Tweet
GOlf is light years ahead of hitting in understanding how the body swings.
The game has been played longer and studied more with more resources and more people who have done nothing but think about swinging for a long lifetime.
Jim Hardy's 1 vs 2 plane models for swing analysis have been a real breakthrough in making sense of how to teach the golf swing.
While in the end you need a simple repeptitive predictable swing, there are 2 basic patterns which ideally should not be mixed becasue if they are, then the swing becomes more complex/harder to make repeatable.
The key determinant of the pattern is how the connection between body and arms is made.
1p golf resembles "PCR".
2p golf resembles the mlb pattern.
My opinion is that in mlb hitting, ONLY the 2p type pattern can work well for mlb.
But here is a well stated description by an experienced golfer of how to think about hybrid patterns based on Hardy's approach in a sport where hybrids ARE a successful option:
"At the same time, Jim has found incompatibilities between contrasting pure methods, and I think he’s right about that. When you have features of both the one- and two-plane swings in your swing, you will also have an array of compensations in your swing. As Jim Furyk does, for example. But, if you’ve got your system down pat, go ahead and play it. My experience as a golfer for thirty years has been that I don’t play very well as a hybrid. My game has improved dramatically as a consequence of dedicating myself to the one-plane swing. I’m sure that I’d be saying the same thing had I chosen to become a better two-planer, because in either case I'd be working to remove incompatible features from my swing. You’re moving closer to a pure model, which I think is a sound direction to take for the average athlete.........
"Jim’s principal one-on-one teaching relationships are with tour-level players, true “cats” [cats = "good/gifted athletes"] as Jim calls them. These are players who can find the back of the golf ball repetitively and under any circumstances..........
"We should differentiate between swing shape and swing correction. To pursue a one-plane or two-plane model is to pursue a particular swing shape. If we’re somewhere in between and choose to become more of a purist, we’ll gradually change our swing in ways which both improve impact and ball flight and move us toward the chosen method. What will be happening is a reduction in compensations. You’ll have fewer balls to juggle and your consistency will improve. Not being a cat, I like that a lot.........
"The challenge is to make modifications so as not to lose your ability to find the back of the ball. Understanding how to do this is probably Jim Hardy’s greatest skill. No one I’ve seen compares to him, which is why troubled tour players go to him when their swings go to pot..........
"But, what’s missing is full appreciation for the reality that adopting one or the other pure method opens the way to get better faster. Trevino used to hit 800 balls a day, I understand. I don’t want to have to do anything like that to play good golf............."
The game has been played longer and studied more with more resources and more people who have done nothing but think about swinging for a long lifetime.
Jim Hardy's 1 vs 2 plane models for swing analysis have been a real breakthrough in making sense of how to teach the golf swing.
While in the end you need a simple repeptitive predictable swing, there are 2 basic patterns which ideally should not be mixed becasue if they are, then the swing becomes more complex/harder to make repeatable.
The key determinant of the pattern is how the connection between body and arms is made.
1p golf resembles "PCR".
2p golf resembles the mlb pattern.
My opinion is that in mlb hitting, ONLY the 2p type pattern can work well for mlb.
But here is a well stated description by an experienced golfer of how to think about hybrid patterns based on Hardy's approach in a sport where hybrids ARE a successful option:
"At the same time, Jim has found incompatibilities between contrasting pure methods, and I think he’s right about that. When you have features of both the one- and two-plane swings in your swing, you will also have an array of compensations in your swing. As Jim Furyk does, for example. But, if you’ve got your system down pat, go ahead and play it. My experience as a golfer for thirty years has been that I don’t play very well as a hybrid. My game has improved dramatically as a consequence of dedicating myself to the one-plane swing. I’m sure that I’d be saying the same thing had I chosen to become a better two-planer, because in either case I'd be working to remove incompatible features from my swing. You’re moving closer to a pure model, which I think is a sound direction to take for the average athlete.........
"Jim’s principal one-on-one teaching relationships are with tour-level players, true “cats” [cats = "good/gifted athletes"] as Jim calls them. These are players who can find the back of the golf ball repetitively and under any circumstances..........
"We should differentiate between swing shape and swing correction. To pursue a one-plane or two-plane model is to pursue a particular swing shape. If we’re somewhere in between and choose to become more of a purist, we’ll gradually change our swing in ways which both improve impact and ball flight and move us toward the chosen method. What will be happening is a reduction in compensations. You’ll have fewer balls to juggle and your consistency will improve. Not being a cat, I like that a lot.........
"The challenge is to make modifications so as not to lose your ability to find the back of the ball. Understanding how to do this is probably Jim Hardy’s greatest skill. No one I’ve seen compares to him, which is why troubled tour players go to him when their swings go to pot..........
"But, what’s missing is full appreciation for the reality that adopting one or the other pure method opens the way to get better faster. Trevino used to hit 800 balls a day, I understand. I don’t want to have to do anything like that to play good golf............."
Comment