or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by parallax

  They are arbitrary because they are on different scales, and the percentages are not zeroed.  And that is why it is flawed analysis. It is like comparing Celsius to Fahrenheit without converting or comparing yards to meters without converting. If you want to make a comparison you have to use the same scale.   They don't have to be different scales. You have shown that you are competent a trig, it is easy to convert the angles into distance, and make a fair comparison.
 You are misunderstanding my critique. The part of my critique you are trying to apply was a reductio ad absurdum, showing how the application of percentages was flawed. To use your example, if you miss by 10 yards at 181 and improve by 5 you would compare that to a 5 yard increase in distance and compare how your strokes gained improved in each scenario.
 In the section I quoted as the example of the fallacy he is clearly talking about an individual ("the guy", even though it is a theoretical individual) and their theoretical gains. I know what he is trying to say, but it is important when speaking about statistics not to fall into this trap of statistical analysis (and it isn't an easy thing to do). For it to be an ecological fallacy you certainly do not have to claim that EVERY 100's shooter will see those gains, only...
Let me put it another way.... You think comparing a 3.5 to 5 yard accuracy improvement to a 20 yard distance increase is smart and comparing a 20 yard accuracy improvement to a 20 yard distance increase is stupid?
The bottom line is that the strokes gained comparison of distance and accuracy makes a flawed comparison. Distance percentage improvement vs. angle percentage improvement are comparing apples to oranges.     You should read my whole post. The accurate comparison should not compare an arbitrary percentage improvement, that is flawed analysis. The most accurate comparison would be a 20 yard gain to a 20 yard accuracy improvement. For a 295 yard driver, it is about 3.89*...
 Here (applying group statistics to an individual example):     You think it is lousy to compare distance to distance, rather than distance to angles?
Good post, except for the application of the ecological fallacy ;-) -And- Comparing percentage gain of distance in yards and percentage gain in accuracy in degrees is poor (IMHO). Someone who who drives the ball 195 yards and has a 7* miss is missing their target by approx. 24 yards. With a 1* improvement to 6*, the target is missed by approx. 20 yards. By this metric it is a (4 yards) 2% improvement (when measured against total distance). Similarly someone who drives it...
 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?
New Posts  All Forums: