I'm curious about who you would select. Nicklaus,Watson,Singh,Toms,Hoch,Stewart,Montgomery are on my list. Who am I missing? What about young pros? Who would you add to this partial list?

I would say two of the big hitters out there, Bubba Watson and J.B. Holmes are two planers.

I would include Ernie Els and Davis Love III, great two planers.

Posted By Gary Plunkett on 03-08-2010 07:34 AM
I would include Ernie Els and Davis Love III, great two planers.

Els is not considered a two planer as his left arm is basically on his shoulder plane at the top of the swing. He does have what would be considered a two plane release however the release is not what Mr. Hardy uses to classify one or two plane swings. There are many pros such as Robert Allenby who have a two plane backswing with a one plane release. I have heard Mr. Hardy say that this combination is a good one.

Thanks for adding to the list. I just thought of Rory Sabbitini. He looks pretty pure TPS. But what about Fred Couples? Is he TPS? And what about Padrig Harrington. I'm not so sure about them.
While we are on the TPS pro topic what about the Long Drive Pros? I don't follow them very much but I get the impression that most of them are TPers. I'm mostly interested in what you see in all of these pros that can explain their amazing distance? Of course I have a personal agenda..... more distance! What can we learn from these guys that we can add to our swings? We can't turn back the clock,perhaps get a little more flexible and a bit stronger but what techniques can we add to increase clubhead speed? I look forward to your suggestions.

Oh, I forgot.....John Daly!?

BIG John Daly is a one planer.

There's this tendency to lump everyone into the one plane category. Ernie Els is NOT a one plane swinger. Look at Hogan's swing and then look at Els hitting driver. apples and oranges.

Els is a hybrid. I believe that he has moved around a bit in his career. His best golf years were when he was flatter. His worst years were when he was more upright. Having said that, his putter was best when he was flatter in his long game, and vice versa. He is also a Leadbetter guy, who seem to have there own system...of near one plane at the top, but two plane release.

Posted By Gary Plunkett on 03-09-2010 07:05 AM
There's this tendency to lump everyone into the one plane category. Ernie Els is NOT a one plane swinger. Look at Hogan's swing and then look at Els hitting driver. apples and oranges.

You can call Ernie anything you want, it really doesn't matter to me. You can call him a three planer if it makes you happy. Jim Hardy defines one planers as people who swing the club on or close to their shoulder plane at the top of the swing. He even goes so far as to say that if the differential between the shoulders and arms is more than around 10˚-12˚, THAT would classify the player as a two planer. One planers come in all handicaps from scratch right on up. You can be bad and swing the crazy on the down swing, but if your lead arm is on (or close to) your shoulder plane at the top, yo are a one planer. Being a one planer doesn't necessarily mean you are swinging the club correctly or efficiently.

I suggest you look at the videos posted on this very site, where Els' swing is labeled--and quite correctly--a TPS. Look at his backswing with a driver from down the line. He has an upright swing, as upright as most TPS's. Moreover, he releases the club like a classic two planer. The main advantage to a OPS is allegedly the elimination of timing at impact. Well, here's a guy who clearly releases the club just like every two planer out there and who relies somewhat on timing. To say that a guy who has a flat backswing, but who has TPS release at impact is a One planer is ridiculous in my mind. Either a player exhibits nearly all of the qualitites of a OPS and is rightfully categorized a OPS golfer or not. To pick and choose one attribute of a swing type and then for convenience label that person accordingly is wrong. Since when does the backswing alone define the entire swing type?

there are hybrid swings and I think that JH needs to speak on the subject, but i strongly disagree with this picking and choosing of one attribute and then assigning a label to the golfer's swing. Science doesn't work that way.

I am not looking for a debate. I am really not into repeating myself over and over so this will be my last attempt at this with you.

1. "The main advantage to a OPS is allegedly the elimination of timing at impact." - you are not breaking any news with that statement. We are in agreement on that fact. However, Mr. Hardy does not classify swings by their release, they are classified by position of the arms at the top. A great one plane swing employs the release that eliminates much of the timing in the swing, ala Ben Hogan. Trevor Immelman has a great swing that is good enough to win the Master's and is on his shoulder plane at the top of the swing, but he does not employ the "one plane release". He is still a one planer and a damn good one. I believe he would benefit greatly and be more consistently on the leader board using a one plane release, but the fact is that he won a major using his current swing.

2. "To say that a guy who has a flat backswing, but who has TPS release at impact is a One planer is ridiculous in my mind. Either a player exhibits nearly all of the qualitites of a OPS and is rightfully categorized a OPS golfer or not. To pick and choose one attribute of a swing type and then for convenience label that person accordingly is wrong. Since when does the backswing alone define the entire swing type?" I don't know who you are or what your golf credentials are but I am very familiar with those of Jim Hardy. I'll stick with his philosophies over your opinion. As I said already, a 25 handicapper who flails at the ball is still a one planer if his lead arm is on his shoulder plane at the top. Being a one planer does necessarily mean you have a good one plane swing. Would you call Robert Allenby a one or two planer? His left arm is well above his shoulder plane in the backswing but he uses a one plane release where his hands are on the inner circle. It is not called a "one plane release swing".
Before you come here making such bold and inflammatory statements, why not do a search of the topic in the older posts and read about it first. This topic has been discussed before. I hope Mr. Hardy and his staff of certified instructors don't lose any sleep over the fact that you think they are "wrong".

Bigbee:

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that JH is one of the finest teaching professionals out there. He is totally legit, believes and cares deeply about his theories and the game of golf, and is not one of these guys feeding the golf industry with nonsense theories or products to make a buck. That being said, if i disagree with something I am going to speak up. That's what this forum is all about. I have no idea if JH or any of his certified staff members even agree with your statements. I'll assume for the moment that they do. If so, then I do take issue with these statemments. JH's book outlines two distinct and separate golf swings. Each with its own set of fundamentals and taught as such. If the theories are presented this way, and classifications are made this way, then I am not going to buy someone with a OPS backswing and a TPS downswing as a OPS golfer.That person is something else. You can't have it both ways. You can't break the swing down into two classifications, making the classifications polar opposites and then label those that employ a mixture of both as falling into the OPS category or vice versa. I am not going to sit idly by and let someone like you or anyone else for that matter make pronouncements that don't ring true.

Gentleman, you both agree Hardy is a legend. Good.
Hardy has explicitly stated that he will consider a player a one or two planer based on the top of the backswing position, period, a simple starting point. Did the player swing the arms up onto the same plane as the shoulders. Simple.
JH has also states that all that really matters is a correct repeatable impact, the method employed is of no significance. He is also a big believer in working with natural athleticism. Hardy has provided a blue print that maps out the two extremes and provides that information required to work within the whole spectrum. Most players today are somewhere in between (flatter top of BS, but different releases). Hybrid!!!! Blend of both with a degree of timing.
So, if Els or Immelman have OPS top of backswing positions, and 2PS releases, who cares. They are great athletes that do well with it. Could they be better with a different release...maybe.
Els has played with his top of BS position over the years. Early on he was definately OPS, and is back there now. Not that long ago he was getting steeper arms and was very 2PS (so did VJ)......neither have been as good since (although their putters have been causing issues to).
This post was about pure 2PS. Tom Watson, Payne Stewart, Johny Miller, current VJ, Bubba Watson, Scott Hoch, Monty, Sabatinni

KAnd, I did not post on this thread to argue with you or anyone else, so there is no need for you to remind me of what this thread was about. I am generally not someone who comes on here and posts anything in terms of swing advice or troubleshooting as I am not an instructor. When I don't really understand something, I have good sense to ask for clarification, not insult the teacher. My tone has never been anything but ciivil and friendly. Everyone has an opinion (obviously) and we are all entitled to them. gdp can believe whatever he/she likes. That, like the method of swinging the club, is of little consequence to me. I am merely pointing out what has been said and written by Jim Hardy about how the swings are classified. The "pronouncements that don't ring true" were made by Mr. Hardy. PERIOD. That is good enough for me. This statement in itself is a pretty insulting one to Mr. Hardy.
As far as the blue print of the one and two plane swings, the one's that Mr. Hardy speaks of are pure. Very few golfers do it that pure as you point out. I have personally heard Mr. Hardy say it is OK to use athleticism when swinging the club. "Dogs and cats....."

"someone like me" is getting right from the source. This is not my opinion. It is from someone who knows more about the golf swing than most people who walk this planet. I stand by what I posted and as I said, I am not here to debate or argue. I originally posted to help someone who was asking a question, not be insulted by a guy with 25 posts who seems to have all the answers and is now dictating "what this forum is all about".

I for one vote to close this thread and leave it at that. I have said all I have to say and will wish everyone good luck with whatever they choose to believe.

Looks like we need to dust this one off again (from the Greatest Instruction Posts):


The question of how Jim defines one-planers, two-planers and hybrids comes up regulary. This post by Jim from February 2006 provides the answers:

"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"

Posted By Brian R on 03-09-2010 04:41 PM


However, Mr. Hardy does not classify swings by their release, they are classified by position of the arms at the top. 


Would you call Robert Allenby a one or two planer? His left arm is well above his shoulder plane in the backswing but he uses a one plane release where his hands are on the inner circle. It is not called a "one plane release swing".

Before you come here making such bold and inflammatory statements, why not do a search of the topic in the older posts and read about it first. This topic has been discussed before. I hope Mr. Hardy and his staff of certified instructors don't lose any sleep over the fact that you think they are "wrong".

As you will see from the last sentence of Jim's 2006 post copied above, he is perfectly happy categorizing players by their release or impact position, calling hybrids "one-plane release" or "one-plane impact" players.

Posted By richs on 03-07-2010 11:12 PM
I'm curious about who you would select. Nicklaus,Watson,Singh,Toms,Hoch,Stewart,Montgomery are on my list. Who am I missing? What about young pros? Who would you add to this partial list?

Getting back to the original question, young Nicklaus was more of a hybrid, got more "pure" two-plane as he got older.  Toms is more of a hybrid.  Singh has gone back and forth between one and two plane; definitely more two plane now.

Greg Norman, Hale Irwin and Seve should be on the list, as should Curtis Strange, Langer, Crenshaw.  Tiger with the driver (remember him??).  I thought Johnny Miller had more of a one-plane impact.

Els was very much a one-planer in the '90's, became a two-planer after working with Leadbetter, same with Michelle Wie.  John Daly is a hybrid.  Couples is more of a hybrid.

Left arms have definitely gotten lower in the past five years.  The young pros seem to be mostly one-plane or some kind of mix.  Fredrik Jacobson I thought was pretty two-plane.  Certainly Jamie Sadlowski of the long-drive guys.

Well said Jeffy.  Thanks.
BigBee, I did not mean to strike a nerve.  I agree with what you were saying, respect your opinion, and was actually trying to get the point across to gd differently.  I obviously failed, sorry.  If you look close, we were saying nearly the same thing. 
I have extreme admiration for Mr. Hardy, and am the last person on this planet that would ever question him, EVER.  Learn from him and participate in discussion, yes.  Question, no, I have no basis to do so.  He has helped me gain insight and improvement that I would never have reached without his tireless and near philanthropist effort.

Wow, it just goes to show you.... nothing is as simple as it seems! I want to go off topic for a bit but will get back to it. Although I havn't posted often I have been a student of the Forums for years. What brought me here and keeps me here IMHO, is the quality of the Forum. I view the membership of the Forum, for the most part, as intelligent,thoughtful,knowledgeable,and certainly willing to help others. I am aware that our Senior contributors have TPS insights that are invaluable to those that have a thirst to learn. I have also observed these members challenged by others that seem to seek an argument rather than a thoughtful discussion. I regret these conflicts and hope that our senior members will not be discouraged and avoid expressing their opinions. Their knowledge and respect for Mr. Hardy's golf genius keeps us on track. So, keep up the good work and keep contributing! I would like to see this dialogue continue. Jeffy,BigBee and others; thanks for adding to my list and being willing to participate. This is just what this Forum needed, stimulating and helpful information.