Clubface Square to the Plane

[rebby]

Alright, I tried reading this but it's contrary to everything that I've learned in the past. I've always understood that the "toe up" positions are not only fundamentally correct but critical for a consistent, repeatable, swing (especially under pressure). That said, I'm always open to new ideas. I'm having trouble visualizing this though. Can you provide a few pictures (or even a video) showing these positions. In order for the face angle to change at these points, something else has to vary as well. Since I'm unsure of the exact face angle, I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you're getting at here.

How's that for a "I'm utterly confused" reply???

[GQ77]

Alright, I tried reading this but it's contrary to everything that I've learned in the past. I've always understood that the "toe up" positions are not only fundamentally correct but critical for a consistent, repeatable, swing (especially under pressure). That said, I'm always open to new ideas. I'm having trouble visualizing this though. Can you provide a few pictures (or even a video) showing these positions. In order for the face angle to change at these points, something else has to vary as well. Since I'm unsure of the exact face angle, I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you're getting at here.

Exactly.

I am trying to post a video, not sure it'll work. at 3 second, club toe is up. at 16 second, club toe is up. I am confused too.

[GQ77]

and more video, see 16s and 48s

[Shanks A Million]

Oh, I see. Actually, someone explained this to me once. I've been taught that in order to generate power, you need to open and close the face of the club during the swing. If you cannot shut the face as you come down, you can't generate power. I learned this the hard way actually, I used to take it back too closed, and never had any power. Now I can slam it. I actually tend to open my club at address in order to be able to shut it harder in the downswing. Mr. Snappy does like to show his face, so I move the ball way forward in my stance now to keep him away.

[Cody Hancock]

Great post iacus.

[KaiL]

Clearly both Sorenstam and Ochoa did not do that

[JackLee]

Open the door 90 degrees. Slam the door. (Golf Swing 101)

[david_wedzik]

Open the door 90 degrees. Slam the door. (Golf Swing 101)

This is NOT Golf Swing 101 - this is how many people describe the golf swing because (I assume) they feel that the swing goes "relatively" toe up" to "toe up" from 9 to 3. The simplest and most proper way to swing would actually be "close" to toe up and "close" to toe up again

...square to the arc, square to the arc.

Clearly both Sorenstam and Ochoa did not do that

You are correct...they did not...that, in itself, does not make it correct however. Natural...maybe...correct...no. And in everyone's defense that stands behind perfectly toe up TO toe up it is very easy to find those swings on your local driving range and on the PGA Tour. This has been taught that way for a long time so that would makes sense. If 95% of people learning the game were told to play one way (right or wrong) it stands to reason that we would end up with lots of players using that technique on the highest level. Whether or not it was the most efficient way would still be debatable.

Logically would you rather let the club "open" and "close" while being completely square to the arc the entire time or would it be better to open it to an extreme in relation to the arc...then close it to the same extreme. One way seems easier to me. The video you use brings up a good point. Be careful using players as a model and saying "see told you this wasn't true". If we did that we could have everyone swinging like Ray Floyd or Nancy Lopez. The point is to construct your own beliefs through research and the laws that govern the swing...then find examples to show people what you are describing. For example (for the reasons mentioned above) I believe that for the reasons explained here the face should stay square to the arc as much as possible. Here are some examples of that.

[GQ77]

The simplest and most proper way to swing would actually be "close" to toe up and "close" to toe up again

Can I say I am very confused again here. How is there disagreement in this swing fundamental. And the language we use here just make it more confusing.

Are you saying the leading edge of the club face should be squre to swing arc at 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock same way as it's square at address? or squre at address, open it up slowly in back swing, square it slowly in down swing, then close it slowly in follow through? I would say fully open up at half back swing, toe up or leading edge on swing plane. Not start to square until late in the hitting zone. Once left hand pass the ball, square, hit the ball and close the club quickly.

[KaiL]

You are correct...they did not...that, in itself, does not make it correct however. Natural...maybe...correct...no. And in everyone's defense that stands behind perfectly toe up TO toe up it is very easy to find those swings on your local driving range and on the PGA Tour. This has been taught that way for a long time so that would makes sense. If 95% of people learning the game were told to play one way (right or wrong) it stands to reason that we would end up with lots of players using that technique on the highest level. Whether or not it was the most efficient way would still be debatable.

Thats the reason I chose Sorenstam and Ochoa. Their swings are by no means othodox or text book. But I would like to have their distance and consistency. There is no right way or wrong way.

By the way, we got to rotate our arms at some point when back swing up and down swing....i.e. there is timing involved at trying to get the club face to what ever position at horizontal anyway! Also, I think it is very hard to stop your arm rotation from horizontal to horizontal unless you try to keep your arm still throughout the swing.

[Shanks A Million]

You are correct...they did not...that, in itself, does not make it correct however. Natural...maybe...correct...no. And in everyone's defense that stands behind perfectly toe up TO toe up it is very easy to find those swings on your local driving range and on the PGA Tour. This has been taught that way for a long time so that would makes sense. If 95% of people learning the game were told to play one way (right or wrong) it stands to reason that we would end up with lots of players using that technique on the highest level. Whether or not it was the most efficient way would still be debatable.

I contend that the human body is a flawed mechanism. Only swing robots can produce perfect arcs, humans are organic, not machines. We have to find a balance between the proper arc and our own body's ability. However we take the club back or bring it through, we do so in a way that suits our body. No two people swing a club the same, and there have been plenty of great players who swung a club very, very differently. My swing resembles Floyd or Lopez, very flat going back, but it is the only way I can get the club around my body properly. If I don't take it back flat, my arms end up above my head, and I cannot deliver the club from flat enough and from the inside properly. I imagine that there are many like me, and many who are the exact opposite, like Furyk, Trevino, Perry, etc.

[iacas]

Oh, I see. Actually, someone explained this to me once. I've been taught that in order to generate power, you need to open and close the face of the club during the swing. If you cannot shut the face as you come down, you can't generate power. I learned this the hard way actually, I used to take it back too closed, and never had any power. Now I can slam it. I actually tend to open my club at address in order to be able to shut it harder in the downswing. Mr. Snappy does like to show his face, so I move the ball way forward in my stance now to keep him away.

Dave answered really nicely above, but I wanted to address this "open and close the clubface" bit.

There are four power accumulators in the golf swing. #1 and #4 we don't care about. #2 is left wrist cock and #3 is left wrist roll. Cock your left wrist and then uncock it and slam the club to the ground. Quite a bit of speed. Now roll your left wrist while using no other accumulators (i.e. no left wrist cock at all - point the club almost straight away from you and parallel or in line with your forearm). How far can you hit a ball by twisting the clubface around the shaft (pure #3 or "rolling"). Not very far. A few inches if you truly rotate it about the shaft. I'm not going to say that the golf swing shouldn't have any #3 (rolling), but a few things are clear to me: A) rolling introduces a timing element to the swing B) it doesn't get you much distance, and I'd suggest any distance it gets you is offset by the disadvantage of adding A C) rolling open and rolling close is responsible for "toe up" position. C is the one that's relevant here. If you have no #2, then "square to the plane" is roughly the same as your inclination to the ground... like / .

[iacas]

Thats the reason I chose Sorenstam and Ochoa. Their swings are by no means othodox or text book. But I would like to have their distance and consistency.

No offense intended by this, but that's kind of irrelevant. Their swing in general may not be orthodox or textbook, but neither is Jim Furyk's and we don't see people trying to emulate every position he hits in his swing.

You can be a good golfer and not do everything "perfectly." You can be a good golfer with flaws. The toe-up position achieved by Ochoa and Sorenstam doesn't "prove" anything here except that they, too, open the clubface relative to the plane.

There is no right way or wrong way.

No, there aren't - it's about arriving at impact.

But there are better ways of arriving at impact, and the point of this thread isn't to discuss the merit of rolling the clubface open, but to drive home the point that the "toe up" advice everyone seems to get is probably not helping people. It's probably "wrong" for most people. It takes the clubface off the swing plane, introduces a timing element, and so on. The purpose of this thread is to try to get people to realize that "toe up" is "not on the plane."

By the way, we got to rotate our arms at some point when back swing up and down swing....i.e. there is timing involved at trying to get the club face to what ever position at horizontal anyway! Also, I think it is very hard to stop your arm rotation from horizontal to horizontal unless you try to keep your arm still throughout the swing.

It's not too hard if you know what you're doing - not rotating or rolling your left wrist over your right on the takeaway.

And no, I reject the premise that there's always timing. If you can not roll your wrists open there's no timing at all - the club's leading edge stays square to the plane. There's no "timing" in a good arc putting stroke. When people putt with "timing" they are putting poorly because they're over-rotating or under-rotating. The solution is to get back to not rotating - just let the putter face stay square to the plane.

We have to find a balance between the proper arc and our own body's ability. However we take the club back or bring it through, we do so in a way that suits our body.

Nah. That's a lazy approach. Or a hippie approach - "everyone's unique, man.... now pass the joint."

People can learn - and do learn - to improve. Your statements imply that however we swing must be how we're supposed to swing. That's not true at all, and the best players in the world prove that time and time again when they make changes or work on tweaking things in their swing(s). Charlie Wi used to swing the club a LOT differently than he does now. Tiger Woods. Steve Elkington. Phil Mickelson. All the guys... yet they now swing this way because they feel they've improved.

My swing resembles Floyd or Lopez, very flat going back, but it is the only way I can get the club around my body properly. If I don't take it back flat, my arms end up above my head, and I cannot deliver the club from flat enough and from the inside properly.

I highly doubt you're incapable of learning a better, more efficient way to swing the club. You're putting yourself down and basically calling yourself incapable of learning... I doubt that's true.

And, not to be too "moderator" on you, but I don't see the relevance to the topic. It's almost opposite of the topic. I'm trying to tell people "the clubface is square to the plane when it's like /" and your reply is "who cares what square is, just swing the way you always have." The way people have always swung is what makes them unable to break 90. Or 80. Or whatever... Knowledge helps people. Well, it helps those who think they're capable of learning, anyway.

[bsettle]

VERY, VERY informative thread. I have always felt this way, but would admit I did not have the knowledge (or correct venacular) to discuss it openly. I have always applied this principle to my swing, that / is square not |. People think square has to be | or -- but that is not the correct definition of square as it relates to the golf swing.

In the golf swing everything is relative to your "spine angle" and/or swing plane, not the ground. Keeping the clubface square, in the golfing sense, does all but eliminate timing in getting the clubface square at impact.....which IS all that matters. AND there are different ways to get there and you should do what allows you to get to square impact, but as iacas stated there are better ways at getting to that point. AND just because you get there or close to there with your current swing, doesn't mean you could not get there more effeciently being more technically sound.

[KaiL]

Are you suggesting that from the backswing horizontal to the top of the swing, the club face is aways on plane? Also, is that true when downswing to impact too? What I am trying to say is that at some point of the backswing to the top, there may be some rotation of the arms which takes the club face off plane and there is timing involved to bring it back.

The putter is different and irrevalent to discussion as it moves so little and seldom get pass horizontal anyway.

[iacas]

Are you suggesting that from the backswing horizontal to the top of the swing, the club face is aways on plane?

It can be, yes. The plane shifts slightly when the right arm begins folding, but the club can remain square to the plane. Think about this - when the club hits horizontal at the top of the backswing, it will again be roughly perpendicular to the spine angle or roughly at the same angle as the initial shaft angle. If it's "toe down" here it's open and if it's horizontal, it's closed.

However, the point of the discussion is to talk about the positions at horizontal. Too many people over-rotate the club on the takeaway and continue to over-rotate it the rest of the backswing because they believe the club should be "toe up" at that point. I contend that it shouldn't be.

[KaiL]

It can be, yes. The plane shifts slightly when the right arm begins folding, but the club can remain square to the plane. Think about this - when the club hits horizontal at the top of the backswing, it will again be roughly perpendicular to the spine angle or roughly at the same angle as the initial shaft angle. If it's "toe down" here it's open and if it's horizontal, it's closed.

I have a hard time imagining how to do that with the left hand cocking at the same time!

[iacas]

I have a hard time imagining how to do that with the left hand cocking at the same time!

The left wrists cocks at an angle perpendicular to the leading edge of the club (or in the same direction, depending on how you want to look at it), so it has no real effect on this.

You can cock your left wrist up at address and the leading edge of the club - relative to the plane - is still perpendicular or square.