Single Plane Swing - Simplified Biomechanics?

[PatsFan]

I believe you can pretty safely put me in the "converted" column.

Hit the range again today and, while I did hit some stinkers, and struggled a bit with fades on the driver, overall it was a definite success. Hit more balls, better, than I ever have before. And I'm starting to get my distance back as I become more accustomed to SPS. (Not that my distance was earth-shattering before .)

I was actually a bit nervous about going to the range today, because, so many times in my golf journey I've thought I'd found something that improved my ball-hitting only to be unable to replicate it. Today I not only replicated my success of two days ago, but realized improvement.

Welcome to the club!


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[pinseeker]

Wishing all who have switched, or are in the process of doing so with SPS continued success. As for me, I need to remind myself of similar efforts in the past being short lived as with excessive practice, things begin to creep in to the point you are not really doing what you set out to do. I believe the process of keeping practice sessions brief is key.

"Expect the best, but be aware of the rest".

 

[GolfLivesMatter]

GLM: A few things. First, as I've said, I need to initiate (or think I'm initiating) my downswing with my body as well. My swing doesn't seem to work any other way. HOWEVER, there are quite a few well-respected teachers who teach "arm swings" (a focus on the arms in the downswing, even if it is initiated by the hips). Malaska, Toski, Flick, Rinker, Hardy, De La Torre, even Nicklaus emphasized keeping his back to the target as he swung. That works for some. Second, you are absolutely correct, McLean talks about the impact position as an end and goes through the various ways to get there; e.g. over-under (steep then flatten), under-over (flat then steepen), single-plane. Third, the very thing you like about S&T is what I don't like about it (or any swing save the SP variants); to make the face align properly at impact you are relying on "auto-pilot", the idea that the face WILL align itself automatically if you keep the arms loose and swing through (I seem to recall a post on "the other Board" talking about Dr. Sasho MacKenzie and passively squaring the clubface, Paul Wilson espouses this as well). You HAVE to rotate the trail arm because you can't keep the face square to the path and swing back very far. I don't trust it, although obviously it works fine for most people, to one degree or another. With SP yes, you need to find the plane, but if you do you are almost locked in to a square clubface at impact. You don't rotate the trail arm (though you do break the wrist). Unfortunately I can't get a remotely consistent low point with it.

Good points. And each of us have a unique perspective in terms of what makes sense for us.

We know there's no difference in impact positions between any of the swings. The idea behind SPS is to maintain impact position during the swing. In other swings impact position is achieved via anatomy and basic physics. Therefore, SPS removes variables. My question is what variables would I be eliminating if one swing serves to pre-set impact position and the other occurs naturally? Could not the SPS variable of staying on one plane be as much of a variable as other variables in S&T or traditional swings? Other than getting into becoming lazy with basic fundamentals, I don't find myself chasing many variables in S&T because I'm simply rotating around a center point.

Next, the back to the target on the down swing. The disconnect of the lower body snapping, untwisting under the upper body results in a momentary lagging-behind of the upper body on the down swing.....lower body vs. upper body separation. Therefore yes, one's back will, in a snapshot moment be more to the target. It's not something that can be done without creating a whip action with the lower body. IMO Paul Wilson's video showing the twisting / untwisting of the head cover, if shot in super slow motion, would show the top of the head cover facing to the left while the bottom is facing the camera, or the top lags behind the bottom. The arms are along for the ride in a whip action.

As for club face position at impact, the position of the face is dependent upon the force dynamics applied during a swing. My general rule of thumb is the club follows my hip rotation. After that, I know if I swing the club freely with my left arm around my body the bottom of the swing will be under my left ear. Thus, there's no mystery about where the bottom of the swing arc occurs. But all too often the right side for right-handers wants to "help" in the swing, and that's when OTT and a bunch of other variables come into play, which moves the bottom of the arc to the right. I don't think SPS can mask a right side dominant swing, and if someone is struggling with thin/top shots there's other more foundational fixes that need to be addressed. Plus, for folks with right dominant swings, as the round progresses the amount of right side help also becomes variable and thus the arc moves all over the place. Then they try to apply on the fly fixes to an ever moving swing arc target. This is why I like S&T, I simply stay over the bottom of my swing arc which eliminates a LOT of variables.

As for club face position at impact in terms of accuracy, unless we're a machine we need to expect deviations, just less deviation. The typical greens on par 4's that I play are roughly 20-30 yards wide, and equal in depth. This means I have a +/-10/15 yard allowance in ALL directions and still land on the green. The advent of the laser has made people crazy because in reality the real goal is to land the ball in a 6,750 square foot area! I watched the tour yesterday and there were plenty of 130-160 yard shots that were at least 10 yards off line. Therefore, we just need to be more consistent than not in terms of direction, and know our misses. Now if someone is missing greens by 20 or more yards from 150, then there's bunch of fundamentals that are lacking. So for me there's got to be an element of trust in my setup, alignment and swing. The second I think about club face at impact, it's over!

 

[GolfLivesMatter]

Wishing all who have switched, or are in the process of doing so with SPS continued success. As for me, I need to remind myself of similar efforts in the past being short lived as with excessive practice, things begin to creep in to the point you are not really doing what you set out to do. I believe the process of keeping practice sessions brief is key.

"Expect the best, but be aware of the rest".

It's funny how easy it is to go from a stellar round to WTH? the next day. One would think if we can do something one day, why not every day, or even mostly close? The variables in golf and the body are excessively difficult to manage!

 

[Duffer Seamus]

Therefore, SPS removes variables. My question is what variables would I be eliminating if one swing serves to pre-set impact position and the other occurs naturally?

Because, with TS, it doesn't occur naturally. Indeed: It's entirely unnatural. One of the videos explains it well. With TS you start out with your arms essentially hanging down in line with your shoelaces. On your down-swing your arms come back on a much different plane so you have to twist your body into all kinds of unnatural positions to get the club head back into alignment with the ball.

It looks really cool when somebody gets it right--almost like ballet, but it's very difficult to do. As one video instructor noted: Few ever get it truly right. And it's very hard on the back--twisting it like that to get the club head to where it needs to be.

With SPS, done properly, everything remains more-or-less on the same lines and planes, at the same angles, throughout the swing.

Now, if you do an arm lift back-swing with SPS, then, yes, there will be a point at which you depart from the initial plane. But the same thing happens with an arm lift back-swing when doing TS, only now you've added even more variables to the TS.

Any way you look at it: SPS has fewer variables and is less punishing to your back.

I will reiterate this: I don't know about anybody else, but I'm finding the bottom of my swing a lot more consistently using SPS than ever I did employing TS. I rarely hit them thin anymore and, when I do chunk them, I tend not to chunk them as badly as I did with TS.

 

[GolfLivesMatter]

Because, with TS, it doesn't occur naturally. Indeed: It's entirely unnatural. One of the videos explains it well. With TS you start out with your arms essentially hanging down in line with your shoelaces. On your down-swing your arms come back on a much different plane so you have to twist your body into all kinds of unnatural positions to get the club head back into alignment with the ball.

It looks really cool when somebody gets it right--almost like ballet, but it's very difficult to do. As one video instructor noted: Few ever get it truly right. And it's very hard on the back--twisting it like that to get the club head to where it needs to be.

With SPS, done properly, everything remains more-or-less on the same lines and planes, at the same angles, throughout the swing.

Now, if you do an arm lift back-swing with SPS, then, yes, there will be a point at which you depart from the initial plane. But the same thing happens with an arm lift back-swing when doing TS, only now you've added even more variables to the TS.

Any way you look at it: SPS has fewer variables and is less punishing to your back.

I will reiterate this: I don't know about anybody else, but I'm finding the bottom of my swing a lot more consistently using SPS than ever I did employing TS. I rarely hit them thin anymore and, when I do chunk them, I tend not to chunk them as badly as I did with TS.

It's so interesting to discuss this because I watched Sutherland yesterday on tour and he's so bent over with his arms hanging down I can't believe he can hit the ball! Just goes to show how it's ultimately "to each their own".

 

[pinseeker]

yah, up until now, although I knew of Kirk Junge, I really didn't pay him much heed. Now that I've had a chance to examine it a little more closely, I have added his You Tube to my subscriptions. Actually, all the best instructors are not far apart at all. Kirk Junge is much different than Graves, much more natural. He ,Martin Chuck, Clay Ballard more or less land in the same place at impact. All pretty much in line with Hogan's five. I do find that I have a lot less strain on my back. Again, I can not reiterate enough, limit your practice sessions to less than 30 strikes, dependent on your "fatigue" level. If I want longer sessions, I mix it up by taking full swings, then go to chip/pitch range, then to putting.

 

[nlk10010]

Good points. And each of us have a unique perspective in terms of what makes sense for us.

We know there's no difference in impact positions between any of the swings. The idea behind SPS is to maintain impact position during the swing. In other swings impact position is achieved via anatomy and basic physics. Therefore, SPS removes variables. My question is what variables would I be eliminating if one swing serves to pre-set impact position and the other occurs naturally? Could not the SPS variable of staying on one plane be as much of a variable as other variables in S&T or traditional swings? Other than getting into becoming lazy with basic fundamentals, I don't find myself chasing many variables in S&T because I'm simply rotating around a center point.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I don't see how anatomy and basic physics achieve proper impact position automatically. I think there is enough evidence out there to show that. But, I could easily be wrong so I'll leave it at that.

Next, the back to the target on the down swing. The disconnect of the lower body snapping, untwisting under the upper body results in a momentary lagging-behind of the upper body on the down swing.....lower body vs. upper body separation. Therefore yes, one's back will, in a snapshot moment be more to the target. It's not something that can be done without creating a whip action with the lower body. IMO Paul Wilson's video showing the twisting / untwisting of the head cover, if shot in super slow motion, would show the top of the head cover facing to the left while the bottom is facing the camera, or the top lags behind the bottom. The arms are along for the ride in a whip action.

I really have no opinion on the "back to the target" move. You could easily be correct, my only point was to try to show that an "arm swing" can be successful.

As for club face position at impact, the position of the face is dependent upon the force dynamics applied during a swing. My general rule of thumb is the club follows my hip rotation. After that, I know if I swing the club freely with my left arm around my body the bottom of the swing will be under my left ear. Thus, there's no mystery about where the bottom of the swing arc occurs. But all too often the right side for right-handers wants to "help" in the swing, and that's when OTT and a bunch of other variables come into play, which moves the bottom of the arc to the right. I don't think SPS can mask a right side dominant swing, and if someone is struggling with thin/top shots there's other more foundational fixes that need to be addressed. Plus, for folks with right dominant swings, as the round progresses the amount of right side help also becomes variable and thus the arc moves all over the place. Then they try to apply on the fly fixes to an ever moving swing arc target. This is why I like S&T, I simply stay over the bottom of my swing arc which eliminates a LOT of variables.

Right-side dominance and other afflictions (like that word? ) can rear their ugly heads in all types of swings. If that is the case the S&T is just as prone to problems as SPS. You can't stay over one spot, you'll have a vertical downswing and lean back, etc. IOW, if those are your issues neither model will save you. However, I think there's actually LESS pressure shift with SPS than there is with S&T, although I agree there's no movement of the head back off the ball with the latter while there is with the former. S&T does, however, want a big lateral shift forward in the downswing.

As for club face position at impact in terms of accuracy, unless we're a machine we need to expect deviations, just less deviation. The typical greens on par 4's that I play are roughly 20-30 yards wide, and equal in depth. This means I have a +/-10/15 yard allowance in ALL directions and still land on the green. The advent of the laser has made people crazy because in reality the real goal is to land the ball in a 6,750 square foot area! I watched the tour yesterday and there were plenty of 130-160 yard shots that were at least 10 yards off line. Therefore, we just need to be more consistent than not in terms of direction, and know our misses. Now if someone is missing greens by 20 or more yards from 150, then there's bunch of fundamentals that are lacking. So for me there's got to be an element of trust in my setup, alignment and swing. The second I think about club face at impact, it's over!

If you believe in the passive squaring and if you can keep your arms loose (i.e. passive) then neither approach in theory has the advantage. Whether or not I believe in passive squaring makes no difference, since one of my problems is keeping my arms "loose". IOW, I find it impossible to keep my arms passive in the downswing.

I envy you in that you've found a model that works, I can't hit with either (or, any).

Look, I am willing to defer to you in a lot of this since I will never be able to hit a golf ball decently. I am limited to 9 holes at a time and prefer shorter courses. One of my instructors once told me not to come back because "it's the same lesson every time". But I DO enjoy getting out and there are worse things in the world than s**king at golf. Like s**king at your job; oh, wait, that won't work. I'm SURE, however, there are worse things.

 

[GolfLivesMatter]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I don't see how anatomy and basic physics achieve proper impact position automatically. I think there is enough evidence out there to show that. But, I could easily be wrong so I'll leave it at that.



I really have no opinion on the "back to the target" move. You could easily be correct, my only point was to try to show that an "arm swing" can be successful.



Right-side dominance and other afflictions (like that word? ) can rear their ugly heads in all types of swings. If that is the case the S&T is just as prone to problems as SPS. You can't stay over one spot, you'll have a vertical downswing and lean back, etc. IOW, if those are your issues neither model will save you. However, I think there's actually LESS pressure shift with SPS than there is with S&T, although I agree there's no movement of the head back off the ball with the latter while there is with the former. S&T does, however, want a big lateral shift forward in the downswing.



If you believe in the passive squaring and if you can keep your arms loose (i.e. passive) then neither approach in theory has the advantage. Whether or not I believe in passive squaring makes no difference, since one of my problems is keeping my arms "loose". IOW, I find it impossible to keep my arms passive in the downswing.

I envy you in that you've found a model that works, I can't hit with either (or, any).

Look, I am willing to defer to you in a lot of this since I will never be able to hit a golf ball decently. I am limited to 9 holes at a time and prefer shorter courses. One of my instructors once told me not to come back because "it's the same lesson every time". But I DO enjoy getting out and there are worse things in the world than s**king at golf. Like s**king at your job; oh, wait, that won't work. I'm SURE, however, there are worse things.

Great points! I like how you create a Q&A....makes it easy to follow. Yeah, I think you and I have differing views for sure, and believe me, I'm not saying SPS is not a great option. It may well be I don't have much variability in my swing to begin with, other than getting lazy with fundamentals.

As for S&T, there isn't much of a weight shift because the weight stays predominately on my left side, it's more of a rotational swing "over" my left side. Maybe I'm doing some hybrid? But I can also say I've worked with many guys with S&T and they find it much easier to execute. My prior pro was a huge proponent of S&T and his swing looked super-simple, and he simply smeared a 7 iron over 180 yards, and he broke the stiff shaft on my Cally driver! The sound of the iron hitting the ground and hiss from the ball was amazing. In all fairness I have not met a pro who teaches SPS so I have nothing concrete to compare the two swings. But from what I see with some pro's there's no doubt it works for them.

As for club face at impact, for me I can't 100% determine why offline shots occur. It could be due to alignment or sometimes the toe or heel might impact the ground early on slight sidehill lies. There's just so many variables on the course that it's hard to tell. Heck, I might even have a slightly stronger or weaker grip without knowing. My idea is the left arm / left hand is nearly in the same position at impact as at address because that's the way we hold the club, so the back of the left hand more or less must point somewhat towards the target at impact, thus the club face follows where the back of the left hand is pointing. If the back of the left hand is pointing right or left some other dynamic is affecting face position, at least in my experiments. I know for certain that when my shots start going right my lower body is not engaging due to fatigue or simply being lazy. It is SO easy for my to get into more upper body swings for some reason.

I have tested swing variations using my impact bag and found a substantial correlation between hip rotation and club face position, assuming the arms and upper body are allowing my lower body to initiate the down swing. If my hips drift left then rotate, the club face is pointing more to "right field", thus I'd likely push the ball right. The opposite is true if my hips hang back and I rotate them. If my right side / upper body takes over the variability increases to an uncontrolled state. If I turn back and then rotate my hips but stop rotating at different points the face likewise points about anywhere due to the variance of when my hips actually start to slowdown / stop.

When the club is at the top of my back swing, I think "pull the club" down with left a left/up hip rotation. I can really feel the club head lag which means I'm not swinging from the top down, if that makes sense. Those are my best shots and they're my most effortless swings.

 

[GolfLivesMatter]

I watched this video by Todd Graves. He talks about how Moe Norman achieved a "vertical drop" using hip movement. Someone help me out here. The arms will vertically drop in any swing once the hips start to rotate because they have to drop. How is this any different than any other swing method?

 

[pinseeker]

it's not. One deviation would be when an intentional laying off in the back swing at transition as described by some as "The Move". For me, this an unnecessary step, but I do understand it as a way of shallowing the club. and would probably help some. Heck, there are more than a few online gurus trying to cash in on their having "the one thing" that will do it for you as if they alone held the "secret".

 

[GolfLivesMatter]

it's not. One deviation would be when an intentional laying off in the back swing at transition as described by some as "The Move". For me, this an unnecessary step, but I do understand it as a way of shallowing the club. and would probably help some. Heck, there are more than a few online gurus trying to cash in on their having "the one thing" that will do it for you as if they alone held the "secret".

I agree. Everything old is new. There's only so many ways to swing a golf club and hit a ball.

 

[pinseeker]

side note: I've been looking at some of Kirk Junge's videos, some several years old, and a few very recent where he was using the super speed training system. Most of the videos were nearly the same with maybe a slight change in nuance,

It was interesting to see that he uses the exact same net as I have in his own Florida home. (Sports Net). He was remarking that his activities have been curtailed owing to the Covid-19 Virus.

In any event, so far, so good. I am going to stick with it for a bit.

 

[DOCLASER]

I converted to the SPS in March of this year. I had been a scratch player for over 20 years before quadruple bypass heart surgery in early 2018. My Ghin went to a 10. After a "bucket list" trip to Pebble in January of this year, I played so bad that I decided to give up golf. Shooting 90 was no fun and I just wasn't going to do it any longer.

As a last resort, I decided to fully commit to the SPS and totally revamp my swing. I had dinked around with it years ago when I won our club championship but never fully committed to the swing. So...what happened...My Ghin is now a 1.0, with 13 rounds under par at our par 72 6650 yd course. I had my 9th hole in one, the first in over 10 years, in May. I also shot my age (68) twice, won 3 senior events and finished second in our state senior stroke play.

Needless to say, I'm forever hooked on the SPS!

 

[GolfLivesMatter]

I converted to the SPS in March of this year. I had been a scratch player for over 20 years before quadruple bypass heart surgery in early 2018. My Ghin went to a 10. After a "bucket list" trip to Pebble in January of this year, I played so bad that I decided to give up golf. Shooting 90 was no fun and I just wasn't going to do it any longer.

As a last resort, I decided to fully commit to the SPS and totally revamp my swing. I had dinked around with it years ago when I won our club championship but never fully committed to the swing. So...what happened...My Ghin is now a 1.0, with 13 rounds under par at our par 72 6650 yd course. I had my 9th hole in one, the first in over 10 years, in May. I also shot my age (68) twice, won 3 senior events and finished second in our state senior stroke play.

Needless to say, I'm forever hooked on the SPS!

Your putting must have also greatly improved too!

 

[Duffer Seamus]

Your putting must have also greatly improved too!

Maybe, but I don't know as that's necessarily true.

The ability to putt well is absolutely necessary, but if you're constantly sending drives off into the rough--or worse, and your irons game is no better, you can have the best putting game in the world and still won't score well. Ask me how I know

 

[DOCLASER]

Putting......I have kept my golf stats for many years. Average putts per round improved slightly. From 33 PPR to 31PPR. The most important stat in my golf game is Greens in Regulation. At a 10 ghin, I was only hitting 7-8 GIR. Now I'm hitting 12 GIR. Big difference! I'm a good enough putter, that these 4/5 GIR increase means 4/5 more birdie chances.

 

[DOCLASER]

Good points. And each of us have a unique perspective in terms of what makes sense for us.

We know there's no difference in impact positions between any of the swings. The idea behind SPS is to maintain impact position during the swing. In other swings impact position is achieved via anatomy and basic physics. Therefore, SPS removes variables. My question is what variables would I be eliminating if one swing serves to pre-set impact position and the other occurs naturally? Could not the SPS variable of staying on one plane be as much of a variable as other variables in S&T or traditional swings? Other than getting into becoming lazy with basic fundamentals, I don't find myself chasing many variables in S&T because I'm simply rotating around a center point.

Next, the back to the target on the down swing. The disconnect of the lower body snapping, untwisting under the upper body results in a momentary lagging-behind of the upper body on the down swing.....lower body vs. upper body separation. Therefore yes, one's back will, in a snapshot moment be more to the target. It's not something that can be done without creating a whip action with the lower body. IMO Paul Wilson's video showing the twisting / untwisting of the head cover, if shot in super slow motion, would show the top of the head cover facing to the left while the bottom is facing the camera, or the top lags behind the bottom. The arms are along for the ride in a whip action.

As for club face position at impact, the position of the face is dependent upon the force dynamics applied during a swing. My general rule of thumb is the club follows my hip rotation. After that, I know if I swing the club freely with my left arm around my body the bottom of the swing will be under my left ear. Thus, there's no mystery about where the bottom of the swing arc occurs. But all too often the right side for right-handers wants to "help" in the swing, and that's when OTT and a bunch of other variables come into play, which moves the bottom of the arc to the right. I don't think SPS can mask a right side dominant swing, and if someone is struggling with thin/top shots there's other more foundational fixes that need to be addressed. Plus, for folks with right dominant swings, as the round progresses the amount of right side help also becomes variable and thus the arc moves all over the place. Then they try to apply on the fly fixes to an ever moving swing arc target. This is why I like S&T, I simply stay over the bottom of my swing arc which eliminates a LOT of variables.

As for club face position at impact in terms of accuracy, unless we're a machine we need to expect deviations, just less deviation. The typical greens on par 4's that I play are roughly 20-30 yards wide, and equal in depth. This means I have a +/-10/15 yard allowance in ALL directions and still land on the green. The advent of the laser has made people crazy because in reality the real goal is to land the ball in a 6,750 square foot area! I watched the tour yesterday and there were plenty of 130-160 yard shots that were at least 10 yards off line. Therefore, we just need to be more consistent than not in terms of direction, and know our misses. Now if someone is missing greens by 20 or more yards from 150, then there's bunch of fundamentals that are lacking. So for me there's got to be an element of trust in my setup, alignment and swing. The second I think about club face at impact, it's over!

Most golfers need to work on hitting more Greens in Regulation. How do you hit more greens in regulation? Aim for the middle of every green!

 

[pinseeker]

Moving on to SPS for chip/pitch. A little weird feeling at first stemming from my propensity for using wrist movement which has always been my preferred method. I observe that with the straight inline set up once I get acclimated to it, I experience dead straight chips with less effort, more consistency, using body movement to execute. One of Kirk's videos demonstrates how to do 20 yard chips with less loft and more roll. This, for me, equates into more directional control and precision. As I gain confidence, I use a variety of clubs from seven iron to sand or lob to use more or less roll as needed.

As for putting, well...that's going to require more time and effort. I am really taxed at green reading owing to a visual problem I have with "Hyper vision". I see double and have to use a funny head rotation to bring images together. I've tried to putt side saddle with mixed results but would rather use traditional setups if feasible.

 

[pinseeker]

Most golfers need to work on hitting more Greens in Regulation. How do you hit more greens in regulation? Aim for the middle of every green!

getting within range helps.

 

[GolfLivesMatter]

Most golfers need to work on hitting more Greens in Regulation. How do you hit more greens in regulation? Aim for the middle of every green!

I think GIR really depends upon the average iron shot distance to the greens. If someone has an average 2 hybrid that's going to be a tough metric!!

 

[DOCLASER]

I think GIR really depends upon the average iron shot distance to the greens. If someone has an average 2 hybrid that's going to be a tough metric!!

Maybe....If golfers would play from appropriate tees, they could reach more greens. The higher the handicap the shorter the course played. GIR isn't a relevant stat for someone just beginning the game, or who doesn't hit it long/well enough to get to the greens.

 

[GolfLivesMatter]

Maybe....If golfers would play from appropriate tees, they could reach more greens. The higher the handicap the shorter the course played. GIR isn't a relevant stat for someone just beginning the game, or who doesn't hit it long/well enough to get to the greens.

This is where I believe the "rub" comes in for some folks. They play 6500 yard tees and drive the ball 200 and then forever battle trying to hit greens from 200 yards.

 

[GolfLivesMatter]

Working on S&T today and when my hips "fire" at the right time, my 8 iron goes from 145 to 160 yards. Tried SPS on several 8 irons and could not duplicate the 160 mark. I am probably doing something wrong, maybe not on the right plane. SPS shots were good, but more in line with 145-ish distance.

 

[pinseeker]

Working on S&T today and when my hips "fire" at the right time, my 8 iron goes from 145 to 160 yards. Tried SPS on several 8 irons and could not duplicate the 160 mark. I am probably doing something wrong, maybe not on the right plane. SPS shots were good, but more in line with 145-ish distance.

good luck with that. Your's may be different, but anytime I switch back and forth between two different swing methods, it messes me up. Some have had trouble with SnT by attempting it on their own without observation from qualified SnT instructor. I am not saying this is in your case, just from what I've read. I "think" I am doing it right, but I really do not know for sure. I am having good results with SPS though. (Crossing my fingers, it will prevail). 145 with an eight iron is not bad. That "was" my seven iron distance, but I have lost a lot through out the bag the last several years. My old eight iron was about 135 yds. Today? WIP.