Whats the point of a plane shift?

Ive been wondering what is the point of moving from the right forearm plane to the turned right shoulder plane?

Wouldn't it be simpler to just stay on the right forearm plane throughout and have a single plane swing?

I've noticed that Stack and Tilters by and large have that single "flat" plane.

I'm just wondering what is the benefit of going up to a different plane and then back down again in the downswing.

If you reach out a little for the ball the plane of the right forearm (and shaft) at fix will be the turned shoulder plane. So a shoulder turn plane doesn't imply a plane shift.

Elbow plane is defined with the elbow close to the hip.

Those who turn through the ball on the elbow plane usually have a plane shift. Homer says (7-7) that the shoulder planes are the ones concious used while the elbow plane is more - almost totally - subconciously used.

I should probably know why because I think I've had plane shift this year, and a pretty wild one too. But I don't know why. I saw a swing analysis of Sergeo Garcia the other day. He has a very distnict plane shift, and it was basically assessed as a compensation for his having the weight too much towards his heels at address. And also a cause of the rare wild shot that sometimes appeared when Sergeo was under pressure. Of corse all served with a very moderate tone and the deepest respect for Sergio's world class ball striking ability.

The analysis came from the one plane / two plane camp and it seems like some golfers are born one planers while others are natural two planers.

So for example what is the benefit of doing things the Zach Johnson way:



Or the Sean O'Hair way:

Zack is very close to a one-planer on that film. Just a very small planeshift early in the down stroke. One plane doesn't require any steering of the club in the down stroke. You can aim at the ball all the way down.

Sean O'Hair has a very significant plane shift towards the elbow plane. The plane shift involves some steering and redirection of the club path, which is a disadvantage when seen in isolation.

I think the elbow plane has advantages too. Just not sure what they are exactly. There is something about the feeling of moving the club underneath the shoulder plane but I am not sure what it really is. Perhaps the right hand gets in a better position for driving with a lower plane.

Perhaps someone who really know TGM can fill in?

I look at the hitting stickman, and it seems the club head is following the TSP and therefore zero shift, even though at address is in elbow plane. Is Johnson similiar?

The right forearm and club shaft - included right elbow can be placed on several different planes at address. It's at elbow plane only when the elbow is placed very close to the right side.

The PGA player very often have their hands higher at impact than at address. So you really need what to look for if you to deduct anything meaningful about their swing plane based on shaft angle and forearms angle at address.

Originally Posted by grantc79 Ive been wondering what is the point of moving from the right forearm plane to the turned right shoulder plane?

Wouldn't it be simpler to just stay on the right forearm plane throughout and have a single plane swing?

I've noticed that Stack and Tilters by and large have that single "flat" plane.

I'm just wondering what is the benefit of going up to a different plane and then back down again in the downswing.

I think people get mixed up on this one plane two plane terminology stuff . . . .that's why Mr. Kelley's language though somewhat perceived as goofy, complicated and cultish is excellent in precision communication.

The way I understand this one plane two plane deal is how the arms and the shoulders match at the top. Now you techinically could have a "zero shift" with both a 1 plane and a 2 plane swing. I say techinical because I think by definition there ain't nobody that don't shift the PLANE ANGLE some throught the swing. So an example of a 2 planer close to no shifty would be Scott Hoch. An example of a 1 planer no shifty-ish would be Hogan.

So now the discussion becomes . . . why would you want to attempt to zero shift? And if you do shift where do you shift in the progression of the stroke and where is it more dangerous than less? So take a look at Furyk for example. Got a whackjob fruitcake looking motion . . . BUT when you get him down to "delivery" . . . .there ain't a whole lot of angle or plane line shifting going on at all. So like Mr. Kelley said . . . you can clown the backstroke . . . . so really it's in the downstroke were you need to pay attention to the shifting. I'd submit 1. you want to start looking at the plane angle "approximately" when the left arm gets "parallel-ish" to the ground. That's where you can start seeing if the club is moving on the REAL plane angle or getting thrown out over or under it. And would submit that the closer you get to the ball . . . the MORE DANGEROUS the shift becomes . . . it's like dynamically creating a ball that's gonna respond like it's above or below your feet. So if you raise the handle up dynamically it shoots the face vector to the right AND it also makes any amount of hand motion (rotation) make the clubface flash closed fast . . . pushes hooks and snipes. Vicey versy . . . if you have the ball above your feet the face vector looks left . . . so you get pulls and pull cuts and slicey. That's why you see a lotta slicers with big motor cycle grips . .. they swing out over the plane shift the plane line left and instinctively know that "dude I gotta get this ball to start left so it'll peal off to the target."

So basically all this goes back to understanding the "rules" . . . IT'S a game of FACE . . . ball starts where the face looks . . . and curves away from the path of the clubhead.

Originally Posted by Yoda Nice, Bucket. Thanks.

Si Boss! LOC is Mr. Kelley's genesis of the stroke no? Gotta have pig to put the sauce on . . . no pig . . . no que.

Originally Posted by 12 piece bucket Si Boss! LOC is Mr. Kelley's genesis of the stroke no? Gotta have pig to put the sauce on . . . no pig . . . no que.

Oh ya, Id agree with that for sure.

And the Line Of Compression does not run from ball to hole. See 2-C-0 all you book literate types.

If I was given just five minutes to explain what Homer figured out it'd be the LOC as revealed in 2-C-0 and the drawings of 2-C-1. And maybe the opposite, Steering, namely. Though it seems like the ideal application of force, linear force directed at the hole, that is. With its associated loss of compression as found in drawing 2-c-3 #2.........which has its uses for lob shots, which is what the hacker gets when he doesnt want it, etc.

OK, OK that'd take more than five minutes, I know......sheez.

Holy buckets, Bucket.
Thanks for your illustrious explanation. It is money in the bank. Indeed, I just printed it to carry with me.
g