There's no such thing as an "Average Golfer"

13

Comments

  • HitEmTrueHitEmTrue North TexasMembers Posts: 6,372 ✭✭
    Sean2 wrote:


    There are a lot of vehicles I can't fit in, especially any one with a sun roof.




    How does the addition of a sunroof decrease headroom?



    Of course you could always drive with it open. image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />



  • MedicMedic Members Posts: 9,421 ✭✭
    HitEmTrue wrote:

    Sean2 wrote:


    There are a lot of vehicles I can't fit in, especially any one with a sun roof.




    How does the addition of a sunroof decrease headroom?



    Of course you could always drive with it open. image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />







    Being 6'2" I can appreciate what Sean's talking about. I have to admit that my Civic with a sunroof has clanged my head on the low roof. (because the sunroof has to go somewhere when opened so the tracks and such serve to diminish the headroom)



    I can attest to how badly it hurts when you get popped in the head going over a bump. image/black eye.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':black eye:' />
    Callaway Epic with Fujikura 62s in 45.25 set at 12.5*
    Taylormade Rbz FW (17*)
    Callaway X-Hot Pro 20* Hybrid
    Callaway Steelhead 4-PW w/KBS 90s
    Titleist Vokey 50*
    Titleist Vokey SM-6 56*
    Titleist Vokey SM-6 60-08 M
    Tad Moore TM-1 35"
    Callaway Chrome Soft
  • Smash FactorsSmash Factors Members Posts: 3,668 ✭✭
    oikos1 wrote:


    So going back to your original post, it sounds like you are saying any golf instruction program designed for more than one person is fraudulent based on the idea that we are all unique and said program could really only help one person.




    I think it would be a mistake to instruct a group of people in the exact same way without spending any time addressing a single persons individual needs. IMO, instruction should be more personalized than generic.



    In the last few years, one thing golf instructors are discovering is that one-by-one, all these age old assumptions your Grandfather taught you about the golf swing are being debunked.



    "Keep your head down."

    "Keep your head still."

    "Swing out to the right."

    "Align your feet to the target."

    "Hold the angles."

    "Point the shaft to the target at the top of the swing."

    "Bow the left wrist."

    "Hold the club like a bird."



    This stuff doesn't work for everyone. We're not all the same.
    Whatever driver happens to be working at the time
    Some random 3 wood
    My same, old irons
    A few wedges...
    Scotty Cameron Fastback
  • northgolfnorthgolf Pork Members Posts: 4,013 ✭✭
    Blah, blal, blah.



    How about doing some work and finding modes which define approximate groups that could be instructed in the same manner. This thread has all been a goose chase because the op sent us chasing an average body type when the tripartite ecto/endo/mezomorph body type modes have been known for ages. Of course average is inutile, it doesn't match any of the modes.



    This is worse than watching dogs chase their tails and cats chase lasers..
    If I do this 11,548 more times, I will be having fun. - Zippy the Pinhead
  • northgolfnorthgolf Pork Members Posts: 4,013 ✭✭
    While I am ranting, without wanting to be mean (average?!), saying there is no person who is average because you did not find one in a sample of 4000 at a point in time when the earth's population was 1.2 billion is presumptuous. This mode of thinking has to be well below the median of anyone with the slightest grasp of statistics.



    Statistics can only lie if you don't understand how they are being used.
    If I do this 11,548 more times, I will be having fun. - Zippy the Pinhead
  • northgolfnorthgolf Pork Members Posts: 4,013 ✭✭
    The next thing you know, we will all be in Lake WoeBeGone where all children are above average.
    If I do this 11,548 more times, I will be having fun. - Zippy the Pinhead
  • oikos1oikos1 Members Posts: 2,268 ✭✭
    I love a good rant. Even more when it isn't me. The one thing I can appreciate about the OP's premise is that if I can't possibly be an average golfer, at least it's been narrowed down to only two possibilities: "Yeah, that guy can play" or "No, he pretty much sucks".
  • thug the bunnythug the bunny Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭
    northgolf wrote:


    While I am ranting, without wanting to be mean (average?!), saying there is no person who is average because you did not find one in a sample of 4000 at a point in time when the earth's population was 1.2 billion is presumptuous. This mode of thinking has to be well below the median of anyone with the slightest grasp of statistics.



    Statistics can only lie if you don't understand how they are being used.




    Well said. Thank you. I think we all know the OP's point that instruction should be individualized, but to use a poor understanding of statistics to support that view is incorrect, off point, and misrepresents statistics.
  • MedicMedic Members Posts: 9,421 ✭✭
    In my 55 plus years on this earth I have learned a great deal.



    One of the main things is that certain words and phrases simply don't apply...



    "Always"



    "Never"



    "No such thing"



    End thread/
    Callaway Epic with Fujikura 62s in 45.25 set at 12.5*
    Taylormade Rbz FW (17*)
    Callaway X-Hot Pro 20* Hybrid
    Callaway Steelhead 4-PW w/KBS 90s
    Titleist Vokey 50*
    Titleist Vokey SM-6 56*
    Titleist Vokey SM-6 60-08 M
    Tad Moore TM-1 35"
    Callaway Chrome Soft
  • Sean2Sean2 #TheWRX (Callaway Trip) Members Posts: 30,826 ✭✭
    Medic wrote:


    In my 55 plus years on this earth I have learned a great deal.



    One of the main things is that certain words and phrases simply don't apply...



    "Always"



    "Never"



    "No such thing"



    End thread/




    What you say is impossible. lol
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway Rogue[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway GBB Epic 16º/20º/24º[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway Steelhead XR 25º[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway Apex CF16 6-AW [/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway MD3/MD-PM 54º/58º[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway "O" Works #7[/font]
  • MiddlerMiddler Members Posts: 366
    edited Jan 13, 2018 #72
    I'm not sure why this distinction is so important. When I think of average golfers, I am not thinking about height, weight, age, and other bodily dimensions like the pilot example - I am thinking about average score, handicap, driving distance, % GIR, % fairways, # of putts/hole, etc. And all that's useful for is helping to see where I need to improve and where I'm already "average." I've never met a golfer who cared how their bodily dimensions compared to others.



    Yes, it's more useful to compare yourself to peers, who doesn't know that? That's why we usually see average for seniors, women, touring pros, etc. - not often the whole universe of players.



    What's wrong with using golf performance averages as a rough guide on where to focus? What's a better means to guide an average golfer who isn't part of an academic study?
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    CALLAWAY Rogue 10.5° & 3W 15°
    MIZUNO CLK 3 Hybrid 19°
    MIZUNO JPX900 Forged 4-GW, S18 56.10 & 60.06
    EVNROLL ER2
    SNELL MTB Black
    OGIO Silencer
  • Lincoln_ArcadiaLincoln_Arcadia We're supposed to be having fun here...yeah, right. Members Posts: 543
    Middler wrote:


    I'm not sure why this distinction is so important. When I think of average golfers, I am not thinking about height, weight, age, and other bodily dimensions like the pilot example - I am thinking about average score, handicap, driving distance, % GIR, % fairways, # of putts/hole, etc. And all that's useful for is helping to see where I need to improve and where I'm already "average." I've never met a golfer who cared how their bodily dimensions compared to others.



    Yes, it's more useful to compare yourself to peers, who doesn't know that. That's why we usually see average for seniors, women, touring pros, etc. - not often the whole universe of players.



    What's wrong with using golf performance averages as a rough guide on where to focus? What's a better means to guide an average golfer who isn't part of an academic study?




    The point of this thread is that there's no average way to teach everyone.
  • MiddlerMiddler Members Posts: 366
    edited Jan 13, 2018 #74

    Middler wrote:


    I'm not sure why this distinction is so important. When I think of average golfers, I am not thinking about height, weight, age, and other bodily dimensions like the pilot example - I am thinking about average score, handicap, driving distance, % GIR, % fairways, # of putts/hole, etc. And all that's useful for is helping to see where I need to improve and where I'm already "average." I've never met a golfer who cared how their bodily dimensions compared to others.



    Yes, it's more useful to compare yourself to peers, who doesn't know that. That's why we usually see average for seniors, women, touring pros, etc. - not often the whole universe of players.



    What's wrong with using golf performance averages as a rough guide on where to focus? What's a better means to guide an average golfer who isn't part of an academic study?




    The point of this thread is that there's no average way to teach everyone.


    OK, but I hope the OP isn’t suggesting we all have nothing in common, or that are all our swings are completely and meaningfully unique. That each of us has to adapt to our ability is not news. Maybe I missed it, did the OP ever offer an alternative?
    CALLAWAY Rogue 10.5° & 3W 15°
    MIZUNO CLK 3 Hybrid 19°
    MIZUNO JPX900 Forged 4-GW, S18 56.10 & 60.06
    EVNROLL ER2
    SNELL MTB Black
    OGIO Silencer
  • Lincoln_ArcadiaLincoln_Arcadia We're supposed to be having fun here...yeah, right. Members Posts: 543
    Middler wrote:


    Middler wrote:


    I'm not sure why this distinction is so important. When I think of average golfers, I am not thinking about height, weight, age, and other bodily dimensions like the pilot example - I am thinking about average score, handicap, driving distance, % GIR, % fairways, # of putts/hole, etc. And all that's useful for is helping to see where I need to improve and where I'm already "average." I've never met a golfer who cared how their bodily dimensions compared to others.



    Yes, it's more useful to compare yourself to peers, who doesn't know that. That's why we usually see average for seniors, women, touring pros, etc. - not often the whole universe of players.



    What's wrong with using golf performance averages as a rough guide on where to focus? What's a better means to guide an average golfer who isn't part of an academic study?




    The point of this thread is that there's no average way to teach everyone.


    OK, but I hope the OP isn’t suggesting we all have nothing in common, or that are all our swings are completely and meaningfully unique. That each of us has to adapt to our ability is not news. Maybe I missed it, did the OP ever offer an alternative?




    There are some common things that look the same In everyone’s swings, but I’m sure that there are many paths to lead to that swing.
  • thug the bunnythug the bunny Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭
    This is becoming silly. I have never seen the word 'average' misused so frequently.
  • Smash FactorsSmash Factors Members Posts: 3,668 ✭✭




    The point of this thread is that there's no average way to teach everyone.




    That's pretty much the message, but I also want people to understand that there is no average person. It's very typical for people to assume that average people exist. In recent years, scientists have discovered that they ultimately reach a dead end when trying to define what an average person is. What most of them really wanted to figure out was average intelligence. They wanted to map the brain and figure out how an average person thinks. They're finding that if you took 1000 people and had them all perform the same mental task, that each person would be using their brain in their own unique way to find the same answer. You cannot map brain activity.



    I may be wrong, but I think that many golf instructors have wrongly assumed that there's instructive ideas that work for everyone.



    Slicefixer for example, would prefer to have all his students spend days, if not weeks, hitting thousands of balls in a 9-3 drill. Is that supposed to work for everyone?
    Whatever driver happens to be working at the time
    Some random 3 wood
    My same, old irons
    A few wedges...
    Scotty Cameron Fastback
  • thug the bunnythug the bunny Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭



    The point of this thread is that there's no average way to teach everyone.




    That's pretty much the message, but I also want people to understand that there is no average person. It's very typical for people to assume that average people exist. In recent years, scientists have discovered that they ultimately reach a dead end when trying to define what an average person is. What most of them really wanted to figure out was average intelligence. They wanted to map the brain and figure out how an average person thinks. They're finding that if you took 1000 people and had them all perform the same mental task, that each person would be using their brain in their own unique way to find the same answer. You cannot map brain activity.



    I may be wrong, but I think that many golf instructors have wrongly assumed that there's instructive ideas that work for everyone.



    Slicefixer for example, would prefer to have all his students spend days, if not weeks, hitting thousands of balls in a 9-3 drill. Is that supposed to work for everyone?




    Worked for me, and it works for a lot of beginners, as well as for more experienced golfers to regain their baseline. That's how I first discovered ball first square contact long ago (and I'm proud to say I discovered it myself when I noticed that punching the ball under branches or out of woods produced a nice repeatable boring flight). So, am I average?
  • Smash FactorsSmash Factors Members Posts: 3,668 ✭✭




    The point of this thread is that there's no average way to teach everyone.




    That's pretty much the message, but I also want people to understand that there is no average person. It's very typical for people to assume that average people exist. In recent years, scientists have discovered that they ultimately reach a dead end when trying to define what an average person is. What most of them really wanted to figure out was average intelligence. They wanted to map the brain and figure out how an average person thinks. They're finding that if you took 1000 people and had them all perform the same mental task, that each person would be using their brain in their own unique way to find the same answer. You cannot map brain activity.



    I may be wrong, but I think that many golf instructors have wrongly assumed that there's instructive ideas that work for everyone.



    Slicefixer for example, would prefer to have all his students spend days, if not weeks, hitting thousands of balls in a 9-3 drill. Is that supposed to work for everyone?




    Worked for me, and it works for a lot of beginners, as well as for more experienced golfers to regain their baseline. That's how I first discovered ball first square contact long ago (and I'm proud to say I discovered it myself when I noticed that punching the ball under branches or out of woods produced a nice repeatable boring flight). So, am I average?




    It worked for you.



    Doesn't work for everyone.
    Whatever driver happens to be working at the time
    Some random 3 wood
    My same, old irons
    A few wedges...
    Scotty Cameron Fastback
  • MiddlerMiddler Members Posts: 366
    northgolf wrote:


    Blah, blal, blah.



    This is worse than watching dogs chase their tails and cats chase lasers..


    +1. Especially in that the OP offers no alternatives. For every person who has a useful solution, there are a million others who can only suggest problems.
    CALLAWAY Rogue 10.5° & 3W 15°
    MIZUNO CLK 3 Hybrid 19°
    MIZUNO JPX900 Forged 4-GW, S18 56.10 & 60.06
    EVNROLL ER2
    SNELL MTB Black
    OGIO Silencer
  • glkglk send it in jerome Members Posts: 3,317 ✭✭
    So Globo Gym going after Average Joe's was a big mistake?
  • 8thehardway8thehardway Members Posts: 1,900 ✭✭
    How long would it have taken Gary Koch to say "better than most" if worded in a statistically-approved fashion?
    Callaway Big Bertha 12.5*
    Jones/Ortiz 4 wood 17*
    Kasco hybrid 23*
    Adams Idea Black CB2 irons 26, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45*
    Callaway MD3 S grind 52, 56, C grind 60, PM grind 64*
    Tom Slighter Needle 450g, 3* loft, 74* lie
  • Lincoln_ArcadiaLincoln_Arcadia We're supposed to be having fun here...yeah, right. Members Posts: 543
    Middler wrote:


    For every person who has a useful solution, there are a million others who can only suggest problems.




    That's why there are tens of thousands of golf instructors populating the world.
  • thug the bunnythug the bunny Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭


    How long would it have taken Gary Koch to say "better than most" if worded in a statistically-approved fashion?




    "Better than +/- one standard deviation of average except for the fact that there is no one golfer who exactly fits the current criteria of the highest population of pro golfers...better than +/- one standard deviation...(How about in?)....Better than +/- one standard deviation......!!!"
  • Smash FactorsSmash Factors Members Posts: 3,668 ✭✭
    Middler wrote:

    northgolf wrote:


    Blah, blal, blah.



    This is worse than watching dogs chase their tails and cats chase lasers..


    +1. Especially in that the OP offers no alternatives. For every person who has a useful solution, there are a million others who can only suggest problems.




    I sorta did though.



    If you want to use a single dimensional thing (Like scoring) to compare your performance to average, then that's fine. If you're a 5 index player and want to know the average number of putts that a 5 indexer takes per round, that would be useful for a comparison. It's when people try to average something multi dimensional that you have problems. If you tried to determine what an average golfer is so you could look at stats, you would be destined to fail. You also cannot rely on a singular dimensional thing, when it's only one part of a multi dimensional phenomena. You cannot only be a good putter and expect to be a great golfer. You have to also drive the ball well, hit decent irons, have good green side play, and more.



    In the early 2000's Isaiah Thomas was in charge of the Knicks. He decided to build the team based upon only one thing: Scoring average. He assumed that if every player on the team had a high scoring average that they surely would win a championship. With a seemingly endless supply of money, he spent what was necessary to obtain many NBA players with the highest scoring average in the league.



    The result? They had several losing seasons.



    The reason why is that basketball talent is not a single dimensional phenomena. It's multi dimensional. You cant just be a top scorer and expect to win games. You have to have people who can block, assist, steal, shoot free throws and much more. Imagine a team of basketball stars who are used to getting the assist and driving the shot home. Now, these guys are having to GIVE the assist....which isn't something they're used to doing. Not only that, but they also have to do all the other things that everyone else on the team normally does for them.



    All that being said, without it I don't think the thread is useless. There's a larger message here about averages and how they've been a huge part of your life but you probably never really realized it.
    Whatever driver happens to be working at the time
    Some random 3 wood
    My same, old irons
    A few wedges...
    Scotty Cameron Fastback
  • thug the bunnythug the bunny Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭
    It's called a variable, not a dimension.
  • northgolfnorthgolf Pork Members Posts: 4,013 ✭✭
    On the flip side, is there such a thing as an average ignorant ****? My regards to Jane Curtain, who bears no resemblance to the origin of this question.
    If I do this 11,548 more times, I will be having fun. - Zippy the Pinhead
  • Smash FactorsSmash Factors Members Posts: 3,668 ✭✭


    It's called a variable, not a dimension.




    Multidimensional is the better option because it refers to complex things with many different aspects or variables.
    Whatever driver happens to be working at the time
    Some random 3 wood
    My same, old irons
    A few wedges...
    Scotty Cameron Fastback
  • thug the bunnythug the bunny Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭
    edited Jan 17, 2018 #89



    It's called a variable, not a dimension.




    Multidimensional is the better option because it refers to complex things with many different aspects or variables.




    Multi variable or multivariate.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • Hateto3PuttHateto3Putt Smoking Makes You Look Cool! Members Posts: 6,277 ✭✭
    You can tell it’s January when topics like this appear.



    The average temperature around here for the past 30 days has been 10.
  • thug the bunnythug the bunny Members Posts: 6,141 ✭✭


    You can tell it's January when topics like this appear.



    The average temperature around here for the past 30 days has been 10.




    You got that right H3P...I haven't played since mid Dec, and only played 2x from oct - dec before that due to work. I'm thinking of gouging my eyes out. Might be a bit more comfortable that way.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file