Terms: planar vs nonplanar

[rondo01]

Sometime I see these terms thrown around and have never found a definition or had quite enough context to understand how these terms guide or add to the discussion. Can anyone elaborate?

[glk]

Planar refers to a 2d plane    Non is 3D.   In golf the club head moves in 3D space but comes close to being planar  between mid downswing (p6) and mid follow thru (p8) - dr kwon's measured functional swing plane which is a best fit projection since even during this phase the club head does not actually move in a 2d plane.

 

[rondo01]

Thanks g. 
so to extrapolate, planar mechanics would be attempting to keep the club on plane, whereas non planar doesn’t worry about that until you reach the FSP stage?

[Hawkeye77]

12 hours ago, glk said:

Planar refers to a 2d plane    Non is 3D.   In golf the club head moves in 3D space but comes close to being planar  between mid downswing (p6) and mid follow thru (p8) - dr kwon's measured functional swing plane which is a best fit projection since even during this phase the club head does not actually move in a 2d plane.

 

 

So if it's 3D, and it is, from start to finish, what's the point of the "functional" swing plane? Why even suggest an apparent 2D element? Just curious.

 

Edit:  looked it up.  Apparently he created a formula so he could classify swings and have a Homer Kelley-like view of levers about a dozen years ago - so a bit of academic mental you know what.  Not really a 2D concept at all as you noted.

Edited April 4 by Hawkeye77

[mwiklund]

I've seen the terms non-planar and planar used by Scott Cowx to categorize swing patterns in two broad groups based on the movement of the club shaft viewed from down the line. Planar would include the "conventional"/MORAD swings where the club traces the plane lines established at adress. I.e. TW, Scott.

 

Non-planar would be the steep-to-shallowers where the club changes orientation in a "non-planar" way. Wolff, Hovland etc.

 

It's a starting point to start differentiating patterns and their requirements and potential benefits. One of the interesting observations is that planar swings generally work best with contained tilts/body angles during the swing ("constant radius") whereas non-planar swings allow for/require bigger body movements. 

[Nels55]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

So if it's 3D, and it is, from start to finish, what's the point of the "functional" swing plane? Why even suggest an apparent 2D element? Just curious.

 

One  reason seems to be that it is possible to practice swinging on the functional plane with half swings or 9:00 to 3:00 or whatever.   Coaches sometimes use swing hoops or boards etc. for training the part of the swing that is planer.  It makes sense to my brain to practice that way...

[glk]

2 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

One  reason seems to be that it is possible to practice swinging on the functional plane with half swings or 9:00 to 3:00 or whatever.   Coaches sometimes use swing hoops or boards etc. for training the part of the swing that is planer.  It makes sense to my brain to practice that way...

This was Kwon (and Como's) first research paper into the golf swing.    It serves as a foundation for his swing analysis.   He came out with a paper a few years ago that looked at the relationship between the midhand path and the fsp.     Researchers use a reference frame to measure motion - most use a horizontal plane, Kwon uses the fsp - so when he looks at, say, pelvis motion his measures are relative to the fsp and not a horizontal plane - he can have some differences in numbers due to this but patterns can stay the same - and patterns is what he is looking at not just numbers - he is reluctant to talk numbers when asked.        

 

Here are the three classifications he found.    RS is the in to out with a bias toward being under plane in the early downswing.  Planar the ch comes quickly toward the fsp and stay above is in both downswing and followthru.   S is out to in with bias toward the fsp in the followthru.

 

What causes these styles is the midhand path - in planar both paths align well, RS the hands are are more outward than the fsp, in S the hands are more inward - in all cases the hand path is steeper than the fsp but this can vary based on pattern - S folks tend to have the steepest hand path - RS folks the flatest.

 

In Kwon's youtube with the lpga wannabe Kennedy actually had  misaligned paths where her hand path was inward and her fsp was outward.

 

Worth a watch to see how the hand path and fsp are misaligned - stuck elbow.  Simple to see this in a dtl the view - seen plenty of this on the forum - seems to be a common problem among us ams but even some tour swings have this too.

 

a bit astray from the OP question but an example of how Kwon use the fsp and hand path in analysis.

 

  

[MPStrat]

In reality every golf swing is non-planar. 
 

However, sometimes planar and non-planar are used as oversimplified shorthand to describe the movement of the center of mass of the golf club in a given swing.  

 

In this case, when some describe a golf swing as planar or non-planar, it is a way of saying that there is or isn’t a significant amount of 2d “shallowing” or “plane shifting” required in that particular swing.
 

A “planar” golfer keeps the club close to resembling staying on a 2d plane in the backswing and downswing. Planar could also be described as the “modern vanilla tour model” — it is seen as desirable by some because of its cleaner, more compact and simple look.
 

A “non-planar” golfer often has more of a “steep-to-shallow” or “inside takeaway and across the line” look to their motion. Some are short of parallel and across the line requiring more shallowing or laying the club down in the downswing. 

An example of some so-called “planar” golfers would be Max Homa and Billy Horschel.

 

An example of some so-called “non-planar” golfers would be Ryan Moore, JB Holmes and Matt Wolff.
 

 

[iacas]

On 4/4/2024 at 8:11 AM, Hawkeye77 said:

So if it's 3D, and it is, from start to finish, what's the point of the "functional" swing plane? Why even suggest an apparent 2D element? Just curious.

 

Edit:  looked it up.  Apparently he created a formula so he could classify swings and have a Homer Kelley-like view of levers about a dozen years ago - so a bit of academic mental you know what.  Not really a 2D concept at all as you noted.

 

Three points define a plane, and planes are 2D. That's all that I think the person was saying (the latter half of that sentence). They have no "thickness."

[rondo01]

23 hours ago, MPStrat said:

In reality every golf swing is non-planar. 
 

However, sometimes planar and non-planar are used as oversimplified shorthand to describe the movement of the center of mass of the golf club in a given swing.  

 

In this case, when some describe a golf swing as planar or non-planar, it is a way of saying that there is or isn’t a significant amount of 2d “shallowing” or “plane shifting” required in that particular swing.
 

A “planar” golfer keeps the club close to resembling staying on a 2d plane in the backswing and downswing. Planar could also be described as the “modern vanilla tour model” — it is seen as desirable by some because of its cleaner, more compact and simple look.
 

A “non-planar” golfer often has more of a “steep-to-shallow” or “inside takeaway and across the line” look to their motion. Some are short of parallel and across the line requiring more shallowing or laying the club down in the downswing. 

An example of some so-called “planar” golfers would be Max Homa and Billy Horschel.

 

An example of some so-called “non-planar” golfers would be Ryan Moore, JB Holmes and Matt Wolff.
 

 

thanks, MP. Appreciate the clarification.