|
|
Post by theswingengineer on Feb 8, 2014 18:41:55 GMT -5
Hey folks, how's it going? Before I post my latest chapter on the Swing Plane, I was hoping to play a little game... Below is a picture of bookies' perpetual favourite, Tiger Woods, at address. Using whatever means at your disposal (Photoshop, Paint, etc), I'd like you to draw Tiger's "Elbow Plane". It's not a trick question - I'd just like to see where you think it is... If that sounds like too much effort, go online and find me a diagram of the Elbow Plane instead.  When you've done that, we'll have a chat. |
|
|
|
Post by cloran on Feb 8, 2014 19:29:35 GMT -5
I'll play along...  |
|
|
|
Post by cloran on Feb 8, 2014 23:39:16 GMT -5
That was fun...
|
|
|
|
Post by theswingengineer on Feb 9, 2014 11:08:46 GMT -5
Hi Cloran! I'm glad you enjoy drawing plane lines as much as I do  As for your Elbow Plane - that was exactly what I was looking for. A plane line drawn through the elbow at address. That's what most people think the Elbow Plane is, but as with all things Golfing Machine, most people get it wrong. The Elbow Plane for Mr Woods is more like the blue line below.  You'll note it doesn't go through the elbow at all at address. That's because Mr Kelley defined the Elbow Plane's reference point as "where the right elbow touches the waist". To learn how to find the Elbow Plane, as well as the other four planes defined in The Golfing Machine, as well as the sweetspot plane, how to set up a camera to record golf swings, what the Angles and Arcs of Attack / Approach are... visit the below link. www.theswingengineer.com/swing_plane.html |
|
|
|
Post by cloran on Feb 9, 2014 11:57:33 GMT -5
It should be called the "spot where you think his right elbow might touch his torso plane line."
Useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by theswingengineer on Feb 9, 2014 12:56:56 GMT -5
It should be called the "spot where you think his right elbow might touch his torso plane line." I'll petition to get that changed for the next edition How so Cloran? |
|
|
|
Post by cloran on Feb 9, 2014 23:43:58 GMT -5
It should be called the "spot where you think his right elbow might touch his torso plane line." I'll petition to get that changed for the next edition How so Cloran? ...useless in that any line can be drawn and relationships (body part, club path, etc) to that line can be discussed, all with no understanding of what shot the golfer was attempting to hit... and no results of said shot to be shown. useless. |
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Feb 10, 2014 0:28:55 GMT -5
...useless in that any line can be drawn and relationships (body part, club path, etc) to that line can be discussed, all with no understanding of what shot the golfer was attempting to hit... and no results of said shot to be shown. useless. Just like that cloran. I'm still waiting that day when people stop taking about plane and draw lines to screens. |
|
|
|
Post by theswingengineer on Feb 10, 2014 5:30:49 GMT -5
...useless in that any line can be drawn and relationships (body part, club path, etc) to that line can be discussed, all with no understanding of what shot the golfer was attempting to hit... and no results of said shot to be shown. useless. Hi Cloran, I understand what you’re saying. Why analyse a swing when; 1) you don’t know if the player is attempting to hit a fade or draw, send it high or keep it low etc, and 2) you don’t get to review the outcome of the swing anyway... Firstly, I think there’s a difference between the swings I look at and the swings you do. I predominantly look at, and fix, swings of people who aren’t the best at golf and are trying to break 100 / 90 / 80 or whatever. By and large, they have no intention of shaping their way around a course like Bubba Watson. They want good ball contact, to hit the ball as straight as possible and as far as possible. I hazard a guess most people on this forum and visitors to my website have the same priorities. So when I’m drawing lines on swings and discussing the geometry, I’m not necessarily thinking of the golfer’s intent, because that should be obvious - they want the ball straight and long. I agree with you in that when looking at say a Touring Professional’s swing, the intent does become an important consideration, and it wouldn’t be fair or accurate to compare a high fade swing with the same player’s low draw swing without knowing the shots they were attempting to make. As for your second point of having no feedback after the swing is made (i.e. knowing exactly how and where the ball went), I agree with you in one way. When I’m giving a lesson, I’m looking at the cause (the swing) and the effect (the ball’s flight). Taking one out of context isn’t much help. Let’s take the usual example of Jim Furyk. Looking at his swing alone, you could point out everything that’s “wrong” with it... but view it in context, with his ball flight, you can see he makes it work and he can hit the ball as well as anyone in the world. So analysing a swing without knowing the outcome is self serving. But that can be the point... A good place to start with any golfer wanting to improve is to look at their swing out of context, without the ball flight. That way you are quantifying exactly how your swing works - looking at each of the components of your swing and their relationships between themselves. Once you’ve established what exactly you have, you can then go about improving your lot, one component at a time. So in that respect, it’s not always necessary to know where the ball is going when analysing a swing. You can study the cause without looking at the effect. |
|
|
|
Post by mikewb280 on Dec 24, 2015 6:04:47 GMT -5
This thread as really opened my eyes to the use of multiple planes in teaching.
The shoulder planes were particularly new to me, especially when talking about the width of a golfer influencing the location of the turned shoulder plane, hence it not being identifiable at P1.
I must say too Swing Engineer that your work has fell on my research of my golf swing so many times. Before I know it a link leads to your advice and it's always well versed and researched so thank you for the impressive quality.
Thanks,
Mike
|
|
