Tiger -- one planer??

[need4speed]

??????

I dunno I can't judge in some pictures he is and in some he isn't...

it looks like he's definately with a driver:


But with his irons it seems like he goes more upright than his shoulder plane:



Just wondering??
thanks for the help

[tpariff]

Are these pics all from the same year? In Jim Hardy's book, The Plane Truth for Golfers, he writes that Tiger was a one-planer, but whether or not he continues to be after working with Hank Haney is to be determined. IMO he is a one-planer. Clearly not a two-planer like David Toms or Payne Stewart.

[tanj]

Can someone please explain to me all this business about one-planers and two-planers? All I know is that planes exists and that I have been taught certain aspects to do with planes.

 

Josh

[ScottWS33]

Can someone please explain to me all this business about one-planers and two-planers? All I know is that planes exists and that I have been taught certain aspects to do with planes.

 

Josh

 

If you notice the first picture the plane is the same between his shoulders and arms. In the next two pictures his arms are on a more upright plane to his shoulders. A one-plane exists when your shoulders and arms are on the same plane like in the picture with his driver.

 

Hope this helps

 

Edit: Found this link which gives more detail on the difference. http://www.golfdigest.com/instruction/inde...wingplane1.html

[CRutherford]

Tiger is a one-planer, and the reason for the difference in the pics is due to the length of the shaft. The driver is the longest club, and is also hitting a ball teed 3 inches off the ground. That means that he has to swing a little flatter than he would with a pitching wedge, which is a much shorter shaft, with a ball sitting down. The way he changes the plane is only taking the hands above, or even, with the shoulder plane.

[Simp]

Very Hogan-esque don't you think? Simp

[MBA-J]

Can someone please explain to me all this business about one-planers and two-planers? All I know is that planes exists and that I have been taught certain aspects to do with planes.

 

Josh

 

If that's you in your avatar, you're a 2 plane swinger. Notice how your hands are higher than your shoulder plane. Your arms and shoulders are on two different planes, ala 2 plane swing. In TW's driver shot, his hands and shoulders are on the same plane, ala 1 plane.

 

Hope this helps!

[ferrispgm]

tiger is a definite one planer. the two pics of the iron swings are taken from a slight angle behind him towards his heels. in other words, the pics are from more inside giving the appearance of his arms being higher than they actually are. i watched him all 4 days at the buick open this year and noticed that his left arm is very much on the same plane as his shoulders with nearly every club except his wedges where it was ever so slightly higher.

[lars]

i noticed the classic 2 plane in the avatar as well. If you want more info, go hang out at a book store and flip through Hardy's "The Plane Truth for Golfers" or http://www.jimhardygolf.com/

 

L

[need4speed]

thanks guys :dntknw:

[Croonie15]

Tiger has a two plane golf swing, not a one plane. Jim Hardy's students are one plane swingers. The golf clubs stays on the same angle that the shaft creates at address. Hogan was a two planer, but what hogan got wrong is that the plane isn't created through the shoulders to the ball, it's created from the shaft. Tiger swings the golf club on the same angle of the shaft, and it just happens that with the longer clubs his left arm matches up with his shoulders. That is simply caused because the lies of the golf clubs are flatter and the clubs are longer. He doesn't try to match up his left are with his shoulders, and if you watch him make a swing there are two planes, the initial plane at address, but then once he swings passed his waiste, the left arm rotates the golf above and parrell to the initial plane at address. Hardy players try and keep the club on the initial angle throught the whole swing, Hank has more rotation of the left arm which keeps the club in front of the chest and on plane.

 

On the downswing the golf club stays on that line and simply re traces the back swing down to the golf ball. So in this sense the club is on the same planes, there is no re route ie Nick Faldo, Ernie in his earlier days, Nick Price, David Frost, most of the leadbetter guys.

 

Croonie

[tanj]

What difference does this make to the ball flight and swing? The only planes I WAS aware of were the one from the ball to the shoulders (the one that you should be on for the backswing) and the plane going in-line with the club-shaft at adress (the plane that you should be on on the downswing). This is so that I get a straight-draw ball as my natural shot.

 

Again, what does this plane that you guys are all talking about do? (Not that I'm actually going to change my swing because my arm is on-plane to the ball at the top of my swing and I've worked hard to get that... and it works!"

 

Thanks guys

 

Josh

[Pole_Position]

What difference does this make to the ball flight and swing? The only planes I WAS aware of were the one from the ball to the shoulders (the one that you should be on for the backswing) and the plane going in-line with the club-shaft at adress (the plane that you should be on on the downswing). This is so that I get a straight-draw ball as my natural shot.

 

Again, what does this plane that you guys are all talking about do? (Not that I'm actually going to change my swing because my arm is on-plane to the ball at the top of my swing and I've worked hard to get that... and it works!"

 

Thanks guys

 

Josh

 

Nothing "wrong" with a two-plane swing, IMO, though some people believe the one-plane swing is "simpler". I believe the idea is that the two-planer has to make some "compensations" to get from the ball-to-shoulders plane at top to the shaft plane coming down (flatten the shaft, drop into the slot, etc.) and that the two-plane swing relies more on timing since the shoulders, hips, and arms are rotating on different planes and have to be synched up. On the other hand, the one-plane swing is supposed to be "simpler" because it's more rotational and core-driven - rotate your shoulders back with the arms on the same plane as the shoulders, rotate the shoulders through with the arms on the same plane as the shoulders, no "compensations" necessary. In theory, no need to synch up the body and arms since the body is driving (controlling) the arms.

 

I'm not arguing for either side, just my .02 cents :dntknw:

[Points]

Let's begin with Tiger's address. Posture is to vertical for te one plane method and as of the Tour Championship his grip was on the weak side of the spectrum.

 

In terms of the backswing, I have never seen Tiger make the exaggerated left arm across the chest move which all of Hardy's students make. If anything, I see him try to get the left arm a little of his chest at times. At the top of his swing, I have yet to see a a swing where Tiger's left arm is on the same plane as his shoulders. Some have been close but always a difference.

 

Tiger makes a tremendous lower body shift, whici goes against the one plane idea.

 

I have asked this before to people. It seems to me the only real lithmus for the one plane swing is the left arm is pretty close to being on the same plane as the shoulders and the club is slightly laid off. The only problem with that is Hardy wrote a book which was very detailed as to what went into the one plane swing.

 

Either Hardy just threw a bunch of other stuff into the book which is not really that important or "one plane" is an in vogue term which describes a swing that has the club laid off and the left arm low. Makes no difference to me. All I know is that Tiger does very little that Hardy described in his book.

[ferrispgm]

true, tiger might not follow what hardy teaches, but tiger learns from Haney, NOT Hardy. Haney did learn under Hardy, but he does not teach the same ideas. Haney wants the clubshaft to follow the same angle as it was at address, and from that perspective, tiger does this very well.

[slicefixer]

Agree 100%.........

[tpariff]

I'm wondering how many of the posters here have read Hardy's book. Not that his is the only one regarding swing plane, but he does a great job of comparing and contrasting the two methods. I've read it several times and whether or not Tiger pushes his left arm across his chest, he IS a one-planer.

 

Here's perfect proof: Ever hear Tiger say he gets "stuck" on the downswing? This is a pitfall of a one-plane swing if you don't rotate the upper body fast enough to square the clubface. This produces a blocked shot, unless the golfer rolls the arms and hands and hooks it.

[Pole_Position]

I'm wondering how many of the posters here have read Hardy's book. Not that his is the only one regarding swing plane, but he does a great job of comparing and contrasting the two methods. I've read it several times and whether or not Tiger pushes his left arm across his chest, he IS a one-planer.

 

Here's perfect proof: Ever hear Tiger say he gets "stuck" on the downswing? This is a pitfall of a one-plane swing if you don't rotate the upper body fast enough to square the clubface. This produces a blocked shot, unless the golfer rolls the arms and hands and hooks it.

 

I have read Hardy's book more than once, and don't find enough evidence to say Tiger is either strictly one-plane or two-plane - and tend to agree with the posters who state that Tiger follows Haney, not Hardy.

 

As far as getting "stuck", in theory (the way I understand it), a one-planer should never get "stuck" unless he kicks his right hip out towards the ball in the downswing. Since your arms and upper-body are "connected" and on the same plane there are no timing issues and it really doesn't matter how fast or slow you rotate your upper-body. When Tiger gets "stuck" I believe it's more because of his "two-plane" tendancies rather than how fast he rotates his upper body. I feel that his getting "stuck" is the result of his sliding his hips laterally towards the target in the downswing, which is a two-plane move the way I read it. I think his lower-body shift towards the target, which is a two-plane move that helps drop the arms back "into the slot" from their high position, causes his spine angle to change resulting in his right shoulder dropping. If overdone it can result in the club being delivered too far from the inside. From this position he must rely on his hands and timing to control the ball flight. If the timing is off, the result is a block right or snap-hook left.

 

If Tiger was interested in becoming a "one-plane" golfer, he would have to tame his lower-body action and his release, IMO. Just because his arms "appear" to be on plane with his shoulders with the driver (which requires a flatter swing) and 3/4 iron shots doesn't make him a one-planer, IMO.

[tpariff]

From Page 4 of Hardy's book, The Plane Truth for Golfers (copyright 2005):

 

"Ernie Els is a 'pure' one planer as is the teenage phenomenon Michelle Wie. Other one-plane swingers include legends Ben Hogan and Sam Snead, Chad Campbell, and Tiger Woods - although Tiger is currently undergoing some swing changes, and which type he eventually ends up with is yet to be determined."

 

Since the book is copyrighted 2005 and presumably took some time to research, write and publish, it is possible that by now Tiger is making some changes. However, as Hardy notes on Page 4, "...there are only two options for your arms to swing in relation to your shoulders. The arms can either swing up and onto the same plane that the shoulders are turning on, or they will swing up and onto a different plane. That really takes care of all swings."

 

From Page 90 under the heading One-Plane Impact, subheading "Warning":

 

"Do not force your right elbow onto the front of your right hip. This move tends to put the clubhead behind you with the face open - in the "stuck" position that is the one-plane swinger's most common fault."

 

I hope this information straight from the book helps settle the mystery. It's easy for me to find more info on any one-plane swing move since I have notes and highlighted areas throughout my copy of this great book.

[Points]

t

 

I don't know how to break this to you but the models Hardy uses in his book are maybe the worst models he could have chosen to support his theory. Els gets his left arm very high at the top of his swing and the clubface is fairly open. Like Tiger, there is a rather long list of why is not a one plane swinger.

 

In terms of the right elbow and arm, last time I checked Tiger's right arm was never behind his body on the downswing. With an iron, his elbow gets way in front of right hip.

 

It sounds like Hardy's book has helped you a lot, which is great. However, much of what is written in the book is contradictory at best.

 

Yes, I have read the book. Yes, I disagree with much of information that contructs the two models for this simple reason. Few players actually get there left arm on the same plane as their shoulders. Some come close but usually the left arm is always at a slightly steeper angle than the shoulders.

[Pole_Position]

From Page 4 of Hardy's book, The Plane Truth for Golfers (copyright 2005):

 

"Ernie Els is a 'pure' one planer as is the teenage phenomenon Michelle Wie. Other one-plane swingers include legends Ben Hogan and Sam Snead, Chad Campbell, and Tiger Woods - although Tiger is currently undergoing some swing changes, and which type he eventually ends up with is yet to be determined."

 

Since the book is copyrighted 2005 and presumably took some time to research, write and publish, it is possible that by now Tiger is making some changes. However, as Hardy notes on Page 4, "...there are only two options for your arms to swing in relation to your shoulders. The arms can either swing up and onto the same plane that the shoulders are turning on, or they will swing up and onto a different plane. That really takes care of all swings."

 

From Page 90 under the heading One-Plane Impact, subheading "Warning":

 

"Do not force your right elbow onto the front of your right hip. This move tends to put the clubhead behind you with the face open - in the "stuck" position that is the one-plane swinger's most common fault."

 

I hope this information straight from the book helps settle the mystery. It's easy for me to find more info on any one-plane swing move since I have notes and highlighted areas throughout my copy of this great book.

 

Well, now you've got me all confused. You use quotes, that at least on appearances, are quite contradictory. If you (or Hardy) are simply describing a one-planer as someone whose "arms swing up and onto the same plane that the shoulders are turning on" then there is no way that either Ernie Els or Michelle Wie, whose arms swing well above the plane of their shoulders, could be classified as one-planers.

 

As far as getting "stuck" you're changing your definition (or I misunderstood your first definition :wave: ) from "not rotating the upper body fast enough", which I don't believe would be a problem for a one-planer, to "forcing the right elbow onto the front of your right hip" which very well may be. If you look on page 92 you'll also see a warning for the two-planer stating "do not let your arms get stuck behind your body", somewhat vague but more along the lines of what I would define as getting stuck.

 

On page 84 Hardy describes the position of the right elbow at impact in a little more detail (for a one-planer): "make sure your right elbow is almost touching but just behind the right hip, rather then getting in front of the right hip." Now, looking at these Redgoat Tiger Swing Sequences from earlier in his career when he was a one-planer according to Hardy it appears to me that his right arm is extended with the elbow away from and slightly ahead of his right hip.

 

I'm looking at a swing sequence of "pure" one-planer Michelle Wie right now, and her right arm is fully extended with the elbow well away from (looking from the rear) and in front of the right hip (looking from face-on) at impact. Add to this the fact that her shoulders turn on a relatively flat plane; arms stay in front of torso (longer then most); at the top her arm is on a plane pointing to the ball with right elbow pointing vertically downward, with her weight distributed 60-40 to the right (Michelle creates a distinct spine tilt away from the target and loads the right side), and with the driver the club is parallel to slightly over-the-line (all two-plane moves according to pages 56-57); and I find little reason to classify her as a one-planer in the 'purest' sense :cheesy:

 

I think we may just be having problems with semantics :) I do like a lot of Hardy's ideas, but I believe he's still perfecting them himself and I've heard he has a more detailed and perhaps less contradictory book in the works. I like the stuff on oneplanegolfswing.com better as it goes into more detail and Chuck Quinton's swing is a real good example of a one-plane swing IMO.

[ted_b]

I wanted to like Hardy's book more than I do, and the reason I can't call it a bible or anything close is because of his silly contradictions and preposterous comments. I mean, hell, his discovery of two non-complimentary swings is groundbreaking, and has changed the way I look at Golf Digest and all golf instruction. However, he has NO idea of the word "pure". To call Wie or Ernie "pure" 1PS is almost criminal. What does he call the Hawk, "more pure"? C'mon Hardy, stay somewhat consistent for more than five pages, please.

 

No one really knows what Hardy thinks is the essence of 1PS, otherwise the media and critics would call him on his inconsistencies. This we know of his doctrine: there are two swings, one is arms-driven and he calls it 2PS; one is core-driven and he calls it 1PS. Both are capable of winning a Major. Instruction cannot be mixed. Period. But to say that the back elbow MUST stay on the shirt seam or outside the hip to be 1PS is clearly not a Hardy dogma. Maybe his new book will clear this up; maybe he's smarter than us and he put these inconsistencies in there to whet our appetitie for clarity down the road. Maybe I have this bridge to sell you.

 

And yes, I think Chuck Quinton has a hard and fast set of rules for his way of 1PS instruction, and is teaching and communicating them effectively.

[tpariff]

Nice comments. Looks like we have some folks here who should be teaching PGA Tour pros instead of giving free advice.

[tpariff]

See the link below from Chuck Quinton's site. Looks like Chuck also thinks Tiger is a one-planer, even more so now that he is working with Hank Haney. And he mentions the "stuck" position.

 

http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/p4_which_...Hank-Haney.html

 

:)

[jeffy]

Chuck has since changed his view on Tiger's top of the backswing position; in November he posted something to the effect that he needded to update the article you referenced. Here is a link to some recent photos that illustrate Tiger's 2P position at the top:

 

http://www.manzellagolfforum.com/forum/top...p?TOPIC_ID=2682

 

However, as others have commented, Tiger is very much "one-plane". Why? Because the one-plane position at the top is a characteristic that is common to one-plane swingers, but it is not a required characteristic. In fact, you can be two-plane at the top yet still have the defining chracteristics of a 1P-er (Daly, Furyk, Couples, the Nicklaus of the 60's; see pages 35 and 36 of Hardy's book), or you can be one-plane at the top but have 2P defining characteristics (Greg Norman, Curtis Strange, Paula Creamer, Chuck Quinton).

 

What do I mean as "1P defining characteristics"? In both his book and presentations at the 2004 and 1990 PGA teaching summits (available on DVD from www.pgateachingtapes.com), Hardy goes into some detail describing the substantive differences between a one and two plane swing. He describes the one-plane swingplane as being flat as well as wide and shallow in the impact zone. The arms swing around the body on a shallow plane; the body is bent over and the shoulders rotate on a steep plane. The ballstriking advantage that arises from these characteristics is that the player can move very aggressively into the ball without getting too steep; timing becomes less of an issue. As a consequence, the players with the best competitive records have almost all swung more or less in this fashion: all five career grand slam winners (Hogan, Sarazen, Player, Woods, Nicklaus (although Nicklaus transitioned to a two-plane swinger beginning in the 70's); the most tour wins: Snead, Kathy Whitworth; the most LPGA majors: Mickey Wright; legendary ballstrikers Trevino, Byron Nelson, Knudson, Venturi, Boros.

 

In contrast, two-planers have a more upright, narrow and steep swingplane. The arms swing in front of the body on a vertical path and the shoulders turn on a flat plane. Timing is more important to avoid getting too steep in the downswing. Misses are less predictable. Several brilliant but ultimately disappointing players (Greg Norman, Weiskopf, Crenshaw, Seve) were two-plane.

[jeffy]

On Els and Wie, Hardy said on his site that he believes they are being converted to two-plane under Leadbetter. Here is the link to the thread:

 

 

http://www.jimhardygolf.com/Forums/tabid/5...96/Default.aspx

[jeffy]

Perhaps the biggest flaw in Hardy's presentation is the perception that the arms and shoulders swing up and back in the same plane in a one-plane swing. They do not do that in any swing, one or two-plane, except the type employed by Moe Norman and Laura Davies, where the arms and club form a straight line when viewed down-the-line and swing up and down on the same plane as the shoulders. In all other swings the arms are more vertical than the shoulders at address and impact. Hardy's "one-plane" really only applies to the top of the backswing position, and, as noted above, is not always present in "one-plane" swings. I for one wish he chose a different label.

 

As a consequence, massive confusion has been created by those who just look at the top of the backswing position to determine whether or not a swing is "one-plane". It is very easy to swing back to what appears to be a one-plane position, but swing down in a two-plane fashion, with the arms chasing down the line after impact in a two-plane position: Paula Creamer does this dramatically. Greg Norman looked one-plane at the top, swung down two-plane and ruined his back. Chuck Quinton teaches a swing that is not nearly as around as Hardy's because it is more upright, and Chuck calls it a "one-plane swing", but it really isn't, because it doesn't fit the Hardy model of a flat, wide, shallow, "rounded" swing, nor does it fit the Moe Norman model of a "true" one-plane swing.

[Pole_Position]

See the link below from Chuck Quinton's site. Looks like Chuck also thinks Tiger is a one-planer, even more so now that he is working with Hank Haney. And he mentions the "stuck" position.

 

http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/p4_which_...Hank-Haney.html

 

:)

 

 

Again, the passages and articles you quote prove to me that there are too many inconsistencies in Hardy's theory.

 

Hardy says Tiger was one-plane, but is changing his swing. Quinton says Tiger is moving towards a one-plane swing, implying he wasn't before. He also says that he is retaining aspects of his old swing - "However, it also became clear that he still works on swinging his arms out in front of his body at impact rather than using his body to "pull" his arms through" - a distinct two-plane method.

 

You say that Tiger's problem with getting stuck is proof that he has a one-plane swing. Quinton says that Tiger is moving towards a one-plane swing to avoid getting stuck. The implication to me is that the fact that Tiger continues to have problems with timing and getting stuck is proof that his swing is not truly one-plane.

 

I'm not an expert, nor am I offering any advice - just my opinion on the subject. Again, the fact that we can debate whether Tiger or Ernie or Michelle are one-plane or not is proof to me that the characteristics need to be defined better - for every one-plane characteristic of Tiger's swing I can give you a two-plane characteristic. The fact that we can interpret books and articles on the the subject differently tells me that Hardy and Quinton and other one-plane/two-plane advocates have some work to do.

 

There are an infinite variety of swings, and I have no problem with Hardy defining polar opposites...however by doing this he's left a lot of gray area in between. I understand that the goal is to eliminate the gray area by picking one of the two and eliminating aspects of the other, but I feel there are just too many areas that haven't been fully or consistently addressed to say this is the real deal...yet.

 

If I could figure out how to post my swing, I'd be very curious what the concensus would be. I'm quite sure there would be some debate.

[jeffy]

I agree there is a lot of confusion regarding Jim's theories. As I posted above, the "one-plane" label has distracted many from the type of swing Jim is really advocating: a flat, rounded swing that is wide and shallow in the impact zone. In 1990, he referred to his two models as "flat" and "upright". I assume he decided against those labels because he was concerned that confusion would arise because his "flat" swing had steep shoulders and his "upright" swing had flat shoulders. I'm not sure that the "one-plane" and "two-plane" labels are much better.

 

I also think the book is in many ways disappointing. I first learned about Jim's theories from a long-time colleague of his, a month or two before the book was published. When I eventually got the book, I felt that it failed to communicate his theories as well as I had already learned them. Jim presents his ideas much better, I believe, in the presentations he made at the PGA teaching seminars. Jim, his co-author and his editors all share the blame for this failing. Hopefully, subsequent books and DVD's will present his ideas more clearly. Also, I don't think it is possible to learn Jim's 1P swing using just his book (or any golf swing from any book, for that matter); you really need to find a good Hardy trained instructor.

 

As far as Quinton and Hardy disagreeing, that is inevitable because Chuck is not a student of Hardy's and has only a superficial knowledge of Jim's theories. He has never met Jim, has not attended one of Jim's teaching seminars and appears to have never viewed either of Jim's presentations given at the PGA teaching summits. Chuck really has his own set of views and theories that diverge quite a bit from Jim's. Obviously, that is confusing since Chuck calls his site "OnePlaneGolfSwing.com" and refers to himself as a "one-plane instructor", but it isn't Hardy's one-plane by any stretch.

[Points]

Every time some one attempts to describe Hardy's theories they become more and more confusing.

 

In terms of trying to convert Wie and Els, that is craczy. Els has been working with Lead for how long? Wie stated working with one of Led's guys at what age?

 

There are some good ideas in Hardy's book. No question. However, the teaching method has lots of big holes within it. Hardy tried to take a broad idea and put in specific details and it did not work.