Flat(ter) swings and ballflight

[Bigwill]

Over the winter I worked on flattening my swing and had had my lowest round ever my first time out (5 strokes better than my best round on the same course, putting terribly). My contact has improved a bunch as well as my flight. Also, after my round on the range, I was working on different ballflights and noticed that I could hook one across the range if I wanted to, but the slice barely curved at all (noticed this during my round as well). This led me to some questions:

1. A lot of people singled out as good/great ballstrikers seemed to have had flatter swings. You rarely see someone with a really upright swing who's widely considered a good/great ballstriker. They're out there, but it seems like more of the better ones have had flatter swings (not one-planer flat, but definitely more draw-looking). What about a flatter swing would lead to better ballstriking?

2. What is there about a flatter golf swing that makes a fade stay a fade, and not move into a slice?

3. Why do swings that look like they should produce a draw (Trevino, Hogan, old Duval, Azinger), seem to work so well fading the ball?

 

[savydan]

I wouldn't touch that with tiger's d!ck

 

[Bigwill]

Ha! I know. I had that thought when I posted this (well not that EXACT thought!). And I'm hoping it dosen't turn into another 14 page upright vs. flat royal rumble; don't care about that garbage. Just had some questions, and figured I'd ask. Nothing ventured, right?

 

[savydan]

Right. Did you see the blog or thread on this about 2 months ago?

Interesting stuff. There's an inherent problem because upright vs. flat is debatable in and of itself.

Anyway, b-man predicted the trend to more upright swings in the next decade. He didn't say, but I think he believes it is more d-plane friendly everything else equal. Just my guess.

 

[curtisj76]

A lot of people singled out as good/great ballstrikers seemed to have had flatter swings. You rarely see someone with a really upright swing who's widely considered a good/great ballstriker. They're out there, but it seems like more of the better ones have had flatter swings (not one-planer flat, but definitely more draw-looking).

Be prepared for a big fat BALONEY in another Manzellian Meldown!

PS Popcorn ready

 

[Richie3Jack]

I'm a tall golfer who has a flat swing. Very much like Matt Kuchar's swing. In fact, the other day I was at the range and somebody came up to me and said I swung just like Matt Kuchar.

I actually use irons that are 5* flat, and I'm 6'4" tall.

To me, I could really care less if my backswing is flat, I just prefer the downswing to be flat.

To answer your questions from my perspective:

1. Nicklaus had an upright downswing and IMO, was a great ballstriker. Not Hogan level or Snead level or Knudson level, but really good and a fantastic driver of the ball and the best long iron player ever.

Junk the 1PS vs. the 2PS stuff. It's junk and people hit the ball worse going to that 1PS stuff from what I've seen. My swing is very flat, but I certainly don't concern myself with that 1PS stuff.

Anyway, last year I played to a +1 with an upright downswing. I think an upright downswing can provide more leverage for a golfer and can generate more power. However the problem I had with getting on the Turned Shoulder Plane in the downswing is that you can come over the top much easier. You really have all the room in the world to come over the top whereas IMO, you can only get so much underplane. And even the underplane stuff doesn't matter if you 'swing left' enough in the release because the path will square up. But trying to hit a good ball when your clubhead is well outside the target line on the downswing, just likely isn't going to happen.

I think the great ballstrikers tend to have flatter downswings because they've usually learned how to release the clubhead left so they are not getting that path out to the right. And because you can only get so much underplane and they just don't get above plane, they hit the ball consistently over and over again. These golfers also use excellent foot, knee and leg action to generate leverage in their swing. But, with the more upright downswings, I just feel they generate more leverage without their foot, knee and leg action and the long ball hitters seem to be more upright in the downswing along with generating even more leverage with their lower body.

2. The flatter downswing tends to keep the path from not going too far to the left.

3. Trevino swung wayyy left. However, before he was famous, Trevino (and Hogan) both fought the snap hook. Trevino aims wayyyy left. His credo is to 'aim left, swing right and walk straight', but the reality is he aimed left, FELT like he was swing right but was really still swinging well left, and then walking straight. Like Hogan, I believe Trevino basically learned how to not get a shut face at impact and then that's when they learned how to rid themselves of the snap hook.

It's really about the *downswing* and not the *backswing* when it comes to 'flat' vs. 'upright' for me. I'm the type that can't have an upright backswing and be flat on the downswing. If I'm flat on the downswing, my backswing has to be flat as well. But others can have a very upright backswing and be very flat on the downswing and vice versa.







3JACK

 

[savydan]

Thanks, 3J

How much longer than standard are your irons, typically?

 

[savydan]

Big picture:

Theoretically, the more upright the VSP, the less effect the Angle of Attack has on your True Path. So one might say a more upright VSP is more d-plane friendly.

However, one might argue that a shallower VSP allows you to control your Angle of Attack better in the first place.

Thoughts?

 

[Bigwill]

Big picture:

Theoretically, the more upright the VSP, the less effect the Angle of Attack has on your True Path. So one might say a more upright VSP is more d-plane friendly.

However, one might argue that a shallower VSP allows you to control your Angle of Attack better in the first place.

Thoughts?

I agree with the second part of your statement. It seems like the flatter/shallower I made my swing, the easier contact was, and my divot depth was much improved.

Of course, I was so upright that you couldn't see my face from down the line because my left arm was in the way. For all I know, what feels to me like a merry go round swing could be upright still.

 

[Bigwill]

I'm a tall golfer who has a flat swing. Very much like Matt Kuchar's swing. In fact, the other day I was at the range and somebody came up to me and said I swung just like Matt Kuchar.



I actually use irons that are 5* flat, and I'm 6'4" tall.

To me, I could really care less if my backswing is flat, I just prefer the downswing to be flat.

To answer your questions from my perspective:

1. Nicklaus had an upright downswing and IMO, was a great ballstriker. Not Hogan level or Snead level or Knudson level, but really good and a fantastic driver of the ball and the best long iron player ever.


No doubt. Had to be in order to be the best ever. I'm referring to the stereotypical, first-name-dropped guys.

Junk the 1PS vs. the 2PS stuff. It's junk and people hit the ball worse going to that 1PS stuff from what I've seen. My swing is very flat, but I certainly don't concern myself with that 1PS stuff.

Me either. Just using it as a reference.

Anyway, last year I played to a +1 with an upright downswing. I think an upright downswing can provide more leverage for a golfer and can generate more power. However the problem I had with getting on the Turned Shoulder Plane in the downswing is that you can come over the top much easier. You really have all the room in the world to come over the top whereas IMO, you can only get so much underplane. And even the underplane stuff doesn't matter if you 'swing left' enough in the release because the path will square up. But trying to hit a good ball when your clubhead is well outside the target line on the downswing, just likely isn't going to happen.

I think the great ballstrikers tend to have flatter downswings because they've usually learned how to release the clubhead left so they are not getting that path out to the right. And because you can only get so much underplane and they just don't get above plane, they hit the ball consistently over and over again. These golfers also use excellent foot, knee and leg action to generate leverage in their swing. But, with the more upright downswings, I just feel they generate more leverage without their foot, knee and leg action and the long ball hitters seem to be more upright in the downswing along with generating even more leverage with their lower body.


That was one of the reasons I started out and stayed so upright, way more than what could be considered orthodox. I wanted power. But for me, going so upright cost me the use of my pivot, which I'm now starting to use a lot better.


2. The flatter downswing tends to keep the path from not going too far to the left.

3. Trevino swung wayyy left. However, before he was famous, Trevino (and Hogan) both fought the snap hook. Trevino aims wayyyy left. His credo is to 'aim left, swing right and walk straight', but the reality is he aimed left, FELT like he was swing right but was really still swinging well left, and then walking straight. Like Hogan, I believe Trevino basically learned how to not get a shut face at impact and then that's when they learned how to rid themselves of the snap hook.

It's really about the *downswing* and not the *backswing* when it comes to 'flat' vs. 'upright' for me. I'm the type that can't have an upright backswing and be flat on the downswing. If I'm flat on the downswing, my backswing has to be flat as well. But others can have a very upright backswing and be very flat on the downswing and vice versa.







3JACK

The #3 point was what I was thinking of, although Trevino swung right of his body, which is probably why he aimed so far left, and it was also likely a more comfortable move for a former hooker. Trevino and Hogan both fought hooks. Don't know about Azinger, but Duval played right to left before he switched up. Duval's arms were a little flatter than they were now. Even Brian's Baby Fade features a flatter arm swing. Why does this work (fade with a "draw swing", so to speak)? I know that there's Never Hook Again. But it seems like (to me) that a draw swing with an open enough face to cause a fade would be a stronger more aggressive way to hit a fade, without it turning to a slice.

I mean, when I was hitting fades like this, there were no slices, just little fades. The only reasons I won't play with this on the course are that I can't hit a fade solidly with it yet, and that I haven't grooved the new swing.

 

[Bigwill]

Right. Did you see the blog or thread on this about 2 months ago?

Yeah. Just what I don't want


Interesting stuff. There's an inherent problem because upright vs. flat is debatable in and of itself.


I guess it can be, if you're debating what's better. I'm not in one camp or the other; even though it seems flatter may be working better for me at the moment, I've always liked to see long high swings. I just want honest objective answers, with whys or why nots


Anyway, b-man predicted the trend to more upright swings in the next decade. He didn't say, but I think he believes it is more d-plane friendly everything else equal. Just my guess.

.

 

[Bigwill]

Be prepared for a big fat BALONEY in another Manzellian Meldown!

PS Popcorn ready

As long as he tells me why, that's fine with me. I'm just trying to learn stuff, man.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Thanks, 3J

How much longer than standard are your irons, typically?

They're not.

I'm playing with all vintage irons right now. I have:

- 1963 Hogan IPT's 2-PW (5-iron measures at 37.5")
- 1967 Hogan Percussions 4-9 (5-iron measures at 37.5")
- 1970 Hogan Bounce Sole 1+ 3-9 (5-iron measures at 37.75")
- 1978 MacGregor Tourney Custom 2-PW (5-iron measures at 37.75")
- 1983 Hogan Apex PC 2-PW (5-iron measures at 37.75")

'standard' length irons is a vague term these days as I've seen standard go from 37.75 - 38.25" with the 5-iron.





3JACK

 

[Richie3Jack]

Big picture:

Theoretically, the more upright the VSP, the less effect the Angle of Attack has on your True Path. So one might say a more upright VSP is more d-plane friendly.

However, one might argue that a shallower VSP allows you to control your Angle of Attack better in the first place.

Thoughts?

I see where you are going. VSP still confuses me a bit, I'm guessing in general a flatter VSP angle means a flatter downswing plane.

IMO, my flatter downswing means a couple of things for me:

- I've practically eliminated the 'above the plane' move.
- I've got a 1-way miss instead of a 2-way miss. Of course, I had to flatten my irons out to do that.

It does help to 'swing left' so you can get your path more towards zero. I do believe that a path well out to the right is going to cause more low point control issues.






3JACK

 

[macduffer]

How do we define a 'flat' downswing? Below shaft plane at impact?

 

[curtisj76]

As long as he tells me why, that's fine with me. I'm just trying to learn stuff, man.

Tell me about it. I'm still piecing together the D-plane.

 

[savydan]

They're not.

I'm playing with all vintage irons right now. I have:

- 1963 Hogan IPT's 2-PW (5-iron measures at 37.5")
- 1967 Hogan Percussions 4-9 (5-iron measures at 37.5")
- 1970 Hogan Bounce Sole 1+ 3-9 (5-iron measures at 37.75")
- 1978 MacGregor Tourney Custom 2-PW (5-iron measures at 37.75")
- 1983 Hogan Apex PC 2-PW (5-iron measures at 37.75")

'standard' length irons is a vague term these days as I've seen standard go from 37.75 - 38.25" with the 5-iron.





3JACK

I'd love to have a set of Hogan blades at least as a backup. Maybe some redlines. Sold my PC's several years ago....

 

[savydan]

VSP: think of a ferris wheel along the target line. The cars go up and down along the target line.

When the ferris wheel (FW) is in the normal vertical position (VSP=90) there is no left or right bias on the club path (CP) whether the FW car hits the ball on the way down, at the bottom (AoA=0) or on the way up.

Therefore, when VSP=90, the CP is going to be the Horizontal Swing Plane, in this case (0 degrees) along the target line.

Now tilt the FW towards the golfer.

You can visualize when the FW car hits the ball on the way down, the car (the clubhead) is swinging out to the right as well.

Therefore the true CP is to the right of the HSP (in this case the HSP is the target line).

Hopefully, you can see that as the FW is more tilted to the ground (VSP gets smaller), the more the car's direction is going out to the right as it goes down.

Therefore, the smaller (closer to zero) the VSP the more a negative AoA adjusts the true CP to the right of the HSP.

Also, hopefully you can see that if the FW car hits the ball at the bottom (zero Angle of Attack) the angle of the VSP has no bias left or right and the CP will just be the HSP.

Hope this helps.

 

[Richie3Jack]

I'd love to have a set of Hogan blades at least as a backup. Maybe some redlines. Sold my PC's several years ago....

I used to play the Redlines as junior golfer. Problem is that on eBay it's one of the Hogan line of irons that is en vogue so the price is a bit higher than other great sets of Hogans.

I really like the PC's though. Just what I was looking for in a vintage set of blades. Something that takes a lot of precision to hit well, but when you do hit it well, the results are excellent. The Bounce Sole 1+'s are awesome in their own right and I probably like the '67 Percussions the best of the bunch.





3JACK