Big Lex

Established Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Big Lex last won the day on March 9 2016

Big Lex had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

40 Moving Up the Leaderboard

About Big Lex

  • Rank
    Golfer, musician
  • Birthday

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Central NJ

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness
  1. Chipping/pitching game on the practice green at my course on the way to work. About 20 minutes. Hamstring stretches. Putting on the aimline trainer thing. Backswing drill
  2. Do we know his SG putting?
  3. I know what you are saying....that often things we think impossible end up being possible. But that's a very broad statement, and it doesn't apply to everything in the world. "Anything's possible" isn't really true...someone will never figure out how to make water boil at 0 degrees Celsius. Your common sense observations are certainly valid, but they are explainable by physics and/or they don't make your point. You are confused about extraneous phenomena that are explainable. For example..... The tiny, 2 lb lead ball hitting your head v. a 2 lb plastic bucket. Yes! The ball would hurt more than the bucket. But let's look at what that really means. The kinetic energy of each object traveling at the same speed is, by definition, exactly the same. Newton's laws of motion and the law governing kinetic energy cannot be violated. So the energy in both systems is the same. So why would the ball hurt more than the bucket? What your intuition is telling you about preferring to be hit by the bucket and not the ball can be explained by other properties, distinct from considerations of energy. The bucket is plastic, so it's elastic, and when it hit you, it would bend or deform. So some of the energy would be absorbed by the plastic itself, meaning less would be imparted to your head. But the total amount of energy in the system is the same. And there are other factors. The ball, being smaller, concentrates the force on a smaller part of your head, producing more stimulation of a fewer number of pain receptors....and the more concentrated force has a greater chance to cause localized tissue damage, like a hematoma or a fracture. But, again, the total amount of energy in both systems is the same; whether the energy is delivered to a 1 cm surface casing a painful fracture vs. a 15 cm surface causing just a bruise does not change the fact that the same amount of energy was transferred in both systems. The subjective experience of pain does not correlate with the total energy transmitted. The difference is explained by how our nervous system and skeletal system works, not by a change in the fundamentals of physics. In a ball-club collision, the relevant factors are the kinetic energy, the efficiency of the energy transfer, and then the aerodynamics of the ball flight. Kinetic energy is governed or capped by Newton's laws. The efficiency of the transfer is governed or capped by the COR test. Aerodynamics are also governed and capped by physics laws. There ain't nothing left. Science-based golf club R&D was virtually non-existent for over 100 years. It's exploded in the last 20 years. It's pretty much maxed out. I know that sounds sort of Luddite....but it is. Laws of physics are fairly simple, and although there are all of these fancy sounding terms (coefficient of restitution), materials (forged titanium), marketing schemes, etc., in essence the process of trying to maximize the performance of golf clubs is a simple task grounded in simple physics principles that have been known for centuries. Between the COR limits and the other limits on the form and make of golf clubs, we are essentially at the limits of what's possible.
  4. I like him. I agree it's arrogant talk....but I sort of give him a pass. Everyone is talking to him, asking him questions, and he has to say something. I guess he could be falsely modest. Is there anything wrong with thinking of yourself as an artist (or scientist, or whatever)? He's a kid. He has lots of talent and an interesting approach to golf. I'm very excited to follow his career. If I could make one prediction it would be that he needs to improve his putting or his career will go nowhere. At the Masters he seemed like a very tentative putter. Very good from 6 feet in, and not terrible lagging long ones, but those 6-15 foot birdie tries at Augusta did not look good if you ask me. Saw him in another tournament and it was the same thing. Sort of tentative. But that's just casual observation.....subject to error and bias. But I think we tend to have a decent feel for who the good putters are, like Speith. Bryson doesn't impress me that way.
  5. I played between 12-18 hcp for 20 years or so. With basically no instruction, I got down to a 7 last season, just by playing more and practicing. This year, my goal is to get under 5, and for that I am getting instruction from an experienced, modern PGA pro with a great teaching resume. It's definitely possible. The mental aspect is huge. Not the mental game, but the mental aspect of how you approach instruction. You have to trust the instructor, be disciplined to do what they say, and believe that you are capable of improving. You have to take chances, be willing to look stupid, to feel weird, etc. etc. A good instructor is important as they can help you through this aspect of it...with encouragement, etc.
  6. I voted for #1--okay with eliminating dropping. I admit, this is probably contrary to the basic principles of the game, one of them being that we have uneven, random playing fields and you have to deal with whatever you get. But overall, I think this is one aspect of the game where changing would do more good than harm. Yes, we would lose a bit of the randomness in these circumstances. But drops occur infrequently among the total number of strokes made, so it really doesn't decrease the randomness of the game overall by MUCH. The benefit would be that it speeds up play to a degree when we are talking about drops on slopes....avoiding the multiple-drops-then-place scenario. Placing the ball ALL the time (i.e., rolling it over in the fairway, etc.) is too much, and it removes an element of skill, so I'm not advocating that in any way. But placing a ball in the penalty are already being penalized....and there are still restrictions on where you drop, so placing the ball doesn't necessarily guarantee you can get a perfect lie every time. You may be placing on hard pan or in clover or in some sort of condition you don't think is ideal. And it's not like there aren't already situations where we make exceptions to the total concept randomness. We allow local rules of lift/clean/place under certain circumstances. When conditions are wet, for example, lift clean and place is used because we do NOT want the chance that something random like a mud-ball on a drive in the fairway will unduly affect the outcome of a competition. And everyone gets to clean their ball on the putting green, again something that goes against randomness, for a good reason. We are allowed to fix pitch marks on a green, even in our line, etc. In all I think it would be a good move to eliminate dropping and just place the ball.
  7. No doubt. But I'm thinking that depending on the length of the platform, it might sag under the weight of a person if it's only supported on the corners. And while you could use more jacks, having permanent jacks attached anywhere might not look good, would add cost to the project, etc. I'm thinking with ONE jack, you could lift the platform wherever you wanted to, then you block it and you're done. I think jacks are a better way to go than leveling feet. The leveling feet work and are easy to obtain, but to actually physically alter the height with these would be a pain. You'd still have to lift up the platform, then put your hand on the foot and turn it, etc. I think what the OP wants is something simple and easy to do. He mentioned a child using it. Turning a crank on a jack is extremely easy to do. Whether it's permanently affixed jacks as you suggest, or a combination of a jack and other types of support, this is the easiest way to go I think. Yes and no. If he makes it sturdy enough that it supports the weight of people without any sagging, it might be heavier than you think, and not really "easy" to lift. And it might not be possible for a young child to lift it at all. If it's flat on the floor, and you are just going to lift it, you have to bend down, grab it with your fingers....etc., There is the opportunity to drop it on your fingers or toes. A jack is a great idea I think not because the power or leverage is needed so much, but because it simplifies the process. You fashion a very simple attachment for a trailer jack on each side of the platform. When you want to raise it, you go get the jack, slip it on, crank it a few times, and put the blocks underneath. Stow the jack away and you're done. No crushed fingers, no kneeling down to twist leveling feet, etc. Ok I've spent WAY too much time on this.
  8. Chips into the beanbag. Putting practice, starting ball online. Backswings using my instructor's sequencing drill. Same sequence drill using a soccer ball or medicine ball to enhance building the motor pattern. Specifics were requested by the OP....the sequence drill is something very simple that my instructor came up with for me. He said in my original testing before lessons began, I was very consistent with my path, but much less consistent with club face angle. He believed one way I could improve my motion to get more consistent face angle was to improve my motion sequencing. He felt I was rotating my hips too early in the backswing, and over-rotating them, causing compensations in the downswing. To improve this, he has me practice a three-part swing. First move back is moving ONLY the hands/arms, and torso, until my hands are over my right shoe. Pause there. Make SURE I haven't moved the hips, legs, or feet at this point. Second, complete the turn allowing the lower body to move. Pause again. Third, make a slow-ish or relaxed downswing. Do this with body alone, with a club, and with a weighted object.
  9. Yeah. Way better than a scissor jack. Had no idea these existed. All he needs to do is have an attachment to the side of the frame. Use this jack to easily raise the platform, then block it to the correct height, then lower and remove the jack. Easy for anyone to do, easy to engineer.
  10. Yeah. The screws could be used in combination with blocks. You have your preset height blocks for setting height. You use the screws simply as a means to raise the platform easily, and then you place the blocks underneath, and remove or back the screws out enough so that the blocks are supporting the platform.
  11. Sorry to inundate the thread....but this is fun. For the "blocking", an easy solution is to simply use a forstner bit to drill flat bottom indentations in the bottom of the frame. After you jack it to the proper height, you just take large bolts, and put them underneath into the indentations. Say, a 1 inch diameter indentation, maybe half a inch deep. Then you get 5/8 diameter hex head bolts of different lengths. You jack up the platform, then insert the correct height bolts into the indentations. They stay secure because they are in a hole in the wood, and the weight of the platform is bearing down on them. To remove, jack the platform up slightly and just take them out.
  12. Using screws/bolts would of course work and allow infinite slopes. You would just have to find a way to attach the bolts so that they were easy to access and easy to turn. Trying to picture using a large socket wrench to turn a bolt that raises the platform, and get a feel for how difficult that would be, how you would protect the floor or carpet underneath, whether the bolt would protrude above the putting surface and whether or not that is a problem, etc. Yes KISS RRS You could have holes in the platform at all four corners. On the underside, in the 2x4's at the corner, you could countersink a large nut at each corner. To raise, you insert a bolt at that point, then turn the bolt with a socket wrench, and the platform rises. Put a block under it, remove the bolt. Repeat on the opposite corner. Or, do this JUST in the center of the long side, then put the blocks under each corner.
  13. Yeah, not gonna happen. I'd like to be able to move it. I might even put it against the back wall instead of sticking out sideways like in the OP. Yeah that makes sense. I think what I would do is use those car scissor jacks. They are easy to move and easy to crank. Your child could easily manage it. If the platform is moveable and both long edges are "exposed," (short side against the wall) all you'd have to do is place the scissor jack on whatever side you want and crank to the appropriate height, block it, then remove the jack. Use the jack again later to lower it, etc. I would fashion the platform such that it would 1) withstand the full weight of the person(s) putting without bending in any way, and 2) have a way to securely accept blocks that would change the height of one side and not slip off them, wobble, etc. Then you just use the scissor jack to raise the platform, attach the blocks, then lower until the blocks are on the floor, remove the jack, and putt. I think you could use a standard car-type scissor jack, but you'd have to modify it. The bearing surface of a scissor jack is going to be 6-10 inches above the ground, so you would need a way to connect that bearing surface to the underside of the platform. Either some sort of Z-shaped piece of metal that gets under the platform and on top of the jack, or maybe something on the side of the platform where you can attach an upside-down L shape piece that would sit on top of the jack. .
  14. Ok I missed a few days while at the Masters. Today: Office putting on a device to make sure you start on line. Chips into the beanbag. Working on backswing sequence move. I began a series of lessons yesterday with the new pro at my club. Looking forward to this!
  15. I guess you could use the pulley just to be able to conveniently lift the platform. Then you put blocks under it at the proper height.