or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by parallax

 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...
 No you were not clear on this. I think you are misunderstanding. I didn't say anything about constantly monitoring your game. It is a process. You analyze your game and determine where you can gain the most strokes. You practice that part of your game the most until you improve. Repeat.  There is nothing "tiny" or "small degree" to it... until you become a pretty good player.   I think that this is where we disagree. Along with the difference between a "tiny weakness",...
 This is interesting. When I first started this was true. Then my expectations changed, and the opposite became true, and now that I am improving (and still raising my expectations) it is becoming true again.  I don't know if everyone goes through this process, or if I am a special case, but it is the basic point of my comments. 
 If it works (and this process works in learning all sorts of skills) how could it be a waste of time and effort?  If the parts of your game are not roughly equal, then why develop them all at the same time and pace?   Most golfers I play with are not that "roughtly equal", most have a glaring weakness. The guys who are better than me (low single digits), are in the situation you describe.   I gave that up over a year ago. My practice is quite deliberate, but I do think my...
Also, sorry... It wasn't my intention to come on here and try to "debunk" this method. I posted a response in another thread, and then it ended up here.    There are lots of different ways to learn, practice, and teach. 
 I don't see how.... ?   I disagree. I gain confidence in my chipping and putting my repetition. With my long game, I can make myself worse over practicing. I don't need touch in my long game. I just have to be able to make adjustments based upon how I am hitting the ball that day, and those happen fast.   I have been in your position before, but I made improvements to my long game, and then my short game and putting became weaker. 
Sorry for the typo. Defining the same practice regimen for all golfers seems to be the definition of pigeon holed. I am not understanding the benefit of doing so.... I have improved more by focusing most of my practice effort on one aspect at a time while maintaining the others, and then switching to the new weakness when the former weakness is improved.   Yes, weakness is relative to the rest of your game. As you improve in one aspect, another aspect becomes relatively...
New Posts  All Forums: