parallax

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Here (applying group statistics to an individual example): You think it is lousy to compare distance to distance, rather than distance to angles?

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

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.

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.

Did the lie angle change?

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you read my posts you will see that I am not confused about the concept of a "glaring weakness" (both of the assessments you quoted would be incorrect)... It was actually the point of my "made up" percentages using your model. My evidence is only anecdotal, and is only based upon observing the players I play with (my friends, and random golfers I am paired with weekly). My observations are that "most" golfers in the mid-handicap range (10-18) have a glaring weakness. Some have a glaring weakness in the long game (hit OB alot, or not long enough), some have a glaring weakness in the short game (can't get the ball on the green with one shot, or can't get close enough for an easy 2-putt), and some have a glaring weakness in their putting (have bad touch, bad aim, and 3 putt or more a lot). If these golfers didn't have a strength in one or two of these parts of golf, they would be a lot worse! The golfers at the other ends of the spectrum (low single digits, and "plays 3 times a year guy"), don't have glaring weaknesses. The good player has overall strength, and the bad player has overall weakness. Neither "glaring". I am not a golf pro, and have only been playing for (almost) 3 years (GolfShot says my handicap is now 7.8, and consistently steadily dropping), but I do have a lot of experience with practice (other sports and music), and have a degree in Cognitive Science. So I am familiar with learning and practice. I have used a feedback method of self assessment, and focused (on specific aspects of the discipline) practice/study, to good success. I would actually go so far to claim, that most people when learning most new disciplines, would go from beginner (all around weakness), to intermediate (where some necessary skills come easy and others not, therefore developing a (or multiple) glaring weakness), to advanced (no glaring weakness, and relative strength). So... this is why I disagree with the proposed regimen. It doesn't jive with my experience or observations (in golf, or other disciplines). I understand that you disagree. And, frankly, I am surprised that you guys (who are actually golf pros, and observe intermediate golfers daily) think otherwise.

You are making stuff up to fit your model. This is called confirmation bias. It seems YOUR mind is made up, so I'll leave you to it..:~(

I guess we will just ave to disagree, I am fairly observant and the vast majority of golfers I play with 8-20 handicap, have glaring weaknesses. I have been one of them in the past. My numbers were made up (just like yours, it's your model), to make the point that the same proficiency discrepancy for less skilled golfers is a larger and more gloating weakness, than for better players. The implication you are making, that I don't know how to practice because I disagree with you is laughable.

No you were not clear on this. I think you are misunderstanding. I didn't say anything about constantly monitoring your game. It is a process. You analyze your game and determine where you can gain the most strokes. You practice that part of your game the most until you improve. Repeat. There is nothing "tiny" or "small degree" to it... until you become a pretty good player. I think that this is where we disagree. Along with the difference between a "tiny weakness", "normal weakness", and "glaring weakness". I'll use your 100% is perfection model (L=long game, S=short game, P=putting) to explain: Take Plays 3 Times A Year Guy. L= 20% S= 10% P= 20% 20 Handicap #1: L= 40% S= 20% P= 30% 20 Handicap #2: L= 20% S= 40% P= 50% 12 Handicap #1: L= 50% S= 60% P= 70% 12 Handicap #2: L= 70% S= 40% P= 50% 8 Handicap: L= 70% S= 60% P= 60% 3 Handicap: L= 80% S= 90% P= 80% The guys at the ends of the spectrum (Plays 3 Times a Year, and 3 Handicap) each have fairly even games. The novice sucks everywhere, and any improvement anywhere will be noticed. The 3 handicap is solid, and needs small improvements everywhere to improve. I am willing to bet that most golfers are in between. There is a lot of variation in their skill sets. I know guys that can bomb their drive, but have poor short games and mediocre putting.... I know guys with weak drives, and excellent short games, and good putting...... I know mediocre drivers of the ball, who have mediocre short games, but are very good putters. And they all score about the same. The other thing to notice is the difference between 10% and 20% in the 3 Times a Year Guy, is 50%, where as the difference between 80% and 90% is 14%. The difference for less skilled players is "more glaring".

This is interesting. When I first started this was true. Then my expectations changed, and the opposite became true, and now that I am improving (and still raising my expectations) it is becoming true again. I don't know if everyone goes through this process, or if I am a special case, but it is the basic point of my comments.

Quote: And that seems like a waste of time and effort to me. Better to just say "all parts of my game are roughly equal" (once they are, and you don't have a glaring weakness) and develop them all. If it works (and this process works in learning all sorts of skills) how could it be a waste of time and effort? If the parts of your game are not roughly equal, then why develop them all at the same time and pace? Quote: Here's why I think that's kind of ridiculous. Let's say 100% is perfection, and you're at 82% full swing, 83% short game, and 81% putting. So you work on your putting, and now it's 83%. So then you work on your full swing, and it goes to 83%, but your short game's now fallen to 80%, so now you work on that. Then your putting starts to suffer, but your short game is now at 85%, so you work on your putting again. At the end of the day, if you're honest with yourself and maintaining or slowly advancing… wait for it… You'll probably spend about 65% of your time working on your full swing (where the changes come slowly), 25% of the time on the short game (where changes come relatively quickly), and 10% of your time working on your putting (where changes can be made very, very quickly. And the above was not to be snarky. I just like How I Met Your Mother. Most golfers I play with are not that "roughtly equal", most have a glaring weakness. The guys who are better than me (low single digits), are in the situation you describe. Quote: Simply put: you're not practicing properly. You're probably just hitting balls. Seriously, all these practice ratios go out the window if you're not actually practicing . There are a few articles here on how to practice. Absolutely none of them would have you "getting worse by over-practicing" (unless it's due to an injury). I gave that up over a year ago. My practice is quite deliberate, but I do think my practice process could improve. I find it easier to practice my long game on the course. Less shots with better focus, and varying elements, makes me better.

Also, sorry... It wasn't my intention to come on here and try to "debunk" this method. I posted a response in another thread, and then it ended up here. There are lots of different ways to learn, practice, and teach.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dave2512 Hate to gang up on you but this post really reinforces the 65/25/10 thing. I don't see how.... ? Quote: It's fairly easy to improve chipping and putting and on course most of it depends the quality of the previous result, the long game. I disagree. I gain confidence in my chipping and putting my repetition. With my long game, I can make myself worse over practicing. I don't need touch in my long game. I just have to be able to make adjustments based upon how I am hitting the ball that day, and those happen fast. Quote: You can practice a lot of putts in a short amount of time simply because it doesn't take as much time as a full shot and the movement is much shorter and easier to refine. Just not having to wait as long to see the end result saves time. I practice everything dang near every day but most of it is full swing stuff because it has the biggest impact on the quality of golf I play. I have been in your position before, but I made improvements to my long game, and then my short game and putting became weaker.

Quote: It's not a pigeon holed approach. A pidgin is a greatly simplified language. Sorry for the typo. Defining the same practice regimen for all golfers seems to be the definition of pigeon holed. I am not understanding the benefit of doing so.... I have improved more by focusing most of my practice effort on one aspect at a time while maintaining the others, and then switching to the new weakness when the former weakness is improved. Quote: It does not ignore that. If you have a glaring weakness (which you later contend everyone does, but which I would suggest is incorrect given the word "glaring"), you practice that. If you're a relatively equally skilled golfer (i.e. no glaring weaknesses), you can divide the practice time given to each segment to the part of the game that's weakest in that segment. So if you were a 9 with a relatively average game overall and in each of the three segments, you would spend the bulk of your 10% putting practice on 3-5 footers. Yes, weakness is relative to the rest of your game. As you improve in one aspect, another aspect becomes relatively weaker (even though it didn't become weaker in and of itself). I analyze my game -> figure out where I am weak -> improve my weakness -> and repeat -> It is more a a feedback loop process, where I greatly vary the ratio of my practice routine depending on where I need to improve the most. Quote: I agree, but they're only glaring if they're very much offset from the other aspects of your game. A 32 handicapper is not guaranteed to have three glaring weaknesses, nor is a scratch golfer guaranteed to have NO glaring weaknesses. They're relative to your other skills, and when dramatically or glaringly out of whack, are a "glaring weakness." IMO, very few golfers have a "glaring" weakness in their game that would necessitate a dramatic change in the proposed schedule. You don't often find the 3 handicap who takes 37 putts per round, or the 18 who can't hit a driver 220 and within the same zip code of the fairway, but who gets up and down 60% of the time and makes almost everything from six feet and in. Your definition of "glaring" is seemingly not strong enough. Everyone has a slight weakness, but on a day to day basis, that can change, too. That's not a "glaring" weakness. I don't really think the distinction between glaring and not, matters much. We all have weaknesses, or aspects where improvement will provide us with the best overall gain in scoring. It makes sense to determine those weaknesses, and improve them until they become strengths, not spend your limited practice time on the parts of your game that are being limited by your weakness. Quote: Seems to me you should spend a good chunk of your full swing time working on the driver. The driver, among the full swing portion of your game, is potentially a glaring weakness. I did 5 months ago, not it is the strongest part of my game. So most of my practice is determining how to make the right adjustments depending on how it is going that day. Quote: It shouldn't. Your technique is probably lacking if it requires that much effort just to maintain your level of touch. I don't know about that.... but it is relative. As I improve my expectations are rising, and my level of touch is improving. What I used to think was good would probably be scoffed at. For now, all of the aspects of my game are pretty even (more so than ever), my glaring weakness is the ability to focus on every shot in a 5 hour round, and that can only be done on the course. So that is where the majority of my practice is happening.

For me, the more I hit my driver the worse I get. If I go to the range and start hitting snap hooks, or slices, I can make the adjustments and be good to go. I average about 250 (and my D's are creeping up as I play more) If my driver isn't good that day, I will adjust my strategy. With chipping, pitching, and putting TOUCH is the main factor. For me, that requires constant practice and maintenance. I get much better at putting when I practice A LOT. If I stop, my consistency, and confidence go down.