Clearing my hips

[footwedge]

This is a silly, pointless thread.

Seems like people like silly pointless things, 24 pages so far. Maybe a special section for generally pointless discussions would be the way to go, I think it might be popular. Sometimes you need a break from all the science and just shoot the breeze, smell the roses along the road of scientific discovery a little detour in the back country so to speak.....ahh! feels good.

Science is nice but b.s.'ing is more fun, that's what I like about playing golf the back and forth with your playing partners , A thread like this is good now and then.

 

[dschultz6072]

Seems like people like silly pointless things, 24 pages so far. Maybe a special section for generally pointless discussions would be the way to go, I think it might be popular. Sometimes you need a break from all the science and just shoot the breeze, smell the roses along the road of scientific discovery a little detour in the back country so to speak.....ahh! feels good.

Science is nice but b.s.'ing is more fun, that's what I like about playing golf the back and forth with your playing partners , A thread like this is good now and then.

I agree a hundred and eleventy percent. Especially considering I was in charge of the train when it derailed.

 

[footwedge]

I agree a hundred and eleventy percent. Especially considering I was in charge of the train when it derailed.

I like you Schultzie! That's funny!

 

[Dariusz J.]

That shot is way over-rated. Hogan was leaking oil like crazy and struggling to finish the round, his first 36-hole day since the accident. The shot that was called for was a faded 4-wood to get it back close to the hole, a shot Hogan "owned" and in less stressful circumstances would have attempted without hesitation. Instead, since he had already thrown away the lead on the back nine, he conservatively chose a one-iron into the middle of the green, and left himself a 40 foot putt that he nearly three-putted.

It might have been overrated, but stil it is the most famous 1 iron shot with a plaque on the fairway by far. Never said it was the most difficult or best executed shot ever. One of previous posters claimed that only Nicklaus has such plaques and I pointed out how wrong he was. Besides, as I read now, one of these 1 iron shots Nicklaus performed was his third shot, that suggests he blew his drive horribly and prolly rescued to the fairway with a wedge.

Mr. D-

A couple more comments on Trevino.

In the Nicklaus magazine article where he mentioned both Hogan and Trevino, Jack did make a distinction: Hogan was the best getting the ball "from A to B", whereas Trevino was the best at "creating shots". That might lead some to think maybe Trevino wasn't that great "from A to B" in Jack's mind.

Another data point. Lee was on David Fehrety's show this season and really talked up his short-game (the hole-outs at Muirfield were highlighted) and downplayed his balstriking. He did acknowledge that his trajectory was very consistent, but said he needed his short-game to compensate for weaknesses in his long game. He said there were a bunch better ballstrikers.

OK, Jeffy. The more you quote such things the more I am convinced that Trevino is overrated as ballstriker and Nicklaus is underrated. When you find some links to such articles or vids, please do not hesitate to post them. Thanks in advance.

I am willing to bet any money that Jack had better ballstriking stats than both Hogan and Trevino throughout their whole careers if they had kept stats.

ROFL. One of the most ridiculous comments ever. Let me only ask and please answer YES or NO, without mumbo-jumbo - do you know at least one round where Nicklaus shot all fairways and all greens ?

If I was Dariusz I would base my "biokinetic" model on Jack,not Hogan.
Upright swings are biokinetically superior because they require less forearm and pivot rotation which is a bitch to time.No wonder Hogan had to practice 8 hours a day.

Another ridiculous claim. First, as I said directly many times, including answers to your posts previously, my biokinetic researches started from tabula rasa. I never based anything on Hogan. It appeared that the deeper I am into biokinetic the closer the post-accident action is to the optimum.
As per upright swings superiority - only in case of distance. Accuracy and consistency - never. In a set-up dependent swing the impact of timing is very limited while upright swings bring bigger independency of arms motion that is impossible to control otherwise but exactly with a good timing control. Hogan practiced everyday not because he had to - if you read Kris Tschetter's book you will know that he was able to take a driver after 3 years of not playing and hit several beautiful shots that landed very close to each other over 200 yards away. Hogan practiced because he was even bigger perfectionist - as he said to Toski - he wanted to find a pattern where all shots have the same trajectory. This task was too tough even for him for obvious reasons.

I think Hogan said he enjoyed practice and wanted to outwork everyone else, he said he practiced shots required for the course he was going to play, he didn't practice just to work on his timing so he could actually have a working swing he already owned that.

Yes, this is what I read somewhere as well.

Hogan's swing MIGHT be "biokintetically" superior for ballstriking but it's "biokinetically" difficult to perform.

Not true at all, if you know where to look.

This is a silly, pointless thread.

Well, thanks to this thread you will have a great topic for your scientists. If we all had agreed to the statement that goat humping or losing tush line is not important you wouldn't have had this opportunity and maybe you would need to wait more for finding the truth. IMO, pelvis area motion is very important for biomechanics since it is exactly the place where two legs meet single main body.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Dariusz

Don't you think, purely from a statistical point of view, that if someone AVERAGES 13 GIR - then it's almost inevitable that their day to day performance will vary around that point?

Do you think it's credible that AT SOME POINT Jack went round and hit only 8 or 9 GIR?

Assuming you agree, and by the same logic, do you think it's even plausible that he DIDN'T AT SOME POINT hit 18 GIRs?

This is right off the top of my head, but from personal experience I don't think it's unreasonable to expect AVERAGE performance in GIR to vary by +/- 50% in the course of a season, never mind a career.

Leaving aside the issue of what people recall from an era in which stats weren't systematically recorded, what do you think is statistically likely for someone with Jack's scoring record?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz

Don't you think, purely from a statistical point of view, that if someone AVERAGES 13 GIR - then it's almost inevitable that their day to day performance will vary around that point?

Do you think it's credible that AT SOME POINT Jack went round and hit only 8 or 9 GIR?

Assuming you agree, and by the same logic, do you think it's even plausible that he DIDN'T AT SOME POINT hit 18 GIRs?

This is right off the top of my head, but from personal experience I don't think it's unreasonable to expect AVERAGE performance in GIR to vary by +/- 50% in the course of a season, never mind a career.

Leaving aside the issue of what people recall from an era in which stats weren't systematically recorded, what do you think is statistically likely for someone with Jack's scoring record?

It is tough not to agree with your logic. If someone averages 13 GiR it is obvious that he/she had not only one round with 100% GiR. I believe Nicklaus could have an above-average GiR number considering his length from the tee. Should I presume you talk about Nicklaus having an average of 13 GiR or it was just a loose example ?
OTOH, I simply never ever heard about his perfect round of tee-to-green golf with 100% both FiR and GiR as we heard about Hogan who performed it many times.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Well, in the 5 years from 1980 when stats are available, there was only 1 year in which Jack averaged less than 70% GIR. Bear in mind that this is past his prime. So whether or not people talk about it, I think it's certain that he would have had those kinds of rounds, as well as some stinkers. It all balances out. I'm sure we would see something similar in FWs hit - as most years Jack's driving accuracy seems within 1 or 2 % of his GIR figure.

I think that part of the explanation for how people talk about Hogan and his rounds is the relative scarcity of opportunities to see him play. Certainly after the accident, a Hogan tournament round was a rare thing indeed. Supply and demand kicks in and a myth is born. I agree that what Hogan accomplished was astonishing, but not miraculous...

 

[JamesB]

I have heard that term before "cleaing your hips" but never heard that it relates to ball striking though.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Do we really believe Nicklaus didnt go every fairway, every green a ton of times in his career? I mean, if a broken down clubpro can do it a number of times im sure Nicklaus did it a million times. Tom Lehman never missed a green in 3 Sunday singles at the Ryder cup...thats like 39 in a row.

GIR stats really arent a good judge of ballstriking. If Mickelson didnt have the short game he does, he wouldnt be in a position to go after so many pins and Im positive he could hit 4 more greens a round by playing to the center.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

Do we really believe Nicklaus didnt go every fairway, every green a ton of times in his career? I mean, if a broken down clubpro can do it a number of times im sure Nicklaus did it a million times. Tom Lehman never missed a green in 3 Sunday singles at the Ryder cup...thats like 39 in a row.

GIR stats really arent a good judge of ballstriking. If Mickelson didnt have the short game he does, he wouldnt be in a position to go after so many pins and Im positive he could hit 4 more greens a round by playing to the center.

More tour pro idolization. "ya dad, you told us"

 

[Dariusz J.]

Well, in the 5 years from 1980 when stats are available, there was only 1 year in which Jack averaged less than 70% GIR. Bear in mind that this is past his prime. So whether or not people talk about it, I think it's certain that he would have had those kinds of rounds, as well as some stinkers. It all balances out. I'm sure we would see something similar in FWs hit - as most years Jack's driving accuracy seems within 1 or 2 % of his GIR figure.

So, it was just a loose example, not a fact, yes ? I do not want to be ironic, but having a 70-something % is a whole different league than 90% (which would be more or less an equivalent to 13/14 FiR or 16/18 GiR) let alone to 100% of both !

I think that part of the explanation for how people talk about Hogan and his rounds is the relative scarcity of opportunities to see him play. Certainly after the accident, a Hogan tournament round was a rare thing indeed. Supply and demand kicks in and a myth is born. I agree that what Hogan accomplished was astonishing, but not miraculous...

I cannot disagree to this. Certainly, Hogan created some myths that grow with time running. However, if colleague pros and casual observers say his ballstriking was something special comparing to all other golfers on this planet ever, there must be a lot of truth in this.

I have heard that term before "cleaing your hips" but never heard that it relates to ball striking though.

Well, this is the point that a lot of people on this Forum (you included) cannot see an obvious correlation between a proper pelvis area motion and the final result, which ballstriking quality is.

Do we really believe Nicklaus didnt go every fairway, every green a ton of times in his career? I mean, if a broken down clubpro can do it a number of times im sure Nicklaus did it a million times. Tom Lehman never missed a green in 3 Sunday singles at the Ryder cup...thats like 39 in a row.

Well, show me a proof then, Kevin. And i do not know what kind of local pros you have in the States, but I know noone neither heard about anyone hitting 100% FiR & GiR in a tournament round except Hogan and Moe.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

So, it was just a loose example, not a fact, yes ? I do not want to be ironic, but having a 70-something % is a whole different league than 90% (which would be more or less an equivalent to 13/14 FiR or 16/18 GiR) let alone to 100% of both !

Dariusz - I think we're done. We agreed a premise of 13 GIR and you post something like this. WTF? Do the maths. You may have the most distant relationship with facts, logic and reason of anyone on this board, if not the internet. I'd rather argue with Jeffy (who brings facts and some sense to the discussion) than agree with you.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dariusz - I think we're done. We agreed a premise of 13 GIR and you post something like this. WTF? Do the maths. You may have the most distant relationship with facts, logic and reason of anyone on this board, if not the internet. I'd rather argue with Jeffy (who brings facts and some sense to the discussion) than agree with you.

Moment, Birly. You quote the example of 13/14 Gir (which is equal to 92%). Then I ask if this is Nicklaus's stats or loose example. Then you said the stats except one year are above 70% which means must be below 80% in the best case.
I replied that it is not in the league of 90% let alone 100%.
What's wrong with this ? Please show me a hole in my reasoning.
Ah, and I already accustomed to the fact that rude comments mean usually frustration from unability to bring good counterarguments. It's a pity because I think you're an intelligent guy with tons of love for golf.

Cheers

 

[Kevin Shields]

Dariusz, I hate to burst your bubble, but every fairway and every green is not that hard to do from time to time. I realize you dont completely have a grasp of golf at higher levels but Ive done it a number of times (OF COURSE not regularly) and have seen it done a number of times. If anyone whos good at all gets a case of the straights on a day it isnt that hard to do, even on a good course in a tournament. US Open.....different story of course.

As far as stats, if you played a Tour course with 18 tucked pins you could be looking at 12 footers all day every hole and hit 0 greens in regulation.

 

[Weetbix]

Well, in the 5 years from 1980 when stats are available, there was only 1 year in which Jack averaged less than 70% GIR. Bear in mind that this is past his prime. So whether or not people talk about it, I think it's certain that he would have had those kinds of rounds, as well as some stinkers. It all balances out. I'm sure we would see something similar in FWs hit - as most years Jack's driving accuracy seems within 1 or 2 % of his GIR figure.

I think that part of the explanation for how people talk about Hogan and his rounds is the relative scarcity of opportunities to see him play. Certainly after the accident, a Hogan tournament round was a rare thing indeed. Supply and demand kicks in and a myth is born. I agree that what Hogan accomplished was astonishing, but not miraculous...

The problem with this logic birly is that it is easier to miss a fairway or a green than to hit it. So it would not be usual for this sort of statistic to take a bell curve shape like you are positing. It is like the stats you see on the golf coverage for a single hole of eagles birdies pars bogies and above - you get more on the worse than par side than the better than par side.

This doesn't mean that Nicklaus never achieved it, just that the argument that he averages say 15 GIR and we can be confident he would have had round where he only hit 12 means that there would have been rounds where he hit 18. Just doesn't work like that for a statistic where the chances of individual instances are not equal.

 

[birly-shirly]

Dariusz - I stated an assumption of someone who averages 13 GIR.

Not 13/14. Not in the sense of 13 or 14, and OBVIOUSLY not in the sense of 13 out of 14.

Not 90%.

70% = 12.6.

13/18 = 72.2%.

For 4 years out of 5 (and PAST HIS PRIME) Jack was right in the middle of that range. Which you choose to call a "loose example, not a fact".

I'm not being rude. I am being critical. You're point-blank making stuff up. Like Hogan having a "mediocre short game". Like Power Golf being pre-secret. Like Hogan "frequently hitting every FW and every green". I don't doubt he did it, on occasion, on exactly the same basis of probability that means Jack, and anyone else who averages around 13 GIR, will have done. But you have ZERO statistical evidence to back you up in your insistence that Hogan was in a different league to everyone else, then or since.

You've got a handful of quotes and anecdotes from misty-eyed pros and you want to build an alternative universe where golfers confound the trend in practically every other sport and endeavour towards improving performance.

It's a pointless debate - mangled by your mistreatment of facts, quotes and logic. So I'm out.

 

[Weetbix]

Dariusz, I hate to burst your bubble, but every fairway and every green is not that hard to do from time to time. I realize you dont completely have a grasp of golf at higher levels but Ive done it a number of times (OF COURSE not regularly) and have seen it done a number of times. If anyone whos good at all gets a case of the straights on a day it isnt that hard to do, even on a good course in a tournament. US Open.....different story of course.

So why don't we see it multiple times each year on the tour, where the best players in the world get together? Surely Dariusz' point about Hogan is that he did it in the pressure cooker, and that that very fact is part of what makes him such a great ballstriker?

 

[birly-shirly]

The problem with this logic birly is that it is easier to miss a fairway or a green than to hit it. So it would not be usual for this sort of statistic to take a bell curve shape like you are positing. It is like the stats you see on the golf coverage for a single hole of eagles birdies pars bogies and above - you get more on the worse than par side than the better than par side.

This doesn't mean that Nicklaus never achieved it, just that the argument that he averages say 15 GIR and we can be confident he would have had round where he only hit 12 means that there would have been rounds where he hit 18. Just doesn't work like that for a statistic where the chances of individual instances are not equal.

Weetbix - I understand what you're saying, and I'm not suggesting that the curve is perfectly symmetrical. I'm only saying that there's variance on both sides, and that from an average GIR stat it's reasonable to assume better days and poorer days.

Also, I somewhat take issue with the idea that it's easier to miss a green than to hit it, especially if you swap "likely" for "easy". That may be true for me. It's less obviously true for a tour pro who hits more greens than he misses.

There's a built-in limit to the number of missed greens recorded on tour - on the basis that the sample of players is so highly biased towards people who can hit greens in their sleep.

 

[ej20]

I don't remember if it was Byron Nelson or Cary Middlecoff but he said that Hogan did hit a lot of greens but he never hit the ball consistently close to the hole.People forget that Hogan was also a very good course manager as well as a ballstriker.He obviously did not take a lot of risks and played for the fat of the green which tends to make your GIR stats more impressive but at the expense of having shorter putts for birdie.

I absolutely agree with Kevin that if Mickelson wasn't the attacking player and risk taker that he is,he would have much better stats.

 

[wulsy]

The stats are TOTALLY irrelevant: the courses and the equipment are both totally different.