With regards to this one-plane vs 2-plane discussion, the question that will invariably come up is which one is more effective or reliable? History tells us that the major championships which are the recognized as golf's most challenging tests have been won with widely different swings. Take for example two legends of the game: Jack Nicklaus and Ben Hogan.
Arguably the best that ever lived, Jack Nicklaus employed a very upright swing to win a record of 18 majors. Does that fact not prove to be very convincing when searching for a model of consistency? hmmm. interesting.
But wait, what about Ben Hogan, as so many hold as the best ball striker that ever lived, even Nicklaus said so himself. The oldest footage of him captures his tempo, power and reveals that his swing is rotational, flatter than that of Nicklaus. So many have searched in vain, for Hogan's 'Secret' emulating the man, but few truly understanding him.
Hardy would define the former swing 2-plane and the latter one-plane. The question that has boggled my mind for as long as I have been introduced to Hardy's ideas begs, if it is truly necessary to define our swings as one or two plane given the physiological and physical differences amongst all golfers?
Is the golf swing truly black and white, void of any shades of gray? Can and should the golf swing be defined as two schools thought, where the angle of the shoulders being the reference that delineates how one should swing? Please consider that there are 14 clubs in the bag all of which differ in weight and length.
Are shorter clubs not meant to be swung on a more upright plane when compared to a wood? Will it suffice to simply say some swings are more rotational, whereas some are more upright? How the club is swung is dependent on the setup, your connection to the ground, governed by laws of the universe and relative to your body and yet we remain fixated on this shoulder plane angle?
your thoughts are much appreciated.