Nesbit concludes that a non circular hand path is superior!!!

Has anyone here studied this research? It's rediculous.

THE ONLY conclusion he can claim is that OTHER Contemporary Researchers who's findings are based on a Constant Radius Clubhead Model are inaccurate.

Duh?

NESBIT CLAIMS that everyone swings with a NON-CIRCULAR HAND PATH.

Nesbit based his findings on his testing of 4 golfers of different handicaps. To small of a sample to draw any reliable conclusions.

Testing it in the backyard last year with a Casio
 

When I try to bring the hands down closer to the torso in the DS, no doubt I´m often 1-2 clubs longer. I have visually more lag angle but feel less lag pressure. #2 is preserved further down as is #1. Surprisingly the lead arm doesn´t look more bent though I of course feel less extensor force. Low point was harder to control. Needs more digging, but very interesting.

There's a name for that. The Downstroke Acceleration Sequence.

Blinded by Science
 

Daryl,

What color is the sky in your world?

NESBIT received a Grant from the National Science Foundation. Nesbit used some of the money to do research and publish his findings, that the Golf Clubhead and Hands do not travel in a perfect circle. Do you know how much money he received?

Furthermore, his Model is a 2 Barrel Switter. I'd hate to see the Price Tag for a 3 Barrel Swinger.

National Science Foundation Awards $243,526 Grant for Structural Engineering Research

http://www.lafayette.edu/news.php/view/4493

Gotta wonder what the USGA paid him.

Apples and Oranges really
 

golfbulldog, I'll attempt an answer with one caveat: I'm no Homer Kelley TGM expert. My understanding of "straight line delivery path" is taking ones hands from the top straight towards the ball. My understanding of "circular delivery path" is ones hand following a circular path from the top.

Neither of those scenarios happens... ever... The only golfer that has a circular delivery path is a machine: either pingman or iron byron. Its clear from Nebit et al that the hand path of all (real) golfers is curvilinear and is unique to each person. Furthermore all hand paths have three distinct phases defined by max/min of the hand path radii and a change in the trending direction of the center of curvature. Those parameters define a golfer's unique signature or swing "fingerprint" if you will.

In the optimization phase of the subject study, Nesbit (and McGinnis) did consider a circular delivery path and (given the scratch golfer's individual constraints) it was indeed better than the scratch golfer's original (much more elliptical) hand path (that is assuming a human golfer is even physically capable of putting his/her hands on a circular delivery path) but.... (as mentioned above) Not as good as an optimized curvillinear path.

Homer Kelley would have been lucky to have had a Commadore 64 computer when he's was researching the golf stroke. Its almost unfathomable how much more commuting power Nesbit (and all of today's researchers) have access to (including software tools and speed). Perhaps one needs a technical to understand this tremendous advantage and therefore no fair comparison can be made.

That said ALL research builds apon what came before... ALL technical papers begin with a review of the previous literature. We scientists pay hommage to people like Homer who paved the way for what was to come.

One of my favorite movies is Kubrick's 2001 a Space Odyssey... Its an allegory for man's "Great Work" in the alchemical sense based on Clarke's Childhoods End. One could liken TGM as the result of the first appearance of the black monolith... Thanks to the efforts of people like Prof. Nesbit the black monolith has made its its second appearance and Golfdom is the beneficiary. :) The wheels of progress grind slow ... but oh so smooth!

I encourage those readers that find value in Nesbit's reseach like I do to drop him a linet. He says if we keep reading he'll keep writing. (What a deal!) Anyway I've asked him to test some pros so we can see how their dynamics compare to the amateurs.

I haven't read the paper yet . . . but 100% TOTALLY AGREE . . . IT IS ALL ABOUT THE HAND PATH . . . . I'm going to read this but . . . . think about it . . . . the hand path basically controls the majority of the 3 functions and the pivot works to comply with the hand path and on plane functions. Homer wasn't no idiot . . . .