Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: open(/tmp/sess_f4c8eddbff622062999373e1d175145e, O_RDWR) failed: Disk quota exceeded (122) in /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php on line 3

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php:3) in /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php on line 3

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php:3) in /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php on line 3
Fred Couples Secret Key to Creating Lag in the Golf Swing

Warning: include(/home/rotarygo/www/rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/video/includes/header-img.html) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php on line 151

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/rotarygo/www/rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/video/includes/header-img.html' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php on line 151

Warning: include(/home/rotarygo/www/rotaryswing.com/includes/rotaryswing-topnav.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php on line 155

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/rotarygo/www/rotaryswing.com/includes/rotaryswing-topnav.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php on line 155
Fred Couples Golf Swing Discussion
Rotary Swing Tour
 
 
 

Hot Golf Forum Topics - Fred Couples

Fred Couples

Printed From: One Plane Golf Swing
Category: One Plane Swing Theory
Forum Name: One Plane Swing Theory and Help
Forum Discription: Post questions and thoughts and get help with your one plane swing.
URL: http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2109


Topic: Fred Couples


Posted By: mbarry
Subject: Fred Couples
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 8:46am
First off, thanks so much for all the information on this site. I read
Hardy's book last year and have adopted some of the OPS ideas into my
swing. Before that I always considered Ernie Els' book as a model for a
"classic" swing. Mr. Quinton's info seems a synthesis of these and other
ideas, and a good one at that.

After watching Fred Couples play at the Nissan, and after years of
admiring his rhythmic fluidity, I went back and looked at his book "Total
Shotmaking". He really seems to be a two plane swinger. Does anyone see
parts of his swing outside of his tempo that are compatible with a ops?

What about a strong grip with an open stance like his? It seems like a
recipe for a big hook. In the book he claims that "cupping" his wrists
helps to avoid a hook and fade the ball. He obviously has great athletic
ability and timing.

Boy I wish I could swing like that, but It seems he uses his hands a lot and
has a bit of a lateral move too. Plus he crosses the line on most shots.

Thanks for your input.
MB



Replies:
Posted By: Hogan
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 12:43pm

In my opiniom one can not be much more of a Two Plane golfer than Fred Couples. Do not look to find any OPS in his action, it is not there...

Hogan



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 12:56pm
For some reason, the discussion of hybrid swings of great players like
Freddie, Fuyrk, Daly, JB Holmes, the young Jack Nicklaus, Gay Brewer,
Miller Barber, Byron Nelson, etc. inspires dogmatic posts like the one
from "Hogan" immediately above that flatly contradicts Hardy, the person
who invented the concept, and definition, of the OPS and TPS. In Hardy's
opinion (and this is well documented) these players have a two plane top
of the backswing position but reroute their arms, hands and clubs into a
downswing with one plane characteristics: arms behind the chest,
rotating around the body, as compared to the typical two plane
downswing of arms in front of the chest, swinging up and down in front
of the body. It is amazing the amount of pointless back and forth there
has been on this topic both here and on other forums.

Chuck's downswing mantra is to rotate the body with passive arms:
Freddie certainly does that, in fact his right arm is so limp, the right hand
comes off the grip after impact (similar to two planer Vijay)!


Posted By: Hogan
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 1:25pm

I think that this is the point that has ruined many golfers learning in the past. We could state that EVERY swing is or has one plane or two plane concepts. I find it comical that on could look at Fred Couples swing and think it has one plane aspects. If rotating the body is only done in a one plane swing than are there any two plane swings. Hardy himself gave the concept of two swings to try and clear things up. When one introduces a third swing "hybrid" it does no justice and service to anyone...

I know Fred fairly well and can tell you that a one plane swing is not on his mind, AT ALL. BTW it has been pointed out on this site as well that VJ's finish is not that of a classic one planner, so your point further stenghtens my statement. (VJ straightens his spine at impact...)

Hogan



Posted By: jonag
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 1:36pm

Guys

Fred Couples is a great player, but watching the Nissan Classic on the last holes, he really lost his timing and sliced a 3w 50m to the right...  I did not want that for Freddie, but he got tense and lost his relaxed and effective swing.  That is a 2PS weakness.

On the other hand, Rory Sabatini has a very unique swing Wink



-------------
Jon Arne
golfaholic @ 10.7


Posted By: flyfishin
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by Hogan

I know Fred fairly well and can tell you that a one plane swing is not on his mind, AT ALL.

Hogan



If you believe the commentators, lounging on the couch is what is usually on his mind.


Posted By: mikec
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 2:03pm
Baffy:

Come on Baffy, what are you saying? Would you look to Fred if you were teaching somebody a OPS? Let's see here. I think if you take the club outside with a strong grip and then shift your hips laterally and drop the club way inside and then whip your hands through impact by a fierce rolling of the forearms that you have been doing since you were ten years old that only works for you, you will have  enough of the OPS characterisitics there to be a real good example of a hybrid  OPS. Give me a break. Why do you want to create such confusion?

I second Hogan DOGMATICALLY: 'Do not look to find any OPS in his action, it is not there'

PS Baffy: Read Couples book. There ain't nothin' passive about his hand/arm action in the DS.

 


Posted By: Knock It Stiff
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 2:15pm

Jonag,

Good observation about Freddie losing his composure and coming apart on the last 4 holes.  He was clearly nervous having not been in that position much lately.  However, that's not just a 2PS weakness.  I don't care what type of swing you have--1PS/2PS/Hybrid--if you get nervous and stop committing to your shots you are going to come apart in the heat of competition.  True, the 2PS relies more on timing, and if your timing is a hair off you will struggle, but nerves and tension (and any less than positive emotion for that matter) will destroy any swing and cause bad shots.  Bad thoughts lead to bad swings--1PS or 2PS.

Just my thoughts.

Dean



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 2:23pm
Originally posted by Hogan

I think that this is the point that has ruined many
golfers learning in the past. We could state that EVERY swing is or has one
plane or two plane concepts. I find it comical that on could look at Fred
Couples swing and think it has one plane aspects. If rotating the body is
only done in a one plane swing than are there any two plane swings.
Hardy himself gave the concept of two swings to try and clear things
up. When one introduces a third swing "hybrid" it does no justice and
service to anyone...


I know Fred fairly well and can tell you that a one plane swing is not on
his mind, AT ALL. BTW it has been pointed out on this site as well that
VJ's finish is not that of a classic one planner, so your point further
stenghtens my statement. (VJ straightens his spine at impact...)


Hogan



Hardy himself introduced the concept of the hybrid. "I find it comical" that
you accept his OPS and TPS concepts, but reject his "hybrid" category.
Hardy had this to say recently (this is part of a longer post on his site):

"...In fact I just gave an excellent hy-bred a lesson at the Hope;
Jeff Sluman. A two-plane swing by definition of the top of backswing,
but when playing well, like Jim Furyk, get his arms tied into his body turn
in a beautiful one-plane impact position.
So instead of making it
easier for all of you, I've probably made this seem more complicated. It is
complicated, once you leave a "pure" swing and start to introduce cross
elements...It is fine with me to use the terms one or two-plane swings
based on the top of swing. It is also fine with me to identify hy-bred
swings (like Furyk, John Daly, Couples, Sluman) that can change
swing types in mid-stream and call them hy-breds or one-plane impact
players, etc.

JH"







Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 2:27pm
Originally posted by mikec

Baffy:

Come on Baffy, what are you saying? Would you look to Fred if you were
teaching somebody a OPS? Let's see here. I think if you take the club
outside with a strong grip and then shift your hips laterally and drop
the club way inside and then whip your hands through impact by a fierce
rolling of the forearms that you have been doing since you were ten
years old that only works for you, you will have  enough of the
OPS characterisitics there to be a real good example of a hybrid 
OPS. Give me a break. Why do you want to create such confusion?

I second Hogan DOGMATICALLY: 'Do not look to find any OPS in his
action, it is not there'

PS Baffy: Read Couples book. There ain't nothin' passive about his hand/
arm action in the DS.

 



I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but Hardy calls him a hybrid and says his
downswing has OPS characteristics. If you don't like it, go argue with him.


Posted By: mikec
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 2:30pm
Baffy, are you from New York City? Or are there also other places where it's more important to be right than helpful?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 2:34pm
Originally posted by mikec

Baffy, are you from New York City? Or are there also
other places where it's more important to be right than helpful?


I'll repeat this from my first post on this thread:

"...It is amazing the amount of pointless back and forth there
has been on this topic both here and on other forums."


Posted By: Hogan
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 2:45pm

For what is worth I feel Baffy's thoughts, ways and understanding of the swing will lead him and others to looking for answers and defining things. Rather than looking at information and processing it, people like him need to be right on all. I believe the main reason many have learned and been enlightened by Hardy and Chuck's teaching is that the have a reference to go off of, OPS or TPS. If people like him keep finding ways of combining the two swings we will be back where we started.

 I do not think this is "pointless" because your ways are not always right...

Hogan



Posted By: mikec
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 3:14pm
Originally posted by Hogan


If people like him keep finding ways of combining the two swings we will be back where we started.

Good point Hogan. I was always a 'combiner' without the talent to make it work, though was generally able to score ok (short game saved me, but it gets awful tiring having to get up and down all the time and it's a real pisser in tournaments). By throwing out most, if not all, of the TSP characteristics, I have been able to simply, and more important, hit the ball better. And I REALLY like to hit the ball better.




Posted By: Hogan
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 3:31pm

Great going, MikeC keep it up... it works keep it up

Hogan



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 3:47pm
mbarry-

To answer your question, as I posted above, Hardy calls Couples a hybrid
(2PS at the top, OPS impact). Because he has combined elements of the
two swings, there are several important OPS elements in Freddie's
swing worth noting. At address, he adopts a bent over posture and a
strong grip. When viewed face-on, he stands with a vertical spine,
centered between his hips; his weight is also evenly distributed. On the
backswing, his weight remains centered (little if any shift away from the
target) and his spine, if anything, tilts toward the target, not away from it.
At the top, he has created a terrific coil between his upper and lower body
by restricting the hip turn. His shoulders are steep and a line drawn
through them would point in the 48 inch zone. Starting down, his
wristcock increases and his arms drop immediately down behind his
chest. His body rotates very swiftly throughout the downswing, his weight
moves rapidly toward the target and off the right side, his right foot
"dragging" toward the target. His right elbow remains at his side through
impact and his hips and chest are very open. On the though swing, his
arms swing left immediately around his body: the club "comes out" of his
chest, when viewed down-the-line, at or below the shoulder plane. It
would seem that all he would have to do to be a "pure" one plane swinger
is to swing his arms back on a more shallow plane, to somewhere close to
his shoulder plane.

For reference, I based this analysis on the face-on and down-the-line
video swing sequences on the GD site:

http://golfdigest.com/instruction/swingsequences/index.ssf?/
instruction/swingsequences/gd1996couples.html


Posted By: Hogan
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 3:59pm

MBARRY,

I ask that you do not read or pay attention to the comments regarding Fred Couples as having a OPS. He may be one of the best examples of a TPS (along with Colin Montgomery) out there. I love this site and know that others do as well, I am not looking to argue with anyone but when they are saying something that is not true it does not help anyone...

Please someone else tell me, is Fred Couples in a classic OPS stance prior to his swing? He is so upright, the farthest thing from what baffy is trying to fit him in...



Posted By: mikec
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 4:19pm

Originally posted by Baffy

  At address, he adopts a bent over posture


You're giving me a headache Baffy.


Posted By: dave.
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 4:45pm
Lol,and me  "his spine is centred between his hips".

Baffy,his hands either raise above his shoulders or they don't,his do,and he drops them inside back down,what matters is impact.Couples has a hybrid swing,I doubt anyone could call it anything else,he has incredible talent,so his swing is irrelevant to anyone else but him.Debating it as ops or otherwise is a pointless excerise,imo,even though his spine is in the middle of his back


Posted By: GolfObsessed
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 4:49pm
Someone trying to say Freddie is a One-Planer?  Now I've officially heard (read) it ALL!!

-------------
Hcp: 6.4, Fairways: 79%, GIR: 59%,Putts: 36.67, Dist: 285+
"I'm..... kind of a big deal." - Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy in "Anchorman".


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 4:57pm
Originally posted by dave.


Lol,and me  "his spine is centred between his hips".Baffy,his hands
either raise above his shoulders or they don't,his do,and he drops them
inside back down,what matters is impact.Couples has a hybrid swing,I
doubt anyone could call it anything else,he has incredible talent,so his
swing is irrelevant to anyone else but him.Debating it as ops or otherwise
is a pointless excerise,imo,even though his spine is in the middle of his
back


dave.-

Sorry to spoil the fun, but I never called Freddie a OPS...As I posted
earlier, Hardy calls him "a hy-bred or a one plane impact player". To get
to a OPS impact, your swing needs OPS elements.


Posted By: Hogan
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:00pm

LOL, a great line from a great movie, thank you golfobsessed, I needed that.

I feel the same way (obviously)...



Posted By: dave.
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:03pm
Ok,but..........

"To answer your question, there are several OPS elements in Freddie's
swing worth noting"

Tbh,I've forgotten what the thread was about anyway.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:08pm
Originally posted by Hogan

I am not looking to argue with anyone but when they are
saying something that is not true it does not help anyone...


Careful, buster...nothing I have posted "is not true"...


Posted By: bottomsup
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:11pm
baffy: you ovulating today?


Posted By: mikec
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:14pm
Originally posted by Baffy

 

Careful, buster...nothing I have posted "is not true"...


Oh Oh. Don't let the dark side get the better of you.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:25pm
Originally posted by dave.

Ok,but.........."To answer your question, there are several
OPS elements in Freddie's
swing worth noting"Tbh,I've forgotten what the thread was about
anyway.


Fair enough...I've edited that post to clarify things...


Posted By: dave.
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:37pm
Ok

But if Hardy did say 2ps at the top and Ops at impact,I'm gobsmacked,that to me as a concept is just meaningless.A plane is a plane,it can't bend in the middle.


Posted By: dave.
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:46pm


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:52pm
Originally posted by dave.

OkBut if Hardy did say 2ps at the top and Ops at
impact,I'm gobsmacked,that to me as a concept is just meaningless.A
plane is a plane,it can't bend in the middle.


Gobsmacked, I like it...the planes aren't changing in mid swing, it is the
arms: in Freddie's case, the arms drop from the 2P position at the top
(above the shoulders) to the OP position in the downswing (behind the
body). Others do the reverse: OP at the top, then get the arms in front of
the body in a 2P position (e.g., Greg Norman). If it sounds confusing,
that's because it is. "Exceptions" like these are why many critics look
down on Hardy's theory.


Posted By: dave.
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 5:54pm
I understand the concept of dropping inside coming down,but thats not what you said,you referred to a Ops 'at impact',that to me is bizarre,how does a Ops swing differ from a 2ps at impact? Are you sure you are quoting him correctly?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 6:04pm
Originally posted by dave.

I understand the concept of dropping inside coming
down,but thats not what you said,you referred to a Ops 'at impact',that to
me is bizarre,how does a Ops swing differ from a 2ps at impact? Are you
sure you are quoting him correctly?


I am quoting him correctly; visit his site, he discusses hybrids at length in
this thread: "Pros that are one planers" in the instruction forum.
Link:http://www.jimhardygolf.com/Forums/tabid/53/forumid/1/p ostid/
122/view/topic/Default.aspx

Also, pick up his book "The Plane Truth for Golfers" where he details all
the differences between a OPS and a 2PS, including at impact.


Posted By: bottomsup
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 6:16pm
baffy: If I only had one more book that explained the swing to me?  I just know I could play like a pro. I wish I knew which one of the 1000's of books written would get me over the hump? Help me please? Oh, and Couples is a classic 1PS.  LMAO


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 6:23pm
Originally posted by bottomsup

baffy: If I only had one more book that explained
the swing to me?  I just know I could play like a pro. I wish I knew which
one of the 1000's of books written would get me over the hump? Help me
please? Oh, and Couples is a classic 1PS.  LMAO


IF YOU KEEP ON BEING MEAN, I'M GOING TO TELL CHUCK ON YOU...

Also, who said "Couples is a classic 1PS"?


Posted By: dave.
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 6:24pm
Then I won't buy his book,its way to complicated for me,I don't need to or want to understand how a 2ps or Ops differ at impact,its an irrelevance to me,I am mildly curious thats all as to why its imporatnt to know these things.Impact is a fraction of a second,why on earth it matters what category your swing falls into at that point is beyond me.If he is referring to other things such as hips,or weight or whatever,thans its nothing to do with plane.

Hogan never mentioned plane at impact,only the position of the wrists.My head hurts,I need a lie down.


Posted By: bottomsup
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 6:44pm
baffy: Waaaaaahhhhh. You'll know when I'm being "mean" to you. Explain all this impact stuff again to me OK?  I know I can control that fraction of a second with some help. Is there a number assigned to this position? Please post the TGM numbers so that I can improve. It's good to know these numbers, etc, so that we're all on the same page and speaking the same language. Please help me?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 6:48pm
Originally posted by dave.

Then I won't buy his book,its way to complicated for me,I
don't need to or want to understand how a 2ps or Ops differ at impact,its
an irrelevance to me,I am mildly curious thats all as to why its imporatnt
to know these things.Impact is a fraction of a second,why on earth it
matters what category your swing falls into at that point is beyond
me.If he is referring to other things such as hips,or weight or
whatever,thans its nothing to do with plane.
Hogan never mentioned
plane at impact,only the position of the wrists.My head hurts,I need a lie
down.


Yes, those are some of the things he is referring to, not plane.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 6:55pm
bottomsup-

From what I've read, the problem with your impact is not enough
clubhead speed.


Posted By: bottomsup
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 8:16pm
Baffy: <sigh>


Posted By: gwlee7
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 8:19pm

I bet Fred Couples will hardly be able to sleep tonight knowing that people are arguing and can't figure out what type of swing he has.

 



Posted By: timchong
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 8:44pm

Ok, I'll play.

Freddy Couples' swing has characteristics of both type of swings.  Take away his arms and his lateral move, then he has the body turn of the one-plane swing.  At impact, the location of his arms and elbow isn't exactly textbook in on the side of the one plane swing. 

What's funny is that Vijay Singh is called a one-planer even though his posture is similar to Freddy.  Even his lateral movement as well. 

Just my opinion.

Tim C.



Posted By: Hogan
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 10:44pm

Tim/all,

Don't you think it adds to the confussion of all if you start classifying golfers as having some OPS and some TPS motions. If that is the case than anyone holding a club can be a one plane swing golfer since the swing requires one to hold a club... Silly comparison but to the same point as "one plane on backswing, different plane on front swing" that comment alone states TWO PLANES...

Bottom line Fred Couples takes his left arm and raises it higher than his shoulder pln on the top of the swing (much like Colin Montgomry and David Toms), right there he has established a two plane swing, every thing else is a compensation of a correction. Fred Couples is a world class player and one who does not need to have his talent questioned, however his technique can be defined in order to help others. This site is meant (I feel for golfers to find answers to questions that have not been answered in 80 years of study. Jim Hardy and Chuck are putting out a structure from where a golfer can choose one or a two plane swing. When one mentions a third swing I feel it is a cop out to their original point, simplifying the learning process. There are and will be great golfers with one and two plane swings... We all have over looked/veiwed the swing too much in the past, thats go back to the beginning,there are "two swings" and each swing has different principles that cannot be confused. Really guys it is that easy...

I am not doing this to cause issuses or help Fred Couples sleep, I am doing this because the type of teaching of a hybrid swing/thought will put a lot of people back to the beginning... One plane = one plane two plane equasl two planes hybrid swing equals two planes

Hogan



Posted By: Hogan
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 10:45pm

Chuck any thoughts? your input could be helpful...

Hogan



Posted By: Chuck Quinton
Date Posted: 22 February 2006 at 8:25am
I didn't read all these posts, so I don't know what this discussion is all about or what has been said. Couples swing is outside and up (two plane) on the way back and then he has a killer transition and lets his arms shallow out to a one plane position on the way down and keeps his arms behind him very late into the downswing, lagging behind. 2 plane backswing, 1 plane downswing, no question, similar to Furyk's. It's a very complicated move compared to being 1 plane back and through and requires his massive transition and killer body drive, as well as very soft arms and beautiful tempo - and a lot of trust. As I have said a million times before on the site, there are VERY FEW true one planers on tour, almost all of them are hybrids of some sort and MIX FUNDAMENTALS.

-------------
Current USGA Handicap +.2
http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3130&PN=1 - See what's in my bag!
Scoring Avg. 72.92, GIR 65%, FIR 65.71%, Putts 30.38


Posted By: Chuck Quinton
Date Posted: 22 February 2006 at 8:32am
Hardy's theories are exactly that - theories. He made a bold venture to try and lock down the golf swing into only two categories. In my opinion, it can't be done because every golfer I have ever taught has atleast a handful of variations in his swing that make him not match one person's model or another. Kelly's book was more like "here's a bucket of parts" and how can they all fit together or work against each other. Hardy's book was an attempt to classify the unclassifiable, although, when kept simple, you can certainly respect that some golfers swing their arms more upright while others swing more around and that is enough to help golfers with their understanding of the golf swing enough such that is practical and useful to the average guy wanting to play better.

-------------
Current USGA Handicap +.2
http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3130&PN=1 - See what's in my bag!
Scoring Avg. 72.92, GIR 65%, FIR 65.71%, Putts 30.38


Posted By: mbarry
Date Posted: 22 February 2006 at 8:38am
Sorry about openig this can o' worms...Lots of strong feelings about this
hybrid concept..

I personally adore FC's buttery swing but realize that I am better off
sticking to a swing that relies on more manageable fundamentals like the
ops ideas presented here by CQ and in JH's book.

Case closed!!!! Thanks all....JavaScript:AddSmileyIcon('')


Posted By: Chuck Quinton
Date Posted: 22 February 2006 at 8:51am

Here's his swing in action. First pic, right elbow definitely behind his right hip, body rotating hard. Impact, right elbow still behind his hip. Compare this to someone like Tiger who has a two plane impact position and his right arm is level with the left and straight. Also note that Fred is open with his body at impact. Lastly, the club coming out below his left shoulder. The club moves pretty quickly to the left just after impact and this is evidence of that. Is he a pure anything? Yep - pure Fred Couples.

 



-------------
Current USGA Handicap +.2
http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3130&PN=1 - See what's in my bag!
Scoring Avg. 72.92, GIR 65%, FIR 65.71%, Putts 30.38


Posted By: jonag
Date Posted: 22 February 2006 at 9:00am

I guess the club has to move quickley to the left due to his slide and hard release.

Thanks Chuck, I never thought he was a OPS, but had not seen his "OPS" downswing before.  Interesting.  Do you have his transition as well.  Interesting to see what he does to get from 2PS to "OPS".



-------------
Jon Arne
golfaholic @ 10.7


Posted By: jonag
Date Posted: 22 February 2006 at 9:05am

Chuck

What about analyzing Sabatini's swing ?   Wink

It is quite unique and not a OPS at all !  Incredibly right elbow driven.  Never seen something like that before.

But who cares, he played beautifully in Nissan Open.



-------------
Jon Arne
golfaholic @ 10.7


Posted By: arbano1
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 12:52pm
Fred Couples' swing is of secondary importance compared to what happens in his mind during a round. I would rather emulate that.


Posted By: Knock It Stiff
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 1:28pm

Arba,

I would have loved to to be in his mind last Sunday on the final 4 holes when he was playing Army golf--left, right, left.  I think nerves got the best of Freddie coming down the stretch--proving to all of us that mental game is where it's at.  He played beautifully all week, and when it came time to seal the deal he started spraying shots all over the place.  A good lesson of how the mind can destroy an beautiful, fluid and powerful swing like Freddie's.

Dean



Posted By: arbano1
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 1:37pm
Originally posted by Knock It Stiff

Arba,


I would have loved to to be in his mind last Sunday on the final 4 holes when he was playing Army golf--left, right, left.  I think nerves got the best of Freddie coming down the stretch--proving to all of us that mental game is where it's at.  He played beautifully all week, and when it came time to seal the deal he started spraying shots all over the place.  A good lesson of how the mind can destroy an beautiful, fluid and powerful swing like Freddie's.


Dean



Yes, even Freddie can have bad days.


Posted By: arbano1
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 5:44pm
Originally posted by timchong

Ok, I'll play.


Freddy Couples' swing has characteristics of both type of swings.  Take away his arms and his lateral move, then he has the body turn of the one-plane swing.  At impact, the location of his arms and elbow isn't exactly textbook in on the side of the one plane swing. 


What's funny is that Vijay Singh is called a one-planer even though his posture is similar to Freddy.  Even his lateral movement as well. 


Just my opinion.


Tim C.



All I see is that Couples takes the club steep on the backswing and then comes in shallow on the downswing. He does this with great rhythm and timing. His loop is not as pronounced as Furyk but similiar. Freddy just looks better doing it. Fairly basic, but very effective.

-------------
What's my target?


Posted By: rprevost
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 6:58am

Is not Hogan right though?  If we define the difference between the OPS and the TPS on the basis of the timing and sychronization, and then go on to say that the OPS is simpler because you don't have to rely on timing, at least as much, how can we describe Couples as a "hybrid"?  I can agree that he has a great OPS downswing and turn through the ball; but the point of the OPS as it was originally described and promoted was that you did not need to worry about timing the swing of the club, just "turn, turn, turn."  On that basis, it seems to me that Hogan is right:  hybrid swing = two-plane swing.

rprevost



Posted By: Chuck Quinton
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 8:15am

rprevost,

in my opinion, that is a fair statement, but because the definitions are too specific with the swing the way Hardy laid them out, you end up with a "middle of the road" type of deal that probably more accurately describes 85% of the golfers on Tour. Interestingly enough, most teachers who teach a "two plane" swing teach something more similar to what is considered a "hybrid" swing by Hardy. I can honestly say I really don't know very many teachers who would touch Hardy's "two plane" idea with a ten foot pole. On that note, no one ever talks about his "two plane" ideas, only the one plane. As for "turn and turn", that is how I teach the swing, not Hardy. His methodology for the one plane swing is FAR more complex. When you guys see the stuff that is coming out in his new book and the drills, you'll see what I mean. He teaches the swing to be far more armsy and handsy than I do with a heavy reliance on forearm rotation to square the clubface.



-------------
Current USGA Handicap +.2
http://www.oneplanegolfswing.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3130&PN=1 - See what's in my bag!
Scoring Avg. 72.92, GIR 65%, FIR 65.71%, Putts 30.38


Posted By: bottomsup
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 9:26am
I guess you count me out with the heavy forearm rotation in order to square the face? I'm out there in the wilderness wandering around by myself.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 10:29am
Originally posted by rprevost

Is not Hogan right though?  If we define the
difference between the OPS and the TPS on the basis of the timing and
sychronization, and then go on to say that the OPS is simpler because you
don't have to rely on timing, at least as much, how can we describe
Couples as a "hybrid"?  I can agree that he has a great OPS downswing
and turn through the ball; but the point of the OPS as it was originally
described and promoted was that you did not need to worry about timing
the swing of the club, just "turn, turn, turn."  On that basis, it seems to
me that Hogan is right:  hybrid swing = two-plane swing.


rprevost



Hogan is right that Freddie has a two plane swing; where he is wrong is
insisting that there are no one plane elements in it. Clearly Freddie's
swing falls into the "don't try this at home" category, but beyond the arm
lift in the backswing, his swing is chock full of excellent one plane
positions. To be blunt, though, I don't understand the frenzied
importance some attach to these labels. His swing is the same whether
you call it two plane, hybrid, one plane impact or one plane with a flying
right elbow. All are acceptable labels. It's just that "pure" two plane or
"pure" one plane aren't.



Posted By: dave.
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 2:21pm
This is to complicated for me.Its simple to see he raises his arms above his shoulder plane,therefore its 2 plane,therefore I won't study it,mainly because whatever elements are in it I won't have the talent to learn from it (although his tempo is something else).But I can learn a lot from studying a swing like Stuart Applebys.Thats as comlicated as I can deal with.


Posted By: Knock It Stiff
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 3:54pm

Chuck,

Good point about Hardy's 2PS model--it's as vanilla and non-athletic a swing as you will ever see.  I personally think he makes the 2PS look so ungainly, clumsy and non-athletic just to put more emphasis on the 1PS--which is what he really promotes anyway.....

My thought on this whole thread is who cares how Freddie Couples swings the club.  He is a PGA Touring Pro who has the god-given talent to swing the way he does.  It's fruitless to disect his swing to determine what model he fits into.  He is pure living proof that you can indeed mix fundamentals and play superior golf. 

We should all just focus on playing the game and stop worrying about how the pros swing.  They are pros for a reason--they are damn good and they have a swing that they believe in.  If we would all commit to a swing that we believe in just think how much better we could all play.

Dean



Posted By: Lefty
Date Posted: 24 February 2006 at 11:30pm

CQ,

That's interesting because Haney's all about that forearm rotation - I've been watching Tiger on the range and he really rips that right forearm through the ball - and we know he learned at the knee of Hardy. Personally, I think it happens more than needs to be something you focus on.

Here's the thing with Freddie, and perhaps all of this nonsense about hybrids. What I think it all comes down to is how much are you going to employ your hands to manipulate the clubface? In Freddie's case, the answer is a lot. He's got the strongest grip this side of David Duval and he uses his hands as a major element in his swing. That's how he started hitting it all over the shop on Sunday. It's probably the best lesson in why the hands can't be trusted in the golf swing. To be fair to him, though, it was very cold coming down the stretch and I saw him rubbing his back quite often.

What really separates Hardy is bringing the club so far inside and keeping the back elbow back at all costs. This is his greatest contribution (well, to me!). Also, and not everyone will agree with this, but I think "no hands" is a breakthrough of amazing proportions.

Lefty

PS I watched a lot of players on the range at La Costa and I can report that this is what they had in common: NO swaying - staying very much over the ball - and getting to their right sides (for the righties).

 

 

 



Posted By: dave.
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 12:05am
I agree Lefty,which is why I think far to many players worry to much about 'weight transfer'.Far better to just stay planted with a nice wide enoiugh stance to do so,and make sure the right knee is flexed and you don't sway,that way the wieght will automatically move to the left.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 12:24am
Originally posted by Lefty

CQ,

That's interesting because Haney's all about that forearm rotation - I've been watching Tiger on the range and he really rips that right forearm through the ball - and we know he learned at the knee of Hardy. Personally, I think it happens more than needs to be something you focus on.

Here's the thing with Freddie, and perhaps all of this nonsense about hybrids. What I think it all comes down to is how much are you going to employ your hands to manipulate the clubface? In Freddie's case, the answer is a lot. He's got the strongest grip this side of David Duval and he uses his hands as a major element in his swing. That's how he started hitting it all over the shop on Sunday. It's probably the best lesson in why the hands can't be trusted in the golf swing. To be fair to him, though, it was very cold coming down the stretch and I saw him rubbing his back quite often.

This seems like a sketchy analysis to me: counter-clockwise forearm rotation in the downswing, for a good player, is going to equal the amount of clockwise rotation in the backswing. Both Duval and Couples have strong grips and relatively little rotation. Couples's visible rotation occurs well after the ball is long gone. Both allow centrifugal force to square the club at impact. If these guys used aggressive forearm rotation, it'd be "fore left" all day long.



Posted By: Lefty
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 12:31am

Baffster,

What are you, an attorney? Read what I wrote. Tiger's the forearm rotater, Freddie's the one with the active hands. BTW, if Duval hadn't decided to turn his hands "over" - and never changed his grip - he would've spared himself all this heartache. Either "hold on" with the strong grip and hit those power fades, or release the club with a neutral grip.

How's that for sketchy analysis?

 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 12:46am
Originally posted by Lefty

Baffster,

What are you, an attorney? Read what I wrote. Tiger's the forearm rotater, Freddie's the one with the active hands. BTW, if Duval hadn't decided to turn his hands "over" - and never changed his grip - he would've spared himself all this heartache. Either "hold on" with the strong grip and hit those power fades, or release the club with a neutral grip.

How's that for sketchy analysis?

A thousand pardons...however, Tiger rotates his forearms as much as he has to, no more. And Freddie lags as much as anyone into impact; where is the "manipulation"? I agree 100% on Duval...



Posted By: Lefty
Date Posted: 25 February 2006 at 12:53am

A thousand pardons? Well, ok ...

Tiger really rotates his forearms going back, much more than he used to, and hence, yeah, he rotates them as much as he has to ... which is a lot!

Freddie's got a great swing but I'd argue it's tempremental and doesn't really hold up under the cosh, as they say. He won a Masters because his ball somehow hung up in the rough. Other than that, a chronic underachiever. Also, he's a crap putter. I followed him and Tiger a few years ago and he completely out-played Tiger and yet, end of the day, Freddie was one-under and Tiger was five under.

He mostly turns the clubface shut, which is the obvious miss with that grip, but he can swing both ways, as it were. I remember the Booz Allen (what a bad name for golf tournament, by the way) a few years ago he hit a 9 iron into a par 3 into a place the announcers said no one had ever hit it.

My personal view on Duval is that he decided one day to start hitting draws.

 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28 February 2006 at 5:28pm
Originally posted by Chuck Quinton


As for "turn and turn", that is how I teach the swing, not Hardy. His
methodology for the one plane swing is FAR more complex. When you
guys see the stuff that is coming out in his new book and the drills, you'll
see what I mean. He teaches the swing to be far more armsy and handsy
than I do with a heavy reliance on forearm rotation to square the
clubface.


CQ-

Maybe you've persuaded Hardy to change his ways; I saw this post today
by Hardy where he advocates NO forearm rotation to square the clubface:

"The simplest definition of the one-plane swing is, "While turning your
body, you swing your arms around your body; or while swinging your
arms around your body, you turn your body" (To swing your arms around
your body see the "Elbows Up/Arms Across Drill" and the "One-Plane
Release Drill"). The arms in the downswing swing around from the right
side of your body to the left side. I personally feel this happen much
sooner than in fact it does, which is just before impact. At this "just
before impact" point where they start moving to the left, the arms are on
the inner circle and the left elbow is starting to bend and move across the
chest to the seam of the shirt on the left side of the chest while the right
arm is starting to straighten out and fire across the chest to the left
WITHOUT ANY ROTATION OVER. This no rotation over of the right
hand will feel open to some; but the hands and arms do not roll over
during impact to square the clubface. The fact that you are on an arc (and
you just stay square to the arc) will square the face.
There will be a
feeling that the club gets thrown by the right hand, much like throwing a
baseball around and up the plane to the left. At waist high in the follow
through, the right palm should be at about a 45 degree angle (which is
perpendicluar, or square, to the plane line) and at this point the wrist
should be in a thrown (like throwing a baseball) position.
JH'
see more free golf instruction articles
 
 
 
 

Warning: include(/home/rotarygo/www/rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/video/includes/footer.html) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php on line 1695

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/rotarygo/www/rotaryswing.com/golf-instruction/video/includes/footer.html' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/onewing/public_html/golf-swing-forum/fred-couples.php on line 1695

Warning: Unknown: open(/tmp/sess_f4c8eddbff622062999373e1d175145e, O_RDWR) failed: Disk quota exceeded (122) in Unknown on line 0

Warning: Unknown: Failed to write session data (files). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct (/tmp) in Unknown on line 0