Jump to content

parallax

Established Member
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About parallax

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    San Diego

Your Golf Game

  • Index: 6
  • Plays: Righty

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

parallax's Achievements

Member

Member (2/9)

  • 1st Topic
  • 1st Post

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. parallax

    parallax

  2. Quote: Originally Posted by iacas I love it when people use the word "arbitrary" as if that renders the findings irrelevant. The 20 yards is "arbitrary" too. I addressed this above. They are arbitrary because they are on different scales, and the percentages are not zeroed. Quote: No it wouldn't. They operate on different scales. If we take the PGA Tour as the "zero" then an accuracy range is 3.5 to 7.5. 4 degrees. While a driver gap might be 195 to 305: 110 yards. A 20-yard improvement there is 18%. A 1 degree improvement from 7 to 6 is a 25% improvement toward the "cap." Now an 18% improvement trumps (by more than 2x) a 25% improvement. And that is why it is flawed analysis. It is like comparing Celsius to Fahrenheit without converting or comparing yards to meters without converting. If you want to make a comparison you have to use the same scale. Quote: I'm not misunderstanding. I'm telling you that's an incredibly stupid way to look at two very different things like distance and accuracy. They have vastly different scales. They don't have to be different scales. You have shown that you are competent a trig, it is easy to convert the angles into distance, and make a fair comparison.
  3. You are misunderstanding my critique. The part of my critique you are trying to apply was a reductio ad absurdum, showing how the application of percentages was flawed. To use your example, if you miss by 10 yards at 181 and improve by 5 you would compare that to a 5 yard increase in distance and compare how your strokes gained improved in each scenario.
  4. Quote: Originally Posted by Golfingdad You keep saying this, which I don't mind because you actually forced me to look it up and now I've learned something new, however, you don't really seem to understand it. It's been repeated several times over that these are generalizations. Nobody is attempting to apply this information to any one particular person, as far as I've read so far. The example you've posted ISN'T "applying group statistics to an individual example," it's simply explaining to you what the findings of the group statistics are. ON AVERAGE, a 100's shooter will drop 2.3 strokes by gaining 10% in distance and they'll only gain 1.0 strokes by gaining 14% in accuracy. For it to be an ecological fallacy, it would have to claim that EVERY 100's shooter will see those gains OR it would have to arbitrarily say "that particular 100's guy right there will see those gains, I guarantee it." It does neither. It explains the findings of the study. Period. In the section I quoted as the example of the fallacy he is clearly talking about an individual ("the guy", even though it is a theoretical individual) and their theoretical gains. I know what he is trying to say, but it is important when speaking about statistics not to fall into this trap of statistical analysis (and it isn't an easy thing to do). For it to be an ecological fallacy you certainly do not have to claim that EVERY 100's shooter will see those gains, only one. Quote: Percentage gains is the closest to "apples to apples" as you can really get when you're comparing distance and accuracy ... unless you're talking about a person who's dispersion is so wild that its the same as his length. (And that's absurd) Also, you can't measure the percentage gained of your x value by using the y value as your numerator. That makes no sense. If you turned it around the other way (just as ridiculously "valid") then you could say nonsense like: "By this metric, a 20 yard improvement in distance of a guy whose dispersion is typically 10 yards is an improvement of 200%." The chart provided isn't comparing percentage gains in distance or even static gains in distance, it is comparing static distance increases (and their percentages, which don't match) to arbitrary gains in degrees (and their arbitrary percentages, which don't match) Comparing static distances would be better, and comparing distance percentages would also be better. But comparing static distances to static degrees, and using their percentage changes in your analysis is severely flawed. If you want to compare a 10% increase in distance, you should use that same distance to compare the increase in accuracy, otherwise it is meaningless analysis. As for your quote.... I would never say or endorse such a silly statement.
  5. Let me put it another way.... You think comparing a 3.5 to 5 yard accuracy improvement to a 20 yard distance increase is smart and comparing a 20 yard accuracy improvement to a 20 yard distance increase is stupid?
  6. The bottom line is that the strokes gained comparison of distance and accuracy makes a flawed comparison. Distance percentage improvement vs. angle percentage improvement are comparing apples to oranges. You should read my whole post. The accurate comparison should not compare an arbitrary percentage improvement, that is flawed analysis. The most accurate comparison would be a 20 yard gain to a 20 yard accuracy improvement. For a 295 yard driver, it is about 3.89* (0.01 accuracy for ya!) improvement, and for a 195 yard driver, it is about a 5.89* improvement.
  7. Here (applying group statistics to an individual example): You think it is lousy to compare distance to distance, rather than distance to angles?
  8. Good post, except for the application of the ecological fallacy ;-) -And- Comparing percentage gain of distance in yards and percentage gain in accuracy in degrees is poor (IMHO). Someone who who drives the ball 195 yards and has a 7* miss is missing their target by approx. 24 yards. With a 1* improvement to 6*, the target is missed by approx. 20 yards. By this metric it is a (4 yards) 2% improvement (when measured against total distance). Similarly someone who drives it 295 and misses by 3.5* misses their target by about 18 yards, and with a 1* improvement to 2.5* they miss by about 13 yards, an improvement of (5 yards) about 1.5%. For a 295 yard driver a 20 yard miss is approximately 4*, for a 195 yard driver a 20 yard miss is approximately 6*. So.... IMHO, in order to make a fair comparison (of strokes gained) you would need to run the simulation with the 195yard driver making a 6* improvement (approx. 20 yards), and the 295 driver making a 4* improvement (approx. 20 yards). I
  9. It is only complex if you confuse concepts and terms. This a nonsensical statement. Your weight CAUSES pressure depending on how your center of mass is distributed over your feet. Your weight doesn't change, even when you are moving. The distribution of pressure, and overall pressure (caused by your weight, and any other forces) can and does change as you move or apply force via your muscles. You cannot increase your weight/mass by moving, you can, though, increase the pressure caused by your weight (and applied through your feet) by moving your center of mass. BTW, I am just trying to help you straighten out your definitions and conceptual understanding. The argument you two are engaged in is largely semantic a due to the misapplication of terms and concepts.
  10. This isn't as complicated as it is being made..... Weight causes pressure in the direction of gravity (the force is applied by gravity via the mass). When people feel their weight in their feet they are feeling the pressure applied by their mass via the force of gravity. The pressure that is applied by the feet can be manipulated by moving the center of mass or by applying muscular force.
  11. Did the lie angle change?
  12. The OP is clearly speaking of specific examples... he cites them in his post. It is not a revelation that if you hit the ball further and straighter you will hit more greens. But it is also not a revelation (even though it is often contested on this site) that there are a lot of players who sacrifice distance for accuracy and score well. I was "teeing up" the more broad question about how group statistics are helpful for individual golfers (the ecological fallacy) because it seems to be the basis for your book (based upon the limited information I have seen here... I hope I am wrong). I would purchase the book if I was sure that statistics were not applied in this manner, or if there was a good reason that they are still helpful, hence my question.
  13. Could you explain how group statistics can be helpful for individuals trying to improve at golf? (if you want you can start another thread, or point me to one that already exists) I understand how individual statistics can be helpful for individuals (to track trends, improvements, and weaknesses for ones own game), but I have a hard time reconciling the idea that generalized statistics (especially averages which are computed from sample sets that have a wide range, like the graph mentioned above) can be helpful for individual improvement. I see this type of analysis (when searching for information about golf) a lot (especially on this site), and it always throws up a red flag.
  14. I know that you will disagree, but much of the disagreement seems to come from the "ecological fallacy" that seems to be applied here. It is one thing to use group statistics for making generalities about groups, it is another to apply those same statistics to individuals. It is just as fallacious as using anecdotal evidence to make general comments about groups. I like the graph above, because it shows the huge range of accuracy/distance that most amateur golfers fall under. It explains why so many people who play golf witness short accurate players score better than long and wild players, while the group statistic shows the opposite trend.
  15. The only thing I can conclude from your post(s) is that you have poor reading comprehension skills. I am not making absolute statements, yet you are countering with examples as if I have. And since you agree that there are so many golfers with "glaring weaknesses", you actually AGREE with me, deeming your practice ratio regimen moot. Yet you continue to argue to confirm your narrow theory. I will kindly bow out from this thread now, since it is obvious that we are not getting anywhere.... Since it sounds like you are writing a book on this subject, I will periodically return to see if it is out. I enjoy reading material that is counter to my experience and own personal approach.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...