Mike and Dana's hip turn video lesson

[jeffy]

Jeffy - our arguments always become circular, and non-productive, because we live in a different mental universe.

 

You write-:

 

"Why do you consider Dana's left arm to be "steep"? Just because it is in-line with a "steep" shoulder turn? That doesn't prove anything."

 

I think it proves everything.

 

Statement 1: The shoulder turn angle is steep.

 

Statement 2: The left arm is on roughly the same plane as the shoulder turn angle.

 

Statement 3: Therefore, one can use deductive logic to conclude that the left arm plane is steep. (statement 3 follows deductively from statements 1 and 2).

 

I think that proves that the left arm is steep, and that is all that I claimed regarding that swing video capture image sequence.

 

You write-: "Oh, I get it: Mike says that he wants a "steep" shoulder turn, but it is really "flat". I don't consider Mike's shoulders to be flat, particularly for a driver, as they point within the "48" zone" Hardy describes as appropriate for a one-plane swing: a "flat" shoulder turn would point further out. But I guess in your world, when Hardy, Bennett and Plummer, and Dana and Mike say they want "steep" shoulders, they really mean "flat". Thanks for clearing that up."

 

Don't blame me for the disparity/incongruity between Mike/Dana's swing video lesson, which specifically states that one should have a steep shoulder turn, and the "real life" fact that Mike's "real life" swing doesn't have a steep shoulder turn. Dana may be able to explain that incongruity/disparity. I am simply an observer, who comments on his observations.

 

Jeff.

 

You're just digging yourself a bigger hole. You stated that "a steeper shoulder turn is usually associated with a steeper arm position if the position of the arms is nearly parallel to the shoulder plane angle". That is what you were asked to prove and you provided no evidence to support it. Your "deductive logic" regarding Dana's video is irrelevant for three reasons: first, Dana wasn't making an actual swing; second, citing one example does not prove that one thing is "usually associated" with another; third, and, most important, what is accepted as "steep" for the shoulders is considered relatively "flat" for the arms. You are simply attempting to redefine what is considered a "steep" armswing to make sense of your obviously incorrect opinion.

 

If you consider Mike's shoulder plane with a driver to be "flat", then it should be easy for you to find many driver swings of others where the shoulders are "steeper". If you believe that what Dana teaches is "flat", then you should be able to find many examples among the 100 or so video clips of his lessons that you will find here and show that they are flatter than a "steep" model swing:

 

http://s194.photobucket.com/albums/z264/Danagolf/

 

However, first you will need to define, with examples, what you consider steep and flat shoulders, as well the spectrum of flat to steep armswings, since they obviously are quite different from commonly accepted definitions.

[JeffMann]

Scores - for most PGA tour golfers, the shoulder turn angle gets steeper in the downswing (compared to the backswing) even though the pelvis rotates relatively horizontally.

 

Here are two examples.

 

Sergio Garcia

 

 

Paula Creamer

 

 

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Jeffy - I have to dig a deeper hole to find where you are lost in the depths of confusion.

 

If the left arm is along the shoulder turn angle, and the shoulder turn angle is steep, then the left arm angle will be steep.

 

 

If the left arm is along the shoulder turn angle, and the shoulder turn angle is shallow, then the left arm angle will be shallow.

 

 

Regarding what Dana teaches, I only know about that hip turn video, which teaches a steep shoulder turn angle. I don't know if he also teaches a shallow shoulder turn angle.

 

Jeff.

 

p.s. Both photos are from Dana's collection.

[darom55]

The steepness of the shoulders along with the left arm is all determined by two things. Ths club you are hitting and the desired trajectory. A pitching wedge or short iron will have a steeper shoulder plane than with a driver. Any analysis of a given position or golf swing must be aware of the club in hand along with the intended ball flight.

[jeffy]

Jeffy - I have to dig a deeper hole to find where you are lost in the depths of confusion.

 

I'm afraid you are confused, or just plain hiding and ducking the issue. All your comparison of Mike and Dana shows is that if a one-planer has a steeper shoulder turn than another one-planer, his arms will also be steeper. That provides no support to the statement you have been challenged to prove: "a steeper shoulder turn is usually associated with a steeper arm position if the position of the arms is nearly parallel to the shoulder plane angle".

 

That statement is nonsense: a steeper armswing is "usually associated" with a flatter shoulder turn: a two-plane swing. Obviously, a one-plane swing with steeper shoulders will have a steeper left arm than a one-plane swing with flatter shoulders, but, in general, the left arm of a two-planer will be steeper than that of a one-planer, no matter how steep the one-planer's shoulders. If I'm wrong, please provide examples.

 

Turning to Dana, why do you consider the plane of Dana's left arm to be "steep"? The line drawn through it intersects the ground well beyond the ball, which is universal among one-planers. For two-planers, it is not at all uncommon for the same line to intersect the ground at the ball, which would be steeper. Objectively, how can Dana's left arm plane be considered "steep"? Steep compared to what? Tom Watson? Kenny Perry? David Toms? Colin Montgomerie? Adam Scott? Phil Mickelson? Justin Rose? Luke Donald? KJ Choi? Compared to Dana, they each have flatter shoulder turns and steeper armswings: their left arms point at the ball at the top, not beyond it like Dana's. Dana is steeper than Mike, but he is also taller and bends more at the waist, which naturally creates a steeper shoulder plane; straightening the right leg steepens it some more.

 

Your captions should be rewritten as follows:

 

If the left arm is along the shoulder turn angle, and the shoulder turn angle is relatively steep, then the left arm angle will be relatively shallow.

 

 

If the left arm is along the shoulder turn angle, and the shoulder turn angle is shallower, then the left arm angle will be shallower.

 

 

Anyway, looking at this pair of one-planers in isolation does not provide any support for your erroneous statement that "a steeper shoulder turn is usually associated with a steeper arm position if the position of the arms is nearly parallel to the shoulder plane angle".

[jeffy]

Jeffy - I have to dig a deeper hole to find where you are lost in the depths of confusion.

 

If the left arm is along the shoulder turn angle, and the shoulder turn angle is steep, then the left arm angle will be steep.

 

 

If the left arm is along the shoulder turn angle, and the shoulder turn angle is shallow, then the left arm angle will be shallow.

 

 

As I already pointed out, your post above sheds no light on whether or not your statement that "a steeper shoulder turn is usually associated with a steeper arm position if the position of the arms is nearly parallel to the shoulder plane angle" is true.

 

Fortunately, I found a helpful critical review paper that might clear things up for you. It compares Badds' old and new swings. In Badds' new swing, the paper points out that he has increased his spine angle at address by ten degrees (40* compared to 30*), which, naturally, steepens his shoulder turn. He also straightens his right leg in the backswing, creating a steeper hip and shoulder turn than in his old swing. Additionally, in the new swing, his left arm lies along his shoulder turn angle, in what is called a "one-plane" top of the backswing position. However, his new left arm plane is considerably FLATTER than in his old two-plane swing: a line drawn through his left arm at the top intersects the ground several feet beyond the ball in his new one-plane swing swing; in his old two-plane swing, a similarly drawn line intersects the ball. As this "old" and "new" comparison amply demonstrates, for players of similar height and build, a steeper shoulder turn is usually associated with a flatter left arm, not a steeper one.

 

You can find the complete paper, with helpful illustrations, here:

 

http://perfectgolfswingreview.net/badds.htm

[JeffMann]

Good paper!

 

I never stated that a steeper shoulder turn is associated with a steeper left arm plane. I stated that a steeper shoulder turn is associated with a steeper left arm plane if the golfer chooses to have his left arm along the shoulder turn angle. That is what this statement signifies -: ""a steeper shoulder turn is usually associated with a steeper arm position if the position of the arms is nearly parallel to the shoulder plane angle". Using the term "nearly parallel" means that the left arm is along the shoulder turn angle, or just above, or just below the shoulder turn angle.

 

That chosen shoulder/left arm angle aassociation is not biomechanically obligatory. Badds has obviously chosen to lower his left arm plane relative to his shoulder turn angle - presumably because of the influence of Bennett/Plummer. I personally don't believe that slight variations in left arm plane relative to the shoulder turn angle is critically important. I only become concerned if a golfer has a great disparity in arm/shoulder angles, because that may require a compensatory move.

 

I have noticed that a greater percentage of present-day PGA tour players have their left arm close to their shoulder turn angle - irrespective of subtle variations in the degree of shoulder turn angle steepness. By contrast, I think that there are far less PGA tour players like David Toms and Jim Furyk, who have a great degree of disparity between their flat shoulder turn angle and a much steeper left arm plane, compared to PGA players in the 1960-1980's.

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

I never stated that a steeper shoulder turn is associated with a steeper left arm plane. I stated that a steeper shoulder turn is associated with a steeper left arm plane if the golfer chooses to have his left arm along the shoulder turn angle. That association is not biomechanically obligatory.

 

No, this is what you said:

 

"a steeper shoulder turn is usually associated with a steeper arm position if the position of the arms is nearly parallel to the shoulder plane angle". "Usually" is the word you used, as opposed to "is" or "is always". However, if that is what you meant, that you were ONLY talking about one-planers, then you are merely stating the obvious: a steeper one-plane swing is steeper than one that is flatter. But it's "always", not just "usually".

 

You stated in your initial post that you believed that a steeper shoulder turn might be more prone to an OTT move than a more horizontal one. I fail to see how this a legitimate concern if you are limiting the discussion to one-planers. The plane shift in a one-plane downswing gets the hands back close to the address position, so the likelihood of coming over-the-top is nil for players that execute it properly. A one-planer with steep shoulders is less likely to get too shallow, the common one-plane malady, so steeper shoulders are clearly preferable to flatter shoulders, if you are a one-planer.

 

Both Sergio and Dana are one-planers, so neither are in much danger of coming OTT. The players you should be concerned about are those with relatively steep armswings, the two-planers.

 

You stated this in post #39:

 

"My criticism was directed at the "idea" of a steep shoulder turn angle in the backswing - because I believe that an OTT move is more likely if the hands are higher, and closer to the toe line, at the end-backswing position."

 

High hands, closer to the toe-line at the end of the backswing, are quite common among two-planers, with arms much steeper than any one-planer. Rather than challenge Mike and Dana's technique, if OTT is your concern, it would make more sense for you to discourage aspiring golfers from attempting to emulate Adam Scott, Justin Rose, Luke Donald and Badds' "old" swing, for example. Perhaps that can be your next paper.

[aviator]

Maybe you guys could just PM eachother with all of your arguments and it would save people the torture of having to listen to your pissing contest. Both of you guys know a lot about the golf swing, it just doesn't seem to be the exact same swing theory and that is OK, really. Just a thought.

[jeffy]

Both of you guys know a lot about the golf swing,

 

Well, you are half right...

[JeffMann]

Jeffy - that was my mistake. I shouldn't have used the word "usual" when the correct word is obviously "always". If a player has a steep shoulder turn angle AND also has his left arm along the shoulder turn angle then he must also have a steep left arm angle. Now, you claim that this represents an one plane swing with a steep shoulder turn, and you believe that it will not predispose to an OTT move because you believe that Hardy one-planers will not have an OTT problem if they follow Hardy's one-plane teachings. However, I reject the notion that any golfer who has the left arm along the shoulder turn angle at the end-backswing position is a Hardy one-planer (although definitionally he fits the Hardy definition of an one plane swing). I therefore believe that the golfer can have his own rules/notions on how to perform a downswing action from that steep (one-plane) postion, and he may have a problem with an OTT move if he doesn't execute the downswing pivot action correctly. If that SAME non-Hardy golfer had a less steep (one-plane) shoulder/left arm angle, then he will likely have a lesser likelihood of coming OTT.

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Darom55

 

It is correct to state that golfers will have varying shoulder turn angle steepness with different clubs, and it is very likely that the shoulder turn angle will be steeper for each individual golfer when hitting a short iron. However, an individual golfer may have a steeper clubshaft angle of attack than another golfer for each equivalent club (driver, long iron, short iron), and that may have significant consequences on ball flight trajectory/distance and potential clubhead speed.

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Both of you guys know a lot about the golf swing,

 

Well, you are half right...

 

That was your first post that ever made me chuckle. Congratulations on a smart riposte!

 

Jeff.

[dana dahlquist]

I can only speak from seeing Jim's first book a year or so back. But our teaching of the backswing looks almost the same as his. But look at the right arm.

 

 

 

 

 

You would see a face a bit more open at the top of Tom's swing and an elbo a bit more behind. Thats why there is a throwing action in the One plane swing with the right arm.

Now not say its wrong....Thats just Jims deal. I like Tom's swing BTW

[JeffMann]

Both Parry and Stadler have a tremendous amount of lower body or forward motion in their swing so why is this an uppper body swing? Both players metioned, do no look that different from a face one view as compared to Tiger. Secondly, there are other players who are not thick chested which use this same stlye. Last I checked Stadler hit it out their pretty far compared to his peers which goes against the idea that this cannot a power move.

 

 

Sorry for the delayed response. I had to find a swing video of Craig Stadler's swing to analyse, and it took some time to get it done.

 

Here is a sequence of capture images from Craig's down-the-line view swing video.

 

 

Image 1 shows him at the end-backswing position. You can see that his bulk prevents him from getting his hands deep, and his hands end up in front of the right shoulder. He also has a steep clubshaft angle. I noted that he doesn't turn his hips much in the backswing, and most of the torso rotation is an upper body rotation.

 

Image 2 shows the start of the downswing. Although he squares his hips promptly at the start of the downswing, most of the body movement involves the upper body. You can see how much he rotates his shoulders in the early downswing. That moves his hands into an OTT position with the clubshaft vertically above his hands.

 

Image 3 shows how the clubshaft drops downwards from ABOVE the hands.

 

Image 4 - I couldn't capture an impact-image, but the early followthrough image demonstrates that his clubhead swingpath is out-to-in.

 

I presume that Craig is a "maestro" when it comes to clubface control, because with an out-to-in swingpath, he presumably must manipulate the clubface to prevent pulled shots.

 

The capture images cannot demonstrate the flow-dynamics of his swing, and it seems, when watching the video at full speed, that he mainly uses his upper torso to generate swing power. The pelvis does move appropriately to an open position at impact, but the pelvis movement seems reactive - secondary to the torso-turning power of the upper torso.

 

He appears to have very muscular arms/forearms and he may be able to generate considerable power by having a "hitting" action. I don't know how far he hits the ball relative to his peers, but I think that it is a disadvantage to have a slice-chopping clubhead swingpath and not to have a powerful lower body move. I think that golfers, like Tiger Woods, have a power advantage because they can generate considerable power by an aggressive hip turn followed by an active shoulder turn.

 

Look at this swing video of Tiger Woods. Note how much torque he can generate in his mid-torso, and note how fast his shoulders rotate through the mid-late downswing.

 

Tiger Woods downswing

 

The other advantage of Tiger's lower body swing style is that the clubshaft attack angle is shallower and comes fron inside-out. I think that it increases the possibility of him maximising clubhead speed and it also allows for an in-to-out clubhead swingpath if he wants to hit a gentle draw for increased ball roll distance. I think that it is much more difficult to hit a gentle draw with an OTT out-to-in clubhead

swingpath.

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

Jeffy - that was my mistake. I shouldn't have used the word "usual" when the correct word is obviously "always". If a player has a steep shoulder turn angle AND also has his left arm along the shoulder turn angle then he must also have a steep left arm angle. Now, you claim that this represents an one plane swing with a steep shoulder turn, and you believe that it will not predispose to an OTT move because you believe that Hardy one-planers will not have an OTT problem if they follow Hardy's one-plane teachings. However, I reject the notion that any golfer who has the left arm along the shoulder turn angle at the end-backswing position is a Hardy one-planer (although definitionally he fits the Hardy definition of an one plane swing). I therefore believe that the golfer can have his own rules/notions on how to perform a downswing action from that steep (one-plane) postion, and he may have a problem with an OTT move if he doesn't execute the downswing pivot action correctly. If that SAME non-Hardy golfer had a less steep (one-plane) shoulder/left arm angle, then he will likely have a lesser likelihood of coming OTT.

 

Jeff.

 

A one-planer is a one-planer, be it a Hardy one-planer, a B&P one-planer, or a Dana & Mike one-planer, and one-planers are far more prone to getting too shallow and under the plane (hooks and pushes) than OTT (pulls and slices). A one-planer has to plane shift to a lower plane in the downswing or he will swing over the ball. The plane shift automatically shallows the angle of attack. Of course, a poor player could botch it, but a one-planer fights being too shallow, not too steep. And flat one-planers have to fight it even more. In a one-plane swing, steep is better.

 

As I pointed out with Badds, in his new swing his shoulders are STEEPER but his left arm plane is FLATTER. So a one-planer with steep shoulders will still have flatter armswing than the typical two-planer. I don't believe ANY good one-planer has an arm swing that could objectively be called "steep". I would like to see you provide an image of a one-planer whose shoulders are so steep that his left arm angle qualifies as "steep" in the spectrum of all good golf swings.

[jeffy]

Dana-

 

Very informative post comparing Tom and Mike; thanks for putting it up.

 

Jeff

[JeffMann]

Jeffy wrote-:

 

"As I pointed out with Badds, in his new swing his shoulders are STEEPER but his left arm plane is FLATTER. So a one-planer with steep shoulders will still have flatter armswing than the typical two-planer. I don't believe ANY good one-planer has an arm swing that could objectively be called "steep". I would like to see you provide an image of a one-planer whose shoulders are so steep that his left arm angle qualifies as "steep" in the spectrum of all good golf swings."

 

OK. I accept the challenge. Here is a photo of an one planer with a steep left arm - and I presume that you would label Arnold Palmer (in his heyday) as being a 'good" golfer.

 

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

Jeffy wrote-:

 

"As I pointed out with Badds, in his new swing his shoulders are STEEPER but his left arm plane is FLATTER. So a one-planer with steep shoulders will still have flatter armswing than the typical two-planer. I don't believe ANY good one-planer has an arm swing that could objectively be called "steep". I would like to see you provide an image of a one-planer whose shoulders are so steep that his left arm angle qualifies as "steep" in the spectrum of all good golf swings."

 

OK. I accept the challenge. Here is a photo of an one planer with a steep left arm - and I presume that you would label Arnold Palmer (in his heyday) as being a 'good" golfer.

 

 

Jeff.

 

I'm not sure that qualifies as "steep", compared to two-planers that stood closer to the ball and swung the hands higher, or even Craig Stadler, who you posted above. As I recall, Palmer's clubs were flat. Lanny Wadkins and Scott Hoch are "steep". You need to measure the plane angle, then compare it to a spectrum of golfers. Good first step, though.

 

That said: what was Palmer's miss? A hook, from getting too shallow and under the plane. Presumably, swinging flatter would make it worse. OTT was not his problem.

[JeffMann]

Jeffy - that's why we never get anywhere when we debate issues. We have no agreed-upon endpoint, and we reside in different mental universes. If you are not willing to call that shoulder/left arm angle steep (considering the fact that Hardy recommends that the angle line should hit the ground 2-4 feet beyond the ball), then I give up.

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

Jeffy - that's why we never get anywhere when we debate issues. We have no agreed-upon endpoint, and we reside in different mental universes. If you are not willing to call that shoulder/left arm angle steep (considering the fact that Hardy recommends that the angle line should hit the ground 2-4 feet beyond the ball), then I give up.

 

Jeff.

 

It is steep for a one-planer, at the practical limit. But it is not "steep" in the context of all golf swings. I have been consistent on this point: the steepest one-planer is not "steep" when considered in the a spectrum of all golfers; two-planers, as a general rule, are steeper and are always the steepest. We don't "get anywhere" because you refuse to admit that you are wrong. You only effectively do that when you "give up". Lame. And stop calling me "mental"...

[JeffMann]

Jeffy - I do believe that you play in a different mental universe than me when you play in Hardy's 1PS/2PS mental universe with its arbitrary set of rules/notions as to what swing feature has to go with a 1PS or 2PS. I regard the entire Hardy mental universe as being self-contained and self-referential, and partially unconnected with reality, and I find that it doesn't help me understand the golf swing.

 

I know that I cannot possibly convince you of this fact, because you are a Hardy-groupie, so I will address the remainder of this post to non-Hardy golfers..

 

Consider John Daly' swing.

 

 

It is a typical 2PS - defined as an end-backswing position where the left arm is much steeper than the shoulder turn angle. However, he has classical OP features during his downswing - left arm along the shoulder turn with right elbow on the shirt seam (image 2), right elbow coming from behind the right hip (image 3) and right elbow remaining on right hip at impact as he rotates his pelvis together with his right elbow (image 4) - which shows that a 2PS-backswing golfer can have a 1PS-downswing.

 

Jim Furyk and David Toms are also classical examples of two-planers who have a 1PS downswing swing style.

 

That's why I don't play in Hardy's 1PS/2PS mental universe. There are endless examples of "real world" golfers having different combinations of 1PS and 2PS features in their "real life" swing.

 

Jeff.

[hoganfan924]

Jeffy - that's why we never get anywhere when we debate issues. We have no agreed-upon endpoint, and we reside in different mental universes. If you are not willing to call that shoulder/left arm angle steep (considering the fact that Hardy recommends that the angle line should hit the ground 2-4 feet beyond the ball), then I give up.

 

Jeff.

 

I'm pretty sure Hardy recommends that the one-plane line should project to a point anywhere between the ball and 4' outside of the ball, so Palmer conforms to Hardy's definition (and I'm not a big fan of Hardy's). But once again, Jeffmann, you've done a poor job of drawing the proper line along the left arm as it should actually intersect the shoulder socket, and you've drawn it below it (along the bottom of the triceps muscle) by a few inches.

Nonetheless, Palmer is a very interesting example as I believe it actually represents very nicely what Dana and Mike are proposing. It can be argued that the biomechanical advantage of this is that no rerouting of the hands/arms is required at the top of the backswing to downswing transition and therefore the player can simply unwind as hard and fast as they want without getting out of position (including OTT).

Palmer indeed had a one plane backswing, but his release was 2 plane. He hung back on his right side, stalled his hip rotation out and flung his arms down the target line so he was not a pure one planer.

[kosmosspoetz]

Jeffy wrote-:

 

"As I pointed out with Badds, in his new swing his shoulders are STEEPER but his left arm plane is FLATTER. So a one-planer with steep shoulders will still have flatter armswing than the typical two-planer. I don't believe ANY good one-planer has an arm swing that could objectively be called "steep". I would like to see you provide an image of a one-planer whose shoulders are so steep that his left arm angle qualifies as "steep" in the spectrum of all good golf swings."

 

OK. I accept the challenge. Here is a photo of an one planer with a steep left arm - and I presume that you would label Arnold Palmer (in his heyday) as being a 'good" golfer.

 

 

Jeff.

 

 

JeffMann,

 

Really nice picture of Palmer. It demonstrates the hip action that Dana teaches very nicely. Palmer has a very flat arm swing relative to his shoulders and a very steep shoulder turn. He gets the club up with his steep shoulder turn not with his arm swing.

 

"Steep" in golf lingo is very often misleading. "Steep" should relate to the angle of descent, viewed from face on, the clubhead would be high off the ground (relatively) late in the downswing, as opposed to "shallow" which would be nearly dragging along the ground as it approaches the ball. But, often "steep" is used for close to the target line.

 

Palmer's left arm is very "flat" in relation to his shoulder turn. It is also around 45 degrees to vertical. If you want to see "steep" look at Hoch. His left arm is nearly vertical. You might also want to consider travel behind the stance line (really around the center) in your consideration of "steep" vs. "flat" arm swing.

 

I do agree that Jeffy muddied the water with his previous post about where the shoulders point, but I think it was just his communication and not his understanding.

[kosmosspoetz]

Jeffy - that's why we never get anywhere when we debate issues. We have no agreed-upon endpoint, and we reside in different mental universes. If you are not willing to call that shoulder/left arm angle steep (considering the fact that Hardy recommends that the angle line should hit the ground 2-4 feet beyond the ball), then I give up.

 

Jeff.

 

I'm pretty sure Hardy recommends that the one-plane line should project to a point anywhere between the ball and 4' outside of the ball, so Palmer conforms to Hardy's definition (and I'm not a big fan of Hardy's). But once again, Jeffmann, you've done a poor job of drawing the proper line along the left arm as it should actually intersect the shoulder socket, and you've drawn it below it (along the bottom of the triceps muscle) by a few inches.

Nonetheless, Palmer is a very interesting example as I believe it actually represents very nicely what Dana and Mike are proposing. It can be argued that the biomechanical advantage of this is that no rerouting of the hands/arms is required at the top of the backswing to downswing transition and therefore the player can simply unwind as hard and fast as they want without getting out of position (including OTT).

Palmer indeed had a one plane backswing, but his release was 2 plane. He hung back on his right side, stalled his hip rotation out and flung his arms down the target line so he was not a pure one planer.

 

Nice post. Particularly the biomechanical advantage of putting your arms in a spot so you can pour on the power with the pivot without rerouting arms.

 

I think Dana could have cleaned up Palmer's finish with the action he teaches. By not pushing forward and straightening his left left, he restricts his ability to continue to rotate.

[JeffMann]

Hoganfan924

 

You are correct that I drew the left arm line slightly too steep, but the practical difference is totally insignificant.

 

I agree that Hardy states that the shoulder turn angle should be anywere outside the ball to within 48" of the ball, but he demonstrates an "average" distance of about 18-24" in his drill.

 

You state-: " It can be argued that the biomechanical advantage of this is that no rerouting of the hands/arms is required at the top of the backswing to downswing transition and therefore the player can simply unwind as hard and fast as they want without getting out of position (including OTT)."

 

Could you please expand on this point. I don't understand what you mean when you state that the hands do not have to be rerouted. In what way would the hands have to be rerouted if the shoulder/left arm turn angle is less steep?

 

Kossmosspoetz

 

When I an referring to a steep angle of attack, I am only referring to the clubshaft angle as seen from a down-the-line view, which doesn't necessarily correlate with a steep clubhead angle of attack as seen from a frontal view, although it may.

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

Jeffy - I do believe that you play in a different mental universe than me when you play in Hardy's 1PS/2PS mental universe with its arbitrary set of rules/notions as to what swing feature has to go with a 1PS or 2PS. I regard the entire Hardy mental universe as being self-contained and self-referential, and partially unconnected with reality, and I find that it doesn't help me understand the golf swing.

 

I know that I cannot possibly convince you of this fact, because you are a Hardy-groupie, so I will address the remainder of this post to non-Hardy golfers..

 

Consider John Daly' swing.

 

 

It is a typical 2PS - defined as an end-backswing position where the left arm is much steeper than the shoulder turn angle. However, he has classical OP features during his downswing - left arm along the shoulder turn with right elbow on the shirt seam (image 2), right elbow coming from behind the right hip (image 3) and right elbow remaining on right hip at impact as he rotates his pelvis together with his right elbow (image 4) - which shows that a 2PS-backswing golfer can have a 1PS-downswing.

 

Jim Furyk and David Toms are also classical examples of two-planers who have a 1PS downswing swing style.

 

That's why I don't play in Hardy's 1PS/2PS mental universe. There are endless examples of "real world" golfers having different combinations of 1PS and 2PS features in their "real life" swing.

 

Jeff.

 

Yes: Daly is a hybrid: a two-planer with a one-plane impact, or, alternatively, a one-planer with a flying right elbow. Jim Hardy labels him as such in that book you read 20+ times, "The Plane Truth for Golfers", on page 35. Furyk and Toms are also excellent examples. But there is no logical connection between these "hybrid" swings and the point we were discussing. This post of yours seems to be just a straw man or smokescreen to attempt to divert attention from your wrong-headedness. In many ways it can be considered the type of "ad hominem" attack you are always accusing others of making.

 

Specifically, I don't know what you are referring to as far as how Hardy's "set of rules/notions as to what swing feature has to go with a 1PS or 2PS" relate to this discussion. The steepest one-planer is not "steep" when viewed in the context of all swings. That is a geometric fact that has nothing to do with Hardy and his method. Also, in any one-plane swing where the left arm points beyond the ball, the club has to shift to a lower plane or it will follow the left arm plane established at the top and swing over the ball. Again, this is a geometric certainty, and has nothing to do with whether you are taught by Hardy or anyone else.

 

If you are now reduced to making irrelevant posts like this, I think you should just go back to your previous posture and "give up".

[jeffy]

Could you please expand on this point. I don't understand what you mean when you state that the hands do not have to be rerouted. In what way would the hands have to be rerouted if the shoulder/left arm turn angle is less steep?

 

I assume that he means that the one-planer needs to reverse the plane shift made in the backswing or, as I pointed out in my previous post, the left arm would swing the club over the ball. If the arms are flatter, the left arm points further out along the horizon, so the plane shift needed is larger. And this fact has nothing to do with Hardy, although that is who I learned it from.

[jeffy]

When I an referring to a steep angle of attack, I am only referring to the clubshaft angle as seen from a down-the-line view, which doesn't necessarily correlate with a steep clubhead angle of attack as seen from a frontal view, although it may.

 

The two correlate pretty closely: a steeper arm swing tends to have a steeper angle of attack. Perhaps you have forgotten the tire analogy that Hardy uses in "The Plane Truth for Golfers" on pages 6 and 7. I guess you didn't read that part twenty-plus times. That is why the good two-planers do what they can to add width at the bottom, so the angle of attack doesn't get too steep.

[hoganfan924]

Could you please expand on this point. I don't understand what you mean when you state that the hands do not have to be rerouted. In what way would the hands have to be rerouted if the shoulder/left arm turn angle is less steep?

 

I assume that he means that the one-planer needs to reverse the plane shift made in the backswing or, as I pointed out in my previous post, the left arm would swing the club over the ball. If the arms are flatter, the left arm points further out along the horizon, so the plane shift needed is larger. And that fact has nothing to do with Hardy, although that is who I learned it from.

 

Yes, That plane shift is much more problematic if the left arm is steep (points inside of the ball) as a reverse loop shift must occur (think that's what TGMr's call it) if the player wishes to hit from the inside, which is what Daly and all good 2 planer's do that hit from the inside, or the player will have an OTT move. That means that the steep 2 planer who wishes to hit from the inside, has to allow time in the transition to drop the hands and can therefore not unwind aggressively to start the downswing. There is a timing element involved and many two planers drop the hands too low and get into the "stuck" position. BTW, this is often a problem for 2 planers who are trying to convert to 1 plane, they still use reverse loop shift and get their hands way too low in transition.

 

A one planer is in a much better position at the top of the backswing to go at the ball hard right from the top and still swing from the inside (without having to "manufacture" that move) because the downswing plane can either remain shallow (promoting an inside out path - exactly what Hogan discussed in 5 Lessons when he explained the plane shift - no reroute required), or the one planer has the option of using a loop shift to get on the "perfect" downswing plane to allow impact to occur straight down the target line. That loop shift, to the untrained eye, will look like an OTT move, but it's not. That move also flattens the shaft angle in the transition and is one reason why so many good players have the extension of the shaft pointing well outside the ball partway through their downswing, while poor players often do the opposite.

 

With a steep backswing shoulder turn, as proposed by Dana (and demonstrated by Palmer), the shoulders can simply unwind around the spine, no need to change shoulder planes and drive the right shoulder down. So again, a biomechanical argument can be made that it is simpler and requires less timing. That said, I think the left arm backswing plane is much more important than the BS shoulder plane based on my observations and experience.