iacas

There’s nothing to reply to in that video. I particularly like how he insults golfers while creating a video for them. It’s puzzling.

That doesn't matter, and you missed the point that the rules say nothing about the ball being at rest. You don't know where "the rules don't say that, they say this" is coming from? Oh man.

Would you believe nearly $8M?

I made it just over 4:00 into that one before I had to bail. I didn't even make it to the part you're talking about.

The rules don't say that. The player holes out or the player’s next stroke is conceded, or They say that. They say nothing about the ball being at rest, and if the player never needs to make "the next stroke," then… I can concede the next shot while the ball is in the air. Doesn't mean that if it comes to rest for half a second before rolling into the hole, I can claim that the player made a 4 not a 3. Or one second. Or five seconds.

I have to be quick about it (I may re-visit it later), but your sand wedge is often the heaviest club in the bag, and the driver the lightest. So that plays a role in the MOI calculations… as I don't think the radius to the COM varies as much as you may think.

Someone should hop in quick and sell the golfers who like that dumb guy's video an "Elite Moves Training Series" for five easy payments of $79.99. I see the tag line now: "In this video series, you'll learn the elite moves that pro golfers make, with a workout specifically targeting each of them, including: lifting your arms up like you're putting on a polo or a t-shirt lowering your arm to your side like you're setting a coffee mug down on a table. pivoting like when you have to get something from the back seat of your car shifting pressure forward by flexing your knee a little bit, then extending it a little bit These are workouts you can do in your daily lives, in as little as no extra time per day, since you already do these things all the time, and they're not that difficult at all. Forget grasping new concepts and immediately getting better at golf; that's not for you. You're not an elite Tour player, and the last time you set down a coffee mug you probably missed the table, so these videos are for YOU!"

Well that puts an end to my attempts to try to lead people to the answer. So, yes, if a ball is at rest, pick it up to concede it if you think there’s a one in a million chance the wind will blow it in. 🤣

Improving GRF can absolutely, as you say, improve accuracy. Pivot stalls show up on plates, for example, and are often disastrous for accuracy. People who admit they know nothing about how the golf swing works and never will should post more questions or read more, not post their crackpot theories based on three points of anecdata or what they hope is true.

It may be key, but those pics are also grips that have made instructors a lot of money.

No, you haven't. What's the player's score given those time frames? That's all I'm asking for: the score. Yes it was. That's all they had to go by. What they think they could see from 100 yards away. Assuming that was the player's second shot, did he make 2 or 3? Great. What if the ball comes to rest for ten seconds, and then goes in? How about five? Two? At what point would you, having this brought to you, count the player's score as 3 rather than 2?

So AMG is not using Tyler's definition for it, they're using it as shorthand for what they demonstrated. No? When you wipe your behind, are you also using the term "wipe" to do just as he explains? I would say not, because he says it's getting your hands out in front of your body, but that's the wrong side of your body for that task! But, but, but… 🤣 Again: people can have their own opinions. They don't get their own facts. For someone who "doesn't know and never will" how the golf swing works, he has a lot of (unfounded) opinions on how the golf swing works. Insulting and intellectually dishonest. Indeed. See my list earlier. 🙂 He may be better at that sport than golf. One like wasn't enough, so you got a reply as well. Kudos, @PedronNiall. And thank you.

If only they had videos showing their lessons with real students… I've seen multiple lessons in their Orlando location, and none of the golfers were over the age of 35 or so. Maybe 40 covers all of them if one in particular looked young for his age.

You did not. There's no way for them to truly "know." So did he hole out with the 100-yard shot or not? Does your answer change as the number grows, and what's your support in the Rules of Golf for the time limit you decide on? What if the ball is beside the hole where it's a little easier to see motion than behind the hole where we can't always tell if the ball is rolling directly toward us? Look, on one hand I think this is an incredibly rare situation as holes are almost never cut on 6%+ slopes that are almost required to get a ball to begin rolling again. But, I don't think the answer is as clear as some have stated. I think you can still make a case for the player having holed out with the previous stroke. There's no agreement. It's someone thinking the ball might have stopped and conceding the next shot, then the ball goes in. There's no discussion. Answer the question. That's why I've asked. The same rule that covers a 10-foot putt everyone has a close up look at also covers this type of situation. So how would you rule, and would it change if the time was more than one second, how much more, and what Rule are you using to justify it? Right… They can't KNOW it was "actually" at rest. In stroke play, if you hit a shot from 100 yards and walk up to the green and it begins moving as you set your bag down 40 yards away… it counts as holed. So the Rules support, one could argue, that the next stroke is conceded… if it's needed. Johnny Cochran voice: "The stroke can only be conceded if it's actually needed!" (That's my devil's advocate argument, I think similar to @antip but I've not re-read his posts in detail, so maybe not.)

You've almost made his point for him. These are the kinds of lengths people have to go to in order to try to salvage a shred of the point they try to make. We're not talking about dogs playing golf (or how a dog sees things), when we say round it's to counter the argument that it's flat (and nobody says perfectly spherical), and "hot" is relative to general human existence, not to another sun or star somewhere else.

Please answer the question. Would you consider the player to have holed the 100-yard shot if it fell a second after the concession? Two? Five? Ten? Twenty?

We changed the way and time in which he gets forward, which cascaded up to affect the sequencing of when and where the arms are… and then we worked on A/P and verticals with the left leg. He had to feel that he began doing that last thing at the start of his downswing. Like literally P4.1. Or more valid, or that your feels aren't truly real. I've shared this story before. I had two lessons, back-to-back, in which I prescribed the same mechanical thing. The golfers had opposite feelings. (You see this sometimes when you have to work on someone getting across the line or laid off - some percentage of golfers will feel like the club is moving across the line when they're laying it off more or vice versa — I think because their hands and arms are nearly 180° from where they started). Anyway, I've seen some people get upset when their feel — which works for them and produces a better golf swing — they learn isn't "real." For example, how much you push off the trail leg during the downswing. I remain convinced that about 80% of arguments (and I almost always use that word the same way you would in a court of law or a debate — not to imply aggressive or emotional) boil down to "feel ain't real." That number may be lower than what I have previously said, and may continue to drop, because 2D ≠ 3D is growing in size in terms of its contribution to swing theory arguments. He has no actual data to support this. He hasn't seen my guy MK who comes once or twice a year to get on GEARS and then works at home based on what we learn go from an 8 to a scratch in like three years while being a husband, a father to twin girls, and having a busy career. He doesn't see or process things like the image I shared earlier (and here below) of a 40-something guy who wants to play on the Champions Tour. And he doesn't care. He posts 2D pictures and talks about how things used to be. He misses the clear contradiction between saying these two things: What we have now is not better than what we used to have. We're still learning about things and things in the future will surely be better than what we have now. It's a joke, except it's not funny. Yep. The Playbook (for many of this type) includes healthy doses of: Goalpost shifting Flat out ignoring posts you don't like or find inconvenient Feel ain't real/2D imagery Logical fallacies (this covers a lot, including appeals to authority, straw men, etc.) I'm still puzzled as to how someone will say something like (barely paraphrased): "I fully admit that I don’t and never will understand how the golf swing works" is aware enough to say something like that, while still arguing with measurements, 3D, etc. from people who have spent their lives dedicated to understanding this stuff and isn't just reading and occasionally asking questions. Agreed. They're generally troll threads that rely on vague concepts like when "early" is or based on what one person needs to do or, worse yet, needs to feel like they do in their swing, applied generally. (Or attempted to be applied generally.) I think you misread that part. If I'm starting out and I charge $x/lesson, and I get popular and my lesson book fills, I can charge 1.5x, then 2x, then 3x… and still keep filling my lesson book (or taking fewer lessons while maintaining the same revenue). I think he was saying that.

Suppose that a player hits a shot from 100 yards away. It spins back and appears to come to rest three inches short of the hole. The opponent concedes the 3" putt when it appears to come to rest and then one second later the ball falls into the hole. Did the player hole the 100-yard shot or the one after it? What if the time delay is two seconds? Three? Four? Five? Twenty (they have to walk 100 yards to get up there, after all)?

What he (Monte) said. Also, that ball cuts. Probably mostly because of the below, but you can definitely see it cut.

This topic dates back to less than two weeks ago. This one to June 28. You have others from earlier this year. Perhaps the mods could merge your topics into a "Joe McSorley's Swing Thread" so everything could be found in one place, and you could track progress and not have to visit a dozen different topics to find all of the help people give you about your golf swing?

It's flat, but someone just grabbing your left shoulder and putting you in more left tilt isn't going to move the shaft much. It'd probably actually tip it more across the line. Both angles, good angles, and slow mo ideally. It's educated guessing at best with one regular speed video.

Yep. It's possible they are just using a word to mean what they demonstrate it to mean, not using his term the way he uses it specifically. Maybe even likely… Seeing as how they demonstrate it pretty clearly.

That feels off topic for this thread, especially given a quick search reveals… https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/265400-reverse-k-setup/ https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1097082-reverse-k-setup…anyone-ever-said-screw-it/ https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1095450-backwards-k-spine-tilt/ https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/804272-help-w-weight-distribution-on-reverse-k-set-up/ https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1124948-reverse-k-set-up-question/ https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1210252-questions-regarding-reverse-k-setup/ https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/269986-slicefixer-reverse-k-position/ https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1571562-reverse-k-at-setup/ https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/930494-reverse-k-question-and-weight-slicefixers/ That said, do what you want. I'll share this while being fully aware it's an average alone, and when I teach it, I look at ranges/windows: One who is aware of this might ask more questions and make fewer statements. I do want to thank you for validating my recent decision, though. I appreciate it, AJ!

A lot of people set up with a shaft vertical and thus 3-4° of loft on their putters at setup. If they can't move their wrists, how do they expect to deliver 1-2° of loft at impact? Are they going to lean their whole body forward or something? Some people need a little wrist motion. Some people don't*. More fall into the former category, even if they seek to return it (in passing) at impact to roughly where it was at setup. When you toss a ball to someone, you don't do it with stiff wrists. * Arm lock putters might make up the bulk of this group.