Hogan v. Hardy

[Bama Duffer]

There have been a number of posts here praising Hogan's Five Fundamentals, so I know I'm treading on sacred ground here. But I have a couple of questions about the book.

First--I've read here and elsewhere that the swing Hogan describes isn't actually the way he swung a club. So I've always been a little reluctant to start tryinig to introduce various components without understanding which ones he did use and which he didn't. Or, is it more a matter of introducing various parts into my own swing and rejecting what doesn't seem to work?

Second--it's my understanding that Hogan's swing was definitely one-plane. Having read Hardy's Plane Truth and been intrigued by it, I'm curious as to how the one-plane swing Hardy describes differs from the Hogan's swing.

I can't decide if Hardy is a genius or I'm a fool. I've tried his one-plane swing with some success, so if Hogan's Fundamentals will complement Hardy (or vice versa), I want to work with both.

Any thoughts for a boardline heretic?

[cypressperch]

personally do not think that Hardy has made any revolutionary advancement with his one-plane and two-plane differentiations. Hogan did not make these distinctions, and thousands upon thousands of golfers with all kinds of swings have benefitted from Hogan's insights. Hardy says that there is the one-plane swing and all other swings are two-plane swings. Then he says do these things if you have a one-plane swing, and do these things if you have a two-plane swing. I would argue that if you were almost at a one-plane swing that you would use one-plane methods rather than the methods of a two-plane swinger who was no where near a one-plane swinger.

Besides that, I always point out how David Toms, a two-plane swinger, uses his big muscles, rather than his arm-swing, to square the club face. He does this quite well even though Hardy says the one-plane swinger uses the big muscles to square the clubface. I, Cypressperch, have a two-plane swing, and I can assure you that big muscles are doing the squaring of the club. Having just said that, if you were to film my swing, I doubt if you could tell what it was that was squaring the clubface. Everything is attached and moving, so it would be difficult to tell.

I am not sure that if you pick and choose from different sources you will be able to get to a more perfect swing than if you go with one fundamentally sound philosophy. You might. Also, as you pick from multiple sources, it is possible that they are based on the same foundation, and do not be surprised if Hogan is that foundation.

I personally prefer John Jacobs THE GOLF SWING SIMPLIFIED because of its clarity both in the writing and the illustrations. I do not think that it contradicts Hogan. I also find it strange that Hardy credits Jacobs a lot, and says that Jacob said that Hogan had a one-plane swing. He may have said that, but Jacobs also said that all great swings involved the shoulders swinging on a different plane than the arms, and that the shoulder plane was more level or horizontal.

When I saw what Hardy was trying to do, and when I saw certain things that seemed to me to be flawed, I went no farther with Hardy. I listened to what he said on the Golf Channel, and it was apparent that he knows traditional golf teachings quite well. His efforts to come up with two different approaches based on one and two planes, just does not make it in my opinion.

But as you will read here quite often, if something works for you, go with it. Golf is highly subjective, and probably as much or more an art form than a branch of science.

Sincerely, Cypressperch

[benk]

Well, I guess this is in my ballpark, so I'll give it a shot .

First off, I spent alot of time researching the golf swing and differant ways to go, and in all of my research, I feel Hardy is the best golf philosophy around. I am not alone. Hank Haney, specifically, has said that Hardy is the most knowledgeable teacher in golf. The guy is a genius, and I DO NOT believe his book exemplifies very well what he really knows. I personally reccommend the dvd, but I do believe in both he trys to simplify it so that he does not make it over-complicated. Wait for the new book, PT Master class [ out this march ] for him to hopefully explain to detail everything, not simplify it. If you got to watch [ as I did ] some of his talks at the PGA teachers summit, and at Las Vegas, I think that you would agree.

On Hogan, alot of things he described in his book he did not do. As all golfers, the "feels" that he had did not actually take place. There are also many things in his book that are flawed, for example, that he advocates starting the downswing with just the lower body. Hardy talks about in his book how this has started the "stuck" position in golf. I do love the book, it was the first golf book that I felt was a good one, but I feel Hardy's ideas are much better. Hogan was deffinally a 1 planer, and on Jacobs note, he started Hardy on this whole thing. One day, [ this comment started his journey into the 1 plane swing ] Jim asked John about Ben Hogan, and his reply was "he swung everything on 1 plane." He is personally my swing model along with Sam Snead. I have not read Jacobs book, but to say that it does not contradict Hogan shows that alot of things Hogan sais in his book is not what he actually did, he did not swing anything like Jacobs advocates.

You could also classify it as everyoens a 2 plane swinger, and everyone else is 1 plane. I think alot of people get confused about Hardy's teachings. Why wouldn't you use 1 plane ideas if you were near a 1 plane swing? The idea is to decide what it right for you, then start taking out whats wrong.

I'm not familiar with the 2 plane swing as much, but will say this. You have to use the Big Muscles to power the club, you just have to. But, in a 2 plane swing, the arms are the dominant power source. A feel is a feel. I swung 2 plane for awhile, but I THINK that Hardy advocates [ as I was taught] that you must drop the club on plane, nothing about not using the big muscles to square the club. If you are a good ballstriker, than you deffinally HAVE to drop the club down onto the right plane to the ball in a 2 plane swing. I actually had this same flaw, too much starting the club with my lower body to the point where I was coming in too steep. But, I could not sucessfully answer your question because of the fact that I have stayed away from 2 plane ideals and instruction as much as I could. If you want, I could ask [ or you could, whatever ] some 2 planers in the hardy forum what they think.

Anyway I just wrote a ton. I'll end on this, that Hardy has improved my ballstrikign A TON. I really believe my handicap will be 3 strokes lower at the start of this year because of the changes I've made. I think that his information on the 2 swings is the biggest help for ameterurs, and I also think [ this was not in his book ] that the Twist and Throw [ part of Tiger's big swing changes ] will revoulutionize the golf swing for professionals. But, I agreee with Cypressperch in that to every man his own, whatever works, do it. But I think that Hardy can work for everyone is they try it. Hopefully I did a decent job answering your question!

[dave.]

Hmmmmm,I wouldn't say there are a lot of things he said and didn't do,but there are a couple of things.He states his right arm is glued to his right hip,yet if you look at the pictures of his swing his arms hang quite freely,same with the description of both insides of his arms pointing skywards,the right arm does,not the left.Then his description of his hips TURNING first to start the downswing,yet its pretty clear he has a big lateral move first,then a turn (don't see it much nowadays).This are small though in the grand scheme of things but still need to be understood.For example,the right arm is crucial,but,and its a big but,players that hook tend to get the right arm a little low coming down,using Hogans method you might do this unless you understand what is happening.Decent payers can draw the ball by just thinking the right arm is low coming down,you come into the ball behind and under,which is good,and with a full release you will get the nice 5 yard draw pros want.Same with a fade,you just hold the right arm out.These tiny things do make a difference.

Hogan alos describes athletic tension in his arms as they are pinched into the body at address,yet modern coaches now describe 'noodle soft arms hanging under the chin',which is right? One of the few times Hogan ever got advice apart from the Picard grip advice was from a frined who told him he was gripping the club to hard,did this come from his 'athletic tension' thought?

I suppose the golden rule is to use what works for you but above all else experiment and UNDERSTAND what is happening when he describes certain things in the book.

And remember,Hogan hit a fade off a closed stance because of his grip,not a ,lot of players can do that!

[cypressperch]

to this forum that are hoping to find something that will make the game of golf easier for them to get better at. For all of you who have been able to do that with Hardy or Hogan, I congratulate you on your accomplishment, and I hope that it was fairly easy to do. I have been playing golf since 1957, and my first instruction (in 1957) was from a Japanese pro named Ichikawa who dressed and swung as close to like Hogan as you could possibly imagine. Unfortunately for me, he taught the reverse C thing you can end up in after the follow through. I had lots of help with my game over the years from some really good amateurs. I was good enough to play some in college, but quit the golf team to take extra courses to finish my BA in three years thinking I would be able to get my MA in the fourth year of a college deferment during the Vietnam period. Finished the BA and started the MA only to get called to military service anyway! Did not play a whole lot of golf while in the service, but kept studying and reading.

About ten or so years ago, I came across a copy of John Jacobs THE GOLF SWING SIMPLIFIED. One of the first chapters was on "The Geometry of Golf." In simple terms that anyone can understand, one is instructed on how the club path and position of the club face at impact interact to produce any shot that is possible. Many times on this forum, I have given advice about how to cure a problem, and the next poster will say something like, "You really should see a pro about that problem because only a qualified pro who actually watches your swing can tell you what to do." This would be a strange forum if every time someone had a problem, the proper response would be, "You need to see a pro on that one." Pros, do not worry, your services are good and will always be in demand. On the other hand, folks, you, me, and anyone else can get to the point of diagnosing swing problems if we are given only one thing to go on, and that is the flight of the ball. The flight of the ball is the only feedback you actually need to be able to make corrections.

Your club face position is determined mostly by your grip. Your alinement does most to determine clubhead swing path. Timing, rhythm, sequencing, posture--all of these things, and others, play a part in determining ball flight. The text and illustrations in this bood make some of the more difficult aspects of golf quite simple to understand. And they are all tied to the geometry of golf and ball flight. It really does simplify things, and I bet that everyone would like something to be as simple to understand as possible.

The instruction is not trying to get you to swing like Tiger or Hogan or any superstar. It is going to take you as you are and then get you to your potential.

Jacobs does not focus on the differences in swings of the great players. He deals with the similarities. From some of the illustrations, even those on the front cover, you know where Jacobs is going to take you. Seve, Jack, Lee, Nancy, Nick,Ben,Gary and all the others look the same in many ways at impact. Good impact position results in good shots (or good geometry).

We hear talk of how to start the swing. From the bottom? Drop the arms? Begin the down-swing before completing the back-swing? Jacobs does not worry about that as much as your ball flight. If the ball goes right, try this; if it goes left, do this. He may change the grip slightly, the stance slightly, or the sequencing slightly. He will get into different physical attributes such as how tall you are and how that makes for differences.

Yes, it is THE GOLF SWING SIMPLIFIED.

Sincerely, Cypressperch

[dave.]

Hogan and a reverse C? thats bizarre,I cannot imagine how you can do that,what a strange thing to teach

[cypressperch]

there was a great emphasis on the head remaining stationary. Add to that a tendancy to slide the hips left more than turning the hips, along with a lot of pull, pull, pull with the left side, and you ended up with a considerable amount of curvature in the spine.

Nicklaus and others held on to the "head in a vise" idea, and it didn't do their bodies any good.

Thank goodness we realize today that the head can move past center after impact since the ball is long gone by that time anyway.

Sincerely, Cypressperch

[dave.]

Indeed,and with the correct body release the arms will come more around the head,and not the high reverse C of the two planers.

[Bama Duffer]

I appreciate the thoughts and comments.

Dave, your post about some of the things Hogan describes in Fundamentals that he didn't do is what makes me reluctant to try it. On the other hand, so many people cite the benefits of Fundamentals that it makes me want to take a look at it.

And CP, I agree with you about Jacobs. I haven't read Golf Swing Simplified, but I did read Practical Golf by Jacobs and found it very helpful.

I'm not sure how I feel about Hardy. When I read Plane Truth, I thought it broke down a lot of the various instruction theories I've read about over the years very well. I tried out the one-plane swing on the range and one day, it seemed to click. I used in my next round with good results. Then somehow I lost that swing and went back to the drawing board.

I think what I'm trying to do now is narrow down the theories into the one that works best for me, and stick to it. I've played golf for over 30 years, and had cobbled together a sort of Frankenstein monster of a swing through trial and error. I could shoot in the '80s one day, then 100 the next. So I recently began to read various approaches to the swing and I'm not sure how I want to proceed.

But thanks for the input.

[benk]

I don't think that you could successfully convert to the 1ps in one range session. In order to convert, its gonna take awhile to get all of the elements out.

I think what happened [ and the same thing happened with me ] is that you got more bent over in your posture, and this right away got you hitting the ball better. Most people do use more of a 1ps downswing motion, therefore the bent over posture helps them. But, I can't imagine that you got the backswing correct, or did alot of the things that are neccessary to get the downswing correct. If you post a vid, I could tell you right away what you need to work on specifically if you want to attain the 1ps.

But, anyway, hopefully you find something that works!!

[Bama Duffer]

You're right, benk. I didn't mean to suggest that it happened in one session. I tried over several sessions to adjust my swing, then once day right before I played a round, it seemed to click. I stuck with it because of the seeming simplicity of the 1p swing.