ego comes in – I’m not concerned with putting my name to anything.
I call the MCS pivot action “Ben Hogan’s ‘Perfect Pivot,’” after all, don’t I? I didn’t come up with that action.
Likewise, if I provide an alternate action with which to swing in an MCS model that emulates the Austin/Dunaway “ringing the bell” hip & leg action, I’m not losing anything, because I didn’t have my name to the MCS pivot action to begin with.
Remember, the first versions of MCS were modeled after the Mike Austin swing model.
It just so happens that when a teaching/playing golf pro asked me to help him build a swing with which he could play, the Ben Hogan “floating pivot” MCS model was what came out of that work:
It has nothing to do with me. It’s about the best way to swing a golf club.
And this is the case – studying Dunaway’s swing again, years after leaving the Mike Austin model, has improved my MCS swing, so I decided to go all the way back to Dunaway’s actual swing, get as close to replicating it as I can, and then have a think about everything.
It could be that I branch MCS (which only stands for “Mechanically-Correct Swing,”) into two models where the difference is in the stance and pivot action & let people decide for themselves which works best for them personally.
They can go with Hogan’s “floating pivot” action or with the Austin/Dunaway “ringing the bell” hip & leg action.
Right now, after many hours of comparing the two over the last couple of weeks, that’s the biggest difference between the two models, and which one anyone prefers would come down to how well one can perform one or the other pivot action, both of which are mechanically-correct.
In that case, the argument of “optimal” wouldn’t have a definite answer as to which one is, because one way might simply work better for one person than with another.
The best way to swing, for anyone, is always going to be the best way to swing and, in the end, that has always been my mission statement!
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: