Sorry it took a while to answer Peter, and welcome to the very best forum on the web.
I went to a JIm Hardy seminar (not by choice) and reviewed as such:
____________________________________________________________________________________
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...
______________________________________________________________________________________
As I sit here today, it is a few nonths since that review, and I have basicall biled down Hardy's one-plane swing to a flat backswing followed by swinging left.
I can imagine a back problem resulting in a basterized version of someone's ATTEMPT at this move, but, there is nothing in this pattern that done correctly by THE RIGHT GOLFER, that would result in a back problem.
Just another pattern among trillions that COULD and DOES work for someone, but would NEVER be ideal for all.
Just like your Golf Digest cover story pattern—fine for some, but absolutely not for all.
then. Also since then all "preferred" component parts have been slotted into place and put under the control of "educated hands"(hands controlled pivot)