KAnd, after re-reading my post I realize I may have seemed a little testy, my apologies to you. My issue was not with you. I certainly do not want to drudge it up again and I said all I care to say on the topic. However, I will just say that I was only trying to help. Again, sorry for coming across that way to you.

No problem.

Wow.  Just finished a Level 1 seminar and have started diving back into the forums when I found this nifty little back and forth.  Interesting.  Entertaining.

Ok, buried in the diatribe of the agreeing to disagree - with a little "passion" thrown in - is some good conversation.

What you will find over the coming months and years is that we want people to worry less about what makes someone a "one-planer" or a "two-planer" and worry more about what elements of a swing make it successful or not.  For Els - what elements work?  What elements don't?  What are his misses?  What causes them? Etc... 

If you really look at the evolution of Els over his career, his swing has had some changes.  He's also had injuries.  He has had elements of both one plane and two plane over his career and the degree of each has likely vacillated at various points in his career.

Categorization is a great tool to organize thoughts.  Discussing which category a swing belongs based on its elements helps folks to learn.  It is always good to have these discussions. 

I also hope that these discussions help people in their understanding of how to find the best way for themselves to best hit a golf ball with a correct, repetitive impact.  Because if they don't, what benefit is there in understanding Ernie Els swing?

 

Staying current; how about Dan Forsman smoking the field with a 62 on Saturday! Pure TPS... smooth and long! 20 under, hot and humble. A role model for us to emulate. I say add him to the list. Anyone else we can add?