Manzella attends Jim Hardy seminar..with review!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brian Manzella

Administrator
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 TGM Chapter 12 fans 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. (sounds like the tripod). Swing your arms with no clubface rotation. (sounds like loading for 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...

;)
 
Last edited:

jeffy

Banned
Great review and on target (mostly, see below)...glad you were able to see him. I still like the "Snead-aim right-..." swing though, with a twistaway backswing, of course.

Your dig at Olin Browne, though, seems a little off base: he is 4th in driving accuracy, 12th in GIR and 1st in proximity to the hole...

Jeff
 

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
So hardy's one plane is just bend over farther (then you need too), take it away with your shoulders and take it to the top. Now just come over it a bit and swing hard left.

Basically a pull shot?

LOL, Brian, i bet i could play that nooooooooooooooooooo problem!
 
Very good review Brian.

Not what we're used to hearing from you (you're usually "weeding through the crap," if you know what I mean) but I like it....this at least shows you ARE open-minded, contrary to what some people have thought of you.

Very cool that Hardy actually had heard of (and even more amazingly, did MENTION) the forum eh?

The "little-ol'" Manzella forum....hmmm....neat.....we do have an influence.

I must say, it's cool that Hardy admitted some of the things he did. In my mind that adds to his work, and himself as a good guy.

....admitted it was "simplicity by omission"- but like you said, "as long as people are people, quick-fixes are gonna be popular."

That shows me that he's not a bull****ter and also is open-minded....*good shat.*

And him admitting all of what he did seems to show that 1. he knows more than you'd think from his GD article and 2. he's open to improving on what he knows....open to new ideas.

I'm glad you posted this....I can think of Mr. Hardy a little differently now.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
His exact quote was "These guys (me) said I was way off in my explanation (of plane, etc.) and they are RIGHT. But I am just trying to make it easier."
 
Did Hardy have much to say about flat left wrist and lag? And how close to TGM definition was he w/ these?


Vaako
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Vaako, Hardy NEVER talked about the hands.

Playa, the shoe fit...unless there is another guy like me out there who is smart and spent 2 hours drawing lines and recording audio.
 

jeffy

Banned
quote:Originally posted by Playa_Brian

Hey Brian,
how did you know that he was referring to this forum?
Did you talk to him beforehand about it?


I know that Hardy was made aware of Brian and this forum in May. When I was visiting Carol Mann in Houston that month, I told Carol all about Brian (including his association with Ben, who she knew), this site and the "Complete Junk" thread. Later that day, while we were having lunch, Jim happened to call Carol on her cell and she passed all the info on to him.

Jeff
 
quote:Originally posted by brianman

Louisville, Kentucky



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...

;)

Well said Brian. :)
 

rcw

New
Brian,
Good review. I'm sure you have already done this on this forum, I just have not read it for a while. Could you describe how Toms is a hold off fader?

Jeffy,
Did you see Carol Mann at the Gary Player Course in the Woodlands? I go practice out there when I am in Houston. I saw her teaching that to a futures tour player. I am friends with Chris Farnsworth, the pro out there, he likes Hardy's stuff too. I have been trying to get him into TGM.

Chris
 

jeffy

Banned
quote:Originally posted by rcw

Brian,
Good review. I'm sure you have already done this on this forum, I just have not read it for a while. Could you describe how Toms is a hold off fader?

Jeffy,
Did you see Carol Mann at the Gary Player Course in the Woodlands? I go practice out there when I am in Houston. I saw her teaching that to a futures tour player. I am friends with Chris Farnsworth, the pro out there, he likes Hardy's stuff too. I have been trying to get him into TGM.

Chris

That's exactly where we get together. I also met Chris; he's a great guy: got me an outrageous room rate at the Woodlands Resort.

Jeff
 
quote:Originally posted by brianman
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.

Ahahahhaha....Lead-poisoned.....Harmonized?!?!?

I like it.
 

rcw

New
Brian,

Why do you consider the "one plane swing" a four barrel hitting procedure? It would seem like swinging to me, just with a punch position. Did Hardy mention using the right arm to apply power. I guess the only other thing that could lead you to that conclusion is the single wrist action on the takeaway? Just wondering why you thought it was hitting.

Chris
 
Brian,

Nice write up, but I think that you completely missed the mark. The 1PS as taught by Hardy is not a 4 barrel hitting procedure: one of the key things that Hardy stresses is to have passive hands and arms. I will concede that the Hardy template is a good set up for a 4 barrel hitting procedure (im playing around with this procedure), but in its natural form it is a pure swinging pattern.

To Hardy's credit, his "swing" is the only one that I've been able to learn without instruction. I've tried TGM in all flavors (manzella, blake, evans, doyle), but it is his swing with that has brought me to the promise land. There is something to say about simplicity.

When mentioning Hardy's 1pls you HAVE to mention CHUCK QUINTON.
He has been the key to my success; his dvd swing plane made simple really helped alot of people understand hardy's swing. His forum is also great. No one makes the swing simpler than this guy, not even you.

Chuck has his own variation of Hardy's basic idea, but he makes it work. One good thing, he's reading TGM.

Check his site out http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/index.html?mw=bmp

You could use a little more information about this swing, and the success of its users.
 
The problem with this 1 plane swing is that both Hardy and Quinton cop-out on the requirement that the amount of waist bend must vary from club to club, so that the shoulder turn and the arm plane trace the plane line. Hardy claims that the arm and shoulder planes should be "approximately" the same which leads to tilting the shoulders with the shorter clubs and/or an overly flat shoulder turn with the longer ones.

The real problems with this pattern, even when done correctly with the proper amount of waist bend, are back stress and lack of power because of the requirement of a shiftless hip turn.
 
The real problems with this pattern, even when done correctly with the proper amount of waist bend, are back stress and lack of power because of the requirement of a shiftless hip turn.

I don't find this to be true. Most 1ps'ers claim less stress on their back, longer iron shots and shorter drives. I'm a little different, I have experience less stress on my back, shorter iron shots, but increased distance and accuracy from the tee. I've used some of chucks advice, and my irons are improving. It is difficult making the transformation from a pure hitter to a swinger; I'm use to "killing the line." I'm starting to like the Haney version of the "rotational swing," that is what I like calling the 1ps.

The hardest thing is learning how to use this swing with short irons, but most guys eventually figure it out.
 
Brian, I've been playing around with making the 1ps set up work as a 4 barrel hitters stroke, and it works well. How would you improve the 1ps, besides changing the name???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top