or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by parallax

 It is only complex if you confuse concepts and terms.  This a nonsensical statement. Your weight CAUSES pressure depending on how your center of mass is distributed over your feet. Your weight doesn't change, even when you are moving. The distribution of pressure, and overall pressure (caused by your weight, and any other forces) can and does change as you move or apply force via your muscles.  You cannot increase your weight/mass by moving, you can, though, increase the...
This isn't as complicated as it is being made.....   Weight causes pressure in the direction of gravity (the force is applied by gravity via the mass). When people feel their weight in their feet they are feeling the pressure applied by their mass via the force of gravity. The pressure that is applied by the feet can be manipulated by moving the center of mass or by applying muscular force.
Did the lie angle change?
 The OP is clearly speaking of specific examples... he cites them in his post.  It is not a revelation that if you hit the ball further and straighter you will hit more greens. But it is also not a revelation (even though it is often contested on this site) that there are a lot of players who sacrifice distance for accuracy and score well.   [[SPOILER]]
 Could you explain how group statistics can be helpful for individuals trying to improve at golf? (if you want you can start another thread, or point me to one that already exists) I understand how individual statistics can be helpful for individuals (to track trends, improvements, and weaknesses for ones own game), but I have a hard time reconciling the idea that generalized statistics (especially averages which are computed from sample sets that have a wide range, like...
 I know that you will disagree, but much of the disagreement seems to come from the "ecological fallacy" that seems to be applied here. It is one thing to use group statistics for making generalities about groups, it is another to apply those same statistics to individuals. It is just as fallacious as using anecdotal evidence to make general comments about groups.  I like the graph above, because it shows the huge range of accuracy/distance that most amateur golfers fall...
 The only thing I can conclude from your post(s) is that you have poor reading comprehension skills. I am not making absolute statements, yet you are countering with examples as if I have.  And since you agree that there are so many golfers with "glaring weaknesses", you actually AGREE with me, deeming your practice ratio regimen moot. Yet you continue to argue to confirm your narrow theory.   I will kindly bow out from this thread now, since it is obvious that we are not...
 If you read my posts you will see that I am not confused about the concept of a "glaring weakness" (both of the assessments you quoted would be incorrect)... It was actually the point of my "made up" percentages using your model.  My evidence is only anecdotal, and is only based upon observing the players I play with (my friends, and random golfers I am paired with weekly). My observations are that "most" golfers in the mid-handicap range (10-18) have a glaring weakness....
You are making stuff up to fit your model. This is called confirmation bias. It seems YOUR mind is made up, so I'll leave you to it..
I guess we will just ave to disagree, I am fairly observant and the vast majority of golfers I play with 8-20 handicap, have glaring weaknesses. I have been one of them in the past.My numbers were made up (just like yours, it's your model), to make the point that the same proficiency discrepancy for less skilled golfers is a larger and more gloating weakness, than for better players.The implication you are making, that I don't know how to practice because I disagree with...
New Posts  All Forums: