"Complete Junk" (Audio Commentary w/pics!)

[jeffy]

quote:Originally posted by jim_0068

I just had a thought about this since its in golf digest now and people are commenting about it...

so lets "say" that his one plane theory could be valid and you could get the left arm to be at the same "angle" as the shoulders.

Lets say you could do that.

-----

So you go and do that, now what? Those plane lines refer to what? They don't point to any real reference point. No ball, no plane line, nothing. just a couple of more lines.

That was my whole point: Brian's "plane(s)" and Hardy's left arm "plane" and shoulder "plane" refer to totally different things and serve completely different purposes. Brian's is TGM-ese and describes, I think, the plane the club travels on throughout the swing; Hardy's simply refers to the relationship of the left arm and the shoulders at the top of the backswing. That's why Brian's "Complete Junk" audio doesn't prove or disprove anything: see my six-wheeler, four-wheeler analogy above.

I'll answer your question, though: when I get my left arm on the same plane as my shoulders at the the top (which, I assure you, is possible), and assumimg I've adopted the right posture, grip, stance, etc., I shift my weight left and hit the crap out of it with my shoulders. As far as all the lines you're worried about go, I couldn't care less; neither does the ball. It just goes, long and straight.

Jeff

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

I'm glad you can get your left arm and on the same "angle" as your shoulders. But what purpose does it serve?

Thats why i feel and brian does too, that is has no substance. Those "plane lines" refer to nothing.

But hey, if it works for you good. I just think it will confuse more people than it will help.

 

[jeffy]

quote:Originally posted by jim_0068

I'm glad you can get your left arm and on the same "angle" as your shoulders. But what purpose does it serve?

Thats why i feel and brian does too, that is has no substance. Those "plane lines" refer to nothing.

But hey, if it works for you good. I just think it will confuse more people than it will help.

We seem to be going around in circles: let me try it a different way. The swing Hardy refers to and teaches as "one-plane" seems to me to resemble a "double-shift swing" in TGM-ese (Vijay, Annika). Surely that is a valid swing. The swing Hardy refers to and teaches as a "two-plane" swing seems to be a zero-shift swing (David Toms), presumably also a valid swing. He says the two different swings require different and often contradictory fundamentals, which he describes in his book and, to a lesser degree, the GD article. These FUNDAMENTALS and his INSTRUCTION are the substance of it, as far as I can tell, not the terms we choose to identify the two different swing types.

If the golfing population at large was fluent in TGM-ese, I suspect Hardy might refer to these two different swings in TGM terms; however, since very few golfers would have any idea what a double-shift or zero-shift swing is, my guess is that Hardy has made up his own catagories and related them to one of the more easily identifiable swing characteristics: the relationship of the left arm and the shoulders at the top. Does this seem a reasonable hypothesis?

Having seen his instruction from the GD article, I remain curious to know if you or Brian think the fundamentals Hardy prescribes for a double-shift/one-plane swing and a zero-shift/two-plane swing appear valid, and if not, where does he go wrong?

 

[Brian Manzella]

I will post on this tomorrow.

 

[jeffy]

quote:Originally posted by jim_0068

I'm glad you can get your left arm and on the same "angle" as your shoulders. But what purpose does it serve?

To elaborate on this point: acheiving this left arm/shoulder relationship is, by itself, worth nothing. From that position, if I have laid the club off, swayed to the right, set up with my spine tilted to the right, set up with my weight favoring the right, failed to rotate my left forearm going back, failed to shift my weight to the left to start the downswing, or a bunch of other things, I will hit bad shots. But if I follow the fundamentals taught to me by Carol Mann, and endorsed by Hardy, my left arm will wind up on more or less on the same plane as my shoulders at the top, as a RESULT of what has preceded it: I don't think about getting it there, or even try to get it there; it just happens if I execute the fundamentals correctly. And, having swung the club in this manner, I will hit long, powerful shots with a swing I think is more likely to repeat and hold up under presuure than my previous "two-plane/zero shift" swing. That is the "purpose".

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

jeffy....the point i'm trying to make is this:

his whole theory of having the left arm being at the same "plane" as the shoulders because you can draw parallel lines to them and/or a two plane swing is when they don't match is just wrong and that is the BULK of his theory.

Maybe a lot of people won't agree with TGM and its turned shoulder plane and elbow plane, thats fine. But we have a much better chance at proving a theory when our plane lines are actually for 1) in the right spot 2) have a reference to either the ball or a plane line.

Hardy's does neither

 

[jeffy]

quote:Originally posted by jim_0068

jeffy....the point i'm trying to make is this:

his whole theory of having the left arm being at the same "plane" as the shoulders because you can draw parallel lines to them and/or a two plane swing is when they don't match is just wrong and that is the BULK of his theory.

Maybe a lot of people won't agree with TGM and its turned shoulder plane and elbow plane, thats fine. But we have a much better chance at proving a theory when our plane lines are actually for 1) in the right spot 2) have a reference to either the ball or a plane line.

Hardy's does neither

Huh...I've read Hardy's book, I've watched (a couple of times) his Golf Academy Live segment with Peter Jacobsen, I've read his Golf Digest article, and I've spent three days with Carol Mann, Hardy's ex-wife and proponent of his theory, learning in much greater detail the elements of Hardy's teaching. Having done all that, I don't ever recall any suggestion that Hardy's "one-plane"/"two-plane" nomenclature relates in any way to the term "plane line" as used in TGM. Further, I've seen nothing to suggest that the "BULK" of his theory is anything like what you describe. All Hardy has done is observe that when world-class golfers execute a swing that results in the left arm being more or less in line with the shoulders at the top, a certain set of fundamentals apply. He has also observed that when world-classs golfers execute a swing where the left arm is steeper at the top than the shoulders, a different and often contradictory set of fundamentals apply. The BULK of his theory is explaining what those fundamentals are. It has nothing to do with "plane lines". In fact, I think TGM and Hardy's theories are completely compatible and complimentary. Perhaps you are just messing with me, but I'm baffled by your inability to recognize that Hardy's teaching has nothing to do with "plane lines" as used in TGM.

If Hardy had shown up and said "(1) the two best ball-strikers in golf (Vijay and Annika) use a double-shift swing and that is what I teach to people athletically able to handle it, and (2) those handicap golfers who use and/or are being taught a zero-shift swing should not try to learn from a double-shift swing", would you have a problem with that? To me, that is the essence of what Hardy is saying.

It could be that the source of all this confusion is that the website that was the basis of Brian's audio criticism was NOT in any way sponsored by Hardy but was put together by some guy who had seen Jim's Golf Academy Live segment and then built the site based on the very limited information from the show plus his own thoughts and "interpretations". When I looked at that site and realized that Hardy had nothing to do with it, I stopped looking at it. If you are basing your understanding of Hardy's theories on the content from that site, you've probably wasted your time.

 

[jeffy]

quote:Originally posted by jeffy

It could be that the source of all this confusion is that the website that was the basis of Brian's audio criticism was NOT in any way sponsored by Hardy but was put together by some guy who had seen Jim's Golf Academy Live segment and then built the site based on the very limited information from the show plus his own thoughts and "interpretations". When I looked at that site and realized that Hardy had nothing to do with it, I stopped looking at it. If you are basing your understanding of Hardy's theories on the content from that site, you've probably wasted your time.

This is the bogus site I'm referring to; do NOT consider it a valid representation of Hardy's thoughts:


http://www.mountainweb.com/oneplanegolfswing/p3_one_plane_vs_two_plane.html

 

[armourall]

quote:Originally posted by jeffy



The swing Hardy refers to and teaches as "one-plane" seems to me to resemble a "double-shift swing" in TGM-ese (Vijay, Annika). Surely that is a valid swing. The swing Hardy refers to and teaches as a "two-plane" swing seems to be a zero-shift swing (David Toms), presumably also a valid swing.

Jeffy,

In my opinion, Hardy's "two-plane" swing would be, in TGM terms, an On Plane procedure. The "one-plane" swing, however, would be Off Plane, and more similar to Haney's description of "parallel plane angles."

 

[Brian Manzella]

armourall.....that's pretty good!

 

[matt]

Any new comments on this after picking up his book, Brian?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Still don't have the book (although I will get it soon) and haven't even been able to read the GD article either, too busy saving the world one swing at a time.

 

[birdie_man]

ah hahaha...I hope you don't wear a cape.

 

[cdog]

Brian, are you a 1 planer or a 2 planer??
Or, do you mix??

 

[Brian Manzella]

Everybody who can play has a different backswing shoulder and arm plane....like I said, it is a silly try at a system with 123,456 exceptions.

 

[cdog]

There will be no agreement as long until the 2 camps start analyzing the swing the same way.
Hardy analyzes one way, Brian another. Hardy draws his lines on the shoulders and lead arm, Brian analyzes using TGM plane descriptions.

Hardy's analyzation of mechanics are, in HIS 2 plane discussion, the arms move more verticle while the shoulders move more horizontial.
In HIS 1 plane discussion, the lead arm move in the same relation as the shoulders so you dont have to time the up and down with the arms with the turning of the shoulders.
Now no one seems to be compleltely 1 or 2 plane (using Hardy's description), but tend to be more one way than the other.

So he basically says a 1 plane (again using HIS descripition) is easier to do compared to a 2 plane (his description) because all you need to do is turn back, turn through, and in a 2 planer, you have to time the combination.

 

[jeffy]

quote:Originally posted by cdog

There will be no agreement as long until the 2 camps start analyzing the swing the same way.
Hardy analyzes one way, Brian another. Hardy draws his lines on the shoulders and lead arm, Brian analyzes using TGM plane descriptions.

Hardy's analyzation of mechanics are, in HIS 2 plane discussion, the arms move more verticle while the should move more horizontial.
In HIS 1 plane discussion, the lead arm move in the same relation as the shoulders so you dont have to time the up and down with the arms with the turning of the shoulders.
Now no one seems to be compleltely 1 or 2 plane (using Hardy's description), but tend to be more one way than the other.

So he basically says a 1 plane (again using HIS descripition) is easier to do compared to a 2 plane (his description) because all you need to do is turn back, turn through, and in a 2 planer, you have to time the combination.

Good synopsis. When I spent time with Carol Mann (Hardy's ex-wife and perhaps an even better proponent of his theories), a lot of our discussion of the various pro's swings was about the degree to which they deviated from model one and two-plane swings. David Duval is perhaps Hardy's model "one-plane" swing; not sure if he has a model "two-plane" since he doesn't really advocate or teach it. Yet, despite the deviations or "exceptions" from the model, the respective one or two-plane fundamentals seem to still apply, which I guess is the conclusion Brian is unwilling to accept.

Perhaps Brian and all the other TGM gurus knew this already, but Hardy's identification of the fundamentals that work in a "one-plane" swing and don't work in a "two-plane" (and vice-versa) cleared up an awful lot of confusion for me and now makes practice a lot more efficient and effective (i.e., don't bother with any of the "two-plane" stuff, just focus on "one-plane" fundamentals). Perhaps time will prove that Hardy's instruction is too general or incomplete (in fact, Hardy does omit some important stuff I learned from Carol...), but, for now, I think he is talking a lot more sense than any of the other highly visible and oft-quoted teachers.

 

[birdie_man]

Do you really think that Toms' swing is less effective?
Or Watson?

etc...

I dunno...I guess he does define two types of swings...differently than TGM, but he does it. And I guess seeing that Most people don't even know what TGM is, it doesn't confuse things much anyway, right?

I think the whole point tho, well Brian's whole point anyway, is that it is a method. His method is basically one-plane swinging- and he doesn't advocate anything else. He lays out the components in alright detail, which is new for "Golf Digest" instruction. So that's a start. I dunno, all I can say is Homer favoured the "two-plane" swing
(which is actually a no-shift swing). So now there is a difference of opinion...who's right and who's wrong?

I think Brian would disagree with Hardy as well about the superiority of the "one-plane" swing (or a single-shift swing, as defined by TGM).

...by his logic, Watson was doing it the wrong way then...?

 

[jeffy]

quote:Originally posted by birdie_man

Do you really think that Toms' swing is less effective?
Or Watson?

etc...

I dunno...I guess he does define two types of swings...differently than TGM, but he does it. And I guess seeing that Most people don't even know what TGM is, it doesn't confuse things much anyway, right?

I think the whole point tho, well Brian's whole point anyway, is that it is a method. His method is basically one-plane swinging- and he doesn't advocate anything else. He lays out the components in alright detail, which is new for "Golf Digest" instruction. So that's a start. I dunno, all I can say is Homer favoured the "two-plane" swing
(which is actually a no-shift swing). So now there is a difference of opinion...who's right and who's wrong?

I think Brian would disagree with Hardy as well about the superiority of the "one-plane" swing (or a single-shift swing, as defined by TGM).

...by his logic, Watson was doing it the wrong way then...?

Not exactly...neither way is "wrong", necessarily, but Watson certainly was wild and won because of his putting and scrambling skills. When I see him compete on the Champions tour, I'm shocked by some of the shots he hits Sunday afternoon...Isn't his sudden death playoff record 1-7?

David Tom's stats are about as good as anybody's, but Carol told me he is constantly working on timing, tempo, rythym and feel as the glue to hold his swing together. That's why his swing (like Davis') is "pretty". In contrast, someone like one-planer Kenny Perry can have a hurky-jerky swing and still have about the best stats on tour.

Who have the great one-planers been? Hogan, Player, Tiger (before his recent changes), Sarazen: gee, they each won a career Grand Slam. Nicklaus was a hybrid: though his left arm was more vertical than his shoulders at the top, he brilliantly flattened them onto a one-plane downswing (as did Nelson). Who else? Snead, Boros, Knudson, Venturi, Trevino, Moe Norman, Casper, Henry Cotton, Mickey Wright, Els, Vijay, Annika, Wie...As I mentioned in an earlier post, LPGA Hall of Famer Carol Mann was two-plane most of her career (it was her teacher Manuel de la Torre's method) but had her best years swinging one-plane and is now about the most forceful advocate of the one-plane swing that you're likely to meet.

Who have the great two-planers been? Faldo (no U.S. Opens, no PGA's), Norman (only two majors and a bad back), Seve (for years a basket case; obviously no U.S. Opens or PGA's), Watson (only one U.S. Open, no PGA's), Curtis Strange (remember the Ryder Cup match against Faldo? coming in, couldn't hit a green with a bucket of mud), Payne Stewart, Nick Price, Davis Love (one major), Weiskopf (one major). Who else? Colin Montgomerie?

Draw your own conclusion, but, regardless of anyone's opinion, it seems to me that the respective competitive records gives an overwhelming edge to the "one-planers".

 

[cdog]

I think you can attain the 3 imperatives and 3 essentials either way.