jshots

While I don't think there are really any requirements, you aren't gonna get any pats on the back for that (other than like that is actually really good golf lol) Shooting your age is about being an older person that can still play well. To me if you are in your 80s and can shoot your age on a non mickey mouse par 70/72 course that is a pretty good feat. I play with my grandpa (86 y/o) frequently and the other day he shot his age. Even from the most forward tees, every par 5 is a true 3 shot hole (some of them are even 4 shot holes). Par 3s are frequently a long iron/wood. On the flip side he never misses a fairway and can still putt and chip pretty well.

Counting the countries I've played Golf in... lets see... one... t... One, its just one.

Hm I was just perusing these awards, I can't be the only one who noticed @Ruler posted 69 times, got ratio of .420 reputation and then seems to have left the site.

Do it over zoom lol! Aimpoint has been on my todo list for a few years but there is no instructor within 3 hrs of me.

Anyone else in the midst of a Golf kick right now. I mean I can't get enough of it at the moment. Finally ordered a copy of Lowest Score Wins last week and thought I should really head back over to thesandtrap.com and start arguing about shit I am not qualified to argue about.

Closure rate is not that important, good to know. Had it in my head that someone said that somewhere and it made some sense to me. Funny you mention that. I watched that video like 3-4 days ago under suspicion of grip problems and have been working on exactly that. Focused on other swing things when the fundamentals had gone out the door.

I understand ball flight laws I wasn't looking at the exact numbers, it still demonstrates the thing I'm talking about. The AOA isn't shown but I was making a best guess from the image of the arc. All the grip stuff is just sort of extraneous details anyways. Where you start and how you rotate the grip doesn't matter as much to me - the point is just that less closure rate is generally desired for consistency. Do you agree with that? I've heard that from other instructors (I thought it was AMG but can't find the video). I don't think anything you've said means that I'm wrong about a couple of thing. A descending blow is in to out (literally only relative to the bottom of the impact arc, ignore everything else). A club face matching path will make the ball go straight. Given those 2 things the only way to hit a ball with a descending blow straight and at the target is an impact arc oriented to the left of target with an open face relative to the bottom of the arc. Whether its orienting your body that way not, it does not really matter. I will say I think you have convinced me that is is probably irrelevant. There is always a specific amount of face closing you have to do/learn to hit the ball where you want and even if less closure rate is better for consistency and even if my idea requires slightly less closure rate to get back to the ball it is probably minor in comparison to the overall amount of closure.

This hinging motion is more extension/flexion. Trying to avoid any of this as much as possible. (camera balanced on standing desk as a new training aid? ) I can tell there is a little bit of rotation in the first video but the point is it is more flexion extension focused and the club face does not rotate as much, though I see what you mean it could be different with a different grip. Thanks for the detailed response. That AMG video is super interesting. I see exactly what I am describing. Swing 1 hits the ball nearly the bottom of the arc, probably took very little divot and hit a straight ball. Swing 2 hits the ball appears descending, in to out, does not close the face. I bet that ball went right of target and straight. Swing 3 hits the ball appears descending, in to out, managed to get the face more closed than the path, probably hit a draw. I still don't see why its not possible all 3 of these players have unnecessarily learned to rotate the club that specific amount. I see what you are saying about the different body parts aligning differently at setup, but isn't that more because of one hand being lower and the club being forward at address - that doesn't mean the arc isn't parallel to the feet. It would be interesting to know what the plane is doing around the ball. Since the arc/plane concept is more of an approximation than anything, if you just use the swing arc 2 feet behind low point and 2 feet in front of the low point and approximate that plane, Where is it oriented? Does it extend toward the target or somewhere else? Is it very different for good ball strikers? That is also interesting because I don't think what I'm saying means you can't hit a draw, just means you'll be slightly more consistent. Like is it possible at address your face is a little closed? I had implemented this whole idea in my swing years ago and I had the best ball striking I have ever had. Very straight ball flight and it got me down to a 5 handicap. After an extended break I can't seem to find whatever it was I was doing so I have my doubts. I don't have the tools skills or knowledge to prove this and also.. I'm losing my mind a bit thinking about it....

I agree, but its about reducing the margin of error not eliminating it. While that is true there are some pretty standard things people do, line up on train tracks being one of them, square the clubface to the target being another. Intuitively that is what I think a beginner would do. They think square face means it will go toward the target. Maybe it is ideal if you are not stuck in the train tracks. Your body is symmetrical and wants to swing along that parallel arc. We aren't talking perfect here, just more perfect but maybe a parallel arc isn't optimal or natural, my argument here would still be relevant in that you should account for the descending blow of whatever arc is optimal at setup rather than during the swing.

Maybe if we didn't start on train tracks we wouldn't learn or need to learn to change path. Its hard to say that isn't the case when everyone learns the same way. I mean you learn golf through feedback. Hit a good shot, repeat what you did for that. Of course with enough reps you learn to do it. IMO the whole process of getting better at golf is either reducing your variation and deviation either through repetition or through better mechanics. This would fall in the better mechanics category which will make your swing more repeatable. My birdie putt is gonna be going down the golf hole after I implement this infallible strategy.

I'm sitting here with a club in my hand, and I can swing it in such a way that the club face stays very close the club path the entire time (it feels and looks that way). With my wrist setup that seems to be basically no pronation supination, almost strictly flexion/extension. Is that not what you would call in the plane of the swing? I can make a full swing that way and seems to me like its really reducing the "degrees of freedom" in a sense. Like sure I have some rotation, but its much less than the way I normally swing. But if you can reduce those a little bit, maybe you can improve consistency?

Sorry bout that. To your OP in that thread, "Show what gears is capable of". All of these things we are talking about would be more clear when seen in the context of gears, that video shows very clearly part of what I'm talking about. Separate thread is fine but frankly its difficult for me to even describe what I'm talking about. What I am getting at, I know its a little out there, but maybe grip rotation is partly a result of that train track setup. With what I described above in the blocked right shot there is less grip rotation I think. Sorry for my lack of terminology, but I think what I'm saying is you want to achieve very little wrist pronation/supination, very static deviation, and more of a focus on flexion/extension which happens more in the plane of the swing. The train track setup requires that you learn a particular amount of grip rotation to get the ball to draw to the target OR to move your path to the left to get a straight shot (also a subtle non optimal thing you have to learn through feedback). The why - well we are trying to find optimal ways to swing the club which just means a more easily repeatable swing. It is a common thing you talk about on here, where professional golfers are often not necessarily optimal for repeatability but are still good because they have done it a shit load. It goes into the plane part as well, because while what you're saying is certainly true that you can do it in many different ways, there might be more or less repeatable ways (which I would wager is close to keeping your arc fairly parallel to your feet) so that a golfer that can't hit 1000 balls a week like me can be better with less variables to control and less practice. Hard to really know, which is why gears would be such a cool way to look at it

Since the arc is tilted you can't move the arc bottom below the ball and not hit it in to out without also moving your path way to the left, you'd have to show me that because it seems incorrect to me. Similar with the wrist rotation thing, you can't square the club face from a "good" impact position handle higher and further forward, without rotating your your club shut somehow. I'm just trying to neutralize as much as possible. It would be very interesting to see similar to this video but with irons. You can see some of what I'm talking about how the path is in to out UNTIL the club hits the bottom of the arc. If not for my apparently dumb theory just to see a real concrete example of path with an iron. Especially someone who hits a fade vs someone who hits a draw.

I considered that changes the picture, shaft twist might change it more. Honestly not sure about that. You can, but do you want to. To me that adds yet another variable to control. I'm thinking in terms of this hypothetical arc that is more or less parallel to the target line under the assumption that is easier to reproduce.

A simple way to see sorta what I mean. Setup square to the target and move your body into impact position. You cannot get the club back to square at impact position (handle higher and further forward) without rotating the club with your wrists. On top of that, because we move the bottom of the arc toward the target and below the ball, at impact the clubhead must be moving from in to out. With that path, if your wrists have not closed down the clubface at all you will block to the right with a straight ball flight. On the other hand if you rotate the club too much you will draw the ball too far left of target. My proposition is to improve consistency, you would want to minimize that wrist rotation variable and simply play for the straight shot blocked out to the right by just setting up to the left. Maybe there are other better metrics than the one I was talking about above. I'm sure the vision I have in my head is over simplified which is why it would be interesting to see with gears Given what I'm saying with this hypothetical perfect arc, anyone who lines up on train tracks cannot hit the ball at the target without hitting a draw.

@iacas cool that you got a gears system! Would it be possible with gears to compare feet angle at address to face to path at impact of some better ball strikers? I've had a theory that in the quest to be a more optimal ball striker, you should play with a slightly open stance. If you set up with feet on train tracks, a square face, and hit down on the ball, that would require that your rotate your club face more closed at impact relative to where it started otherwise you would have an open face and hit everything to the right. To me that seems like one of those things that good ball strikers figure out subconsciously (not optimal) by practice and a common hallmark of a good iron striker is they start hitting a little draw. If you rotate your whole swing slightly open, and hit down on the ball, you don't need any adjustment of the clubface. I've tried that myself and it seems like the ball does tend to be more straight, but I'm not on a gears system to verify that it is what I think it is.

Thats funny I think I am the same. I want to have a low handicap and if I have one of my counted scores about to be knocked out of my revision scores I feel a bit extra pressure. I actually have to admit last year one of my competition scores got double posted (by me and then a week later the club posted it) and I have never had them remove it. Probably lowers my handicap by a quarter stroke or something.

Full transparency lol I was out for nearly a month 2 summers ago after a not nearly warmed up enough awkward non dominant swing. Seems fine now but I do a lot more upper back work in the gym for posture/ desk job correction.

Yeah I saw that one. Don't really know what to think between the two I feel Sasho is very geared towards high performance where maybe SS is less so. I'm not really on the whole Phil decel argument but I just think injury prevention is important and Sasho doesn't really address that, at least in that video.

Ok well then you should at least swing non dominant to practice for left handed hole in a super intendents revenge. Here I found the video I was talking about from superspeed. Makes sense to me. Especially if folks are not exercising much outside of golf.

Dude I'm just giving my opinion. Mevo+ is less locked down, Uneekor is less locked down. Maybe people don't care, maybe they do, don't matter to me I'm just trying to give some value here in the convo because I've been debating the same unit and those have been my thoughts. Mark my words the eye mini is going to give both of those units a run for their money this fall.

How was I all over the place. I guess more succinctly: Foresight locks down their software. I think that is bad and worth considering if you are in the market for a simulator. I'd say pretty confidently that $7500 is still high dollar for most people. I want the machine that gives me the data for $3k, and to be able to choose other software (E6, TGC2019, etc.) Uh I have received awards in multiple countries for my analogies. @ChetlovesMer btw if you are gonna go for the $7500 upfront and are considering an overhead permanent setup you might checkout Uneekor QED which you could get into for $8000

Yeah they talk about plateaus but tbh I have never been consistent enough to see if that is true haha. I gained a lot of speed in a month and almost none in the next three. My left handed swing got a lot faster though an anecdotally I feel more mobile with those now.

Of course, all just my opinions. I make a living as a software engineer and am just not a huge fan of the closed software system business model. Fine to disagree, but have fun with your gc3 in 3 years when the new software comes out and there is another $1k upgrade and another and another $150 for every new course you want. I'm just saying, if you pay high dollar for something you should expect (my opinion) the company to build the product in your best interest, locking down the system is only in their best interest. Also, its my understanding that you can't really build custom software for gc4/gc3 easily because all of the data coming off is encrypted. I would love to get a Mevo+ but don't have the space in the garage needed for radar. So I sit and wait for the Uneekor Eye Mini because they are known for supporting the third party software, AND they have some of the best software of their own. Could easily see bushnell dropping prices when eye mini comes out as well. Most computing platforms in our lives have a plethora of software options you can use. Foresight flat out said for example they will never support TGC2019, which has one of the absolute best databases of user generated courses available for sims. You might say its not similar to John Deere, but its along the same line of thinking when down the road you could be stuck with a brick if you don't continue paying. Software lockout is software lockout, if you're fine being locked to foresight and not worried about what that means for your expensive unit down the road then its probably a great option. You wouldn't be okay with your ford truck only running on gasoline that was sold by ford. I think you got that right, you probably want to clarify what the deal is with FSX Play if you go Launch Pro route (is it $500 upcharge) as that is there new software with actual decent graphics and it isn't mentioned on Launch Pro page, but it is included with the base GC3 package.

Just for you Shindig I pulled these off my Arccos app set to 8 hdcp target: AVERAGE PUTTS PER ROUND 1 putts: 3.9 2 putts: 11.7 3 putts+: 2.4 Putts / Hole: 1.8 Putts / GIR: 2.1 AROUND THE GREEN Average distance to pin 0-25 yards: 16ft Up-and-down 0-25 yards: 40% Average distance to pin 25-50 yards: 24ft Up-and-down 25-50 yards: 21% BUNKERS Average distance to pin 0-25 yards: 22ft Up-and-down 0-25 yards: 24% Average distance to pin 25-50 yards: 29ft Up-and-down 25-50 yards: 16% APPROACH Greens in regulation: 40% GIR approaches: 30ft All approaches: 60ft DRIVING Tee shot distance: 237 yards (by the way in Arccos this is ALL tee shots, not solely driver) Fairways hit: 47% SCORING Birdies: 0.9 Par: 7.7 Bogeys: 7.2 Doubles+: 2.3