Snead, hogan, byron nelson

[cypressperch]

Jacobs for the two-plane swing. I remember Hardy saying that Jacobs had told him that Hogan swung on one plane. That has always confused me since Jacobs also said that all great swings have had two planes.

Question: Does a two plane swing mean that the shoulders turn on one plane that is more horizontal, and the arms swing on a plane that is more vertical, up-and-down? This is what I have thought was meant by a two-plane swing, and it is the swing that Jacobs says all great swings are characterized by, with the possible exception of Hogan who, come to think of it, was a pretty fair swinger.

Sincerely, Cypressperch

[benk]

That is what got hardy into the 1 plane motion, that one comment. Isn't it funny that 1 thing that a person says morphed into what he has developed today!!

I am not an expert on the 2 plane swing. I swung that way, but I did not really understand my golf swing then. What I do know is that Hardy talks in his book that he has immense respect for jacobs, and that he believes in everything that jacobs preached about the 2 plane swing. He also talked about the arm swing being enough to drive a tent peg in the ground [ this is from memory ], and the body turn being upright enough to hit a baseball.

The 2 plane swing is basically when the arms do not swing on the same plane as the body pivots, and the 1 plane swing is basically the arms swinging on the same plane as the body pivots.Hope this answers you question??? I could copy down some specifics if you want about certain aspects of the hardy 2 plane to see if it corresponds, but I'm sure it does. If that doesn't do it for you, just post it in the Jim hardy forums, at jimhardygolf.com. You will definally get it answered there, by people more knowledgeable about that golf swing then I.

[gwlee7]

Chuck copied off of Jim [ I talked to one of Jim's associates about this specific thing ] in most respects, and I think he is getting sued right now....

Ben, to come over here to this forum and spout off hearsay like this is not very cool. Hardy himself on his own forum said that this is not the case a while back. Furthermore, why are you bad mouthing Quinton here by implying that he has dome something wrong yet, constantly clog up his site with your "insights" or begging Chuck to help to help you with your swing?

In my expereince over the past year or so, Shot Talk is a happy place that tries to steer clear of controversy especially when it comes to swing theory and the like. Realizing that will go a long ways to your fitting in here.

[dave.]

Immleman is a one planer.To describe him as a 2 planer is a just daft,its semantics and getting silly with technicalities.By anyones definition he swings on one plane,not 2.There are many different methods of deciding which is which,but all this 2 plane takeaway,2 plane moves coming down blah blah blah is fine when discussing your own theories,but common sense needs to apply in general.I am bowing out of this thread now,its not going to serve any purpose arguing over this,Immleman as a 2 planer is just bizarre and its this death by over-analysis that winds me up tbh,hence why I will bow out.

[benk]

Immelman is a 2 planer in Hardy terms. There are 2 ways that I know of that you can determine the plane, in hardy terms, which is more of where they are at the top, and in the plane at 9 o clock on the backswing and downswing.

Download v2 software and get trevor immelmans swing [ I just did this ]. Make a line at 9 o clock on the backswing, then do it on the downswing. His downswing plane is flatter than his backswing plane, its as simple as that.

Now if you do it by hardy terms, his arms are above his shoulder plane [ not slightly, they are deffinally 2 plane ]. He is also a 2 plane by hardy deffinition too.

I can see why you might think he is a 1 plane looking at his swing in fast motion very quickly, if you talking about plane at 9 oclock. But it is clear in video he is not 1 plane. You'll also notice he has a "drop" in his swing, which definally signifies a 2 plane golf swing.

[benk]

To add to that, we had that same discussion in the jim hardy forums. You are not the only one that thought he was 1 plane!

A morad guy chimed in who actually has worked with immelman, at least I think thats what he said.

[charnockpro]

$14.95 per month, Jim hardy has got it right alright!!! one plane and it is most likely to be a lear jet for what he is charging to view his theories.

How is it that he has only taught professionals, and tour players? doesnt doing your research mean going out and testing it on all calibre's of players before extolling it as the new golf swing.

That said if it works for you, you shouldnt put all people into the same parameters though, as there are different physical attributes and hinderances that would quantify a more detailed analysis than just a one or two plane decision. and this is where the crux of all misdiagnosis comes from by people rigidly sticking to certain ideals.

[dave.]

Well Benk,I prefer Hogan's definition of plane,Hardy has his as does every coach I am sure,you take just take your own view and make it work for you.Johnny Miller,Tom Wieskopf,take a look at their swings and then take a look and Immelman,to say they are they same is taking the analysis way over the top for me,as I said,is unneccessary death by detail.IF Hardy says Immleman is a 2ps,thats fine by me,he has taught many players and I have to respect such an experienced coach.But I still vehemently disagree

It seems that the definition of plane has got lost by coaches desparate to find their own identity in a crowded market,(don't blame them at all,big money to be earned)in as much as the definition seems to be drawn down to moves during the swing.You've said this several time,this bit is one plane,the next bit is 2 etc etc etc.But plane is plane! The moves don't make a difference,you either swing under or on the pane of glass as in Hogans book,or you don't.

The biggest selling golf instruction book in history has a simple view of plane,Hogan describes in clearly and succintly,and he doesn't like the plane with any other position.Hardy might,but thats just over-complication a simple concept to me.

1p hands below the plane,2p hands above,thats it.

[dave.]

[dave.]

Please tell me Immelman is in a 2p position there? Weiskopf,like Nicklaus,Greg Norman et al,classic 2 plane swing.

Weiskopf btw,was and still is a glorious swinger of a golf club,so beautiful it makes you weep.But 2 plane and way beyond mere mortals to replicate.

[benk]

In that video, he looks 1 plane. In the video I have on v2, he is a 2 plane swinger, in hardys and in most other peoples deffinitions. Like I said, I don't rigidly go to hardys ideals, I just really like alot of them.

I don't think theres many good players in the world that go over hogans idea of plane. I gotta go to work right now, but I would not take that part of plane into account at all. It's kinda weird that he describes that as plane, but it is absolutley nothing like he swings.

And its 15 bucks month for Chuck's thing, not hardys.

Charnock, that is the point I was waiting for you guys to say. I didn't think any of the other things that you said about hardy was much of a problem, or had much merit in my mind. But that is the whole problem with the book, and he now has to make the master class book to fix it. I will talk more about this when I get back from work.

Like I said before, It's not a rigid set of ideals. It's a basic way to figure out where you need to go in the golf swing. You dont' have to be on X degree to be a 1 planer, or x degree to be a 2 planer. If you get somehwere close to this position, then you got it. I agree that there are differant physical perameters, and that also has to do in your choice and how you pursue the swings. They are guidlines to what you are trying to do. I'm not trying to put people into perameters, I' m just trying to explain hardys theorys for alot of people who I think have seen them incorrectly. I think they can help alot of golfers that just haven't gotten any better, I have seen it.

anyway gotta go to work.

[dave.]

If Hardy thinks Immleman is 2 plane I think I will avoid his web site in future

[benk]

Hardy has never said that Immelman is 1 or 2 plane. I just said in the v2 video that I saw, Hardy would define Immelman as a 2 planer. Now, that video might be old, so I went and found 2 more videos from a discusion we had on hardy forums. Here they are.

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoqVVC9pT5U
(Trevor swings at the 26 second mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBosT...elated&search= (warning, Peter Kostis is talking on this one)

I think in the first 1 he deffinally looks to be a 1 plane swinger. In the 2nd, His swing looks very much differant than the first, much more upright. It's hard to tell how high his hands are because of the camera angle, but I get this feeling that they are as high as the V2 video.

I really find it interesting that his hands are so much flatter in the 1 video than in the other 2 I have found. Honestly, I'm really not sure what to think about Immelman. I wish I could get the one with all the swings on v2, so I could see if he still has that drop move that he had in the other v2 videos I've seen of him.

[dave.]

benk,from that position I don't really care what moves he does,thats one plane if ever I saw it.I can't understand why drop moves have anything to do with plane,you are either below or above it,and in Immelman's case,he is clearly on one plane.And his downswing is also a hard body rotation,look where his follow through finishes,right around his head.

To me,that position he is on in the freeze frame i took is perfect,great swing in my book.

[benk]

I agree, and that is what I said in my last post.... I said in that vid, he looks very very 1 plane. But in the other 2 videos I mentioned, he's not. Here's that site that he looks very 2 plane in.

http://www.v1home.com/lessonshop.asp#

His hands are deffinally gonna be above the shoulder line if he keeps going, and notice his drop. If you are really 1 plane, you will not need this drop to get back on plane. 2 plane swingers need this drop, but in a 1 plane swing, it will make it too shallow. I struggled with this myself, to stop dropping. If you are on plane as you say, you don't need this drop, just a hard rotation as you say. If you are above it, a hard rotation will make the club be above the plane [ I did this for a long time also ], so you have to "drop" it onto the perfect downswing path. This is not something that hardy has made up, look up any good teacher that teaches the hands to be above the shoulder plane [ john jacobs, rick smith, harmon, leadbetter when he was teaching more 2 plane, I could go on and on ].

I think his swing looks really good in all these vids, but I think the one that you posted is very differant than the one that is on that site. It's weird to tell you the truth. I wonder who he has been working with.