MD/VA/DC Golfers - Ten Seconds or Less

[FAbb]

I blame my nagging joint injuries on lack of exercise. I lifted 3-4 days/week prior to having kids. Not for bodybuilding or power lifting, but just general strength and health. Mostly compound stuff. Stopped right before my son was born. Loss of swing speed, and multiple unexplained chronic joint pains have followed.

 

I have a hard time believing he stress fractured a rib from normal exercise. Maybe if he's bouncing the bar off his chest, or something weird.

[misplacedtexan83]

Hardcore golf work outs and body building,etc completely different.

[eagle1997]

equipment update:

 

ksigs: straight fire off the tee. launches high. awesome spin around the green. sturdy, wore well. really really am enjoying this ball. i like it more and more the more i play it. had to hit a delicate little checker down a slope and it dug in perfect and rolled out to a foot. i was 30 yards past my srixon on occasion off the tee. variation in strike? sure, a little bit, for sure. but in the end, all i can say is "tex was right."

 

m1 w/ 3 weights: performed about the same as when i had 2 weights on it (both on back track), but sounded loads better. i need to move the front weight a bit more to the toe, as my expected fades were just kinda hanging left. distance was hard to judge because i wasn't exactly striping it. some good ones in there tho. will be playing around with the weight combos/locations a bit more.

 

fun to experiment with crap like this in the offseason.

[eagle1997]

This is a strange question but have there ever been normal-shaped mid 20s-mid 30s guys get injured more than the over-gym guys?

 

probably impossible to tell. in general, i think everyone on tour is working out a ton these days. even normal-shaped guys like zj and jimmy walker and badds. odd 3some to pick for sure, but i remember either reading or seeing stuff with those guys and the workouts they do.

 

maybe a better comparison would be between obviously non-gym, non-workout people (carl petterson, shane lowry) and guys that obviously do so hardcore (rory, jason day, DJ, villegas).

[dcmidnight]

Well there's an obvious difference between ZJ and Rory. Working out "a ton" - and doing the intense weightlifting work that Rory and Tiger do are two different things. .Zach does a lot of balance work, cable work, different things like that - but he's not just ripping the sick amount of weight that Rory is.

[DT15]

[vtnerf]

Rory with a stress fracture in his rib, out indefinitely. GD it, really thought he looked good this weekend.

 

How the F does that even happen?

Did he drop a heavy pot on his ribs? No, oh, nevermind.

[eagle1997]

just trying to figure out parameters to your question, and see if it is answerable based on what information is already out there.

 

group 1: hardcore workout guys

rory, tiger, jason day, dj and ?

 

group 2: workout but no heavy weights

zj et al

 

group 3: no workout, no weights, beer tastes good

carl petterson, shane lowry, and ?

[misplacedtexan83]

Lots of driving today...

 

Packed a lunch and snacks for the kiddo/me today and then rolled out to DT's workshop to get some shafts pulled/installed on my wedges. (125 recoils..thanks Sully)

 

Get there with my payment (XR16 3 wood/AD Di M 7s, sleeve of Chromesoft x and some random bottle of tequila (we believe) from Romania)

 

Guess what...I forgot the wedges :(

DT played daddy day care as I ran back to the house/return back (30 minutes one way)

 

Anywho, get back then some cutting, drilling, gluing, and blowing happen. Fun little video of us blowing a grip up after we realized mine weren't going to come off (gram).

 

Fun times. The kiddos played and had fun as well.

 

Thanks again to DT...

[davechen]

I like the steelers and dislike the patriots, but 6 points? I'd go with the pats.

[ALTSean]

I got out for 18 at USNA today. The course was pretty much empty so I was able to get some good practice in and still got done in 3 hours walking. It was cold, but not windy and I started with 4 layers up top and finished with 3 layers and was plenty warm. I played with the K-sigs for the first time and think I like them, but it was tough to judge distance due to the cold temps. Hopefully the rest of winter is mild and we can all get some rounds in before handicap season.

[pquarta1]

just trying to figure out parameters to your question, and see if it is answerable based on what information is already out there.

 

group 1: hardcore workout guys

rory, tiger, jason day, dj and ?

 

group 2: workout but no heavy weights

zj et al

 

group 3: no workout, no weights, beer tastes good

carl petterson, shane lowry, and ?

 

Jason Day. He is a straight wussy. He does not workout hard. No way no how. Stop it.

 

I work out like Beef these last few years. Not awesome, but an easy one to stick to.

[TheCityGame]

just trying to figure out parameters to your question, and see if it is answerable based on what information is already out there.

 

group 1: hardcore workout guys

rory, tiger, jason day, dj and ?

 

group 2: workout but no heavy weights

zj et al

 

group 3: no workout, no weights, beer tastes good

carl petterson, shane lowry, and ?

even if you found different injury rates between those groups you could never attribute it to the exercise itself.

 

Main issue right off the bat is "self selection" of each population.

 

Also even if the hard core guys get injured more, for all you know, they might be getting injured EVEN MORE if they weren't exercising. If they're getting injured less, you could just say, "oh, it's a group of non-injury-prone people who choose to work out" and not the working out itself.

 

It's a classic problem with "looking back" at data and trying to draw inferences instead of randomly assigning people to different groups up front.

 

Even smoking was so hard to prove as the cause of health problems for so long because they'd look at the population of smokers and they did so much other stuff that confounded the analysis... They eat bad. They drink. They don't sleep well. Lower socio economic.etc etc etc.

[pquarta1]

just trying to figure out parameters to your question, and see if it is answerable based on what information is already out there.

 

group 1: hardcore workout guys

rory, tiger, jason day, dj and ?

 

group 2: workout but no heavy weights

zj et al

 

group 3: no workout, no weights, beer tastes good

carl petterson, shane lowry, and ?

even if you found different injury rates between those groups you could never attribute it to the exercise itself.

 

Main issue right off the bat is "self selection" of each population.

 

Also even if the hard core guys get injured more, for all you know, they might be getting injured EVEN MORE if they weren't exercising. If they're getting injured less, you could just say, "oh, it's a group of non-injury-prone people who choose to work out" and not the working out itself.

 

It's a classic problem with "looking back" at data and trying to draw inferences instead of randomly assigning people to different groups up front.

 

Even smoking was so hard to prove as the cause of health problems for so long because they'd look at the population of smokers and they did so much other stuff that confounded the analysis... They eat bad. They drink. They don't sleep well. Lower socio economic.etc etc etc.

 

And Jason Day is a wuss.

[TheCityGame]

City, figured this would be the type of thread that would interest you, or any other data folks:

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...n-for-strategy/

yes and no. I've started down that road before.

 

It's interesting to flat out model statistically every decision on the golf course, but it doesn't boil down to much. It's useless without having a "shots to go" score from every possible position (which is tuff to get) and if you have that, "club choice" and "aim point" fall right out pretty easily.

 

Then, if you try to work in other things, it almost just invalidates your whole study...for instance, your spreadsheet might tell you to hit hybrid on this short par 4, but actually you haven't missed a fairway with the driver all day so you should go for it. I think playing a good game of golf is intuitively making the decisions he's modeling but also knowing your game that day and knowing how a hole looks to your eye. You also need to make mental corrections to the model based on conditions, the requirements of your match/tournament.

 

It also is closely linked to what a wuss Jason Day is.

[baddomes]

Rory was playing in a Tuesday night co-ed rec floor hockey league

[SullGolf]

I dunno City. If you were taking life GPS measurements, you could set something up to factor in how you were hitting it that day. In either case, you don't need to surrender your decision making to a model. Just see the outputs and make a decision with whatever extra knowledge or feel you have. It's kind of an intriguing idea to me, except that it's unlikely I'll ever have enough data to do it. I could theoretically combine GPS readings for start/stop plus give an aim line via a map.

 

While less data intensive, it'd be nice just to know your confidence range of where it's going to go. A lot of people (myself) play a fade so they aim down the left. But there's no major rhyme or reason to how far left. If you had a 95% confidence range that you're between 20 yards left and 50 yards right, that gives you good info on where you should line up. It'd also be nice to see that sort of data over time as you are working on lessons. If I was 20 left to 50 right, and I improve to 15 left to 45 right, that might seem like the same on the course, but I just reduced dispersion by 14%.

[2moreTerps]

I know no one likes politics or religion but one issue plauging or society/culture is that we read interpretations of documents rather than the document itself. So within this reasonable educated community of which I am a fringe member I'm just going to leave this here

 

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

 

 

[FAbb]

It's kind of an intriguing idea to me, except that it's unlikely I'll ever have enough data to do it.

 

I think that's definitely the tough part. How many hours would you need on a trackman to generate a reasonable sized sample for every club in your bag? I don't think that's something most people of access to get done. Even then, it's all "range data" which just ain't the same as real on-course results. Trying to extrapolate a limited set of real data seems wrought with potential issues as well. To top it all off, I don't think many people are even good enough to have a very consistent scatter pattern. Anybody that's making serious swing changes that are effecting ball flight would have to re-calibrate a bunch of times as they're changing? That's a lot of maintenance. I think it's a cool idea, and maybe has an application with top level amateurs, and professionals. Just doesn't seem like something that will translate to the larger golf population.

[Kent01putt]

What does "Even then, it's all "range data" which just ain't the same as real on-course results." mean. Serious question. The reason I practice is to get that range data so I can perform the same shots on the course. Don't you try to carry over the practice to the game, otherwise why practice.

 

Personally I find keeping a lot of statics becomes useless after you have compiled a few years worth. I have a old book home with 10 years worth of info in them. I found that playing different tracks has a ton of influence on all statics. Example -- Bethpage Black compared to Clifton Park statics has no meaning whatsoever. Depth of bunkers vs shallow bunkers has no relationship to up & downs. Narrow Fairway's vs wide open fairways has no relationship and so on etc..... I know what I am good at and what I am not good at. Generally don't need a static to tell me. Simply review the round in your mind and sooner than later you will say "My putting sucks or I am not hitting enough Fairways" If I am not hitting enough fairways than I practice my full swing with irons because the driver swing is an extension of a swing flaw that needs to be corrected. Much easier to correct with the mid irons in hand at lest for me.

[TheCityGame]

No more Fancy-footing around Friday.

 

I just made 10:00 AM at Waverly Woods. 9:50 and 10:10 are still available. If anyone else wants to book.

 

I'm going to pencil in Me, PQ, Sully, Kent. I think those were the most serious replies I got.

 

The web site says $49-$59 and that walking rates will be adjusted when you pay. I'm not sure why there's a range on that.

[eagle1997]

I know no one likes politics or religion but one issue plauging or society/culture is that we read interpretations of documents rather than the document itself. So within this reasonable educated community of which I am a fringe member I'm just going to leave this here

 

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

 

Incredible letter. I'd never read it in its entirety before yesterday. Thank you for posting the link.

[FAbb]

What does "Even then, it's all "range data" which just ain't the same as real on-course results." mean. Serious question. The reason I practice is to get that range data so I can perform the same shots on the course. Don't you try to carry over the practice to the game, otherwise why practice.

 

Not everybody is the same, but I think you'd find the vast majority of golfers perform at a higher level on the driving range. They're hitting off a mat, which can mask minor issues with low point, or they're hitting off grass and giving themselves perfect lies every time. They're probably hitting the same club over and over, getting into a groove with it. There's no variety of uphill, downhill, and side hill lies. Hitting to an uphill or downhill green, or a protected green just isn't the same mentally as hitting to a flag on a driving range. The range just isn't the same as the golf course.

 

Personally I find keeping a lot of statics becomes useless after you have compiled a few years worth.

 

Agreed. At some point as a golfer, you've got to be able to just evaluate your game qualitatively.

[misplacedtexan83]

From my experience visiting this place I believe this...

 

http://www.foxnews.c...amas-entry.html

[dcmidnight]

While less data intensive, it'd be nice just to know your confidence range of where it's going to go. A lot of people (myself) play a fade so they aim down the left. But there's no major rhyme or reason to how far left. If you had a 95% confidence range that you're between 20 yards left and 50 yards right, that gives you good info on where you should line up. It'd also be nice to see that sort of data over time as you are working on lessons. If I was 20 left to 50 right, and I improve to 15 left to 45 right, that might seem like the same on the course, but I just reduced dispersion by 14%.

 

I think if someone really plays a fade you would have a pretty good idea of how much of a fade you're playing off the tee. 70 yards seems absolutely massive. You're pretty good off the tee Sully, I bet if you went to a range and had a way to measure the width of your driver dispersion, you'd be surprised.

 

If the width of someone's shot dispersion on their driver is really 70 yards, they aren't "playing" anything - on purpose. They're aiming and praying at that point.

[FAbb]

If the width of someone's shot dispersion on their driver is really 70 yards, they aren't "playing" anything - on purpose. They're aiming and praying at that point.

 

I don't think that's necessarily true. Even a good driver is probably going to have a pretty substantial dispersion.

 

The posts starting with this one made for a very interesting read/watch.

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1420584-course-management-swing-thoughts-for-lowering-scores/#entry14674738

[dcmidnight]

If the width of someone's shot dispersion on their driver is really 70 yards, they aren't "playing" anything - on purpose. They're aiming and praying at that point.

 

I don't think that's necessarily true. Even a good driver is probably going to have a pretty substantial dispersion.

 

The posts starting with this one made for a very interesting read/watch.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c.../#entry14674738

 

A run of the mill "good driver" does not have a seventy yard dispersion. If you aim down the middle that means you could miss 35 yards left or right of center. 35 yards? Not for a "good driver".

 

But if you think you're in control of your swing enough to play one shot or the other on purpose and the lateral dispersion of your drives is 70 yards - then you aren't really in control of your drives.

[FAbb]

It might not be quite 70 yards, but I bet my dispersion is in the neighborhood of that. Do you think I'm a run of the mill "good driver" of the golf ball?

[dcmidnight]

I think you're a great driver - probably top 1 or 2 in the thread in a "total driving" stat combining distance and accuracy - and there is 0% chance your dispersion is in the neighborhood of 70 yards (over a reasonable # of drives). 0.00%.

 

Maybe you once hit one way to the right or left of a hole. And I dont know for statistical analysis over say 100 drives how many outliers you could get away with leaving out of the sample set. But measure 35 yards right or left of the first fairway of Hobbits. I bet its a wider pattern than you are thinking it is.

 

Again I'm not saying you hit a ball out of that window once or twice. But if you took say 90 out of 100 drives theres no chance your pattern is approaching 70 yards.

[misplacedtexan83]

^^^

 

Somehow conversations always turns to how good Fabb is.. #trend.

 

I think any type of stats is good for golfers but knowing what to do with them is where the rubber meets the road