Golf Stance Chart: Open/Closed Stance vs Square Stance

A golf stance chart is one of the clearest ways to see why setup advice can seem contradictory. Different instructors organize the same variables — foot position, ball position, and stance width — in different ways, and both approaches can produce repeatable, effective ball-striking. This article breaks down two of the most common systems: the open/closed stance method, in which stance orientation changes progressively through the bag, and the square stance method, in which the foot line stays parallel to the target line while ball position does more of the work. Understanding how each system is structured makes it easier to apply one consistently, rather than mixing elements from both without a clear framework.

What Is the Open/Closed Stance Method?

In the open/closed stance method, the golfer's stance orientation changes progressively through the bag. A golf stance chart organized around this method shows shorter clubs played from a more open stance, with longer clubs becoming progressively less open and moving toward a slightly closed position. Stance width also changes with club length, generally becoming wider as the clubs get longer. Rather than relying mainly on moving the ball forward and back between the feet, this method uses a more consistent lead-side ball-position reference and adjusts the geometry of the stance around it.

There is also a geometric reason for changing stance orientation through the bag. Shorter irons are struck with a steeper downward angle of attack, while longer clubs become progressively shallower, eventually reaching the driver where the club may be moving upward at impact. Because the swing travels on a tilted plane, these changes also affect club path and club face at impact. Adjusting stance orientation can help offset those tendencies, while a more consistent lead-side ball position reduces one setup variable. In modern instruction, this relationship between swing plane, attack angle, and club path is commonly explained through the D-plane.

How Ben Hogan Used the Open/Closed Stance Method

The open/closed stance method predates Ben Hogan, but Hogan became one of its most influential modern advocates by documenting a progressive stance system in “Ben Hogan’s Five Lessons: The Modern Fundamentals of Golf”.

In Five Lessons, Hogan presented stance as one part of a complete system for building the golf swing. The book progresses through grip, stance and posture, the backswing, and the downswing, with each lesson building on the one before it. By placing stance and posture near the beginning, Hogan treated setup as a foundation for the movements that follow rather than simply a matter of personal preference. His open/closed stance progression was therefore not an isolated technique, but part of a broader approach designed to make the entire swing more repeatable.

What Is the Square Stance Method?

The square stance method organizes the same setup variables differently, and the golf stance chart in the next section makes that distinction easy to see. Rather than changing the orientation of the foot line through the bag, the golfer keeps the foot line more nearly parallel to the target line while stance width still changes with club length. Ball position then does more of the work, moving more noticeably from club to club — shorter irons played closer to the center of the stance, longer clubs moving progressively forward, with the driver commonly positioned near the inside of the lead heel. This doesn't make the square stance method wrong; it's simply a different way of managing stance, ball position, and swing geometry to achieve the same goal of a repeatable, effective setup.

Golf Stance Chart: Side-by-Side Comparison

Both systems adjust the golfer’s setup through the bag. The main difference is which variable does more of the work: the open/closed method changes stance geometry more, while the square stance method relies more heavily on changes in ball position.

Why Stance Width Changes in Both Methods

Stance width changes in both methods because the golfer’s need for stability and freedom of motion changes with club length. Shorter clubs are generally played from a narrower stance, which supports a more compact motion and steeper strike. As clubs get longer and the swing becomes wider and faster, the stance typically widens to provide a more stable base and accommodate the larger turning motion. The main difference between the two methods is therefore not whether stance width changes, but how stance orientation and ball position are organized around that changing width.

Is One Method Better?

When it comes to the physics of the golf swing, not necessarily. The subject is widely debated, but both the open/closed and square stance methods can produce effective, repeatable swings. Homer Kelley’s The Golfing Machine is useful in this discussion because it treats different swing and setup patterns as valid when their individual parts work together. For most golfers, the better approach from driver to wedge is the system they understand, feel comfortable using, and can repeat consistently.

Modern instruction also includes variations and hybrids of these systems. Greg Norman has advocated using one ball position “One Spot for Every Shot“. Jack Nicklaus and Sean Foley have also documented approaches that use a relatively consistent ball-position. These examples reinforce that successful golfers do not all organize their setup variables in exactly the same way.

The Most Important Goal: Repeatability

Whatever setup method a golfer chooses, the most important goal is to make it intentional and repeatable. Consistent references for stance width, foot position, ball position, and alignment make it easier to return to the same setup from shot to shot. That consistency also makes practice more useful because the golfer can better judge whether a poor result came from the swing itself or from a setup change. The fewer setup variables that are left to guesswork, the easier it becomes to identify what actually needs to improve.

That need for repeatability is more than theoretical. A biomechanical study of 11 professional golfers found that even relatively small changes in ball position significantly affected setup and impact variables, including shoulder alignment, clubface aim, club path, and angle of attack. [Source: Journal of Sports Science & Medicine]

Turning a Golf Stance Chart Into a Physical Setup

A golf stance chart is useful for understanding the pattern, but the challenge is reproducing that pattern consistently at address. Stance Caddy was designed to turn those visual relationships into physical setup references for stance width, foot position, golf ball position, and alignment.

If you want to try implementing the open/closed stance method, Stance Caddy may be worth a look. If you prefer a square stance, you can still create repeatable setup references by marking an alignment stick for your stance width, foot position, and ball position using the square stance chart above as a guide. 

Final Takeaway

The open/closed and square stance methods are two different and valid ways to organize your golf setup. Ben Hogan remains one of the best-known examples of the static ball position and open/closed approach, while the square stance method relies more heavily on changes in ball position as the clubs get longer. The important thing is to choose a setup model you understand well enough to repeat.