Hardy and TGManzella...D Toms 1ps or 2ps?

[tourdeep]

Why are the principles of Hardy and TGM important to me? My swing is a hybrid, Hardy swing with TGM fundamentals. The encouragement of both has helped bring forth a more repetitive golf swing. I continue to work on my game with an open mind and enjoy the input!

Regarding David Toms, here is a link to a thread which discusses this topic. There is a link to an audio with pictures to describe David Toms and Vijay's swing on the very first post.

http://www.manzellagolfforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1905


No matter the instructor, all have generally a common goal, to produce a repetitive golf swing.

TGM is the heart and soul of Bman’s teachings. Q’s foundation is based on “Plane Truth” principles. Within TGM, there are philosophical differences as well as with 1ps differences amongst instructors. Both instructors do not concern themselves with steadfast rules. Their strengths are their ability to play the role of the chameleon, to bend a rule or two of their particular foundations, as they adapt to their student.

Hardy describes his 1ps similar to that of a baseball swing while in a golf position. The spine angle is bent or tilted more than “average. The 1ps turns the shoulder, arms, and club on the same plane while rotating around a fixed, bent over spine angle as the shoulders rotate at a 90 degree angle to the spine. This gives the appearance of a steep shoulder turn. Essentially, if one draws a line from the ball to shoulder, the club, arms, and shoulders would remain “on line” from takeaway into follow thru. A 2ps is any other swing which compromises that line, or “off-line”.



I have yet to see a 1ps as defined by Hardy. I believe that is the position of both Q and bman, although bman mentioned Moe Norman as a possibility.

 

[jeffy]

That thread is a little out of date (published March 2005). Obviously Toms is a not a Hardy one planer. But he doesn't really fall into Hardy's Watson two plane model. Below is Brian's take on Hardy after he attended a presentation by Jim last October:

Louisville, Kentucky

Okay, it's not complete junk, but it sure ain't 100% correct either.

Jim Hardy spoke to the Kentucky Section of The PGA of America yesterday, and I was in attendance. He gave a three and a half hour presentation on his "Two Plane" Swing vs. "One Plane" swing theory.
The reception from the pros in the audience was mixed, but more favorable than not. He did get the standard Brian Manzella backdoor tongue-in-cheek question/comments from yours truly, and our own Mike Finney did nail him once on right forearm position, but for the most part he got softball questions from the typical room of mostly club pros in poorly fitting suits.

And the best part of the presentation was that Hardy admitted his theory was simplicity by omission. He also referenced this forum (not by name) and the fact that I (again not by name) ripped his ideas on plane and said—get this—that I was right.

You see Jim Hardy can teach golf. I never really doubted that. I saw him in 1990 in Nashville at the 2nd PGA Summit, and I saw him in 1996 in New Orleans at another Summit. He struck me as a good 'ball flight' teacher, which, by his own admission, he was. 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 Lynn Blake 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. (Lynn Blake likes it so far). Swing your arms with no clubface rotation. (Like Ben Doyle told me, sound like 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 (that would be me) 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 I 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 the Italian Stallion (that's me Jim) has been clawing and scratching his way to the top, 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....

Oh, wait...there is this Italian guy...


A couple of other comments. Q (I assume you mean Chuck Quinton), does not base his teaching on "The Plane Truth". It is actually very similar to John Redman's Essentials of the Golf Swing (though Chuck claims on his site to have never read or even seen it), which Redman credits to Tommy Armour and Percy Boomer. Also, as highlighted above, bman considers Hardy's one plane pattern similar to Snead's. Q has an agenda that doesn't always have room for the truth.

 

[tourdeep]

Jeffy,

My bad if his 1ps is not based on Hardy. His website references Hardy with "ideas truly changed the way I think of the golf swing and most importantly, it changed my ball striking immediately". Overall, I think he holds Hardy in high regard.

One thing he makes clear. He is not into the technical mumbo jumbo. No knock against him, yet he can be a stubborn ole mule, as you know with his "flipping" explanations. I hope he realizes that the more he can understand, the simpler it really is. Maybe he's a closest case wannabe Homer Kelley.


There were some questions regarding Toms' 2ps on his site and thought it would be best to readdress it here given the audio and visuals are here, and bman's relationship with David, of course.

Enough of Q.

Have you had a chance to work on your swing since your lesson with bman?

 

[dbl]

Is there a substantive question here, or did I miss it?

 

[jeffy]

quote:Originally posted by tourdeep

Jeffy,

My bad if his 1ps is not based on Hardy. His website references Hardy with "ideas truly changed the way I think of the golf swing and most importantly, it changed my ball striking immediately". Overall, I think he holds Hardy in high regard.

I think he just hopped on the Hardy bandwagon to exploit the publicity; he has posted on his site that Hardy didn't change a thing of what he teaches.

quote:Originally posted by tourdeep



One thing he makes clear. He is not into the technical mumbo jumbo. No knock against him, yet he can be a stubborn ole mule, as you know with his "flipping" explanations. I hope he realizes that the more he can understand, the simpler it really is. Maybe he's a closest case wannabe Homer Kelley.

There were some questions regarding Toms' 2ps on his site and thought it would be best to readdress it here given the audio and visuals are here, and bman's relationship with David, of course.

Enough of Q.

Have you had a chance to work on your swing since your lesson with bman?

Not a lot: a couple of range sessions that were pretty good. Just got my PureSwing yesterday and I seem to be ingraining the flat left wrist. Also, been working on extensor action and a better downswing path, making swings standing on air pillows. But, foremost, I really need to get those hands working properly at impact. Been watching "Flipper..." and "Building Blocks" and making lots of practice swings indoors.

 

[tourdeep]

Not a lot: a couple of range sessions that were pretty good. Just got my PureSwing yesterday and I seem to be ingraining the flat left wrist. Also, been working on extensor action and a better downswing path, making swings standing on air pillows. But, foremost, I really need to get those hands working properly at impact. Been watching "Flipper..." and "Building Blocks" and making lots of practice swings indoors.
[/quote]

Brian has so many tips in that doggone video beyond flipping. I've gone back to it more than I would have ever imagined.


What helped me a bunch to obtain/maintain, the flat left wrist is the pivot, that is Pivot powered, hands controlled pivot, about the 14 minute mark.

See what you think about float loading, 24-25 minute mark on flipper. Excellent explanantion of why it's easier to "move into a position" and adding wristcock on the downswing so one can get the dirt to fly, to wallop the ball with that flat left. What's helped me with this move is I've shortened my backswing, more so a function of the left arm "pinned" to the chest as the flywheel is unleashed.

Regarding the Pureswing and Power angle pro, It seems that both devices have their benefit. Any experience with the angle pro and if so, your input.

 

[tourdeep]

quote:Originally posted by dbl

Is there a substantive question here, or did I miss it?

The question is in the header. Being substantive? By bman's earlier effort to respond by audio with visuals, I would say yes.

And without a doubt, there are substantive questions on aonther site, given its level of member participation and the fact that is is one of the more active, if not the most active topic of discussion.


A side note. As much as Q wants to keep it simple, and I agree with the philosophy of simplicity, I have a hard time believing it is that simple. I think a lot of golfers have success with a new "swing" concept initially, only to have old habits creep back. To initate change, I'm just one of those who cannot naturally adapt. I must disrupt, manipulate old habits until new habits become naturally simple. I have to work hard to make it simple. IMO, the author "thinks" he disagrees with me. I don't buy it.

At least Hardy admits that change requires education.

 

[jeffy]

I practice float loading a lot around the green on pitch shots, etc. Also like the PCPPH's approach.

Don't have the Angle-Pro. What does it do?

 

[tourdeep]

Don't have the Angle-Pro. What does it do?
[/quote]


http://www.rovergolf.com/pages/poweranglepro.html

 

[dbl]

quote:Originally posted by tourdeep

quote:Originally posted by dbl

Is there a substantive question here, or did I miss it?

The question is in the header. Being substantive? By bman's earlier effort to respond by audio with visuals, I would say yes.

Sorry must have missed that form of the question, and there wasn't much use of question marks in your first two posts. From Brian's earlier posts, it seems pretty clear Toms uses the TSP and so isn't a Hardy 1P or 2P.

If the topic is understanding Toms' swing, then I think it's mostly completed. If the issue is trying to understand Hardy's 1P/2P by tgm components, I don't have much personal interest in that, but it wasn't clear the direction. You did mention not ever seeing a 1P player, which perhaps was meant to be a question, but I think you should review what Hardy said at the that conference. The thread Jeffy got the updated hardy review is this:
http://www.manzellagolfforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2567 1P and 2P are just models (for Hardy), "simplifications", and may not really exist.

 

[jeffy]

quote:Originally posted by jeffy

That thread is a little out of date (published March 2005). Obviously Toms is a not a Hardy one planer. But he doesn't really fall into Hardy's Watson two plane model. Below is Brian's take on Hardy after he attended a presentation by Jim last October:

Louisville, Kentucky

Okay, it's not complete junk, but it sure ain't 100% correct either.

Jim Hardy spoke to the Kentucky Section of The PGA of America yesterday, and I was in attendance. He gave a three and a half hour presentation on his "Two Plane" Swing vs. "One Plane" swing theory.
The reception from the pros in the audience was mixed, but more favorable than not. He did get the standard Brian Manzella backdoor tongue-in-cheek question/comments from yours truly, and our own Mike Finney did nail him once on right forearm position, but for the most part he got softball questions from the typical room of mostly club pros in poorly fitting suits.

And the best part of the presentation was that Hardy admitted his theory was simplicity by omission. He also referenced this forum (not by name) and the fact that I (again not by name) ripped his ideas on plane and said—get this—that I was right.

You see Jim Hardy can teach golf. I never really doubted that. I saw him in 1990 in Nashville at the 2nd PGA Summit, and I saw him in 1996 in New Orleans at another Summit. He struck me as a good 'ball flight' teacher, which, by his own admission, he was. 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 Lynn Blake 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. (Lynn Blake likes it so far). Swing your arms with no clubface rotation. (Like Ben Doyle told me, sound like 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 (that would be me) 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 I 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 the Italian Stallion (that's me Jim) has been clawing and scratching his way to the top, 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....

Oh, wait...there is this Italian guy...


A couple of other comments. Q (I assume you mean Chuck Quinton), does not base his teaching on "The Plane Truth". It is actually very similar to John Redman's Essentials of the Golf Swing (though Chuck claims on his site to have never read or even seen it, so I guess that's just a coincidence), which Redman credits to Tommy Armour and Percy Boomer. Also, as highlighted above, bman considers Hardy's one plane pattern similar to Snead's. Q has an agenda that doesn't always have room for the truth.

Chuck posted on his site today that he has never seen or read John Redman"s "Essentials of the Golf Swing". I have modified the above post to reflect that.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Well.

This is what makes TGM so valuable to teachers.

If you say someone is a single-shift swinger...he's a single shift swinger (Tom Watson)

By the way, that means swinging back on the elbow plane, then raising to the Turned Shoulder Plane and coming down on JUST the Turned Shoulder Plane.

If you say someone is a DOUBLE-Shift swinger, like VIJAY SINGH, then that's what he is.

By the way, that means swinging back on the elbow plane, then raising to the Turned Shoulder Plane and STARTing down on the Turned Shoulder Plane and then down-shifting back to the elbow plane.

 

[Garth]

This is what i don't get. TGM terms or not, I don't see any "shifting" in Veejay's swing. It looks to me like he takes his arms back on the same plane as his shoulder turn on, and brings it down pretty close to that as well. This is the whole "one plane swing" basis. When you talk about shifting, are you talking about where the clubface is in relation to the plane? The hands? It certainly can't be the arms.

 

[mcflog]

quote:Originally posted by Garth

This is what i don't get. TGM terms or not, I don't see any "shifting" in Veejay's swing. It looks to me like he takes his arms back on the same plane as his shoulder turn on, and brings it down pretty close to that as well. This is the whole "one plane swing" basis. When you talk about shifting, are you talking about where the clubface is in relation to the plane? The hands? It certainly can't be the arms.

the club goes back on the plane his shaft is on at address which is the elbow plane. if he kept it on that plane the club would be below his shoulders at the top. He lifts then drops it back on the elbow plane coming down. When he sticks that shaft in the ground behind him that mirrors his shaft at address, he takes it up the shaft and back down but he physically can't keep it on it the whole swing.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Double-Shift.

Thankyouverymuch.

 

[nevermind]

When shifting, how many of the greats had the shaft pointing at the plane line and not on a plane angle parallel to elbow or shaft plane?

 

[Garth]

Ok, i guess i see what you mean now. The shaft starts on the pink, gets to the yellow at the top, then shifts back down to the pink about half way down. So would i be right in assuming that the pink is the elbow plane, and the yellow is the shoulder plane?

 

[Tom Bartlett]

Yes. Of course there are an infinite number of plane angles. Homer Kelly only named 5 basic plane angles according to there body reference points. Three fixed, one moving and one movable. What he is defining as on plane is the shaft.

 

[tongzilla]

quote:Originally posted by Tom Bartlett

Three fixed, one moving and one movable.

Which ones are fixed, moving and movable?
Thanks.

 

[bpgs1]

A very informtive discussion. I would love to hear Brian discuss his views on this in terms of advantages/disadvantages of using the TSP versus the elbow plane on the downswing. Especially regarding Hitting vs Swinging, and body typing - endomorph vs meso or ecto. Also in terms of how the Dynamic Forces effect which plane is used, like the theory that the Release forces work more consistently - CF especially - at a right angle to source of rotation, advantage elbow plane.

At first glance, it seems to me that perhaps the TSP is on the edge of being an over the top and shifting the plane to the left kind of move. Opposite for elbow plane, which I know from having watched Vijay in person several times on the range, he constantly fights that tendency, hence the water bottle placed about six inches in front of his golf ball and an inch or two outside the target line. Also, I dont see many current tour players using TSP, some are between TSP and elbow plane.

Also how which plane you use relates to both Impact Fix and club specs. TSP would seem to require very upright lie angles. At the Fix, would you pose in this steeper shaft plane? If so, why not start from there at Address? Closer to a Natural Golf setup?