Swing plane

[iacas]

Not much straight here.

And I've got tens of JPEGs on my computer of Adam Scott, Tiger Woods, etc. with much straighter lines at impact than they had at address to counter your claims. Suffice to say, for every example you provide I can provide a counter-example.

The arms and shaft form a straighter line at impact than they do at address. Thus, the line lengthens. If the shoulder-clubface line didn't lengthen from setup to impact, the left shoulder would have to be at the same spot at impact as at address, and we know that's not the case. Please don't add unnecessary attachments. Include images via the [img] tag. P.S. Please also consider using a signature instead of typing "Tom" after each post.

[irspow]

AmenCorner, maybe they would disagree with me that's fine. I invite you however to go somewhere that has a quality launch monitor and watch better players strike shots for a while. You will find that the data will show a slight degree of inside-out movement through impact of a few degrees. I'm only being stubborn on this point because it hurts so many people. In-square-in leads people to attempt to strike the ball at a moment in time that is almost infinitessimal. Any error at all, and there will be because of the myriad variables that have to fall into place for that to happen, will cause an unpredictable flight pattern.

I agree with you in an ideal world, but humans are not robots and shouldn't try to be.

[tm22721]

I invite you to go somewhere that has a quality launch monitor and watch better players strike shots for a while. You will find that the data will show a slight degree of inside-out movement through impact of a few degrees.

My experience agrees with your observation.

You can't go wrong by hitting down on the inside rear quadrant of the ball. Results in a high finish where the butt of the club points at the target. Also helps you to rotate around your spine, ie 'stay in the shot' which means better accuracy. Why don't instructors teach this ?

[AmenCorner]

AmenCorner, maybe they would disagree with me that's fine. I invite you however to go somewhere that has a quality launch monitor and watch better players strike shots for a while. You will find that the data will show a slight degree of inside-out movement through impact of a few degrees. I'm only being stubborn on this point because it hurts so many people. In-square-in leads people to attempt to strike the ball at a moment in time that is almost infinitessimal. Any error at all, and there will be because of the myriad variables that have to fall into place for that to happen, will cause an unpredictable flight pattern.

There is no doubt in my mind that your teaching method is fine and true, just your terminology off. A good golf swing will simply come from the inside, towards the outside. It just won't extend outside the swing line. Believe me, I've seen the swing camera's eight days from Tuesday. My swing coach has more camera's then you can imagine at our Academy here in Fort Lauderdale. In agreeance with the in-to-out feel, Ben Hogan felt like you should hit the inside corner of a suger cube if it was a golf ball. However, swings (and some camera angles) can be deceiving to the naked eye. Ever wonder why it looks like golfers on TV push the ball terribly? Camera angle. Anyways, if you true up the camera, and draw a line from the target through the golf ball, the club simply shouldn't extend outside of that line. In a competition between you, and the greatest teachers in the world, I'll take the latter.

[AmenCorner]

You can't go wrong by hitting down on the inside rear quadrant of the ball.

Finishes vary more by player than almost anything in the golf swing.

However, just because a player hits the inside rear quadrant doesn't mean his swing is in-to-out. You guys are welcome to think anything you like. But the best teachers in the world would tell you that you are dead wrong. Don't kill the messenger.

[Avid Golfer]

The arms and shaft form a straighter line at impact than they do at address. Thus, the line lengthens. If the shoulder-clubface line didn't lengthen from setup to impact, the left shoulder would have to be at the same spot at impact as at address, and we know that's not the case.

I agree that most players have their hands and shaft on a higher (steeper) plane at impact then they do at address. Currently I am only aware of three pros who return to the same plane (with their hands and shaft) at impact that they occupied at address. They are Sergio Garcia, Nick Price, and Ben Hogan.

Here are two images (with pro golfers Ernie Els, Steve Elkington, Greg Norman, and Nick Price) one at address and one at impact. Opening each in a seperate broswer tabs, and then clicking back and forth between the two tabs shows a good illistration of the differences between setup and impact from down the line. (Since the cameras did not move during the swings, and the images are the same size it presents a good overlapping comparison). Setup: http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3...atsetuppi0.jpg Impact: http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/7...timpactzi7.jpg

[AmenCorner]

The hands debate seems a little off-topic if you ask me.

[Hustle]

Let your posture determine your swing plane. Do not let your swing plane determine your posture.

[Ringer]

Good lord what happened to this thread??

The swing is CIRCULAR. To try and define it using linear terminology is foolhearty because everyone will be right in their own mind.

Make a swing people, not a hit.

[AmenCorner]

Good lord what happened to this thread??

That analogy makes zero sense. Again, tell that to Hank Haney or Butch Harmon and they would not humor you with a response.

The swing employs many elements of both Geometry and Physics. If you are trying to tell us that lines are irrelevant to both, I disagree.

[Ringer]

There is no analogy in what I said so either there's a disagreement what "analogy" means or you're just trying to argue because you don't understand what I'm saying.

If you TRUELY knew your physics you would know that linear terminology does not apply to non-linear physics unless you want to use the false impression of rotating frames of reference.

[iacas]

If you TRUELY knew your physics you would know that linear terminology does not apply to non-linear physics unless you want to use the false impression of rotating frames of reference.

Ringer, if you "truely" (it's "truly") knew your physics, you'd know that forces and vectors and various other components are ALWAYS expressed linearly. They can't be expressed any other way.

That being said, let's not turn this into a physics debate. Define your terms and go from there, people.

[DavidFehertysBike]

What does linear physics have to do with hitting a golf ball?

[AmenCorner]

in the swing plane discussion, we are simply talking about the golf swing in relation to the target line. A circle in relation to a line. Does that circle extend outside the line, or does it not? The greatest golf teachers in the world would tell you that it does not, and should not. Period, end of story, Amen.

[DavidFehertysBike]

Of course, there are fundemental things you have to do to be a good golfer..but I think a good golf instructor would just tell you to pick a target (even if it is just a odd colored patch of grass on a green) commit to it and let it fly. At least that it what I would say. The only thing in my head as i swing is target-target-target.

[Ringer]

in the swing plane discussion, we are simply talking about the golf swing in relation to the target line. A circle in relation to a line. Does that circle extend outside the line, or does it not? The greatest golf teachers in the world would tell you that it does not, and should not. Period, end of story, Amen.

It depends on the angle of the plane, it most certainly can cross the line. Whether or not it should depends on what you intend to do.

[Ringer]

Ringer, if you "truely" (it's "truly") knew your physics, you'd know that forces and vectors and various other components are ALWAYS expressed linearly. They can't be expressed any other way.

Oh you know what, you are so right. Because I misspelled a word my comments are completely irrelevent. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.

BTW, that's why there's a new set of physics being described called non-linear physics. It's trying to quantify things like force and vector without using the liner mathmatics. You probably just haven't heard about it.

[iacas]

Oh you know what, you are so right. Because I misspelled a word my comments are completely irrelevent.

I didn't say it did.

BTW, that's why there's a new set of physics being described called non-linear physics. It's trying to quantify things like force and vector without using the liner mathmatics. You probably just haven't heard about it.

Uh, have heard about it and know enough to know that it doesn't apply here. Duh.

This thread can get back on topic now or be closed. Second warning.