First of all, I was struggling with the very concept of calling it a “Classic Golf Swing” action because… it really isn’t.
Nor is it the horrific and back-breaking “Modern Golf Swing.”
So what exactly is it?
The answer I came up with is the most logical and the simplest: the swing model Mike Dunaway used was what I’d call the “Post-Modern Golf Swing” model.
The reasons for it are also simple:
- It doesn’t use any “rubber-band” torquing of the lower vs upper halves of the body as the MGS advocates, and which we know is out the window when it comes to wanting to swing a club and
- It doesn’t involve using the hips & legs to rotate the body and shoulders
You may ask, “why exactly would you be struggling with any of this, DJ?”
Well, let me answer that question – it’s because I spent years looking at and simplifying the mechanics of the “Classic Golf Swing” pivot and action, that swing model used by virtually every great pro and amateur golfer until the “Modern Golf Swing” made its regrettable advent some decades ago.
Backs have never been the same since.
So, back to the Classic vs Dunaway swing – while both make use of the hips and legs, the Classic swing is a more rotary action that involves the hips turning in place on the back pivot:
MCS “Classic” Swing Model
The Dunaway (some would call it the Mike Austin model, but Austin swung a little differently than Dunaway did, even though he was Dunaway’s mentor, and I prefer the Dunaway swing to Austin’s) makes use of the hips and legs as previously stated however it doesn’t have a rotary, “turning in place” hip action.
The hips rather shift on the back pivot and then shift again on the down swing, rather than turning in place and then shifting on the transition.
That is a huge mechanical difference, too large for me to dismiss it and say, “they’re kind of the same thing.”
I’ve spent years looking at the MCS “Perfect Pivot” Classic Golf Swing action using the pivot action that Ben Hogan perfected in the 40’s and 50’s, and I’m at the end of the line with that model.
I haven’t been able to find anything to improve the mechanics either through stance or pivot or down swing action – the MCS model of the Classic Swing I have blogged about for the past 3-4 years is the optimal model.
I began to merge parts of the Dunaway model last autumn with the Classic MCS model, but all that was going to do was change the swing model from Classic to Dunaway.
So, if there is a way to swing even better than the Classic MCS model, it would involve a different model and not making changes to the Classic.
That means we’re talking about two different swing models, and there’s no way to merge the two.
Which means that, as I said in my last posting a few weeks back – there will be two (2) MCS Golf Swing models – the Classic (Ben Hogan pivot) model & the Post-Modern (Dunaway) model.
- There will always be different ways to swing and, aside from all of the horrific ways to do so,
- I’ve even said that you can swing differently with a mechanically-correct swing using the same model, as no two Classic era golfers had the same swing (Nicklaus vs Hogan vs Nelson, Jones, etc.).
Now, I am shifting to a position that doesn’t contradict either of the above statements, rather it adds a third element that I’m seeing after years of swing research:
There are two ways to swing properly and mechanically-soundly:
- One way with turning hips on the pivot,
- The other way, with shifting hips to power the pivot.
As long as they are both mechanically-correct, which I’ve never said the Austin/Dunaway swings were not, the only question would be, which one is the optimal swing model?
That, I have concluded, remains with the person swinging the club. Some people may understand and perform one swing model better than the other and to them, that would be the optimal model.
I have cracked the Dunaway mechanics and am in the process of seeing if the exact way he swung is the optimal way or, as I did with the Classic Golf Swing model, if there’s a way to make that action even better, or optimize it.
It could already be there.
It could use a tweak.
I’ll know when I get back to it, which should be in the next couple of months or so.