I recently purchased the DVDs and gave single plane one last effort. The results were similar as the golf lessons, Jim's book, and now the DVD's. Single plane swing for me lacks consistency. I've had some success and scored some pretty good 9's, but typically cannot put back to back 9's together to shoot a decent 18 hole round of golf. My index over the last year went from 11.2 to 15.8. My instructor has studied directly under Jim Hardy so I'm fairly confident that the information is not the problem. I think Jim pretty much sums it up in stating that you have to find the swing that's right for you. In my case I believe the two plane swing it the premium choice.

Some confusion with 2 plane and Jim's book/DVD's ???

Jim Hardy states that you DO NOT need to restrict hip turn and maximize shoulder turn as you do in the single plane swing. This is the X-Factor craze that I believe was started by Jim Mclean. The problem with the X-factor thing is it's being taught in 2 plane instruction, by some of the top instructors. I know because it's about the same time where I tried incorportating X-factor with two plane and had horrible results along with major back pain. Also, that's when I decided to try single plane and spent a year getting worse.

Well, I back now and focused on Jim's 2 plane instruction from DVD's and Book. Although I've only started a few weeks ago I've already put together 2 good 9's for a yearly low round of 82. My short game has improved 10 fold as well. Another big time problem with (sorry Mr Hardy)Jim's single plane swing is his lack of short game instruction. Which I find to be almost impossible using single plane swing for shots less than full swing or from the bunker. The two plane works soooo much better. Same swing as full swing just shortened > Thanks Mr. Pelz!

***My final thoughts on this 1 or 2 plane swing technique***
- X-factor only for single plane. Definitely not with the 2 plane!!!Kudos to Jim for setting me straight on that one. Too bad sooo many big name instructors feel the need to incorporate X-factor into any type of swing.

- Lack of information with less than full swing (short game) using single plane. Thinking the information is lacking due to it being an inferior technique that adds stokes to your index. Maybe Jim Hardy will prove me wrong

- Don't assume one plane is better. I believe Jim Hardy states that either one or the other is better depending of the individuals makeup.
BUT, he definitely sells the single plane as his preferred method.

- Final thought and throw me your comments if you would be so kind!
My opinion is learn 2 plane from Mr. Hardy and play great golf. Single plane lacks a big piece of the golf swing; especially when it has to do with the short game.

I spent three hours with Mike Lebeau at Houston doing short chips, pitches and sand shots. I could spen two days! If you think the one plane swing, or one plane principles are not effective, then let me suggest a session or two with Mike Lebeau, or Marty Fleckman.

The results are superb. Pelz can't hold a candle to this method. I have tried both and Pelz teaches a steep swing and its only good for high handicappers who can't make solid contact.

The one plane swing mechanics of the short game are for those who want to score low.

I'm assuming you're talking about high handicap hacks like Mickelson, Singh, Furyk, Wier, etc, etc.....

Posted By mgranato on 12/1/2006 10:00:08 PM

I'm assuming you're talking about high handicap hacks like Mickelson, Singh, Furyk, Wier, etc, etc.....

I read a very interesting interview with Pelz sometime earlier this year where he described how he worked with Phil. It was all about strategy and shot selection, not technique: Phil already has all the shots. The only technique help Pelz gave Lefty, that I can remember being publicized, was a few years ago on putting. Phil was getting the shaft angled too much toward the hole and his swing path was too steep. Nothing to do with straight-back, staright-through: Phil putts on an arc.

According to his instructors (at the Atlanta clinic), the two of them spend several hours over several days at the beginning of each season working on Phil's technique as it relates to everything short game. But once the season is under way, that shifts to more course management and strategery. His putting on an arc or straight line is debatable. I do know that he works on going straight back and through, but he spends the vast majority of his mechanics on getting a square putter face (Putting Tutor).

I was merely taking a jab at gighilton's foolish statement. It's annoying when I hear blanket statements about some of the games truely great teachers. If I never adapt to JH OPS, it wont be because Jim's method "only works for high handicappers who can't make solid contact", it will be because I couldn't grasp it. They both put out there fundamentals that are tried and true on every level of play, its up to us to apply them correctly.

I first suggest choose a method to swing the club. 1 or 2p. How do you choose first there are a few things in the DVD to point you in the direction. The next thing is have your swing video taped you will find out first what you are doing 1 or 2p naturally. You will probably have components of both swings. So after reviewing the video of your swing you decide which tendencies do you have and are you willing to committ the time necessary to what you do naturally. Then committ to it even if you don't do well at first. I know all sounds simple but I believe it is that easy.

Once you have the swing down whether 1 or 2p, I find it difficult to understand what the problem with the short game would be. I am a 1p and I was using 1p philosphy for my short game before I new what a 1p swing was. You are not moving the club nearly as far, and it seems to me that 2 p thinking for the short game is relying to heavily on timing, tempo, rythem and balance.

The OPS (which I'm converting to) requires timing to "twist and through" at the correct point coming down. Tempo is in EVERY golf swing and dependent on a players personality. Rythem allows the 1 planer to stand on the lead foot on the 2 count. NO swing will work if swung without balance. They certainly require different positions, but both swings require timing, tempo, rythem and balance. Sam Snead, who some have said had a classic OPS, used timing, tempo, rythem and balance like very few ever have.

Posted By mgranato on 12/4/2006 7:36:56 AM

The OPS (which I'm converting to) requires timing to "twist and through" at the correct point coming down.

Actually, the only "timing" of the "twist and throw" is to start both moves at the beginning of the downswing; there is no "delay" of either action. From there, both motions should feel continous: there is no stopping, holding on, slowing down, etc., of either the twist or the throw. Of course, there are others, who have never worked with Jim or one of his associates, who have posted erroneously on this aspect, but ignore them. Read Jim's post in the "FAQ/GREATEST INSTRUCTION POSTS" forum on "Crossover in the OPS" to understand why.

What Jim emphasized at the seminar (where we spent nearly all our one-on-one time working on this) was that one couldn't do the "twist and throw" too much", you'd only fail if you didn't do it "enough".

I couldn't agree more. The "timing" occurs much ealier than in a 2 plane swing, but there is still timing. It just seemed to over simply the OPS by suggesting that timing, tempo, rythem and balance were not important elements.

Of course a certain amount of timing and balance comes in to play with the swing, however Jim in his video states that all of the timing elements are key to the 2ps. He also states that you should rely on your athletic ability, thats in my opinion is the timing element you refer to in a 1ps

Well put, I think we're all basically saying the same thing. I'm just not a big fan of general derogatory statements, so I tend to read through a more literal lense. From my own experience, I'm not seeing any difference between the two swings as it relates to TTRB. Without learning the correction motions and positions of either, both swings are not very useful no matter how much TTRB one has. I believe the OPS is the harder of the two to learn and probably requires more maintenance, but the more TTRB (athletic ability) a player has, the more "cheating" can be done by way of certain fundamentals.

Posted By mgranato on 12/4/2006 2:29:38 PM

Well put, I think we're all basically saying the same thing. I'm just not a big fan of general derogatory statements, so I tend to read through a more literal lense. From my own experience, I'm not seeing any difference between the two swings as it relates to TTRB. Without learning the correction motions and positions of either, both swings are not very useful no matter how much TTRB one has. I believe the OPS is the harder of the two to learn and probably requires more maintenance, but the more TTRB (athletic ability) a player has, the more "cheating" can be done by way of certain fundamentals.

Fair enough: I think the difference in degree of TTRB is not apparent until the 1PS mechanics are mastered; I don't think anyone is going to sense much difference during the learning process.

I think I'll choose to stay in that "learning process" category. I'll leave the "master" aspirations to the guys who get paid to beat balls day after day. Shoot, I have a hard enough time brushing my teeth on the same plane from one day to the next.

LOL

I am also someone who tried the OP and has went back to and "enlightened" 2 plane swing. The key for me was to forget about the "X factor" and focus on the timing and rhythm. I found either method worked ok for short game. Now, the challenge is to ignore all the other gold adivice and tips and stick to the basic drills and concepts. If you like to dance or play an instrument and are closer to 50 rather than 15, I think the 2P swing (done correctly) may well be the better choice for most of us. I broke the 80 barrier for the first time in my life (age 51) and now focus on my putting and short game as my 2P swing is now automatic. Thanks again Mr. Hardy!

A 51 year old, 80's breaking Fred Astaire - You da man! I'm 36, can't dance or play and instrament, any advice?

If you are in good shape, athletic, flexible, can't carry a tune, and have little time to practice think about the OP swing. If you are not Mr Gym, have poor flexibility but can at least tap to a song beat in time and can spend a little time practicing, I vote 2P swing. If you are in the middle, do what I did. Try one style out for 30 games and track your index. Mine went UP with the OP approach (I did well for the first nine but could not physically tolerate the swing dynamincs at the end of the round - "spirit and mind was willing, body was not") Then, after switching to the 2P (and practicing doing it 3 times per week for an hour) the index dropped and dropped fast (7 strokes).
I am an MD in the rehab business. I can tell you that it takes a minimum of 1000 repetitions (correctly done) before you even begin "ingrain" either style such that you can "stop thinking about your swing" while swining. (This is incorrectly referred to muscle memory which does not exsist - the memory occurs in you brain.) For most of us, (espeically if you are older that 8 years of age), it is probably 5000 plus reps before it starts to work without concious thought when tired, fatigued or under pressure. Either system will reap major benefits once (if) you get to the "think target" stage and no longer have mechanical swing thoughts. You don't thing mechanical thoughts when you throw a ball, do you? You just throw it. In the end, I believe that whichever style allows you to "stop thinking" about your golf swing is the one you choose. Thats when the game really gets to be fun and you end up having more time to practice chipping and putting instead of fixing your full swing.

Ventus16 -- sorry I discovered this thread so late. Lots of great discussion on the 1plane vs. the 2plane swings. I'm 71, good condition for my age, and continuing to struggle with my golf swing. My constant goal is to keep my scores under 100. As far as swing type, I used a hybrid swing for years, and dabbled with the single-axis golf swing (Natural golf). The single-axis swing did not work for me. I discovered Jim Hardy in his article in Golf Digest, bought his book, and gave the 1plane swing a try. Jim's OPS, for me, was just too much like my failed single-axis swing, and I made no progress in swing improvement. A few months ago, I switched to Jim's 2plane swing concepts, and am now making positive progress. I haven't ordered the DVD's as yet, but plan to soon.

Bottom line, at my age, the 2plane swing seems to be the way to go, and I'll stick with those concepts.

Hi I'm 73 and had severe shoulder problems, using my version of a two plane swing.

Since changing to a one plane style and working on it. My shoulder problems have cleared up.

Now if I could just do the same for my knee.

Wish you well with the two plane swing.

I wish everyone a Happy New Year.

Joe

I just attended one of Jim Hardy's two day seminar's and I have to strongly disagree with you about the short game lacking substance. Although the release of the club is slightly different, you still release the club on plane. Since attending his seminar and the short game instruction from Mike, my short game has improved 10 fold.

I played 9 holes at Kierland right after the conclusion of the seminar and shot 1-under for 9-holes. I have not done that in years. I actually look forward to practicing again. Thanks Jim and Mike.

Andrew Bemis - PGA