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.
It does not ignore that. If you have a glaring weakness (which you later contend everyone does, but which I would suggest is incorrect given the word "glaring"), you practice that. If you're a relatively equally skilled golfer (i.e. no glaring weaknesses), you can divide the practice time given to each segment to the part of the game that'sweakest in that segment.
So if you were a 9 with a relatively average game overall and in each of the three segments, you would spend the bulk of your 10% putting practice on 3-5 footers.
Yes, weakness is relative to the rest of your game. As you improve in one aspect, another aspect becomes relatively weaker (even though it didn't become weaker in and of itself).
I analyze my game -> figure out where I am weak -> improve my weakness -> and repeat ->
It is more a a feedback loop process, where I greatly vary the ratio of my practice routine depending on where I need to improve the most.
I agree, but they're only glaring if they're very much offset from the other aspects of your game.
A 32 handicapper is not guaranteed to have three glaring weaknesses, nor is a scratch golfer guaranteed to have NO glaring weaknesses. They're relative to your other skills, and when dramatically or glaringly out of whack, are a "glaring weakness."
IMO, very few golfers have a "glaring" weakness in their game that would necessitate a dramatic change in the proposed schedule. You don't often find the 3 handicap who takes 37 putts per round, or the 18 who can't hit a driver 220 and within the same zip code of the fairway, but who gets up and down 60% of the time and makes almost everything from six feet and in.
Your definition of "glaring" is seemingly not strong enough. Everyone has a slight weakness, but on a day to day basis, that can change, too. That's not a "glaring" weakness.
I don't really think the distinction between glaring and not, matters much. We all have weaknesses, or aspects where improvement will provide us with the best overall gain in scoring. It makes sense to determine those weaknesses, and improve them until they become strengths, not spend your limited practice time on the parts of your game that are being limited by your weakness.
I did 5 months ago, not it is the strongest part of my game. So most of my practice is determining how to make the right adjustments depending on how it is going that day.
I don't know about that.... but it is relative. As I improve my expectations are rising, and my level of touch is improving. What I used to think was good would probably be scoffed at.
For now, all of the aspects of my game are pretty even (more so than ever), my glaring weakness is the ability to focus on every shot in a 5 hour round, and that can only be done on the course. So that is where the majority of my practice is happening.