Posted by: tom.guerry (tom.guerry@kp.org) on Sat Sep 13 23:29:50 2008

Jack -

Thanks for the kind words.

Another way to study this is as I have mentioned before, comparison to the golf swing.

I think the most informative golf analysis is the recent 1 and 2 plane theory of Jim Hardy.

You might review this if you get a chance.

His "Plane Truth" DVD set is the best way to get started. His books are good too, PLANE
TRUTH FOR GOLFERS, and PLANE TRUTH MASTER CLASS.

Additional key info are on a series of short dvd's high lighting certain swing phases/types
called the SECRETS FROM THE PLANE TRUTH VAULT.

Hardy has figured out that there are 2 basic patterns which depend on how the body and
arms relate.

The old fashioned 2 plane golf swing creates the swing plane by a blend of 2 actions in 2
separate planes, the level turn of the hips and the up and down swing of the body.

This creates a stretch and fire via the resistance related to simultaneous actions in
separate planes.

The single greatest description prior to Hardy of the 2 plane classic swing was by Bobby
Jones who learned in an era when ONLY this type of swing was successful. This is porbably
so because of a number of factors including managing the hickory/wood shafts. the need
for a steep swing to handle poor course conditions where a less upright more sweeping
swing suffered from poor contact and from wearing restrictive clothes that limited bending
over and swinging around the body.

When meal shafts became available and course conditions improved, the "modern" swing
became an alternative which s a single plane swing where the shoulders activeley turn the
club in the shoulder plane.

This swing has an entirely different swing and feel and sequence which relative to the
shoulder action of the 2 plane classic swing feels like flying open, although other
attributes of this swing create a very effective swing which prevent flying
open/spinning/pulling off/hitting around the ball. all of which would be swing flaws.


he basic requirement in golf is to have a fairly neutral club/swing plane, not too
steep/upright and not too shallow.

The 2 plane swing is arm domnant and tends to be too steep. This lines the plane up with
the target longer/more/better BUT becomes problematic because getting the timing of
squaring the clubface right becomes more and more quick and prone to error the more
steep the plane.

The 2 plane swing is middle out or shoulder turn dominant and tends to be too shallow
which makes the clubface closure timing easier to get right, but loses accuracy with too
shallow a plane which does not line up with the target very long and can suffer with poor
course conditions/bad lies.

Now when it comes to hitting as compared to golf, either of these swings would be very
difficult to use against a pitcher who is changing location and upsetting timing with severe
limits on reaction time.

There are still big opportunities in adapting the swing to be sucessful in this baseball
setting because you do not have to worry about the timing of clubface closure and you
have a wider target in keeping the ball fair.

it turns out that the solution is similar to the 2 plane/arm dominant golf swing becasue in
this case, there is no significant penalty for lining up the plane of the swing vertically with
the target/ball trajectory.

So the MLB baseball swing is a 2 plane swing which is further quickened and shortened and
made upper body dominant by tilting the shoulders to assis in torquing the handle of the
bat.

As such, the attributes of theMLB swing are very similar to the 2 plane golf swing,
including more passive shoulder action.

perhaps some day we can compare and contrast these in more detail.