S
SteveT
Guest
In Five Lessons, didn't Hogan show his downswing "plane" skewed to the right ..??!!!
What did this do to his D-plane??? ...
What did this do to his D-plane??? ...
Return the shaft to its address position at impact?
- Thread starter natep
- Start date
- Status
Todd Dugan
New
Some of the greatest ball-strikers have returned the shaft to the same vertical angle at impact as address. But the majority do not, including Nicklaus and Woods. FWIW, more often than not, when I draw the plane at impact on a Tour pro, it will run along the underside of the right elbow when I return the video to address.
Phil Rosenbaum
New
But the sweetest is below the shaft and the shaft is drooping. Hard to draw with a straight line in 2d.
That's awesome, it's not a coincidence as it's a result of their great swings, right, but they all swung differently how did that happen but their all great...lol. Where's Horton? Is anything an imperative? Sounds like TGM speak.
Last edited:
Here's an opinion from a poster at Richie's forum who is a really knowledgeable teacher IMO. A little better answer than "they had great swings".
Joined: Mar 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 659
Re: Same shaft angle at address and impact?
« Reply #4 Today at 2:05pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say if you setup on the elbow plane then yes it would be a good thing to strive for. If you set up on the hands plane the shaft will be slightly higher at impact but still on the same plane angle and have the same rate of closure.
Joined: Mar 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 659
Re: Same shaft angle at address and impact?
« Reply #4 Today at 2:05pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say if you setup on the elbow plane then yes it would be a good thing to strive for. If you set up on the hands plane the shaft will be slightly higher at impact but still on the same plane angle and have the same rate of closure.
Todd Dugan
New
You mean the "sweetspot"? Simply draw a line from the butt section of the club to the sweetspot at impact. Voila! It ain't rocket science.
S
SteveT
Guest
Why this obsession with the artificial Address position ..??!!!
Faldo and Tiger are both very tall so they tend to bend over a little more giving the impression of low hands.
I think low and high hands is perhaps not a complete description as you get players of varying heights.A better way to descibe it would be the angle of the shaft and the right forearm.Players with a large angle will have a tougher time getting the shaft back planed.They will address the ball with toe of the clubhead pointed up(wrong lie angle) and that's not how you want it at impact.
Both Faldo and Tiger don't have a large angle particularly as the clubs get shorter.
You hit the nail on the head when you said it's about returning the club to it's proper lie angle.If you address the ball at it's proper lie angle then you will more likely return it there.
S
SteveT
Guest
If you're neurotically obsessed with returning to the Address position at Impact, you should spend countless hours practicing your golfswing in that big plastic inclined hullahoop thingy that was the craze many years ago. Wonder why it was only a fad that fizzled out like so many other golf gizmos ...
Todd Dugan
New
drewyallop
New
For what it is worth, Dr Zick at the Anti-Summit said returning the club on a plane described by a point between the shoulders at impact and then down to the ball seemed to work for him. This was based on heuristics not science so more work needs to be done.
If true then setup plane is not the ideal impact plane and I believe Brian said something to the effect that where the hands are at setup doesn't matter in this regard. I would add: as long as you can do all the other things necessary to bring the club down powerfully into the "Zick Plane"
I struggled with this in my TGM days - zillions of setup/grip/impact combinations and all of it useless. I like Dr. Zick's suggestion better - simple.
Drew
If true then setup plane is not the ideal impact plane and I believe Brian said something to the effect that where the hands are at setup doesn't matter in this regard. I would add: as long as you can do all the other things necessary to bring the club down powerfully into the "Zick Plane"
I struggled with this in my TGM days - zillions of setup/grip/impact combinations and all of it useless. I like Dr. Zick's suggestion better - simple.
Drew
S
SteveT
Guest
Drew .... there is a 'dynamic' aspect to determining what happens approaching and at Impact. The body is rotating, the arms are lashing, the club and shaft are flexing and torquing all over.
To prescribe a static plane in all this motion is problematic.
Everybody's Impact position is different because everybody's swing mechanics and body structure are different ... and that's why I ask posters for their physical statistics before making suggestions.
Blanket statements about clubhead to hand positions at Impact are dubious without taking ALL factors into account. Anything less is "unscientific" ...!!!!
To prescribe a static plane in all this motion is problematic.
Everybody's Impact position is different because everybody's swing mechanics and body structure are different ... and that's why I ask posters for their physical statistics before making suggestions.
Blanket statements about clubhead to hand positions at Impact are dubious without taking ALL factors into account. Anything less is "unscientific" ...!!!!
drewyallop
New
SteveT
Good point. You have to be suspicious of magic bullets. However,this off the top of my head. Isn't Dr. Zick's plane variable with with all the elements you mentioned? For example, if I am tall the Zick plane is different, all else being equal, than if I am short. If I use a short club the Z plane is different than the plane for a driver. If I am a bit hunched over then a different plane than if I have a more upright posture. So too for flat vs steep shoulder turn.
Maybe Dr. Zick is trying to describe a plane that automatically compensates for all the variables? Don't know.
Of course if the variables are too extreme, maybe delivering the club on Z plane either becomes impossible or results in a suboptimal delivery of force to the ball.
Anyway the Anti Summit video explains it better than I could, ever.
Good point. You have to be suspicious of magic bullets. However,this off the top of my head. Isn't Dr. Zick's plane variable with with all the elements you mentioned? For example, if I am tall the Zick plane is different, all else being equal, than if I am short. If I use a short club the Z plane is different than the plane for a driver. If I am a bit hunched over then a different plane than if I have a more upright posture. So too for flat vs steep shoulder turn.
Maybe Dr. Zick is trying to describe a plane that automatically compensates for all the variables? Don't know.
Of course if the variables are too extreme, maybe delivering the club on Z plane either becomes impossible or results in a suboptimal delivery of force to the ball.
Anyway the Anti Summit video explains it better than I could, ever.
- Status