Roger Gunn vesus Jim Hardy

littlepoison · August 2, 2006

a celebrity death match of similar methodologies?

Hello all, I am in the process of working on a transition into a more rotational, "one plane" swing. Just fits my body type much better, and I seem to be better able to execute the things that my teacher and I have been working on using more of a "one plane" mindset. Top of backswing is ten times better than this past spring, and I'm starting to get a bit more of a groove for the proper swing path. Still I'm having issues with the connecting of the left arm to the chest on the through swing...

Which of the two teachers, Roger Gunn, or Jim Hardy, uses a more "beginner friendly" approach to the very basics of a one plane swing?

BTW, current teach is doing an excellent job, and agreed that this type of swing made more sense based on body type.

jportz · August 2, 2006

I'm a big fan of Roger Gunn....I have one of his DVD's and it is VERY beginner friendly. He keeps things very simple and concentrates on the basics.

Just curious...you said your teacher recommended the 1 plane swing for you because of your body....what is that? Just wondering if it's something I should look into.

abewley · August 2, 2006

ditto on roger...

from what i have read.. body type means nothing...

oldpalchamp · August 2, 2006

FWIW, Roger Gunn is listed on Jim Hardy's website as a "long time associate" of Jim's.

littlepoison · August 2, 2006

I'm a big fan of Roger Gunn....I have one of his DVD's and it is VERY beginner friendly. He keeps things very simple and concentrates on the basics.

Just curious...you said your teacher recommended the 1 plane swing for you because of your body....what is that? Just wondering if it's something I should look into.

I feel especially good about talking about this after today's brief range session in the heat... very, very much improved since I began the transition.

My body type is the following Frankenstein-esque mix of body dimensions: A am about 5'4" tall, rather lean, but still built a bit wider than I am tall. I have a relatively long torso, and freakishly short legs. 28" inseam short legs. Yup, that adds up to legs and hips that move very fast compared to my upper body. Someone with a similar height, but closer to average proportions between the torso and legs could probably do just fine with the two plane approach. The one plane swing REALLY seems to eliminate the degree of perfection between hips unwinding and delaying/dropping the arms "into the slot." I could do that consistently maybe two range sessions out of ten. The other eight sessions out of ten were a mix of so-so and awful experiences.

That is in part the first explanation to abewley, relative to my "fits my body type."

The second explanation regarding why my body, in addition to just body type, lends itself to the one plane style is this... I'm a natural lefty that plays righty... no big deal you say, and it wouldn't be, unless you consider that my dominant side's leg (my left, ie, forward leg) is slightly longer than my right, or rearward leg. For the two plane motion, in order to create that room for the delay and drop into the slot, you are recommended to shift the weight onto the rearward foot, and then make a weight shift toward the front foot, all while timing that delay and drop into the slot... no matter how hard I tried, I have a nearly impossible time getting my weight to move forward, and when it did, it was usually in the form of a slide, without any rotation. For me, the "centeredness" of the one plane swing dramatically simplified the downswing. It is much, MUCH easier for me to strike the ball with the propper down-and-through motion, compress the ball, and avoid the pitfalls of the dreaded "hanging back." Overall, I'm seeing much more improvement, and much more quickly than when I was trying to implement the "two plane" fundamentals.

I'll never say that the one plane is for everybody, but in my case, it seems to work much better.