Big Lex

@saevel25, that's an excellent point about intent being essentially irrelevant. If the primary goal is to avoid serious injury, intent has no logical place in defining what type of contact is acceptable. And the language of the new or recent rule on defenseless players, there is no language regarding intent; in fact, even if there is evidence of intent to have avoided the contact, the penalty still applies. However, the prohibited contact is rather strictly defined. It's basically helmet contact in the head/neck area, or helmet contact anywhere if the assailant "launches" himself into the player. In the case of this play we are discussing, I don't think it would have been a penalty if he had hit him below the neck. Even "trying to hurt him" but hitting below the neck would have been "ok," because he didn't "launch" himself into the player. But thinking about this has made me wonder about alot of things. Physical intimidation is part of so many sports, even non-contact sports like baseball. Wanting to inflict pain on your opponent, and the converse, being willing to subject yourself to pain in order to score/win, etc., just come with the territory in sports. While there have to be lines drawn (nobody wants head and spinal cord injuries in any sport), when you get down into the weeds with details it becomes difficult to know where to draw them. In the end, it's very difficult to avoid serious injury in a game where the players run so fast, where contact is part of the game, and the action happens so quickly. I hope they continue to work on the rules and enforcement, and that players learn ways to still play football and hit and intimidate and so forth, but in a way that avoids serious injury as much as possible.

For most of my golfing life including now, 8, 7, and 9 are my biggest faults I struggle with. The last 2-3 years, 3 has also crept in there.

Yeah, still …!Again, it’s happening very fast. The defender is I assume reacting to where he sees the ball going at first. Maybe he only sees the receiver at the end. The receiver is crouched a little here. Yes, maybe it was an intentional, dirty hit. But I am not sure and wouldn’t be condemning the defender without asking him about it. It’s a dangerous game, and we are much wiser to enjoy it as spectators than as participants)

I have known of a few people over the years who worked 2 full time jobs. All were civilian employees working on military bases who held down “full time” second positions. I knew one guy who bragged he was working three jobs, all contributing to pension plans (one full time, two part time). He said retirement was going to be great if he didn’t die first. They say there is a labor shortage today, so maybe some people are getting offers they feel they can’t afford to turn down.

I agree it’s ejection-worthy. But we can’t assume the defender was actually going for a dirty hit. It happens so fast and the target is moving. Maybe he intended to hit lower. But either way you have to punish brutal hits on defenseless players.

I don't think there are any vaccines for RNA viruses which fully prevent transmission or disease. They are always aiming at a moving target and so the effectiveness varies from season to season. There has been abundant quackery and false authority on the COVID 19 issue, in both directions...meaning both overdoing it and underdoing it. There are some limits to how much we can absolutely know about anything...science is science and it works, but you can't do experiments like rewinding time and applying different conditions to exactly the same population, etc. There are many variables and unfortunately our best answers will often not be as certain as we would like them to be.

I think the modern discoveries about how the legs and hips work in the golf swing probably have alot to do with why typical touring pros today are so powerful and accurate, and why you see fewer pros today giving up distance for "control." They have better swing mechanics and can move at faster speeds with less error than players did 40 and 50 years ago. I was told by at least one club pro back in the 1980s to fire my right hip to start the downswing. I think many years ago - 40 or more - probably alot of teachers did tell students to "get off the right side" or "fire the right hip" or whatever. Maybe in their own swings, they sequenced correctly and had their weight forward early enough to hit good shots, so they didn't have to think of "pushing off." But they recognized that their students didn't have their weight forward, and so told them what they thought made sense, even if it was not correct bio-mechanically.

Funny...I guess you have a point that we wouldn't want to sit on the sofa if Dad's hairy butt had been resting there for the last 2 hours. But....... Yeah, we are all covered in bacteria, and most of them are harmless, and in the case of gut flora, they are beneficial. And... Yeah.... and your shoes too, need to be able to air out and dry. We are a no shoes house. Some frequent guests even leave slippers with us for when they come over. I was at a friend's house a week ago. They have been living in a condo for about 15 years. The original floors are in pristine condition because they are militant about taking shoes off. My mom was Italian, and she and all her sisters insisted that the family took shoes off at the door. But when they had company, like a party, even if it was all family (i.e., Christmas Eve), people kept their shoes on for that. On the other end of the spectrum, I was at a party at an Indian family's house. We all ate sitting cross-legged on the floor, barefoot. We were sitting pretty close, too, so you were looking holding your dinner plate while the next person's bare feet were about 3 feet from you. That was an odd experience 😮

Yes, exactly. +100 They have their heads up their butts, or hidden under their blazers, or whatever metaphor you prefer. They need to get over it.

The ruling bodies DO. They don't care about scoring. It's all about _distance_, it is more the R&A than the USGA but they are both in on it, and it has alot to do with the Old Course and "protecting" certain prestigious courses from becoming obsolete for major championships. That's really all it is, and it's stupid. A good hedge might be a radically reduced flight tournament ball for high level play, but there are many legitimate objections to that approach, many of which have been covered in various threads on this site I think.

I like watching both men's and women's sports, but for most sports, I like men's sports much more. I don't think it really pertains to it being the highest level. For me, it's just about identification. I identify with men because I'm one, so I prefer watching them. I like watching men and women equally in the more "artistic" sports like figure skating and gymnastics. I don't think the purses of women's tournaments will ever equal men's, so long as both are equally available for sponsorship dollars. I suppose there could be an exception if some entity with very deep pockets - like, say, a sovereign wealth fund - decides to back some type of women's sporting event at a very high level.

Could "slamming on the brakes" increase club head speed by changing the kinematic sequence? If you're sitting in a car going 60 and you slow down gradually, you don't feel all that much. But slam on the brakes, and you are pushed forward against the seat belt.

A few random thoughts: When I first started, I was taught by my brother and Jack's book, and probably magazine articles to start low and slow, build speed gradually, etc. I don't think it was good for me. The first time I went to a professional event and could stand relatively close to the players as they swung, the first thing I noticed was that their backswings overall seemed much faster than mine. In the Bobby Jones movies/videos on golf, Jack Nicklaus makes a comment that in the hickory shaft era, the whippiness of the shafts required "a looser, more flowing action than today with steel shafted clubs." Is it possible that feeling "low and slow" worked or helped in some way when equipment was different? In transition...Dr. Kwon sometimes tells students to work on thinking of the swing as one continuous motion, not 2 motions or 2 motions with a transition in between. It would seem that fast early/slow late would help you to make a smooth transition and make the swing a more continuous motion than if you are accelerating the club late in the backswing.

I'm in the camp that the current system isn't really complicated. Not in design or implementation. Maybe the only "complicated" thing is that you have to register to get a handicap, so there is some bureauocracy in the system I guess, so you can't just use the system with any two people who meet on a golf course. You have to make an effort to put yourself in the system. But after that, it's not hard. "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

1. Combination. I use the foot method of Aimpoint to assess the amount of slope. I then "convert" that slope feel into a mental picture of the curved path of the putt. I use that curve to mentally project where a point of aim is, left or right of the hole, exactly the distance of the hole. I aim my putterface "straight" at that aiming point, using an intermediate point on the line of the putt, about a foot from the ball. 2. Mostly by varying the length of the backstroke. On very long putts, I think I put a little more muscular effort into it, because I don't like swinging back too far. When I am putting poorly and am uncertain of how hard to hit the putt, I think sometimes I put more or less muscular effort into the stroke, to "compensate" for whatever feeling I might have (i.e., "oh, I don't think I made enough backswing..." etc.). The latter is not something I think is good, it's just recognizing what I do when I'm not putting well. 3. I used to do this just 100% by feel and sort of subconsciously...meaning, I would line up the putt, stand over it, and just putt whatever length stroke came to me. This year, working on a simulator, I began calibrating my backswing length to the length of the putt given to me by the sim, adjusted for the green speed. I began doing this on the golf course ("a 20 footer needs about this much backswing") this year. 4. If I understand correctly...I don't have a single feel. I just tick off a list of tasks in a process. It goes in order: 1. Visualize the path. 2. Choose an aim point. 3. Choose an intermediate aim point close to the ball. 4. Line up the putter head. 5. Make the backswing and hit it. I usually don't make practice swings.

Life is too short to continue subjecting yourself to this aggravation; I don't mind some of the things you mention, but what matters is what makes YOU happy, since that's why we play in the first place. Keep playing different courses at different times - as much as you are able to do this - get paired up randomly, and eventually you may find a better partner or a group. There are also alot of groups or leagues out there at all kinds of facilities. Sometimes this can be a great way to find good playing partners. The pros or starters at courses often know the regulars well and can sometimes suggest good partners for new players.

Local rules are allowed and are real rules, so in my opinion, any temporary conditions, be they tees or greens, are no different than the "original" course from a legitimacy standpoint. On the very short shots, I have trouble. I said no to the < 75 yard holes, but that reflects my personal opinion. I wouldn't consider it a real hole in one, for myself. I just wouldn't. I'd see it like holing a short wedge on a par 4 or 5 (or even 3 sometimes yikes) hole, which I've done several times. But technically if it's from the tee it's a hole in one. I wouldn't be bragging about it or buying drinks though. 🙂 I think the simulator option is interesting. I voted no on that option, but had to think about it for a while before answering no. Some simulators do have factors like wind, gusts, adjustments for temperature or humidity, etc. And of all the simulator shots there are, tee shots are obviously the most like a real golf round. Simulators are remarkably good, in my experience, at rendering/modeling the bounce and roll of shots, too. So in these ways, I think it's just as hard to make a hole in one on a simulator as it is on a real golf course. But, duh, it isn't real golf. It's not a real round of golf. What if the launch monitor read the spin incorrectly, even a little? You can play an entire sim round in an hour typically, so you can get into a groove with swinging that you can't when you're outside and have more time between swings. You can't post the round, in any fashion, ever, so it's not a legal round, even if it's a perfect simulation.

Doesn't Phil Mickelson actually steepen his shaft plane early in the downswing? Is shaft plane flattening one of those things which happens, but isn't a fundamental, per se? It either happens or doesn't, depending on how you swing.

Just gotta vent a little. It's very odd to me, these continuous changes. I understand it, I think I "get" what they are doing: If a par 5 hole was "intended" to play as a three shot, or at the least a drive and a long iron or FW, and players are routinely hitting 6-8 iron into it, then I guess it "makes sense" to lengthen the hole so it's harder to reach. I just find this kind of thinking a little rigid and bordering on silly. Nothing is frozen in time. It's a different game, in many more ways than just the distance the players hit the ball. If we shorten the ball and/or lengthen the courses such that, distance wise, golf plays EXACTLY like it did in some arbitrary past index year, say 1980, the players will STILL be way better than they were then. They have better technique, know how to swing harder but still control the ball, know their games better, know how to manage the courses better, have better conditions to play in, etc. etc. etc. I suppose it's possible to change equipment radically, such that it's much, MUCH harder to hit the sweet spot and make it fly straight..make the clubs smaller, make the ball spin alot more. Players might have to swing easier or put an extreme priority on control, because the ball had such a tendency to curve and the clubs are so unforgiving. This would make the pro game harder, make scores go up, and make golf look more like it did in the 1960s maybe. Fine. I just think that would be a terrible idea. Even for elite players. What is the point of it? The game is still hard, even for them. The impression that the game is out of control and "too easy" is based on a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the world's golfers, and among those, a tiny subset who happen to be playing well and leading tournaments or having a good year. Alot of guys make it to the tour and fail after a couple of years. What happens to them? They don't go on shooting 63 and making golf courses irrelevant wherever they go, I don't think. And what is all this about what the "intent" of the designer was? I don't think The Almighty carved any tablets proscribing that Golf Shall Hath 1, 2, and 3 shot holes, in such and such proportions, etc. I think they had a big field by the ocean and started hitting the ball for fun, and it just so happened that with the tools they had, they had 1, 2, and 3 shot holes. It's what, 150 years since then? We've moved from horses to cars to electric cars, typewriters to computers...is it really so bad that on these great golf courses, the best players in the world can easily hit the 13th hole with a 3 wood and a 7 iron?

Bought it in October, 2022. I was in the foundation program and had to stop for a while to rest my back. I plan to start up again in January. My initial impressions were good...I like using it, and my speed was increasing modestly with each session. But it was a little difficult for me to swing at "full effort" or full intent or whatever he called it. Most of the time it was very hard to resist trying to beat my previous numbers and so I would swing something closer to max effort. (Gee, maybe that's why my back started hurting......). When I get back to it I'm going to try to fix this.

I agree...it's repetition that's needed, oodles of it. I see your point about the self-organization idea, but I do think that becoming good at a complex motor skill requires alot of personal exploration. A teacher can guide and show you what something should look like, but you have to figure out what it feels like to you. Taking a lesson is only helpful if you can actually learn how to do the thing you were taught, and in the end it may not feel like what it did that first time you did it in the lesson. This is what I have found so hard in golf. One day, you feel a certain thing, and you get good results from it. The next day, you think you are feeling the same thing, and you start getting bad results. I've always assumed this meant that I just wasn't sensitive enough to what I was actually feeling. My ballroom dance teacher (elite, national champion level) says that if you don't practice certain skills daily, you basically never learn them, because they fade quickly, and when you try again, you basically have to learn from almost the beginning again. Ok so here is a question: If even bad golfers repeat their swings consistently - which I agree they do - why don't we get consistent shot results? Why is my disperson 80 yards, and a tour pro's is 25 yards, if both of us repeat our swings? We must be varying _something_ alot more than they are. What is it?

Thanks for the explanation. FWIW, and knowing that my experimentation is fraught with danger and that what you taught him might not be applicable to me, or that I have other serious issues to address before worrying about these points, etc. etc... I got on my simulator and tried making some swings with the feels you advised for this player. Feeling my tailbone move gently/slightly left during the point in the backswing when my left arm was parallel to the ground, and trying to think of the hips turning around the center of my pelvis, rather than around an axis closer to my right hip socket. This immediately moved my low point forward, and therefore many strikes felt more solid. But on the launch monitor, it changed my path, which had been between 1-4 degrees in out, to about 4-8 degrees in to out. I was probably overdoing it, or doing it wrong, or doing something different than what I thought I was doing. But I think it was at least helpful to do something which gave me the feel of what it's like to truly have your weight forward.

I did 2021 goals, and didn't make any of them, as I was injured a month after setting them, and didn't play the rest of the year. I didn't set 2022 goals, but taking the 2021 goals....I did return to regular play, albeit very reduced rounds. I was still battling back issues. I installed an indoor simulator which I used a fair amount, which of reduced the amount of "real" rounds I played. But it did allow me to practice quite a bit more, and more effectively. For a while, as, alas, somewhere around the 100 days of consecutive practice, I had to stop again, as I was developing pretty bad tennis/golf elbow in both arms. But I did spend time working this season with a pro, with Hackmotion, and with a simulator. My handicap went up slightly (so I didn't reach my second 2021 goal of lowering my index a couple of points off 9.7). However, the comparison isn't really valid, as the number I quoted in 2021 was coming out of a period when I was playing quite a bit, and I missed a half a season after that point. Anyway....... Looking for something better in 2023 😑

Thanks....yes I was speaking of the blue/gold ones. So this was in a single lesson, giving the player 2 things to work on. That must be gratifying for both of you. If you have time and are interested in answering...I have a couple more questions. 1. How good was the player when he came in? Low HCP? College/elite? More average golfer? 2. As a teacher, what did GEARS do for you in this lesson? I'm thinking some or all of the problems would have also been evident on video, maybe even without video. Maybe you make an initial tentative "diagnosis" by eye or video, and then use GEARS to establish what the primary problem is or the cause or whatever? In other words, I am wondering about your diagnostic process and how GEARS fits into it.

Looks like it must be the same player...before and after instruction? Are these captures from a single lesson, or a comparison over time?