golfrewind.com

I hope we are all talking about only the downswing, not the backswing plane.

I agree that the downswing plane has to be positioned so the clubhead meets the ball. I agree that the plane can point down-the-line, inside out or outside in, producing the well known effects associated with those.

What I am trying to determine is whether there is one inclination of the downswing plane that is best for a given player in a given setup (which includes a given club and all things that make a real ready-to-swing setup). The inclination of the swingplane is often described as upright or flat. Shorter clubs tend to be swung more upright and longer ones flatter, for example. With a given club and setup, can the swing be too upright or flat? Obviously at either extreme it can be, because it would become more and more difficult to make the swing work, starting from over your head or from behind your back, but is there a middle point between flat and upright that is the best in a given setup? Are the best players using an inclination on the downswing, no doubt unique to each individual, that if made flatter or more upright would reduce their ball striking effectiveness in any way, such as power, solidness of contact, etc.?

Steve, I think you are way over-analyzing this. All the things that happen before impact and after impact, to a significant extent are immaterial. The moment of truth is impact, and at impact, the best plane is the one where the club is pointing at the target line.

How you get there is all a matter of style, and a matter of each person's individual swing. Sure, there are easier methods of getting on-plane than others. Everyone who has ever written an instruction book or started teaching the golf swing has their own opinion on how best to do this. But, the goal of all the various different instructional books and teachers is to get the club on plane at impact. That's really it.

Been reading through the thread. nubee. Interesting, but confusing.

Wouldn't the most efficient way to get from start to the top be the shortest distance between those two points? Likewise coming back down?

There's so many planes in the golf swing, which one is in reference, or better, what defines it? (If I missed that in the thread, sorry to repeat.)

Is the plane something you think about while swinging?

Well, no. You don't actually swing the club in a straight line do you? A line is the "shortest distance"... You don't bring the club straight from over your shoulder right down to impact, do you? Part of it is that you want to bring the club around so that you have plenty of time to accelerate the club to speed at impact. The round impact also allows you to use the body's natural sources of energy within the structure of the body.

Like I just said in my above post, this is really a matter of style. Every single teacher thinks they have their own best way to achieve a swing that is on plane on impact. Every teacher is going to think that their own is the "best". What is best for one person, certainly in no way means it will be best for any other person. Ben Hogan's swing is fundamentally different than Jack Nicklaus', but they obviously both had exceptionally great careers. Nicklaus' swing would not have worked for Hogan, and Hogan's swing would not have worked for Nicklaus.

There is no "best". If it were really that simple, I think that golf would be a simpler game. If there was one clear-cut best way to swing a club, then every teacher everywhere would know what that clear-cut best way is, and everyone would teach the exact same swing, and we'd all learn it a lot quicker. Because there would be one and only one best way. But, like most things in life, there are many different ways of swinging a club. One instructor will ask you to perform one set of movements, because that 1st instructor thinks that that is best, and then when you go to a 2nd instructor he's going to tell you something different. Maybe a little different, maybe a lot different. It depends on how different that second instructor's idea of "best" is from the first.

As further examples of this, open any golf magazine published today. There is a good chance that you will find completely 100% conflicting advice in the same issue from all the different "tip and tricks" and instructional articles in them. You will definitely find directly conflicting advice if you collect 6 months worth of articles. I can cite you many books that advocate completely opposite things to do -- yet the goal of all of these articles are exactly the same -- to swing the club so that it is on plane at impact.

And, this isn't to say that one book or article is "better" or the "best" compared to all the rest. Because, in a certain point of view, both sides of the conflicting advice are right. One set is right for one kinds of swingers, and the other set of advice is right for another kind.

This is the big point -- each and every person is going to swing the club a little differently. We all have different heights, shoulder widths, weights, weight distributions, musculatures, reflexes, balances, etc. etc. No too people are exactly the same, and it is that simple fact that ensures that no two people will ever swing the club exactly the same. Similarly? almost certainly, but never exactly the same.

So, where does that leave us? Well, basically, you have to "dig your own swing out of the dirt" to borrow a phrase from Ben Hogan. That is a lot of the quest of golf -- each of us finding out own individual swings.

In general, thinking about anything while swinging is going to be disastrous. You can think about things when you practice, when you are training your instinct. But, when you are on the course, you need to just play with the swing you have that day. It is commonly called "paralysis by analysis" in that if you are swinging and thinking at the same time, it's only going to be luck if you pull it off correctly. You need to rely on your (hopefully!) well-trained muscles to do what they are trained to do.

And I see I'd be dead right now if it was a rattlesnake-club plane (redface).
I just have an immpossible time trying to visualize the clubplane. And isn't a 2 plane swing sortof an oxymoron? I mean, at what point do you jump from plane A to plane B? I like to focus on the triangle plane if that helps anyone. makes things a lot easier to visualize.

Oh, and not to overlook your very good points. tx for the answers.This may be too big, but wouldn't golf in general be more healthy if there were some sort of industry standard, like here's the ideal bassics to start with and vary that according to the individual? When I'm presented withso many different ways to do it i feel frozen like i've been bit with the shanks for a month and can't move. I don't even kow what teacher to select at that point. How do I know the next teacher isn't going to confuse me just like the last one. I just think we may hurt ourselves (those of us who love golf so much) by not pinning it down for the potential learner better. You are right, there is conflicting information at every turn.

How are you going to get a bunch of diverse people to agree on what that is, though? Even the beginners books have completely contradictory information in them, depending on the teaching method of the author. Even the simple drills to learn the swing, heck even the basics like how wide the stance should be, or how strong (rotated not tightly) the grip should be are different from author to author.

This is an industry that several years ago that tried to sit down with ANSI (that stands for American National Standards Institute, though today they are really international -- they set what is the standard for a wide, wide variety of things) and actually standardize golf. Primarily the equipment. They wanted to get some standards because not all 5 irons are 5 irons -- they wanted every 5 iron to come with 26 degrees of loft (or something like that). They wanted "standard length" clubs to be x inches, where x was set. They wanted shafts that are called "regular" flux to have a certain cpm measurement. But, the equipment manufacturers couldn't agree on what those standards should be. So, eventually ANSI just gave up. And that's why there is a lot of equipment confusion today.

If golf couldn't even decide what is a standard set of clubs -- and while there are different designs from model to model, all in all every club is very similar to every other club -- what are the chances it could even come close to setting a standard for instruction. Mathematically, I know that it isn't so, but my gut wants to label the chances of this happening at "less than zero"

The best thing you can do is to choose 1 book or choose 1 instructor in your area, and just stick with their methods. Don't try to mix and match -- you could end up mixing and matching things that directly conflict with each other. Don't try to be selective in the parts of the teaching you like and don't do the parts you don't like -- all the parts are most likely in there for a reason. Do the drills and practice the book/teacher asks of you, and see where you are after 1, 2, 3 months. After a period of time, then maybe do some small tweaks. But, nothing too major. While each of out own bests are going to be completely individual, the human body can also learn how to do things, and so you can teach yourself the basics of any variety of swing. Anybody can be a two planer, and anybody with even just a small amount of shoulder and hip rotation can be a one planer. Or any other kind of swinger. Once you get the fundamentals of a swing down, then you tweak and find what individual changes to the swing end up being best for you.

There sure is a lot of conflicting advice and theory. That's why I am trying to determine if there is a best downswing plane for a given setup. If there is, and there is a way to find it and refind it, then golf should be a lot easier.

I believe there is one best plane for given setup, individualized for each persons body, but it is difficult to prove or discuss. You can think of a plane as the surface described by a weight twirling quickly about you on a string. It's almost a plane but it is a little conical because of the effects of gravity pulling down on the weight. Now if you tilt or incline this plane so the weight passes through an imaginary impact point where a golf ball would be, you can see that there is a "swingplane." If you are swinging this weight with your hand, you would have to have your hand up over your head to make it work. This swingplane would be very steeply inclined. In golf terms it is upright.

When you swing a club instead of a string, you add a lot of weights to the moving system: two hands, two arms, and a very stiff string or shaft. When you add all these weights, it gets more complicated, but it seems to me that at least the hands and shaft can still travel in an arc that describes something close to a plane. The plane is not so steep as the one with the string; it's flatter. The two arms, however, probably modify the plane somewhat because they not in the same plane and they may want to go slightly different ways. The question is whether there is still one best plane after we add in the arms. If there is, that means there would be a best top position for the hands at the beginning of the downswing, in terms of upright or flat. I think there is. A good reason for my belief is that when I get upright, I start toeing the ball. By the same token, too flat a swing should cause heeling and shanking.

IMO golf is difficult to learn because typical beginning golfers have 5 problems with their setup / swing that all prevent good results. (they are not always the same 5 problems (they are often 'personal problems' ), and 5 is just a number picked out of thin air). When they fix one of the 5 problems they still don't have good results, because of the other 4, and they may give up on their legitimate fix for the 5th problem. It becomes a puzzle, that they eventually solve by putting all 5 fixes together!

Another thought: Threads like this aren't golf-advice, and they don't help anyone with their game. They are discussions between 'keen students of the golf swing' (this is not a 'knock': I am one myself), who take a particular interest in swing technique. Don't look for swing advice here. Instead, go to the range and experiment with some setup and swing changes, and write down what seems to work and what doesn't. You will figure it out eventually. Professional help may speed up the process.

I think I'm with you sir on that point. The human body is the same unless there is an abnormallity, understanding there are variations. Bones, muscles, joints. We are all the same. It seems the same basic mechanics should apply. If you go take lessons to learn the tango, you learn specific steps, moves, posture. If you take skydiving lessons, you don't jump out of the plane (the other kind) and have the instructor work with you on your personal aerodynamics on the way down. You spend a lot of time in the classroom learning definitive technique. Every human endeavor but golf it seems has a "way to do it". But I do agree with others that you may beover analyzing a bit. I know if I laid awake at night trying to visualize the club plane I wouldn't get any rest. Besides, isn't it the backswing where all the work happens? Well, it is for me anyway. I can not tell you what I do or what my plane is coming down. I'm just focusing on keeping all the tensions and relationships in place while unwinding. Sequencing? It all happpens in order if you stack the deck right. That's why I focus on the triangle plane. Shoulder connection (Ballard?), keep the arms from moving (twisting etc.), rotate the torso, and the club breaks square every time. I guess that's called one plane. Makes for a compact but very powerful operation. Address posture determines flat or uprite. Proffessional help? Not meant as a dig or anything, but I actually had to void myself of all past proffessional instruction in order to learn how to swing. Seriously, focus on the backswing and you'll do yourself a big favor.

steve,

maybe it is a language issue, and you aren't able to formulate the question you really want to ask. But, your question has been answered many times.

The best downswing plane is the one that points at the target line. That is a simple function of the design of a golf club. It is completely irrelevant if the person swinging it has one arm, two arms, threes arms.... The swingplane of Iron Byron, a robotic golf club tester, is based on the club design -- specifically the lie angle -- and not on how many arms the robot has (which is one by the way).

Now, whether or not any individual person is athletic enough to achieve that best swingplane, that's a different question. But, the question as written has been answered many times.

If you need further evidence of this, I'd suggest you go seek out some books. The best one I think that'll explain this is called Search for the Perfect Swing by Cochran and Stobbs. They use physics to describe the motion of the golf swing, and how being on plane allows for the more efficient transference of energy from the person to the club to the ball. They do also talk quite a lot about the planes. The really good news is that it isn't a physics text -- there are a few equations, but the whole book isn't about equations. It is almost wholly discussion and illustrations and photographs. I really think that Cochran and Stobbs will clear up a lot of these questions you have. And, just as an additional to back it up, Cochran and Stobbs actually spend a fair amount of time talking about one-armed golfers (people who lost their arms in wars or accidents) and how they fit the model perfectly. So, it is just further evidence that how many arms (or legs or feet or whatever) really isn't the issue when it comes to the swingplane.

The club is designed to be swung on a certain plane. Period. How you get it to that certain plane is going to vary from person to person. And, that's a lot of the reason why it is so important to get fitted -- because clubs can be adjusted. If you naturally swing a little shallower, then you can get clubs bent so that they are designed to be swung on a shallower plane. If you are more up and down, clubs can be bent so that they are designed to be swung more up and down. It really is that simple. I think that you are over-complicating an already complicated enough issue.

edited to add: Oh, just again to drive home the point, I wanted to address the first line specifically. RE "That's why I am trying to determine if there is a best downswing plane for a given setup." Again, the best plane at impact is 100% completely determined by the design of the club. The different setups people are using would be to try to make it easier for the person to achieve that on-plane position at impact. But the setup a person uses doesn't change the laws of physics -- specifically the laws of physics that clearly state that the "best" swing (the swing that is most efficient at transferring energy to the ball in the direction the person is aimed) is the plane with the club pointing at the target line. A person implements a certain setup with the hope that that setup will help them achieve the on plane position at impact easier and more consistently.

Are you familiar with Homer Kelley's work, leading to the book (and method) "The Golfing Machine"?

It is a very detailed, mechanical breakdown of the human body swinging a golf club.

The man: Homer Kelley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The book: Amazon.com: The Golfing Machine: Homer Kelley: Books
Read the reviews!

The method: Golfing Machine

I like your thinking. Personally I have taken your approach 1 step further back. I think the setup is where most of the 'work' happens, and focus only on the setup. I believe everything else pretty much results from that.

While I think very highly of TGM's (The Golfing Machine's) analysis and breakdown of what happens during a good swing, I don't think that it is a very good instructional methodology, especially for beginners. TGM devotees end up talking in their own language that bears little resemblance to "normal" golf terminology, and I think that the phrase "paralysis by analysis" comes into play in a major way.

TGM is a very good book. But, it is not a good starting place. By analogy, I think it'd be like pickup up a calculus book and trying to read that before mastering algebra. Or trying to learn to drive an IndyCar before passing your state's driving test. Or baking a wedding cake before learning how to crack an egg and boil water.

TGM I think can be great at doing little adjustments to an already pretty decent swing to completely refine it into the best possible. But, giving someone 30 different things to think about (and the book covers a lot of different aspects of the swing) is just too, too much. Just my opinion.

In an ideal world, I think that a good progression to build up would be:

1) Hogan's Five Fundamentals and Jones' Swing the Clubhead. This will give you the tried and true rotational/one plane swing basics and the up-and-down/two plane swing basics, respectively. Both really are seminal works on the golf swing. Hogan was really one of the first to discuss at length the swing plane.

2) Hardy's Plane Truth books, Hebron's See and Feel the Inside Move the Outside, De La Torre's Understanding the Golf Swing as the slightly more advanced level based on 1) Clapett's The Impact Zone goes well here, too.

3) Cochran and Stobbs' Search for the Perfect Swing starts to get into the physics of the swing

4) Jorgensen's The Physics of Golf starts to get into the actual physics of the swing -- this one gets into the math

then finally

5) TGM. If 1-4) only whet the appetite and don't satisfy it, then finally 5) here is really like getting the PhD in the golf swing. In 2) above, I mentioned the book by Clampett. Clampett was a TGM student, and while he uses very, very little of the TGM terminology, it is in there just a teeny bit. If you really take to Clampett's book, then maybe TGM is right for you.

There are other invaluable books. Wishon's The Search for the Perfect Golf Club is the best book written on how golf clubs are designed, and what needs to be done to make them the best tools they can be. But, it doesn't really fit into the above series, since it is more about equipment design than how to use the equipment. But it is very valuable in terms of learning how to choose the best equipment for your game and your swing, so it shouldn't be missed. It just isn't a layer in the pyramid above in terms of reading books of increased complexity about the golf swing.

QUOTE]How are you going to get a bunch of diverse people to agree on what that is, though?[[/quote]

Yeah. Kinda like herding cats. One thing true about golfers is we're an independent lot. That's why we're all attracted to the game I suppose. It's just hard to see so many frustrated players when it don't have to be that way.

Kudos. I'm there just didn't state it. Any adjustment made while swinging due to faulty set up is a loss of power. All swing tensions and positions are established at address. Thanks, I'll check those references.