You’ll remember, those of you who were around the blog back in 2013, that my first post-Mike Austin group swing model was what I called “New MCS” and which featured “The Formula” setup.
Well, I never really looked at the swing model as a “single-plane” one but when I did take a look this week out of curiosity with all the “single-plane swing” talk out there, it was actually a nearly-perfect single plane action when it comes to that particular criterion.
I will admit to having had a few jokes and laughs at Bryson DeChambeau’s expense with all of the “Mad Scientist” stuff, but I am now actually interested in what he’s doing to some extent, because he’s progressed from when he went pro.
When Bryson turned pro, his swing model was one that I would not have called scientific in the least.
I’ve mentioned how I got around to fixing one thing in my setup that was bothering me, which was an imperfect square neutral grip, and how it instantly tightened my dispersion the very first day out this season.
I’d like to show some visual proof that, when you get the square neutral grip working with a properly measured setup & ball position, you will come to expect square impact and a straight flight or baby draw (unless you’re trying to work the ball another way).
I wanted to mention something last winter when the blog was on hiatus but it slipped my mind with everything else that was going on at the time.
Now, I’d like to share another example of when you don’t want the “do what I say, not what I do” philosophy and show why many people don’t ever improve their ball-striking, whatever they are trying to do to get there.
As I get deeper into Mike Dunaway’s entire swing, I would love you all to see something that blows away all of the stuff you hear about the best swingers having the same shaft plane at both address & impact.
This could have huge ramifications for MCS the swing model, which is why I want to point it out, besides showing yet another example of Modern Golf Swing instructions focusing on things that have little relevance to proper mechanics.
Those of you who have been around for a while know of my interest in the Dunaway pivot, mainly how he was able to have such a low trailing heel on the back swing.
That’s right – all of the people who are angst-ridden and feel you’ll never be able to swing powerfully because you “pull” the club down from the top, are actually not making the wrong motion.
It’s just that “pullers” fail to properly sequence the down swing (although a lot of it has to do with the setup and back swing pivot rather than what happens on the down swing) and pull on the wrong angle.
As you all know, I’ve been looking into various aspects of the MCS Golf Swing model to ensure that there is a blueprint for producing one’s desired “optimal” golf swing within it.
There are a few things I’ve come across that could have been surprising but were, on second thought, absolutely logical, and that’s what you want – to be able to understand/explain the reasoning behind “how” and “why.”
I’ve spent the weekend clarifying for myself exactly why Mike Dunaway had the back pivot shift with a stable down swing head position and found something very interesting in the process.
I’ve been saying that for maximum accuracy and consistency/repeatability, you want to swing with a stable head position throughout the swing, but that you might sacrifice some power/speed doing so. Continue reading
I spent a great deal of time this season making sure of the concept of the trailing heel at impact, which I’ve resolved to my satisfaction.
Now, I am looking at one more thing that I have had my eye on for some time.
