Jump to content

laxbballgolf

Established Member
  • Content Count

    314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Sandbagger

About laxbballgolf

  • Rank
    League Member
  • Birthday 11/30/1986

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Austin, TX

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    9.0
  • Handedness
    Righty

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Agreed, I came to this thread to say the exact same thing. It seemed so easy to pull off those camera angles, why don't they always do that?!
  2. Did that shot look weird to anyone else? I know it's downwind, but that's a huge PW. And it seemed to be in the air a really short amount of time. Maybe Keegan delofts his PW a lot, or he hit it thin or something? Plus, it didn't seem to have much check at all. It looked weird to me.
  3. I agree that the practice swings are funky, but I have to say Tiger's swings looked pretty awesome. I only saw highlights for the first three days and some of the final round, and man that is a simple and powerful swing! The sound is just different - to me his swing stands out compared to other players again. And at the same time he is balanced and doesn't look like he is over-swinging. Great stuff and I also like to see him mixing in some different shot shapes again. I'm not typically a Tiger "fanboy", but I think his long game looked pretty awesome this weekend.
  4. For some reason I get the urge to kick up this testy old thread with a new spin on the issue: Psychological and neuroscience research seems to support the idea that humans are inherently and naturally good. (It's not proven yet - not that any theory is ever really "proven" - but there is some substantial support for the idea. Type "self-determination theory into Google Scholar for a starting point.) Basically, the theory is that if a person is mentally healthy and has grown up and lives in a healthy environment, then he or she is likely to engage in a lifestyle that fits in with what are generally considered good morals. It's a powerful theory that has explanatory and predictive power for all sorts of situations, and it is my unprofessional opinion that future research will help us understand this issue in more detail while still generally supporting the idea that people are inherently good. So, to me, if someone is religious, often they will effectively be putting the word "God" where I believe the words "healthy intrinsic motivation" are more appropriate. For example, if someone is going through some hard times, he or she might try to hold onto the idea of "being guided by God" or something like that as a way of trying to stick to good morals - self determination theory would say that the person is struggling to keep his or her healthy intrinsic motivation intact in spite of some factors that are compromising his or her core psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Bottom line, science seems to indicate that people are inherently good.
  5. Hahaha ok.....? I really don't get it. I think it would only help by letting a potential customer poke around and see the kind of instruction and knowledge and debate you guys are all about. I know TST and TGE are separate things but I think the average person would realize what your posts and Dave's posts are in relation to the whole site.
  6. That seems like a great idea. I hadn't looked at this thread for a while, but I figured I should come back and mention that for me a key seems to be focusing on maintaining pitch elbow throughout the downswing. Since I started doing this more, my impact conditions have felt more athletic and dynamic.
  7. Wow that looks amazing! Just out of curiosity, why don't you guys link to The Sand Trap forum on the Golf Evolution website?
  8. Cool, I can buy that, more or less. Thanks for the elaboration. I've been meaning to sign up for Evolvr for like a year now. One of these days... But I still basically hold the opinion that taking away a major form of feedback is not an advantage, if it's meant as a most-of-the-time thing. For a lesson format with an instructor watching your shots, sure, I guess it makes sense. But I'm not confident enough in my own ability to analyze video that I can trust how the ball probably flew without really seeing it (I guess if the net is far enough away you can at least see the initial curve). To me, the ideal practice environment is: camera on, no wind, watch how the ball flies and see the video - both as needed. Of course, in reality I am usually at a windy driving range with no camera, but like I said, one of these days I will get my act together and sign up for Evolvr!
  9. I know Erik is highly informed with everything he says, but I kind of disagree with this idea. Basically, in my opinion, the more information and feedback you get on a given shot, the better. This idea seems to rest on an assumption that a golfer can't help but get in his own way, and I don't think that's a fair assumption to make, or to assume is true for the majority of people. If you want to focus on video and positions for a particular practice session then go ahead and do it, but I think being able to observe the ball flight is generally a good thing. Furthermore, doesn't this kind of go against the idea that Erik has mentioned before about most students' ballstriking improving within a given lesson? It seems like the ballstriking improving within a given lesson idea implies that improvements occur relatively quickly, while this hitting into a net idea implies that you will often have to hit worse shots for a while before you will improve.
  10. Good point and I think you're right, but it doesn't shift my personal view. Maybe I overstated my position; maybe I should have used the word "nature" instead of "progress", and you can think of my point "c" as figuring I might as well do what is natural and go along with nature - that way it takes the qualitative judgment and connotation out of it. I agree. I don't hate religious people at all, I'm just putting my thoughts out there.
  11. Well, I'm not a believer in any one neatly packaged world view, but in pretty vague terms one could think a) humans are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe b) there is some sort of force of physics or evolution that pushes onward and can be thought of as "progress" perhaps and c) living a life that fits in with a and b rather than disrupting them seems to make sense and be natural. So, for example, senseless violence and things like that would seem to disrupt "b" as I described it. I'll add a quick pragmatic perspective to my view, too. From experience and observation, being good and decent seems to make people happier and more successful than being evil, so it makes sense in that way, too. Plus it feels natural and is just the way I am. I don't know how other non-religious people think about morals and ethics, but that's how I think about it.
  12. This is kind of fun! The chemicals are not random, they are the product of many years of evolution. I try to frame my moral reasoning (and all other types of reasoning I do) around science and evidence as much as I can. Count me in the non-religious camp.
  13. This article lists the most dominant major performances ever based on comparing the winner's score to the mean score of the field - ranking Tiger at Pebble as the most dominant performance by a wide margin since 1960, and Rory's as the 17th most dominant. http://espn.go.com/espn/grantland/story/_/id/6680477/relative-dominance It seems like a decent method of analysis to me. It could be even better if the strength of field were taken into consideration, since a Masters field for instance is typically weaker than other fields because of special exemptions and things like that.
  14. I'd be interested in this info, too. When I need to fade the ball or draw it more than normal, I like to keep my swing the same and only adjust my alignment and where the club is pointed. So if I need to fade the ball around a tree, for example, I will point the club face roughly where I want the ball to start and align my stance further to the left of that intended starting line, and try to make a normal swing. For now, I basically estimate that I need to align my stance twice as far wide as the club face to get the ball to curve the proper amount: so if I want to start the ball 10 yards left of the flag and have it fade to the flag, I will align my stance 20 yards left of the flag and take my grip so that the club face is pointing 10 yards left of the flag. Or if I want to start the ball 15 yards left of the flag, I will align my stands 30 yards left of the flag and point the club face 15 yards left of the flag. You get the idea. But I don't know if these estimates are correct. And of course I don't know for sure exactly how my swing path was for a given swing, so even if the ball curves the amount I want it to, I'm still not sure if it was because I aligned myself properly and made a good swing or because I aligned myself wrong but messed up my swing just the correct way by coincidence. So basically, if you have the info, I would love to know the general, basic estimates for the swing path / club face angle combination that will produce a given amount of curve to the ball, just assuming a normal lie, average swing speed, perfect contact, no wind. Just a basic estimate so I can be confident about my alignment and just focus on making a good swing. Thanks. PS: I know there will be a difference for draws and fades if you normally play a push draw or something, but the info about swing path / club face angle would still be very useful. A push draw player will just need to realize that you exaggerate the set up for fades and reduce it for hooks (all of this assuming you hit fades and draws by adjusting your set up and making a normal swing).
×
×
  • 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...