parallax

I read it fine. The truth is that glaring weaknesses are relative to the other aspects of your game. If you are not a very good golfer already, you have a (or many) glaring weakness. So... I imagine we agree, that since very few golfers DON'T have a glaring weakness in their game, very few should pigeon hole themselves into such a generalized practice ratio.

The stats have given you a clue, but now you need to check the facts. Analyze those specific holes and shots where you make doubles or worse, and you may find the answer and have a better idea where to practice (or intensify your concentration on the course).

Nope, I have the right definition. And I did read the entire OP. Such a practice regimen (which globally defines how much most golfers should practice each aspect of their game) ignores the varying states of each players game. Some guys are good a lag putting, but bad at 3-5 footers. Some guys can hit their three wood off the tee, but not their driver. Some guys can chip it close everytime, and others only chunk or scull. We all have different strengths and weaknesses (relative to the other parts of our game), and we need to change the ratio of our practice accordingly. If you want to improve your scoring you need to analyze the current state of your game, maintain your strengths, and improve your weaknesses. Once you improve, you reanalyze, and shift your practice ratio/regimen. Also, there seems to be some confusion about the difference between facts and statistics. Statistics are not facts. They are analysis. They are generalizations. And they DO lie. I do agree though, that GIR is EXTREMELY important. If you hit every green short game is superfluous. Note: You are free to disagree, as this is my opinion...... except the part about facts vs statistics.

Such pidgin holed approaches (based upon statistics) are rarely useful. And in the case of golf (with so many approaches and techniques), even less useful.

The simple answer, as I understand it, is that the club head path being above or below (inside or outside) of the hand path, creates a moment arm, that causes the forearms and club to rotate. When the club head path is below the hand path, the moment arm, causes the club to rotate square (or closed); when the club head path is above the hand path, it causes the club to rotate open. AFAIK....

I have flip flopped on this idea throughout my learning process, but I think (now) that the arms stay more out front than across. :~( If you connect your hands with straight arms, and lift your hands while keeping your left arm straight and bending the right arm, the hands still feel/look out in front.

Got it. This makes sense.

Is your imagination broken? The mind isn't a high speed camera, and I am not implying that it is. With everything you see the mind is filling in gaps and making interpretations. Your point is moot. When you give your students advice, they use their imagination and try to implement it. My question is about perspective and how the look of shaft lean at impact differs from different perspectives. IMHO, an inline shaft, with a flat left wrist, "looks" like forward shat lean to the person swinging the club. Maybe I am wrong, but your responses are tangential.

That's unfortunate for you..:-O My vision doesn't stop working, and my mind doesn't stop interpreting when I swing the golf club. But how about this.... See if you can use your imagination, or even put yourself physically into your impact position and answer my question. :-D

Won't the look of the inline shaft and arm from looking at a golfer face on (3rd person), look like forward shaft lean from he perspective of the golfer (1st person)?

I seem to me that you are confusing yourself by projecting your misinterpretation to what others may think.

The answer : [VIDEO]http://youtu.be/iuJaSM7Kexw[/VIDEO]

Does he bring the chart to the green with him? Or is it possible to become experienced enough with it that you can forego the chart? Also, the main concern I have with Aimpoint is the ability to judge the slope angle, and correctly quantify it. The reason I have yet to take the class, is that I am not convinced that it is possible to accurately make such calculations. Another question is, is there a method for compensating for the angle of the slope where your ball lies? The more slope you have where your ball lies the sooner it will start to break.....

If you use a different spider from above the hole (by finding the aim point on the fall line from above the hole) it works pretty well. From above the hole, on steep sliders, I just try to put the ball on the fall line, and finding the point to aim at from above the fall line works well. I have found that putts above the hole, on steep slopes have most of their break at the first part of the putt, while putts below the hole are the opposite. They definately don't heave the same break. I don't understand why it would fail on faster greens, since your aim point moves with faster greens.

Well, first of all, I am here to learn, and my questions are genuine; I am not trying to prove anyone wrong or win a battle of wits. :-) But you have contradicted yourself, and it is still not clear how you are measuring break. Is the measurement perpendicular to the start line, or perpendicular to the straight line to the hole? The #2 measurement system I mentioned (that you said doesn't make sense), is how you say Aimpoint measures break. (FYI, the "shortest line to the hole" = "the line straight at the hole")...... But this is after you said the measurement is perpendicular to the aim line. Also, nothing I have said is with regard to the arc, or anything perpendicular to the arc. That is way too complicated.:~( I have used the spider method with some success, because it is an easy system for visualization, and it combines the speed and direction in one read, and I can easily switch to 'feel mode' once I have found the aimpoint on the fall line.

If you are not choosing an aim point that includes speed information, like the spider system, the you are choosing an arbitrary point based on geometry. Two options I can think of are: 1. The point at the end of the 'aimline' which is equidistant from the hole. 2. The point at the end of the 'aimline' which intersects with the line perpendicular to the shortest line to the hole. Each measurement will yield a different "amount of break" value (except in a few specific instances), correct?

It would depend on your method of measuring "break", wouldn't it? For example, if you measured the angle between the "aim-vector" and the straight line to the hole, your statement would be false, correct?

How are you measuring the amount of break? It seems as though the aimpoint for Aimpoint is different than with the spider/vector method (as I understand it).

Under what conditions?

Please explain....

There is a major disconnect between your statement and the linked Press Release.

My only goal this year is to have a round without a double bogey or worse. Last year my goal was two pars on each nine. After I did that it was a birdie on each nine. Last week I broke 80 for the first time and my HC went to 9.5. But those are not my goals... I think those goals are too general. I think specific goals (which will improve those benchmarks) are more useful.

I think the chart is interesting, and I think statistics is for idiots. Most people don't understand how statistics provide useful information, and how they can be manipulated. When you have statistics about a group of people, they provide little insight about individuals in that group. For example, if I provided you with a statistic that "90% of golfers complain and whine more than their wives", it doesn't mean that since you are a golfer there is a 90% chance that you complain and whine more than your wife. I think the chart can be improved in two ways. 1) Each dot (which represents a handicap average swing speed), should also include a vertical line (which represents the range of swing speeds at that handicap). 2) Each of these vertical lines, should have a color gradient that represents where clusters of swing speeds for those HC's are located.

Where is it? Before I start I want to check if there is one out there, so I don't reinvent the wheel.

I agree that it can be useful, it is just that technically speaking a plane is a flat 2-dimensional surface. IMHO (i.e. I have no data to back this up), the 'sweet path arc' (I like this concept) only creates a 'plane' in the impact zone. The arc of the swing, from the top to the finish (as the concept 'swing plane' implies) creates a 3-d curved surface (not a plane). Correct me if I am wrong... As a swing model thought, I like it... it just doesn't match up with the scientific definition. Kind of like acceleration... the only way to increase velocity is to accelerate. So the idea of accelerating through the ball is good if you want to maximize velocity.