Upright Swings are bad—right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do some pitchers in baseball throw more side arm vs overhand (orthodox)?
How many pitchers in the baseball hall of fame through sidearm vs overhand(orthodox)? Don't know but I bet more through more overhand!

Just a thought

Matt
 
So what makes a flatter swing better for a player? What makes an upright swing better for a player? I'm curious because I never seem to get a clear answer on this question when I ask instructors I've seen.

In my opinion, with a flatter swing you can hit earlier because you're close to a low enough plane already and so under pressure getting quick is not so bad.

While with an upright plane you can have a more dynamic and powerful transition where you really bend the shaft and get some power but there is a timing element. Also, upright swings tend to have a wider arc or, if not a wider arc, at least a longer arc of acceleration in the downswing and more time to generate some speed. Because of these attributes, upright swings by necessity tend to be a bit slower but that is ok because they have time to generate speed.
 
Chew on this...Seriously???

Who says you CANT have an upright swing?

That would just be ridiculous.

However, this is DEFINITELY the first time I've ever heard Palmer described as an upright swinger.
 
Last edited:
Some great flat swingers I can think of off the top of my head are Moe, Hogan and Knudson. Probably each should be considered top 10 (if not top 5) ballstrikers of all time.

Something that I was thinking about is recently I've been re-reading TGM and Homer Kelley talks about if you use an angled hinge, an upright swing plane will make the angled hinge behave like a vertical hinge. The flatter swing plane will make the angled hinge behave like a horizontal hinge.

I think all of the golfers in the pic used horizontal hinge. Hogan had an angled hinge and I believe so did Knudson. Both flat planes. Don't know of the validity of HK's thoughts or if I am misinterpreting what he's saying, but just something I thought of.






3JACK
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
The Answer Manz Strikes Again!!!

I think one of the reasons pop instruction like flatness is because it gives a sense of security and tightness with the right elbow closer to the body. The swing feels tidier and more repeatable. The hands/elbow needs to travel a smaller distance to drop into the "slot" (another pop instruction concept).

Pop Golf Instruction doesn't know what it wants.

But ever since the amount of "line drawers" went to a critical-mass percentage, teachers have been trying to figure out how to get the shaft on the hands-only plane on the downswing.

YIKES!!!

:D

How would you counter the claim of pop-instruction that upright swings lead to wildness and inconsistency?

That collage thread-starter ought to do it, huh?

If I'm shooting for a SD pattern and I find myself some days on the course hitting pushes/hooks- would you encourage me to add some NHA2 feel on those days? Maybe "shake the sugar" or yellow brick road?

The NHA2-style through the ball movement, is where most folks who want to control their ball flight should wind up.

About one year from now some Golf Digest Top Ten Teacher will conduct some extensive "research," and this innovative cutting-edge research will result in his "discovery" of the secret of the upright swing, and give it a new name like the High Explosion swing; hence the lemmings will have something new to write about for a year.

In the 40's, swings got more upright because the steel-shaft era was in full effect, and the swings WERE steeper than the hickory ones.

In the 50's there was a little of both, but the "wave" was going flatter.

In the 60's Nicklaus moved everyone upright.

In the 70's Miller was king, and upright was too.

In the 80's Ballard got everyone "connected" and so did Leadbetter. The Flat finish was en vogue.

In the 90's Tiger and the proliferation of video and line-drawing moved golfers to flatter downswings from orthodox downswings, and Rick Smith almost single-handedly kept them from over-flattening with his silly little "stuck-behind me" dance.

In the 00's the trend is flat.

The 10's will go the other way. Mark it down.

Even better, you have some of the games most powerful/longest players in this group as well. Hmmmmmm

Still waiting for the super-flat Long Drive Champ. :rolleyes:

I can't tell you how much time I've spent trying to get my swing flatter at the top. I was too busy trying to emulate pictures and trace invisible lines, rather than addressing the root causes of my misses (over-rotation of left arm, pop-out and poor pivot).

Showing some of the all-time greats in positions that would be considered "upright" by some in the instruction community is very reassuring and only reinforces the concept of customization.

That was the general idea. ;)

I started to focus on a a good weight shift and operating above the "shoulder glass" (an imaginary piece of glass between the ball and my right armpit) in my takeaway and I've substantially improved my ball striking...This all stemmed from repeated viewings of NHA2. All I think about is operating above the glass.

It hasn't hurt DT much either.

Results should be worth something in the analysis. Add in as well Cabrera, Wadkins, Ballesteros... Lot longer list than flat.

No doubt.

An interesting topic to me is the discussion on geography and how that dictates how a player swings the club..thoughts?

I think it would have more of an effect on the golfer's hands.

Watson is maybe the most upright of the bunch and also has the most Open Champs.

Hadn't hurt him in the wind, eh?

I do believe the sect that likes flatter swings largely because they make prettier lines. I still like the "look" of it and have nothing against it as well, as long as its better for that player.

Like I said, trying to make things look good in 2-D.

I can tell you this, Johnny Miller had the best swing I ever saw in person.

Flat looks better i'll agree but as i said in a post long ago and even brought up at the GTE...how many players are in the hall of fame with flat swings?

A couple of hickory guys, and one or two others.

This is just like the bent left wrist at the top non-debate. :)

I don't know. . . how many? Is it really weighted toward the upright guys? I suppose the mystic of Hogan trumps actual numbers?

I maintain that Hogan was NOT FLAT, just short backswing-ed.

So what makes a flatter swing better for a player? What makes an upright swing better for a player? I'm curious because I never seem to get a clear answer on this question when I ask instructors I've seen.

I teach golfers a certain hand-path for their needs, but the top location just SEEKS a place where they can trace the right plane line for the disired bottom of the D-Plane path.

Form FOLLOWS function.

Why do some pitchers in baseball throw more side arm vs overhand (orthodox)?
How many pitchers in the baseball hall of fame through sidearm vs overhand(orthodox)? Don't know but I bet more through more overhand!

Just a thought

Matt

I thought having the arm on a 90° angle made for more speed.

Physics vs. Junk Physics.

In my opinion, with a flatter swing you can hit earlier because you're close to a low enough plane already and so under pressure getting quick is not so bad.

No.

What is your "striking plane" is the Turned Shoulder Plane.

Huh?

While with an upright plane you can have a more dynamic and powerful transition where you really bend the shaft and get some power but there is a timing element.

Timing and planes....

I don't see it.

Timing and downswing plane shifts, I see.

But, what if you are a TSP downswing guy.

Eh?

Also, upright swings tend to have a wider arc or, if not a wider arc, at least a longer arc of acceleration in the downswing and more time to generate some speed. Because of these attributes, upright swings by necessity tend to be a bit slower but that is ok because they have time to generate speed.

Like Sadlowski?

Rory Sabbatini?

Chew on this...Seriously???

Seriously.

Who says you CANT have an upright swing?

That would just be ridiculous.

Who says you CAN'T lean to the right a bit on the backswing?

Who says you CAN'T play well with a flat shoulder turn?

That is ridiculous.

However, this is DEFINITELY the first time I've ever heard Palmer described as an upright swinger.

You need to look at some good black and white video,a nd get your lines straight. ;)

Some great flat swingers I can think of off the top of my head are Moe, Hogan and Knudson. Probably each should be considered top 10 (if not top 5) ballstrikers of all time.

Moe. Normal Plane.

Hogan. Normal at times, short backswing at times. Flat at times.

Knudson, As orthodox as Homestyle Vanilla Blue Bell Ice Cream.

Something that I was thinking about is recently I've been re-reading TGM and Homer Kelley talks about if you use an angled hinge, an upright swing plane will make the angled hinge behave like a vertical hinge. The flatter swing plane will make the angled hinge behave like a horizontal hinge.

Horizontal Hinge Action does not exist.

It never did.


The Flat Swing Revolution...not.
 
Pardon my ignorance, but never heard of Rick Smith's "stuck behind me dance". I'm sure I've seen one of his videos at some stage, but don't remember that. Sounds hilarious.

Good comments and great collection of pictures. Some great left wrist positions in there too. Personally, also more proof that I should stop worrying about the flying right elbow.

I can see the appeal of a flat swing when it is sold as a method that doesn't require any timing, skill, practice, talent, etc. and when you're reading that sitting in an airport lounge, having last played a month ago and shot 82, it sounds great. I'm looking around for any reflective surface so I can practice my new backswing. I'll be swinging the club around my bum and back to scratch in no time! The reality is probably quite different and does need pointing out every now and then. Looking forward to the "upright swing edition"...
 
Oh Boy...again seriously???

Moving a little to the right is fine...
A flat shoulder turn is fine too...

As long as you get it straightened out on the downswing anything is acceptable as long as the purpose of the shot is achieved the most often. If you were playing golf to hit the ball far and straight to shoot the lowest score then I'm not sure why you would WANT to do either.

As for Palmer's swing being upright...we can all look at swings differently. If Palmer's first tilt included a shoulder turn of 20 degrees instead of 40 degrees or MORE his arm swing would look like Kuchar's, and then his AOA would be too acute just like Kuchar's is.

If I was developing a pattern to hit the ball farther the hands would be on or higher than the turned shoulder plane. Thus making them look very similar to some of the golfers you selected.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
La, da, da, de, de, de, da, da, da....

Oh Boy...again seriously???

Yup.

Moving a little to the right is fine...
A flat shoulder turn is fine too...

Yeah, ya'll teach it all the time. :rolleyes:


As long as you get it straightened out on the downswing anything is acceptable as long as the purpose of the shot is achieved the most often.

And as long as you get the hips to move out from under a left-leaning, no pull-back backswing, you won't smother-hook it on the left rough either.


If you were playing golf to hit the ball far and straight to shoot the lowest score then I'm not sure why you would WANT to do either.

We can debate that if you like, but for now, the flat vs. upright debate is...

Manzella 100
Flat-Lovers Goose Egg.

As for Palmer's swing being upright...we can all look at swings differently.

Thank God.

If I was developing a pattern to hit the ball farther the hands would be on or higher than the turned shoulder plane. Thus making them look very similar to some of the golfers you selected.

I would suggest in many cases, it would be straighter as well.

The history Books concur.
 
No.

What is your "striking plane" is the Turned Shoulder Plane.

Huh?



Timing and planes....

I don't see it.

Timing and downswing plane shifts, I see.

But, what if you are a TSP downswing guy.

Eh?



Like Sadlowski?

Rory Sabbatini?



Seriously.

The turned shoulder plane is by your definition lower than upright which would still require some timing to get the plane shift right.

As for Sadlowski and Sabbatini I'm not sure if you're in agreement with me or not. Sabbatini I think is fairly slow and Sadlowski maybe although he does have some anti-hook compensations to allow him to swing faster.

I really appreciate this thread. I've got a handy lead going into the last 36 of club champs and the guy I'm trying to beat made a wise crack about the "loop" in my swing last time I played so will be nice to beat him. He represented the State for years and is known widely as a great ballstriker. I've got him by 9 though so we should be ok. I'm up by 7 over everyone else but that 's only 1 more than Norman in 96... and I'm not Norman!
 
Imagine a frustrated but intelligent golfer who's been playing golf for a few years. He goes to his local pro in an attempt to build a more consistent and accurate swing. The pro tells him to flatten his swing because this will reduce unnecessary shifts and produce a tighter motion which will obviously lead to more accuracy. How do you explain to this golfer that less shift does not always = more accuracy?
 
None of your argument even makes sense anymore. Dean Wilson, Alex Cjeka, Bill Lunde, etc...don't have the model backswing and they would be consider students. Relative Translation Procedure. Changing their hand, shaft, and sweetspot plane has not been at the top of their list of faults. If you remember correctly...in an earlier post I just said there is nothing wrong with an upright plane! You can beat this to death all you want and claim to have somehow won with no valid argument, but there are way too many factors that are involved in hitting the ball FAR and STRAIGHT. Your preference is a more upright plane than mine. I teach players with a plane you would prefer, and I don't always change it.

As for the history books concurring with your argument...again I will tell you that we aren't looking at the swings in the same manner, and I concur with your quote of "thank god".;)

I know you prefer the pull-back backswing as opposed to whatever inaccurate name you have for not translating the axis of the shoulder turn.

I think part of where we differ is you see upright and I see long. You see great swings because they win tournaments, and I see great swings because they hit fairways and greens. I think its important for the ball to go straight or curve 3 yards to the left everytime, you don't. My stance is a preference for a backswing plane that is flatter than yours, but for the score to be 100 to goose egg would mean that you would never teach it to a golfer. Just another mans opinion.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Whoa.

None of your argument even makes sense anymore.

The "argument" is that upright backswings are all over the Hall of Fame, and current pop instruction fads don't like it.

I blow up silly arguments for a living.

This is another one.

Does that make sense.

Dean Wilson, Alex Cjeka, Bill Lunde, etc...don't have the model backswing and they would be consider students.

What on on earth are you talking about??


..in an earlier post I just said there is nothing wrong with an upright plane!

Good for you. :rolleyes:

This thread isn't about you, or "you guys," it is what it is, a RIP on flat-swing lovers who are also upright-swing haters.

You can beat this to death all you want and claim to have somehow won with no valid argument

My very valid argument is 499 PGA Tour Wins and 67 Majors, what is yours?

...there are way too many factors that are involved in hitting the ball FAR and STRAIGHT.

Really, this comes as news to me....:D

Your preference is a more upright plane than mine.

Really?

I don't much have a horse in the race.

I am the "custom fit" guy, you are the pattern guy.

I teach players with a plane you would prefer, and I don't always change it.

Thankfully for some of them.

As for the history books concurring with your argument...again I will tell you that we aren't looking at the swings in the same manner

That narrow little hole you are looking through might get bigger after a few thousand more lessons.

I know you prefer the pull-back backswing as opposed to whatever inaccurate name you have for not translating the axis of the shoulder turn.

I prefer what has worked in the past for the great players, with an eye to what works for my students, and my continued research.

Not reverse engineering.

As far an inaccurate names go, I'll take my communication skills and spot you two axis translations a side.

I think part of where we differ is you see upright and I see long.

Where we differ is simple.

You have never seen me teach.

I have.

You see great swings because they win tournaments, and I see great swings because they hit fairways and greens.

Hmmm....

I take the low scores.

I've went down that other road when you were playing for your sixth grade team.

I think its important for the ball to go straight or curve 3 yards to the left everytime, you don't.

You have NEVER SEEN ME TEACH.

You have no idea.

I zero folks out as much as anyone—ever.

Geez...

Brian Manzella, D-Plane King...

My stance is a preference for a backswing plane that is flatter than yours, but for the score to be 100 to goose egg would mean that you would never teach it to a golfer. Just another mans opinion.

Just like I have taught S&T 'cause that what they wanted, but you wouldn't teach NHA or NSA in a million years.

You should have come to the GTE.
 
To your main points...

Upright swings ARE all over the hall of fame...as ARE flat ones, and both are all over the tour also. That's not really much of a point.

Guess maybe there was an incorrect assumption on my part. I assumed you were considering the Plummer/Bennett method as a current pop instruction fad that this thread was pointed at??? If you werent then your dismay with golf instruction that is too rigid to accept variations in plane angles is spot on. Just asking for some clarification on which fad instruction patterns you believed had that absolute hater bias.

Struggling with the logic of winning versus hitting the ball on the fairway and green the most often. You say winning is what matters...why aren't the patterns carbons of only the best players then??? That is after all the point you are trying to make. Does short game and the way a player gets the ball in the hole really mean that little in how you perceive the swings that should be considered the best to draw inspiration???

Million years...sorry pro, I certainly would teach NHA AND NSA to someone if they ONLY wanted it. Why the age comments...Gary Wiren had been teaching for 30 years by the time you made it to 6th grade. Guess that must mean he REALLY knows the geometry of golf.

Honestly, wanted to come to the GTE as I explained in a private message to you. However, I was in Las Vegas on the driving range at the PGA Tour event and couldn't make it. Next time I will come and watch you teach...no joke.
 
Okay, I have only just started posting here, but have very much enjoyed my time lurking and reading what you all have to say, partly because it is not all ‘Ha! My stack and tilt style beats your natural golf style’ that you find elsewhere. People might favour a flat swing. That is no reason for hating upright swings or saying they are in some way technically inferior.

I don’t think that was the point of this thread. No right or wrong, just that there is nothing wrong with an upright swing. A lot of people struggle hitting down on the ball, so it would seem that some height in the backswing would be a good thing. Tournament results are not everything, but it certainly reinforces the message.

I can kind of see a point in the length of the backswing. Woods, to me, can look flat with a shorter iron swing now his hands are deeper, but the photo of his driver backswing looks more upright.

The pictured are all great players, but, arguably not all great swings. There are probably technically better swings on driving ranges all over the planet. We all know there is a lot more to golf than that, but the message is still pretty clear.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Got it now?

Upright swings ARE all over the hall of fame...as ARE flat ones, and both are all over the tour also. That's not really much of a point.

No, that is pretty much the point.

There are more "orthodox," on or very near the through the turned right shoulder socket plane golfers in the Hall of fame then there are ABOVE the turned right shoulder socket plane "upright" swings, and lots more than BELOW the turned right shoulder socket plane "flat" swings.

Where are the flat swing lovers Hall of Fame collage?

Right next to the one with the bent left wrists at the top. ;)

And...

The main point/thesis/what this is really about message is because of theoretical reasons only, there are more really flat swings on tour now than at any time since Hank Haney took the tour really flat in the mid-80's.

People forget how silly flat he had 'em swinging, but I remember.

It was a joke, and even he had to dump the goofy idea and jack up his boy O'Meara's backswing.

He never admitted he was wrong, but he did by default.

It was just a hem-line fad then, and I predict it is now as well.

I have taught dsome tour wannabes in the last year who were so flat, it hurt my feelings to find out they paid for it.

Guess maybe there was an incorrect assumption on my part. I assumed you were considering the Plummer/Bennett method as a current pop instruction fad that this thread was pointed at???

You guys have some really thin skin.

And blinders, apparently.

Lots of flat out there in high-end lesson-land—right now.

If you weren't, then your dismay with golf instruction that is too rigid to accept variations in plane angles, is spot on.

I know.

When you get someone 20 yards in 3 minutes with a 7-iron, just by getting them to lift their arms to a normal, orthodox plane, spot on is easy.


Just asking for some clarification on which fad instruction patterns you believed had that absolute hater bias.

I try as hard as I could NOT to mention other methodologies by name.

You did a pretty good job of turning your last post into a promo piece.

It might need some editing. :D

Struggling with the logic of winning versus hitting the ball on the fairway and green the most often.

Is this the party line?

I sure know that I have NEVER been accused of just going for lower scores, but.....I'll settle for it.

My goals for a student are always zeroed out TrackMan, perfect distance and trajectory control, kinetic chain snap graphs that look like a saber-tooth tiger, and a pure 9 shot short game.

I'll take my mutli-pattern, customized, change as little as possible approach against any rigid method any day.

Why the age comments...Gary Wiren had been teaching for 30 years by the time you made it to 6th grade. Guess that must mean he REALLY knows the geometry of golf.

You really need to go back and re-read that part of my post.

I was saying I went down the road of making swings work on the range a LONG TIME AGO.

Nothing about your geometry skills.

Dr. Aaron Zick knows more geometry than any silly golf teacher by miles and miles, but from the golfer's perspective, give me a golf instructor who can tell me what I am doing wrong, and show me how to fix it, not how to do a pattern.
 

vandal

New
I'll take my mutli-pattern, customized, change as little as possible approach against any rigid method any day.

You say this all the time, yet you bash other patterns as well. I don't get it. It's like saying people who like cherry pie have no taste, but my restaurant serves the best cherry pie in the world, so come get some.

Your logic is flawed as well. You can pile up as many examples as you like, but that does not make your logic any more valid. It's almost an Ad Populum appeal.

It doesn't really matter how many majors were won by these guys if the pattern doesn't work for an individual. Isn't that the essence of what you're always proclaiming? Why are you now becoming one of them?

Being a contrarian for contrarian's sake resolves nothing.

Have some of the greatest golfers swung upright? Of course. Does Tiger now? Does it matter? I can't swing like Tiger. Or Jack, Miller, Watson, Toms, Sneed, Singh.

Do some instructors advocate a flatter swing right now? Sure. Why? Who cares? Does it work for some? For all? Nothing works for all. That's your mantra.

The main thing I disagree on is that you have to shift your weight to the right to hit the ball well. And on this issue, you're almost exactly like all the other teachers out there -- you can't see the beauty of this concept because it goes against your own foundation.
 

roll - gybe

New member
What the frank is going on in this thread? Is this still about golf?

Who should move to a higher plane from a flatter plane? Is it based on ball flight or flaw symptoms? If the notion is that only one man's judgement can make that determination, I'm not sure what I am learning.

What hand path should be associated with that move to a higher path (any/none/something specific)?

What would be the advantages of this change? What would be the disadvantages?
 
Vandal and Clearwater,

When you're stuck teaching one or two patterns to all of your students, the odds of your long term success on the lesson tee are small. Homer Kelley had it right when he said that he had come up with a system that explained all methods.

I just don't understand the off shoots to The Golfing Machine (and currently The Golfing Machine itself) who tout a pattern that will be the panacea for golfdom.

Stack and Tilt
Morad
Tripod/LFT/Hitter
etc...

They pigeon hole themselves after Homer Kelley DIRECTLY told them not to.

"This book can support individual "MY Way" procedures but no "THE Way" theory"

WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS ABOVE LINE? - Even the book literalists disregard it when they are on the lesson tee.

No matter what the debate is - teaching multiple patterns (and i mean multiple) will trump the one pattern teacher EVERY SINGLE DAY. This is not even up for discussion.

So please, by all means, continue to debate with Brian about how you guys have discovered the "cure all pattern" and that the "revolution" is coming. All Brian will do is to continue to teach customized (but lawful) patterns to his students and ensure their long term success.
 

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Vandalism.

You say (you teach multiple, customized patterns) all the time, yet you bash other patterns as well.

I post a collage showing some of the best golfers of all time, looking NOTHING like pop-instruction top-of-the-backswings, and I am "pattern bashing"?

I have students with very upright swings—Lindsay Gahm & Michael Jacobs for example, and pretty darn flat ones as well, like all the folks who got some sort of "baby fade"-type pattern.

Am I bashing my own flatter patterns as well?

:rolleyes:

Your logic is flawed as well. You can pile up as many examples as you like, but that does not make your logic any more valid.

Are you high?

My logic is YOU CAN GET IN THE FRIGGIN' HALL OF FAME WITH AN UPRIGHT SWING, SO DON'T CHANGE IT JUST BECAUSE SOME METHOD TEACHER COMES WITH SOME FLAWED, JUNK PHYSICS.

That is flawed?

It doesn't really matter how many majors were won by these guys if the pattern doesn't work for an individual. Isn't that the essence of what you're always proclaiming? Why are you now becoming one of them?

You are making ZERO sense, and the only point you are making is that you must have a horse in this race.

Being a contrarian for contrarian's sake resolves nothing.

I always have a reason.

This thread reason was to give the silly pop-instruction flat is better crowd a history lesson.


Do some instructors advocate a flatter swing right now? Sure. Why? Who cares?

I care.

It is at least somewhat based on JUNK SCIENCE.


Does it work for some? For all? Nothing works for all. That's your mantra.

My mantra is fix 'em.

The main thing I disagree on is that you have to shift your weight to the right to hit the ball well. And on this issue, you're almost exactly like all the other teachers out there -- you can't see the beauty of this concept because it goes against your own foundation.

You have NO IDEA what the heck you are talking about.

I gave a dozen lessons at the GTE and never talked about weight once.

Why do you throw this "weight stuff" into this debate. Seems I have struck a nerve.

I'd love to debate the weight/pivot issue in another thread. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top