Tiger -- one planer??

[jeffy]

As far as Wie goes, simply compare the down-the-line sequences that appeared in Golf Digest in 2003 and the sequences that ran this fall. The differences are quite apparent:

 

2003: http://golfdigest.com/instruction/swingseq...powerswing.html

 

2005:http://golfdigest.com/instruction/swingseq...ichellewie.html

 

In 2005, her clubhead comes inside the hands quicker in the takaway, her right elbow and left arm are much higher at the top, and her right arm comes around much higher in the follow-through, each a characteristic of a two-plane swing.

[tpariff]

Fine then, I give up. Tiger, Ernie and Wie are all two-planers. Apparently there are people here who have more expertise than both Jim Hardy and Chuck Quinton combined. When can I schedule a lesson or where can I buy your instructional books? :)

[tanj]

IMHO, I think he is... well... I don't really care! I honestly think that it doesn't make a difference. I think we should just all forget about this and that it doesn't really matter.

[jeffy]

Fine then, I give up. Tiger, Ernie and Wie are all two-planers. Apparently there are people here who have more expertise than both Jim Hardy and Chuck Quinton combined. When can I schedule a lesson or where can I buy your instructional books? :)

 

As Harry Vardon said: "Never despair"; it's not that bad.

 

Hardy and Quinton are both on record at their respective web sites that Tiger's top of the backswing position has become more "two-plane" since he began working with Haney. However, Tiger flattens his arms onto a more shallow swingplane as his first move down, making his downswing similar to what is characteristic of Hardy's 1P model. Tiger now seems to fit into the group of hybrid swingers Hardy describes on pages 35 and 36 of his book: 2P at the top of the backswing, 1P in the downswing.

 

Some people, incorrectly in my view, just look at the top of the backswing position and declare a swing one or two-plane solely based on that criteria. Quinton seems to do that and I think that reflects his lack of understanding of Hardy's theories. For example, Chuck posted a side-by-side comparison of his swing and another player in the half-way down position, with the entire swingplane of each "traced" on the image. Quinton's swingplane was more upright than the other's (a young pro named James McLean), yet Quinton declared the FLATTER swing of McLean to be "two-plane", simply because of McLean's "two-plane" top of the backswing position. What Chuck didn't realize was that McLean, by shallowing his arms dramatically in the first move down, had a flatter, wider and shallower downswing than Quinton, making McLean's downswing MORE "one-plane", according to Hardy's theory, than Quinton's. Naturally, those who rely on Chuck will become confused when it comes to understanding Hardy.

 

I believe both Chuck and Jim agree that Els WAS one-plane and has recently moved toward a "two-plane" action working with Leadbetter.

 

I don't really know Chuck's view of Wie; however, as far as her actual instructors are concerned, Michelle worked with Gary Gilchrist until sometime in 2004 when Gary left Leadbetter. Michelle THEN started working with Lead. Soon after, members of the Hardy camp noticed she was becoming more two-plane. These pics illustrate that pretty well:

 

http://member.tourspecgolf.com/gallery/scans/MW1_002

[Points]

I am sorry I didn't know that Chuck Q and Hardy were the "truth" when it comes to golf. I have worked for and spent time around a lot of great teachers. Manyof whom have done a lot more research than Hardy or Quinton. In my opinion, I don't think that Tiger is a one plane swing as defined by Jim Hardy. I know that Jeffy has his own version of the one plane swing as does Chuck as does Hardy. Lots of different methods all under the same umbrella.

 

The amazing thing with all of this debate it is the lack of pictures. Many of these opinions are based on what other people state and not what they have proven. If believing Tiger is a one plane swing makes you feel right. Great. If the one plane method is your cocktail of choice great.

 

My observation of the one plane swing is there are a lot of inconsistencies between the teachers who teach it and the students who believe in it.

[jeffy]

I am sorry I didn't know that Chuck Q and Hardy were the "truth" when it comes to golf. I have worked for and spent time around a lot of great teachers. Manyof whom have done a lot more research than Hardy or Quinton. In my opinion, I don't think that Tiger is a one plane swing as defined by Jim Hardy. I know that Jeffy has his own version of the one plane swing as does Chuck as does Hardy. Lots of different methods all under the same umbrella.

 

The amazing thing with all of this debate it is the lack of pictures. Many of these opinions are based on what other people state and not what they have proven. If believing Tiger is a one plane swing makes you feel right. Great. If the one plane method is your cocktail of choice great.

 

My observation of the one plane swing is there are a lot of inconsistencies between the teachers who teach it and the students who believe in it.

 

Not so fast, Points. My "version" is 100% Hardy: as I said in an earlier post, I learned it from spending five days with a long-time colleague of Jim (who I correspond with regularly), supplemented by Jim's book, the DVDs of his PGA teaching summit presentations and a couple hours with another Hardy-trained instructor. If I have erred in presenting Jim's views, please let me know.

 

As for pics, I linked to pics of Tiger, at the top and impact, which I believe support what I've said about him. I also linked to "before" and "after" pics of Wie. I don't have time tonight, but tomorrow I'll see what I can find on Els.

 

Any specific comments or questions, please ask me.

[jeffy]

I am sorry I didn't know that Chuck Q and Hardy were the "truth" when it comes to golf. I have worked for and spent time around a lot of great teachers. Manyof whom have done a lot more research than Hardy or Quinton. In my opinion, I don't think that Tiger is a one plane swing as defined by Jim Hardy.

 

My observation of the one plane swing is there are a lot of inconsistencies between the teachers who teach it and the students who believe in it.

 

The first comment seems a bit out of left field to me: Hardy created his "one-plane" theory, and he currently believes that 1) Tiger is more two-plane at the top since he began working with Haney, and 2) despite that, his swing possesses the downswing characteristics of a "one-plane" swing. It seems to me that Hardy should be considered the definitive authority on what swings fit his theory and why. My observation is that none of Hardy's critics demonstrate that they fully understand his theories. My view is that they might be better served by trying to understand why, for example, Jim considers Tiger to be "one-plane" in the downswing rather than trying to argue, in effect, that Hardy doesn't know his own theory.

 

On the second point, I'd like to know what your sample is. I've worked with two Hardy-trained instructors and there have been no inconsistencies between what they teach and what Hardy has published. If you're referring to Quinton, well, he has his own theory which he calls "one-plane" that doesn't fit Hardy's theory, or any other interpretation of "one-plane" that I know of. As a consequence, he should not be grouped in the same category.

[jeffy]

Here is a swing sequence of Tiger with his "pre-Haney" swing:

 

http://www.golfswing.com/proswings/woods.htm

 

It is clearly "one-plane": left arm and shoulders in line at the top, bent over posture, steep shoulders, very rotary downswing, rapid weight transfer to the left, very open at impact.

 

Here is a "Haney" swing from the same angle:

 

http://www.golfswing.com/proswings/woods2.htm

 

At the top, the left arm is clearly steeper than the shoulders as evidenced by the "air" between his left arm and right shoulder. However, the downswings are PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL. In keeping with Haney's objective of matching the shaft angle at impact with the shaft angle at address, Tiger's hands are lower at impact in the "Haney" version, but the posture, weight transfer, body rotation, and body position at impact are virtually identical in both sequences. If Tiger was 1P pre-Haney, he is still 1P now, at least in the downswing, notwithstanding his new top of the backswing position.

[jeffy]

Here is a "pre-Leadbetter" (2003) sequence for Ernie:

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/instruction/swin...powerswing.html

 

As well as another from the front (2002):

 

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/79626/1/2831664

 

One with an iron (undated):

 

http://www.golfswing.com/proswings/els.htm

 

And another with an iron (2003):

 

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/79626/1/2770245

 

One-plane characteristics prevail: bent over spine angle, steep shoulders pointing well within the Hardy "48 inch zone" at the top, left arm very close to being in line with the shoulders at the top, club laid-off a little with the driver, left wrist flat and clubface square at the top, rotary downswing, arms "behind" the chest coming down, hips well open at impact, club moving left dramatically after impact.

 

Here is a "Leadbettered" version of an iron (2005):

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/instruction/swin...01ernieels.html

 

Even after being "Leadbettered", the iron sequences don't seem to be that much different. I don't see much that is two-plane before or after, at least as Hardy would use that term.

[Points]

In terms of Els, he has been working with Leadbetter well before 2003. Here is a picture of Els at the top of the swing. I just think a difference of almost 20 degree is pretty significant. In terms of the downswing and transition. I have never seen an Els swing where is right elbow gets behind him. Els, like Tiger, get hits right elbow very much in front of his chest. Also, Els stands up on the downswing. On final thing to point out, this clubface is open and he has a weak grip.

 

In terms of the Tiger swings, the angles of the pictures are certainly different. Not the best view of the left arm I have ever seen. Attached is a picture of Tiger approaching impact. Shoulders very closed and right elbow in front of hip.

 

As I have stated all along. There are some good ideas within the Hardy "method. " From top to bottom, there are lots of inconsistencies.

[jeffy]

In terms of Els, he has been working with Leadbetter well before 2003. Here is a picture of Els at the top of the swing. I just think a difference of almost 20 degree is pretty significant.

 

I agree you found a pic that looks more "two-plane" at the top than the one's I linked to. However, what is significant is how much Els bends over and how steep the shoulders are at the top. The line you drew through the shoulders is well within the "48 inch zone".

 

In terms of the downswing and transition. I have never seen an Els swing where is right elbow gets behind him.

 

Well, take a look at frames 5 and 6 in this linked sequence:

 

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/79626/1/2770245

 

Els, like Tiger, get hits right elbow very much in front of his chest. Also, Els stands up on the downswing. On final thing to point out, this clubface is open and he has a weak grip.

 

I agree Els's now has a weak grip and an open clubface at the top. That is also visible in the 2005 sequence I linked to. These components are now more "two-plane" than they were in the 2003 sequence. But in terms of posture and swingplane, he is still well on the "one-plane" side of the spectrum. He'd need to be considerably more upright, and have a flatter shoulder term, to be classified as "two-plane".

 

In terms of the Tiger swings, the angles of the pictures are certainly different. Not the best view of the left arm I have ever seen.

 

OK; but the "pre-Haney" is clearly one-plane and the "Haney" is clearly "two". But, the downswing is what matters, and they are both the same: one-plane.

 

Attached is a picture of Tiger approaching impact. Shoulders very closed and right elbow in front of hip.

 

His right arm is tight to his right side, just where it ought to be. And he is a long way from "impact" in that pic. Below is a link to a recent GD article: the picture on the right has his right elbow tight to his right side. The article explains that he no longer "drops the club to the inside on the way down". The move he has adopted is exactly the same as the one which Jim Hardy describes in his 2004 PGA teaching summit presentation as the move Hogan adopted to avoid the hook. As we know, Haney was trained by Hardy, so it seems clear where this move came from.

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/instruction/inde...2tigertips.html

 

As I have stated all along. There are some good ideas within the Hardy "method. " From top to bottom, there are lots of inconsistencies.

 

What seems to get an undue degree of attention is how much the swings of particular one-plane players depart from Hardy's "one-plane" model. His model is the "blueprint" around which he believes one-plane swings should be created. However, many, if not the vast majority, of one-planers depart from the model in one or more respects. However, the essential elements are consistent within one-planers: a flat, rounded swingplane on the downswing, that is wide and narrow in the impact zone, and permits a very rapid, body driven rotary action through impact. This is the key to Hardy's one-plane swing.

 

[ferrispgm]

i was just wondering how anybody could say that tiger was a one-planer before he went to haney. His swing was very upright. his left arm was nearly straight up in the air, and he had to let his arms fall down so they could drop in the slot. both of these things are completely contradictory to the one plane swing

[Points]

The Tiger picture from Golf digest is shot from well behind the player. The elbow will always appear in a similar position to this one.

You clearly have a better eye for these obvious one plane moves than I do. To say Tiger's right elbow is behind his hip is amazing.

In terms of Els, I have measured his posture on more than one occasion and the 30 degrees of spine tilt does not meet Hardy's very specific criteria. Looked at the swing sequence of Els and yes the right elbow gets slightly behind in clip five but I would say his elbow is right in front of his hip in clip 6.

Good luck with the Hardy teaching. Sounds to me like most players fall into the ever grey "hybrid area." I would attach more pictures but beleive I would be in the same spot as I am now. Looking at pictures from random sites with angles which are all different.

[jeffy]

The Tiger picture from Golf digest is shot from well behind the player. The elbow will always appear in a similar position to this one.

You clearly have a better eye for these obvious one plane moves than I do. To say Tiger's right elbow is behind his hip is amazing.

 

It is quite clearly to the side of his hip in the pics I posted, just where Tiger says he is trying to put it, and where Hardy says it ought to be. But quibbling about whether his right elbow is to the side or in front is almost beside the point. You seem to keep missing the big picture: look at how hard Tiger rotates his body, how much weight is on the left side, how high his right heel gets: a true two-planer would pull-hook forever doing this. Tiger's downswing bears no resemblance to a two-plane downswing.

 

In terms of Els, I have measured his posture on more than one occasion and the 30 degrees of spine tilt does not meet Hardy's very specific criteria.

 

No one is denying that Els is moving more toward the "two-plane" spectrum. But his shoulders still appear to me to point in the "48 inch zone" at the top. That suggests to me that he can still rotate hard on the downswing and not come over the top, perhaps the most important distinguishing feature between being one or two-plane.

 

Looked at the swing sequence of Els and yes the right elbow gets slightly behind in clip five but I would say his elbow is right in front of his hip in clip 6.

 

Being in front of the hip at impact is not a "violation" of one-plane fundamentals. The "violation" is if the right elbow gets in front of the right hip at the start of the downswing. See page 65 of Hardy's book.

 

Good luck with the Hardy teaching. Sounds to me like most players fall into the ever grey "hybrid area."

 

That is absolutely true, and arguably the consequence of conventional teaching, which tends to emphasize two-plane fundamentals. As you know, Hardy's breakthrough was to identify the two sets of fundamentals that work best with each swing model.

 

I would attach more pictures but beleive I would be in the same spot as I am now. Looking at pictures from random sites with angles which are all different.

[jeffy]

i was just wondering how anybody could say that tiger was a one-planer before he went to haney.

 

It is very easy to say that, because Tiger has always been one-plane. The first four swing sequences in the attached link are down-the-line and were taken before Woods started to work with Hank:

 

http://redgoat.smugmug.com/gallery/80234/1/2789455

 

Also, the "before" and "after" sequences I posted earlier show that Tiger's left arm is steeper AFTER working with Hank.

 

Before: http://www.golfswing.com/proswings/woods.htm

 

After: http://www.golfswing.com/proswings/woods2.htm

 

In the "before" sequence, his right shoulder covers the left arm at the top; in the "after" pic, the right shoulder is well below the left arm at the top. But despite these differing positions at the top, one-plane chracteristics dominate. Tiger's posture, shoulder plane and body action are all very much "one-plane". His arms, hands and club rotate around his body in the downswing, moving left rapidly after impact. Although his left arm is a little steeper than his shoulders at the top, that is perfectly permissable in a Hardy one-plane swing. Read pages 35 and 36 of his book where he discusses "hybrids", or one-planers with a "flying right elbow". Despite lifting the club straight up in the backswing, Jim Furyk is very much one-plane in the downswing WHICH IS ALL THAT MATTERS! You don't hit the ball with your backswing or the position at the top. See this down-the-line sequence:

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/instruction/swin...08jimfuryk.html

 

As his first move down, Jim dramatically drops his arms onto a much flatter plane. His arms and right elbow stay well behind his chest, his body rotates hard through impact and his arms move left dramatically after impact. Furyk's downswing is as one-plane as it gets.

 

His swing was very upright. his left arm was nearly straight up in the air, and he had to let his arms fall down so they could drop in the slot. both of these things are completely contradictory to the one plane swing

 

Not really: it is contrary to how MOST one-planers swing, but is entirely permissable in a one-plane swing; that is why Hardy discusses "hybrids" in the "Executing the One-Plane Backswing" chapter. If "hybrids" were two-plane, he would have included them in the two-plane chapter.

 

[Points]

Once again, I would say that most all tour players are "hybrids" as defined by the illustrious Jim Hardy. I realize that Jim is adamant that the two "fundamentals" should not be mixed. However, it seems to me there are a lot more great players which are hybrids and very few "true" one planers.

 

Having read the book, I know that Jim likes Furyk's downswing. But to describe the player with the greatest shaft drop on Tour as a one planers is almost laughable.

 

Just so you know. As of the Tour Championship, Tiger's left arm was in the exact same position as it was in 2000.

 

Since I have missed the "big picture" on this one plane swing, I can't think of one tour player who isn't very active with his lower body. However, I see very few players who spin their shoulders like Hardy wants.

 

As far as I can tell from reading your posts there are three main categories. The one plane, two plane, and ever convenient and popular "hybrid."

 

Once again, a confusing method at best.

[jeffy]

Once again, I would say that most all tour players are "hybrids" as defined by the illustrious Jim Hardy. I realize that Jim is adamant that the two "fundamentals" should not be mixed. However, it seems to me there are a lot more great players which are hybrids and very few "true" one planers.

 

Snead, Hogan, Player, Sarazen, Knudson, Boros, Venturi, Moe Norman, Mickey Wright, Trevino, Vijay, Kathy Whitworth...yeah, just a few...

 

Having read the book, I know that Jim likes Furyk's downswing. But to describe the player with the greatest shaft drop on Tour as a one planers is almost laughable.

 

He talks about hybrids, right up front, in his book and dvds. To deny or ignore this, just so you can dump on his theory, is very strange behavior. Anyway, I am on record here that I don't like his "one" and "two-plane" labels, for this very reason. I wish he had picked better ones. But just because the labels are inadequate in no way invalidates the overall theory.

 

Just so you know. As of the Tour Championship, Tiger's left arm was in the exact same position as it was in 2000.

 

Your point being??? Like I said, he's always been one-plane, regardless of where his left arm has been...

 

Since I have missed the "big picture" on this one plane swing, I can't think of one tour player who isn't very active with his lower body. However, I see very few players who spin their shoulders like Hardy wants.

 

Take a look at David Toms, Davis Love, Hale Irwin, Payne Stewart, Montgomerie, Gerg Norman, Nick Price...they all tend to hang back on the right side, with a relatively flat right foot and pretty square with the shoulders at impact. All of the one-planers I mentioned have their shoulders open at impact and are well up on the right toe, meaning they haven't "held the shoulders back" in the downswing.

 

As far as I can tell from reading your posts there are three main categories. The one plane, two plane, and ever convenient and popular "hybrid."

 

There are two "hybrids" actually: one-planers that are "two-plane" at the top, and two-planers that look "one-plane" at the top: e.g., Greg Norman, Curtis Strange, Paula Creamer. Why is this so confusing compared to The Golfing Machine, which contemplates an almost unlimited number of swing patterns? Or, the other extreme, the hands and arms techniques of Manuel de la Torre, Ernest Jones or Jim Flick, that don't fit any of the great ballstrikers?

 

Once again, a confusing method at best.

 

The model swings are very simple. It is the variety of swings that fit within the broad categories that are plentiful. Given the confusion that reigned when, for example, teachers were trying to get two-planers to move their bodies in the downswing like one-planers (happened to me with a PGA Teacher of the Year), I'm grateful for Hardy's insights.

[Points]

The point about the left arm was that you claimed that it was higher now than it used to be. You also claimed that Tiger's swing was changing to a two plane swing. I was just stating that you were wrong on those two particular subjects.

 

In terms of me "dumping" on Hardy, I have stated all along that there are good ideas within the Hardy Book. Based on your dislike for one plane and two plane terms, I would hope that you agree. However, as a method the one plane and two plane "fundamentals" don't quite work. There are way too many players which are hybrids.

 

As for Hogan, there are as many things which make him a one planer as don't. For intance, grip, posture, tremendous lateral motion etc are all things which are inconsistent with the Hardy Way.

 

This thread began with the question is Tiger a one planer. I have stated throughout that the answer is no and will list the reasons why.

 

Posture: Less than the 35 degree required by Hardy

Grip: Weak

Left Arm Above shoulder plane

Right Elbow in Front of Hip

Right foot does lift with an iron as much as 2000

Shoulders fairly square at impact as left arm is still visible from target line

Tremendous Lateral Motion

 

These are some of the main ideas as to why this discussion began. It has led into the facts and fictions of the one plane and two plane method.

[jeffy]

The point about the left arm was that you claimed that it was higher now than it used to be.

 

It certainly looks that way to me, as well as to Hardy, Quinton and others; it is also higher (at least relative to his shoulders) in the "Haney" sequence I posted. Also, the last time I saw him hit driver on TV was on the tenth hole of the Skins game: there was plenty of air between his right shoulder and left arm. If you see it differently, fine.

 

You also claimed that Tiger's swing was changing to a two plane swing.

 

No I didn't; I said that the changes I have observed this year (beginning at the Masters) look more two-plane at the top. But his downswing remains one-plane.

 

I was just stating that you were wrong on those two particular subjects.

 

That's your opinion; I disagree.

 

In terms of me "dumping" on Hardy, I have stated all along that there are good ideas within the Hardy Book. Based on your dislike for one plane and two plane terms, I would hope that you agree. However, as a method the one plane and two plane "fundamentals" don't quite work. There are way too many players which are hybrids.

 

Of course there are hybrids: teachers have been mixing one and two-plane fundamentals at least since the days of Nicklaus and square-to-square! No one ever claimed that all players either swing like Snead or Watson...

 

As for Hogan, there are as many things which make him a one planer as don't. For intance, grip, posture, tremendous lateral motion etc are all things which are inconsistent with the Hardy Way.

 

Being inconsistent with certain aspects of Hardy's recommended model 1P swing does not make a particular swing "not one-plane". As Jim makes clear on page 7 of his book, the fundamental distinguishing feature of a one-plane swing is a flat, rounded swingplane that is wide and shallow in the impact zone. If a swing possesses these characteristics in the downswing, it is one-plane (BTW, in case you haven't caught on, I prefer to classify swings by the downswing, not the top of the backswing position).

 

Also, you seem to be confusing Jim's recommended blueprint for creating a one-plane swing with the reality that most players have their own unique characteristics. Weakening the grip is common among one-planers who use counterclockwise arm rotation as a steepening move in the downswing, as Hogan did; this will counteract the hooking tendency caused by that move. However, Hardy thinks it is simpler to employ a stronger grip and less left arm rotation in his model swing. Hogan bent over during the swing to achieve the desired posture: is there any reason to recommend this aspect of Hogan's swing to a student? The lateral movement of Hogan is not "tremendous", but it is there, and he has to compensate for it. Hogan has included steepening moves which are not in the Hardy 1P model, such as the forearm rotation and downcocking, because Hogan needed them, but many 1P-ers don't. If that is the case, why include them in the model? They can always be added if needed.

 

 

This thread began with the question is Tiger a one planer. I have stated throughout that the answer is no and will list the reasons why.

 

Your statement assumes that to be a "one-planer", a golfer needs to match precisely Hardy's model 1P blueprint. That is not correct. Please cite where Hardy, or anyone associated with him, ever says that.

 

Posture: Less than the 35 degree required by Hardy

 

Like Hogan, Tiger bends over during the swing.

 

Grip: Weak

 

It is at most neutral; however, a weak grip can work in a 1P swing: obviously Hogan was weak and that is what John Schlee, who taught a one-plane swing, used.

 

Left Arm Above shoulder plane

 

That's OK, as long as the downswing is one-plane.

 

Right Elbow in Front of Hip

 

Not anymore, per Tiger's recent GD article, which you seem to want to ignore.

 

Right foot does lift with an iron as much as 2000

 

Of course: he was one-plane then, and he is one-plane now.

 

Shoulders fairly square at impact as left arm is still visible from target line

 

I disagree, but, again, so what if they are "fairly square"? His arms and club are swinging on the proper swingplane for a 1P-er: that's all that matters...

 

Tremendous Lateral Motion

 

All golfers have, to some extent, what is known in TGM as "axis tilt", which is the lateral movement you are refering to...

 

These are some of the main ideas as to why this discussion began. It has led into the facts and fictions of the one plane and two plane method.

 

To recap, your position seems to be that unless a swing matches up precisely with all the components of Hardy's model 1P swing, then it is "not one-plane". I think that is wrong. It may not be "a Hardy model 1P swing", but where does Hardy say that all one-plane swings need to precisely match his model? If that were the case, then the only "one-plane" swing might be David Duval's!

 

In my view, if the downswing satisfies the fundamental characteristics of a one-plane swing, as laid out on page 7 of Hardy's book, then the swing is "one-plane" for all practical purposes, whether or not the components differ from Hardy's 1P model. The same applies, of course, to two-plane swings. Hybrids such as Daly, Couples, Furyk exist, but do not dominate the one-plane category; just as Greg Norman, Peter Lonard, Michael Campbell are unusual in the two-plane category.

[Points]

I give up Jeff. You are right. The one plane is the way. Since Tiger said he does it in GD, he must do it in his swing. The 100 clips I filmed of Tiger this year all must be wrong. When you talk to Jim or Chuck, ask him to post a picture taken from the same angle and compare it to 2000. Have him post it on his sight. I would be surprised if would Hardy post one as I have never seen him with a camera on Tour.

 

I believe that when it comes to teaching the game that we should teach what people do. Not what looks right on a blueprint. What do the best players in the world have in common and how can that help the wide spectrum of the golfing public. You find these answers through the use of video. Studying great players from the same angle and looking for commonalities and differences.

 

"Also, the "before" and "after" sequences I posted earlier show that Tiger's left arm is steeper AFTER working with Hank." Jeffy

 

This is your quote in terms of Tiger so I must be creating lies that you said his left arm was different.

 

Hardy has listed sets of fundamentals which he claims players should avoid mixing. I just see the majority of great players being hybrids.

 

Here is my final question and I will let you have the last word which it apparent you need.

Name 1 great player which exhibits all of the one plane characteristics. Grip, Stance, Posutre, Backswing, Downswing, and Release. When you do that, I will believe that the swing exists.

 

Best of Luck in the New Year

[Pole_Position]

Personally, I've found this to be a great debate and have learned a lot :cheesy: . Points and others bring up many of the issues I've had when comparing Hardy's 1P theory to real life examples, and jeffy's and others responses have been thought provoking and on point.

 

I found jeffy's reference to Jim Hardy's post about Wie and Els and how some instructors resolve the 1P problem of getting stuck by "get(ting) the arms more out in front of them and when this created problems, they then touted slowing down the body and with out knowing it they had started to "morph" into a two-plane swing (arms in front and timed with the body turn)" to be very interesting, as this was one of the biggest issues I had when people called Tiger or Wie a "one-planer". It also helped explain Tiger's tip (at least in my eyes) from GD: "Instead of dropping the club from the top of my backswing, now I focus on rotating my right forearm down and into my side. That helps me keep the club in front of my body and the clubshaft on the proper plane. Timing is taken out of equation. I consistently hit the ball more accurately and control my distance more effectively." -- by Tiger Woods (Dec 2005 issue of Golf Digest). I never really understood what he was doing or why he was doing it until I read the Jim Hardy post: "as I point out in my book, it is caused by thrusting the arms out in front of you (particularly the right elbow)on the downswing. The farther you thrust the arms out in front the farther the club opens and lays off behind you (stuck). The opposite is what you want. On the downswing, the tighter and lower on your chest the left arm is while the right elbow remains up and behind you the more the club closes and comes out in front. ARMS BACK/CLUB OUT....ARMS OUT/CLUB BACK".

 

Whether or not Tiger actually does it, I think now at least I understand the concept and it's function :) Good stuff all around.

[jeffy]

I give up Jeff. You are right. The one plane is the way. Since Tiger said he does it in GD, he must do it in his swing. The 100 clips I filmed of Tiger this year all must be wrong. When you talk to Jim or Chuck, ask him to post a picture taken from the same angle and compare it to 2000. Have him post it on his sight. I would be surprised if would Hardy post one as I have never seen him with a camera on Tour.

 

Relax; I'm just telling you what I see and how I interpret it. The "one-plane" is not "the way"; it just happens to describe Tiger's downswing. A lot of great players, including the best of all time, were two-plane. This isn't a competition between one method or another trying to "claim" Tiger as its own. He just isn't two-plane in the downswing! Never has been.

 

I believe that when it comes to teaching the game that we should teach what people do. Not what looks right on a blueprint. What do the best players in the world have in common and how can that help the wide spectrum of the golfing public. You find these answers through the use of video. Studying great players from the same angle and looking for commonalities and differences.

 

I think this is exactly how Jim came up with his fundamentals. He found what was common and stripped out the elements that were "optional", like the flying right elbow, or downcocking, or a weak grip. I think it is an impressive accomplishment.

 

"Also, the "before" and "after" sequences I posted earlier show that Tiger's left arm is steeper AFTER working with Hank." Jeffy

 

This is your quote in terms of Tiger so I must be creating lies that you said his left arm was different.

 

It is different from what I remember and from all the other clips I posted from 2002 and 2003; if it turns out it is the same as 2000, then it changed in the interim. But, what's the big deal? I don't really care where his left arm is.

 

Hardy has listed sets of fundamentals which he claims players should avoid mixing. I just see the majority of great players being hybrids.

 

I don't believe that; I'd like to know who of Hogan, Snead, Sarazen, Palmer, Vijay, Player, Casper, Ollie, Boros, Trevino, Mickey Wright, Kathy Whitworth, Duval, Sergio, Annika, Watson, Irwin, Price, Seve, Langer, Stewart, Webb, Goosen, J. Miller, Weiskopf, Sutton, Montgomery, Crenshaw were hybrids. Daly, Couples, Byron Nelson, Furyk, maybe Tiger, are hybrids, as is Greg Norman; a few, Nicklaus, Kite, Carol Mann and Faldo switched between methods during their careers; Mickelson has migrated toward one-plane, particularly with his 3/4 shot; however, there aren't many great hybrids, certainly not a majority. Unless, you mean that a "hybrid" is someone that doesn't adhere strictly to either model as taught by Jim. With that definition, almost everyone is a "hybrid"!

 

Here is my final question and I will let you have the last word which it apparent you need.

Name 1 great player which exhibits all of the one plane characteristics. Grip, Stance, Posutre, Backswing, Downswing, and Release. When you do that, I will believe that the swing exists.

 

Well, this is a new debate. But since you asked, as I suggested earlier, Duval might be the only one to do it precisely as Hardy teaches, though his grip is pretty strong. Snead and Mickey Wright are pretty close.

 

Best of Luck in the New Year

 

And best of luck to you!

[ce_me_golf]

Once again, I would say that most all tour players are "hybrids" as defined by the illustrious Jim Hardy. I realize that Jim is adamant that the two "fundamentals" should not be mixed. However, it seems to me there are a lot more great players which are hybrids and very few "true" one planers.

 

Having read the book, I know that Jim likes Furyk's downswing. But to describe the player with the greatest shaft drop on Tour as a one planers is almost laughable.

 

Just so you know. As of the Tour Championship, Tiger's left arm was in the exact same position as it was in 2000.

 

Since I have missed the "big picture" on this one plane swing, I can't think of one tour player who isn't very active with his lower body. However, I see very few players who spin their shoulders like Hardy wants.

 

As far as I can tell from reading your posts there are three main categories. The one plane, two plane, and ever convenient and popular "hybrid."

 

Once again, a confusing method at best.

 

The issue isn't whether some players are hybrids. The issue is that a player can achieve better results by using the set of fundamentals that are best suited for his swing. The fact that Tiger still has issues with driving accuracy are in part because still has the tendencie to get "stuck" and has to compensate for that. Well, getting "stuck" is based on having a two plane swing fundamental.

 

Furyk is a category all his own when it comes to golf swing. :birthday:

 

But it's clear from the swing sequence on the Golf Digest website that once he finishes manipulating his club at the start of his downswing he is using one-plane swing fundamentals.

 

In fact in Hardy's book he clearly states that most golfers has been taught both one-plane and two plane swing fundamentals that often conflict with each other. It would stand to reason that even PGA Tour players fall into this category.

[Points]

Well, that goes back to the basic question as to what player uses all of the fundamentals of the one plane swing and all of the two plane fundamentals. If these fundametals should not be mixed, why are there so many players which do not meet the overall lithmus for either one plane or two plane?

The plane as it relates to golf is a very subjective term. I do not believe that the plane formed at address with the clubshaft is the most important plane in the golf swing. No chance. In fact, very few players actually return the club to this position. It is merely a reference point to describe the movement of the club.

There are lots of players which Jeffy lists which are not one planer as defined using Hardy's method. Golf swings are way to complex to list into two very specific categories. Hardy came up with the specific numbers and angles for his metod.

In fact, when it comes to fundamentals what is a real fundamental? Is it grip? Posture? Alignment? Find out what the great players have in common and how these moves relate to your game.

As for Furyk, the right elbow being behind the hip is clearly a move which Hardy likes and defines as a one plane move. Furyk has some how managed to play great golf mixing a "two plane" backswing with a "one plane" downswing. So have lots of others.

Through the history of golf, there have been lots of popular methods which have failed to stand the test of time. Where Hardy's method stands now, I would say he needs an enormous amount of refinement and research to better articulate his two methods. If anything, he could merely broaden his specific fundamentals for each.

In terms of pictures, the angle at which a picture is taken is critical to how the swing will appear. There have been lots of links on this thread which go to a variety of different angles. Just be careful.

I believe that what I am writing is correct. I have done the research and these are my opinions. Getting the left arm to match the shoulder plane is by no means a new idea. Telling people to get their elbow behind them is a different idea and there are players which do it.

[jeffy]

Well, that goes back to the basic question as to what player uses all of the fundamentals of the one plane swing and all of the two plane fundamentals. If these fundametals should not be mixed, why are there so many players which do not meet the overall lithmus for either one plane or two plane?

 

The fundamentals HAVE been mixed because no one thought they SHOULDN'T be mixed until Hardy; Hardy believes golfers will play better if they don't mix. This is a NEW theory (the book has been out less than a year).

 

The plane as it relates to golf is a very subjective term. I do not believe that the plane formed at address with the clubshaft is the most important plane in the golf swing. No chance. In fact, very few players actually return the club to this position. It is merely a reference point to describe the movement of the club.

 

And this relates to Hardy how? Sounds more like a Haney principle...

 

There are lots of players which Jeffy lists which are not one planer as defined using Hardy's method.

 

Duh; I listed BOTH one and two-planers in my "non-hybrid" list. Again, if you want ALL one-planers to match Hardy's swing model, they won't; but no one ever said they would. It is easy to win an argument when no one is making the opposite case.

 

Golf swings are way to complex to list into two very specific categories. Hardy came up with the specific numbers and angles for his metod.

 

Again, you're mixing apples and oranges. There exists a broad category of players who fall in the one-plane spectrum, many who get there differently; the same holds for two-plane. Hardy NEVER said all one-planers (or two-planers) swing exactly the same as his preferred model, which are the "specifics" you refer to.

 

In fact, when it comes to fundamentals what is a real fundamental? Is it grip? Posture? Alignment? Find out what the great players have in common and how these moves relate to your game.

As for Furyk, the right elbow being behind the hip is clearly a move which Hardy likes and defines as a one plane move. Furyk has some how managed to play great golf mixing a "two plane" backswing with a "one plane" downswing. So have lots of others.

 

Well, a few others: Couples, the young Jack, Byron Nelson...but by no means "a lot". Daly and Snead "look" "two-plane", but that is a function of their extraordinary flexibility. Remember, Snead could kick the ceiling in his 70's. A mere mortal that tried to copy Daly or Snead's backswing would wind up a couple feet short of their position and, no doubt, look "one-plane".

 

Through the history of golf, there have been lots of popular methods which have failed to stand the test of time. Where Hardy's method stands now, I would say he needs an enormous amount of refinement and research to better articulate his two methods. If anything, he could merely broaden his specific fundamentals for each.

 

Well, he has a four disc DVD set coming out in the spring and a much more detailed book on how to apply HIS method in early 2007. But many of your questions would be answered by attending one of his seminars. You should also look at his 1990 PGA teaching summit DVD.

 

In terms of pictures, the angle at which a picture is taken is critical to how the swing will appear. There have been lots of links on this thread which go to a variety of different angles. Just be careful.

I believe that what I am writing is correct. I have done the research and these are my opinions. Getting the left arm to match the shoulder plane is by no means a new idea.

 

Getting in the "one-plane" position at the top, by itself, accomplishes nothing; it is easy to make a "two-plane" downswing from that position. There is a lot more to being "one-plane" than where the left arm is at the top. However, it is much EASIER to make a "one-plane" downswing from the "one-plane" position.

 

Telling people to get their elbow behind them is a different idea and there are players which do it.

 

Hardy's real goal is to get players to swing flatter, rounder and with their arms behind them. He thinks his method accomplishes that.

[jeffy]

Points-

 

Perhaps you have heard of Carol Mann. She is in the Hall of Fame, having won 38 tournaments, including the U.S. Open. She has also taught golf for the past 30 years. She was married to Jim Hardy in the 80's, but they divorced in 1988. Nonetheless, they remain very close and collaborate actively on his theories. You will see her mentioned warmly by Jim in his book, in his presentations and on his site.

 

I learned Hardy's theories from Carol. She is very passionate about them and believes very strongly that they are correct. Why? Well, during most of her career Carol was a classic two-planer and was taught by Manuel de la Torre. In fact, she wrote a very moving forward to de la Torre's book "Understanding the Golf Swing". However, more or less by accident, in 1968 she adopted a more bent over posture and, as a consequence, a more rounded "one plane" swing, although she didn't know it at the time.

 

In 1968 and 1969, using her "one plane" swing, she won 18 tournaments and set many scoring records. Annika-esque. However, she eventually slipped back into her old "two plane" posture. By the mid '70's a back injury forced her off tour.

 

Carol didn't realize what had happened in her career until Jim developed and explained his "one" and "two plane" theory. She is now 100% "one plane" in her own swing and teaches Jim's theories more or less exclusively. Giving her playing and teaching history, I have enormous respect for her opinions. In fact, she is without question the most accomplished player who teaches regularly, man or woman. Perhaps this background will help you understand where I'm coming from.

 

Jeff

[Points]

Hardy's method then is merely theory. That is the point of this discussion. His method is not based on the movements and realities of the top players of the game. That is a fact. When asked to provide a pure one planer the best you could come up with is Duval which is still a little questionable. The reality is that the Hardy method is based on his ideas not the realities of what the best players in the world do.

You have cited a lot of players throughout this discussion as evidence of the clear types of one plane and two plane swings. I refuse to go into why each player does not fit into each mold.

Thanks for the advice about the seminar. After reading the book, watching him speak at the Coaching summit, and spending time on his web site, I am going to keep the $2500 and doing something else.

The theory does not hold up to the realities of what the best players in the world do. Keep looking at still photos and poorly shot footage.

[jeffy]

There are plenty of "pure" one planers; I've listed a lot of them. Duval and Snead come the closest to the Hardy model, but that is just one of many ways to swing "one plane". His method is not the only "pure" one plane method. Why do you think differently?

 

Also, the fact is that his models are based on the moves of the best players; it is just your opinion that he got it wrong.

[Points]

Have Jim post his research. That will make it easy for all.