PLANE PRINCIPLES: The Real Truth, Part 1

I have been sitting quietly on the sidelines for a few years and for the four plus months since PPGS.com has launched. I have listened and heard TV commentators and Golf Channel show hosts describe the Swing Plane incorrectly as it applies to the golf swing based on physics and our human physiology. From you, our subscribers, I have read comments and questions that reveal that golfers in general, including the TV commentators, show hosts and even many teaching professionals, do not have a clear picture and understanding of Swing Plane. They know it exists and that it is important to define, but in their minds it is sort of an abstract or nebulous image in concept and function.

I will now explain and define swing plane in scientific and accurate terms and explain the difference between one plane and two plane swing approaches. Before I do this, I will first start off with a few stories to prove my point that swing plane to most golfers and many teaching professionals is vague.

A few years ago I was attending a Carolinas Section PGA educational seminar on golf instruction. The head instructor decided to open the session to a Q & A. Any topic or question on the golf swing and instruction was allowed to be discussed by anyone and answered by any of the professionals.

This was awesome. The questions and answers were flowing like a river after a good rain. After hearing the term PLANE or SWING PLANE too many times to count, I came to the realization that all the pros present were not dealing with the same defined term. I raised my hand and asked the moderator, for the purpose of clarity and correctness, that we needed to put a definition of Swing Plane on the table that all could agree with. He wholeheartedly was of the same opinion and asked for anyone to submit a definition of Plane.

The next speaker to comment failed to answer the question of defining Plane. Neither did the next and the next and so on. About 30 minutes later I raised my hand, was acknowledged and I mentioned no one had yet answered and given a definition of Plane. The moderator once again asked for someone to define Plane. It happened again! The next pro failed to define plane and neither did the next and the next and so on. Finally I raised my hand again and reminded the moderator we still did not have a definition of Plane, yet we keep talking about it.

I said, '€œHow can we, as professional instructors, talk about and then teach something that no one here seems to know or understand. We don'€™t have a definition and no one is stepping up to give one.'€ With my statement ringing in every one'€™s ears, I then told the moderator I would give my definition of Swing Plane and did so. There were no comments or rebuttals. I knew my definition was not the one most the rest of the pros were referring when they taught the rotational swing, which was basically the only swing taught in most, if not all, PGA golf instruction seminars for the last 10 plus years.

I attended the PGA of America'€™s bi-annual Teaching and Coaching Summit at PGA Golf Club in Port St Lucie, Florida two years ago. I sat there for five days and heard nothing but rotational swing theory. The 1000 pros from all over the world got only a one sided view of the golf swing. Is that good education? I don'€™t think so and stated this to the PGA when answering the summit evaluation questionnaire.

Folks, the issue here is both swings work and thus both need to be taught so instructors and students alike can evaluate both and see which one is best for them. I think an even bigger issue is to use science to study and test the two swing plane theories to see which one conforms best with the laws of physics and human physiology. I have made a choice here! The key is I deal in FACTS, not opinions.

Note: I was involved in a biomechanical study in the mid 90'€™s that was used for a master'€™s thesis that specifically looked at the ‚¾ backswing versus the parallel backswing. It was concluded that the 3/4 in the PPGS backswing created more clubhead speed. I presently am working on setting dates (hopefully in the next month or two) to do another study testing the motions, stresses and other aspects of the PPGS versus the rotational swing on the body as well as swing compiling data to test efficiency and power. This data will be release on PPGS.com as soon as it is complete as well as other national media outlets.

Let'€™s look as some excerpts of the biomechanical study to give you an idea of some information on the golf swing that I am sure will interest you. Starting on Page1: '€œStudies have reported that anywhere from 40 to 60% of golfers have suffered from some form of injury related to the game of golf.'€ Page 4: '€œThese studies have consistently reported back injuries as the most prevalent.'€ On Page 19 it states: '€œAt ball impact there is no significant difference between the clubhead velocity of the long and short backswing techniques.'€ Page 21 finds, '€œHowever, the shorter backswing technique maintains positive X acceleration through the ball impact and the long backswing technique is in negative acceleration.'€ Lastly, on page 28 and 29, it states: '€œThe results of this study indicate the extra movement in the long backswing is of NO BENEFIT with regard to clubhead speed at impact. The additional rotations present in the long swing technique may have several detrimental effects. The excessive rotations may increase the torsion forces on the spine which can lead to or accelerate spinal disc injury. The additional range of motion increases the potential source of error in technique that can lead to decreased performance on the golf course.'€

The biggest statement in the study is on page 29 where the author states, '€œIt should be a major concern to the golfing industry that its direct link to the golfing public, the teaching professional, is advocating a technique which may be detrimental to the success and health of golfers.'€ He backs that up with this on the final page 31. '€œBased on these findings, golf teaching professionals who advocate a full backswing for maximum golf shot distance should consider altering their teaching theories.'€

We can'€™t fault teaching professionals because they are attending their required educational seminars to maintain their membership in good standing and are teaching what they have been taught to teach in these one sided educational seminars for now over 15 years. The big point is we need to look at the whole picture and use science to test and get the facts (not opinion) and see if there is a better golf swing. But now back to the Q & A section seminar.

The question that begs to be asked then and now is if their view on plane was different, why did not one of the pros throw in the other version for discussion? Answer: Because likely not one felt they knew enough to be able to properly and correctly explain their version. Yet they continue to talk about it and teach it without complete comprehension. I don'€™t know about you, but I see this as a big problem.

Story 2 on Swing Plane actually happened a year or two before the seminar mentioned above and is actually a powerful source of some of the conclusions I stated. In the winter of 2004 I made my last appearance on The Golf Channel'€™s '€œGolf Academy Live'€ instruction show. My previous shows were done with Peter Kessler as the host. This final show was hosted by Jerry Foltz, who is still with the Golf Channel and does mostly tournament commentating.

The morning of the show we shot some intro video of me swinging on the driving range at Bay Hill Golf Club. From there we went to TGC studio to shoot some other segments for the beginning of the show before it goes LIVE with no practice and no chance for do-overs. When we finished the pre-recorded intros, the production manager told me we would go to the graphics room (I guess that is what they call it) to lay down any terms, heading and graphics on the video of D.J.'€™s swing that I was going to analyze in the swing analysis section of the show.

We walked down a maze of corridors and took a left into a big room that looked like launch central at NASA. We went straight to the big desk in the center of the room where the technician had D.J.'€™s swing up on the huge master screen on the front wall. After introductions, he rolled over a chair for me to sit on and asked me what I wanted to put on this video to explain things to the viewers. The first thing I said was, '€œWe need a SWING PLANR LINE.'€ In a split second he had a plane line on the screen. It was suspended in air, except that it cut through D.J.'€™s right bicep and chest parallel to his shaft at address. If there was a clock on the screen in front of D.J., the line would be pointing at around 10:00 o'€™clock. I was looking at the rotational swing plane.

I looked at him and asked what that line was and he said it was the Plane line. I told him that was not the plane line I deal with. He came back with the answer that unequivocally told me that the rotational swing was the swing of choice and basically the only swing being discussed by every instructor on every show. He looked at me in complete confusion and said '€œThere is another Plane?'€

I told him absolutely and said it was a line from the ball to the shoulders, going through the neck and beyond and resting on the shoulders. I added that was like a pane of glass dropped over the head and resting on the shoulders and ending at the ball. I also like to use the image of a wagon wheel with the yoke of the wheel around the neck and resting on the shoulders and the ball is on the bottom of the rim where it rests on the ground. I like the wagon wheel image because it is round, like the swing and flat like the pane of glass to show plane. Also, the spokes fit well, as the image of the left arm and shaft swinging on this plane as the club head rides on the rim until it reaches parallel to the ground and goes vertical to 12:00 0'€™clock in the backswing and forward upswing due to the lifting of the arms and club '€œup the tree.'€ This is a great image for the concept and law of physics of centrifugal force, where the rock swings on the end of a string.

These two stories happened before the book on the 1 and 2 plane theory was published. It details that since both swings are on different planes they need different setup points, especially as regards weight distribution to maintain balance during the swing. I have known that for years and it is a key point I have taught my certified instructors.

Vertical swings like the PPGS have to have the weight at address more centered on the foot in the arches in line with the ankles. Swinging the arms vertical in front of the body over the toe line requires the weight be centered there. The rotational swing, which gets the arms behind the toe line in the backswing and forward swing, needs the feet more under the torso and the weigh back on the heels to counter balance the weight and forces of the swing when the arms and club get behind the body in the big backswing turn and the rotation and turn through to the finish.

If a rotational swinger is trying to change to the PPGS vertical swing, he cannot have good balance and really stand the club up to 12:00 o'€™clock until he gets the weight off his or her heels and into the arches. Conversely a vertical swinger trying to go rotational can not swing in balance until they move their weight from the arches to the heels. This is all about dynamic balance in motion as I have discussed in articles about balance, and the auto pilot balance system (Balance Buddy as I call it) built into all humans.

This is one of the issues, and a big one, where the '€œPlane Truth'€ book details golfers have problems when they are caught midway between vertical and rotational. This is absolutely correct. And to swing either way you have to have the proper setup, because the PPGS #1 mantra is '€œThe Setup Determines the Motion.'€ And, as anyone who has read the '€œPlane Truth'€ book knows that the rotational swing is the swing of choice that is recommended.

Now that I have given you some background on the state of Swing Plane dilemma in the golf teaching world, and thrown in some good hard scientific data about the swing, I am ready to tackle clearing this up. But this is enough for you or anyone to absorb today. Especially if I have already burst some highly held principles and dogma about the golf swing.

Tomorrow we look at and define SWING PLANE from a scientific viewpoint.

The Surge!