One Simple Case Against Lifting the Arms

[iacas]

I've always favored a one-plane swing. And here's a simple explanation of another of the reasons why.

Imagine a bicycle tire. Paint a red dot on one part. Those are your hands. The axle is your spine (roughly).

If you can apply a certain amount of force and you want to spin the tire as fast as possible, how would you apply the force? You'd spin it in the same exact plane and perpendicular to the axle - i.e. on a tangent.

You would not whack the tire at an angle out of the plane. Yet that's what "raising" and "dropping" the arms is - an out-of-plane motion.

At best, you time it well and perhaps get a teeny bit more speed because you've had longer to accelerate. At worst, you over- or under-correct or get the timing wrong and all hell breaks loose.

[Zeph]

You mean keeping them on plane through the entire swing, or dropping them back to the original plane before impact?

That's how I've read one-plane vs two-plane being described. A one plane swing started the takeaway on plane, then the arms raised. On the downswing, the hands dropped down onto the original plane and arrived at impact at the same plane. A two-plane swing started on plane, raised the arms. On the downswing they arrived at impact at a different angle than they initially were.

Do you have any graphical or picture examples? Can't say I've seen many players keeping the hands on the same plane through the backswing. There are of course various amounts of arm lift, but to keep the arms on plane through the backswing would look strange. Moe Norman actually got his hands below the initial plane, and returning them to it on the downswing. He did of course address the ball with his hands very stretched out, but one can't fail to acknowledge his accuracy, though lacking distance.

Keeping them on plane all the way would mean you can't bend the right elbow much, if anything at all. I like the topic, but am not sure if I see exactly what you mean.

[iacas]

You mean keeping them on plane through the entire swing, or dropping them back to the original plane before impact?

I don't care about the backswing. I'm talking about from the top to the golf ball. Any wasted motion spent going in any direction but on-the-plane on the downswing is just that: wasted motion.

On the backswing you should eventually get to a good plane, and ideally roughly your high elbow plane or thereabouts. Some do it sooner than others - some swing above it and need to drop back down to it. The whole thing is an argument against any two-plane swing because that second plane is simply the first plane + wasted motion. Obviously people can play good golf from a two-plane position, but I've never cared for the small amount of extra power because it comes with a lot of extra added inconsistency.

A one plane swing started the takeaway on plane, then the arms raised. On the downswing, the hands dropped down onto the original plane and arrived at impact at the same plane. A two-plane swing started on plane, raised the arms. On the downswing they arrived at impact at a different angle than they initially were.

I don't know what definitions you've read, but those aren't my definitions. Mine are:

one-plane: left arm on shoulder plane at the top of the backswing two-plane: left arm on a different (most often steeper) plane than the shoulders at the top With a pure one-plane swing you can draw a line from the ball to the hands and the hands follow that line all the way down. Not true of a two-plane swing.

Can't say I've seen many players keeping the hands on the same plane through the backswing.

You can't, unless you're Brian Gay and you set your right arm on the plane at the start... and even he lifts a little. The right elbow folding adds some lift there, to get to the high elbow plane.

In short, Zeph, I'm not talking about the backswing. I'm talking about the downswing. Any motion you spend adjusting the plane on the downswing is wasted motion. And I specifically chose Jack there because we all know he's good. I'm not saying wasted motion can't be repeatable and/or powerful. I'm just saying that Jack dropping (from his top position) was wasted motion. For Jack, the tradeoff might have truly been 10 yards of power versus a little consistency, and yet he was skilled enough that he could pull off the consistency part.

[Zeph]

It gotta be the backswing too, since that is how you get the left arm angle. If you raise the arms, you do it in the backswing, it is the effect of it by changing plane on the downswing that is the unwanted action.
I tried this yesterday, with great success, no more swinging out-to-in, achieving lag was also much easier. Makes sense too. Raising the arms just to drop them on the downswing sounds like an unnecessesary move, you don't get that much more distance, if any. I didn't have a mirror or camera, so I can't tell exactly where my arms were, but I know I did not raise them. I just turned the upper body, letting the hands move wherever the rotation moved them.

Made everything a whole lot easier.

[kilbyman]

For Jack, the tradeoff might have truly been 10 yards of power versus a little consistency, and yet he was skilled enough that he could pull off the consistency part.

Great point. Why raise your arms past their "natural" (IMO) place at the top of a good backswing position? For high handicappers, maybe it's a feel thing (when I started playing, what I felt like was the top was an overswing), but just like you say, it is so much easier to strike the ball better if the beginning of the downswing is already on plane.

[saevel25]

It doesn't matter. Look at Furyk, on the strangest swings, yet he is one of the most accurate players in golf. So it doesn't matter, build a golf swing tht you can repeat and play golf with.

[allin]

It doesn't matter. Look at Furyk, on the strangest swings, yet he is one of the most accurate players in golf. So it doesn't matter, build a golf swing tht you can repeat and play golf with.

Sure it matters, thats why Eric used Nicklaus as an example. Exceptional athletes, usually they have equivalent commitment, can get away with things that the rest of us cannot. Do not kid yourself Furyk is an exceptional athlete.

[iacas]

Sure it matters, thats why Eric used Nicklaus as an example. Exceptional athletes, usually they have equivalent commitment, can get away with things that the rest of us cannot. Do not kid yourself Furyk is an exceptional athlete.

Yep. Well put.

[danieldrieberg]

After reading the "plane truth" --Jim Hardy is saying if your physical talents are aligned with a single plane swing go for it. If your attributes are lending themselves to a 2 plane swing, again go for it. I believe his purpose was to make each golfer aware of his/her swing type and how to hone the best swing for the choice made. He does state the single plane swing is more repeatable but not better. The quality of better or worse lies within each golfer.

[westcyderydin]

yea, there isnt one absolute only way to swing a golf club... there are certainly some things that you will find in every good golfers swing, and there are other things that can be done successfully in many different ways. i have a 1 plane swing and i guess i like that better than a 2 plane swing, but you can definatly be good either way.

[Shanks A Million]

All this would be great if people were as simple as bike tires. They're not. That's the problem. Swinging a club around a perfect plane may be much, much more difficult than multiple. What matters is what works for the individual. Furyk, for example, has his way. Floyd has his. Nicklaus has his. Woods has his. No two people are built the same, except identical twins of course, and even they might have different swings. I think that's the problem with assigning any one method as "better" than another. The real question is, what's best for you.

[Zeph]

I don't buy the different body part. Everyone is built the same way, with some exceptions. Why should it be one way to swing for someone 180cm tall and 80kg and another for someone 195 and 95kg?
We know there are hundreds of way to swing a club and that people like Furyk who has succeeded with an untraditional swing. But why should be not encourage everyone to swing the easiest way? Swing style is a result of how you start swinging when picking up a club and who is teaching you to swing. It is totally random how people swing. Nobody swing the way they do initially after a couple of years. Why should we not strive to teach the simplest and most effective way to swing? It's pretty simple, the fewer moves you do, the easier it gets.

Moving the head back on the backswing and adjusting the plane on the downswing are two unnecessesary actions. I don't see why we should let people swing that way, when the alternative is easier and more consistent.

Should we encourage those who move the hands away from the body on the take-away to keep doing it, but make sure they compensate by moving them back and dropping them on the downswing? Would it not be easier to get them on the right plane initially?

[iacas]

I agree with Zeph.

Just because PGA Tour pros swing different ways doesn't mean there aren't some guiding principles. The plane is where it is - it's not really all that different for different body types. Some people have physical attributes around which they need to work, but don't confuse idiosyncracies with best practices.

Tiger's swing is the way it is because he never wants to hit the quick duck hook. Instead, he hits blocks all day in the right rough. Yippee. Doesn't make it great. I've said for awhile now that Phil Mickelson may be the most talented golfer in the world because he wins as often as he does with THAT swing - a swing that's NEVER used as an example of something good.

A good golf instructor recognizes flaws AND idiosyncracies or limitations, and works on the first always, the second when it's detrimental, and the third almost never (unless there's another way to overcome the limitation).