Jim Hardy's One Plane Swing vs. Two Plane

[xltsk8]

Unusual swingers

I was reading some insight from Jim Hardy about the "PLANE TRUTH". He stated some basic fundamentals and positions for both one-planers and two-planers.

He also listed some examples of one-planers and two-planers on tour.

He listed Ernie and Wie as a one-planer. How do all yall feel about them as a one-planer. It doesn't seem to me that ernie swing on the plane of his shoulders.
Any insight would be good. Thanks!!

[hoganfan924]

I believe that when Hardy wrote the book both EE and Wie were considered by Hardy to be one planers but they have become more upright in the last year working with Leadbetter.

[tarebuta]

Depends a lot in the photographs that they use to illustrate. Different angle will yield a different result. In Hardy's book, Peter Jacobsen swing Sequence of one plane and two plane looks the same to me.

 

But something that I got confused, in Hardy's book, one plane swing require physical flexibility and strength. But in Golf Illustrated in June 2007, one plane swing is physical ease.....

[indianshaft]

I read the same article and tried to watch players they mentioned and some look closer to the other especially if you look at Ernie Els swing sequence in the new Golf Digest he looks more upright thana one planer would be.

[steverum]

Trevor Immelman is a one planer and in my opinion the best swing on tour.

 

Ernie and Wie are not true one planers.

 

Viva la revolitona!!!

[Shaitan]

^Exactly, although I would say Wie's swing couldn't be a golf swing atm.

Um, tarebuta - a 1P swing should require more flexibility and core strength then a 2P swing as it is much more rotational compared to a 2P swing, which is much more upright. If you want to see a true difference between a 1P swing and a 2P swing, have a look at Immelman compared to David Toms. A 1P will have their hands behind their chest and will look a little laid off ATT, whereas a 2P swing should have his hands in front of his chest at all times, ATT of his swing, the clubhead should be over his shoulder and he needs to wait for his hands to drop back on the inside on his downswing so that he keeps his hands infront of his chest. A 2P swing will generally create more power, more handsy movements, less load due to the nature of the swing. A 1Per that gets it right and has enough strength, though, will hit it just as far or further then the 2Per and be more accurate.

[atlanta golfer]

As is often the case, Golf Digest created more questions than answers in their article. What they SHOULD have said is that one plane is inherently simpler, fewer moving parts, less dependent upon timing, and gives a better chance of a good strike on the ball since the club head is coming into the ball at a shallower angle. But if people have a lack of flexibility or strength then they will probably want to be two plane because you can use timing and weight shift to compensate. The article also should have said that either method is fine, the whole point of Hardy's books is that you need to select a method and stay with it. Of course, that would make it hard for Golf Digest to keep selling those subscriptions to confused golfers who try something new several times a year.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='Shaitan' post='809694' date='Dec 2 2007, 05:18 AM']^Exactly, although I would say Wie's swing couldn't be a golf swing atm.

Um, tarebuta - a 1P swing should require more flexibility and core strength then a 2P swing as it is much more rotational compared to a 2P swing, which is much more upright. If you want to see a true difference between a 1P swing and a 2P swing, have a look at Immelman compared to David Toms. A 1P will have their hands behind their chest and will look a little laid off ATT, whereas a 2P swing should have his hands in front of his chest at all times, ATT of his swing, the clubhead should be over his shoulder and he needs to wait for his hands to drop back on the inside on his downswing so that he keeps his hands infront of his chest. A 2P swing will generally create more power, more handsy movements, less load due to the nature of the swing. A 1Per that gets it right and has enough strength, though, will hit it just as far or further then the 2Per and be more accurate.[/quote]

Brodie,

You have to be very careful when comparing Immelman to Toms. I think Immelman has one of the best (if not [b][i]the[/i][/b] best) swings on tour. But Toms has one of the best "1 plane" releases on tour. I've written about this before, but one of my "gripes" about many Hardy followers is that they place much too much emphasis on where the left arm is relative to the shoulder plane as the single most important criteria for defining a one plane swing. There are plenty of "2 plane" backswingers with "1 plane" releases (Furyk, Toms are the 2 best examples). IMO, the release (hitting zone) is the most important characteristic of any golf swing). There are also, 1 plane backswingers with more of a 2 plane release. There are also excellent "1PS" that do not allow the left arm to collapse against the chest in the backswing but rather keep their hands in front of the chest. Most all of Slicefixers students are classic 1PS, but he teaches them to keep their hands/arms in synch with their shoulder turn and not sucked behind their bodies the way that Hardy advocates with his "starting the lawnmower" action. Here are several excellent examples to [b]study[/b] (I highly recommend that):

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMOI6E_X2s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMOI6E_X2s[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3C2psBHS5o"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3C2psBHS5o[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJHHcxZm-Ww"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJHHcxZm-Ww[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjsJIqFwZC8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjsJIqFwZC8[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVnzQBPIhJE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVnzQBPIhJE[/url]

All of them one plane swings (and all of them [b]outstanding [/b]IMO). Just not "Hardy" 1PS. Likewise, MORAD (O'grady/Dahlquist/Mcnary) is a 1PS. Be careful about getting too stuck on the Hardy definition or "preferred embodiment." Also, I don't really agree with the idea that the 1PS requires a tremendous amount of athleticism or flexibility. Hogan was virtually crippled late in life (could barely walk) and could still swing the club beautifully into his 70's. Snead (while much more athletically gifted) won tournaments in at least 5 different decades.

[quote]Of course, that would make it hard for Golf Digest to keep selling those subscriptions to confused golfers who try something new several times a year.[/quote]

Yes! Confusion reigns supreme! Not many golfers are going to get better reading magazines filled with conflicting tips/methods.

[stevestrike]

Not that Hoganfan needs my endorsement, but he is giving very good advice here. When I asked my instructor about the Hardy book, he was less than enthusiastic, as was another instructor at the same school. His problem with it is that there are many great players who utilize aspects of BOTH swings, and trying to be a strict one-plane or two-plane swinger is very difficult physically (if not impossible) for most of us. I think that is the point Hoganfan was making--that you can use a "hybrid" swing, and be very effective with it, but the Hardy book puts it as an "all or nothing" proposition.

Personally, I screwed some stuff up in my swing by trying to be a strict one-plane, and I've had to fix a bunch of stuff recently with my instructor, so take the book as informational, but I'd caution you before implementing any of it into your swing.

[Texsport]

There's way more to Hardy's OPS than just where a player's arms are relative to his/her shoulders.

Hardy's OPS has a completely different set of fundamental swing characteristics beyond that.

The most important single move of a Hardy OPS player is the overhand, connected, right arm delivery of the club on the downswing. He advocates not trying to retain lag.

The absolutely textbook example of Hardy's OPS downswing delivery method is Jim Furyk---who I'll bet 99% who think they know what a Hardy OPS is, would agrue is the most un-OPS swing of all time.

Texsport

[Shaitan]

I know that Toms has a 1P position at impact, Hoganfan - i think i was using him for more reference between the backswing and downswing with Immelman - once you get to impact, all sorts of things can happen , and pros will generally get into a pretty good position at this point. Thank you for pointing it out though. I always think Toms looks like he doesn't have much room at impact, his right arm seems almost too close to his body. But hey, its the clubhead's position at impact that counts!

[Swingtheclub]

wow most of the swing Hogansfan posted I do not care for but they are what they are and its most just me.

They just look like guys that rotate hard left to square the club not my cup of tea.

Just the same the last swing posted I have no idea who that kid is but I love his swing. I do not care he is a little flat going back I love his move throught the ball

Would this be and example of what slice calls a one plane swing with a two plane release.

I admit to learning most of my understanding of the one plane two plane controversy right here on this forum.

One day I think I know what you guys mean the next day I am lost again. Not that I think I am going to change what I believe but I am trying to understand what the hell you guys are talking about.

One of these days when I have some time I will sit down and right my theory of the perfect swing . Like I said when I have the time.

[atlanta golfer]

If you want to understand more, just pick up the first book by Jim Hardy "The Plane Truth for Golfers". In paperback it is about $18 in bookstores or several dollars less than that on Amazon. He talks one plane and two plane and the differences and why it is not a good idea to mix them. I realize some people don't agree with his claims and his approach, but for me this makes more sense than any other golf method I've ever heard or seen. I am fortunate that I have an instructor that teaches this same methodology so that I can take a lesson then read the books for reinforcement and nothing is in conflict.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='kenk7us2002' post='810288' date='Dec 2 2007, 06:55 PM']wow most of the swing Hogansfan posted I do not care for but they are what they are and its most just me.

They just look like guys that rotate hard left to square the club not my cup of tea.

Just the same the last swing posted I have no idea who that kid is but I love his swing. I do not care he is a little flat going back I love his move throught the ball

Would this be and example of what slice calls a one plane swing with a two plane release.

I admit to learning most of my understanding of the one plane two plane controversy right here on this forum.

One day I think I know what you guys mean the next day I am lost again. Not that I think I am going to change what I believe but I am trying to understand what the hell you guys are talking about.

One of these days when I have some time I will sit down and right my theory of the perfect swing . Like I said when I have the time.[/quote]

Ken, the 1st, 2nd and last clips are of the same player. The last clip is much more recent though.

No, Slice doesn't use the terms 1PS, 2PS when describing the release. That player (as does every player I've seen that Slicefixer instructs) uses a "1 plane" release. He releases the butt of the club left, does not sling the hands down the target line.

[atlanta golfer]

In the simplest terms, one plane on follow through just means that the club is moving in roughly the same plane as the shoulders. For a one plane release which is referenced directly above, you will typically see the club shaft wrap nicely around the back of the neck and nearly parallel to the ground on the follow through. Some players have a two plane backswing and one plane follow through or vice versa. What Hardy says is that the backswing and follow through should match and both should be one plane or both should be two plane. They should be mirror images of each other, according to Hardy. The setup and address positions are different as well, according to Hardy. Many people, or perhaps most people, have a combination, and many of those people are very excellent golfers and teachers. This is why you see such a lively discussion on this topic.

[Swingtheclub]

[quote name='hoganfan924' post='810332' date='Dec 2 2007, 07:48 PM'][quote name='kenk7us2002' post='810288' date='Dec 2 2007, 06:55 PM']wow most of the swing Hogansfan posted I do not care for but they are what they are and its most just me.

They just look like guys that rotate hard left to square the club not my cup of tea.

Just the same the last swing posted I have no idea who that kid is but I love his swing. I do not care he is a little flat going back I love his move throught the ball

Would this be and example of what slice calls a one plane swing with a two plane release.

I admit to learning most of my understanding of the one plane two plane controversy right here on this forum.

One day I think I know what you guys mean the next day I am lost again. Not that I think I am going to change what I believe but I am trying to understand what the hell you guys are talking about.

One of these days when I have some time I will sit down and right my theory of the perfect swing . Like I said when I have the time.[/quote]

Ken, the 1st, 2nd and last clips are of the same player. The last clip is much more recent though.

No, Slice doesn't use the terms 1PS, 2PS when describing the release. That player (as does every player I've seen that Slicefixer instructs) uses a "1 plane" release. He releases the butt of the club left, does not sling the hands down the target line.
[/quote]


I did not even look at the shot that looks down at his head. The other two swings he made lots of improvements in the last one at least I like it better.

I never heard such a term sling the hands down the target line. I certainly do not do that.

when you say the butt of the club do you mean the butt of the grip?

[stevestrike]

I'm thoroughly confused. Hoganfan, can you (or anyone else) post still images of what you are calling a 1 vs. 2 plane release?

[MtnDog]

Mike LaBauve teaches the one-plane swing and has some great videos here:

[url="http://www.golflink.com/instructor/videos.asp?i=612"]http://www.golflink.com/instructor/videos.asp?i=612[/url]

The videos are free, but you may have to register for the site via email.
These should explain all you need to know about the one-plane swing. I began learning the one-plane swing last spring (solely from Hardy books, dvds, no lessons) and am very pleased with the results. No more flippy wrists! It did feel very uncomfortable at first and I had to "unlearn" a lot of things. Think bent over baseball swing or hockey slapshot to get started.

[MtnDog]

As far as the release goes,

2ps: Shaking hands with the target, and hands further away from the body, moving down the target line.

1ps: Hands move immediately to the left, close to the body, left arm bending and right arm straightening.
Clubface is actually held a little bit open after impact, as if you were sidearm/underhand throwing a
baseball.

[atlanta golfer]

As a recent convert to 1 ps the key for me was to keep the spine angle bent throughout the swing, at 30 to 45 degree from vertical, versus the traditional 2 ps which is more like about 20 degree down from vertical. Once I got this feeling, the swing felt much more powerful and the contact was vastly improved. Also keeping the arms in tight to the body - I was used to doing this on the backswing but not on the downward swing. Definitely feels weird at first. If you do the things Hardy suggests and you do them properly, this will work for you. I do believe it would be difficult without a couple lessons to supplement the book, though.

As a sidenote, I love the way Hardy gives examples of "fact" versus "feel". What we think we are doing is often not what is really happening. That is why video or personal lessons are so important. I think anyone can learn from the book only, just would take more trial and error.

[LPM]

Jim Furyk--------two plane backswing, one plane impact position

David Toms------two plane backswing, one plane impact position

Tiger Woods------one plane backswing, two plane impact position



just great examples of the some the best players in the world that contradict Hardy's theory that you are either one or the other, the best players in the world have elements of both in their swing, Hardy has made alot of money from some the most complete and utter nonsense, one of the worst big name teachers out there and yet people continue to purchase his persuasive material and buy into the myths

[atlanta golfer]

LPM:

Let's calibrate a bit on Jim Hardy's teaching / books. Like any other golf teacher / writer, he is simply proposing a set of methods to help people learn and improve the golf swing. To some extent he's just trying to help people make logical sense out of all the varying and conflicting tips, theories, and methods floating around in books, tv, magazine articles, from golf instructors, etc.

Speaking for myself only, this is the first time I have been exposed to a full swing method that is simple, easy to understand, and when applied, works well for me.

I don't believe that anyone believes his methods (or the methods of any other golf teacher) are "scientific fact". And of course you will find thousands of golfers who don't follow his methods, who are fantastic golfers, especially those who are blessed with great natrual talent like the ones you cited. But I really do believe that the vast majority of golfers such as myself are really starving for a simple set of fundamentals to follow.

I think it is fine for you, or anybody else, to follow a different teacher or a different set of methods or fundamentals. But when you say what he does is nonsense, that seems a bit harsh and does not reflect the success that many of us have, following his methods.

[LPM]

[quote name='atlanta golfer' post='813293' date='Dec 5 2007, 12:53 PM']LPM:

Let's calibrate a bit on Jim Hardy's teaching / books. Like any other golf teacher / writer, he is simply proposing a set of methods to help people learn and improve the golf swing. To some extent he's just trying to help people make logical sense out of all the varying and conflicting tips, theories, and methods floating around in books, tv, magazine articles, from golf instructors, etc.

Speaking for myself only, this is the first time I have been exposed to a full swing method that is simple, easy to understand, and when applied, works well for me.

I don't believe that anyone believes his methods (or the methods of any other golf teacher) are "scientific fact". And of course you will find thousands of golfers who don't follow his methods, who are fantastic golfers, especially those who are blessed with great natrual talent like the ones you cited. But I really do believe that the vast majority of golfers such as myself are really starving for a simple set of fundamentals to follow.

I think it is fine for you, or anybody else, to follow a different teacher or a different set of methods or fundamentals. But when you say what he does is nonsense, that seems a bit harsh and does not reflect the success that many of us have, following his methods.[/quote]I'm certainly glad your having success my friend, I hope that continues, what I say is only my opinion, we all have one, I have been to one of Hardy's seminars and he says firmly that you should be a one planer or a two planer, but you need to be one or the other, but the fact is the golfers who are the most successful in the world have elements of both in their swings, he is a nice guy, no doubt, but his claim that golfers should be one or the other is nonsense (that is my opinion of course and the opinion of many of the top teachers in our industry), once again we are all allowed our opinions and I hope you have continued success with your golf swing

[atlanta golfer]

I think if I were one of the top 100 or so players in the world I would have my own swing coach and make my own decisions. And I would have plenty of time and money to work through all of this.

For those of us who make up 95% or better of all serious golfers, shooting say between high seventy and high eighty, we need somebody to simplify things for us and give us a consistent easier to follow method. At some point you have to pick a teacher and a method and stick with it. Right, wrong, or somewhere in between. This is what Bob Rotella says in his "The Golf of Your Dreams Book".

To draw an analogy, I am sure that at the summer football camps sponsored by top high school and college coaches and former quarterbacks, they are teaching different methods of throwing. Some more sidearm, some more upright, some who scramble, some who stay in the pocket, etc. Just pick one and stay with it, imho.

[simplemind]

[size=1][quote name='atlanta golfer' post='813293' date='Dec 5 2007, 12:53 PM']LPM:

Let's calibrate a bit on Jim Hardy's teaching / books. Like any other golf teacher / writer, he is simply proposing a set of methods to help people learn and improve the golf swing. To some extent he's just trying to help people make logical sense out of all the varying and conflicting tips, theories, and methods floating around in books, tv, magazine articles, from golf instructors, etc.

Speaking for myself only, this is the first time I have been exposed to a full swing method that is simple, easy to understand, and when applied, works well for me.

I don't believe that anyone believes his methods (or the methods of any other golf teacher) are "scientific fact". And of course you will find thousands of golfers who don't follow his methods, who are fantastic golfers, especially those who are blessed with great natrual talent like the ones you cited. But I really do believe that the vast majority of golfers such as myself are really starving for a simple set of fundamentals to follow.

I think it is fine for you, or anybody else, to follow a different teacher or a different set of methods or fundamentals. But when you say what he does is nonsense, that seems a bit harsh and does not reflect the success that many of us have, following his methods.[/quote]


[quote name='atlanta golfer' post='813843' date='Dec 5 2007, 09:12 PM']I think if I were one of the top 100 or so players in the world I would have my own swing coach and make my own decisions. And I would have plenty of time and money to work through all of this.

For those of us who make up 95% or better of all serious golfers, shooting say between high seventy and high eighty, we need somebody to simplify things for us and give us a consistent easier to follow method. At some point you have to pick a teacher and a method and stick with it. Right, wrong, or somewhere in between. This is what Bob Rotella says in his "The Golf of Your Dreams Book".

To draw an analogy, I am sure that at the summer football camps sponsored by top high school and college coaches and former quarterbacks, they are teaching different methods of throwing. Some more sidearm, some more upright, some who scramble, some who stay in the pocket, etc. Just pick one and stay with it, imho.[/quote][/size]

I am definately in your camp on this one! Not that Hardy is [u]the[/u] answer, but being one of the 95%, there is far too much confusion, mis-information, and bias. It's great to de-complicate a very complex subject, and thanks for your comments!

[Cbey77]

test

[WesleyD]

I think LPM is right in the fact that most pros do have a "hybrid" swing, but would any instructor start with Jim Furyk as a swing model for someone who just starting the game? Or ever Tiger Woods? Let's say you have someone with a clear innate talent for golf who's been playing for a year, and he matches tigers body type, athleticism, etc.. I don't think you would try to teach him Tigers swing or even David Toms.

 

I do think Hardy's two plane swing in his book looks pretty rediculous though, I've never seen anybody swing that steep.