golfrewind.com

Is there one best club swingplane when everything else is held constant?

There is one best swing plane at impact ... the one that points down the target line. How you get there doesn't matter much if it is repeatable. All the major swing styles ... one-plane, two-plane, stack and tilt, and the Jim Furyk 9-plane swing look pretty similar at impact and return the club to a plane that points down the target line at impact.

I am not understanding you.

I prefer a one plane swing, feel it's more repeatable and consistent. Probably because it feels like there are just fewer moving parts.

A one plane swing usually means the one piece takeaway that we should all have is the extent of the takeaway. There is no extra movement of the arms up to a higher plane, or for them to sit over the right shoulder at the top. In a one plane the hands tend to stay lower, off the back right shoulder and come right back to the ball in a more piston style motion. Two I think of off the bat are Nick Price and Peter Jacobsen. Very much Jake has that one plane motion. Also check out old pictures of the late Moe Norman. His grip and stance are legendary if not conventional, but his swing is the epitome of a one planer.
In a 2 plane motion you have that same one piece takeaway but when your hands get about hip high the plane changes and where your hands are set is well above the angled line that would run from the ball up your shaft and through your hip area. In a one plane motion your hands would only get marginally above that angled line. In a 2 plane your hands and lead arm will form a much different angle, meaning they are on a separate plane. The Stack and Tilt motion is more of a one plane motion, so that's something to think about. The 2 plane requires that dropping of the hands into the slot that you hear about often. That means your hands must come off that second plane and move back onto the plane of the takeaway for proper delivery into the ball. If they don't drop before the forward move, you get the classic over the top motion. In a one plane swing, there is little rerouting because the path hardly leaves the plane - it's a back and through motion.

I am thinking about the downswing plane of the club and ignoring the backswing. I am assuming that the direction of the club, on the downswing, as it moves around the body of the player, doesn't change direction very much, because, due to momentum, it would be very difficult to make it change except right at the beginning of the downswing. So by preserving direction, the club traces a plane rather than something more complicated. And the player has a certain spine angle and arm angle and ball position and leg flex etc. So given all these things, is there one downswing plane that works best, such that if it were flatter or more upright it would be more difficult to hit consistantly and solidly? Try to swing very flat or very upright, and see if and why it is harder to do that. Then imagine smaller amounts of flatness or uprightness. Does the swing become more and more accurate as it approaches one particular inclination? I think the answer is yes, but I can't prove it.

Are you saying that the two plane swing has a backswing that is upright and must be followed by a loop at the top where the club and arms drop to a lower level, perhaps to the same downswing plane that the one plane swing uses?

This is true, if and only if the club is allowed to just "go for a ride." The vast majority of swings by the amateur ranks do not have this. There is a lot of hand, arm, wrist manipulation in a lot of swings out there. Hard, arm, wrist, etc. manipulation is a force, and an applied force changes the momentum of an object.

What are you saying happens if the club is allowed to "go for a ride"? It drops back into the lower plane?

No. I am talking in generalities here -- nothing about swing planes, in fact, nothing specific to golf -- basic physics.

Once on object is started in a direction or rotation, it will keep in that direction or rotation until acted upon by a force. "Momentum" isn't exactly the right word here, but inertia is.

Now, in more golf-specific terms, firstly that principle in always imperfectly applied to golf, simply because it is performed on earth and there is gravity. Gravity is a force, and a force will change the momentum of an object. So, the item doesn't just have it's original inertia anymore -- it has some of it's original motion due to inertia, but it also has some change in that motion due to a force acting on it.

Now, throw in the typical handicap player, with all sorts of hand, arm, and wrist manipulations, all of which also impose forces on the club, and the club's original inertia becomes less and less deterministic on the trajectory of the club. The forces from the arms and hands and wrists do.

Eliminating those hands, arm, and wrist manipulations is what I mean by "along for the ride". That is, not having any small muscle manipulations, only allowing the core of the body (hips/shoulders) do the rotation, and just allowing your arms and club by extension be driven by the forces of gravity and the rotation around the body gives the club a better chance to follow its own inertia.

What I am saying is that inertia isn't this magic thing that guarantees that the club ends up on plane every time. The initial force (to start the inertia) has to be on target (on plane) and then your body does exert forces on the club while it swings, and gravity is always acting on it. That doesn't mean that it isn't a good swing thought/idea to work off of -- it just isn't technically right from a physics point of view.

I like this thought! Good definition!


Here is a little info on the differences in the one and two plane swings. My point was like in this example, you see David Tom's clubshaft at an angle that is steeper than the original angle, meanwhile Vijay's is at the same angle as address. There is no movement required to get the club back to the same angle to attack the ball, whil Tom's (whose swing is not unlike most pros') has to allow his hands to drop while his left shoulder stays in position before his club is in the proper position to deliver the club to the ball.

One Plane vs Two Plane Golf Swing - David Toms and Vijay Singh

And another definition of one and two plane swings....Mike LaBauve: One or Two Plane Swing? - AOL Video

Good luck finding the one that best suits you!

I don't think my original question for the thread was answered. On the downswing, for a given setup (for one golfer who has addressed the ball in a certain way), is there one plane in which the club travels that works better than all other planes?

steve, this was answered in the first reply -- the plane that points at the target line. There is a wide, wide variety of ways to get there as exemplified by the wide, wide variety of swings on the various tours. But, they all end up on plane at impact. If your swing isn't on plane, the heel or the toe digs or you come from the inside or the outside. Obviously, getting on plane isn't easy, otherwise we'd all be able to do it all the time. But, the goal is to be on the plane that points at the target line at impact every time.

Agreed. Look at all the different swings on tour - especially, the Champions Tour guys and older, who truly dug it out of the dirt. You would never teach anyone to swing like Lee Trevino, yet his swing works. Same with John Jacobs. The key is to get back to impact correctly.
Now there are many textbooks on the swing, and there are more "conventional" swing thoughts, but you truly have to experiment with what works best for you.

The "correct" plane is the one where the butt of your club points at the target line, as said above. A good drill to ensure this is to insert a tee into the butt end vent hole and visually check that it's pointing at the target line on both the takeaway and the downswing.