| |
Main
Date: 23 Aug 2006 03:54:03
From: bruce
Subject: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if so
how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus what
are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 09:39:53
From:
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
bruce wrote:
> has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if so
> how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus what
> are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
>
> I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
There is no two-plane swing.
There is a swing in which the arms and torso work together naturally,
formalized earliest and most clearly by Hogan.
Then there is a swing in which the arms cross the lines of the torso,
and a precise
series of compensations can allow decent shotmaking some of
the time.
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 22:28:55
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 23 Aug 2006 09:39:53 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>There is no two-plane swing.
Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club starts
on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
through the right shoulder position at the top.
However I have yet to see anyone use a one-plane swing and not even
Hardy teaches one. What he advocates is a single "plane angle" in
which the club stays parallel to the original plane established at
address but still shifts to another plane. To be a one-plane swing
the player would have to keep the club on the same plane established
at address.
>There is a swing in which the arms and torso work together naturally,
>formalized earliest and most clearly by Hogan.
The plane isn't defined by the arms and torso.
>Then there is a swing in which the arms cross the lines of the torso,
>and a precise
>series of compensations can allow decent shotmaking some of
>the time.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 17:59:39
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:u2ipe299rt0at7bt3omuh4pvq3se73g9nm@4ax.com...
> On 23 Aug 2006 09:39:53 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>There is no two-plane swing.
>
> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club starts
> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
> through the right shoulder position at the top.> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982
I'd like to argue that there is no one plane swing, there is no 2 plane
swing, there is only a swing that has the club go through *multiple planes*
as it elevates above parallel.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 02:04:46
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:59:39 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com >
wrote:
>>>There is no two-plane swing.
>>
>> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club starts
>> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
>> through the right shoulder position at the top.> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
>> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
>> TB-8982
>
>I'd like to argue that there is no one plane swing, there is no 2 plane
>swing, there is only a swing that has the club go through *multiple planes*
>as it elevates above parallel.
This is a more precise way of looking at it; The club doesn't swing
on a plane, it swings on more if a curved path as Dr. Mann pointed
out. I agree with him on this because I've analyzed countless swings
when I was learning all this TGM stuff and if you put a dot on the
clubhead frame for frame and then connect the dots they don't form a
straight line, they follow a slight curve.
Planes are named according to the reference points on which they are
set. As an example, the hands plane would be a plane that was resting
on the hands, a shoulder plane would be a plane resting on the
shoulders. If a player is said to be using a shoulder plane the curve
of the clubs path will pass through the shoulder. If the player is
said to be using an elbow plane the curve of the clubs path will pass
through the elbow.
So to sum it up, the club follows a path and that path will pass
through a point the plane uses as a reference.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 20:05:48
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:r01qe25thr6ngvhm75of60hhilh1vlb1r8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:59:39 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>There is no two-plane swing.
>>>
>>> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club starts
>>> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
>>> through the right shoulder position at the top.> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
>>> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
>>> TB-8982
>>
>>I'd like to argue that there is no one plane swing, there is no 2 plane
>>swing, there is only a swing that has the club go through *multiple
>>planes*
>>as it elevates above parallel.
>
> This is a more precise way of looking at it; The club doesn't swing
> on a plane, it swings on more if a curved path as Dr. Mann pointed
> out. I agree with him on this because I've analyzed countless swings
> when I was learning all this TGM stuff and if you put a dot on the
> clubhead frame for frame and then connect the dots they don't form a
> straight line, they follow a slight curve.
>
> Planes are named according to the reference points on which they are
> set. As an example, the hands plane would be a plane that was resting
> on the hands, a shoulder plane would be a plane resting on the
> shoulders. If a player is said to be using a shoulder plane the curve
> of the clubs path will pass through the shoulder. If the player is
> said to be using an elbow plane the curve of the clubs path will pass
> through the elbow.
>
> So to sum it up, the club follows a path and that path will pass
> through a point the plane uses as a reference.
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982
I've followed your earlier comments on this as well, then studied the
geometry from TGM.
In A Nutshell:
If the base of the plane is a straight line, then....
Then the higher the arms elevate the club, the shaft * must * become
steeper to continue to point to the baseline of the plane.
bg
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:37:50
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:05:48 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com >
wrote:
>I've followed your earlier comments on this as well, then studied the
>geometry from TGM.
>In A Nutshell:
>If the base of the plane is a straight line, then....
>Then the higher the arms elevate the club, the shaft * must * become
>steeper to continue to point to the baseline of the plane.
7-7: during any shifts of planes the clubshaft is held on plane with
the plane line as though the plane itself were moving to the new
location.
Do you have a copy of the 7th edition yet?
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 09:10:01
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2006 15:03:58 -0700, "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >And that is the reason many, many very good players refuse to look at
> >their swings on video.
>
> How many current Tour players are among this "many, many"?
Who cares? I really think what "current tour players" do -- or seem
to do as we watch them is almost completely irrelevant to amateur
golf--especially high handicap amateur golf. Those young guys are so
far ahead of us that they can't even relate to our problems--nor can
they offer workable solutions. It is like a professor in advanced
calculus trying to teach first grade numbers or counting or whatever
they call it. He would be helpless to help the children learn.
Back to basics. I think what most amateurs, even low handicappers,
need to realize is that achieving accuracy and consistency in golf is
no different than achieving those same effects in other sports. If we
want to throw a strike in baseball, we back off the effort level to get
it there-- we DON'T throw it as hard as we can! Same in bowling,
tennis serving, basketball free-throw shooting, and dozens of other
skills. We learn that we must moderate our effort level to achieve
accuracy. Only in beginner golf does the student stupidly exert 'all
out' effort trying to achieve maximum distance-- and of course he pays
the price in wildly inaccurate shots-- slices and pull-hooks, mishits,
etc. Some never learn to quit doing that.
Target line accuracy in golf is very simple-- it requires that the club
be synchronized with our body at impact, i.e. that we return the club
to the ball like we took it away. The clubhead will be aligned to the
target and the ball will go straight. But we start mishitting and
hitting them off the target line as we increase the effort level to the
point that we cannot maintain synchronization-- we lose muscle
coordination in our effort to achieve distance.
I suggest everyone go to the range and hit any club enough times to
learn what effort level is too much-- that is when they start going
sideways and/or you start mishitting the ball. Find the effort level
in which you can hit 10 crisp shots straight. Below that is the
effort level you should play if you want to hit fairways and greens.
If the distance you achieve with that level is shorter than your
previous expectations, so be it. Simply adjust-- use longer irons as
necessary-- but NEVER swing so hard that you lose sync-- and look
stupid again.
Remember that really good golfers have learned this simple principle--
and when they see a high handicapper swing out of his shoes and hit it
up into the houses or into the lake-- he thinks, 'stupid.!'
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 00:22:09
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 25 Aug 2006 09:10:01 -0700, "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>no different than achieving those same effects in other sports. If we
>want to throw a strike in baseball, we back off the effort level to get
>it there-- we DON'T throw it as hard as we can! Same in bowling,
>tennis serving, basketball free-throw shooting,
Interesting! How does one back off in free-throw shooting for
accuracy?
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com
Kinky for Texas Gov
"Why The Hell Not"
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 00:25:50
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 25 Aug 2006 09:10:01 -0700, "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>> >And that is the reason many, many very good players refuse to look at
>> >their swings on video.
>>
>> How many current Tour players are among this "many, many"?
>
>Who cares? I really think what "current tour players" do -- or seem
>to do as we watch them is almost completely irrelevant to amateur
>golf--especially high handicap amateur golf.
I can use as playing role models, the good players who are members of
my Men's Club, or players I see on TV. Having someone on the
Internet name "many, many very good players" that I haven't had a
chance to see isn't very useful. Different people have different
needs, strengths, and weaknesses.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 00:09:04
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
It's more important to seing the grip, isn't it than to worry about the
crazy things a clubhead does? When you look at the photos with time lapse
photography the clubhead looks like a 4 plane roller coaster.
"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:u2ipe299rt0at7bt3omuh4pvq3se73g9nm@4ax.com...
> On 23 Aug 2006 09:39:53 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>There is no two-plane swing.
>
> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club starts
> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
> through the right shoulder position at the top.
>
> However I have yet to see anyone use a one-plane swing and not even
> Hardy teaches one. What he advocates is a single "plane angle" in
> which the club stays parallel to the original plane established at
> address but still shifts to another plane. To be a one-plane swing
> the player would have to keep the club on the same plane established
> at address.
>
>>There is a swing in which the arms and torso work together naturally,
>>formalized earliest and most clearly by Hogan.
>
> The plane isn't defined by the arms and torso.
>
>>Then there is a swing in which the arms cross the lines of the torso,
>>and a precise
>>series of compensations can allow decent shotmaking some of
>>the time.
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:46:28
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
I meant 'swing' the grip. Who is it that uses this phrase, anyway? A famous
teacher, I think. Was it Harvey Pennick?
"AKA Gray Asphalt 2" <goodidea1950_SPM_@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:UhcHg.14317$lv.856@fed1read12...
>
> It's more important to seing the grip, isn't it than to worry about the
> crazy things a clubhead does? When you look at the photos with time lapse
> photography the clubhead looks like a 4 plane roller coaster.
>
> "David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:u2ipe299rt0at7bt3omuh4pvq3se73g9nm@4ax.com...
>> On 23 Aug 2006 09:39:53 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>There is no two-plane swing.
>>
>> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club starts
>> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
>> through the right shoulder position at the top.
>>
>> However I have yet to see anyone use a one-plane swing and not even
>> Hardy teaches one. What he advocates is a single "plane angle" in
>> which the club stays parallel to the original plane established at
>> address but still shifts to another plane. To be a one-plane swing
>> the player would have to keep the club on the same plane established
>> at address.
>>
>>>There is a swing in which the arms and torso work together naturally,
>>>formalized earliest and most clearly by Hogan.
>>
>> The plane isn't defined by the arms and torso.
>>
>>>Then there is a swing in which the arms cross the lines of the torso,
>>>and a precise
>>>series of compensations can allow decent shotmaking some of
>>>the time.
>>
>>
>>
>> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
>> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
>> TB-8982
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 19:10:29
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
When talking about the swing plane, I wonder if David Ledbetter's comment
that eventually swings will start from what is now the last half of the
downswing, ie with the arms waist high and the hands fully cocked, with no
backswing, has any implications for the 'plane' contraversy.
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 21:46:59
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
glfnaz wrote:
> "Dave Clary" <dclary@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:qg8qe29cjd2no9kj64q8tn7opdf83jvc1n@4ax.com...
> > On 23 Aug 2006 20:25:27 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
> > <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, but... you don't have to swing that way. At my GolfTec lesson
> >>they showed me a swing of Tiger's at the 3/4 position where the
> >>shaft is parallel to the shaft address plane. That's what Haney
> >>teaches, and I guess Tiger has jumped onboard. I'll see if I can
> >>dig up a photo.
> >
> > This is one point in time so you can't tell where the club shaft is
> > relative to the position at address. But you can see that his left
> > arm isn't "lifting" above the shoulder plane, and that his hand are
> > behind him.
> >
> > http://davidclary.com/tiger.jpg
> >
> >
> > Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
>
> At address--That shaft was through his belt buckle.
> See the plane shift?
No one disputes that the plane shifts near the top. The position
I was talking about is earlier, when the left arm is close to
being horizontal to the ground.
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 21:30:06
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
glfnaz wrote:
> "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156389927.509662.253510@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > glfnaz wrote:
> >> "David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:r01qe25thr6ngvhm75of60hhilh1vlb1r8@4ax.com...
> >> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:59:39 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>>There is no two-plane swing.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club
> >> >>> starts
> >> >>> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
> >> >>> through the right shoulder position at the top.> David Laville,
> >> >>> G.S.E.M.
> >> >>> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> >> >>> TB-8982
> >> >>
> >> >>I'd like to argue that there is no one plane swing, there is no 2 plane
> >> >>swing, there is only a swing that has the club go through *multiple
> >> >>planes*
> >> >>as it elevates above parallel.
> >> >
> >> > This is a more precise way of looking at it; The club doesn't swing
> >> > on a plane, it swings on more if a curved path as Dr. Mann pointed
> >> > out. I agree with him on this because I've analyzed countless swings
> >> > when I was learning all this TGM stuff and if you put a dot on the
> >> > clubhead frame for frame and then connect the dots they don't form a
> >> > straight line, they follow a slight curve.
> >> >
> >> > Planes are named according to the reference points on which they are
> >> > set. As an example, the hands plane would be a plane that was resting
> >> > on the hands, a shoulder plane would be a plane resting on the
> >> > shoulders. If a player is said to be using a shoulder plane the curve
> >> > of the clubs path will pass through the shoulder. If the player is
> >> > said to be using an elbow plane the curve of the clubs path will pass
> >> > through the elbow.
> >> >
> >> > So to sum it up, the club follows a path and that path will pass
> >> > through a point the plane uses as a reference.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> >> > The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> >> > TB-8982
> >>
> >> I've followed your earlier comments on this as well, then studied the
> >> geometry from TGM.
> >> In A Nutshell:
> >> If the base of the plane is a straight line, then....
> >> Then the higher the arms elevate the club, the shaft * must * become
> >> steeper to continue to point to the baseline of the plane.
> >> bg
> >
> > Yes, but... you don't have to swing that way. At my GolfTec lesson
> > they showed me a swing of Tiger's at the 3/4 position where the
> > shaft is parallel to the shaft address plane. That's what Haney
> > teaches, and I guess Tiger has jumped onboard. I'll see if I can
> > dig up a photo.
> >
>
> F L A T and off -plane, and Tiger does not swing that way.
> Neither does poster boy O'Meara.
> Kellie Kehnie comes clos....and where is she today?
> I'm not going to argue this to death, but, if the shaft is parallel to
> adress at 3/4, it's off plane; and Tiger isn't there. He just isn't. You're
> a good guy Bill, but you'll need to show me that for me to believe.
> Be well.
> bg
His old swing wasn't like that, I agree. But I've seen it, I swear.
You'd have to look at recent clips. Parallel to the shaft address
plane, and only slightly off it. And he wasn't the only pro they
showed doing it. I don't have access to their clips, unfortunately,
but If I get ambitious, I'll download some swings from the PGA off
my DVR, and see what it looks like. Maybe this weekend.
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 20:25:27
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
glfnaz wrote:
> "David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:r01qe25thr6ngvhm75of60hhilh1vlb1r8@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:59:39 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>>There is no two-plane swing.
> >>>
> >>> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club starts
> >>> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
> >>> through the right shoulder position at the top.> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> >>> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> >>> TB-8982
> >>
> >>I'd like to argue that there is no one plane swing, there is no 2 plane
> >>swing, there is only a swing that has the club go through *multiple
> >>planes*
> >>as it elevates above parallel.
> >
> > This is a more precise way of looking at it; The club doesn't swing
> > on a plane, it swings on more if a curved path as Dr. Mann pointed
> > out. I agree with him on this because I've analyzed countless swings
> > when I was learning all this TGM stuff and if you put a dot on the
> > clubhead frame for frame and then connect the dots they don't form a
> > straight line, they follow a slight curve.
> >
> > Planes are named according to the reference points on which they are
> > set. As an example, the hands plane would be a plane that was resting
> > on the hands, a shoulder plane would be a plane resting on the
> > shoulders. If a player is said to be using a shoulder plane the curve
> > of the clubs path will pass through the shoulder. If the player is
> > said to be using an elbow plane the curve of the clubs path will pass
> > through the elbow.
> >
> > So to sum it up, the club follows a path and that path will pass
> > through a point the plane uses as a reference.
> >
> >
> > David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> > The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> > TB-8982
>
> I've followed your earlier comments on this as well, then studied the
> geometry from TGM.
> In A Nutshell:
> If the base of the plane is a straight line, then....
> Then the higher the arms elevate the club, the shaft * must * become
> steeper to continue to point to the baseline of the plane.
> bg
Yes, but... you don't have to swing that way. At my GolfTec lesson
they showed me a swing of Tiger's at the 3/4 position where the
shaft is parallel to the shaft address plane. That's what Haney
teaches, and I guess Tiger has jumped onboard. I'll see if I can
dig up a photo.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 22:53:53
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 23 Aug 2006 20:25:27 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote:
>Yes, but... you don't have to swing that way. At my GolfTec lesson
>they showed me a swing of Tiger's at the 3/4 position where the
>shaft is parallel to the shaft address plane. That's what Haney
>teaches, and I guess Tiger has jumped onboard. I'll see if I can
>dig up a photo.
This is one point in time so you can't tell where the club shaft is
relative to the position at address. But you can see that his left
arm isn't "lifting" above the shoulder plane, and that his hand are
behind him.
http://davidclary.com/tiger.jpg
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com
Kinky for Texas Gov
"Why The Hell Not"
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 20:59:24
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
"Dave Clary" <dclary@stx.rr.com > wrote in message
news:qg8qe29cjd2no9kj64q8tn7opdf83jvc1n@4ax.com...
> On 23 Aug 2006 20:25:27 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
> <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, but... you don't have to swing that way. At my GolfTec lesson
>>they showed me a swing of Tiger's at the 3/4 position where the
>>shaft is parallel to the shaft address plane. That's what Haney
>>teaches, and I guess Tiger has jumped onboard. I'll see if I can
>>dig up a photo.
>
> This is one point in time so you can't tell where the club shaft is
> relative to the position at address. But you can see that his left
> arm isn't "lifting" above the shoulder plane, and that his hand are
> behind him.
>
> http://davidclary.com/tiger.jpg
>
>
> Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
At address--That shaft was through his belt buckle.
See the plane shift?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 20:49:14
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156389927.509662.253510@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> glfnaz wrote:
>> "David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:r01qe25thr6ngvhm75of60hhilh1vlb1r8@4ax.com...
>> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:59:39 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>There is no two-plane swing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club
>> >>> starts
>> >>> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
>> >>> through the right shoulder position at the top.> David Laville,
>> >>> G.S.E.M.
>> >>> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
>> >>> TB-8982
>> >>
>> >>I'd like to argue that there is no one plane swing, there is no 2 plane
>> >>swing, there is only a swing that has the club go through *multiple
>> >>planes*
>> >>as it elevates above parallel.
>> >
>> > This is a more precise way of looking at it; The club doesn't swing
>> > on a plane, it swings on more if a curved path as Dr. Mann pointed
>> > out. I agree with him on this because I've analyzed countless swings
>> > when I was learning all this TGM stuff and if you put a dot on the
>> > clubhead frame for frame and then connect the dots they don't form a
>> > straight line, they follow a slight curve.
>> >
>> > Planes are named according to the reference points on which they are
>> > set. As an example, the hands plane would be a plane that was resting
>> > on the hands, a shoulder plane would be a plane resting on the
>> > shoulders. If a player is said to be using a shoulder plane the curve
>> > of the clubs path will pass through the shoulder. If the player is
>> > said to be using an elbow plane the curve of the clubs path will pass
>> > through the elbow.
>> >
>> > So to sum it up, the club follows a path and that path will pass
>> > through a point the plane uses as a reference.
>> >
>> >
>> > David Laville, G.S.E.M.
>> > The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
>> > TB-8982
>>
>> I've followed your earlier comments on this as well, then studied the
>> geometry from TGM.
>> In A Nutshell:
>> If the base of the plane is a straight line, then....
>> Then the higher the arms elevate the club, the shaft * must * become
>> steeper to continue to point to the baseline of the plane.
>> bg
>
> Yes, but... you don't have to swing that way. At my GolfTec lesson
> they showed me a swing of Tiger's at the 3/4 position where the
> shaft is parallel to the shaft address plane. That's what Haney
> teaches, and I guess Tiger has jumped onboard. I'll see if I can
> dig up a photo.
>
F L A T and off -plane, and Tiger does not swing that way.
Neither does poster boy O'Meara.
Kellie Kehnie comes clos....and where is she today?
I'm not going to argue this to death, but, if the shaft is parallel to
adress at 3/4, it's off plane; and Tiger isn't there. He just isn't. You're
a good guy Bill, but you'll need to show me that for me to believe.
Be well.
bg
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:37:23
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 23 Aug 2006 20:25:27 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote:
>Yes, but... you don't have to swing that way. At my GolfTec lesson
>they showed me a swing of Tiger's at the 3/4 position where the
>shaft is parallel to the shaft address plane. That's what Haney
>teaches, and I guess Tiger has jumped onboard. I'll see if I can
>dig up a photo.
I have Haney's book "The Only Golf Lesson You'll Ever Need" published
in 1999 and he shows this "parallel to the shaft address plane"
position. It's been around for several years.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 19:58:43
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing-To Birdie Bill
|
OK, I see where I miss read your post. I thought you meant Tigers shaft at
3/4 was "on" the original address plane, not simply parellel. My bad.
bg
"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:6hase2l5rsuaidfte8le6aag4q4di8f0bs@4ax.com...
> On 23 Aug 2006 20:25:27 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
> <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, but... you don't have to swing that way. At my GolfTec lesson
>>they showed me a swing of Tiger's at the 3/4 position where the
>>shaft is parallel to the shaft address plane. That's what Haney
>>teaches, and I guess Tiger has jumped onboard. I'll see if I can
>>dig up a photo.
>
> I have Haney's book "The Only Golf Lesson You'll Ever Need" published
> in 1999 and he shows this "parallel to the shaft address plane"
> position. It's been around for several years.
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 17:31:28
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
David Laville wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2006 09:39:53 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >There is no two-plane swing.
>
> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club starts
> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
> through the right shoulder position at the top.
>
> However I have yet to see anyone use a one-plane swing and not even
> Hardy teaches one. What he advocates is a single "plane angle" in
> which the club stays parallel to the original plane established at
> address but still shifts to another plane. To be a one-plane swing
> the player would have to keep the club on the same plane established
> at address.
>
> >There is a swing in which the arms and torso work together naturally,
> >formalized earliest and most clearly by Hogan.
>
> The plane isn't defined by the arms and torso.
>
> >Then there is a swing in which the arms cross the lines of the torso,
> >and a precise
> >series of compensations can allow decent shotmaking some of
> >the time.
Hardy is careful about defining exactly what he means by "one plane"
and "two plane", and it isn't the definition that people commonly
assume.
I don't remember his definition exctly, but I think it is something
like: in a one plane swing the shoulders rotate on the same angle
as the clubshaft, and in a two plane system system they differ.
Clary can quote it better, since he's studied it more.
As long as you are willing to accept Hardy's definition, then there are
definitely one plane, and two plane swings. Hardy never pretends
that, in his definition of a one plane swing, that the clubshaft stays
in the same plane, mathematically speaking, throughout the swing.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 22:26:36
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 23 Aug 2006 17:31:28 -0700, "Birdie Bill"
<bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>I don't remember his definition exctly, but I think it is something
>like: in a one plane swing the shoulders rotate on the same angle
>as the clubshaft, and in a two plane system system they differ.
>Clary can quote it better, since he's studied it more.
That's basically it. Because of the difference in the stance he
advocates for his one-plane swing (more bent over and away from the
ball), the shoulders will rotate on a steeper angle than someone
standing more upright. Then the idea is to swing the club on a path
that is parallel to that plane. As you say below, it's never going to
be on the same plane unless you take some kind of single-axis grip and
extend both arms straight. And if you look at people who claim to be
one-plane swingers, I'm sure you will invariably find that they don't
match the shoulder plane exactly. But I think in focusing on the "is
it or isn't it one plane" aspect of this, one may overlook other parts
of his take on the swing that are important. The big change to my
swing due to incorporating this is that I am now firmly in the "big
muscle" camp--at least the ones above the waist. This is a swing
powered by the turning of the torso and depends on being "connected"
and using a "dead" arms and hands approach. I know I've mentioned
this before but you can find old threads where Randy was spouting his
Ballard-inspired drine and I was quick to say there was another way
according to Toski, Flick and others. But now I find that I'm much
less likely to hold off the release if I just keep the hand and arms
out of it and let my torso turn do the work.
The other thing is that he calls for a sequenced take away as opposed
to a one piece. There's no "keeping the club in front of you." So
there's a lot more to it than arguing over definitions of planes.
>
>As long as you are willing to accept Hardy's definition, then there are
>definitely one plane, and two plane swings. Hardy never pretends
>that, in his definition of a one plane swing, that the clubshaft stays
>in the same plane, mathematically speaking, throughout the swing.
One thing that I do believe is that you can come real close to
swinging without a plane shift with this approach. By keeping the
head still, and incorporating little or no lateral shift, you can come
close to having the shaft travel up and back on the same path. That's
basically what I try to do although I'm sure video would show that I
don't really do that.
One thing I would like to do now is go back and read the LAWS book
again (but I can't find my copy). But I'm betting that if you go back
and read their description of the Leverage swing, you will find a lot
in common with Hardy's 1P--especially the part about rotary motion and
getting the club behind you. And the Arc swing is you classic
2-plane--very high hands. I need to poll the golfers and work and see
which one of those guys didn't return my book! :-)
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com
Kinky for Texas Gov
"Why The Hell Not"
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 20:56:30
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
"Dave Clary" <dclary@stx.rr.com > wrote in message
news:qn5qe2tk8g4kobomvgea98u0lldgdb7957@4ax.com...
> Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
> Home: http://davidclary.com
> Kinky for Texas Gov
> "Why The Hell Not"
Dave.
One of the problems with this arguement is that geometric TGM'ers discuss
'plane' as the shaft.
But Hardy discusses "plane" as a shoulder / arm issue.
This is an arguement that is a waste of time.
A reference needs to be set.
BTW--my son's team won the Triple Crown Cub Baseball World Series last year,
and got 5th Nationally this year. Fun.
http://www.desertfirebirds.com/
If you click to 'albums', my son is holding the MVP trophy for the 10U
Easter National Championship pic at the top.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:38:01
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:56:30 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com >
wrote:
>One of the problems with this arguement is that geometric TGM'ers discuss
>'plane' as the shaft.
>But Hardy discusses "plane" as a shoulder / arm issue.
>This is an arguement that is a waste of time.
>A reference needs to be set.
This is one problem I have. Almost everyone I know in the golf world
uses "plane" to describe the flat tilted surface the clubhead swings
on. Hardy comes along and uses "plane" in a completely different
context that suits his needs.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 00:11:04
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
If you had a choice to have either "one plane/ two plane swing" video or
"the stretching video" that has Gary Player and Arnold Palmer endorsing it
for no money ... I'm going to buy the stretching one first, but Little Pro,
and One Plane are on the list. I can't give any good reason why I haven't
read "SLAP". I should.
"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156379488.475380.111680@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> David Laville wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2006 09:39:53 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >There is no two-plane swing.
>>
>> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club starts
>> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
>> through the right shoulder position at the top.
>>
>> However I have yet to see anyone use a one-plane swing and not even
>> Hardy teaches one. What he advocates is a single "plane angle" in
>> which the club stays parallel to the original plane established at
>> address but still shifts to another plane. To be a one-plane swing
>> the player would have to keep the club on the same plane established
>> at address.
>>
>> >There is a swing in which the arms and torso work together naturally,
>> >formalized earliest and most clearly by Hogan.
>>
>> The plane isn't defined by the arms and torso.
>>
>> >Then there is a swing in which the arms cross the lines of the torso,
>> >and a precise
>> >series of compensations can allow decent shotmaking some of
>> >the time.
>
> Hardy is careful about defining exactly what he means by "one plane"
> and "two plane", and it isn't the definition that people commonly
> assume.
>
> I don't remember his definition exctly, but I think it is something
> like: in a one plane swing the shoulders rotate on the same angle
> as the clubshaft, and in a two plane system system they differ.
> Clary can quote it better, since he's studied it more.
>
> As long as you are willing to accept Hardy's definition, then there are
> definitely one plane, and two plane swings. Hardy never pretends
> that, in his definition of a one plane swing, that the clubshaft stays
> in the same plane, mathematically speaking, throughout the swing.
>
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 15:43:21
From:
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
bruce wrote:
> has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if so
> how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus what
> are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
>
> I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
I tend to use both of them. Short irons I like two plane because I
like the feeling of taking the club back with the clubhead in back of
the ball. The one plane is too hard to control for me on that aspect.
The one plane doesn't necessarily have to be real flat, and I try to
use it that way. All in all though, I think there are more aspects
worth concentrating on during the swing than being too absorbed about
plane.
CJ
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 22:28:55
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:54:03 GMT, "bruce" <buyede@shaw.ca > wrote:
>has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if so
>how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus what
>are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
>
>I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
Give it time. I saw the infomercial and how he wants you to take the
right arm and elbow back. Disaster.
You'll be back to the two-plane swing. I remember when Natural Golf
came out. Everybody trying it was almost breaking par the first time
they used it (or so they claimed). Funny thing is I can't find anyone
using it anymore.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 00:07:12
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
"David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:4jipe25idg0gh668nue8uo28a1qtcimgn4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:54:03 GMT, "bruce" <buyede@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if
>>so
>>how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus
>>what
>>are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
>>
>>I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
>
> Give it time. I saw the infomercial and how he wants you to take the
> right arm and elbow back. Disaster.
>
> You'll be back to the two-plane swing. I remember when Natural Golf
> came out. Everybody trying it was almost breaking par the first time
> they used it (or so they claimed). Funny thing is I can't find anyone
> using it anymore.
>
>
>
> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> TB-8982
The guy from the golf channel used to be "natural golf" ... what's his name?
Is he still?
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 09:13:41
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
> Misinterpretation.
>
> Hogan didn't use video analysis. Trying to interpret his teachings
> through
> video analysis is not a straightforward application.
Gobblygook.
It doesn't matter if Hogan used video. It's quite simple--there are
instances where his book says to do something, yet video analysis of
his swing shows that he didn't do what he said in the book. Catch
McLean's show on The Golf Channel when it comes around again.
Dave
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 08:34:58
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
bruce wrote:
> has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if so
> how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus what
> are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
>
> I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
Someone should ask Allen Doyle what plane/s he uses. Ridiculous.
Just swing the clubhead through the ball and over something a foot of
so in front of the ball-- there is no need to even think about what is
happening behind you-- If the ball doesn't go straight you either
missed the ball or the object in front. Slow down and make it happen
and every ball will go straight. "Not rocket science" as they say.
http://www.megspace.com/sports/moetown/videos/doyle_clip.html
larry
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 16:39:51
From: Ernie
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
In article <1156433698.882583.84980@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> bruce wrote:
> > has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if so
> > how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus what
> > are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
> >
> > I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
>
> Someone should ask Allen Doyle what plane/s he uses. Ridiculous.
>
> Just swing the clubhead through the ball and over something a foot of
> so in front of the ball-- there is no need to even think about what is
> happening behind you-- If the ball doesn't go straight you either
> missed the ball or the object in front. Slow down and make it happen
> and every ball will go straight. "Not rocket science" as they say.
>
> http://www.megspace.com/sports/moetown/videos/doyle_clip.html
>
> larry
So how long do you think this one-true-secret will last, Larry? And why
should we believe you when you inevitably say "forever" when you've said
the same about so many other one-true-secrets previously?
And while I'm asking questions, how is it that you claimed to have shot
a 76 at the beginning of the month, but actually posted a 78? And are
the scores that IDC shows *actual* scores, or the score adjusted after
ESC? From what I can see, they are post-ESC, so the chances are that
your 78 was actually even higher...
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 07:05:02
From:
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
Dave Clary wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2006 04:01:08 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
> >I wouldn't refer to the swing teachings of the greatest
> >ball-striker of all time, the single most influential teaching
> >book in the history of golf, as a "fad". As Hogan notes, the
> >one-plane swing is very non-intuitive and requires much
> >practice. His book was published in 1957, nearly 50 years
> >ago, and is still a dominant force in teaching golf! Arnie
> >and Jack and Trevino and Tiger have all come, and Hogan's
> >book still stands as the best teaching book.
>
> Yet it has been shown through video analysis that Hogan didn't
> actually do what he says in the book in many cases.
>
Misinterpretation.
Hogan didn't use video analysis. Trying to interpret his teachings
through
video analysis is not a straightforward application.
For example. Hogan says keep the upper right arm near the
chest, with the elbow neither sliding up or rearward relative
to the chest wall, on the backswing, and to keep the two elbows
as close together as possible during the backswing.
These two very clear teachings lead to a swing plane that is
notably flatter than the glass pane concept in the book. Of course
Hogan also says flatter than the pane of glass is better than
more upright, but he was clearly a lot flatter.
Some video for entertainment...
http://www.beauproductions.com/golfswingsws/benhogan/main.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMme63rleag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfT88wW2cJ0
In the last one you can also note Gary Player making some
of the same analogies about the position of the right elbow and
the increased consistency that comes with it in Hogan's position.
Don't shatter the glass!
-PA
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 05:19:18
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
bruce wrote:
> has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if so
> how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus what
> are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
>
> I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
With all due respect, one cannot just "change" their swing like a
lightswitch. Some of the smallest moves take weeks and several
lessons to embed, and you're talking about a major change.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 02:11:17
From: bruce
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
i spent 3 days at the golf range, hitting 100 balls each time, and played
two rounds so far. i ended up scoring 86 and 87, while normally i would
shoot 93 or 95. On my second round i hit 10 of 14 fairways, and 8 of 18
greens, before changing i would hit an average of 3 to 4 fairways, and the
same amount of greens. if this can take 7 to 8 strokes a round off that
would be totally awessome.
bruce
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156421958.414128.257960@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
bruce wrote:
> has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if
> so
> how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus
> what
> are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
>
> I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
With all due respect, one cannot just "change" their swing like a
lightswitch. Some of the smallest moves take weeks and several
lessons to embed, and you're talking about a major change.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 02:17:01
From: bruce
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
before i used to hook the ball especially as the clubs got longer, but in
my last round i hooked the ball only once, and hit the ball straight or a
slight push, and i feel i pushed the ball, because my shoulders didn't come
through fast enough.
bruce
"bruce" <buyede@shaw.ca > wrote in message
news:9%sHg.452547$Mn5.413539@pd7tw3no...
i spent 3 days at the golf range, hitting 100 balls each time, and played
two rounds so far. i ended up scoring 86 and 87, while normally i would
shoot 93 or 95. On my second round i hit 10 of 14 fairways, and 8 of 18
greens, before changing i would hit an average of 3 to 4 fairways, and the
same amount of greens. if this can take 7 to 8 strokes a round off that
would be totally awessome.
bruce
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1156421958.414128.257960@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
bruce wrote:
> has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if
> so
> how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus
> what
> are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
>
> I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
With all due respect, one cannot just "change" their swing like a
lightswitch. Some of the smallest moves take weeks and several
lessons to embed, and you're talking about a major change.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 23:06:36
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:11:17 GMT, "bruce" <buyede@shaw.ca > wrote:
>i spent 3 days at the golf range, hitting 100 balls each time, and played
>two rounds so far. i ended up scoring 86 and 87, while normally i would
>shoot 93 or 95. On my second round i hit 10 of 14 fairways, and 8 of 18
>greens, before changing i would hit an average of 3 to 4 fairways, and the
>same amount of greens. if this can take 7 to 8 strokes a round off that
>would be totally awessome.
Did you improve as a result of the swing or because you spent 3 days
at the range practicing?
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 18:40:42
From:
Subject: Re: one plane virus 2 plane swing
|
>has anyone changed to a 2 plane
=3D=3D=3D=3D
no, but I'm contemplating it, I have always admired Couples'' swing. it
seems to be a mini-gem swing.
and a swing of this type appears to generate more power than the smooth
single-wing downswing, and at the same time helps to nullify any
tendency to chili-dip.
when you change swing planes on the downswing it is like shifting into
second gear. everyone should become a bi-planer.
>mho
>v fe
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"d R i V e =A0L e $ s"
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 04:01:08
From:
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
Tiger is not in the "Hogan" position.
It requires the right elbow be maintained very close to the
same spot on the chest throughout the back and down
swing - unitl the right arm begins to straighten near impact.
Hogan used to practice with his upper right arm nearly
motionless relative to his chest. That single action forces
the rest of the arms to come pretty close to the right
ballpark.
Tiger lifts his a little away from his chest and holds the club
a little higher, but he is not far off.
It is a very intuitive tendency to want to lift the hands away
from the plane of the chest near the top of the backswing,
I wouldn't refer to the swing teachings of the greatest
ball-striker of all time, the single most influential teaching
book in the history of golf, as a "fad". As Hogan notes, the
one-plane swing is very non-intuitive and requires much
practice. His book was published in 1957, nearly 50 years
ago, and is still a dominant force in teaching golf! Arnie
and Jack and Trevino and Tiger have all come, and Hogan's
book still stands as the best teaching book.
The fundamental problem is biomechanical. If the arms
are not working close to parallel to the shoulders, then
the speed ot the downswing becomes critical. Too fast and
your arms can't keep up and you slice like Mickelson
at the US Open. Slow down and the arms come through
and you hook. The swing is much less sensitive to the
downswing drive if you have the hands lower, and the
right arm close to the chest. Because then if you push
harder with your hips, your arms and hands move faster
ON THE SAME PATH. If the hands are high on the backswing,
the harder you drive through the ball, the more the ball will
slice. The timing needs to be carefully controlled, golfers
often compensate by holding their hands abnormally closed
at grip and at the top of the backswing. A series of
matching compensations. It can work reasonably well, but
there is another way that works better.
And when I say "one plane swing" I am referring to the
mostly perceptual connotations used by Hogan, not
strictly speaking geometry...
-PA
Birdie Bill wrote:
> glfnaz wrote:
> > "David Laville" <dlaville@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:r01qe25thr6ngvhm75of60hhilh1vlb1r8@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:59:39 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>>>There is no two-plane swing.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes there is and the majority of tour players use it. The club starts
> > >>> on the plane of the club at address and shifts to a plane that runs
> > >>> through the right shoulder position at the top.> David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> > >>> The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> > >>> TB-8982
> > >>
> > >>I'd like to argue that there is no one plane swing, there is no 2 plane
> > >>swing, there is only a swing that has the club go through *multiple
> > >>planes*
> > >>as it elevates above parallel.
> > >
> > > This is a more precise way of looking at it; The club doesn't swing
> > > on a plane, it swings on more if a curved path as Dr. Mann pointed
> > > out. I agree with him on this because I've analyzed countless swings
> > > when I was learning all this TGM stuff and if you put a dot on the
> > > clubhead frame for frame and then connect the dots they don't form a
> > > straight line, they follow a slight curve.
> > >
> > > Planes are named according to the reference points on which they are
> > > set. As an example, the hands plane would be a plane that was resting
> > > on the hands, a shoulder plane would be a plane resting on the
> > > shoulders. If a player is said to be using a shoulder plane the curve
> > > of the clubs path will pass through the shoulder. If the player is
> > > said to be using an elbow plane the curve of the clubs path will pass
> > > through the elbow.
> > >
> > > So to sum it up, the club follows a path and that path will pass
> > > through a point the plane uses as a reference.
> > >
> > >
> > > David Laville, G.S.E.M.
> > > The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
> > > TB-8982
> >
> > I've followed your earlier comments on this as well, then studied the
> > geometry from TGM.
> > In A Nutshell:
> > If the base of the plane is a straight line, then....
> > Then the higher the arms elevate the club, the shaft * must * become
> > steeper to continue to point to the baseline of the plane.
> > bg
>
> Yes, but... you don't have to swing that way. At my GolfTec lesson
> they showed me a swing of Tiger's at the 3/4 position where the
> shaft is parallel to the shaft address plane. That's what Haney
> teaches, and I guess Tiger has jumped onboard. I'll see if I can
> dig up a photo.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 06:24:45
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
Brad--I deleted your message before I responded.
I agree that debating planes is basically useless because people are
working from different definitions. I think that overall, Hardy has
some good ideas and they are at least in part being incorporated by
the guy who won the last two majors.
BTW, I have access to some good season tickets when you son plays for
the Hooks (Astros AA). :-)
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com
Kinky for Texas Gov
"Why The Hell Not"
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 06:21:39
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 24 Aug 2006 04:01:08 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>
>I wouldn't refer to the swing teachings of the greatest
>ball-striker of all time, the single most influential teaching
>book in the history of golf, as a "fad". As Hogan notes, the
>one-plane swing is very non-intuitive and requires much
>practice. His book was published in 1957, nearly 50 years
>ago, and is still a dominant force in teaching golf! Arnie
>and Jack and Trevino and Tiger have all come, and Hogan's
>book still stands as the best teaching book.
Yet it has been shown through video analysis that Hogan didn't
actually do what he says in the book in many cases.
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com
Kinky for Texas Gov
"Why The Hell Not"
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:37:37
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 24 Aug 2006 04:01:08 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>The fundamental problem is biomechanical. If the arms
>are not working close to parallel to the shoulders, then
>the speed ot the downswing becomes critical. Too fast and
>your arms can't keep up and you slice like Mickelson
>at the US Open. Slow down and the arms come through
>and you hook.
Speed has nothing to do with hooking or slicing. How can the pros hit
their irons varying distances with accuracy if according to your
theory varying downswing speed will produce hooks and slices?
Something tells me if you vary your downswing speed this is the
results you get and therefore assume it's a universal truth.
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:18:31
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
Ernie wrote:
> In article <1156433698.882583.84980@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
> > bruce wrote:
> > > has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and if so
> > > how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus what
> > > are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
> > >
> > > I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
> >
> > Someone should ask Allen Doyle what plane/s he uses. Ridiculous.
> >
> > Just swing the clubhead through the ball and over something a foot of
> > so in front of the ball-- there is no need to even think about what is
> > happening behind you-- If the ball doesn't go straight you either
> > missed the ball or the object in front. Slow down and make it happen
> > and every ball will go straight. "Not rocket science" as they say.
> >
> > http://www.megspace.com/sports/moetown/videos/doyle_clip.html
> >
> > larry
>
> So how long do you think this one-true-secret will last, Larry? And why
> should we believe you when you inevitably say "forever" when you've said
> the same about so many other one-true-secrets previously?
>
> And while I'm asking questions, how is it that you claimed to have shot
> a 76 at the beginning of the month, but actually posted a 78? And are
> the scores that IDC shows *actual* scores, or the score adjusted after
> ESC? From what I can see, they are post-ESC, so the chances are that
> your 78 was actually even higher...
I certainly hope so!!!! At this stage my handicap is dropping fast--I
shot 78 again yesterday-- That previous score was posted by a buddy--
and I am not going to change it! This is bad enough, I am already
down to 9 with trend lower... gonna be hard for me to win any beer!
But I am having fun hitting it straight, hitting ALL the fairways and
most of the greens. If I could putt I would be shooting scratch!
Regarding "secrets," I suspect this latest, the target in front of the
ball, is simple an evolution of my learning experience-- over 5+ years.
One thing builds on the previous accomplishments. Likely my swing
today is a culmination of everything past-- and especially of my effort
over the last few weeks to teach myself to swing slowly enough to
consistently create the divot that makes the ball go straight.
CONSISTENTLY. My ONLY swing thought on the course lately has been to
create divots with irons or 3w and to create a particular clubhead path
with driver. Let the ball go where it will-- I am just an engineer
swinging a golf club. Works for me.
Today, however, I played a hard singles tennis match-- it was fun to
endeavor to make my tennis racket continue through the ball on the
desired ball flight path-- sound familiar? The two sports are very
very related. Jack Nicklaus was smart to play tennis during his
championship golfing years.
Larry
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 06:57:06
From: Ernie
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
In article <1156457911.637375.29500@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> Ernie wrote:
> > In article <1156433698.882583.84980@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> > > bruce wrote:
> > > > has anyone changed over from a 2 plane swing to a one plane swing, and
> > > > if so
> > > > how long did it take to change, and what benefits did you notice? Plus
> > > > what
> > > > are some of the negatives do you have about the 1 plane?
> > > >
> > > > I just changed over a week ago, and i love it.
> > >
> > > Someone should ask Allen Doyle what plane/s he uses. Ridiculous.
> > >
> > > Just swing the clubhead through the ball and over something a foot of
> > > so in front of the ball-- there is no need to even think about what is
> > > happening behind you-- If the ball doesn't go straight you either
> > > missed the ball or the object in front. Slow down and make it happen
> > > and every ball will go straight. "Not rocket science" as they say.
> > >
> > > http://www.megspace.com/sports/moetown/videos/doyle_clip.html
> > >
> > > larry
> >
> > So how long do you think this one-true-secret will last, Larry? And why
> > should we believe you when you inevitably say "forever" when you've said
> > the same about so many other one-true-secrets previously?
> >
> > And while I'm asking questions, how is it that you claimed to have shot
> > a 76 at the beginning of the month, but actually posted a 78? And are
> > the scores that IDC shows *actual* scores, or the score adjusted after
> > ESC? From what I can see, they are post-ESC, so the chances are that
> > your 78 was actually even higher...
>
> I certainly hope so!!!! At this stage my handicap is dropping fast--I
> shot 78 again yesterday-- That previous score was posted by a buddy--
> and I am not going to change it! This is bad enough, I am already
> down to 9 with trend lower... gonna be hard for me to win any beer!
So let's get this straight, shall we? You came in here and claimed to
have shot a 76. And apparently that was a lie. Was the 78 you just
mentioned actually an 80, or was it even higher?
>
> But I am having fun hitting it straight, hitting ALL the fairways and
> most of the greens. If I could putt I would be shooting scratch!
Why would I believe this when you've already lied about your scores?
>
> Regarding "secrets," I suspect this latest, the target in front of the
> ball, is simple an evolution of my learning experience-- over 5+ years.
> One thing builds on the previous accomplishments. Likely my swing
> today is a culmination of everything past-- and especially of my effort
> over the last few weeks to teach myself to swing slowly enough to
> consistently create the divot that makes the ball go straight.
> CONSISTENTLY. My ONLY swing thought on the course lately has been to
> create divots with irons or 3w and to create a particular clubhead path
> with driver. Let the ball go where it will-- I am just an engineer
> swinging a golf club. Works for me.
But not well enough to shoot the 76 you claimed to have shot.
>
> Today, however, I played a hard singles tennis match-- it was fun to
> endeavor to make my tennis racket continue through the ball on the
> desired ball flight path-- sound familiar? The two sports are very
> very related. Jack Nicklaus was smart to play tennis during his
> championship golfing years.
What has this to do with golf? Oh, wait. You like to pretend that you
and real golfers have something in common...
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:03:58
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
Dave Clary wrote:
> blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
> > Misinterpretation.
> >
> > Hogan didn't use video analysis. Trying to interpret his teachings
> > through
> > video analysis is not a straightforward application.
>
> Gobblygook.
>
> It doesn't matter if Hogan used video. It's quite simple--there are
> instances where his book says to do something, yet video analysis of
> his swing shows that he didn't do what he said in the book. Catch
> McLean's show on The Golf Channel when it comes around again.
>
> Dave
And that is the reason many, many very good players refuse to look at
their swings on video. They know there is a huge difference between
what they feel and what actually happens. But since what they try to
do works-- why tinker with it? There is nothing to gain and everything
to lose... if a Hale Irwin, for instance is winning-- what is he doing
wrong? Nothing, by definition. If he wanted to give lessons, he
could charge $1000 and have an endless line of teaching pros as
students--
The ONLY thing that matters is the ball flight-- if it can be
reproduced consistently. Harvey Penick's book talks about his college
golf team facing an opponent who had been scoring well with what
appeared to be a horrible swing. His golfer saw that and was almost
cocky about the match the next day. but Harvey asked one question,
"does he do it every time?" When the answer was "yes," Harvey knew
his boy would lose-- and he did.
This year in the Champion's Tour I am sure those with beautiful Tom
Watson swings saw Allen Doyle swing and grinned-- but they didn't grin
long when he won several events.
I think most of us should find something that works consistently-- and
keep at it! No more tinkering and experimenting, lessons, etc. Irf
it works, keep doing it and build on it. That certainly is what all
the champions of yesterday, Lee Trevino, etc. did. Most of them never
took a lesson-- Lee said he would take a lesson if he could find an
instructor he couldn't beat...
Larry
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 23:15:52
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 24 Aug 2006 15:03:58 -0700, "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>And that is the reason many, many very good players refuse to look at
>their swings on video.
How many current Tour players are among this "many, many"?
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 13:06:48
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
Dave Clary wrote:
>
> It doesn't matter if Hogan used video. It's quite simple--there are
> instances where his book says to do something, yet video analysis of
> his swing shows that he didn't do what he said in the book. Catch
> McLean's show on The Golf Channel when it comes around again.
>
> Dave
I'm following up my own post to make something clear. I'm certainly
not trying to knock Hogan here. He is by any account one of the best,
if not THE best, ball strikers to ever play the game. I was just
providing a small data point that takes a bit off the sheen off the
notion that Five Lessons is the Holy Bible of golf instruction. I
can't quote where others have pointed out inconsistencies between what
he wrote and what he did, but they do exist. I'm limited at work in
that I can't access streaming video but I'll do a little more checking
when I get a chance to see if I can find an example.
Dave
Googlin
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 05:06:25
From:
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
David Laville wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2006 04:01:08 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >The fundamental problem is biomechanical. If the arms
> >are not working close to parallel to the shoulders, then
> >the speed ot the downswing becomes critical. Too fast and
> >your arms can't keep up and you slice like Mickelson
> >at the US Open. Slow down and the arms come through
> >and you hook.
>
> Speed has nothing to do with hooking or slicing. How can the pros hit
> their irons varying distances with accuracy if according to your
> theory varying downswing speed will produce hooks and slices?
>
> Something tells me if you vary your downswing speed this is the
> results you get and therefore assume it's a universal truth.
No, it follows in a straightforward way from the mechanics of
the two plane swing.
The arms work in a plane that cross the plane of the chest. The
rotation of the torso will work to push the arms away, and to
prevent the clubface from closing.
Players spend years working out compensating strategies to match
an inward pull of the arms, and clubface close, to the countering
forces the torso applies. This is one reason why many 2 plane
swingers have very closed clubfaces at the top of the backswing, and
use right hand grips so strong you can see their right palm at
address.
And it can work, very well indeed. Jim Furyk is a great example
that this strategy works well enough for a touring pro.
But if the same player mistakenly turns the hips harder
than he was planning to turn them, he will push-slice. And
if his hip turn is less hard than he was planning, he will
pull-hook.
This especially comes up in tense pressure situations. I've
found myself hitting 1-2 clubs stronger than I expect under
intense enough pressure. The adrenaline gets going, and all
of a sudden Phil finds himself 50 yards sliced from the fairway
losing the open in the most horrible way possible - because
the tendency to push-slice from the torso turn, and the
compensation from the arms, become unmatched.
This same point was made in a less clear way by
Gary Player in his comparison of Tiger (old Tiger
swing) and Hogan in the youtube video link I posted.
He speaks about keeping the elbows close to the
body on the downswing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfT88wW2cJ0
When the arms are lower in swing plane, the torso
movement works to move the arms into the appropriate
position. The harder the hips turn, the better. The harder
you hit with the right hand, the better. It does not lead
to a hook - it leads to another 10 yards on a drive. "I wish
I had three right arms so I could hit it even further."
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 00:25:14
From: Dave Clary
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 25 Aug 2006 05:06:25 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>
>No, it follows in a straightforward way from the mechanics of
>the two plane swing.
Didn't you say in your opening contribution to this thread that there
was no such thing as a two plane swing?
Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com
Kinky for Texas Gov
"Why The Hell Not"
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 23:06:30
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 25 Aug 2006 05:06:25 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>No, it follows in a straightforward way from the mechanics of
>the two plane swing.
Yes, please tell me all about the mechanics of the two plane swing.
>The arms work in a plane that cross the plane of the chest. The
>rotation of the torso will work to push the arms away, and to
>prevent the clubface from closing.
Two errors; 1) the turning torso does not control the path of the
arms. The right shoulder starts the hands and arms down on plane, the
right forearm keeps them on plane through impact. Want proof? Look
at your video of Hogan and Tiger and note how the shaft and right
forearm are in-line at impact. This is because the right forearm and
shaft are on the same plane during release and what ever line the
right forearm traces so does the shaft. 2) the turning torso does not
control the clubface, the left wrist does.
>Players spend years working out compensating strategies to match
>an inward pull of the arms, and clubface close, to the countering
>forces the torso applies.
Huh? and only hackers work on compensating strategies. Pros and good
players work on correct technique.
>This is one reason why many 2 plane
>swingers have very closed clubfaces at the top of the backswing,
They have closed clubfaces because of a faulty grip and/or backswing
hand action.
>and
>use right hand grips so strong you can see their right palm at
>address.
Their right hands are strong because most golfers slice and they are
taught to correct a slice you strengthen your grip. Problem is once
you reach a certain point the grip becomes useless because it becomes
a "cock and uncock up and down the plane only grip" with no rotation.
Since the grip is useless they strengthen their grip even more (where
you can see the right palm) trying to get it to work.
>And it can work, very well indeed. Jim Furyk is a great example
>that this strategy works well enough for a touring pro.
Really, well here is a picture of Furyk at the top of his back swing.
Where is the closed clubface?
http://home.att.net/~dlaville/furyk.JPG
Here is another one from the front at address. Why can't I see his
right palm?
http://home.att.net/~dlaville/furykfront.JPG
If you're hoping to look like a golf guru at least have something that
makes you look like you have credibility.
>But if the same player mistakenly turns the hips harder
>than he was planning to turn them, he will push-slice. And
>if his hip turn is less hard than he was planning, he will
>pull-hook.
Hip turn has nothing to do with left wrist rotation.
>This especially comes up in tense pressure situations. I've
>found myself hitting 1-2 clubs stronger than I expect under
>intense enough pressure. The adrenaline gets going, and all
>of a sudden Phil finds himself 50 yards sliced from the fairway
>losing the open in the most horrible way possible - because
>the tendency to push-slice from the torso turn, and the
>compensation from the arms, become unmatched.
>
>This same point was made in a less clear way by
>Gary Player in his comparison of Tiger (old Tiger
>swing) and Hogan in the youtube video link I posted.
>He speaks about keeping the elbows close to the
>body on the downswing...
I watched it. Gary player need to stick to playing golf and not
analyzing swings.
>When the arms are lower in swing plane, the torso
>movement works to move the arms into the appropriate
>position.
The torso don't move the arms into the appropriate position, the right
shoulder and forearm does.
>The harder the hips turn, the better. The harder
>you hit with the right hand, the better. It does not lead
>to a hook - it leads to another 10 yards on a drive. "I wish
>I had three right arms so I could hit it even further."
So how do you hit harder with your right hand?
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:50:47
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
<blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156507585.634130.138560@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Laville wrote:
>> On 24 Aug 2006 04:01:08 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >The fundamental problem is biomechanical. If the arms
>> >are not working close to parallel to the shoulders, then
>> >the speed ot the downswing becomes critical. Too fast and
>> >your arms can't keep up and you slice like Mickelson
>> >at the US Open. Slow down and the arms come through
>> >and you hook.
>>
>> Speed has nothing to do with hooking or slicing. How can the pros hit
>> their irons varying distances with accuracy if according to your
>> theory varying downswing speed will produce hooks and slices?
>>
>> Something tells me if you vary your downswing speed this is the
>> results you get and therefore assume it's a universal truth.
>
> No, it follows in a straightforward way from the mechanics of
> the two plane swing.
>
> The arms work in a plane that cross the plane of the chest. The
> rotation of the torso will work to push the arms away, and to
> prevent the clubface from closing.
>
> Players spend years working out compensating strategies to match
> an inward pull of the arms, and clubface close, to the countering
> forces the torso applies. This is one reason why many 2 plane
> swingers have very closed clubfaces at the top of the backswing, and
> use right hand grips so strong you can see their right palm at
> address.
>
> And it can work, very well indeed. Jim Furyk is a great example
> that this strategy works well enough for a touring pro.
>
> But if the same player mistakenly turns the hips harder
> than he was planning to turn them, he will push-slice. And
> if his hip turn is less hard than he was planning, he will
> pull-hook.
>
> This especially comes up in tense pressure situations. I've
> found myself hitting 1-2 clubs stronger than I expect under
> intense enough pressure. The adrenaline gets going, and all
> of a sudden Phil finds himself 50 yards sliced from the fairway
> losing the open in the most horrible way possible - because
> the tendency to push-slice from the torso turn, and the
> compensation from the arms, become unmatched.
>
> This same point was made in a less clear way by
> Gary Player in his comparison of Tiger (old Tiger
> swing) and Hogan in the youtube video link I posted.
> He speaks about keeping the elbows close to the
> body on the downswing...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfT88wW2cJ0
>
> When the arms are lower in swing plane, the torso
> movement works to move the arms into the appropriate
> position. The harder the hips turn, the better. The harder
> you hit with the right hand, the better. It does not lead
> to a hook - it leads to another 10 yards on a drive. "I wish
> I had three right arms so I could hit it even further."
>
> -PA
If you are quoting Hogan wit the 3 right hands thing, I'm not sure that the
"hit it even further" part is from him and it might have been "hands"
instead of "arms". I gotta look it up.
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 03:59:03
From:
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
David Laville wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2006 05:06:25 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >No, it follows in a straightforward way from the mechanics of
> >the two plane swing.
>
> Yes, please tell me all about the mechanics of the two plane swing.
>
> >The arms work in a plane that cross the plane of the chest. The
> >rotation of the torso will work to push the arms away, and to
> >prevent the clubface from closing.
>
> Two errors; 1) the turning torso does not control the path of the
> arms.
Take two straight sticks and couple them with a joint.
Position them at right angles to one another.
Then grab one of the two stick and rotate it fast.
The other stick will rotate at a fixed angle relative to the first.
Now, reposition the two sticks with a 45 degree angle between them,
and ACCELERATE the rotation of the first stick.
What does the second stick do?
Is there a torque transfer from the first stick to the second
that will alter the angle between the two? This is actually
a pretty good intro physics test question...
A much more complicated version of this same process
occurs in the "2 plane" swing. Changes in torque at the hip
alter the arms and closing of the hands in ways that
follow from the mechanical way the hipbone is connected
backbone, the backbone connected to the shoulder bone,
etc.
My cousin is a1 handicapper, he has a pronounced 2
plane swing, with a very strong right hand at address.
Still shoots under par about 25% of the time on very
tough golf courses. Repeatability in swing is always
the key to good scoring through the full shots.
Hogan simply believed, as I do, that the lower position
of the hands, and less space between the right elbow
and the torso, make achieving any desired level of
repeatability a lot easier. But the lower hand position and
more compact arm-torso are very non-intuitive. The
tendency to stand over the ball with a wedge and want
to make the clubhead go in a vertical circle aligned with
the projected ball flight is strong.
Gary Player is a multiple major winner - I would think
he knows SOMETHING about a golf swing as well...the
exact errors he points out in Tiger's swing are the same
ones Tiger addressed in his swing change, and you can
see the differences in current video - the difference from
Tiger to Hogan is quite a bit smaller now.
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 22:06:35
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
[snip]
> Take two straight sticks and couple them with a joint.
> Position them at right angles to one another.
> Then grab one of the two stick and rotate it fast.
> The other stick will rotate at a fixed angle relative to the first.
>
> Now, reposition the two sticks with a 45 degree angle between them,
> and ACCELERATE the rotation of the first stick.
>
> What does the second stick do?
>
> Is there a torque transfer from the first stick to the second
> that will alter the angle between the two? This is actually
> a pretty good intro physics test question...
>
> A much more complicated version of this same process
> occurs in the "2 plane" swing. Changes in torque at the hip
> alter the arms and closing of the hands in ways that
> follow from the mechanical way the hipbone is connected
> backbone, the backbone connected to the shoulder bone,
> etc.
>
> My cousin is a1 handicapper, he has a pronounced 2
> plane swing, with a very strong right hand at address.
> Still shoots under par about 25% of the time on very
> tough golf courses. Repeatability in swing is always
> the key to good scoring through the full shots.
>
> Hogan simply believed, as I do, that the lower position
> of the hands, and less space between the right elbow
> and the torso, make achieving any desired level of
> repeatability a lot easier. But the lower hand position and
> more compact arm-torso are very non-intuitive. The
> tendency to stand over the ball with a wedge and want
> to make the clubhead go in a vertical circle aligned with
> the projected ball flight is strong.
>
> Gary Player is a multiple major winner - I would think
> he knows SOMETHING about a golf swing as well...the
> exact errors he points out in Tiger's swing are the same
> ones Tiger addressed in his swing change, and you can
> see the differences in current video - the difference from
> Tiger to Hogan is quite a bit smaller now.
>
> -PA
I resolved to quit getting into swing theory discussions because if I really
knew anything I'd be breaking 70 at my home course. I'm not close. Not close
enough to say how close I'm not. I'm also a wannabe comedian ... however ...
it is a revelation to me that the collor bone seems to have so much to do
with the swing. It is at an angle to the spine which is with the right side
lower and at the top the left side is lower (lefties are used to having to
translate) ... left side is lower in relation to the spine. There was a long
discussion about spine position here on RSG and this did not come up much.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 22:38:02
From: AKA Gray Asphalt 2
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
That didn't make much sense, I know, but the idea is clear in my mind. Did
anyone get anything out of what I posted about the collar bones?
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:21:23
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: one plane verus 2 plane swing
|
On 26 Aug 2006 03:59:03 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
>My cousin is a1 handicapper, he has a pronounced 2
>plane swing, with a very strong right hand at address.
Hold on a second, aren't you the same guy who said this a few days
ago:
:On 23 Aug 2006 09:39:53 -0700, blakestah@gmail.com wrote:
:There is no two-plane swing.
So how can your cousin have a two-plane swing, a pronounced one in
fact, if you said there is no two-plane swing?
>Still shoots under par about 25% of the time on very
>tough golf courses.
Right, me to.
>Hogan simply believed, as I do, that the lower position
>of the hands, and less space between the right elbow
>and the torso, make achieving any desired level of
>repeatability a lot easier.
Really, where does he say this?
David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982
|
|
