… and went all the way to the other end of it, which didn’t work of course, but I worked my way back and found the middle ground that works, I believe.
I really don’t want to go into details about what I’m doing because, until I actually say there is a new model different from the standard Classic Golf Swing (and the MCS version which was presented in “E = MCS” and subsequent videos), I wouldn’t want people leaving that model.
You can believe this or not – I have written dozens of posts about him over the years since he turned pro in 2007, which was when I began my first blog SwingTheoryGolf on WordPress.
So I’ve seen him swing with changing models over the years, changes made necessary because of injuries, and he even at at time used a Classic-style lifting leading heel (I’d have to check my archive but I believe it would have been around the time he was winning majors).
I distracted myself talking about Dunaway’s swing model and spent most of today’s session trying to replicate it with the head shift and all, at which I was (no surprise to yours truly) unsuccessful.
The thing is however, it set me thinking about the stance and weight distribution that I prefer to have, and when I got home, it struck me that there is a reason for my preference for this setup.
While working out the model I’ve been building of late, I fell across something that may have solved my issue of “head shift on the back swing or into the down swing, head shift at all or none” that has been on my mind.
First, does anyone remember how Jack Nicklaus used to get over the ball and, just before he began his backswing, he’d tilt his head to a certain spot and then swing?
Today was the first session where I didn’t start from scratch following intensive swing work following the previous session – I just took up where I left off last Thursday.
I thought I was there today, actually with so many balls smashed down the pipe, but the misses told me that there’s further work to be done to tighten up the model to where it should be.
It was a story of night and day – when I began my session with some adjustments to the stance and pivot action for the swing model I’m building from the ground up with only athletic intuition as a guide, things were very bleak.
I was about 45 minutes in and so frustrated that I wanted to snap my driver over my knee, because it just wasn’t there.
Word out that the USGA and also the R&A are proposing to introduce bifurcation to the game, where pros may have to play some events with a distance-limited golf ball.
Players are up in arms, but I don’t see why – if I were competing in golf and had to play a limited-distance ball, I wouldn’t care, because everyone else would have to play the same ball.
I was saddened to read today that Dick Fosbury passed away yesterday at the age of 76 from a recurrence of lymphoma.
I have often pointed to Fosbury as an example of how you can do anything with any type of technique but that only one technique is optimal.
However, there are several things that have popped the light bulb since I decided to build my own golf swing model from the ground up using athletic intuition.
The first is that as soon as I decided that I wasn’t going to optimize my swing with the same address principles as used in the conventional Classic Golf Swing, everything began to change for me when I began to look into how exactly I should stand over the ball.
I’ll use this post to clarify yesterday’s topic – in that people may have varying positions on the optimal placement of their own ball in the stance, and I’m working on how to identify one’s own.
The reason I’m searching for this answer is because I don’t agree with the conventional method of addressing the ball.
WAX Golf 