Analysis of Sergio Garcia's swing

[JeffMann]

What do you think of this analysis of SG's swing?

 

Sergio's swing

 

I think that it may win the prize for the most biomechanically-irrational analysis of a golf swing that I have ever seen.

 

I was particularly amused by his statement that Sergio's left knee comes forward to keep him in balance!

 

Jeff.

[jeffy]

Well, he has his terminology confused as far as Hardy's definitions of one versus two-plane goes, but I don't hear or see any "biomechanical irrationality". Sergio is a "one-planer with a flying right elbow" like Couples, Daly, the young Nicklaus, Furyk, etc. Sergio clearly has the athleticism to pull off the plane, balance and posture shifts this guy identifies, but I think his suggestion that Sergio should be working on swing changes at this point [b]is[/b] "irrational". Sergio's problem is [b]SCORING[/b], primarily with his putter, and until he conquers that, he's going to remain an also ran.

BTW, if the left knee's movement is not to maintain balance while the body turns, what is the purpose?

[slicefixer]

[quote name='JeffMann' post='821594' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:33 AM']What do you think of this analysis of SG's swing?

[url="http://www.ultimategolfsystem.com/blog/?p=7"]Sergio's swing[/url]

I think that it may win the prize for the most biomechanically-irrational analysis of a golf swing that I have ever seen.

I was particularly amused by his statement that Sergio's left knee comes forward to keep him in balance!

Jeff.[/quote]


Well, the first thing is that footage is about 5 or 6 YEARS old.........pre shaft plane change............don't have time to listen to the deal right now, but, will.......hehehehe (guess he's been working on the "swing analysis" for quite awhihle.....heheh)

[slicefixer]

[quote name='jeffy' post='821655' date='Dec 12 2007, 12:31 PM']Well, he has his terminology confused as far as Hardy's definitions of one versus two-plane goes, but I don't hear or see any "biomechanical irrationality". Sergio is a "one-planer with a flying right elbow" like Couples, Daly, the young Nicklaus, Furyk, etc. Sergio clearly has the athleticism to pull off the plane, balance and posture shifts this guy identifies, but I think his suggestion that Sergio should be working on swing changes at this point [b]is[/b] "irrational". Sergio's problem is [b]SCORING[/b], primarily with his putter, and until he conquers that, he's going to remain an also ran.

BTW, if the left knee's movement is not to maintain balance while the body turns, what is the purpose?[/quote]


Jeffy, here IS my primary problem with Mr. Hardy's stuff...........HOW in the hell do you lump players like Couples, Daly, Furyk, Nicklaus, and Sergio together as "1 planers" when they RELEASED the club in a VASTLY different manner........Sergio, Daly, and Furyk share some common elements to they way the RELEASE the golf club.....and all 3 are NOTHING, not ONE bit, like Nicklaus and Couples..........that's my primary problem with Hardy's thought pattern...........I DO 100% agree that there are TWO basic "styles" of golf swings, but, to lump a bunch of players together and imply that they are the same when they are (in some cases 180 degrees) so OPPOSITE in the impact zone just doesn't "work" for me..........doesn't make any sense..........probably because I TRULY believe that ALL that REALLY matters is 9 to 3 as that IS where the ball "gets in the way"...........Sergio and Nicklaus are simply nothing alike from "9 to 3" .........

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='jeffy' post='821655' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:31 AM']Well, he has his terminology confused as far as Hardy's definitions of one versus two-plane goes, but I don't hear or see any "biomechanical irrationality". Sergio is a "one-planer with a flying right elbow" like Couples, Daly, the young Nicklaus, Furyk, etc. Sergio clearly has the athleticism to pull off the plane, balance and posture shifts this guy identifies, but I think his suggestion that Sergio should be working on swing changes at this point [b]is[/b] "irrational". Sergio's problem is [b]SCORING[/b], primarily with his putter, and until he conquers that, he's going to remain an also ran.

BTW, if the left knee's movement is not to maintain balance while the body turns, what is the purpose?[/quote]

Agreed, Jeffy,

His confusion of 1PS and 2PS terminology is a mess as is his assertion that Sergio is off balance because his left knee is in front of the right knee in the BS. Gee, I thought all good golfers were in that position. He does make a few good points though and Sergios initial backswing move (in that particular swing - seems kinda old to me) with his hands and shaft coming up and the shaft being a little steep at the top are issues that he has to address in the downswing (which he does very well). I'm not a big believer in the weight at address being on the balls of the feet either, so I guess I'll disagree that Sergio is out of balance in his set-up.

[Swingtheclub]

[quote name='hoganfan924' post='821673' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:49 AM'][quote name='jeffy' post='821655' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:31 AM']Well, he has his terminology confused as far as Hardy's definitions of one versus two-plane goes, but I don't hear or see any "biomechanical irrationality". Sergio is a "one-planer with a flying right elbow" like Couples, Daly, the young Nicklaus, Furyk, etc. Sergio clearly has the athleticism to pull off the plane, balance and posture shifts this guy identifies, but I think his suggestion that Sergio should be working on swing changes at this point [b]is[/b] "irrational". Sergio's problem is [b]SCORING[/b], primarily with his putter, and until he conquers that, he's going to remain an also ran.

BTW, if the left knee's movement is not to maintain balance while the body turns, what is the purpose?[/quote]

Agreed, Jeffy,

His confusion of 1PS and 2PS terminology is a mess as is his assertion that Sergio is off balance because his left knee is in front of the right knee in the BS. Gee, I thought all good golfers were in that position. He does make a few good points though and Sergios initial backswing move (in that particular swing - seems kinda old to me) with his hands and shaft coming up and the shaft being a little steep at the top are issues that he has to address in the downswing (which he does very well). I'm not a big believer in the weight at address being on the balls of the feet either, so I guess I'll disagree that Sergio is out of balance in his set-up.
[/quote]



Where do you like the weight at address?


I am a big balls of the feet believer almost toes. My reasoning is simple name a sport you play with power with your weight on your heels?

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='kenk7us2002' post='821688' date='Dec 12 2007, 12:01 PM'][quote name='hoganfan924' post='821673' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:49 AM'][quote name='jeffy' post='821655' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:31 AM']Well, he has his terminology confused as far as Hardy's definitions of one versus two-plane goes, but I don't hear or see any "biomechanical irrationality". Sergio is a "one-planer with a flying right elbow" like Couples, Daly, the young Nicklaus, Furyk, etc. Sergio clearly has the athleticism to pull off the plane, balance and posture shifts this guy identifies, but I think his suggestion that Sergio should be working on swing changes at this point [b]is[/b] "irrational". Sergio's problem is [b]SCORING[/b], primarily with his putter, and until he conquers that, he's going to remain an also ran.

BTW, if the left knee's movement is not to maintain balance while the body turns, what is the purpose?[/quote]

Agreed, Jeffy,

His confusion of 1PS and 2PS terminology is a mess as is his assertion that Sergio is off balance because his left knee is in front of the right knee in the BS. Gee, I thought all good golfers were in that position. He does make a few good points though and Sergios initial backswing move (in that particular swing - seems kinda old to me) with his hands and shaft coming up and the shaft being a little steep at the top are issues that he has to address in the downswing (which he does very well). I'm not a big believer in the weight at address being on the balls of the feet either, so I guess I'll disagree that Sergio is out of balance in his set-up.
[/quote]



Where do you like the weight at address?


I am a big balls of the feet believer almost toes. My reasoning is simple name a sport you play with power with your weight on your heels?
[/quote]

Ken, I do think this varies player by player somewhat depending on how far away from the body they hold their hands at address, but if I tried to put my weight out on my toes, I'd get way out of balance and probably shank or chunk every shot. I prefer feeling like my weight is more centered - about 1/2 between the arch and ball of my foot and that I can curl my toes up inside my shoes without losing my balance. Definitely like to feel that there is still some (light) pressure on my heels, not like they feel off the ground.

[Lake]

It's obvious, but I did like Tracy's identification of the body at address than at transistion......I'm not a proponent of straight lines at address... Studying HOF'ers you see a lot more curvature of the lumbar, thoracic, & cervical at address. I don't remember which guru started this stickman look at address but I've never liked it

[JeffMann]

I believe that his argument is biomechanically irrational for a number of reasons, but it starts with his premises.

His logic is as follows.

Statement 1: Sergio has too much weight on his heels relative to his forefoot at address, and is therefore in a state of unbalance at address.

Statement 2: Sergio has to perform a number of compensatory moves during the backswing because he is in a state of imbalance at address.

The logical validity of statement 2 depends on the accuracy of statement 1.

I don't think that Sergio has too much weight on his heels at address (relative to his forefeet) and I therefore don't think that he is in a state of unbalance at address. Therefore, if I don't think that statement 1 is true, I don't have to consider the legitimacy of statement 2.

If any forum member believes that statement 1 is accurate, then I would like them to explain their reasoning (the biomechanics underpinning their belief).

Jeff.

[ChrisM84]

Probably one of the worst. He also has other swings he "reviewed" on youtube. He believes in true rotary motion, with absolutely no lateral or vertical movement. Which is biomechanically flawed in itself.

[JeffMann]

Ken - you have a very different concept of appropriate weight balance at address if you think that the weight should be primarily over the forefoot-toes. I think that it may be appropriate for diving into a swimming pool when one wants to propel the body forward. However, the first action in the golf swing is a backswing action where one pivots over the right femoral head. I think that, from a biomechanical perspective, that one can optimise that move if one's weight is roughly equally distributed between the heels and forefeet. I strongly suspect that SG has his weight equally distributed between his heels and forefeet - based on the "look" of his address posture.

Jeff.

[Swingtheclub]

Its all about transfer of weight Jeff

I know nothing about fancy terms like bio mechanics

I know if punch someone I want my weight on my toes I know if I want to block some one on a football field I dont want my weight on my heels
I think my weight being slightly forward helps me transfer my weight better

and to be honest it seems most golfers I have seen with too much weight on their heels cannot hit it out of their shadow

I basically just think its a more athletic position, either way could be over done

by the way the example of diving in the end of a pool is my example of just about a perfect set up position

[jeffy]

[quote name='slicefixer' post='821671' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:47 AM']Jeffy, here IS my primary problem with Mr. Hardy's stuff...........HOW in the hell do you lump players like Couples, Daly, Furyk, Nicklaus, and Sergio together as "1 planers" when they RELEASED the club in a VASTLY different manner........Sergio, Daly, and Furyk share some common elements to they way the RELEASE the golf club.....and all 3 are NOTHING, not ONE bit, like Nicklaus and Couples..........that's my primary problem with Hardy's thought pattern...........I DO 100% agree that there are TWO basic "styles" of golf swings, but, to lump a bunch of players together and imply that they are the same when they are (in some cases 180 degrees) so OPPOSITE in the impact zone just doesn't "work" for me..........doesn't make any sense..........probably because I TRULY believe that ALL that REALLY matters is 9 to 3 as that IS where the ball "gets in the way"...........Sergio and Nicklaus are simply nothing alike from "9 to 3" .........[/quote]

We've been through this before, and I've told you that Jim would probably agree with you on the releases, though I think the young Nicklaus was closer to Sergio than you may think. Freddie, like Vijay and Lefty, has what Jim calls a "flip" release, so it is nothing like the others. But, one and two-plane is the way Jim likes to BEGIN categorizing players (obviously there is a lot more to it than that). Having been to three seminars, I can assure you that Jim looks at release types and "9-to-3 o'clock" as well as other elements when categorizing players; he just doesn't get into it in his books.

As I may have suggested before, IMO, going off on these rants about Hardy is pretty dumb when you don't have any first hand experience with him. If you clean out your mail box, I'll PM you his email address and you can introduce yourself and ask him your questions directly. If you are polite and sound sincere, he'll probably respond. Mention that I suggested you contact him, if you'd like (he knows who "jeffy" is).

[jeffy]

However, the first action in the golf swing is a backswing action where one pivots over the right femoral head. I think that, from a biomechanical perspective, that one can optimise that move if one's weight is roughly equally distributed between the heels and forefeet. I strongly suspect that SG has his weight equally distributed between his heels and forefeet - based on the "look" of his address posture.

 

Jeff.

 

Obviously, the author of this analysis agrees pretty much with you on the appropriate weight distribution across the foot at address. He just doesn't think Sergio does it, and, by comparing where Sergio is at address and impact, I can see how he comes to this conclusion:

 

Address:

 

 

Impact:

 

 

Clearly, Sergio's weight is more towards his toes at impact than at address.

 

It seems that the author's thesis is that, ideally, there are no shifts in swingplane, posture and weight distribution between the heels and the toes throughout the swing. I don't agree totally, but I can see the appeal of the "fewer moving parts" philosophy.

 

You may "strongly suspect that SG has his weight equally distributed between his heels and forefeet - based on the 'look' of his address posture", but that is hardly evidence: it is just your opinion, and doesn't square with what can be observed in Sergio's swing.

[Shaitan]

Have a look at those two pics u just posted, not at his feet, at his head:

He has had a head drop of atleast a couple of inches, which would have pushed his weight on his feet from the centre of his stance at address to the balls of his feet at impact. I'm with Jeffman on this one - in setup, he has a centred weight on his feet.

[slicefixer]

[quote name='jeffy' post='822005' date='Dec 12 2007, 05:36 PM'][quote name='slicefixer' post='821671' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:47 AM']Jeffy, here IS my primary problem with Mr. Hardy's stuff...........HOW in the hell do you lump players like Couples, Daly, Furyk, Nicklaus, and Sergio together as "1 planers" when they RELEASED the club in a VASTLY different manner........Sergio, Daly, and Furyk share some common elements to they way the RELEASE the golf club.....and all 3 are NOTHING, not ONE bit, like Nicklaus and Couples..........that's my primary problem with Hardy's thought pattern...........I DO 100% agree that there are TWO basic "styles" of golf swings, but, to lump a bunch of players together and imply that they are the same when they are (in some cases 180 degrees) so OPPOSITE in the impact zone just doesn't "work" for me..........doesn't make any sense..........probably because I TRULY believe that ALL that REALLY matters is 9 to 3 as that IS where the ball "gets in the way"...........Sergio and Nicklaus are simply nothing alike from "9 to 3" .........[/quote]

We've been through this before, and I've told you that Jim would probably agree with you on the releases, though I think the young Nicklaus was closer to Sergio than you may think. Freddie, like Vijay and Lefty, has what Jim calls a "flip" release, so it is nothing like the others. But, one and two-plane is the way Jim likes to BEGIN categorizing players (obviously there is a lot more to it than that). Having been to three seminars, I can assure you that Jim looks at release types and "9-to-3 o'clock" as well as other elements when categorizing players; he just doesn't get into it in his books.

As I may have suggested before, IMO, going off on these rants about Hardy is pretty dumb when you don't have any first hand experience with him. If you clean out your mail box, I'll PM you his email address and you can introduce yourself and ask him your questions directly. If you are polite and sound sincere, he'll probably respond. Mention that I suggested you contact him, if you'd like (he knows who "jeffy" is).
[/quote]


Jeffy.....I dont' consider my post above a "rant" or anything of that nature (it sure WASN'T intended as one, I promise you that).........more of making a point (a point that I KNOW is correct and can EASILY be seen on video.....and you no doubt know it's true too) in regards to your post with hope you'd respond and explain things to me a bit.......I just don't understand how you can "classify" players as the same when there are such "conflicts" in what IS going on from 9 to 3/"impact zone" (which, IMOP, is a helluva' LOT more important than what's going on in the backswing) .......Jeffy, IF you've got 2 players with similar backswings, but, TOTALLY different downswings/releases/throughswings HOW can you classify them as "1 plane?".......AND, if you do, then it stands to reason there is NO "1 plane method" as there wouldn't be any "constants" in regards to the downswing.....NOW, IF you say "player A" has a 1 plane backswing and a 2 plane release then I guess I actually do understand.......Is that correct terminology/theory?..........but, I could have it all wrong...........but, I sure agree 100% with the Fred/Vijay/Lefty "flip"......gives me the "heeby jeebies" to watch it...........and I appreciate your offer and will take you up on it........btw, I ALWAYS TRY and be polite, but, I KNOW I've failed at times........however, I'm ALWAYS sincere.....

[jeffy]

[quote name='Shaitan' post='822046' date='Dec 12 2007, 05:16 PM']Have a look at those two pics u just posted, not at his feet, at his head:

He has had a head drop of atleast a couple of inches, which would have pushed his weight on his feet from the centre of his stance at address to the balls of his feet at impact. I'm with Jeffman on this one - in setup, he has a centred weight on his feet.[/quote]

That's [b]IS[/b] what I was looking at: seems to me he'd be way out on his toes if he were "centered" at address then dropped his upper body toward the ball, as he has done...

[slicefixer]

The thing the video of Sergio doesn't show is that his head is moving BACKWARDS a LOT in his downswing.......and it has to in order to "gain some space" for all that lag to have enough "time and space" to "unload" and square up naturally.......for some reason people thnk Sergio is "handsy".....he ISN"T......but, IF he were more "on top" of the ball he'd have to be "handsy" to get the clubhead "leveled out and squared up".......but, you get a face on of him.........put a box around his head at address......then note where the head is at impact.........back in the day when THAT footage was shot Sergio's head would be totally BEHIND the box AWAY from the target when hitting a driver........IMOP, IF a person TRULY wants to "analyze" Sergio's golf swing then they shouldn't use footage that is BADLY outdated AND they should use several angles........NOT much of an "analysis" if you only use ONE view IMOP.......

[jeffy]

[quote name='slicefixer' post='822051' date='Dec 12 2007, 05:22 PM'][quote name='jeffy' post='822005' date='Dec 12 2007, 05:36 PM'][quote name='slicefixer' post='821671' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:47 AM']Jeffy, here IS my primary problem with Mr. Hardy's stuff...........HOW in the hell do you lump players like Couples, Daly, Furyk, Nicklaus, and Sergio together as "1 planers" when they RELEASED the club in a VASTLY different manner........Sergio, Daly, and Furyk share some common elements to they way the RELEASE the golf club.....and all 3 are NOTHING, not ONE bit, like Nicklaus and Couples..........that's my primary problem with Hardy's thought pattern...........I DO 100% agree that there are TWO basic "styles" of golf swings, but, to lump a bunch of players together and imply that they are the same when they are (in some cases 180 degrees) so OPPOSITE in the impact zone just doesn't "work" for me..........doesn't make any sense..........probably because I TRULY believe that ALL that REALLY matters is 9 to 3 as that IS where the ball "gets in the way"...........Sergio and Nicklaus are simply nothing alike from "9 to 3" .........[/quote]

We've been through this before, and I've told you that Jim would probably agree with you on the releases, though I think the young Nicklaus was closer to Sergio than you may think. Freddie, like Vijay and Lefty, has what Jim calls a "flip" release, so it is nothing like the others. But, one and two-plane is the way Jim likes to BEGIN categorizing players (obviously there is a lot more to it than that). Having been to three seminars, I can assure you that Jim looks at release types and "9-to-3 o'clock" as well as other elements when categorizing players; he just doesn't get into it in his books.

As I may have suggested before, IMO, going off on these rants about Hardy is pretty dumb when you don't have any first hand experience with him. If you clean out your mail box, I'll PM you his email address and you can introduce yourself and ask him your questions directly. If you are polite and sound sincere, he'll probably respond. Mention that I suggested you contact him, if you'd like (he knows who "jeffy" is).
[/quote]


Jeffy.....I dont' consider my post above a "rant" or anything of that nature (it sure WASN'T intended as one, I promise you that).........more of making a point (a point that I KNOW is correct and can EASILY be seen on video.....and you no doubt know it's true too) in regards to your post with hope you'd respond and explain things to me a bit.......I just don't understand how you can "classify" players as the same when there are such "conflicts" in what IS going on from 9 to 3/"impact zone" (which, IMOP, is a helluva' LOT more important than what's going on in the backswing) .......Jeffy, IF you've got 2 players with similar backswings, but, TOTALLY different downswings/releases/throughswings HOW can you classify them as "1 plane?".......AND, if you do, then it stands to reason there is NO "1 plane method" as there wouldn't be any "constants" in regards to the downswing.....NOW, IF you say "player A" has a 1 plane backswing and a 2 plane release then I guess I actually do understand.......Is that correct terminology/theory?..........but, I could have it all wrong...........but, I sure agree 100% with the Fred/Vijay/Lefty "flip"......gives me the "heeby jeebies" to watch it...........and I appreciate your offer and will take you up on it........btw, I ALWAYS TRY and be polite, but, I KNOW I've failed at times........however, I'm ALWAYS sincere.....
[/quote]

Slice, the one and two-plane top of the backswing position is just a [b]STARTING[/b] point (I mentioned that), like saying there are two types of golfers: left-handed and right-handed. Lefty and Weir are still both "left-handed golfers", even though they swing nothing alike.

You are correct: one and two-plane are VERY broad categories. Maybe you missed it, but I posted the other day that at one of the seminars I attended Jim said that "there must be at least [b]10,000[/b] ways to make a good one-plane swing; what I teach in my books is what I think is the [b]simplest[/b]". You are also correct that you can have one-planers with a two-plane release (Greg Norman) and two-planers with a one-plane release (also sometimes called "one-planers with a flying right elbow") like Furyk, Daly, etc. Jim calls these combos "hybrids".

I think I posted this before here, but no reason not to do it again. This is a post by Jim on his forum when forum members over there were asking the same questions you are:

[i]"I believe that much of the confusion about my ideas are probably my fault. My fault in that I, on purpose, do not narrowly and strictly define the one and two-plane swing. I don't think that it serves any purpose to take away a golfer's athleticism and replace it with a confining set of moves and positions. I believe that, in a general sense, the one-planer is swinging his/her arms around their body (which is bent over somewhat depending on their height, the club they are using and a forgiving 48" zone) while their body turns, and that a two-planer is swinging their arms up and down in-front of their body in time with the body turn. Now, having said that, a pure one-planer would generally swing their arms around their body as the body turns in both the backswing and the downswing/followthrough.

"The same goes with a two-planer, they would want to strive to keep the arms in-front of them as they turn the body in time with the arm swing throughout the swing. So, in that sense, you could argue that there are one-plane and two-plane "pure" positions throughout the swing and I would agree with you. On the other hand, I point out a number of times that the best place to generally view the differences between the one and two-plane swings is at the top of the backswing. There you can most easily see if the golfer has "swung his/her arms up from address and onto somewhat the same plane as their body turn (one-plane), or have swung their arms up and onto a different plane than the body turn (two-plane)".

"This is certainly the place where I first look to generally define a one or a two-planer. If they are somewhat on their shoulder plane, then I term them a one-planer. And if they are not close to the shoulder plane, I call them a two-planer. They may be a very good one or two-planer or a very bad one. For instance, they might be a one-planer, but with very level shoulders and a right elbow pointed in-front of them. They are in big trouble, but they are still a one-planer. Likewise a two-planer could turn his shoulders straight into the ball from the top of the backswing and have a steep chop at the ball and still be a two-planer, just not a good one.

"In both these cases, I have put elements of the other method into their swings. The one-planer has level shoulders and a right elbow like a two-planer (it won't work) and the two-plane example has a hard shoulder move at the start of the downswing which doesn't match his swing type. So here we have examples of identifying one and two-plane swings by their positions relative to the top of the backswing but can also further identify them by movements throughout the swing. That is why I say there are hybrids. In fact, I just gave an excellent hybrid a lesson at the Hope: Jeff Sluman. A two-plane swing by definition of the top of backswing, but, when playing well, like Jim Furyk, gets his arms tied into his body turn in a beautiful one-plane impact position.

"So instead of making it easier for all of you, I've probably made this seem more complicated. It is complicated, once you leave a "pure" swing and start to introduce cross elements. That is why I advise golfers to try to simplify their swings to just the elements of their type. On the other hand, I see great athletic swings that can accommodate the issues of some cross-overs and I see no reason to change them unless their athletic ability to make them happen is waning. Then and only then do I suggest changes. For the rest of us, we don't have the athleticism to make such cross-over elements work and be repetitive, so we must strive for the elements that make it the easiest.

"In the meanwhile it is necessary, when looking and understanding swings, to recognize them first as one or two-planers from a top of swing position and then to understand their positions/movements relative to the ideal one or two-plane elements throughout the swing. It is fine with me to use the terms one or two-plane swings based on the top of swing. It is also fine with me to identify hybrid swings (like Furyk, John Daly, Couples, Sluman) that can change swing types in mid-stream and call them hybrids or one-plane impact players, etc.
JH"
[/i]

[slicefixer]

[quote name='jeffy' post='822078' date='Dec 12 2007, 06:45 PM'][quote name='slicefixer' post='822051' date='Dec 12 2007, 05:22 PM'][quote name='jeffy' post='822005' date='Dec 12 2007, 05:36 PM'][quote name='slicefixer' post='821671' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:47 AM']Jeffy, here IS my primary problem with Mr. Hardy's stuff...........HOW in the hell do you lump players like Couples, Daly, Furyk, Nicklaus, and Sergio together as "1 planers" when they RELEASED the club in a VASTLY different manner........Sergio, Daly, and Furyk share some common elements to they way the RELEASE the golf club.....and all 3 are NOTHING, not ONE bit, like Nicklaus and Couples..........that's my primary problem with Hardy's thought pattern...........I DO 100% agree that there are TWO basic "styles" of golf swings, but, to lump a bunch of players together and imply that they are the same when they are (in some cases 180 degrees) so OPPOSITE in the impact zone just doesn't "work" for me..........doesn't make any sense..........probably because I TRULY believe that ALL that REALLY matters is 9 to 3 as that IS where the ball "gets in the way"...........Sergio and Nicklaus are simply nothing alike from "9 to 3" .........[/quote]

We've been through this before, and I've told you that Jim would probably agree with you on the releases, though I think the young Nicklaus was closer to Sergio than you may think. Freddie, like Vijay and Lefty, has what Jim calls a "flip" release, so it is nothing like the others. But, one and two-plane is the way Jim likes to BEGIN categorizing players (obviously there is a lot more to it than that). Having been to three seminars, I can assure you that Jim looks at release types and "9-to-3 o'clock" as well as other elements when categorizing players; he just doesn't get into it in his books.

As I may have suggested before, IMO, going off on these rants about Hardy is pretty dumb when you don't have any first hand experience with him. If you clean out your mail box, I'll PM you his email address and you can introduce yourself and ask him your questions directly. If you are polite and sound sincere, he'll probably respond. Mention that I suggested you contact him, if you'd like (he knows who "jeffy" is).
[/quote]


Jeffy.....I dont' consider my post above a "rant" or anything of that nature (it sure WASN'T intended as one, I promise you that).........more of making a point (a point that I KNOW is correct and can EASILY be seen on video.....and you no doubt know it's true too) in regards to your post with hope you'd respond and explain things to me a bit.......I just don't understand how you can "classify" players as the same when there are such "conflicts" in what IS going on from 9 to 3/"impact zone" (which, IMOP, is a helluva' LOT more important than what's going on in the backswing) .......Jeffy, IF you've got 2 players with similar backswings, but, TOTALLY different downswings/releases/throughswings HOW can you classify them as "1 plane?".......AND, if you do, then it stands to reason there is NO "1 plane method" as there wouldn't be any "constants" in regards to the downswing.....NOW, IF you say "player A" has a 1 plane backswing and a 2 plane release then I guess I actually do understand.......Is that correct terminology/theory?..........but, I could have it all wrong...........but, I sure agree 100% with the Fred/Vijay/Lefty "flip"......gives me the "heeby jeebies" to watch it...........and I appreciate your offer and will take you up on it........btw, I ALWAYS TRY and be polite, but, I KNOW I've failed at times........however, I'm ALWAYS sincere.....
[/quote]

Slice, the one and two-plane top of the backswing position is just a [b]STARTING[/b] point (I mentioned that), like saying there are two types of golfers: left-handed and right-handed. Lefty and Weir are still both "left-handed golfers", even though they swing nothing alike.

You are correct: one and two-plane are VERY broad categories. Maybe you missed it, but I posted the other day that at one of the seminars I attended, Jim said that "there must be at least [b]10,000[/b] ways to make a good one-plane swing; what I teach in my books is what I think is the [b]simplest[/b]". You are also correct that you can have one-planers with a two-plane release (Greg Norman) and two-planers with a one-plane release (also sometimes called "one-planers with a flying right elbow") like Furyk, Daly, etc. Jim calls these combos "hybrids".

I think I posted this before here, but no reason not to do it again. This is a post by Jim on his forum when forum members over there were asking the same questions you are:

[i]"I believe that much of the confusion about my ideas are probably my fault. My fault, in that I on purpose, do not narrowly and strictly define the one and two-plane swing. I don't think that it serves any purpose to take away a golfer's athleticism and replace it with a confining set of moves and positions. I believe that in a general sense, the one-planer is swinging his/her arms around their body (which is bent over somewhat depending on their height, the club they are using and a forgiving 48"zone) while their body turns and that a two-planer is swinging their arms up and down in-front of their body in time with the body turn. Now having said that, a pure one-planer would generally swing their arms around their body as the body turns in both the backswing and the downswing/followthrough.

"The same goes with a two-planer, they would want to strive to keep the arms in-front of them as they turn the body in time with the arm swing through-out the swing. So in that sense, you could argue that there are one-plane and two-plane "pure" positions through-out the swing and I would agree with you. On the other hand, I point out a number of times, that the best place to generally view the differences between the one and two-plane swings is at the top of the backswing. There you can most easily see if the golfer has "swung his/her arms up from address and onto somewhat the same plane as their body turn (one-plane) or have swung their arms up and onto a different plane than the body turn (two-plane)".

"This is certainly the place where I first look to generally define a one or a two-planer. If they are somewhat on their shoulder plane, then I term them a one-planer. And if they are not close to the shoulder plane I call them a two-planer. They may be a very good one or two-planer or a very bad one. For instance, they might be a one-planer but with very level shoulders and a right elbow pointed in-front of them. They are in big trouble, but they are still a one-planer. Likewise a two-planer could turn his shoulders straight into the ball from the top of the backswing and have a steep chop at the ball and still be a two-planer, just not a good one.

"In both these cases, I have put elements of the other method into their swings. the one-planer has level shoulders and a right elbow like a two-planer (it won't work) and the two-plane example has a hard shoulder move at the start of the downswing which doesn't match his swing type. So here we have examples of identifying one and two-plane swings by their positions relative to the top of the backswing but can also further identify them by movements through-out the swing. It is why I say there are hybrids. In fact, I just gave an excellent hybrid a lesson at the Hope; Jeff Sluman. A two-plane swing by definition of the top of backswing, but when playing well, like Jim Furyk, get his arms tied into his body turn in a beautiful one-plane impact position.

"So instead of making it easier for all of you, I've probably made this seem more complicated. It is complicated, once you leave a "pure" swing and start to introduce cross elements. That is why I advise golfers to try to simplify their swings to just the elements of their type. On the other hand, I see great athletic swings that can accommodate the issues of some cross-overs and I see no reason to change them unless their athletic ability to make them happen is waning. Then and only then do I suggest changes. For the rest of us, we don't have the athleticism to make such cross-over elements work and be repetitive, so we must strive for the elements that make it the easiest.

"In the meanwhile it is necessary, when looking and understanding swings, to recognize them first, as one or two-planers from a top of swing position, and then to understand their positions/movements relative to the ideal one or two-plane elements through-out the swing. It is fine with me to use the terms one or two-plane swings based on the top of swing. It is also fine with me to identify hybrid swings (like Furyk, John Daly, Couples, Sluman) that can change swing types in mid-stream and call them hybrids or one-plane impact players, etc.
JH"
[/i]
[/quote]


Jeffy, THX! NOW I "understand".........

[jeffy]

[quote name='slicefixer' post='822085' date='Dec 12 2007, 05:49 PM']Jeffy, THX! NOW I "understand"......... [/quote]

In that case, I will die a contented man...(actually, the "Freddie's crippled uncle" crack made my life complete, but this has added to it!).

[JeffMann]

The reason why I believe that SG is perfectly balanced is based on my knowledge of golf posture-basics.

 

Look at this comparison photo of SG and Faldo.

 

 

Faldo, in his book, describes how to get a perfect posture - where the weight is equally distributed between the heels and forefeet. He states that one should have a small amount of knee flex, and then bend over at the hips until a line drawn down the middle of of the right arm passes just in front of the toes. Then one should stick the butt out a little, so that the weight is equally distributed between the heels and forefeet. That's what SG is doing. If SG was unbalanced with more weight on the heels, then that yellow-arrowed line would pass through his forefoot or mid-foot.

 

Jeff.

[JeffMann]

Jeffy wrote-: : "BTW, if the left knee's movement is not to maintain balance while the body turns, what is the purpose?"

 

The degree of forward movement of the left knee in the backswing is merely a reflection of the degree of rotation of the pelvis during the backswing.

 

During the backswing, a golfer pivots over the right femoral head, which has moved left-backwards. That causes the pelvis to rotate so that the right butt moves left-backwards. The pelvis is an unitary structure and if the right pelvis moves left-backwards, then the left pelvis must move right-forwards to exactly the same degree. When the left pelvis moves right-forwards, the left femoral head is obliged to move in the same direction. That causes the left knee to flex as the left thigh moves right-forwards. The amount of knee flexion depends on the degree of pelvic rotation.

 

 

In this photo, one can see that TW has little left knee flexion because his pelvis only rotates <30 degrees, while Snead's left knee bends in far more because he rotates his pelvis 45-60 degrees.

 

Jeff.

[slicefixer]

[quote name='jeffy' post='822102' date='Dec 12 2007, 07:08 PM'][quote name='slicefixer' post='822085' date='Dec 12 2007, 05:49 PM']Jeffy, THX! NOW I "understand"......... [/quote]

In that case, I will die a contented man...(actually, the "Freddie's crippled uncle" crack made my life complete, but this has added to it!).
[/quote]


LOL........LOL.........my first REAL "chuckle" of tha' day......hehehe

[hoganfan924]

Jeffy wrote-: : "BTW, if the left knee's movement is not to maintain balance while the body turns, what is the purpose?"

 

The degree of forward movement of the left knee in the backswing is merely a reflection of the degree of rotation of the pelvis during the backswing.

 

During the backswing, a golfer pivots over the right femoral head, which has moved left-backwards. That causes the pelvis to rotate so that the right butt moves left-backwards. The pelvis is an unitary structure and if the right pelvis moves left-backwards, then the left pelvis must move right-forwards to exactly the same degree. When the left pelvis moves right-forwards, the left femoral head is obliged to move in the same direction. That causes the left knee to flex as the left thigh moves right-forwards. The amount of knee flexion depends on the degree of pelvic rotation.

 

 

In this photo, one can see that TW has little left knee flexion because his pelvis only rotates <30 degrees, while Snead's left knee bends in far more because he rotates his pelvis 45-60 degrees.

 

Jeff.

 

Jeff,

 

I agree that the legs are reactive to the movement of the pelvis, but the difference in camera angles in those two shots (looks to be around 20 deg. different) makes the difference in pelvic rotation and left knee position appear a lot greater than what it really is.

[atxGunit]

Jeffman,

The analysis doesn't state he is in complete unbalance, he is just compensating is his balance. Clearly the Faldo line goes from his shoulders, through the hands and to his toes. In SG's line his hands are not in the yellow line, his hands have to stick out to compensate and get the right posture between his shoulder and toes. The guy in this analysis is explaining that by adjusting his balance in his feet, he can hang his arms more naturally and get his posture more perpendicular to his swing plane and eliminate the bobbing down (u can see the huge head movement down by looking at the tree line in the before/after impact pictures). Just an observation/opinion. Laterz.

-Jared

[jeffy]

Jeffy wrote-: : "BTW, if the left knee's movement is not to maintain balance while the body turns, what is the purpose?"

 

The degree of forward movement of the left knee in the backswing is merely a reflection of the degree of rotation of the pelvis during the backswing.

 

During the backswing, a golfer pivots over the right femoral head, which has moved left-backwards. That causes the pelvis to rotate so that the right butt moves left-backwards. The pelvis is an unitary structure and if the right pelvis moves left-backwards, then the left pelvis must move right-forwards to exactly the same degree. When the left pelvis moves right-forwards, the left femoral head is obliged to move in the same direction. That causes the left knee to flex as the left thigh moves right-forwards. The amount of knee flexion depends on the degree of pelvic rotation.

 

 

In this photo, one can see that TW has little left knee flexion because his pelvis only rotates <30 degrees, while Snead's left knee bends in far more because he rotates his pelvis 45-60 degrees.

 

Jeff.

 

So, in other words, the more a player rotates his pelvis, the more the left knee has to come out to stay in balance: presumably, if the left knee didn't bend forward, the player would fall over backwards.

[JeffMann]

Jared - you wrote-: ". In SG's line his hands are not in the yellow line, his hands have to stick out to compensate and get the right posture between his shoulder and toes."

I think that SG's hands are in front of the yellow line because he is hitting a driver, and not a mid/short iron (like Faldo). It is common for golfers to have their hands slightly forward when hitting a driver. That doesn't mean it is a compensating move.

There is nothing about SG's basic posture to suggest that he is unbalanced at address.

Jeff.

[jeffy]

The reason why I believe that SG is perfectly balanced is based on my knowledge of golf posture-basics.

 

Look at this comparison photo of SG and Faldo.

 

 

Faldo, in his book, describes how to get a perfect posture - where the weight is equally distributed between the heels and forefeet. He states that one should have a small amount of knee flex, and thenbend over at the hips until a line drawn down the middle of of the right arm passes just in front of the toes. Then one should stick the butt out a little, so that the weight is equally distributed between the heels and forefeet. That's what SG is doing. If SG was unbalanced with more weight on the heels, then that yellow-arrowed line would pass through his forefoot or mid-foot.

 

Jeff.

What Faldo's ghostwriter "says" in a book doesn't mean squat to me: just look at the pictures below. Sergio sets up towards his heels, then moves TOWARDS his toes at impact; Faldo sets up towards his heels, then STANDS UP during the swing. Time for a rethink, Doc.

 

Sergio:

 

 

 

Faldo:

 

 

 

BTW, whatever Sergio does is just fine with me: he is the best ballstriker I've seen in almost 30 years of going to pro events. However he wants to do it is fine with me. I just don't think you've provided any objective evidence to support your conclusions.

[birdie_man]

[quote name='iyan7' post='815241' date='Dec 7 2007, 12:23 AM']I'm not a big believer in the weight at address being on the balls of the feet either, so I guess I'll disagree that Sergio is out of balance in his set-up.[/quote]

I'm with ya bruther.

Or at least- I don't relate to it in my own swing. At address.........I like the weight closer to my heels and feel horribly off-balance and unstable with it too forward. And my body seems to seek this position on it's own.

Like anything though you can overdo it. I did for a while....like a lot of people. You wanna squat down and lean back (i.e. "water-skiing") if you need to make room for a flip. This is why some people don't bent over so much. Without fixing the flip, they simply hit it worse. Just like they hit it worse if you get them to try and not flip it without fixing the too open clubface first.

...

As for golf vs. other sports with regards to balance..............right now all that comes to mind is that to me, golf isn't like most other sports.

BTW Sergio is one of the best ballstrikers on tour.