My #3 golf swing of all time belongs to the golfer that I believe was the greatest pure ballstriker ever, Moe Norman.
Many misintrepret my statement and then throw up the question of 'if Moe was such a great ballstriker, then why did he never make it on the PGA Tour?'
The main reason being was that Moe had a severe anxiety about being in public at the time. Furthermore, he was a horrendous putter. In fact, he was a golfer who didn't read the green and look at his putts. He just got up there and hit the putt as he liked to say 'miss 'em quick.' In fact, in a Golf Magazine article Moe stated that he and George Knudson would often play rounds of golf for money where no putting was involved. They'd give out say $20 for a fairway, $20 for a green then $100 for a 'poley' and then they would pick the ball up off the green and go to the next hole.
Tough to make it on the PGA Tour in any era when your putting is like that.
Also, people don't realize that back before the Nationwide Tour and the Hooters Tour (and the Hooters Tour is not a way to make money as a touring professional), golfers either had to be beyond phenomenal with shooting low scores or they had to be really good, but get some good financial backing. Otherwise, they would find themselves on the Canadian Tour.
But as far as ballstriking goes, Moe's ballstriking in his prime was ever bit as good as Hogan's and Snead's and Trevino's, but I don't think anybody could ever hit it as dead straight on command as often as Moe could. Moe could also work the ball on command and when he wasn't an overweight golfer in his 60's, he hit the ball quite far, particularly for his age.
So, what can we learn from Moe?
Certainly there are many things, but for starters it's amazing to think how many people view Moe's swing as 'unorthodox', but outside of the setup the swing looks pretty much normal. So just a look at a swing in normal motion really doesn't show what the swing is actually made of.
But another thing we can learn from is something we had discussed on the message board. There's been a bit of discussion on my thoughts of the backswing and working on the backswing in practice. I actually don't have a problem with working on the backswing if it calls for it, but I think most golfers almost exclusively work on the backswing and neglect the downswing when they are on the range.
However, if you're going to work on the backswing, most golfers are more concerned about the swing plane on the backswing and not the clubface. I also find that most golfers, outside of beginners, struggle with a very closed clubface in the backswing. But in Moe's swing at P4, it's dead square.
I still believe that the game is mostly about who can consistently control the clubface the best at impact and Moe had that in spades.
Part of my blog is to discover new things, admit when I was wrong on things in the past and to come up with new ways to explain things that I've been working on.
One term we have been working constantly with is 'swinging left' and why is it important and such. We've also been working on Trackman definitions and how to get the optimal numbers for hitting it dead straight. Along with understanding the differences between 'swinging left' properly and making that dreaded, cutting across 'over the top' move. I think that lately I have come up with ways to better decipher what all of this means and why it is important. And a special thanks goes to NYC Lagster and Brian Manzella for helping me understand this better.
Why is swinging left important?
Because it allows the golfer to stay on plane 'past impact.' Here's a great video of NYC Lagster on a swing plane. Notice at the end he purposedly throws the club and even though he's swinging his hands to the left, his club goes right down at the target.
But take a look at the swing plane training aid. In order to stay on that plane post impact, the golfer HAS to swing to the left quite a bit.
Here's a photo sequence of mine before I started on working on 'swinging left.' (click the pic to enlarge)
If you look at the last photo of me from the DTL view in the upper right hand corner, you can see the clubshaft 'exiting' almost to the right of my left shoulder. If we were to photoshop a swing plane training aid, my clubshaft would be WELL off and above the swing plane training aid.
In fact if you ever get a chance to get on one of these swing plane training aids or the Explanar training aid, take a swing with it and chances are it will feel very odd in the follow thru as to how far left you have to swing to stay on plane. And here's the key thing...the 'swing left' is really a POST IMPACT FEELING & MOVE.
Here's a Manzella video showing what 'swinging left' looks like.
I think that's where most people get confused with 'swinging left', it's a POST impact move. Lag Erickson (www.advanced ballstriking.com) refers to it as 'releasing left' which I think is a better description.
Also, note that in Trackman, when they measure 'horizontal swing plane', that is measuring where the clubhead's direction POST impact. In other words, it's measuring if the golfer moved the clubhead to the left, right or square to the target POST impact.
Now, there is no definitive right or wrong when it comes to how a golfer releases a clubhead, but it certainly has a major effect on impact. But I will get to that in a bit.
Of course, with this information the question some of you are probably asking is:
'WHY do we care about 'swinging left' or measuring the horizontal swing plane or 'staying on plane post impact' when the ball has already been struck?'
The reason being is that the CORRELATION between the horizontal swing (the direction of the club post impact) is direct with the club path PRE impact and INTO impact.
Note: There are some other factors that determine the club path pre-impact and into impact, but I will get those in a bit.
In other words, if that clubhead is going out to the right POST impact, then it will certainly be going out to the right just before impact. If you swing the clubhead to the left the *proper* amount POST impact, you can create a square path right before impact. And of course, if you go too far left post impact, then you will create a clubhead that will be going left PRE impact.
In Trackman terms this is called 'Club Path' or sometimes called 'True Path' or 'Dynamic Path.'
So in the terms of Trackman it would look like this:
Horizontal Swing Plane = Direction of the clubhead post impact.
Club Path = Direction of the clubhead just into impact.
Here's another thing. Club Path (clubhead direction into impact) is what matters when it comes to the ball flight. But we can improve our Club Path or get it where we want by controlling our horizontal swing plane.
THIS is what Manzella is talking about. He wants you to 'swing left' POST impact a proper amount in order to create a Club Path of 0* coming INTO impact.
SliceFixer wants you to have the hands moving 'low and left' in order to create a proper amount of horizontal swing plane so you can create a 0* club path coming INTO impact (SliceFixer isn't that scientific, but that's basically what he's doing...which is good).
Lag Erickson is doing the same.
But like I've said, it's *how* they get their students to do is a whole different story.
So, what is the difference between that ugly, dreaded over the top move and properly 'swinging left.'
On Trackman you would see a HSP (horizontal swing plane) going so far left that the Club path coming INTO the ball would be going dead left as well when the dreaded over the top move is made. Conversely, with properly swinging left, you would see something like a -3* HSP (swinging clubhead 3* LEFT POST impact), but a club path of around 0* (square club path INTO impact).
I believe what seperates the dreaded over the top golfers and the properly swinging left is usually the pivot. The dreaded OTT golfers throw their arms and hands at the ball with little or no pivot and that causes them to get that club going too far left. Proper 'swing left' golfers start pivoting early on in the downswing and use their hands properly and don't get too 'armsy' in their swing.
OTHER FACTORS IN DETERMINING 'PROPER' HSP
IF you are trying to hit it dead straight and at the target, you need to have clubhead going in a proper direction POST impact in order get a 0* clubpath going INTO impact.
But how much and what direction the clubhead moves POST impact in order to 'zero out' the path INTO impact is dependent upon:
1. Attack Angle 2. Vertical Swing Plane
Attack Angle is measured from the FACE ON view. This is the angle that the clubhead goes to the ball, be it downward or upward. On Trackman, the number will likely range from anywhere to -6 (downward) to +5 (upward). Very few golfers hit upward and those who do, almost exclusively do it with the driver. You *can* hit up with irons, but you will not be compressing the ball properly.
The PGA Tour Averages for attack angle are as follows:
Driver = -1* 3-iron = -3* 7-iron = -4* PW = -5*
The steeper downward the attack angle, the more the golfer will have to 'swing left' in order to 'stay on plane post impact' and create a 0* club path INTO impact.
The shallower the plane, or with an upward hit, the golfer needs to swing more to the RIGHT post impact to 'stay on plane post impact' and create a 0* club path into impact.
Why do you swing more left on a steeper attack angle and more right on a shallower attack angle? Because the 'low point' is being moved around.
If you have a shallower attack angle the low point moves further BACK in your stance. That also changes your plane. A good way to see how that is would be to get on one of those swing plane training aids. Now, move our body a bit up further to the left and swing the club on the plane. You will see that in order to 'stay on plane POST impact' you don't need to swing as far left as you used to.
THE GENERAL RULE OF THUMB is that *if* you want a path INTO impact of 0* with an IRON, the HSP has to be about 1/2 of the Attack Angle.
So, if you hit an 8-iron with a -5* attack angle. The GENERAL rule of thumb is that you'll need to have a HSP of about -2.5* in order to create a club path of 0*.
With a DRIVER, the GENERAL rule of thumb is that the HSP needs to about *match* the Attack angle. So if you have a -1* attack angle with the driver, then in order to 'stay on plane post impact' and 'zero out your club path", you will also need an HSP of -1*.
VERTICAL SWING PLANE
VSP (Vertical Swing Plane) is measured from the DTL view. This is pretty much what the golfer swinging down on the 'elbow plane' or the 'turned shoulder plane' is being measured. A golfer swing on the elbow plane on the downswing will have a flatter VSP angle than a golfer swinging down on the turned shoulder plane.
The flatter the VSP, the more to the left the golfer will need to swing post impact.
The more upright the VSP, the more right the golfer will need to swing post impact.
Since you cannot usually move those swing plane aids, just imagine if you flattened out the angle of the swing plane aid. That would mean you would need to swing the club left (to swing it flatter) to stay on plane post impact. Conversely, if you made the swing plane aid more upright, you would need to swing more right (to swing more upright) to stay on plane post impact.
While the 'general rule of thumb' is that you need to have an HSP that is 1/2 of the Attack Angle in order to 'zero out' the club path, that is based on a VSP of 60*. Most VSP's are in the range of 55-65*.
So, if you have an attack angle of -5* with a 6-iron and you have a VSP of 60*, in order to create a Club Path of 0*, then your HSP must be -2.5*.
However, if your attack angle is -5* with a 6-iron and you have a VSP of 55* (flatter than 60*), you need to have an HSP of something less than -2.5* (more left of 2.5* left) in order to create a club path of 0*.
Let's say the same thing, except the VSP is 65*. Then you need to create an HSP of -2.5 (more right of 2.5* left) in order to create a 0* club path.
Here's a couple of sample Trackman numbers, both with 6-irons:
Attack angle = -0.8 Vert swing plane = 62.7
So the VSP is a little more upright of 60* and the Attack Angle is -0.8*. That means the golfer needs to release th club POST impact about -0.4 or more toward 0.0* in order to create a club path of 0*
Horiz swing plane = 2.9
This golfer actually released the clubhead 2.9* to the right of the target.
Club Path = 3.3
This created a clubhead that was going out to the right 3.3* as it came INTO the ball.
Face angle = 2.0
Face angle is 2.0* to the right of the target (Open Face) but the clubpath is more inside-to-out of the face angle, so a slight push draw.
Spin axis = -3.4
Negative Spin Axis means ball's spin axis is to the left or a draw/hook spin. Which is what we expected.
Side yards = 0.1 R
Ball wound up 0.1 yards to the right of the target. Just like expected...slight push draw that goes back to the targe
***************** Attack angle = -4.7 Vert swing plane = 54.2
The VSP is flatter than 60* and the Attack Angle is -4.7*. So in order to 'zero out the path', the golfer needs to swing somewhat more left than -2.35* POST impact.
Horiz swing plane = 2.0
This golfer actually swung the clubhead 2* POST impact. This will move the Club Path out to the right.
Club Path = 5.4
Like we expected. Coming INTO the ball, the clubhead was going in a direction of 5.4* to the right.
Face angle = 2.4
Face angle is open by 2.4* and Club path is more out to the right (5.4*) than the face angle. Should be another push draw, but probably with more draw spin.
Spin axis = -2.0
Draw spin of 2*, but not as much as suspected. May have caught the ball slightly off the heel, reducing the draw spin a tad.
Side yards = 2.5 R
Ball wound up 2.5 yards right of the target. It started out slightly more out to the right and drew back slightly, which was more or less expected.
WHY DO WE WANT TO ZERO OUT THE PATH?
You don't HAVE TO zero out the path. If you can hit the ball consistently with a draw (or a fade), go for it. The problem I think teachers like Manzella and Rob Noel are seeing is that golfers are swinging very far out to the right. Like a golfer may have -4* attack angle and a VSP of 60*, but then wind up having a HSP of +5* (5* out to the right) or a plethora of other numbers that are hardly optimal.
Plus, as I've noticed...it's much easier to retain a FLW at impact when you start to learn how to properly 'swing left' and my cranium does not move so much back and away from the target on the downswing.
I've been asked a few times by different blog readers about my thoughts on the USGA's groove rule.
I think it's one of the most ridiculous, haphazard rulings in the history of all sports.
First, I believe that the rule is in place due to the influence of golfers like Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus who have been outspoken about the grooves. Let me get this straight, I have a tremendous amount of respect for both of these great men, but I do not agree with their sentiments on the rules. I can understand their line of thinking, but the grooves are not the problem.
In fact, as far as scores and handicaps actually being lowered, equipment isn't an issue. Why? Because the average golfer's handicap really hasn't reduced in the last 80 years!
Again, don't get me wrong. I think there needs to be regulations on certain things like the golf ball and the drivers because they are making good courses either obsolete or having to re-design and they lose their beautry often times when they are ridiculously stretched to odd lengths.
Secondly, the PGA Tour and other tours have been set up to become a game of bomber vs. bomber which I find much less interesting than a bomber vs. short but accurate player vs. jack of all trades, master of none, etc.
And I can see where the frustration of many of the older golfers sits in as they see the winner of a tournament hit less than half their fairways and just badly miss on too many drives. But because they are so long they are often left with such a short iron into the green it really doesn't matter if they missed badly or even worse...they miss so badly but are so long that they 'over-shoot' the trouble. Johnny Miller once made a great observation that Tiger plays great on courses where opposing fairways run parallel to each other because he can miss the fairway so bad and find himself on a fairway for a different hole and all he needs to do is hit the ball a little higher over some trees.
These problems can be solved by thickening the rough, creating more OB stakes so a golfer can't come in from another fairway and making sure that driver technology and golf ball technology doesn't get the ball flying any further than it is today.
Not getting rid of square grooves.
And the entire Mickelson v McCarron issue is just as ridiculous. Mickelson thinks he's getting an advantage by hitting a 20 year old, poorly designed wedge and McCarron, who seemingly is the only person on Tour who cannot go on eBay, thinks the same thing as well.
Oh yeah, what Phil is doing is perfectly legal as well.
But to me, this signifies a bit why the handicaps of golfers have not dropped in the past 80 years. The Secret In The Dirt crew of Sevam1 and Steve Elkington hope to figure why the handicaps have not dropped this year.
The SITD's thought is to go back in time and hit equipment that those golfers had to hit and basically see what golfers like Henry Cotton had to go thru in order to figure out how to hit the golf ball well.
I think it's a pretty sharp idea.
My current feelings on why the handicap hasn't improved over the past 80 years follows this type of logic.
A. Golf and Driver = Longer in distance
B. To Counter, Courses Became Longer
This is important to note because if we were to just say that we are not any better than we were 80 years ago, it would be erroneous because you can bet that if we were playing 6,000 yard courses with modern equipment, it would be a cakewalk for us. Instead, the courses are entirely longer and that helps offset the extra length we've gained with the drivers and the ball.
C. Irons Designed to hit the ball longer
Irons have much stronger lofts, lower COG, bigger sweetspots so they are more forgiving, upright lie angles to take away the slice move.
However, I THINK THIS IS A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM. I can't knock the modern driver because research shows that you will put yourself in a much better position to score lower with today's modern driver vs. the vintage persimmon or even the metal drivers.
However, we have gotten into the mode of making irons so easy to hit and so easy to hit them far, golfer's are not properly testing their motor skills as well as they should and they become very sloppy with their precision in their swing.
Can't generate clubhead speed? Throw in an ultra-light club.
Can't keep the ball flight from ballooning? Go with stronger lofts.
Can't stop mis-hitting the irons? Go with a bigger clubface.
Can't stop slicing? More upright lies and more offset will do the trick.
I had a teacher ask me more about this and he thought that the modern irons were 'playing for your misses instead of playing for your good strikes.'
My response is that usually good teachers in their lessons try to 'take away the reward' when a student makes a compensatory move in their swing that is in place because of a flaw they have mechanically.
The modern day, over-sized, offset, lighter, more upright lie irons just reward golfers for their compensations and flaws that they have in their swing. If you're in a competitive round of golf, I probably wouldn't suggest anything easier than a 'players' cavity back set of irons. But if you're practicing, you should really buy some vintage blades cheap off of eBay so you can stop rewarding yourself for flaws and compensations in your swing. I think it's very difficult for teachers to stop letting their students 'reward' themselves when the equipment is trying to accomplish the exact opposite goal.
D. 'Target Golf' aka 'Carry Golf'
'Target Golf' is a name given to Pete Dye's course designs that are prevalent today. I think it's a poor way to describe it because every golf course is 'target golf' in one form or another. But Dye's designs are more what I call 'carry golf.' It wants you to hit the target almost exclusively thru the carry of the golf ball. This is in stark contrast to even 30 years ago when courses were designed to allow for more roll, particularly landing shots short of the green and then seeing them land onto the green. I was estimating this, but the old school type of courses would have about 12 holes on average that allowed golfers to roll the ball onto the green. Today's courses probably average about 8 holes where the ball can roll onto the green.
This has meant things like island greens. It used to be a novel concept back in the 80's, now probably 1/3rd of the courses have either an island green or a green that is almost entirely surrounded by water.
A lot of this is done to make courses more pretty and believe it or not, I really don't have a problem with 'carry golf.' However, I think it makes the game harder for the general golfing public.
E. Greens are far better
David Orr (www.orrgolf.com) did a study on putting and one of the many things he found out was that golfers, ranging from PGA Tour pros to the 30 handicapper, improved their putting on average 20% going from a muni type green to a Tour quality green (Pinehurst).
Simply put, smoother greens are easier to putt on, even if they are much faster. In fact, Mark Sweeney of AimPoint Golf states this clearly. You will make more putts on faster greens, period.
So, what's the synopsis of why handicaps have stayed the same in the past 80 years?
1. Ball traveled further 2. Caused courses to expand to offset that, which kept handicaps the same. 3. Iron designs became worse, causing golfers to be longer, but more inaccurate and inconsistent with their irons. 4. Courses became more 'carry golf' oriented, making them harder for golfers in general. 5. Greens became easier to putt on.
And all of that pretty much evened out.
But, it's my belief that if golfers can get back into hitting much better designed irons, at least when they practice, the scores would improve.
And while putting has improved because greens are much better today...I believe putting should be MUCH better than it already is.
Unfortunately, we have golfers who think that they wil putt better by spending $300 on the latest Scotty Cameron while they still do not know how to read greens or they do not aim that new $300 putter very accurately.
The entire groove rule fiasco symbolizes the handicaps not lowering over the past 80 years because golfers have often gone after simple 'quick fixes' from an equipment standpoint that actually hurt their game and all of these changes the game has scene over the years has been due to the driver and the golf ball.
My #4 swing of all time belongs to Mickey Wright. Wright holds the distinction of having the second most wins in LPGA history and perhaps more impressively Ben Hogan stated that she had the greatest swing he had ever seen.
Wright certainly had a great swing and is much different from what you see out of most females today as she had a snap release and a tremendous amount of lag. Paul Creamer generates a lot of lag, but then tends to slow down her pivot past impact, then hand throws and swings out to the right and makes a major 'crossover' move.
Wright did move her cranium backwards a little more than the other golfers in the top 10 list, but it's the best female golf swing I've seen (although Vicky Hurst is right up there) and still from an alignment perspective quite excellent. Also, her swing was extremely dynamic for a female.
Most people don't even know who Wright is and when it comes to the greatest female golfer ever, they'll probably put Annika Sorenstam on the list. But IMO, Wright's swing was far superior and from the sounds of it, Wright was a much better ballstriker, but Annika was a far superior putter.
What can we learn from Mickey Wright?
I think we can learn how equipment shapes the golf swing. Here, Wright is hitting persimmon woods with steel shafts and blade style irons with steel shafts. No ultra-light graphite shafts, with oversized off-set irons and all of these other specs that pamper to swing flaws and compensations.
Not only do most of the good female golfers I see play use these swing flaw and compensation pampering clubs, but it's alarming to see how many men, who are probably just as flexible and much stronger physically, use the same type of clubs. I am very interested in the findings from Sevam1 and Steve Elkington on how the golfers of nearly 100 years ago learned how to play and I honestly believe that the lack of improvement in handicaps is lin large part due to the equipment changes not really improving the average golfer's swing.
So, the next time you start to salivate over some graphite, 'easy-to-hit' Callaways, remember that some woman named Mickey Wright would probably throw them in the nearest garbage can And you're better off at the very least getting some $50 vintage blades off of eBay and practicing with them and figuring out how to hit them.
If I told you that I could improve your game and it would cost $50, I'd imagine you would take me up on that offer.
An old video of Gary Player analyzing Hogan and Tiger's swing.
Some of this I'm working on, mostly the right forearm 'on plane' at impact and having 'plenty of right arm' thru impact and into P8.
I'm not sure if Player's analysis of the cupped left wrist allowing Hogan to keep the right elbow on plane and 'saving the right arm', but I'll be investigating that.
My #5 golf swing of all time belongs to Nick Price:
Price was along with Greg Norman, was the greatest driver of the ball in his era. Norman was much longer off the tee, but Price was much more accurate and just as aggressive. Price finished in the top 10 in total driving from 1991-1998 and was long enough to finish 6th in driving distance in '93 and 11th in '95. He was also known for using his driver more than anybody on Tour when other Tour players would feel the need to hit a shorter club off the tee on tight par-4's and par-5's, Price would confidently smash a driver down the middle, putting him at a great advantage over the rest of the field.
He was also fantastic with every club in his bag, from the driver to the wedge.
Swing wise he was known for an ultra fast tempo. His tempo is reminiscent of a younger Ben Hogan. His alignments are also solid throughout the swing. He probably dips his head a bit more than your average golfer could do effectively but it's tough to knock Price's swing too much.
So, what do I think we can learn from Price's swing?
I think one of the major things that amazes me about Price's swing is that despite Price's incredibly fast tempo, he has amazing balance. In fact, I've never seen him fall anywhere near off balance in a golf swing and I've followed him for over 15 years.
Here's a few pics that I like.
Here, Price keeps himself on plane post impact by 'swinging left.' As he swings left, his shoulders *start* to become more level with each other.
Here the shoulders continue to almost being level. I think this leveling of the shoulders, which is in part due to Price 'swinging left' and staying on place post impact. I think this is a good way to think about 'swinging left' and how to more easily balance yourself.
It's been awhile since I had seen this swing sequence, but here's a sequence of Hogan in the 1930's, before he discovered the 'secret' to stop his hook.
What do we know about snap hooks:
1. The clubface is very closed at impact if it is a 'true' snap hook' that starts low and left and then hooks over.
2. The path has to be inside-to-out in relation to the face. Which is very easy to accomplish if the face is very closed at impact. Why? Because if the face is 5* closed at impact and the path is square to the target at impact, then you actually have a path that is very inside-to-out in relation to where the clubface is pointing.
3. Hitting down on the ball rotates the plane line to the right right, which makes a hook spin much more likely.
So, what changes do I see that Hogan made from his 1930's swing.
For starters, I will get out of the way two big changes that were reported that he made that got rid of his hook.
1. He weakened his grip.
2. He cupped his left wrist at the top of the swing by basically feeling like he was rolling open the club on the backswing as far as he could with his left arm.
You can't really see those two changes from this sequence. The grip looks pretty good here, making me think that the grip may have been weakened pre-Secret. Remember, Hogan had a 'reminder' on his grip...which was about the size of a piece of wire hanger at about the 5 o'clock part that basically forced the golfer to grip the club weak. I believe pre-Secret his clubs were created to make it almost impossible to hook. But he kept hooking them until he discovered his 'Secret' and then stuck with how his clubs were designed (flat lie angles, super duper stiff shafts, etc) because he'd gotten so used to them. And that's why I also believe he had that reminder on his grip pre-Secret.
Usually when people get into Hogan's 'secret' they actually talk about how he shortened his swing. Hogan did indeed have a very long golf swing.
Not very far off from John Daly's old backswing.
In fact, I've read that there are scientists who estimate that Hogan's driver clubhead speed was around 122 mph pre-accident. I also heard that Hogan did compete in some long driving contests in the 1930's as well. His swing has always looked powerful and here it looks like if he hit one well, it was probably amazing to watch, particularly for a man of his size.
However, here's a video of Hogan's swing, taken after he discovered the secret, but before the accident.
Not exactly a shorter swing in my book. But there's still a large contingent that think Hogan didn't get good until he shortened his swing, which is blatantly false. Even worse, they tend to use that information and think "short swings = more accurate and consistent ballstriking" which I do not believe to be true.
The big differences I see are actually at impact and post impact.
One of the things that instructor Geoff Jones (aka SliceFixer) stresses is that Hogan had the hands moving 'low and left' past impact. This is basically the CP Release in MORAD terms and Hogan did it with an angled hinge. Geoff also talks about how he doesn't like to see the hands 'crossover' past impact because that essentially means that the hands are not moving 'low and left.'
Also, take a look at Hogan from the target view.
I think it's very very difficult to make a 'crossover' move without swinging out to the right. I also think part of that crossover move is dependent on how well you pivot post-impact. Look at the target views, Hogan has much more pivot post impact once he has discovered 'the secret' than in his 1930's golf swing. I think some of that had to with Hogan cupping the left wrist, but I also think a lot of that had to do with years and years of practicing and playing with equipment that had unbelievably stiff club shafts, flat lie angles, weighed heavy and the reminder in the grip.
Also, look at Hogan's right arm. It straightens out much more quicky in the 1930's swing whereas in the post-Secret swing it is 'saved' a lot more. That IMO, is a big function of post impact pivot.
It's also pretty easy to see that Hogan hit well down on the ball in the 1930's video.
So, he basically had a swing that was just plain suceptible to hooking the ball. Steep Attack Angle (the post-Secret swing actually seemed to have a much shallower attack angle) and he swung out to the right more and really closed the face post impact. If he wasn't totally 'on' with his face angle, chances are it got closed quite a bit at impact and with his steeper attack angle and swinging more out to the right, there's a recipe for a snap hook.
Then to look at his post-secret swing. He appears to have a more shallow Attack Angle (but probably still hit down on the ball to a degree), swung to the left, and kept the clubface square past impact which made it tough to hook the ball.
Lastly, let's just take a look at a swing sequence of Tiger Woods.
If you look at it post impact, there's a big crossover there.
Let's look DTL:
It looks to me that Tiger is swinging out to the right a bit with what appears to be his 3-wood.
That's not bad provided the golfer is hitting up.
However, we know from Trackman data that Tiger has an attack angle of -3* with the *driver*. With the 3-wood it's probably as steep if not steeper.
And what is Tiger's problem shot? The dead right block.
And if you are hitting relatively straight, but dead right blocks, the path *must* be out to the right a bit otherwise you would see a big push with a huge slice attached to it. Basically, the dead right blocks are:
Open Clubface + inside-to-out path (in relation to the target).
But that's just an example why I believe the 'crossover' of the hands basically means the golfer is swing out to the right. Not that it's bad, but indicative of what the golfer does and the world's best golfer, who has a crossover move, has trouble with a shot that requires the golfer to be swinging out to the right a bit.
