Brian Manzella
Administrator
Jeffy.....
Really now.....
Really now.....
"Complete Junk" (Audio Commentary w/pics!)
- Thread starter Brian Manzella
- Start date
- Status
jeffy
Banned
Really what?
Here is what jim posted:
Originally posted by jim_0068
David swings more to the inside after impact that probably anybody on tour....
I'm not sure what prompted that comment, but it isn't supported by the swing sequences. Here is what I posted in response:
"Looking at the frame where each player's hands are belt high in the through swing, the CLUBHEAD of Els and Phil is at least a foot or two to the left of David's, despite the left arms appearing to be in similar positions. "
OK, jim notes that the hands are also in similar positions, as you'd expect if the left arms are in similar positions. So what? If all three player's left arms and hands are in similar positions at belt high, how does Toms swing "more to the inside after impact that probably anybody on tour...."? Toms sets up closer to the ball than either Phil or Ernie, so he has a head start, yet he isn't inside either of them, relative to the toe line. And, as I noted, Phil's and Ernie's (as well as all other one-plane swingers) clubheads are well to the inside of Toms, as you'd expect given the relative swing planes. If you can, please explain where I have gone wrong...And, also, please explain why "how far Toms swings inside after impact" is important to this debate.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Jeffy....I am going to try to help you...ok?
#1. Do you know what the Turned Shoulder Plane is?
#1. Do you know what the Turned Shoulder Plane is?
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Well...the sweetspot through the right shoulderr at the top....
close enough.
OK...Now!....
How manzy FAMOUS golfers are below the turned shoulder plane at the top of the backswing....?????
close enough.
OK...Now!....
How manzy FAMOUS golfers are below the turned shoulder plane at the top of the backswing....?????
jeffy
Banned
OK...I looked through my golf books (by the way, the best sequences are in Leadbetters' Lessons from the Golf Greats and Toski's Complete Guide to Better Golf; the others tend to cut off the ball from the top of the backswing frame), and the only other player I'd add to Mahaffey is Olazabel: he looked a little under in the iron sequence in Leadbetter's book. MAYBE also Zinger a touch under, hard to tell: it was also an iron swing. Mahaffey is quite a bit under with his driver in Venturi's The Venturi Analysis.
Many of the greats appeared to be right on plane: Annika, Snead, Wright, Hogan, Palmer, Woosie, Langer, Ernie, Faldo, Vijay, Lopez, Frost, Floyd, Jones, Player, Trevino, Miller. Also, Michelle Wie.
Those I'd put above the plane are: Watson (by far the most), Norman, Stewart, Freddy, Daly, Nicklaus, Byron Nelson, Lanny, Crenshaw, Weiskopf, Monty, Price, Curtis, Davis, Toms, Irwin, Lefty. Also Karrie Webb, Adam Scott, Justin Leonard, Hank Kuehne.
Next question.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Great work, Jeffy.
Now, do you realize that ALL of the SHOULDER TURNS of the above list, have a plane that 'points' way outside the ball.
So, really, they are ALL two planers (so to hardyspeak).
Next theory.
Now, do you realize that ALL of the SHOULDER TURNS of the above list, have a plane that 'points' way outside the ball.
So, really, they are ALL two planers (so to hardyspeak).
Next theory.
jeffy
Banned
Well, there is a little more to his theory than that, which I'll try to help you with...
Let me say first that this has been a very useful exercise for me because looking carefully at all these sequences confirms much of what Hardy teaches. It also has convinced me that his "one-plane"/"two-plane" nomenclature doesn't really work, because some "two-planers" (Faldo) are on-plane and some "one-planers" (Daly, Nicklaus, Freddy, Byron Nelson) are above the plane.
If that is the case, then what common elements distinguishes the Hardy "one-planers" from the "two-planers", if the left arm/shoulder doesn't adequately do it?
Well, I believe that what really distinguishes the two groups of players from each other are the following set-up and swing elements: posture; spine angle (face-on) at address and throughout the swing; weight distribution at address; weight transfer; width of downswing; and amount of follow-through. These elements are much more consistent within the respective groups than the left/shoulder relationship at the top. I'll go through them one at a time.
Posture: As a group, the Hardy one-planers tend to be more bent over at address; two-planers tend to be more upright. This leads to a steeper "shoulder" plane at the top for the one-planers.
Spine angle (face-on): The Hardy one-planers tend to have a vertical spine angle when viewed face-on at address and either maintain the vertical or even lean slightly TOWARD THE TARGET at the top (Duval, Freddy). Two-planers tend to tilt the spine away from the target at address and often tilt it even more away during the swing (as illustrated in brian's Perfect Pivot article).
Weight distribution: consistent with the face-on spine angle, one-planers tend to have their weight evenly distributed or slightly favoring the left at address; two-planers favor the right.
Weight transfer: one-planers make a minimal transfer to the right during the backswing, then move swiftly targetward on the downswing (Yoda!!), with the right heel well up by impact. Two-planers tend to move to the right going back then hang back on the downswing, sometimes with virtually no heel lift at impact (Norman, Price).
Width of downswing: on the downswing, one-planers tend to pull the arms in on to a much narrower path than on the backswing; two-planers maintain the width of the arms coming down, in some cases even casting from the top (especially the younger Tom Watson).
Amount of follow-through: one-planers wrap themselves around into very long follow-throughs (Adam Scott, Duval, Wie, Els); two-planers tend to face the target at the finish (Davis, Price, Faldo).
I think the Hardy contribution to "popular" golf instruction is the observation that each of the above elements really only works well with one or the other type of swing. So, if you are trying to swing like David Toms, don't set up and swing with an Ernie Els spine angle or transfer your weight like Duval. If you want to swing like Hogan, keep your weight centered, your spine angle vertical and narrow the downswing.
The flaw I see in Hardy is trying fit all "one-planers" on to one-plane as he defines it (left arm and shoulders more or less in line at the top): they really vary all over the lot (I guess this is the "exceptions" part brian doesn't respect). In reality, Hardy teaches the David Duval extreme of swinging the arms behind the chest; he doesn't really address the other "one-plane" variations. In contrast, the two-planers are much more consistent as far as the left arm/shoulder realtionship goes, because a two-planer needs to keep his arms in front of his chest; one-planers can do that or swing the arms behind the chest (though it is trickier to transition to a one-plane, narrow downswing from an upright left arm position).
I don't know what better names would be for the two categories of swings Hardy has identified: perhaps "narrow downswing" and "wide downswing". Having switched to a narrow downswing from a wide (and naturally all the elements common to a narrow swing), I really like the ball flight (higher, straighter with more spin) and the ease with which bad swings are corrected. My bad stretches seem shorter with the narrow downswing then they were when I played with a wide downswing.
That's my take on the theory. Sorry to drone on, but getting this all down has clarified my thinking and been very useful for me.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Good post....but how about this one:
One-planer who are HITTERS and one-planer who are swingers....
Too many exceptions, huh?
One-planer who are HITTERS and one-planer who are swingers....
Too many exceptions, huh?
jeffy
Banned
Thank you for the compliment. I enjoyed putting it together.
Not to set off another firestorm, but I don't really buy this "hitters" and "swingers" stuff. I frame-by-framed Yoda's demonstration and his "swing" is the same as his "hit", though he may feel that they are different. In his "narrow downswing" swing, I, in my layman's opinion, think that the centripital force of his unwinding torso, which is identical in both motions, overwhelm's any attempt to hit with the right forearm. I do think, however, that "wide downswingers" do hit. That's what I did (it is a widening move) when I played with a wide downswing.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Another very good post.
You have a future, Jeffy.
You have a future, Jeffy.
birdie_man
New
You know what man, I can see what you're saying about being wide with hitting and being narrow with swinging. I just fooled around with it in my garage. And I do agree with what Hardy's saying with standing more upright and hence swinging more upright ("2 plane") vs. standing more bent over and swinging flatter ("1 plane"). The planes and stances do seem to be more compatible to each other respectively...it feels weird to stand tall and swing more around...also feels weird to stand bent and swing more up...if you stood bent over and tried to keep your hands in front of you you'd hit huge pulls all day- or else massive slices from holding it off. Just doesn't work.
Why do you not buy hitting and swinging now Jeffy? They are different really. I don't want to sound like a prick lol but that's just the way it is. I wanna hear why you don't buy it.
Why do you not buy hitting and swinging now Jeffy? They are different really. I don't want to sound like a prick lol but that's just the way it is. I wanna hear why you don't buy it.
In the Golf Digest artical, Hardy said the lead shoulder points to the ball and up to 4' outward from it.
Another of the points I got from the article was about the weight shift and the change of direction, but i dont think i tend to agree with it. During the backswing and to the top, the weight or pressure will be into the rear leg (in a good pivot), Hardy says 1 planers will just rotate back without any weightshift, its a roataion, a 2 planers will shift with a hip slide to get in the slot then rotate through. Technically can you rotate on 2 posts? I think in both instances the wight pressure is move to the front post, then rotated, but the setup posture is going to affect what the hip shift looks like, more upright, a larger looking shift compared to a more bent over posture less of a hip shift.
As far as hitting vs swinging, for me there is a difference, its how i accelerate the shaft. When swinging, my pivot is pulling the club right through the ball, more of less lifeless arms, when i hit, my rear arm drives through the ball, the club is being swung, just in different ways.
Another of the points I got from the article was about the weight shift and the change of direction, but i dont think i tend to agree with it. During the backswing and to the top, the weight or pressure will be into the rear leg (in a good pivot), Hardy says 1 planers will just rotate back without any weightshift, its a roataion, a 2 planers will shift with a hip slide to get in the slot then rotate through. Technically can you rotate on 2 posts? I think in both instances the wight pressure is move to the front post, then rotated, but the setup posture is going to affect what the hip shift looks like, more upright, a larger looking shift compared to a more bent over posture less of a hip shift.
As far as hitting vs swinging, for me there is a difference, its how i accelerate the shaft. When swinging, my pivot is pulling the club right through the ball, more of less lifeless arms, when i hit, my rear arm drives through the ball, the club is being swung, just in different ways.
jeffy
Banned
Well, actually I find that I am buying into the swinging and hitting concepts to a certain extent but I'm not at all sure that they are interchangable within certain swing types. For example, someone with a narrow downswing, who generates speed from the unwinding torso and pulled in arms, is by definition a swinger; I'm not sure they can really "hit" and play effectively because hitting, as I understand it, would be a widening move.
Conversely, I doubt if someone with a wide downswing, whose downswing requires extending arms, can effectively play as a swinger. The wide downswinger needs the extending arms not only for power but to deliver the club squarely. Swinging, as I understand it, is a narrowing move which pulls in the arms, and would make the downswing too steep for a wide-downswinger (aka a Hardy two-planer). That is what plagued Carol Mann when she was a Hardy two-planer: too many drives were upshooters because of her steep angle of attack. The bent over posture she adopted in 1968 and 1969 was much more compatible with her steep, narrow downswing and, as I noted earlier, it led to 18 victories in two years (sadly, her career was then cut short from a back injury).
jeffy
Banned
You make a very good point on weight shift and this is an area where Carol and Jim disagree. Carol believes, as do I, that a Hardy one-planer does shift his weight, but that it happens fairly quickly. Look at Yoda's weight shift, for example, using frame-by-frame. It is small, but very apparent, particularly the targetward move DOWN into the left leg. BTW, this is one reason why I think Carol is more advanced in her thinking than Jim.
I believe golfers relative weight shifts are very much driven by each player's face-on spine angle, at address and throughout the swing. Someone who keeps his spine vertical and centered between the hips won't shift a lot unless they sway. Someone who sets up with the spine tilted away from the target and then uses Brian's Perfect Pivot will shift quite a bit of weight to the right.
I don't know what better names would be for the two categories of swings Hardy has identified: perhaps "narrow downswing" and "wide downswing". Having switched to a narrow downswing from a wide (and naturally all the elements common to a narrow swing), I really like the ball flight (higher, straighter with more spin) and the ease with which bad swings are corrected. My bad stretches seem shorter with the narrow downswing then they were when I played with a wide downswing.
That's my take on the theory. Sorry to drone on, but getting this all down has clarified my thinking and been very useful for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about flat swingers vs. upright swingers.
As for your thinking, press on Jeffy. You have succeeded both in explaining and validating Hardy and giving the glib BM a good run.
Press on!!
-Greg
That's my take on the theory. Sorry to drone on, but getting this all down has clarified my thinking and been very useful for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about flat swingers vs. upright swingers.
As for your thinking, press on Jeffy. You have succeeded both in explaining and validating Hardy and giving the glib BM a good run.
Press on!!
-Greg
jeffy
Banned
Thanks...sadly, I think flat vs. upright has the same problem as one and two-plane: though nearly all two-planers are upright, not all one-planers are flat (Freddy, Daly, Nicklaus, Adam Scott). Hardy calls this latter group "hybrid" swingers but I think that is incorrect: they really have nothing in common with Hardy two-planers other than the left arm/shoulder relationship. How about "torso spinners" and "arm extenders"? Kind of catchy...or "centered" vs. "right leaning" (perhaps too political...)
self-mastery
New
God, I CANT believe I missed this post. I'm a convert of the 1ps, but not hardy's version of it. I feel that Hardy's book is limited on the inner workings of the 1ps; After all it was only intended to provide a thesis that there are 2 major ways to swing a club, certain components do not match, and to cut the waste out of golf instruction......
I don't understand why Chuck Quinton's website (www.oneplanegolfswing.com/) has been pooed on in this thread. He provides very good information on his site, and his DVD, which I just received in the mail today, is very good.... Whereas Hardy's site has very little traffic and even less info (he'll be peddling a detailed 1ps book next yr)
For the non golf nerds amongst us, give it a shot, visit chucks website, read hardys book, and purchase the dvd: it all helped me. I was a guy who couldn't hit driver to save my arse, now I'm knocking the ball in the 270's (carry) everytime, I can now play a fade (so much for this 1ps causes hooks crap.) One thing that ppl overlook is that there are different methods to applying the 1ps; the hogan/vijay model is best for playing a pow'r fade, hardys version with the 30-35 degree spine angle seems to be a draw machine. Forget semantics, plane lines this 1ps magic WORKS your YMV. i'VE TRIED hitting and all the different techniques, but this swing is the best for my particular talents......God what a dynamic swing.........Humans are not machines, in the 1ps you coil and uncoil, dont worry 'bout swivel or release.
I don't understand why Chuck Quinton's website (www.oneplanegolfswing.com/) has been pooed on in this thread. He provides very good information on his site, and his DVD, which I just received in the mail today, is very good.... Whereas Hardy's site has very little traffic and even less info (he'll be peddling a detailed 1ps book next yr)
For the non golf nerds amongst us, give it a shot, visit chucks website, read hardys book, and purchase the dvd: it all helped me. I was a guy who couldn't hit driver to save my arse, now I'm knocking the ball in the 270's (carry) everytime, I can now play a fade (so much for this 1ps causes hooks crap.) One thing that ppl overlook is that there are different methods to applying the 1ps; the hogan/vijay model is best for playing a pow'r fade, hardys version with the 30-35 degree spine angle seems to be a draw machine. Forget semantics, plane lines this 1ps magic WORKS your YMV. i'VE TRIED hitting and all the different techniques, but this swing is the best for my particular talents......God what a dynamic swing.........Humans are not machines, in the 1ps you coil and uncoil, dont worry 'bout swivel or release.
- Status