<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Facing the learning curve</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thedanplan.com/facing-the-learning-curve/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thedanplan.com/facing-the-learning-curve/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:04:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.40</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://thedanplan.com/facing-the-learning-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-49611</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:38:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedanplan.com/?p=6647#comment-49611</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I highly recommend using video analysis software where you can do side by side and draw lines and circles. Kinovea is free for the PC. I use Analyzr on OS X. Kinovea has many features but is balky. Analyzr is easy and gets the job done fast. 

It&#039;ll make your emphasis on comparisons of old and new swings much clearer.  And you&#039;ll take videos from consistent DTL and FO views.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I highly recommend using video analysis software where you can do side by side and draw lines and circles. Kinovea is free for the PC. I use Analyzr on OS X. Kinovea has many features but is balky. Analyzr is easy and gets the job done fast. </p>
<p>It&#8217;ll make your emphasis on comparisons of old and new swings much clearer.  And you&#8217;ll take videos from consistent DTL and FO views.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Chen</title>
		<link>http://thedanplan.com/facing-the-learning-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-49609</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Chen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:25:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedanplan.com/?p=6647#comment-49609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Swing and setup the long clubs like the short clubs when the short club swings and setup are good.  It may sound a little strange, as common sense may say that the long clubs being the &quot;power&quot; clubs ought to be used with a different &quot;power&quot; swing, and a different &quot;power&quot; setup than the short clubs: like swinging much faster, and much harder with the long clubs, like taking the back swings really far back, like setting up with the hands and arms extending really far out from the body to get the maximum swing arc with the long clubs, and trying to really kill the ball by going really all out with the long clubs.

Nicklaus says to use one basic swing, and even one basic setup for all clubs short and long.  He takes this one-basic-swing-and-one-basic-setup-for-all-clubs-short-and-long concept quite literally.  He says to place the ball near off the leading heel for all clubs long and short.

Woods book on page 100 says &quot;Ball gets closer with shorter clubs, but hands stay same distance from body.&quot;  &quot;Hands stay same distance from body regardless of the club .... hands remain the same distance from ... thighs.&quot;  &quot;... driver ... ball ... farther away ... make no wild attempt to reach for the ball.&quot;

Sam Snead in his &quot;The Driver&quot; book said to swing with 80% of available power to maintain control.

In my book, a simple mathematical formulas for the amount of &quot;power&quot; needed for short and long clubs to generate specific ball distances are formulated.  For the long clubs, power = one-third ball distance wanted.  For the short clubs, power = three-third ball distance wanted.  The above two formulas say that the long clubs can cover the same distance as the short clubs with only a third of the swing effort.  This is because the long clubs send the ball out at a lower trajectory.  This means let the long clubs provide distance naturally.

The setup for the long clubs has the basic shape as the short clubs in most cases for the top players.  The leading arm hangs fairly vertically with the hands fairly close to the body for both the short and long clubs.  The stance is wider for the long clubs, although Jones had a fairly narrow stance for all clubs.  In the older days, a closed-stance is usually used for the driver setup, while an opened-stance is usually used for the shortest clubs.  The swing temple, and speed is governed by the kinetic swing sequence, which is one-stage simpler for the short clubs so that the short clubs can be swung faster, while the long-clubs have an extra kinetic swing sequence stage of leveling out the clubhead before impact, so that the long clubs have to be given a little more time during the swing.  The long clubs have to be swung smoother.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Swing and setup the long clubs like the short clubs when the short club swings and setup are good.  It may sound a little strange, as common sense may say that the long clubs being the &#8220;power&#8221; clubs ought to be used with a different &#8220;power&#8221; swing, and a different &#8220;power&#8221; setup than the short clubs: like swinging much faster, and much harder with the long clubs, like taking the back swings really far back, like setting up with the hands and arms extending really far out from the body to get the maximum swing arc with the long clubs, and trying to really kill the ball by going really all out with the long clubs.</p>
<p>Nicklaus says to use one basic swing, and even one basic setup for all clubs short and long.  He takes this one-basic-swing-and-one-basic-setup-for-all-clubs-short-and-long concept quite literally.  He says to place the ball near off the leading heel for all clubs long and short.</p>
<p>Woods book on page 100 says &#8220;Ball gets closer with shorter clubs, but hands stay same distance from body.&#8221;  &#8220;Hands stay same distance from body regardless of the club &#8230;. hands remain the same distance from &#8230; thighs.&#8221;  &#8220;&#8230; driver &#8230; ball &#8230; farther away &#8230; make no wild attempt to reach for the ball.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sam Snead in his &#8220;The Driver&#8221; book said to swing with 80% of available power to maintain control.</p>
<p>In my book, a simple mathematical formulas for the amount of &#8220;power&#8221; needed for short and long clubs to generate specific ball distances are formulated.  For the long clubs, power = one-third ball distance wanted.  For the short clubs, power = three-third ball distance wanted.  The above two formulas say that the long clubs can cover the same distance as the short clubs with only a third of the swing effort.  This is because the long clubs send the ball out at a lower trajectory.  This means let the long clubs provide distance naturally.</p>
<p>The setup for the long clubs has the basic shape as the short clubs in most cases for the top players.  The leading arm hangs fairly vertically with the hands fairly close to the body for both the short and long clubs.  The stance is wider for the long clubs, although Jones had a fairly narrow stance for all clubs.  In the older days, a closed-stance is usually used for the driver setup, while an opened-stance is usually used for the shortest clubs.  The swing temple, and speed is governed by the kinetic swing sequence, which is one-stage simpler for the short clubs so that the short clubs can be swung faster, while the long-clubs have an extra kinetic swing sequence stage of leveling out the clubhead before impact, so that the long clubs have to be given a little more time during the swing.  The long clubs have to be swung smoother.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://thedanplan.com/facing-the-learning-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-49575</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:03:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedanplan.com/?p=6647#comment-49575</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Charlie,

Good to hear from you.  To answer your questions, I do spend a lot of time on the short game and am always working on improving with those &quot;scoring&quot; clubs and am pretty darn good from 150 yards and in.  In particular, I have a very solid wedge game from within 100 yards.  I don&#039;t blog about that so much as it&#039;s the longer sticks that have been my Achilles for some time now as you mentioned.  Improving my driving accuracy is very similar to improving from the 175-225 range and what I am working hard to improve is basically full swing long sticks.  As the driver swing improves, so does the woods and hybrids; they are all very similar.

I never let the short game sit by the wayside, though and am always working on improving that part of the game.  I should blog more about that.

Thanks again,
Dan]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Charlie,</p>
<p>Good to hear from you.  To answer your questions, I do spend a lot of time on the short game and am always working on improving with those &#8220;scoring&#8221; clubs and am pretty darn good from 150 yards and in.  In particular, I have a very solid wedge game from within 100 yards.  I don&#8217;t blog about that so much as it&#8217;s the longer sticks that have been my Achilles for some time now as you mentioned.  Improving my driving accuracy is very similar to improving from the 175-225 range and what I am working hard to improve is basically full swing long sticks.  As the driver swing improves, so does the woods and hybrids; they are all very similar.</p>
<p>I never let the short game sit by the wayside, though and am always working on improving that part of the game.  I should blog more about that.</p>
<p>Thanks again,<br />
Dan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie</title>
		<link>http://thedanplan.com/facing-the-learning-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-49569</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charlie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:22:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedanplan.com/?p=6647#comment-49569</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just a couple of questions as a long-time follower…
 
We know that the driver has been your Achilles heel for the past 18 months or so, and thus it merits the attention you&#039;ve been giving it.  Most of your lost strokes have been the fault of wayward tee shots.  Ug.  What I&#039;m wondering, though, is whether you&#039;ve been able to continue to devote significant time to improving your accuracy with the so-called scoring clubs -- wedge and putter.  When you began, you were committed to attaining proficiency or mastery with them from a certain distance before moving back to longer clubs.  So 
Question 1 is this:  Have you continued to track your ability to score from within 60 yards or to get up and down when you miss the green?  With a wedge in your hand, how does your game compare with that of the low-cappers you play with?

Question 2 is slightly different and it somewhat contradicts the premise of Question 1. As I think you know, a lot of the recent research on Strokes Saved indicates that the biggest indicator of success on tour is NOT actually wedge and putter play but accuracy with longer irons.  Somewhat counterintuitively it seems that hitting it &quot;close&quot; from 175-225 may be more important than how well you play on or near the greens.  So I wonder how much this has factored into your short- and long-term planning?

While I recognize the need to fix your driving, after you learn to drive straight and long (275-290? on manicured courses), further improvement will come much more from other facets of your game.

Good luck, and I apologize for knowing nothing about swing planes, clubfaces, and elbows…]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a couple of questions as a long-time follower…</p>
<p>We know that the driver has been your Achilles heel for the past 18 months or so, and thus it merits the attention you&#8217;ve been giving it.  Most of your lost strokes have been the fault of wayward tee shots.  Ug.  What I&#8217;m wondering, though, is whether you&#8217;ve been able to continue to devote significant time to improving your accuracy with the so-called scoring clubs &#8212; wedge and putter.  When you began, you were committed to attaining proficiency or mastery with them from a certain distance before moving back to longer clubs.  So<br />
Question 1 is this:  Have you continued to track your ability to score from within 60 yards or to get up and down when you miss the green?  With a wedge in your hand, how does your game compare with that of the low-cappers you play with?</p>
<p>Question 2 is slightly different and it somewhat contradicts the premise of Question 1. As I think you know, a lot of the recent research on Strokes Saved indicates that the biggest indicator of success on tour is NOT actually wedge and putter play but accuracy with longer irons.  Somewhat counterintuitively it seems that hitting it &#8220;close&#8221; from 175-225 may be more important than how well you play on or near the greens.  So I wonder how much this has factored into your short- and long-term planning?</p>
<p>While I recognize the need to fix your driving, after you learn to drive straight and long (275-290? on manicured courses), further improvement will come much more from other facets of your game.</p>
<p>Good luck, and I apologize for knowing nothing about swing planes, clubfaces, and elbows…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony</title>
		<link>http://thedanplan.com/facing-the-learning-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-49561</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2014 19:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedanplan.com/?p=6647#comment-49561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It does not matter what your English is like, Normand. Anyone with a +3.7 handicap should command attention! Sorry to hear about your bad luck but congratulations on your fightback.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It does not matter what your English is like, Normand. Anyone with a +3.7 handicap should command attention! Sorry to hear about your bad luck but congratulations on your fightback.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: normand</title>
		<link>http://thedanplan.com/facing-the-learning-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-49557</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[normand]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:19:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedanplan.com/?p=6647#comment-49557</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[hello dan! First before somebody ask me who i am if i am a golf teacher and what is my handicap.my name is not important and i was a golf teacher for almost 6.5 years 2 days a week 3 groups a days helping a pro with large groups. my handicap was +3.7. take me 13.5 years to active then car accident 5.5 months before trying for pga . my mentor was a pga player at that time.take me 8 years to be able to swinging again. my drive before accident was 320-325 now its 235-240 my engery is permanent so i can not hit never hard again so i hope if i can say something to help him and to wake him up i be happy.i know what it take to go to that level .73 with 3 fairways is way to low for dan gold, 50% green hit is way to low to.dan is not playing on a 150 slope or + 7000 yards golf course.he as to improve is practice a lot.maybe is target at the range is to large? or he don&#039;t practice enough face controle?maybe try to play to much traight shoots won&#039;t say more please wake up dan.sorry again for my english i know it is not good.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hello dan! First before somebody ask me who i am if i am a golf teacher and what is my handicap.my name is not important and i was a golf teacher for almost 6.5 years 2 days a week 3 groups a days helping a pro with large groups. my handicap was +3.7. take me 13.5 years to active then car accident 5.5 months before trying for pga . my mentor was a pga player at that time.take me 8 years to be able to swinging again. my drive before accident was 320-325 now its 235-240 my engery is permanent so i can not hit never hard again so i hope if i can say something to help him and to wake him up i be happy.i know what it take to go to that level .73 with 3 fairways is way to low for dan gold, 50% green hit is way to low to.dan is not playing on a 150 slope or + 7000 yards golf course.he as to improve is practice a lot.maybe is target at the range is to large? or he don&#8217;t practice enough face controle?maybe try to play to much traight shoots won&#8217;t say more please wake up dan.sorry again for my english i know it is not good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cdvilla</title>
		<link>http://thedanplan.com/facing-the-learning-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-49528</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[cdvilla]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thedanplan.com/?p=6647#comment-49528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I love the guys who come on here and try to coach Dan...  he&#039;s got a coach.  :-)  The 73 is good stuff. I&#039;d take a hot round and a high beta right now.  Keep up the good work!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love the guys who come on here and try to coach Dan&#8230;  he&#8217;s got a coach.  <img src="http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":-)" class="wp-smiley" />   The 73 is good stuff. I&#8217;d take a hot round and a high beta right now.  Keep up the good work!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
