Haney: Laid Off vs. Across the Line, NOW WITH MANZELLA VIDEO

[Jwat]

Well, just looking at Tour pros, those who tend to get laid off tend to pull/over-cut as their miss (Els, Poulter, VJ, Sorenstam), and those who tend to get accross the line tend to push/over-draw as their miss (most).

Since when is VJ laid off?

 

[Kevin Shields]

I know there isn't a lot of love for Hank on this forum, but I think he maybe deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one. Try and hear me out on this.

My take on HH's tweet in the OP is that he wasn't putting forward his own views. I think he was suggesting a re-evaluation of the presumption (Golf101) that laid off tends towards a fade and across the line to a draw. The question then isn't whether or not Hank is factually correct - since almost every golf book will equate a laid off position at the top with an out-to-in path through impact. The real question is whether conventional wisdom, or Golf101, is correct.

I think Kevin's explanations are great, although I don't remember ever seeing the issue analysed in that way anywhere else. The only thing I can think of that's in the same ballpark is, bizarrely, Hank's book "The Only Golf Lesson..." Much as I wanted to like the book, I don't think I ever quite got my head round Hank's assertion (which is the absolute rock bottom foundation of his teaching) that a steep shaft plane tends towards an opening clubface and vice versa for a shallow shaft plane.

I'm not sure it was Kevin's intention to ride to Hank's rescue like this - but as a result of this thread I think I might just understand Hank's theories a load better. I still don't think his ideal of congruent shaft angles holds up. Handpath is going to be more downward than shaft plane which is always going to drag the clubshaft out of parallel alignment. But several ideas make a lot more sense now.

Thanks Kevin!

In other words, steep is across and shallow is laid off. Makes the original quote a contradiction to the entire Jacobs philosophy he learned coming up in the business.

 

[birly-shirly]

Agreed. Jacobs certainly counts as part of the "Golf101" conventional wisdom which I think (though of course I could be quite wrong in my interpretation) is being questioned by Haney in his quote.

As for Jacobs' philosophy, I think he said both. As well as linking shaft alignment at the top with HP alignment - he also felt that a shallow downswing promoted an early closing of the face.

 

[Lifter]

Conventional Wisdom

No, Haney was definitely not questioning "Golf101" conventional wisdom. Below is what he wrote:

I can't believe Miller just said that

That practice swing Kaymer made is to make sure he doesn't cross the line and hook the ball too much

Kaymer took a practice swing laying the club off and Johnny said maybe he does that when he is trying to hit a going hook, wow clueless

Golf101 says the more u cross the line the more u hook and the more u lay the club off the more u slice​

 

[birly-shirly]

OK. I stand corrected - the full quote doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.

I'm confused by Hank though - as I think I could pull several quotes from his book that contradict his remarks above.

And now I feel conflicted as to whether I should let Kevin's good sense allow Hank's book to mean something useful. Maybe Tiger's problem was that he was getting lessons from Hank and not John Huggan (HH's ghost writer)

 

[Kevin Shields]

Clueless??? A ton of good players would sling a hard draw by laying the shaft off so they can slam it closed thru impact. Maybe you just have to be a good player to know this and not have the yips with the driver. Again, just because some players hit hooks from across the line doesnt mean its Golf101. Project 1.68 will hopefully clear this up for good in the golf world.

 

[Todd Dugan]

Kevin, I undersdtand what you're saying. But you're assuming that the shaft will be shifted back on-plane from a laid-off or across-the-line position, which would clearly affect the shaft rotation. But what if the shaft doesn't shift back?

Let's at least establish the following, which is not "factless observations"......a rightward plane promotes a hook, and a leftward plane promotes a fade. It's really as simple as that.

 

[Todd Dugan]

Since when is VJ laid off?

Vijay's stock shot has always been a high fade....

 

[Kevin Shields]

Kevin, I undersdtand what you're saying. But you're assuming that the shaft will be shifted back on-plane from a laid-off or across-the-line position, which would clearly affect the shaft rotation. But what if the shaft doesn't shift back?

Let's at least establish the following, which is not "factless observations"......a rightward plane promotes a hook, and a leftward plane promotes a fade. It's really as simple as that.

What is simple is that across the line and a rightward plane are two completely different things. I already said assuming it shifts back. It will if the hinge stays constant. You're assuming it doesnt, which would require human error. So mechanically speaking, across the line does not promote a hook. You would have to make another mistake that would never happen if left to its own devices.

 

[GPM1985]

Vijay's stock shot has always been a high fade....

His path is way out to the right. Watch the downswing. Vijay bends his drivers way open too offset a hook-prone swing, I would imagine his irons are similarly adjusted.

He opens it up going back and whips it closed coming down. Annika does this as well, very open at the top yet plays a little draw.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

Kevin, I undersdtand what you're saying. But you're assuming that the shaft will be shifted back on-plane from a laid-off or across-the-line position, which would clearly affect the shaft rotation. But what if the shaft doesn't shift back?

"what if the shaft doesn't shift back?"


Hmmm. I definitely agree with what Kevin is saying. If you're in a true across the line position or a laid off position the player will always attempt to hit the ball, so the shaft will always try to line up on the downswing hand path. So, if there isn't a shift it's a mute point and disaster awaits.

Across the line is steep and closed and laid off is open and shallow. So, you either time an opening or backing up of the shaft (if you're across the line) or you attempt to close or steepen a laid of shaft. This is why many across the line players are slicer's and many laid off players hook the ball because overcooking the compensation is the tendency.

Arguing what ball flight would naturally come from either shaft position is folly because great players will make the adjustment needed.

The real reason is the backswing hand path. Inward takeaways tend to get players in an across the line position ie John Daly and straight back and outside takeaways like Colin Montegomery tend to end up laid off. These generalizations are what make people believe that a given shape will come from a given shaft position, but the reality is that the hand path is the true factor in the shape of the ball flight.

 

[DCgolf]

The most important effect I see of across the line is the club starts down quite steep (pointing well inside the ball) from where the player has to back up to shallow out the angle. Cannot make one move here. So the steep shaft has an opening effect on the face UNLESS the player backs up and shallows it out. I guess that would be the manipulation referred to, but I agree that if left alone the steepness has an opening effect even from the inside.

 

[Todd Dugan]

Kevin, I undersdtand what you're saying. But you're assuming that the shaft will be shifted back on-plane from a laid-off or across-the-line position, which would clearly affect the shaft rotation. But what if the shaft doesn't shift back?

"what if the shaft doesn't shift back?"


Hmmm. I definitely agree with what Kevin is saying. If you're in a true across the line position or a laid off position the player will always attempt to hit the ball, so the shaft will always try to line up on the downswing hand path. So, if there isn't a shift it's a mute point and disaster awaits.

Across the line is steep and closed and laid off is open and shallow. So, you either time an opening or backing up of the shaft (if you're across the line) or you attempt to close or steepen a laid of shaft. This is why many across the line players are slicer's and many laid off players hook the ball because overcooking the compensation is the tendency.

Arguing what ball flight would naturally come from either shaft position is folly because great players will make the adjustment needed.

The real reason is the backswing hand path. Inward takeaways tend to get players in an across the line position ie John Daly and straight back and outside takeaways like Colin Montegomery tend to end up laid off. These generalizations are what make people believe that a given shape will come from a given shaft position, but the reality is that the hand path is the true factor in the shape of the ball flight.

Lindsey, you make it sound as if the position at the top is of little importance, since the player will naturally shift back on plane. But poor top positions are a major cause of mis-directed impact plane tendencies. I can speak from experience, since I get above plane at the top and fight pushes/hooks. The pushes/hooks problem is very prevalent among better players, and the #1 reason for it is getting above plane at the top.

I can show that virtually all of the Tour pros who are on-plane to slightly laid off at the top, match the clubhead plane up with the hand plane approaching the impact zone. Of the across-the-liners, many exhibit a clubhead plane which is rightward of the hand plane on the approach. Those are the guys that tend to aim way left....like Couples.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

Lindsey, you make it sound as if the position at the top is of little importance, since the player will naturally shift back on plane. But poor top positions are a major cause of mis-directed impact plane tendencies. I can speak from experience, since I get above plane at the top and fight pushes/hooks. The pushes/hooks problem is very prevalent among better players, and the #1 reason for it is getting above plane at the top.

Todd, i am not making it sound that way at all. The position at the top is an indicator of the backswing only. From the top you still have the transition and shaft angle adjustments that can change everything by impact. The point is that you cannot predict a ball flight by where the shaft is aligned at the top.

 

[Brian Manzella]

This is my take.

Purely assembling a laid off position at the top, is easy—just over rotate the left arm flying wedge. That will give you at top of the backswing position that is much more open—all things being equal—than the "pointed at the target" orthodox top of the backswing.

So, conversely....

Purely assembling a cross the line position at the top, is easy—just UNDER rotate the left arm flying wedge. That will give you at top of the backswing position that is much more CLOSED—all things being equal—than the "pointed at the target" orthodox top of the backswing.

So for some golfers, like most regular Joes and Janes, Haney is dead on correct—more laid off, more right ball, more cross the line, more left.

But....

That's not what the science says.

But the science is assuming an on plane motion of a certain kind of swing....with a certain hand path....

So...

Here's the way I see it:

The Hogan-Sergio-McIllroy-Fowler model (Flat Eventual Sweetspot Path Plane/Steep Inward Hand Path/High Right Shoulder Socket Path) closes it more like the science model from laid off, and opens it from cross the line.

The Nicklaus-Calc-Toms-Tom Barttlett-Lindsay Gahm model (Steep Eventual Sweetspot Path Plane/Outward Hand Path/Low Right Shoulder Socket Path) opens more from laid off, and closes it more from cross the line.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

This is my take.

Purely assembling a laid off position at the top, is easy—just over rotate the left arm flying wedge. That will give you at top of the backswing position that is much more open—all things being equal—than the "pointed at the target" orthodox top of the backswing.

So, conversely....

Purely assembling a cross the line position at the top, is easy—just UNDER rotate the left arm flying wedge. That will give you at top of the backswing position that is much more CLOSED—all things being equal—than the "pointed at the target" orthodox top of the backswing.

So for some golfers, like most regular Joes and Janes, Haney is dead on correct—more laid off, more right ball, more cross the line, more left.

But....

That's not what the science says.

But the science is assuming an on plane motion of a certain kind of swing....with a certain hand path....

So...

Here's the way I see it:

The Hogan-Sergio-McIllroy-Fowler model (Flat Eventual Sweetspot Path Plane/Steep Inward Hand Path/High Right Shoulder Socket Path) closes it more like the science model from laid off, and opens it from cross the line.

The Nicklaus-Calc-Toms-Tom Barttlett-Lindsay Gahm model (Steep Eventual Sweetspot Path Plane/Outward Hand Path/Low Right Shoulder Socket Path) opens more from laid off, and closes it more from cross the line.

Money! Could not agree more.

 

[mjstrong]

More tumble vs. less tumble?

 

[rmartingolf]

Chuckle, Chuckle - Loved this one.

I've never noticed Kenny Perry having a strong grip and he hits a 10 yard push draw and is probably across the line as much as any good player I've seen. Not being argumentative. I have always been a little ATL and fight a hook.

 

[gailfcno]

sorry guys for going a bit off topic, but could someone explain what backing up the shaft means, thanks.

 

[Kevin Shields]

sorry guys for going a bit off topic, but could someone explain what backing up the shaft means, thanks.

standing the club up while opening the face