spike
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by spike on Apr 21, 2011 21:21:59 GMT -5
I disagree, there's many elements that constitute a method and any of them can be adjusted to fit a golfer if need be and you can still be considered that your using that method ala TGM, it's TGM but it has many forms, matter of fact just for arguments sake you could say all methods are TGM methods kind of funny in a way. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Apr 21, 2011 23:32:24 GMT -5
Spike,
You are free to harbor your opinions, but they make no sense to me.
Of course, all swing methods are TGM methods - but not all TGM methods are a particular swing method. If a golf instructor devises a new swing methodology, then he is specifying which particular TGM movements constitute that particular method. Jim Hardy has devised a rotary swing around a centralised spinal axis for his OPS, and he has specified that he wants the clubface to be square to the clubhead path through the impact zone. Not all TGM movements can be used to fulfill Hardy's OPS method-requirement.
Jeff.
|
|
spike
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by spike on Apr 22, 2011 0:24:30 GMT -5
Spike, You are free to harbor your opinions, but they make no sense to me. Of course, all swing methods are TGM methods - but not all TGM methods are a particular swing method. If a golf instructor devises a new swing methodology, then he is specifying which particular TGM movements constitute that particular method. Jim Hardy has devised a rotary swing around a centralised spinal axis for his OPS, and he has specified that he wants the clubface to be square to the clubhead path through the impact zone. Not all TGM movements can be used to fulfill Hardy's OPS method-requirement. Jeff. I disagree you can use whatever elements that you want and interchange them to suit what you need with any method and still call it that method. There is no laws regarding what you can use of Hardy's elements and not use and still call it a 1plane swing or a 2plane swing only the arm and shoulder relationship is what he used to name them 2plane and 1plane so if that's intact, your either 1 plane or 2plane in name with whatever other elements you desire to use for your swing to work for you. The rest is his preferences that doesn't mean you can't change them and you can call it 1plane or 2plane or a variant of TGM or Jeff's Swing or whatever, there are no rules that's what holds people back, trying to force a rigid system with no flexability just because it's in a book or on a dvd and Hardy said this or Jeff said that. Find what works for you and don't worry that someone say's hey your not using all the "core elements" of so and so's method so it can't be so and so's method and your not allowed to say it is. That is a ridiculous argument and holds no weight, free yourself, your stuck in a box labeled "you must do". JMO. And Matt K. is a perfect example of that and if he and his coach want to call it Hardy's 1plane action more power to them.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Apr 22, 2011 10:12:13 GMT -5
Spike,
You wrote-: "I disagree you can use whatever elements that you want and interchange them to suit what you need with any method and still call it that method.
There is no laws regarding what you can use of Hardy's elements and not use and still call it a 1plane swing or a 2plane swing only the arm and shoulder relationship is what he used to name them 2plane and 1plane so if that's intact, your either 1 plane or 2plane in name with whatever other elements you desire to use for your swing to work for you."
You are correct that you can interchange swing elements and still call it a Hardy OPS if the left arm is across the shoulder turn angle at the end-backswing position because that is how Hardy loosely defined his Hardy OPS. However, if you use that loose definitional approach, then you could infer that many PGA tour golfers are Hardy OPS golfers because it is extremely common today for golfers to have the left arm across the shoulder turn angle at the end-backswing position.
Here are some examples of golfers who would then be classified as Hardy OPS golfers.
Sergio Garcia
Jonathan Byrd
John Erickson (LapPressure)
Heath Slocum
Justin Rose
I think that it is ludicrous to label those golfers as Hardy OPS golfers.
I personally do not regard the many PGA tour golfers, who have their left arm across their shoulder turn angle at the end-backswing position, as being Hardy OPS golfers if they do not have a centralised spinal axis, and a clubface that is relatively square to the clubhead arc through the impact zone (roughly between P6 and P8). They often use a takeaway swivel action, release swivel action, pitch elbow motion (rather than a punch elbow motion) and a HH action - and all these actions are incompatible with Hardy's book description of his Hardy OPS.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by candygram on Apr 22, 2011 10:39:56 GMT -5
But is it not Hardy's main point that the two methods should not be mixed?? Is not the Kuchar swing a mix? Rand Here is Jim's explanation of his defintion of a one-plane, two-plane and hybrid player, posted on his website in February 2006: I believe that much of the confusion about my ideas are probably my fault. My fault, in that I on purpose, do not narrowly and strickly define the one and two-plane swing. I don't think that it serves any purpose to take away a golfer's athleticism and replace it with a confining set of moves and positions. I believe that in a general sence, the one-planer is swinging his/her arms around their body (which is bent over somewhat depending on their height, the club they are using and a forgiving 48"zone) while their body turns and that a two-planer is swinging their arms up and down infront of their body in time with the body turn. Now having said that, a pure one-planer would generally swing their arms around their body as the body turns in both the backswing and the downswing/followthrough.
The same goes with a two-planer, they would want to strive to keep the arms infront of them as they turn the body in time with the arm swing through-out the swing. So in that sence, you could argue that there are one-plane and two-plane "pure" positions through-out the swing and I would agree with you. On the other hand, I point out a number of times, that the best place to generally view the differences between the one and two-plane swings is at the top of the backswing. There you can most easily see if the golfer has "swung his/her arms up from address and onto somewhat the same plane as their body turn (one-plane) or have swung their arms up and onto a different plane than the body turn (two-plane)".
This is certainly the place where I first look to generally define a one or a two-planer. If they are somewhat on their shoulder plane, then I term them a one-planer. And if they are not close to the shoulder plane I call them a two-planer. They may be a very good one or two-planer or a very bad one. For instance, they might be a one-planer but with very level shoulders and a right elbow pointed infront of them. They are in big trouble, but they are still a one-planer. Likewise a two-planer could turn his shoulders straight into the ball from the top of the backswing and have a steep chop at the ball and still be a two-planer, just not a good one.
In both these cases, I have put elements of the other method into their swings. the one-planer has level shoulders and a right elbow like a two-planer (it won't work) and the two-plane example has a hard shoulder move at the start of the downswing which doesn't match his swing type. So here we have examples of identifying one and two-plane swings by their positions relative to the top of the backswing but can also further identify them by movements through-out the swing. It is why I say there are hy-breds. In fact I just gave an excellent hy-bred a lesson at the Hope; Jeff Sluman. A two-plane swing by definition of the top of backswing, but when playing well, like Jim Furyk, get his arms tied into his body turn in a beautiful one-plane impact position.
So instead of making it easier for all of you, I've probably made this seem more complicated. It is complicated, once you leave a "pure" swing and start to introduce cross elements. That is why I advise golfers to try to simplify their swings to just the elements of their type. On the other hand, I see great athletic swings that can accommodate the issues of some cross-overs and I see no reason to change them unless their athletic ability to make them happen is waning. Then and only then do I suggust changes. For the rest of us, we don't have the athleticism to make such cross-over elements work and be repetitive so we must strive for the elements that make it the easiest.
In the meanwhile it is necessary, when looking and understanding swings, to recognize them first, as one or two-planers from a top of swing position, and then to understand their positions/movements relative to the ideal one or two-plane elements through-out the swing. It is fine with me to use the terms one or two-plane swings based on the top of swing. It is also fine with me to identify hy-bred swings (like Furyk, John Daly, Couples, Sluman) that can change swing types in mid-stream and call them hy-breds or one-plane impact players, etc.
JH
|
|
|
Post by candygram on Apr 22, 2011 10:56:20 GMT -5
Jeff Mann wrote:
"The knife edge release that you talk about (as defined by Kelvin) is not a release mechanism."
That's his opinion and I think it is clearly wrong.
He then wrote:
"To define the nature of the release one has to study the nature of the motion of the left arm and left forearm after impact."
I agree and Kelvin does so quite clearly. The knife-edge release is very stable before, at, and after impact. It is perfectly compatible with a Hardy one-plane swing.
He then wrote:
"In the Hardy OPS, a golfer must employ a limited roll (half-roll) action to keep the clubface relatively square to the clubhead arc throughout the followthrough and that is why they use an AH action during the followthrough."
That is one acceptable release illustrated in Master Class. It is not the only one. We already covered that.
He then wrote:
"Matt doesn't use that type of release action and he uses a full-roll action (HH action) during his followthrough."
Yeah, we covered that already, too. The follow-through takes place well after impact. It has nothing to do with how stable the clubface is through the impact zone, which is much narrower than P6 to P8. Kuchar is 19th in ballstriking on tour which should be more than adequate proof that his is a very stable release through impact.
|
|
|
Post by candygram on Apr 22, 2011 11:14:02 GMT -5
Jeff Mann wrote:
"A golfer either does/does not use Hardy OPS mechanics/biomechanics, and Matt does not use Hardy OPS mechanics/biomechanics through the impact zone."
This incorrect statement is apparently based on his very limited knowledge of Hardy's teaching (limited, it appears, to just his two books). In Jim's methodology, the fundamental difference in release styles between one-plane golfers and two-plane golfers is that two-planers use a rollover release and one-planers use a drive/hold release. The drive/hold release, whether it is bowed, knife-edge or flat, provides the most stable clubface through the ball. All are acceptable releases for a one-planer.
If a one-planer wants to fade it and prefers accuracy, he will tend towards a very rounded release with the club handle moving left before the clubhead (like Scott McCarron). If the player wants to draw it and seek more distance, he will release on more of an in-to-out path (like Kuchar). In either case, by using the drive/hold release, the clubface is very stable through impact regardless of the clubhead's path after impact.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Apr 22, 2011 11:20:36 GMT -5
Jeffy quoted Jim Hardy as follows-: "In the meanwhile it is necessary, when looking and understanding swings, to recognize them first, as one or two-planers from a top of swing position, and then to understand their positions/movements relative to the ideal one or two-plane elements through-out the swing. It is fine with me to use the terms one or two-plane swings based on the top of swing. It is also fine with me to identify hy-bred swings (like Furyk, John Daly, Couples, Sluman) that can change swing types in mid-stream and call them hy-breds or one-plane impact players, etc."
That is why I find Hardy's revised definition ludicrous. He first clearly defined a Hardy OPS swing style when he first introduced his Hardy OPS swing style - and that swing style not only included a "left arm across the shoulder turn angle at the end-backswing", he also included a whole series of OPS swing elements that are included in his clearly defined Hardy OPS swing style. Those included swing elements are clearly defined in his two books.
To state that there are an endless variety of hybrid Hardy OPS swing styles because certain golfers only use certain elements of his Hardy OPS swing style (eg. Jim Furyk) is ludicrously meaningless. Many S&T golf instructors adopt the same attitude towards the S&T swing style clearly defined by B/P in their S&T book, and there is therefore an endless variety of hybrid S&T swingers out there. Golfers are free to adopt any swing element they want when they create their individualistic golf swing styles, and they may choose to mix S&T swing elements with Hardy OPS swing elements, but their hybrid swing styles cannot rationally be labelled as being either a S&T swing style or a Hardy OPS swing style.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Apr 22, 2011 11:29:34 GMT -5
Jeffy wrote-: "In Jim's methodology, the fundamental difference in release styles between one-plane golfers and two-plane golfers is that two-planers use a rollover release and one-planers use a drive/hold release. The drive/hold release, whether it is bowed, knife-edge or flat, provides the most stable clubface through the ball. All are acceptable releases for a one-planer." Exactly my point! A Hardy OPS must use a non-roll over release. I regard Matt's release as being a roll-over release because he biomechanically transitions between a release swivel action to a HH action through the impact zone, and he does not keep his clubface relatively square to the clubhead arc throughout the impact zone (as Hardy described the action in his two books). Addendum added later after I produced capture images from this next swing video. Here are capture images of his release action through the impact zone. Image 1 shows him at P6 - the toe of his club is pointing straight upwards. Image 2 shows impact where his clubface is facing the target. There has been a ~90 degree rotation of the clubface due to a release swivel action. Image 3 shows him at the end of the followthrough. His clubface has rotated another ~90 degrees and the toe of his club is pointing upwards. He therefore has a ~180 degree rotation of his clubface through the imapct zone, and that represents a roll-over release action. The fact that the ulnar border of his left hand faces the target at impact (knife-edge appearance) is due to the fact that he uses a very strong left hand grip where his left forearm is pronated at address and at impact. Here is a good example of a non-roll-over release action. Charley Hoffmann perfectgolfswingreview.net/HoffmannFollowthrough.jpg [/img] Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by candygram on Apr 22, 2011 11:48:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by candygram on Apr 22, 2011 11:52:30 GMT -5
Jeff Mann, incredibly, wrote this:
"I regard Matt's release as being a roll-over release"
I think this is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Apr 22, 2011 12:15:07 GMT -5
then you could infer that many PGA tour golfers are Hardy OPS golfers because it is extremely common today for golfers to have the left arm across the shoulder turn angle at the end-backswing position.
This is the problem with some of these claims, SnT, Hardy, even Manzella seems to claim how the winner of the masters validates everything he believes in because it has elements of what he teaches.
I remember anyone who did not have a upright swing seemed to be a OPS, Tiger, Duval, Els, Wie...that was my impression from reading the first book way back when it came out.
|
|
|
Post by candygram on Apr 22, 2011 12:41:05 GMT -5
Jeff Mann posted this: Here are capture images of his release action through the impact zone.
Image 1 shows him at P6 - the toe of his club is pointing straight upwards.
Image 2 shows impact where his clubface is facing the target. There has been a ~90 degree rotation of the clubface due to a release swivel action.
Image 3 shows him at the end of the followthrough. His clubface has rotated another ~90 degrees and the toe of his club is pointing upwards.
He therefore has a ~180 degree rotation of his clubface through the imapct zone, and that represents a roll-over release action. Mann has arbitrarily defined P6 to P8 as the "impact zone". I earlier posted my definition of the impact zone: Everything before and after is irrelevant to how stable the clubface is through impact. To repeat a point I made above: Matt Kuchar is 19th in ballstriking on tour. That is in the top 10%. That is better than the 174 other players ranked and six spots higher than Charley Hoffman (25th). Kuchar is ranked 16th in GIR compared to Hoffman's 56th. This is compellling evidence that Matt has a very stable clubface through impact. Mann's claims to the contrary are nonsensical.
|
|
spike
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by spike on Apr 22, 2011 13:30:26 GMT -5
Personally i don't see the problem of what Hardy say's and any changes he makes to his method many others have done the same TGM has like 7editions with changes and many errors still in it, chapter2 is full of them but i digress, Manzella changes all the time so do many other's ,it's allowed.
Many swings have multiple elements that come from different methods and they can call their swing whatever they want, be it 1plane, rotary, right side, S&T, Morad etc., whatever floats their boat doesn't bother me.
If their purists and that's their pursuit of happiness then i guess they have to adhere to their method without compromise, but that's no fun and i believe Hardy said you can be a hybrid and still belong.
|
|
|
Post by richie3jack on Apr 22, 2011 13:39:30 GMT -5
So, would Snead be considered a one planer, then? 3JACK
|
|