If I’ve learned anything about models and motion in my near-14 years of research and analysis on the golf swing, it’s that the simpler, the better, with one caveat – retaining mechanical soundness or correctness.
Which means, the less moving parts you have in the model, the better it will function, until you remove too much and make it mechanically-unsound.
I’m not saying you can’t swing forward, but that is not mechanically-optimal and can actually lead to mechanical-correctness issues, which of course means you’re sacrificing performance and raising injury risk.
One of the main issues of trying to swing at the target with the golf swing is that the ball is located near the bottom of the swing arc… so trying to direct force and energy at the target with the club when the ball is nowhere near that point means wasted energy and inefficiency.
It boggles my mind that, whatever I’ve managed to do with my golf swing motion in the past 13.5 years since beginning my research, my longest drives and highest club speeds may actually still lie before me.
At 48 going on 49 (next March), that is pretty heady stuff. However, knowing what I’ve been working on and the breakthroughs I’ve made with my own motion to get even closer yet to the MCS Golf Swing model theory – it could be true, even with the decline brought on by Father Time.
There is a process, I’ve found, with making lasting improvements to one’s motion in the golf swing – and of course, I’m talking about mechanically-correct motion, because anything that is not mechanically-correct is a hazard to one’s health.
I would say that the things I’ve been showing you over the past few days would illustrate, if there is any such thing, a “neutral” swing plane on the down swing.
That would make sense, considering that if one’s hands are travelling a route that matches the club shaft’s impact plane, and the club itself matches that plane on the way down, that you would call this “neutral.”