Swing plane

[useless149149]

Everyone says that I need to make my swing plane more upright, but it seems like everyone has a different idea on what this will do, so what do you guys think it will improve?

[rudygu]

Hard to say without seeing your current swing plane, but in general a more upright swing plane will lead to a higher ball flight with more backspin - assuming you hit the ball solidly with that swing.

In my opinion, your swing plane should be mostly decided by your build (but can be effected by flexibility). Tall people naturally have a more upright swing plane and short people have a naturally flatter plane. For a tall person to force a flat swing plane or a short person to force one that is upright, usually leads to inconsistent ball striking unless they have grooved the compensations necessary to make the swing work. The book Five Lessons: The Modern Fundamentals of Golf by Ben Hogan has great illustrations of this.

Of course, this is my opinion based on my preference for a one-plane swing.

[irspow]

I believe the swing plane can help in studying one's swing, but that it is often used to destroy peoples natural swings. As noted earlier, Ben Hogan's works describe them well, he after all first introduced them, and are an excellent description to help in understanding the subject.

Many great golfers, most notably Jack Niklaus, used a two plane swing. Very upright in the backswing with a very steep flattening during the transition on towards impact. That is an acceptable technique that provides good results but requires excellent timing and a tremendous amount of practice. Still many professionals use this method, but I think that the majority of golfers would benefit by approaching a method closer to a one-plane type of swing.

The problem with the very upright swing plane is that, unless you can develop a very aggressive yet controlled transition, your club will never flatten out enough before impact. The result is usually an outside-in swing path and all the usually maladies associated with it in common golfers. This need for a dramatic transition is why I never advocate an upright swing for the recreational golfer. They simply do not have the time to practice this move enough to make it repeatable. Sadly, this is still the most common type of instruction found today. Perhaps that is why the majority of golfers are so bad at this beautiful game.

I have much more success in teaching people to stay much closer to the shaft plane (that angle established by the shaft at address) throughout the entire swing. This is a lot easier to maintain as all you have to do is NOT lift the club during the backswing. If the torso turns and the spine angle stays constant the club cannot go anywhere but stay on the shaft plane. Then any decent transition move initiated with the lower body can flatten it enough to go below this plane for a nice inside-out path.

Yes, you must drop below the original shaft plane to deliver an inside-out swing. Anyway, I think that many instructors incorrectly advocate a steeper swing plane to produce a more descending blow to the ball with more backspin, but they are failing to realize where most of the downward movement occurs approaching impact.

In a good golf swing most of the downward movement of the clubhead before impact is a result of the lag that exists before the release. More specifically, the further ahead your hands are in relation to the ball before release. Usually greater lag, not a steeper swing plane, will produce more backspin and higher ball flight. Not to mention far superior clubhead speed with less effort.

In summary, stay flat my friend, work on your lag. Keep your body as far ahead of the clubhead as possible until after impact. You will see your shot soar high and far. Remember, backspin has far more to do with the height of your shot than the loft of the club.

Tom

[iacas]

Many great golfers, most notably Jack Niklaus, used a two plane swing. Very upright in the backswing with a very steep flattening during the transition on towards impact.

To be clear, that's not what Jim Hardy would necessarily call a "two-plane swing." Please let's be careful about the terminology surrounding swing planes given the success he's had with his one/two-plane swing book and teachings.

The rest of your post treads on similar, murky waters. Please be careful.

[Ringer]

Everyone says that I need to make my swing plane more upright, but it seems like everyone has a different idea on what this will do, so what do you guys think it will improve?

I don't find changing swing planes helps much. Doing other things which effect the swing plane help though. Things like staying balanced and relaxed. Swinging the club instead of attempting to leverage it... and having the proper setup with a good finish.

[AmenCorner]

I believe the swing plane can help in studying one's swing, but that it is often used to destroy peoples natural swings. As noted earlier, Ben Hogan's works describe them well, he after all first introduced them, and are an excellent description to help in understanding the subject.

Are you a teacher? I'm sorry but the golf swing hasn't been "inside-out" for 30 years now since the introduction of perimeter weighting. As for "lag," I would me more inclined to define lag as a function of where your hands are in relation to the clubhead, not necessarily the ball (only at impact). I'm with "iacus," I think you're terminology is questionable. As for swing plane, I really try not to comment on matters of "style." The golf swing is a very unique and personal thing. Most golf teachers would agree though, there is a relatively small range of swing planes that would be considered conventional. Watching the pro tour on Sundays, you'll see many different styles. Find one that works and feels good to you, and master it. I personally like to stick with one coach, and work on fundamentals of the golf swing, and let the plane take care of itself. When my swing plane is off, it's usually because I'm simply not turning properly. When I work on turning and setting up properly, the swing plane is groovy. Hit em' straight.

[rudygu]

I don't find changing swing planes helps much. Doing other things which effect the swing plane help though. Things like staying balanced and relaxed. Swinging the club instead of attempting to leverage it... and having the proper setup with a good finish.

Now that sounds like good advice...

[irspow]

Sorry to have offended anyone I was just offering my opinion. The original poster of this thread can take it or leave it.

First, with all due respect to Hardy, he does NOT own the definitions of swing types. Instructors, yes I am a golf pro, who have been using video for quite some time now have noticed the two general different types of swing for a long time now. I was only pointing out the obvious and Jack seemed a good example. His back swing was on a very different plane than that of his downswing. That's all.

My "murky waters" have proven to help thousands of golfers and I am proud of that fact. So even though some may tend to disagree with some of my wording, my history and experience with others are what I use as a guide in how I offer advice.

As for the deceleration and inside-out issues raised, I did not in any way advocate slowing down through impact. I was using an analogy to throwing an object and it was obviously taken out of context. Perhaps reading carefully what was written could help to clarify what was meant. I stand by using a slightly inside-out swing path for the standard shot for the recreational golfer. Not only because it tends to produce a very slight draw for those who use it for their bread-and-butter shots, but because the major bane of the average golfer is usually a weak slice which cannot be produced by such a swing path. I have absolutely no idea what cavity-back clubs have to do with anything other than they are generally used as a crutch for poor technique.

Again, sorry to have offended anyone, I was just offering what I have found to be beneficial advice in my profession of helping others enjoy this game more.

Tom


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Love golf, live golf."

[rudygu]

As for the deceleration and inside-out issues raised, I did not in any way advocate slowing down through impact. I was using an analogy to throwing an object and it was obviously taken out of context. Perhaps reading carefully what was written could help to clarify what was meant.

That is from a different thread. I responded to this in that thread.

[Avid Golfer]

Everyone says that I need to make my swing plane more upright, but it seems like everyone has a different idea on what this will do, so what do you guys think it will improve?

Are you saying that people are telling you to change your

swing plane because your swing doesn't look right to them? I don't think it is beneficial to change just for the sake of changing. If you want to change your ball flight (hit it higher, lower, more penetrating, etc) then you should look into what is necessary to get that type of ball flight (it might only be a small setup change), as a result your plane may end up changing, but it will be as a result of a specific goal that will benefit your game in some way. If you change your swing without a specific goal in mind then you may end up with a worse game instead of a better one. There is no one plane that is more correct than another. Below are the swings of four very good PGA tour players (all of who have won majors). They have each been called great swingers and ball strikers. You will not find more than two of them on the same planes (arms and club shafts) at the same stages of the swing (aside from their positions at address and impact). http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3...atsetuppi0.jpg http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3...ighbackls7.jpg http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5...arallelaz8.jpg http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/256...esattopac1.jpg http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3...arallelfk2.jpg http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/7...timpactzi7.jpg http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/272...ghswingms9.jpg

[r7 425]

i have a very flat swing plane--thus i have to use a steeper angle and much more lag on my downswing..i would say that a steeper angle of approach could help you-instead of changing to a more upright path..best of luck

[AmenCorner]

Sorry to have offended anyone I was just offering my opinion. The original poster of this thread can take it or leave it.

You did not offend me at all. I just think it is important to maintain the integrity of the game by identifying exactly what your qualifications are. In the end, improper terminology can really confuse a young golfer. This is my only concern. If you have been able to help thousands of golfers, then good for you. I mean that.

Now, while a true golf swing may feel "inside to out" it is really "in to in." The golf club never goes outside the verticle plane of the ball. Back in the old days, before perimeter weighted clubs (not cavity back), the sweet spot used to be right next to the hosel. In order to hit a true shot, you had to produce a truly "in to out" swing. That's why pros of Byron's time had such peculiar looking swings. This is also why "shanking" was so much more common. We'd be shanking balls too if we had those clubs. Actually, a shank in those days was also said to be really close to a good shot. Again, not true today. Bobby Clampett has some great thoughts on this and uses "Swing Vision" to illustrate his point of an "in to in" swing. You will not find an "in to out" player on tour. Any such swing would most likely produce a massive hook with today's equipment.

[AmenCorner]

i have a very flat swing plane--thus i have to use a steeper angle and much more lag on my downswing..i would say that a steeper angle of approach could help you-instead of changing to a more upright path..best of luck

How do you produce a steep angle with a flat swing?

[irspow]

How do you produce a steep angle with a flat swing?

Later release. Or if you prefer, hands further ahead of ball before releasing the clubhead.

Tom

[irspow]

Now, while a true golf swing may feel "inside to out" it is really "in to in." The golf club never goes outside the verticle plane of the ball.

I humbly disagree. After using a lot of video and launch monitors, the results have consistently shown that an in-to-out path is not only possible but beneficial. Now while theoretically the clubhead could not possibly pass the ball's vertical plane through impact without lunging forward is true, it does not hold up in the real world of kinetic physics.

What you will see in real life is that while the arms hang straight down at address, this is not the same position that they occupy through impact. The momentum of the club gains from moving from behind the body out in front of the body during the downswing pulls the arms somewhat outwards towards the ball, away from their original vertical plane. The next question becomes, don't the hands now occupy a position slightly higher forcing one to top or thin the shot? Well no, due to the downward deflection of the shaft ( the perpendicular plane relative to what shaft flex represents ) the toe of the club angles downwards to offset the higher hand position. I know this may be a little wordy, but I am just trying to explain myself correctly. As for my qualifications, I have been teaching this game for over fifteen years, so I consider myself qualified to state my opinions formed from experience. Tom

[iacas]

Well no, due to the downward deflection of the shaft ( the perpendicular plane relative to what shaft flex represents ) the toe of the club angles downwards to offset the higher hand position.

I think it has more to do with the fact that shortest distance between two points is a straight line. At impact, the arms and shaft form nearly a straight line. At address, they're crooked. Since neither piece changes in length (arms or shaft), when they're lined up straighter they're effectively "longer" as measured from the shoulders to the clubhead.

That's why the left shoulder gets to be higher at impact than at address, too... to make room for that "extra length." Clubhead deflection down adds only about an inch of length, IIRC.

[irspow]

Not much straight here.

[AmenCorner]

I humbly disagree. After using a lot of video and launch monitors, the results have consistently shown that an in-to-out path is not only possible but beneficial. Now while theoretically the clubhead could not possibly pass the ball's vertical plane through impact without lunging forward is true, it does not hold up in the real world of kinetic physics.

Tom, the greatest teachers on this planet would disagree with "in to out." I'm sorry, but it is true. I'm not a teacher, but I've been playing golf and reading related books for 20+ years (including one I just read by Bobby Clampett). Trust me, the swing is defined as "in-to-in." Good news is, I think your teaching method is probably fine, it's your terminology that is off. edit: by "in-to-in" we are referring to the target line. The club is always inside of this line with the sole exception of the impact zone, where it touches the target line. It is never outside of this line either before or after impact. That is, unless you are really bad at golf.