1 vs. 2 plane swings

[Sandpiper3]

Ok, ive heard alot aboot this lately... i have no idea wat the differences are.... and know even less of their effects.

Can anyone tell me exactly wat the differences and advantages/disadvantages of these are?

[Ravenous Bugblatter Beast]

Here's a link to an article by Jim Hardy at Golf Digest:

http://www.golfdigest.com/instructio...ingplane2.html

It's just a basic introduction but should be helpful for understanding the differences. One of the most important things about understanding the differences is that often times you'll encounter tips about what to do with a swing, but a lot of those tips may only be applicable to a one-plane or two-plane swing. Trying to incorporate a tip for a two-plane swing into a one-plane swing can cause great difficulties.

[Pa Jayhawk]

This may a good place to start, and will explain it in far greater detail than I can. I breaks down both swings.
http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/p3_...two_plane.html

[cypressperch]

swings in which the arms move on the same plane as the body turns on and two plane swings in which the arms move on a more upright plane than the body is turning has created a lot of needless confusion in my opinion. A guy named Hardy who is somehow connected with Peter Jacobsen wrote a book about this. As noted in an above post this was in Golf Digest and they made a big deal of it. But there is something a little off in all of this. Hardy talks about John Jacobs so as to get you to thinking that Jacobs, one of the truly great teachers, might approve of Hardy's every word, but I do not think that Jacobs would.

Jacobs does not differentiate between one and two plane swings. He also said that all great golfers swung the arms on a more upright plane than the shoulders were turning on. In one of his books, The Golf Swing Simplified, the illustrations are all about swinging on two planes. I do not know where you can find proof that Jacobs said that Hogan swung on one plane only, but even if he did, I cannot see how Jacobs would agree with the notion that a one-plane swing and a two-plane swing MUST follow separate methods in their execution. Jacobs wrote as if all swings are basically the same since he never makes the distinction. Jacobs points out that there can be differences among swings but at the basic level, they are all following the same principles.

Hardy said at one point that a two-plane swinger squares the club with his arm-swing, hands, etc., but a one-plane swinger squares the club with his shoulder turn. And he goes into problems that arise if you do not allow for the differences in the two swing types. David Toms is a two-plane swinger and has written that the shoulders square the club with their coiling and uncoiling and that the arms, hands, and club are "just along for the ride." That is how I square the club when I swing. It is more about staying "connected" than about plane. I have looked at the swing sequences of people like Ernie Els who is suppose to be a one-plane swinger, but at the top, the hands of Els are so high while it is obvious that his shoulder turn was quite level, there had to be a considerable difference in plane to get into that position. Vjay is the closest thing to a one-plane swinger as his arm-swing is somewhat flat, but I doubt if Vjay has all the Hardy exceptions in his mind. I do not think Hogan ever warned anyone about the differences either.

So my conclusion is that Hardy has made no great contribution to understanding the golf swing. I think it is a money making thing like other things golfers are constantly being bombarded with. But he sure got a lot of people hooked on his line. I think anyone can follow Jacobs or Hogan and not even worry about one vs two plane swings, and do just fine. They had been for years, before Hardy came along.

Sincerely, Cypressperch

[ezra76]

I've been trying to get mine down to a one plane but I have trouble seeing these things. Could anyone tell me what they see in mine? I saw some infomercial for that "plane truth" and they made it sound pretty good. I'll pass it along if I can come up with a copy of it somewhere.

[rick]

Great article on Golf Digest. I was going to tell everyone about it but the Ravenous one beat me to it. Great helpful visuals.

[Ravenous Bugblatter Beast]

Cypressperch,

It doesn't really matter whether or not Jacobs would approve of everything Hardy wrote, or if I approve of everything he wrote, or you approve. While Hardy may have written that as introductory material as to how he came to his observations and conclusions regarding the existence of one-plane and two-plane swings, it doesn't matter who says they exist but as to whether or not there are two types of golf swings, and whether those swings do have certain differences which can make their implementation and maintenance of some difference.

In many ways, it probably helps some if one has experienced trying to use both types of swings. I don't know anything about your swing, but you might find it useful to talk with someone who you feel is knowledgeable about swings, and who can state to you with an explanation of why he feels that he is either one-plane or two-plane. You might then even ask that individual to assess your own swing, and make an identification as to whether yours would be classified as one-plane or two-plane.

As to whether or not you would actually want to experiment with trying a different swing, that is up to you and what you feel you need to do with your swing. But in my opinion, it would be quite useful for you investiage this matter more because if you do have students, you will owe it to them to make sure you are giving them advice and instruction which will be good for their type of swing.

Here are my own quick-and-dirty differences between the two, based upon my own experience:

Two-plane, more armsy, at the top of the backswing often requires the golfer to drop the arms first, then start the hips, timing is critical. If arms don't drop down quick enough, club goes way outside and the golfer is liable to either slice badly, or pull the ball way left if the clubface gets closed.

One-plane, getting the shoulders turned and coiled against the hips is critical. Arms don't have to drop as long as they stay at or below the plane of the shoulders, start transferring the weight to the left side at the start of the downswing.

Now see, it was through thinking about these differences that I diagnosed why I'd been having struggles the past month since returning from being sick. The one-plane swing I had been working on had been getting a two-plane reversion on me, as my left elbow began breaking down, and my arms tried to lift above my shoulders. I was having to time my swing again, unfortunately I wasn't doing very well because I was using my lower body to start things. So last night I went to the range, focused on keeping my left arm straight, and making a full shoulder turn.

I started striking the ball much better again.

[Loop]

lol
For once, I agree with CP on this one.

[cypressperch]

for you. But I do not think that the idea of there being two-plane and one-plane swings and a set of things to do for each holds much water. You could swing on something close to a one-plane swing and yet be more of an arm swinger than a shoulder, big muscle turner. And David Toms (and yours truly) are two-plane swingers who concentrate on turning the big muscles, staying connected, and have are arms, hands, etc. acting very passively. (I do agree with Mr. Flick that it is important to have a 'feel' for what the clubhead is doing, so on that aspect, I wouldn't say that the clubhead is going alone just for the ride.)

Hardy says that if you swing the arms and body on the same plane, you are a one-plane swinger, and all others are two-plane swingers. Going by that, I doubt if there is a true one-plane swinger among the pros. Vjay comes very close. If you drop the club into the slot coming down, I think you have to be swinging two-plane. Vjay's swing is very flat and there is just three degrees difference in his back-swing angle and the angle at which he returns the club to the ball. That is close to one-plane, but according to Hardy's own words, it is still not a true one-plane swing, and he does have one set of characteristics for a one plane and another for the two-plane swing. So a logical question is "Where is the point at which you are to follow the one-plane guidelines?" Hardy seems to be saying that there is a need for differences to be made, but no other writer that I know of has ever made such a distinction. I do not find anything in the notion of two-planes that calls for a difference being made in the application of traditional golf fundamentals.

Ordinarily I would think that a tall person might want to swing more upright than a shorter person as a general rule. But again, there is Vjay swinging flatter and closer to a one-plane swing than just about anyone. I certainly agree that one can be more of an arm swinger than a big muscle, shoulder turner, but I still think that is not something that has to be about plane. It is far more about connection than anything I can think of with the shoulder turner being more concerned with staying connected whether they be swinging on one plane or two.

As to how I approach helping someone with swing issues, I try my best to avoid confusion. I try to help the person develop a swing that matches their physique and natural tendency concerning rhythm and tempo. I follow John Jacobs very closely in how I discuss plane. I say that the shoulders turn on a more level plane than the arms. I talk a lot about posture, that it should be fairly upright, with the posterior sticking out somewhat, and the arms hanging almost straight down with certainly no exaggerated reaching for the ball. From such a classic posture, you almost have to swing on two planes. I like the spine angle to stay constant throughout the swing, and to me, this is a far more productive point to concentrate on than differences in plane.

I just do not personally believe that Hardy has made any great break through in how to approach the development of a golf swing. I prefer Jacobs over Hogan because of simplicity or clarity, but I do not think Hardy has added anything to or taken anything away from either Hogan or Jacobs. But if someone were to read Hardy, find in it something that works for them individually, you will not hear Cypressperch telling them to throw away their Hardy Boy books. As usual in both life and golf, "Different strokes for different folks" because there is more than one way to skin a cat.

The best of luck to everyone with their games regardless of what "authority" they are basing their games on. Sincerely, Cypressperch

[cypressperch]

additional point. Regardless if a person be swinging on one or two planes, I do not think the sequencing of body parts would be different. Going back, the club head moves first being connected to the "triangle", the arms move, the shoulders turn, the hip turns, the last movement might be the left heel coming up a bit. On the down-swing, the left heel comes down as the hips turn (perhaps after a 'bump' to the left), the shoulders start to uncoil, with the back still facing the target, the arms come down, and the last thing that moves is the clubhead. The down-swing has to be from the bottom up to clear out the path from the INSIDE to the ball. This action is almost identical in all great swings. It leads to positions at impact that are amazingly the same regardless of all the differences in how swings appear.

I believe that the similarity of great swings at impact is why one set of general principles can and has worked when teaching the golf swing. It is already a fairly complex game, to say the least. I am for keeping the teaching of golf as simple as possible, and I am not sure that the Plane Truth is doing that. Again with sincerity, Cypressperch