One vs. Two Plane Swing

[CodeRed657]

are a one or two plane swinger and what you like/dislike about it

[Leek]

That's a new one. Seriously, one plane vs. two plane doesn't matter. What matters is:

The right shoulder must move downplane through the ball. The clubface needs to be open and closing through impact. You must have a flat left wrist at impact. You must pivot back and through. All the rest is "style" Also, it has been proved over and over, ther really is no such thing as "one plane".

By definition One Plane means the arms, hands and shoulders are all on the same plane. Can't really be done.

[MPS67]

There are many fundamental differences between a one plane and two plane swing.

One difference is how the club comes into contact with the ball. With a OPS, the golfer's club face will always be square to the arc path of the swing, while the two planer will roll his/her arms open to square and then to closed as they strike through the ball. So the nice thing about the OPS is that once this method is executed correctly, hitting the ball square is almost automatic and doesn't require timing. Zach Johnson is a one plane swinger and has a high percentage of fairways hit as a result.

Another difference is the path of the hands and arms. On the downswing, a two plane golfer's hands will tuck in forward of the right hip coming down through the ball, while the one planer will keep the hands lagging behind. The two planer will extend their hands and arms to the target after impact, whereas the one planer will keep rotating their arms close around their bodies, allowing the left elbow to fold out. The folding out of the left elbow after impact of the downswing for a OPS is similar to the folding out of the right elbow in the back swing.

To research more about the OPS and TPS, click here .

Regards,

Mark

[Leek]

Why not just call it the Jim Hardy swing method? There is no One Plane Swing.

Swinging left is an anti-hook swing for hookers. So called Two plane swings go inside- to square to inside, just like so called one planers. Their left elbow folds as well.

Oh- and by the way- Mike Bender doesn't teach the Hardy Method, yet he teaches Zach Johnson. Bender doesn't teach a method at all, except to stress proper impact alignments with a downcock of the wrists. How do I know? Been there.

Lag is not the single domain of any swing style. Lag happens due to proper fundamentals, either through float loading or drag loading, no matter how the golfer swings.

Oh- and by the way, swing methods in general are a bad idea. You have a swing that is natural to you. A good instructor can maximize that swing by teaching you to pivot, maintain proper impact alignments and clubface and path control. It may be flat (Hardy Method), it may be classic or it may be upright (think Furyk or to a lesser degree Nicklaus, Greg Norman etc.). Doesn't matter if you get the few items mentioned above correct.

[MPS67]

Why not just call it the Jim Hardy swing method? There is no One Plane Swing.

Hardy is an advocate of both the one plane and two plane swings. That's why you shouldn't label a OPS as a Hardy swing. He simply points out the differences between the two and cautions golfers not to mix techniques from both that could counteract and yield poor results.

Many golfers consider a one plane swing as one where the hands, arms, and shoulders swing on a parallel plane, not a single plane.

Swinging left is an anti-hook swing for hookers. So called Two plane swings go inside- to square to inside, just like so called one planers. Their left elbow folds as well.

I'm not sure what swinging left is. The left elbow fold occurs after the strike using either method, but the OP swinger's left elbow points up and to the left while the TP swinger's elbow points down and slightly to the inside.

Lag is not the single domain of any swing style. Lag happens due to proper fundamentals, either through float loading or drag loading, no matter how the golfer swings.

Sorry, I should have used a something other than the term 'lag' in my earlier description of one planers on the downswing. When they are accelerating down from on top, one planers keep their hands behind the right hip as they rotate the club into the ball.

Oh- and by the way, swing methods in general are a bad idea. You have a swing that is natural to you. A good instructor can maximize that swing by teaching you to pivot, maintain proper impact alignments and clubface and path control. It may be flat (Hardy Method), it may be classic or it may be upright (think Furyk or to a lesser degree Nicklaus, Greg Norman etc.). Doesn't matter if you get the few items mentioned above correct.

The items I mentioned in my previous post were only a sampling of the OPS and TPS difference. I agree with you. Good golf teachers should evaluate the golfer's strengths and weaknesses and then tailor a plan that suits the individual best. What they shouldn't teach are swing techniques that will oppose one another and mess up the golfer but instead, use concepts that work hand in hand.

[Leek]

Mark- no matter what the method the shaft, shoulders and hands should swing on parallel planes, geez.

If the left elbow points up, it's called a chicken wing. It's ugly and normally a sign of a slicer, but in truth if the clubhead is slightly open at impact and closes through impact it doesn't matter if you chicken wing.

As far as the assertion that the Hardy Method keeps the clubface square, that flies in the face of physics. Because the swing is on an arc, if the club is perfectly square at impact, the ball will go LEFT. This has been documented many times. Do a Google search on it.If you can't find it, let me know and I'll post a video that demonstrates this.


Once again, the Hardy Method is just that a method. While claims to be a proponent of both "One Plane" and "Two Plane", has ever documented a student that recommended the so-called "Two Plane" method?


As far as plane goes, there are a number of planes in every swing, not just one or two. A few are: Tilted Shoulder Plane, Shaft Plane, Straight line Plane, etc.

Oh and in your reply, you forgot Zach? Why not trot out Hogan? Every method guy claims Hogan uses their method.

[iacas]

Mark- no matter what the method the shaft, shoulders and hands should swing on parallel planes, geez.

I'm jumping in here without really having read much of the earlier discussion, but on this particular part, I must say no, they shouldn't, and that's largely what differentiates one-plane from two-plane swings.

In a one-plane swing, the left arm is pretty much right across the shoulders at the top of the backswing (thus parallel to). In a two-plane swing, they're usually much steeper than the plane of the shoulders (not parallel to). http://oneplanegolfswing.com/p3_one_...two_plane.html

Because the swing is on an arc, if the club is perfectly square at impact, the ball will go LEFT. This has been documented many times.

That doesn't make much sense at all. A square clubface can result in a ball that starts slightly left and cuts, a ball that starts slightly right and draws, or a ball that just goes straight. It doesn't necessarily mean it goes left. It depends partially on where in the arc a ball is struck - at the outermost part of the arc, before it, or after it. The face can be square and the club's path can be going inside, outside, or perfectly tangential.

Normally I agree with you, Leek, but not here.

[Leek]

Here's a complete discourse on the subject. Please note Hardy IS a good teacher. He admits what he publishes is inaccurate, it's simplicity by omission. His idea is to simplify the ideas for the masses.

Trained by the famous English pro John Jacobs, Hardy taught what Jacobs taught until Hardy quit teaching in 1983.

He never said why he quit to design courses, but I think that he just got tired—much like Peter Kostis did—of not helping people enough.

He is a bright guy, and he kept turning over ideas in his head about the possibility of what Golfing Machiner's call "incompatible components." Imagine that.

He formulated his theory around two basic patterns. I'll call 'em what they are: Upright-ish Swinging from a not very bent over address position, and Flat-ish four-barrel Hitting from a bent over address position.

Along the way Hardy also discovered that the Jacobs/Toski/Wiren/PGA model for "ball flight laws" where wrong. No kidding. You could actually HOOK IT by swinging too far to the right.

This led him to come up a pattern that he now sells as The "One Plane Swing". Of course this name would cause heartburn for any TGM fans or Natural Golf devotees, but his idea of plane is much different than than norm.

He says, "Swings are either the arms swinging up higher than the shoulders turn, or swinging on close to what the shoulders turn."
From there he separates the pattern concepts into what he calls "steepening" movements or "shallowing" movements.

He presents as a goal, a pattern that is basically what he thinks Hogan and Snead did. It goes like this: Bend over a lot, turn in a barrel with no head movement and even some left side sag. Swing your arms with no clubface rotation. (sounds like loading for hitting). But, do this strictly with a shoulder turn takeaway and its below the plane arms. Let your right elbow get in an anti-extensor action position 'past the seam of your shirt' that is really the cornerstone of his method. This puts you in a top of the backswing position that will often be below the turned shoulder plane. From there, just keep the arm behind the seem and hit it with your right shoulder.

Not too bad a pattern, if you asked me. Except if you do wind up at the top of the swing below the turned shoulder plane, which will then require an 'over-the-top' move that most of his students have to have to trace a straight plane line.

Even though Hardy doesn't know a plane line from a chorus line, he does realize that the club has to swing way left of 'down-the-line.'

So, does it work? Yes. Is it ideal? Only if it looks more like Snead and less like Olin Browne.

You see, Hardy admitted that the internet golf forum pundits that shot holes in his ideas were right . He knows his lines aren't 'geometrically correct.' He said, "I just wanted to simplify things."
But, therein lies the problem. If you fit neatly into his two 'patterns,' Like "upright-standing-high arm-backswing-full sweep release-right to left-swingers" like Tom Watson or "aim right-bend over at address-lower arm backswing-slightly over the top-punch position right elbow-switters' like Sam Snead.

BUT, if you are a hold shot fader like David Toms, and your problem is always swinging TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT, his "two-planer" ideas, like a lean to the right address position would be death.

What if you are an upright hitter or a three-barrel swinger or—more importantly—don't have educated hands?

You are, as they say, SOL.

He really doesn't spend much time with reverse twisters like teachers see every day, and to be honest, he doesn't want them. To Hardy, fixing the steep outside in approach of a slicer is fixed with plane and path and not clubface.

That's what you think if you've been designing courses while teaching pros have been clawing and scratching to teach one slicer at a time.

Overall, Jim Hardy is a likable guy who—compared to the "Troubleshooters"—is a breath of fresh air who CAN FIX enough of Lead-posioned or Harmon-ized Tour players to convince the average club pro that his ideas are the answer.

The "Hardy Method" is easier to digest for the club pro and magazine reading amateur than Homer Kelley's system that describes all methods. And, as long as people are people, quick fixes will always be popular.
It's too bad that someone can't explain The Golfing Machine in an easy to digest manner, and with some quick fixes for common problems without bending the laws of physics. And who can bring it all to life with some panache....

[supercow]

Along the way Hardy also discovered that the Jacobs/Toski/Wiren/PGA model for "ball flight laws" where wrong. No kidding. You could actually HOOK IT by swinging too far to the right.

Care to expand this or provide a link? I think I have an idea of what you're talking about but I'm not entirely sure...

[Leek]

Care to expand this or provide a link? I think I have an idea of what you're talking about but I'm not entirely sure...

Sure- the ball's spin is determined by the clubface angle through impact relative to the path. All of those charts you often see are very simplified. If your club is 4 degrees open, and your path is 8 degrees open, the ball will draw or hook. Conversely, If your club is 4 deg closed and your path is 8 deg closed, the ball will fade. See the sequence below of an actual shot at Pebble Beach. His face is open to the target. His path is more to the right. The ball flight is shown on the shot. It was a long drive. Oh, and by the way, this not a pro swinging, just a guy who plays pretty well.

[iacas]

Sure- the ball's spin is determined by the clubface angle through impact relative to the path.

All of this directly contradicts earlier comments made by you about the clubface being square and the ball going "left" at impact. As I said, relative to swing path, it can go left, right, or straight.

All of those charts you often see are very simplified. If your club is 4 degrees open, and your path is 8 degrees open

I suggest you say that your path is "8 degrees from the inside" or "8 degrees inside-to-out" rather than "open." "Open" to me implies relative to the clubface, and in this case, your path is closed relative to the clubface. A closed path relative to the clubface always results in a draw or hook.

You've got your beliefs, and I've got mine, but I think it's somewhat interesting that I've directly responded to some of your previous comments and pointed out the flaws and you've ignored them and moved on. As for Hardy being a "quick fix" guy rather than an "actual teacher" (or whatever your argument is), he was the only teacher for a lot of pros who retooled their swings. That takes a bit more than a "quick fix." Anyway, since you seem to be okay having this conversation on your own, I'll leave you to it now.

[Leek]

All of this directly contradicts earlier comments made by you about the clubface being square and the ball going "left" at impact. As I said, relative to swing path, it can go left, right, or straight.

Erik- that was a response to that question. I stand on the comment earlier, but believe that would validate the square clubface issue. Since the swing is an arc a square clubface will be "closed" to the path. I am getting the plane info together to respond to your earlier post, when I get a few minutes.

[iacas]

Erik- that was a response to that question. I stand on the comment earlier, but believe that would validate the square clubface issue. Since the swing is an arc a square clubface will be "closed" to the path. I am getting the plane info together to respond to your earlier post, when I get a few minutes.

A square clubface can be open, square, or closed to the arc while still being square to the target.

In the attached image: A: Will start left of the target and fade back to center. B: Will start and travel fairly straight C: Will start right of the target line and draw back to center. You seem to believe that a ball is on the clubface long enough for the "closing" nature of the clubface to matter. It doesn't, especially since I believe club path is the primary determinant in initial ball direction. In other words, we seem to disagree on such a fundamental level that I see no value in (me) discussing this further.

[wachesawgolfer]

I read Jim Hardy's book and watched his videos. I also studied "Natural Golf" which takes it roots from the Moe Norman swing. After considering all of it I fall squarely in the camp the whole swing plane notion makes no difference to the matter of the swing. Some people swing on a flatter plane than others, no question, and this is largely due to their makeup and mechanics. In the end, though, they are all doing the same thing.

To somewhat quote Mr Hardy's quote of a turn of the century quote, " the purpose of the golf swing is to return the club head square to the ball to send it a certain distance. The method employed is irrelevant so long that it is repeatable"

The real key to the swing is the down swing plane and this, to be effective must be on somewhat the same plane for all swingers regardless of where they are at the top. It is the wrist hinge in the backswing and the saving of that lag in the downswing and a good forward pivot to initiate the downswing and it is these precise motions that self plane the club to the correct forward plane regardless of your top position.

Much more vital to the swing is to be in a correct dynamic impact position which means a flat left wrist at impact. You can flatten your swing, which promotes a hook or a pull, depending on your pivot quality and power storage in the downswing, but it will not create a dynamic impact position if the poor pivot and early release remains in your swing.

Rather than focusing on swing plane, it makes more sense to focus on the swing dynamics. Bobby Clampetts new book the 5 basics of the dynamic impact zone is great on this aspect. He also drives home the reason modern golf instruction is so dismal these days. With the video camera we can break down our swing with that of a pro and see maybe we should be here or there in our backswing to copy someone else when our focus should be on the dynamic swing as a whole which suits our individual swing and body structure and results in a dynamic impact position as opposed to a "connect the dots, stylistic but ineffective motion.

[Diggitydog]

A square clubface can be open, square, or closed to the arc while still being square to the target.

iacas's post seems to be fairly logical here. I'm not quite following Leek's position on this one either.

This whole thread started out as a one plane vs two plane and what people thought between the two swings. It quickly turned into a defining what a one plane swing is and basically Leek said there is no such thing. My understanding of the definition between one plane only refers to the angle of the left arm at the top of the back swing in relation to the players shoulder plane. Leek's argument about one plane being incorrectly defined REMINDS me of when President Clinton made the statement. "...that depends on what your definition of is is." Leek, we have to name the collection of angles in a "one plane swing" something. Your idea of naming it the Jim Hardy swing would be much less precise. Go ahead and rename it, but rename to something that is more accurate than one plane swing not less accurate. It's my personal experience that a "one plane" type swing is more repeatable for me.

[jay-jay]

A square clubface can be open, square, or closed to the arc while still being square to the target.

This topic has been beaten to death in several threads, but here is some new input. Here is a link discussing clubhead path/clubface angle and their impact on ball flight. Contradicts conventional (golf industry) wisdom and the PGA manual, but I think the physics makes sense: http://www.tutelman.com/golf/clubs/b...lubmakeronline To convince yourself, try a simple experiment: Take your 9-iron, open the club face relative to the TARGET LINE. Put the ball in a position, forward/back in your stance that will allow you to hit the ball when the clubhead PATH is square to the TARGET LINE. Swing your club along the TARGET LINE, ie as straight as you can. Your ball should start to the right immediately, ie a PUSH. It may or may not curve further to the right, ie a PUSH SLICE, depending on how hard you hit it. As another example, all the advice I have every heard on how to pitch the ball says to open your stance, aim the club FACE at the target, and swing along your shoulder line. The ball will go in the direction of the CLUB FACE, and not in the direction of the CLUBHEAD PATH. Same applies for bunker shots.

[Divot Tool]

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Lemme try to figure this out.

Because the swing is on an arc, if the club is perfectly square at impact, the ball will go LEFT.

Not true. Physics says that if the clubface is square to the swingpath, upon impact the ball, given that it rests on the swingpath will also travel along its tangent (in this case a straight line). I believe this is what iacas was trying to articulate. EXAMPLE: picture a merry-go-round. When a child jumps off a merry-go-round while it is spinning, the child is forced in a direction (dictated by the rotation) which follows the tangent. This is called centripetal force. The child does not jump off in a straight line from the center of the circle. This is impossible if the merry-go-round in rotating.

. . .Since the swing is an arc a square clubface will be "closed" to the path. . .

Yes the swing is an arc. However, I think some misunderstand the idea of a clubface being square to the path. From a physics standpoint, it means that the face is square to the tangent at impact.

What iacas said about club path is true.

. . . I believe club path is the primary determinant in initial ball direction . . .

True. When pros play a cut-shot/fade (right-handed), they aim their body left of the target. This is the direction in which they want the ball to start. They then proceed to align the clubface in the (direction) of where they eventually want the ball to end up. In this case, the tangent of the swingpath is parallel to their body line. So yes, swingpath is the primary determinant in initial ball direction.

However, iacas contends that ….

A square clubface can be open, square, or closed to the arc while still being square to the target. . .

This statement could only be true if you were trying to draw or cut the ball, but it doesn’t hold true when you are trying to hit the ball straight, because to hit a straight shot, the target must be in line with the tangent.

In the diagram which iacas provided only impact position ‘B’ is square to the swingpath. Given the round arc (swing path) and positions that iacas has set for us, position ‘A’ would indicate a pull-slice and position ‘C’ a snap-hook. Continuing on . . .

. . .Take your 9-iron, open the club face relative to the TARGET LINE. Put the ball in a position, forward/back in your stance that will allow you to hit the ball when the clubhead PATH is square to the TARGET LINE.

Not true. In this case, the ball would start out straight and then slice right. A push would is the result of an inside-out swing path with a square clubface.

As another example, all the advice I have every heard on how to pitch the ball says to open your stance, aim the club FACE at the target, and swing along your shoulder line. The ball will go in the direction of the CLUB FACE, and not in the direction of the CLUBHEAD PATH. Same applies for bunker shots. . .

This holds true because of the amount of loft of the club. When pitching, one usually uses a club 46°-56° wedge. The high loft nullifies the idea that “club path is the primary determinant in initial ball direction”…(to quote iacas) Don’t try that with a 3-iron.

[allin]

Does anyone actually think this analytically when setting up to swing? I think we all have an intuitive feel. As our swings improve than are adjustments that give us positive results are ingrained. This is why Trevino, Hogan, Snead, even Bruce Litzke have very different swing styles. Each through trial and error, within a range, arrived at a method with repeatable correct impact results. I believe that keeping it is simple, big fade / draw swing or posture problems. Little fade or draw probably clubface and ball position or timing. Push or pull is a bit of both. Hardys One swing Vs Two plane teaching real value is that Hardy groups the fixes into and faults by swing type so that a golfer can prioritze the types of changes to consider and try, hopefully lessening the frustration and shortening the learning curve.