HAND Path... the key to effortLESS club head speed.
 

Well the results are in and they are definitive... Controlling one's hand path is the key to attaining more clubhead speed with less effort. I feel vindicated having argued this very point with another ad infinitum on a lesser forum over the past couple of years.

In the posts below we discussed the research efforts of Professor Steve Nesbit (of Lafayette University) and professor Moria's earlier findings. Using today's most sophisticated modelling softwae and methods, Nesbit has developed, using accurate 3D measurements, a validated model of the golf swing... the first of its kind.

By putting measured kinematic (path and velocity) data into his model he can accurately determine the forces, torques consequently total work and power. In his latest effort employing said model, Professor Nesbit and his student researcher (Mr McGinnis) set out to determine the role hand path plays in golf swing efficacy. The results (although not unexpected by some of us) are astonishing and highly significant. Breifely summaraized:

1) Double pendulum math models of the golf swing are garbage ... nobody swings a golf club that way and they overlook the key factor...(hand path). The hand path (ie hub) radius is constantly changing as is the center of curvature.

2) Hand Path plays a key role in determining maximum club-head speed given an individual golfer's constraints: maximum torque, maximum force generated. Tiny women golfs can achieve great results because they use their hands better.

3) All golfers have similar maximum hand speeds (slightly more than 11 m/s in this study) and only one of the subjects tested hands slowed down prior to impact (his by 11% and he's a high handicapper). Kinetic chain snapping is garbage.

4) All golfers likely have big room for improvements...

side note* There is NO centrifugal force in the model because (aside from gravity) the only forces involved are those attributable to the hands. See free body diagram: http://www.jssm.org/vol8/n2/11/F1.htm

I'll focus the rest of this post on item 4. Nesbit and McGinnis discovered (at least this it the first time I've ever read about it described as such) 3 distict phases of the golf swing. All test subjects exhibited them. http://www.jssm.org/vol8/n2/11/F5.htm Transitions between phases are defined by local minima in the hand path radius which also correspond with changes in the direction of the center of curvature (of hand path).

They singled out their scratch golfer subject for optimization. They took is individual constraints (max and min hand path radii, max force(s) (i.e. normal and tangential) max torque (hitter effort in TGM terms) etc. and let the computer go to work optimizing his hand path. After 80 million iterations the computer arrived at a hand path for the scratch golf that would (again given his personal constraints) allow him to achieve 4% more club head speed with considerably less (-16%) effort (less power in the true mechanical senses of the words)
http://www.jssm.org/vol8/n2/11/T7.htm. Phases 2 and 3 of the optimized path resemble a logarithmic spiral. See for yourself: http://www.jssm.org/vol8/n2/11/F7.htm

Here is a link to the paper:
http://www.jssm.org/vol8/n2/11/v8n2-11text.php#7

********* from the paper ************
KEY POINTS
-The golf swing hub path was found to have a complex geometry with significantly changing radii, and a constantly moving center-of-curvature during the downswing.
-The hub path differed considerably among subjects, however a three phase radius-based pattern was revealed that aligned with distinct stages of the downswing.
-The shape and purpose of the hub path geometry appears to result from a complex combination of achieving equilibrium between the golfer and the club, and a purposeful configuring of the path to control the outward movement of the club while minimizing the kinetic loading on the golfer yet transferring the maximum kinetic quantities to the club.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black.



No_Mind_Golfer, you've lost your mind!

:laughing9 :laughing9 :laughing9 :laughing9

A grant from the National Science Foundation made this study possible. Are you kidding me??? Tax Dollars at work. I'm surprised that this isn't part of the Stimulus Package (oh, I mean the save your 'government job' package) DRIBBLE. Stupid study based on other stupid studies. Waste of time junk science. Spend time reading this crap to find out you've read a lot of crap.

Did these idiots ever think of measuring Clubhead speed and Hand Path without using a ball? Then compare results?

This is why I don't listen to scientists. I've never met a Scientist that I didn't think was an idiot. Economists too. Elected Officials too.

Law of the Flail. Endless Belt Effect. Accumulators. Straight Line Delivery Path. Snap Release.

What this study teaches is that after spending time and money, nothing is learned that wasn't already known, and the summary information won't reduce your scores by a single stroke. Geeks.

Amen, Daryl

NMG,

Thanks for the link. Very interesting indeed!

I've read through the whole paper. I didn't digest all of it; it is a hard read. But I got a few things out of it.

From a user perspective, the optimized hub path is very interesting.

Question 1: How to get the hands closer to origo at 9 o'clock? Potential answer: By aggressive weight shift. And more shoulder rotation and delay the extencior action.

Question 2: How to achieve a shorter swing radius / more rotation through impact? (and more thrust?) Potential answer: A stance and impact where the shoulder has rotated further than befare, later release.

We need more of this stuff. The fact that a lot of youngsters appear and seemingly hit the ball a mile with very slim bodies indicates that the current SOTA has headroom with regards to the most efficiant stroke possible.

The hand path, the hands plane - pp#1 - is very important to understand.

The radius is relative to the 'center' - a perspective which is lacking in most measurements of the swing and not a body part from which to visually measure, but that of the forces involved.

[quote=Daryl;66066]Tax Dollars at work. Stimulus Package



Maybe I will put in a grant for 2 months at the swamp!!

We will call it the "profession location venue change project":golf: :golf:

[quote=needham;66086]JOB TRAINING or CAREER STUDIES

Yes I agree wholeheartedly
 

You're welcome but its Prof Nesbit that deserves all the kudos/thanks. I already emailed him a letter of encourgement knowing that his work would likey be "beyond comprehenssion" of the masses (as exhibited by a few of the posts above).



I agree completely ... we need more of this stuff... basic research on things that benefit the masses as apposed to the few. As a US citizen and tax-payer I am happy to see a pittance of my tax monies go towards these sorts of things (which is in contrast to billions for banksters and the military industrial congressional complex).

In this life there are leaders and there are followers. There will be the leaders among us that recognize the potential of what is being said here. Think about ... What Nesbit's research is saying is that a scratch golfer can go from hitting his drives 280 yards to 292 and use LESS energy in process (16% less energy!). It also assumes that linear force is his limiting factor. What if linear force is not this scratch golfer's limiting factor? What if the amount of linear force measured during his initial testing could be even greater? That would imply that it is quite possible that MORE... potentially much more than 4% CHS improvement can be had.

Like the Nasa space program... basic research spawns spin-offs (for those who can recognize and seize the opportunity)

There will be leaders that recognize the possibilities presented by Nesbit's research. Those leaders, like you have already done, will begin to imagine ways to improve the golf swings of both themselves and their students utilizing this newfound knowledge. They will be the "TOP 100 " teachers and their students the pga pro's of the future... count on it! :)

I was down at the range the other day and this young girl and her dad came and set up in the stall next to me. She couldn't have been much more than 12 or 13 but when I heard a woosh out of my left ear as her dad was off getting balls from the machine I began to take notice. Her dad having returned split the bucket between the two of then and she began knocking the heck out of them! I mean here's a young girl probably 100 lbs max (but flexible as a noodle) and she driving 200 yards easily! I though about Nesbit's findings; I wish I had a way to visualize her hand path and confirm my suspicions.

What was really funny was when this girl starts telling her Dad why he's slicing! "Lemme see your grip dad..." "here do it more like this"... " Hey you're right , he says".... "I'm always right Dad.... I've had so many lessons (she says with a smile)" Future LPGAer? I wonder.

NMG, how does your interpretion of Nesbit's work fit in with Homer Kelley's ideas of "straight line delivery path" and "circular delivery path" - Homer was describing curved paths of varying radii along time ago...

I'm not NMG, but I'll give it a try anyway; My try :)

First of all, I think the acronym G.O.L.F is telling of Homer's insights in this regard: Geometrically Oriented Linear Force. So obvious he must have understood that linear force was the driving force (as long as it is geometrically correct oriented).

Then I think there are quite a few of the consepts in TGM that fits in - like the different delivery paths and the endless belt effect.

In spite of all the experiments Homer did, I regard his work as theoretical, mechanical and schematic in a clarifying way, and perhaps less empirical and biomechanical oriented compared to this paper. I never quite believed that the straight line delivery path was possible, and here we see an empirical orientet paper that produces something that partly supports the guts of this path, partly presents something that seems more likely to happen in a real stroke.

I am a strong believer in a triangulation approach when it comes to learn & discover. I think reading Nesbit's paper in a TGM frame of reference is much more telling than just reading it on it's own merits. The two shed light on each other.

Nesbit's optimized scratch golfer path is perhaps the optimal path to the subject scratch golfer, but perhaps not the optimal path for any uncompensated stroke. I think this fits well with the guts of TGM.

I am rather convinced that TGM - as any ground breaking work - isn't a complete body of knowledge - and will perhaps never be. And I think empirical, biomechanically and detailed mechanical studies may bring new insights to the table. Some of it will give us better understanding of what Homer really knew and some of it will provide important nuances to the schematics that he provided - and some of it may even be a corrective to some of the current TGM SOTA.

I read somewhere that Einstein deliberately chose to use the terms mass, time and distance in his theory of relativity because "... it would be easier for people to understand the theory then ...". Such a line of reasoning more than indicates that Einstein had an understanding that went much deeper than he was able to put down on paper. I suspect that HK had a similar deep understanding of the golf stroke and that the words in TGM doesn't tell the whole story. And I think we will need his framework forever to put in perspective whatever modern empiric research will reveal.

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 . . . .

Thanks for linking this stuff. Haven't had a chance to read . . . . BUT am VERY interested. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to comprehend all of the math stuff . . . But if you had to give a for doofus' explanation of the "optimal" hand path what would it be? Is there any "fixed point of reference" with regards to the measurements? Is it the spine or shoulders or ball or some sort of point "in space"? You mentioned that the radius is constantly changing (which makes sense) . . . but radius from the hands to what point? Also do you think the "optimum" path changes for different clubs?

Interesting stuff.

Golden Spiral Golf Swing
 

Hi Bucket I'll give it a try...

A few years ago on a now defunct (Mike Austin) golf forum I wrote a post largely based on my reading of Nesbit's earlier research, I titled the "Golden Spiral Golf Swing". The idea is our hands should trace a spiral, and the origin of that spiral would be a point in space (perhaps on or in the golfer's body) but definitely not a body part (left shoulder etc).

The image below shows a golden spiral (fibonacci ratio 1.618) overlayed on the computer derived optimized scratch golfer swing. See how well the sprial fits (the second two phases of the swing)? In essence the fact that the radius (of the spiral is continuously decreasing helps prevent the early release or casting that costs golfers so much CHS. I suspect if Nesbit measures some of the top pros we will find their hands do trace a spiral (particulary the longer hitters ... people like Bubba and Camillio).

OK . . .. read the article . . . as I expected . . . . didn't get anything out of it really. I'm sure there is meat there but I don't have the toofuses to chew on it.

So let me ask you a few questions about your spiral deal. What does axis X & Y represent? So with the spiral is it like wide to narrow to more narrow? Let's say that you were going to take somebody with a "constant radius" path if there is such a thing to the optimum path. How would you describe the motions during the different phases of the downswing? Could we possibly use terms such as wider/narrower, more in/more out? Something that we could all maybe apply?

I think there's certainly something here to learn. I'm just not smart enough to figure out what and how to apply it. But again . . . . I think the WHOLE DEAL is about hand path. I think if you could take this stuff and make it into something most people could understand . . . . you may have something.

Thanks NMG for your further decriptions! If Nesbit and Homer were to meet I am sure that they would have had a fun chat.

My interpretation of straight line delivery path is a hand path which is generally steeper than a circle delivery path...I agree with you that it's "straight line" component is tiny or none existent but the attempt to achieve a straight line thrust of pp3 (with relatively forward aiming point) gives a steep delivery hand path - I would be surprised if this was not close to the optimal path that you describe.

Rather than test a "pro" (who has usually a pivot controlled hands procedure) ...test a TGM person who uses aiming point and hands controlled pivot methodology...

Trying to tell the average pro that the secret to golf is the path that the hands take back to the ball is fruitless...they don't think like that ...there have been at least 2 decades of taking hands out of golf...all big muscle stuff...

Whilst Daryl is on a bit of a rant at the moment he does have a point...how would you use what Nesbitt has found...see what HK suggested achieves and I'm sure that a HCP aiming point guy will be more optimised than Nesbitt's amateurs.

Clarity, please
 

No Mind,

What you have posted may be clear to you; but not me. It intrigues me, but without more precise narrative, I don't get it. :confused1

Please describe and illustrate your message so that the masses can grasp it. Use stick figures if necessary. Otherwise, your posts are interesting but not useful, at least to me and Bucket.

Looking forward to more from you.

Thanks,

UPP in stunning Ohio

Sorry for being such a pain in the ass. But I can't help it.

Power Package Delivery Paths are Straight-Line, Angled-Line and Circular. None of these claims that the Hands travel in a perfect Circle when facing the Golfer. That’s not the purpose of the Power Package Delivery Paths.

Nesbits research does not measure TGM’s Circular Delivery Path. Non-Pivot Strokes, No Axis Tilt, Chip and Pitch Shots (Soft Strokes).

Nesbits research is limited to the Straight Line Delivery Path. No Plane Shift from Top to Impact. Therefore, no one who shifts back to an Elbow Plane for Release is included in his study.

Therefore, Circle Delivery Path is for Non-Pivot Strokes, Angled Path is for Pivot Controlled Hands (Plane Shifts-focus on Rotation) and Straight Line Delivery Paths (Focus on wheel track) are for Hands Controlled Pivots where the Hands travel on the Selected Plane from Top to Impact.

Furthermore, he admits that his findings do not include measuring the differences in Force (Centrifugal) between Sweep and Snap Release of the Power Package. He never intended to measure CF or Right Arm Thrust.

Furthermore, all modeling was limited to Zero Roll and Turn of the Clubface.

The Purpose of his Study was to examine the Path of the Hands to determine if they moved in a Circle or Not when facing the Golfer.

He blasts the Double Pendulum Model as we all have. The Double Pendulum Model assumes a Perfect Circle Path of the Hands on Full Strokes. Computer modeling using the Double Pendulum is inherently flawed.

The Hands don’t travel in a Circle during Full Strokes. We already knew that. Nesbit believes that his Computer Modeling is Superior to other Computer Models, which assume that the Hands Travel in a Circle. Nesbits is the first Computer Modeling, of a portion of the Golf Swing, that includes Hands moving in a path other than a Circle. If someone would teach Nesbit about the "Endless Belt" effect then he may be able to improve his Computer Model.

Is that a Big deal? Not for Golfers. It is a huge deal for Computer Modelers like Nesbit. It may only take fifty years, when modeling can include all of the Bio-mechanics and Golf Swing Theory, including various Procedures.

Golfers looking for the Long Ball are reading into this research more than whats there. We all know that a 7 iron can be played from 1 to 180 yards. If you want 185, take a 6 iron and swing at 80%.

I don't know . . . . this dude is on to something . . . . As I think Homer was in the earlier editions. I still believe that hand path is the deal. I think some of this can be found in the evolution or maybe "de-evolution" of Mr. Kelley's thoughts on the elbow plane.


10-6-A Elbow Plane FIRST AND SECOND EDITION

The location of the Elbow during Impact is the reference point used for this Plane Angle. This alignment not only allows the Right Forearm to move On Plane through the Impact but also allows the torso to be position at right angles to the Plane - which are the unexcelled alginments for Right Arm Power and Control.
Remember-the Right Forearm cannot become "On Plane" until the Right Elbow becomes "On Plane".

10-6-A Elbow Plane THIRD EDITION

Where the Right Elbow touches the waist is the reference point used for this Plane Angle. It is the "flattest" normal Plane that will still allow the Right Forearm to be On Plane during Impact. This means that normally the Right Forearm will be moving at right angles to the torso - which are the unexcelled alignments for Right Forearm Power and Control.

10-6-A Elbow Plane FOURTH AND FIFTH EDITIONS

Where the Right Elbow touches the waist is the reference point used for this Plane Angle. It is the "flattest" normal Plane that will still allow the Right Forearm to be On Plane during Impact. This means that normally the Right Forearm will be moving at right angles to the torso - which are the unexcelled alignments for Right Arm Power (6-B-1-0) and On Plane "Throw Out" action (2-K).

10-6-A Elbow Plane SIXTH AND SEVENTH EDITIONS

Where the Right Elbow touches the waist is the reference point used for this Plane Angle. It is the “flattest” normal Plane that will still allow the Right Forearm to be On Plane during Impact. This should produce a very flat Angle of Attack (2-B) with reduced Backspin and should be avoided for Short Shots unless it is also part of your Full Stroke Pattern. The Elbow Plane allows maximum #3 Accumulator requiring earlier Release per 6-N-0. This procedure is executed by the Right Forearm per 7-3 and 10-6-B and Elbow Location per 6-B-3-0-1.

I think it's interesting that some of the "unexcelled" alignments for Right Forearm power got yanked. I think he had it. I'm not physics guy but it seems to me that you get the most effective motion when something is moving at right angles to the axis of rotation. Now we've certainly established that the hands don't move in a straight line or in a true circle. But I think there is an optimum hand path (maybe optimum for the type of shot as well). Homer was on to this for sure. Not sure why he let it go. But I think the colored statements in the 1st thru the 5th are very interesting. For some reason these were "deconstructed" in the 6th (who knows what would have made it in the 7th).

So check these out on their own . . . .

also allows the torso to be position at right angles to the Plane - which are the unexcelled alginments for Right Arm Power and Control.

This means that normally the Right Forearm will be moving at right angles to the torso - which are the unexcelled alignments for Right Forearm Power and Control

This means that normally the Right Forearm will be moving at right angles to the torso - which are the unexcelled alignments for Right Arm Power (6-B-1-0) and On Plane "Throw Out" action (2-K).

The Elbow Plane allows maximum #3 Accumulator requiring earlier Release per 6-N-0. This procedure is executed by the Right Forearm per 7-3 and 10-6-B and Elbow Location per 6-B-3-0-1

I think there's a lot to be learned from the above. We can certainly has them out and I think they work well with what No-Mind has submitted here. May not be exactly the same deal . . . but close I think.

If you look at most of the pros . . . I'd submit that the vast majority of the pros end up on the elbow plane thru the ball. They may do some dynamic shifting before and afterward (which effects all the vectors of face and path) . . . but for power and precision these cats are on the Elbow-Plane. Why? I believe that it produces the hand path that produces the best mechanical advantage.

Another thing to D's point about Straight Line Delivery . . . . I think an important thing to remember is . . . that is a CONCEPT . . . not what actually happens. The actual amount of what could be even considered Straight Line Delivery is not very long on the arc. I think the Straight Line Delivery concept can no doubt help TONS of golfers . . . to a point. But if you over cook that you can get off Plane quickly . . . .the hands have to go back up and in On Plane . . . it may suprise some how early the hands start working back IN in order for the club to continue down and out On Plane. You can get tons of right vector if you have your hands traveling "out" off Plane late in the downswing.

D . . . Question for you . . . In another thread on Right Forearms you have sited Sergio for "throwaway" . . . . now we can certainly debate his Power Package alignments at Impact . . . but I will agree with you that the integrity of his wedges are compromised certainly after the ball is gone and maybe before. BUT . . . . . most of the pros believe that he is the best ball strike on tour . . . .

So what is he doing correctly that overrides his Flying Wedge alignments?

I would put my Flying Wedge alignments up against most on this forum and not be embarrassed . . . BUT I can certainly hit some shots that would embarrass me. So . . . the wedge alignments are certainly HUGE . . . but they are not the only deal. The ball doesn't know if you bent your left wrist if the club is still satisfying the On Plane and 3 function alignments. Not saying you should do that BUT . . . . you believe the best ball striker in the world to be a throwaway artist . . . . maybe we should look at his hand path and the alignments in his pivot and the dynamic loading and unloading of his accumulators and see what we can learn. Just because his compromised wedges offend your TGM sensibilities doesn't mean that there's not something there of GREAT IMPORTANCE to get in the old game.

TGM "Straight Line Power Package Delivery Path" are Hands Delivered on a Single Plane (no Plane Shift). This is the Wheel Track HK talks about. Face on, it's not a Straight Line, but Down the Line it is a Straight Line. In years past there has been confusion about this.

In Editions 1-5, HK is referring to Hitting Patterns and his comments remain as true today as they did back then. In the Sixth Edition he added "Throw-Out" for Swingers, but with a Warning about the occurrence of an earlier Release.

A Turned Shoulder Plane Locates the Right Elbow On-Plane and Closer to The Belt Buckle. This Geometry also includes a Right Forearm at 90 degrees to the Torso at Release.

Shoulders are more open at Impact for Flatter Swing Planes than Steeper ones because more Pivot Rotation is needed to locate and Keep the Right Elbow On-Plane for Impact (the Right Elbow needs more Pivot Rotation to locate it closer to the Ball when using the Elbow Plane while Swinging)

Sergio is one of the greatest Golfers to ever play.

Sergio has a tiny little Throwaway. So do most of the Pros at least off the Tee. It's hardly anything. But anytime the Clubhead gains on the Hands before or During impact, by Flattening the Right Wrist, no matter How Slight, it's termed Throwaway. Hinging is the Opposite of Throwaway.

I believe that there's a Lot more to Golf than Swinging a Club Perfectly. It's still and always will be part "Art". Hinging may be easier for a Hitter. I know that its much more difficult for a Swinger to learn.

When it come to Scoring, I don't care how it gets done. When I'm thinking TGM Theory I'm a purist. :laughing9

Answers and questions for you above . . . .

Witcha . . . BUT . . . . what defines a TGM purist? To me the beauty of Mr. Kelley's work is the catalog . . . . putting the components together . . . . Just think about the different stuff just with something as isolated as Knee Actions and all the different implications that result in the other components (even how it effects the hand path stuff in this thread) Does one Knee Action make it easier to have a particular Hand Path? . . . . pretty awesome that a dude could even catalog that WITHOUT video.

First a correction
 

***First a correction***

In my last post I said that during the optimization part of the study Nesbit/McGinnis studied a "circular delivery path" and found it to be better than the scratch golfer's original hand path. That's not true ... what they found was that to get the same clubhead speed using a "circular delivery path" would require 10% MORE power (a lot more torque). (See table 7 http://www.jssm.org/vol8/n2/11/T7.htm ) . Looks like "circular delivery" is out.

**********************

Now as to your question bucket...

It takes three points to define a plane (any plane). So if we were to take the coordinates of the hands at the top of the swing, in the middle of the downswing and at impact we can define a plane... lets call it the hand (hub) plane. That's what we're looking at in that graphic I overlayed the spiral on. Its not a front view, side view etc. ... is a view perpendicular to that hand plane.
X and Y are just cartesian coordinates on a plane. The curves are the path the hands trace on that plane. BTW Nesbit does not tell us how much the hands actually deviate from said plane. That would be nice to know.

I hear the question: How do you teach it?

Our problem statement is: how do we to maximize CHS given fixed kinetic (muscle power) limitations?

To solve any problem we must get to root cause; and a jouney of 1000 miles begins with the first step.. That what Nesbit and McGinnis have done here... They have shown definitively that hand path is THE KEY FACTOR involved in maximizing the kinetic transfer (from body to club) i.e. root cause. Furthermore the computer has told us that the optimal hand path for the blended second and third phases of the downswing should resemble a spiral (at least for this scratch golfer). Now biomechanics must tell us how that hand path goal is best achieved... what muscle groups need developing to improve the kinetic limitations and what areas of flexibility are needed... sequencing etc.

Today the latest rage is radar reports of what is happening at impact. That's all well and good but I can envision a day in the not too distant future when Instruction will begin by setting up camera(s) (or sensors of some type), plugging in computer having a validated biomechanics model of student (not unlike Nesbit's). Swing is captured and within seconds optimized improvement suggested (including animations showing how to move differently in order to achieve).

I can see it now... in the not too distant future Kostis will be expounding on a golfer's screwed up hand path seconds after the mis-hit. Gone are the days when golf was a pastime of the pipe-smoking leisure class dressed in stiff suits and bowtie swinging hickory sticks. We're on the the verge of maximizing human potential now.

PS.

If I was an instructor... And if I had an instruction studio... I would get a big mirror and paint a big spiral on it today. I'd have the student stand infront of said mirror and teach him/herself how make their hands trace that spiral before proceeding to the net/range. Just a suggestion

NM . . . Thanks for posting . . . . I'm still not sure I am following you. Let's take your "mirror" deal for example. Would you position the student to see spiral from "face on" or "down the line?"

Also . . . Imagine that you have a player standing on a mat and you were going to plot the curve of the hand path on the ground for his hands to "cover" as he stood in the middle of the hand path "graph". . . . what would that mat with the "spiral" or whatever you want to call it look like?

If this is gonna be revolutionary . . . you gotta be able to make it so dillweeds like me can get it.

Thanks!

Bucket

I think that TGM is a Method and that it's Itemized in 12-1-0 and 12-2-0. Specialty strokes use a different variations or are zeroed out.

Daryl: TGM "Straight Line Power Package Delivery Path" are Hands Delivered on a Single Plane (no Plane Shift). This is the Wheel Track HK talks about. Face on, it's not a Straight Line, but Down the Line it is a Straight Line. In years past there has been confusion about this.

Bucket: If that is the case then why does Homer illustrate the concept with the face on caddie view? I think this is simply his concept. Don't think your right on this . . . not the procedure just illustrating the concept.

Daryl: Delivery Paths are three Dimensional. In a Straight Line Power Package Delivery Path, the Down and Out occurs on a Single Plane. The Forward is an attempted Straight Line by synchronizing the Shoulder Turn with the Downstroke of the Power Package. The Arc at the Top occurs because the Power Package and Shoulder Turn Occur simultaneously. As the Power Package Accelerates and the Hands move faster than the Shoulders, a Straight Line Path is theoretically possible. The Arc at the Bottom occurs because the Hands can't travel any lower than their Length allows and will appear to Flatten out at Release. The Picture 10-23-C is taken from a angle. It was HK's intent that The Bottom Arc would occur when the Hands reach the Line of Sight to the Ball. All of this amounts to a "Turned Shoulder Plane, Straight Line Delivery Path and Right Elbow Closer to the Belt Buckle".

Don't know about all that boss . . . . regardless . . . . it's all about handpath and laying the club on the plane . . . . see Sergio and other "throwaway artists" for an illustration.

Understand impact fix, the flying wedges and the path of PP#1.

See EdZ Drills.

Thanks for this NM

Assuming a straight left arm and club through the ball, I can imagine how the hands could be pulled closer to their "center" by an abrupt upward movement of the left shoulder as the club approaches the ball. If this is correct would there not be a need for the head to drop too?