Leaderboard

You didn't even know about PCC. You seemed to be unaware of soft and hard caps. Saying that you know and demonstrating that you know are two different things. We know. It could take way, way too long to rise. It's what you're used to, and change is hard. That's the language we used to have here, too. Now it's "demonstrated ability." The new system more accurately reflects the golfer's demonstrated ability. Plus the soft and hard caps that limit upward movement. That's not true. The opposite is closer to true. It's more reactive than the old UK system (a good thing IMO), and it's much quicker to go down than it is to go up, especially if a golfer shoots an exceptional score. This is just math and is factual. This has been demonstrated several times for you. You refuse to acknowledge that you've got it wrong, mathematically, or you're being quite loose with the definitions of some words. Again, pal, post the handicap history or pipe down, because that doesn't make any real sense. The first good score you shoot drops your handicap. The next good score you shoot drops it again. The first twelve bad scores you shoot have the potential to not affect your index at all, if they bump off other non-counting scores. It's just math, man. And you're still a sample size of one, with some strange definitions and you play a lot of golf. I'm also not even really sure I believe you anymore. So, again… Please post your handicap record (like below) for the past year so we can all see exactly what you're talking about or just stop posting in this thread. It's going nowhere. Would look like a bigger version of this (not mine):

Didn't say anything about your understanding in my post. Well, if you are not insisting on alignment with logic of the WHS, then no. Try me/us. What do you want from us then?? You are not making sense. You come here and post in an open forum, question a system that is constructed with logic, without using any of your own and then give us a small window of your personal experience to support your narrative which at first sight does not makes sense. I mean, if you are a point of swearing then I would suggest you cut your losses and humor a more gullible audience elsewhere. Good heavens.

So you play 3-4 rounds/week, post ALL of your rounds, yet these 'three best rounds' from summer JUST fell off?? Give us your score history or should we say, err..the plot thickens?

What drives me nuts most about Elite Golf Schools/Milo Lines type instruction is: Claims about the "health benefits" of swinging like they prefer. Claims about how "athletes" should move Claims about the advantages of swinging the way they swing (while constantly listing golfers like Rory, Tiger, Scottie, Jack, etc. as "swingers") Basing much of their "analysis" on 2D video and what they think is happening versus 3D and force plate data. Ignoring facts and data in other ways. I didn't time stamp my notes, but you can pretty much follow along… Jimmy Walker (why Jimmy Walker? Because he has a "not great" swing that exaggerates some of what he sees as flaws?) vs. Viktor Hovland (even though he notes Scottie as a swinger), also notes that Rory has a higher ROC than Viktor at 18:40 (another swinger). Also… Jimmy won a major ("Hovvie" doesn't) in 2016, got Lyme disease in 2017, and this video is from 2018 when he was saying he couldn't practice, couldn't play, etc. Also, there's never been a correlation between Rate of Closure and either distance or accuracy. It sounds like there would be, but there isn't. You have accurate and inaccurate, long and short, and every combo of those players who have high ROC and low ROC and everything in between. No correlation. But it sounds good… Main reason for Riley's "preference" is injury prevention. D'oh! Never shown any actual evidence or support for this, and the rash of players moving away from the "extreme-right-side-bend/rotational" for their health is just ignored, I guess. He will talk about Jimmy Walker's shoulder tilt and "right side bend" at P8, but ignore that Viktor's right shoulder is about 18" below his left at P9. Then he goes into the high ROC stuff I wrote about above. Seriously, again, Jimmy Walker less than a year after a Lyme Disease diagnosis? From 2018? Riley now likes to say that golfers "express the golf club to the golf ball." 😛 Oy. Says Walker's swing is "lots of lateral bend" (right side bend) while the body moves up and pelvis goes forward. See Image 1 where he's comparing himself to Hovland and let's see if you can spot the differences! Riley is not doing ANY of this using 3D, just what he thinks and what it looks like on a video. If only we had measured data on these kinds of things. Word Salad just jumped to level 7. He's now using the words "antecubital fossa" instead of just saying "elbow pit" or "inside of your elbow." Also, you could just call it the cubital fossa if you want to use a medical term, but adding "ante" adds two syllables and makes him look smarter (he thinks?). Jimmy Walker is at P8.2 while Hovland is at P7.2 and he's comparing left arm internal rotation. Riley clearly doesn't know the YouTube shortcuts , and . Opening the chest is a clubface opener. It makes it tougher to square the face. Riley keeps saying Hovland squares the face with heavy rotation of the chest. Oh geez. Now he's saying they're "more or less stacked up" by guessing at where the centers of his rib cage and pelvis are at P5 by looking at an off-angle video on YouTube. We can and have measurements for these kinds of things. See Image 2. You want to know who's actually stacked up late in the downswing? See Rory McIlroy, a swinger, in Image 3. Almost all of the stuff around 18:40 and Rory vs. Viktor is laughable. a) Rory is as "stacked" for as long as almost anyone, b) Rory's high ROC and "swinger" pattern have led to a 15-year span in which he's consistently top 5 in the world, and often #1, and won the Career Slam. Riley doesn't seem to understand how pressure is generated at 21:02. Some of the biggest swayers generate the least pressure in the left foot, and some of the biggest rotators generate the most. He's guessing at Jimmy's and Viktor's pressure/force numbers. Lost steam after that stuff. He doesn't say much in the last six or seven minutes anyway. A summary, which is almost a comment I made on the YouTube video. If only we have actual measurements (3D, force plates). It'd contradict or show to be misleading if not outright false a LOT of what you have to say. Video was great… two decades ago, and it's an effective tool for practicing, etc. largely due to its availability, but you're guessing at things. We have better tools now than video. You guess at things golf instructors (and biomechanists, and others) have actually measured. What's worse, you wrap it in an "injury prevention" package with zero evidence of that (and the evidence at the highest level generally supports NOT moving like Will Z or Joaquin Niemann, who is moving AWAY from being the type of "mover" that you like). There are too many factual errors or asterisks to detail in a single YouTube comment, so I won't bother to list them all out. Also… Rory's had a 15-year career of being a top-five player in the world. Scottie and Tiger, both "swingers," have put up some of the best seasons we've seen in the last 30 years. The two greatest players of all time in Tiger and Jack are both swingers… While Hovland is constantly searching for his swing and tinkering. Jason Day, Will Zalatoris, Joaquin Niemann… etc. are moving away from this extreme-right-side-bend, rotation-heavy "hitter" pattern for health reasons (and quality of play reasons). Image 1: Image 2: Image 3:

This seems like something that might help those opens to have stronger fields more so than changing much about the eventual Masters field. Maybe not so much for the Scottish Open since lots of top players play that as a warm up for the Open, but for Japan, Hong Kong, South Africa I could see this being a big boon.

What a way to kick off a good discussion! So detailed! We have a lot to discuss here given the breadth and depth of the info you shared. 🙂 Masters, Open Championship change qualifying criteria - ESPN The Masters and Open Championship changed their qualifying criteria by eliminating invitations to PGA Tour winners in the fall and recognizing winners of six national opens on every main tour in the world. Even though it was sold as a "big" change, I don't see it as such. They added six national opens as getting qualifying spots (Scottish Open, Spanish Open, Japan Open, Hong Kong Open, Australian Open and South African Open) The eliminated qualifying spots from the (seven) Fall Series events. I'm trying to tease you there, above, too… cuz you really could have posted more than just what amounts to a complaint about a lack of discussion… while doing nothing to create a discussion. This news dates back to August, too.

I have access to far more data (including surveys and polls) than you do with your anecdotes. I mean this as plainly and literally as possible: you’ve demonstrated that you do not. They would, one way or the other.

Really enjoyed today’s putting podcast. As someone who uses the face to aim it was fun to hear about this.

Just let me know where you work. I'll send your boss some links of Lexxii and Greg Norman getting a golden bukkake from your spoofed email for you

Big thumbs up @bkuehn1952. I think this is a key for the enjoyment of the game. Average leave after a tee shot on the PGA tour is 171 yards. Which would probably be an 8 or 7 iron. That includes par 5's. So, on Par 4's they are probably having 8 iron or less on average. If every shot into a par 4 is a hybrid or long iron, move up. If PGA Tour get to have mid and short irons as approach shots, we as amateurs don't need to make the game tougher for ourselves. 🤣 I have found that I like playing golf in the 6600 to 7200 range. There are some good golf courses sub 6600 as well. I think course rating is also a good indicator of how long a course will play. I might try to play some courses from the front tees to see how low I can shoot next year. I've enjoyed a few of those break whatever number from the front tees YT videos. It sounds like fun. I still try to play one club golf a few times a year. Golf is hard, but we should make golf fun 😉

I think it is great to see others move forward. My group has been playing tees around 5800 since my surgery, and it likes that distance. My takeaway from this: Be thankful you're healthy enough to swing a club. I think it's great that there is an option to play golf from shorter distances

I've always been a big fan of "play the tees you want to play." Golf is supposed to be about fun for most people. @Hardspoon regularly plays up a set of tees or two on most trips and courses; good! That's what should happen. John won't take that as a shot at him, and I've not intended it as one.

Why? Because you said so? I’m on the board of directors for my AGA. I’ve been a course rating captain for almost 15 years and I’ve been to multiple national course rating seminars. I ran a GHIN eClub and am a rules official that has worked at national championships. You are saying things that are factually and mathematically incorrect. Like that, demonstrating a continued lack of understanding and knowledge.

038: Dr. Raymond Prior (Golf Beneath the Surface) and the Psychology of Practice | The Spin Axis Podcast - Golf Coaches Discuss Instruction Modern Techniques and Technology I think we did the latter part, but in the show we did talk briefly about block vs. random practice. I asked him on the show about how someone might appear to be doing block practice (rehearsing the same move with a 7I or something, hitting the same type of shot on repeat), and he said that would likely be what he and others in his field would call Variable Practice. Now, this is big, because I think block practice gets a bad rap. In the post-show conversation (not recorded), I asked more questions about this. Basically, block practice to people in this field is literally doing the same exact thing over and over again. Given that definition, and except for the guy literally just hitting drivers on the range, I don't think anyone really ever does block practice. It casts serious shade on the studies that show block practice is horrible and random practice is the only good way to go. If just altering what you're doing a little, by exaggerating more or less, or doing "the thing" a little more or less, or altering the speed a little is enough to make it "variable" practice, then… do that. It'll look like block practice to others, or at least what they think is block practice, but apparently… it's not! So, anyway, I'd like to have a discussion on this stuff. The value (or lack of value) in how we practice to ingrain movement improvements.

When I go to the range, there are a couple of things I might be trying to achieve. One is just keeping myself moving, so I don't get too far out of whack. The other is often seeing where the ball is going when I just make a swing without any thought and then trying to adjust that, so I might be working on my strike or clubface control and what not. I would have always considered that as block practice if I'm using one club and just hitting balls to the same target. I'll switch clubs and types of shots from time to time so I don't get too repetitive, but still not sure I'd call that random practice. To my mind, random practice would be hit a driver between those two posts, then hit a 7 iron to that green, then hit a 50 yard wedge shot, then a three wood off the ground, then a low 6 iron, then a big fade with driver around x target. That kind of thing. Sounds like that's wrong though? That and if I'm hitting 7 irons over and over to the same target, it might well not look like they're all going at the same target. 😂 So my practice may look fairly random even if I'm trying to repeat the same shot over and over.

You'll notice they shred the first six words, and are a bit softer on the last four. (I have a bit less of an issue with "arms straight" than they do, and "tuck hips" isn't terrible.)

He was a character. RIP

LIV players? Meh. I think @Ty_Webbseems to have nailed it. Also, I think the Masters itself will benefit from a stronger international flavor. I like this a lot.

And that is why I wont google it from my work laptop!

LEXXII sounds like a stage name for someone in the adult entertainment industry.

After reading through this whole thread, I actually have no idea what the hell your point is other than your apparently insatiable desire to get the last word in. It's more reactive when you're playing better, less reactive when you're not, which IMO, is the way it should be.

Just saw this, will now be known as Lexi!

Can't you just accept that most golfers in the UK are not fans of the system. I am capable of seeing both sides of the argument, and appreciate it's positives, whilst you appear to have been brainwashed into thinking it's perfect. I'll say it again, I just averaged my handicap over three rounds in terrible winter conditions, but got a shot back, yet you defend the system. Sorry, that's just crazy. IMO a handicap should reflect potential, and the old system only expected a golfer to hit his/her handicap about six times a year, the current system is far to reactive. I am Mr Average and believe a shot a hole reflects my ability. If I continue to put in cards during the winter (which I have to) by the spring I will be playing off about 30. It's bonkers I see absolutely no point in posting my scores, because I am not looking for an explanation, I am simply telling you the system has flaws. There are rumours it may change before long, I hope I am right