Big Will,
I really don't think you understand what Nesbit has done or its ramifications. Nesbit did not create a "model based on a bunch of amateur golfers" at all. Its a model of a human golfer ... ANY GOLFER. Inputs to the model (kinematics i.e. 3D measurements of actual human golfers) yield forces and torques (kinetics). From the 3D measurements, the model gives forces and torques... work and power... efficiency!
Mathematics is the only universal language. Only when a phenomena can be described mathematically can it begin to be fully understood and then, say a design (or golf swing) ultimately be optimized.
Boeing designs planes (airframe structure and wing aerodynamics) on the computer using mathematical models long before model testing takes place. Testing validates the model, but its not used to design... to optimize.
Testing (3D measurements) is a very inefficient way to optimize anything. Again, I seriously doubt the optimal golf swing can be found by testing. Testing tells you what someone did thats all...
“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.” - Nickola Tesla (inventor of AC motor and many other things)
Slowing hands has absolutely nothing to do with releasing the club. NOTHING! The club releases because a torque is generated about its center of gravity. That torque depends on the direction the force being applied by the golfer's hands is pointing which in turn depends on HAND PATH. Kinematics is key. If you slow your hands you generate a negative torque which decreases angular momentum (it decreases club head speed... not increases it!) I would bet good money Austin's hands accelerated right of to impact but we'll never know.
Nesbits' work is "golf swing gold" but it appears most of people are incapable of understanding it. Nobody has ever done a better job of modeling the golf swing. Nobody! I didn't think he could spell out the study conclusions (suggest you READ THEM ... TRY TO UNDERSTAND THEM) any clearer, any simpler than he did yet people cling to their delusions ... their myths... like it never happened. No wonder golf progress is slow as molasses in the winter or even non-existent.
Frankly I don't care if any of you get it. I really don't. So to your suggestions (you're not the only one who has made one) as to what I "should" do I say thank you... I suggest: you be you and I'll be me... OK?
There you have it. That's all I will say until such time the Mandrin once again needs to be corrected (lest I'm branded a heretic purged from Manzella rev 3 for golf blasphemy). Until then... I'll be Lurking and laughing (in silence). I think that best to maintain peace in the family.
I understand what Nesbit has done. I didn't mean to offend. I didn't realize you had such strong feelings toward Nesbit. My apologies. But isn't the information gathered in this study based on measurements of 84 male amateur golfers, and 1 female golfer, of various handicaps, which in turn were used to make a model?
Before you go off to lurk and laugh, would you mind explaining two of the findings in this paper? One speaks of maximum alpha torque values occuring well before impact, and generally coming close to zero near impact, with the scratch golfer displaying a negative torque .01 seconds prior to impact. Another passage speaks of the grip velocity levelling off or decreasing prior to impact.
I would guess that these passages could easily lead someone to the wrong conclusion, were they not properly explained. Would you mind?
As a person of science, I hope that you'll just stick to the facts, and leave the insults and other extracurriculars. It distracts from the facts of the discussion, and leads to excessively long threads that don't accomplish a thing, for either side.
Last edited: