• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Big Don

Swing Plane

19 posts in this topic

I had some recent golf lessons where my instructor mentioned that my swing plane was too flat. He suggested that I lift my arms higher at the top of the back swing so that the plane of my arms is steeper than my shoulder plane. I believe that this is commonly referred to as the two plane swing and most modern golf teachers prefer this method.

Since my lessons I have researched the swing plane and there seems to be two schools of the thought. The majority of modern advice seems to concur with my instructor. However, I have come across numerous articles referencing flatter swing planes; in particular those referencing Hogan and Sam Snead both of whom had relatively flat swings and who were giants of the game.

I have a few questions for you technicians out there:-

Why has the flat swing become so unfashionable? If it worked for Hogan and Snead what's wrong with it nowadays? What are the advantages and disadvantages of a flat swing?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

hmmm...it's hard to say without seeing your swing, but one fact about golf that nobody can change is that you have to hit down on the ball to make it go up. if your pro was messing with your swing plane it was probably in an effort to make this happen. if you get too shallow then the only two moves you can reasonably make are two sweep the ball very low and from the inside resulting in a lack of power and spin on your short irons or more likely, it will force you to throw the club out over the top in an effort to clear some space for your arms on the downswing. both of these things are not good. even the guys nowadays that are using a so called one-plane swing do not have overly flat swings...tiger, scott, etc. they also have a great spine angle from bending at the waste. chances are your pro was not lying to you. check and see about getting your swing on tape and then comparing it to some vids on the internet. you might be surprised. good luck with the swing though!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advantages of flat:
- better distance control
- good especially when you have good 'core strength'
- easier on the body since the upper body remains stacked on top of the lower body

Disadvantages of flat:
- worse directional control
- bad for players who are tall and have slight stature who have bad 'core strength'
- ball flight may be too low to be controllable
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will offer this on the subject.

If we agree that there is a swing plane that is too flat, and a plane that would be too upright, then there also has to be an optimum somewhere in between those two.

Something to think about.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some recent golf lessons where my instructor mentioned that my swing plane was too flat. He suggested that I lift my arms higher at the top of the back swing so that the plane of my arms is steeper than my shoulder plane. I believe that this is commonly referred to as the two plane swing and most modern golf teachers prefer this method.

I feel lift your arms is not a good way to describe this change. If you take the club back so that the club initially stays outside of your hands and you maintain good width (extension) and wrist position is not flat then you can turn your shoulders to get the right position. Trying to lift the arms leads to tempo and posture problems and a lot of pulls and slices. If you are to flat then posture, take away or wrist cock is probably be addressed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ball doesn't care how you got the club to the ball and what the club does after its hit.

With that said there are some common sense or conventional thoughts when it comes to pretty much anything. In golf the angle the shaft makes in relation to the ground and club face is visable from the behind/down the line view. Common sense tells me that if you kept the club on that plane the whole time during the swing then it would make it easier to get the club face back to where it started, which is the key part of making good contact on the ball.

Personally I can't see how not being on plane with your swing could have any advantage over being on plane. Can everyone do it, no, is it a requirement, no but again there is something be said for starting and maintaining the path that you want the club to end up in at impact.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ball doesn't care how you got the club to the ball and what the club does after its hit.

Bear in mind here I'm not talking about a ridiculously flat swing. My arms and shoulders were basically swinging on the same plane. However, my instructor prefers to see the arms on a steeper plane than the shoulder plane.

I believe that some instructors just don't like 1-plane swings.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I can't see how not being on plane with your swing could have any advantage over being on plane.

Very easy to explain that.

Think of it this way. If I am not swinging "on plane", that can either be over the top or underneath plane... as I approach the ball, I have to not only time the face of the club but Also the path of the club. If I am approaching the ball from underneath plane (from the inside) and my club face is square to plane, it is WIDE open at the golf ball, so at the instant it reaches the ball I have to snap the face shut to get it square to target, which would be closed to plane. If I approach the ball directly down the target line and "on plane" I now ONLY have to worry about that club face. As far as "one plane" "two plane"... One plane doesnt even really exist, there are "flatter" and "more upright" but a TRUE one plane swing would have you swinging the club around your waist, ie- ON shaft plane. But because of the design of a golf club (the fact the shaft comes out on an angle) we are required to make plane shifts throughout the swing. But that goes back to my original note... if we agree that there is a plane that is too flat, and one that is too upright, then somewhere between those two has to be optimum, for you.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe if your swing plane is too flat you will have trouble consistently getting the ball up. I am not sure if your instructor was suggesting a two plane or one plane swing, but maybe what he was suggesting is that you need to get more consistent height on your ball flight and was encouraging you to hit down on the ball more.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe if your swing plane is too flat you will have trouble consistently getting the ball up.

No not really. The main problem I had was occasionally hitting towards the heel of the club.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No not really. The main problem I had was occasionally hitting towards the heel of the club.

Sounds like he wanted you to change your swing plane to prevent you from hitting hozzel rockets. If you do not want to change your swing plane maybe you are set up too close to the ball or you are reaching for the ball?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I know what Big Don is talking about with the instructor changing the plane to a more upright plane. My guess is that the instructor is more comfortable teaching the plane he wants you on so he can diagnose problems. Most likely that is what his instructor uses for his swing. It appears to me that golfers who play a lot, tour pros and high end amateurs can do quite well with a 2 plane style swing. It's well grooved and these types of players have great hand eye coordination. Hackers like me don't possess that type of awesome Hand Eye required to square up the face consistently that is required for a two plane swing. For me, my natural plane was closer to the "one plane" style, arm along shoulder plane. With the help of my instructor we moved it to a more upright plane. I think what happened for me is that I started to blend a one plane / two plane. Short story is that I had good times and bad with my 2 plane swing but in the end I've gone back to a full one plane swing, Stack and Tilt, and things are much more consistent. I do have good leg and core strength and would agree that the one plane takes more activity from the legs and core to produce a solid swing. Sometimes when I'm tired I can't swing as well, but with two plane there wasn't a noticeable drop off in performance when I was tired. I also think that if your strength is less than average distance may suffer with the one plane swing. Again it goes to the type of movement required to generate club head speed. I think of 2 plane as having an extra lever of power but that extra lever is also a moving part. That extra moving part for me was hard to control all the time. The one plane uses more big body muscles to square up the club and the two plane utilizes more fine motor control muscles. I was a bit longer with my 2 plane swing but not much.

Bottom line is that you need to find a swing that fits for your body and is comfortable. Also don't blend the styles. If it's a one plane swing you like, make sure your instructor is familiar with all the parts of that swing. They do act a little different.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your left hand position on the top of the backswing has NOTHING to do with your swing plane. The club only moves on plane below your hips, on the top, it deviates from the plane, the difference between Woods and Kuchar (or Hogan) is how much the deviation is.

Your plane angle should be determined by the club lie angle, so with the same club you cannot change the steepness of your plane randomly. What you can change is how the club wraps around your body (higher left arm makes it easier to wrap around for more power), thus giving people the impression of "steep" or "flat" planes.  A book titled Decoding the Golf Swing Plane explains these things very well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your plane angle should be determined by the club lie angle, so with the same club you cannot change the steepness of your plane randomly.

TaylorMade lists the lie angle of the SLDR as 59-62°. Can you share with us how that relates to what you just said?

And congratulations on bumping a thread that was seven years old…

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

An instructor in Texas of some stature Shawn Humphries shared some information about swing plane that made really good sense to me. Plus I had heard it before from really good local golfer. When asked about keeping on plane, his answer was something like "just keep your elbows level in the back swing". His idea of the importance of being on the correct plane was to not have a club face that was either open or closed at impact.  Level elbows in the back swing would help prevent these two impact flaws. As far as I can remember, he made no mention of a single, or dual plane swing.  Just being on your own plane.  Here is pretty much what he said about level elbows in the back swing.

"If the rear elbow is higher than the front elbow, you might tend to hit a fat shot, a slice, or a weak pop up to the slice side. If the front elbow is higher than the rear elbow you might tend to have too flat of a swing, which could cause topped shots, low line drives, or not taking a proper divot."

You can take Humphrie's level elbow info with a grain of salt if you wish, but it does work. Watch the pros, and almost all of them have level elbows during their back swings. The one's who don't usually don't make the cut. Myself, I don't worry about what plane I am using. I just keep my elbows level in my back swing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno about that @Patch . Seems you can do quite a bit… and that the backswing has only some effect on the downswing…


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I can't deny what the pictures are showing. I just wonder if those guys

have to make some compensations in their down swing to get to their

correct impact position. Let's not forget that these guys hit 1000s of

balls in practice, and play. Usually with a swing coach standing nearby

to assign any needed swing adjustments. However, I still maintain that

keeping level elbows in the back swing is not a bad thing. Maybe not all the way to the top, as much as possible. It maintains the triangle of the arms and hands. Too much good can come from it, especially for the amateur golfer. Stuff like the one piece take away,

maintaining a wide swing arc, an easier hip turn, no arm separation, no

flying elbow, and getting to the top in a more correct position that

helps with a better down swing. Maintaining the triangle formed at

address, with level elbows helps to keep all the moving pieces in your backswing working together to help set up a better start to the downswing. Also there is a well known drill where the golfer places a basketball, or some other object between their elbows and practices their back swing. Out of sync elbows would make that drill kind of tough to accomplish. No malice intended. Just my own opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't deny what the pictures are showing. I just wonder if those guys

have to make some compensations in their down swing to get to their

correct impact position. Let's not forget that these guys hit 1000s of

balls in practice, and play. Usually with a swing coach standing nearby

to assign any needed swing adjustments. However, I still maintain that

keeping level elbows in the back swing is not a bad thing. Maybe not all the way to the top, as much as possible. It maintains the triangle of the arms and hands. Too much good can come from it, especially for the amateur golfer. Stuff like the one piece take away,

maintaining a wide swing arc, an easier hip turn, no arm separation, no

flying elbow, and getting to the top in a more correct position that

helps with a better down swing. Maintaining the triangle formed at

address, with level elbows helps to keep all the moving pieces in your backswing working together to help set up a better start to the downswing. Also there is a well known drill where the golfer places a basketball, or some other object between their elbows and practices their back swing. Out of sync elbows would make that drill kind of tough to accomplish. No malice intended. Just my own opinion.

I don't get why golfers talk about this triangle thing. It's basically impossible for the arm position not the change during the backswing. On the backswing the right elbow folds, this helps the hands work "up" and loads the left arm up and across the bend. A few feet into your takeaway your triangle is already "disrupted".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Posts

    • GAME GOLF - Digital Tracking System
      Well, I went ahead and bit. Amazon Warehouse Deals has a few for $86 each. I had a $25 Amazon GC from Christmas, so after tax, it's going to be $66. It says the packaging is damaged, but no mention of problems with the device. Here's hoping it comes in good shape, and that it warms up pretty quickly so I can use it!
    • "5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge (February 2016)
      The tournament I was supposed to play in was cancelled , so I played in a shotgun start today. The group I was in played at a quicker pace than the group in front and the group behind us, so I had plenty of opportunities for practicing greenside chipping and bunker shots as well as putting.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      While I expect it's largely accurate, I was more interested in a link to the actual quote than your paraphrase. The context of the question and interview plus the exact wording gives a clearer understanding of the statement. I accept deeper field of talent, I don't accept that it's automatically 'a ton' or an order of magnitude greater. What's the average score relative to the field (or % making the cut) in the PGA for the Pros vs. the PGA qualifiers from then to now? That could provide some insight to relative gap between majors field depth then and now. I am certain it's gotten harder for the PGA qualifiers to make it tot he weekend. I am less certain by how much the margin has shifted. The reason I stress the Majors and Opens is that size of field and openness to qualifiers is very important in making the top competitors face many elite players with potential to have a hot run of form. You're comparing apples to oranges there. That was ~ 1.5 million players in the U.S., not the world population of golfers. About 26 million golfers today in the U.S. Worldwide in 1920 who knows? But including Europe, Australia, and other 'commonwealth' countries it was likely double that - maybe triple. Also I can find no credible estimate that supports 100 million current golfers worldwide. Most generous is about 61 million. While there are a lot of clubs world-wide, participation of 'casual' unaffiliated golfers per club is not going to be the same as in the U.S. and that's the only way I get a number close to 100 million based on actual data. U.S. golf population talent base roughly tripled between Jack and Tiger and I expect worldwide it was a similar rate of increase. I think since the 1920's the U.S. has had about half the wold golf population, though that's started to decline of late as Asian participation increases. Jack was head and shoulders above highly competitive fields for nearly a generation similar to Tiger. I don't think human abilities change by orders of magnitude in short spans of time so I expect that Jack was an outlier of similar human ability as Tiger. How close and who has the edge is IMO debatable. Were Tiger's achievements (esp. the 'beat the field' streak) tougher than Jack's because of field depth, yes. How much more I'm not as sure as you. Did a relative 'competitive break' from full field events offered by the WGC's help Tiger there? Don't know but it's possible. Combine Tiger's regular wins and Majors and I have no problem giving him the greatest player of all time nod. I just don't think it's as cut and dried or by as large a margin as you seem to. They didn't play against each other so your confidence isn't any more a fact than my uncertainty. We're both estimating. Size of the field actually competing matters too, not just who wasn't invited to the party. I like the idea of a top player field and enjoy watching the events, but if only the top 50 players are playing they all have a better shot statistically than if the field was open to 156 or more players who are still very 'elite' in skill. As you've said in many posts, golf skill performance is highly variable. I agree and that's why I think size of field is relevant to the comparison, because I think the scoring variability of the top 90 golfers in the world overlaps considerably with the next 90 down and even a bit beyond that. That's why I wondered whether WGC wins are a bit less valuable than a major or a full field PGA tour event that's also open to Monday qualifying. Granted the world ranking system is better than it used to be, but it still weights international events more strongly than they deserve. Some of the reasons I think you may be undervaluing Nicklaus' achievement in comparing across eras.
    • "5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge (January 2016)
      I managed to complete the January challenge (without missing a day, I believe). It was a great months' work for my game - having to blog every day sure helps to focus each session.
    • Steel vs Graphite generic question
      S300 is one of the lowest launching steel shafts.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries