One plane or two? Which one are you?

[MGB]

Late last year, I rebuilt my swing. From reading Jim Hardy's book, I basically went from one plane to two without knowing it.

Although, I've picked up distance and lowered my handicap, the one plane swing seems to be simpler to maintain. I'm struggling to get rid of my one plane tendencies since they interfere with the two plane swing. The two plane swing works better with my irons, the one plane better with the driver. WTF?

Hardy makes so much sense, I almost want to go back to a one plane swing to keep it simple.

Any thoughts on this? Which one are you?

[+TourSpecGolfer]

Don't remind me...

Today I had my usual Wednesday lesson with Pro Regan Lee and he brought his V1 software w/camera to video tape my swing... :wah:

So much to work on, I don't even want to get into it.

I used to be a 2 plane golfer shooting decent scores with a funky swing until a little over 2 years ago I decided to really work hard on changing my swing. Now I'm a 1 plane kinda guy, but it took me the majority of the year to get used to it. for almost 8 months my scores didn't reflect how good my swing was looking. The result wasn't there. I guess I can say I know how Tiger feels....LOL :pot:

I'm back now just having problems with my Driver and 3 wood sometimes, everything else is much more consistent especially down the stretch. I find the 1 plane swing easier to repeat.

Kudos to the best instructor I have ever had.

http://www.808golf.com/bio/BIO_regan_lee.htm

[andylo]

Now a one plane swinger... used to be 1.5 plane :sad: i.e. a swing have both tendency of 1 or 2 planer :wah:

I am agree that one plane swing is a lot simpler and easier to repeat.... but during break down/slump period the 2 plane has more forgiveness in a way.

The jounery getting rid of the 2 plane habit is long... and I am still on the road. Occasionally a very good round encourged me to keep going... but the bad round can really let down.

But I believe one day I will be flushing every shot easy if I keep working my way to there :cool:

[ecdfr]

Hi guys,

Used to be a two plane golfer. I changed all of that 1 year ago before reading Jim Hardy's book. Was strugling when I finally got his book.

Looking back, I think I lost quite some distance and feel but gained regularity and confidence in my game.

At the end of the day, I would not recommend any method, you just have to go with your natural ability and find a swing that fit your body morphology.

Eric

[MGB]

I'm finding out that for the best results you need to be just one or the other. Having tendencies of both really screws you up. I'm going to the range today to work this out. I guess it's just like anything else, you have to commit to one and let the other go to be effective.

But I will say that the one plane seems to be easier to maintain. The two plane is a more athletic move that seems to require better hand-eye coordination.

Hmmmm...

[ShreveportGolf]

Let me pose a couple of questions here. Suppose someone swings on plane with the shaft, back and through, but it does not match their shoulder plane as in the one plane swing. Does this make them a two plane swinger? Why can't someone have a shaft plane swing? Why do we have to catagorize golfers now into either one or two plane swingers? What does Tiger do?

I am not a believer in method teaching. The fact is that the two swings that Hardy is teaching are on the extremes of the swing spectrum. The reality is that most people fall somewhere in between. For anyone to say that you cannot mix the two is rediculous. The truth is that there are many tour players who do just that, along with many other great players in the past. So, all of a sudden everyone needs to move to one side or the other?

I have been teaching for over 10 years now and I have studied all the top teacher's methods. My experience is that they all have something good to bring ot the table. However, teaching swings is like fitting golf clubs. You cannot fit golfers into a mold and everyone cannot use standard off the rack clubs with the same flex. As the same with clothing, shoes etc,. As a teacher, you must always analyze ability, age, strength and amount of time to practice, along with size and shape. Now throw in the mix preferences of trajectory and shot shape (i.e. fade or draw).

In the end, people need as good a teacher as they do a club fitter/builder for their equipment.

Paul

[jeffy]

Let me pose a couple of questions here. Suppose someone swings on plane with the shaft, back and through, but it does not match their shoulder plane as in the one plane swing. Does this make them a two plane swinger? Why can't someone have a shaft plane swing?

IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, THAT WOULD PUT THE LEFT ARM ON A PLANE BELOW (I.E., SHALLOWER) THAN THE SHOULDERS AT THE TOP. SUCH A SWING IS EXTEEMELY RARE AMONG TOUR QUALITY GOLFERS. THE ONLY ONE I CAN THINK OF IS JOHN MAHAFFEY. NO TRULY GREAT PLAYER EVER SWUNG THAT WAY. MOST WERE 1P (PLAYER, SARAZEN, HOGAN SNEAD, OLD TIGER) OR A MIX (OLD NICKLAUS, NEW TIGER, NELSON)

Why do we have to catagorize golfers now into either one or two plane swingers?

OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T BUT SOME OF US HAVE FOUND HARDY'S IDENTIFICATION OF CERTAIN IMCOMPATABILE 1P AND 2P SWING COMPONENTS TO BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL. FOR EXAMPLE, NOW I KNOW WHY, WHEN I HAD A 2P BACKSWING, I PLAYED MY BEST WHEN I DROVE THE DOWNSWING WITH MY ARMS RATHER THAN WITH MY TORSO.

What does Tiger do?

HE MIXES ELEMENTS OF THE TWO, 2P BACKSWING, 1P DOWNSWING, AS DOES DALY, COUPLES AND, AT TIMES, NICKLAUS.

I am not a believer in method teaching.

NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS; IN MY CASE, I WANT A SWING THAT MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLES, IN TERMS OF FUNDAMENTALS, WHAT THE BEST PLAYERS DID. IF THAT IS "METHOD TEACHING", I THINK IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE. WHY WOULD I WANT TO SWING SOMETHING ELSE?

The fact is that the two swings that Hardy is teaching are on the extremes of the swing spectrum.

HE'D PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE ARE OTHER, PERFECTLY GOOD 1P SWINGS AND 2P SWINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONES HE ADVOCATES.

The reality is that most people fall somewhere in between.

HE'D PROBABLY AGREE THAT MOST GOLFERS WHO PLAY FOR A LIVING FALL INTO EITHER BROAD CATEGORY OF 1P OR 2P SWING TYPES BUT DISAGREE THAT MOST TOUR QUALITY PLAYERS USE A MIX OF 1P AND 2P ELEMENTS.

For anyone to say that you cannot mix the two is rediculous.

WELL, I'D LIKE TO SEE SERGIO TRY TO PLAY WITH TOM WATSON'S CASTING DOWNSWING: HE'D SNAP THE SHAFT OFF A FOOT BEHIND THE BALL EVERY TIME. AND IF WATSON TRIED TO PLAY WITH SEGIO'S DOWNSWING, HE'D NEVER GET OUT OF THE LEFT WOODS OR EVEN IN-BOUNDS. AND, ANYWAY, YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN MIX THE TWO, THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST IT, BUT VERY FEW GREAT PLAYERS DID.

The truth is that there are many tour players who do just that, along with many other great players in the past.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CONSIDER MANY, BUT I CAN IDENTIFY ONLY A FEW (DALY, COUPLES, NICKLAUS, NELSON, FUYRK, MILLER BARBER, GAY BREWER...FALDO SEEMED TO GO BACK AND FORTH). MOST ARE CLEARLY 1P (HOGAN, SNEAD, BOROS, VENTURI, OLD TIGER, VIJAY, OLLIE, KNUDSON, MICKEY WRIGHT, OLD ERNIE) OR 2P (WATSON, SEVE, IRWIN, NORMAN, LOVE, MONTY, PAYNE STEWART).

So, all of a sudden everyone needs to move to one side or the other?

WHO SAID EVERYONE NEEDS TO MOVE TO ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER? HARDY CLAIMS, WITH A LOT OF EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP, THAT IT IS A LOT EASIER TO LEARN AND PLAY IF YOU AVOID MIXING INCOMPATIBLE COMPONENTS. HOW CAN THAT NOT HELP YOUR TEACHING OR YOUR STUDENTS' LEARNING?

I have been teaching for over 10 years now and I have studied all the top teacher's methods. My experience is that they all have something good to bring ot the table. However, teaching swings is like fitting golf clubs. You cannot fit golfers into a mold and everyone cannot use standard off the rack clubs with the same flex. As the same with clothing, shoes etc,. As a teacher, you must always analyze ability, age, strength and amount of time to practice, along with size and shape. Now throw in the mix preferences of trajectory and shot shape (i.e. fade or draw).

I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HARDY WOULD DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THAT.

In the end, people need as good a teacher as they do a club fitter/builder for their equipment.

AMEN.

Paul

Paul-

Please see my comments in caps above.

Jeff

[MGB]

Valid points. Thanks Paul and Jeff for participating in the discussion. I believe Jeff refers to models based on the swings of touring pros and Paul from his experience as a clubfitter and teacher.

I think most people want to model their swings after the pros they either idolize or whose body type resembles theirs. In hindsight, I think that you have to develop a swing that you can repeat regardless of who you model it after. A more athletic person will develop a different swing from one less so.

However, certain laws still apply to the golf swing. I Paul is right to suggest that a person can play with elements of both in his swing. I just feel the level you can achieve by doing such becomes limited. This was the point of experimenting with my swing; to take my game to the next level.

I've developed or gone back to a Sam Snead type swing; reverse K set-up, kick the left knee in through the backswing and rotate through the ball. I had lots of trouble with my tempo using the modern swing technique of turning against the resistance of the lower body (McLean-style). I've found no loss of distance using one against the other and I've developed more consistency doing so.

In the end, you'll do what works for you. Again, thanks for taking part in this discussion.

[jeffy]

I've developed or gone back to a Sam Snead type swing; reverse K set-up, kick the left knee in through the backswing and rotate through the ball. I had lots of trouble with my tempo using the modern swing technique of turning against the resistance of the lower body (McLean-style). I've found no loss of distance using one against the other and I've developed more consistency doing so.

In the end, you'll do what works for you. Again, thanks for taking part in this discussion.

MGB-

My conclusion is that what Jim teaches as a "one-plane" swing is very much modeled after Snead, not Hogan. See, for example, this commentary of Hardy students Jacobsen and Pernice: http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/221289/1/8579073

BTW, I think Snead's left knee kicks more "out" towards the target line than "in" towards the ball. This is apparent in down-the-line sequences of Sam; see: http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/87698

This action seems to help set up his bow-legged, sit-down look on the downswing as well as the very dramatic opening of his hips at impact, also very apparent down-the-line.

Jeff

[MGB]

I've developed or gone back to a Sam Snead type swing; reverse K set-up, kick the left knee in through the backswing and rotate through the ball. I had lots of trouble with my tempo using the modern swing technique of turning against the resistance of the lower body (McLean-style). I've found no loss of distance using one against the other and I've developed more consistency doing so.

In the end, you'll do what works for you. Again, thanks for taking part in this discussion.

MGB-

My conclusion is that what Jim teaches as a "one-plane" swing is very much modeled after Snead, not Hogan. See, for example, this commentary of Hardy students Jacobsen and Pernice: http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/221289/1/8579073

BTW, I think Snead's left knee kicks more "out" towards the target line than "in" towards the ball. This is apparent in down-the-line sequences of Sam; see: http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/87698

This action seems to help set up his bow-legged, sit-down look on the downswing as well as the very dramatic opening of his hips at impact, also very apparent down-the-line.

Jeff

Jeff,

Thanks for the links. I agree with you. I neglected to mention that in my post. I kick the left knee in on the backswing then down the target line on the through swing. This begins the rotation of my upper body and clears the hips opening the way for the arms to come through down the line.

Hey! How did you know I was bow-legged? :laugh: