I am having to postpone the supposed 'completion' of La-Ferr19 because I want to do the 'flop-in'!!! Which will now be a real possibility thanks to the Lewis-Offset.
The Lewis Offset has transformed the Flop shot in to what I now consider to be the deadliest near-green approach shot of them all, what's more the flop shot is ideally suited to a 'flop in' modification because if you miss it the ball won't travel on so far - it's not as risky as the chip/ pitch in.
I have found my original data regarding the flop, and as always I over-engineered and included the component parts of the distance - the landing point and the roll-out.
As a result of this, modelling the flop-in for 60 and 80 yd Clevelands should be very easy and low on workload and I look forward to this venture and La-Ferrari 19 now far exceeds the original spec. for it's development.
Oh and the Lat-wind statistical treatment is looking very positive already, a whole new infrastructure has been implemented and I have a very powerful method-of-approach to this enduring mystery that is the lateral wind offset and hope to crack it to a degree far more extensive than anyone has ever managed to 'crack it' before. Things like a 5 point moving average filter between coefficient clouds and scalable constants - it's oh-so-exciting and I want to thank WGT for providing me with this ongoing lifes-work to conquer the physics of golf as laid out here.
There's nothing like it and Splash Lewis will have to wait for his special thanks in the final project report because it is delayed whilst I put the flop-in onboard this star-destroyer of a hyper-predictor.
Regarding the Lewis-Offset:
Y'know I pulled a face when I saw my first usage of the Lewis-Offset land right on the lip of the cup!! I scowled because deep down I knew my own work on this had instantly become obsolete.
It is not at all easy to take - in the past it has been demonstrated that there is always one who comes along and changes everything, and if the oldschool don't go along with it they become consigned to the dustbin of history as much as their failed attempts, extincted.
Lorenz could never accept the works of Einstein, he just simply would not come to terms with the special and general relativity and as a result - consigned to the dustbin of history.
Eddington would never accept the work of Chandra - the discovery of the black hole in broad brush strokes, nope Eddington wouldn't have it and was in a lofty position to suppress the work of Chandra for a very long overdue period of time after. But time is always the ultimate judge and like Lorenz, Eddingtons view is now consigned to the dustbin of history.
deena 'scowled' she frowned, shifted in her seat then remembered the above 2 examples...and suddenly smiled :-))) and within a couple of minutes fully embraced the Lewis Offset and threw in to the dustbin all her previous collective, overly-complicated attempts to master the Flop shot!!
This is her strength - she is able to swallow the pill and accept when another has something right that she has worked to diligently herself, not even some of the greatest minds in history could do that and I fully embrace, and commend my peer in the field of prediction modelling - Splash Lewis and his cunningly simple 'offset' :-)
Very last example: Fred Hoyle got it wrong on the Big Bang, sorry - correction (I originally said 'expanding universe) - this is all from memory, it was the origins of the Universe, and Hoyle proposed the steady state model - that the Universe had been here forever....
Guy called Ryle - radio wave astronomer, proposed the Universe had a beginning, or big-bang based on his catalogues of observed data.
Hoyle had his own 'static universe' theory and was part of the 'academic establishment' and had previously humiliated Ryle (I refer to him as Rile, lololos, he must have been seething for years!!), by pointing to some of his short 'naive in academic terms' comings, Rile went on to further refine and expand his techniques until it proved inescapably true - the Universe had a beginning or big-bang and Hoyles view of a static universe is now consigned to the dustbin of history, Hoyle did go on to win the Nobel prize for his discovery of the synthesis of elements from supernovas (correction, Hoyle was controversially omitted from receiving the Nobel prize, Chandra and Fowler receiving it instead - Hoyle led the project and provided the greater insight and should have received it alongside Chandra and Fowler), Ryle received the prize for his work though.
I say 'big bang' with 'beginning' because there is now a proposal of a 'big slap' and I am an advocate of the big slap not the big bang, either way Ryle was 'more right' than Hoyle!!
Half an afternoons work says the Flop-In has been added to the now: FFCCPPP!!
Notice how the ball compensation table now runs right in to the yardage column of the external reference tables!!! Luckily those were just for my own reference and are repeated on both sides of all tables and have no role in any of the modelling, but that is what you call too close for comfort, lols - I cannot move the reference tables without the headache of changing a multitude of table-referencing algorithms, because the columns to which they refer, e.g 'a', 'w', 'aa'.....in the referencing algorithms remain static upon any cut n paste operations meaning I would have to alter all of them!! the other option was running the table below but that would mean repeating the ball list and it would get out-of-hand for what those tables actually do - just a very minor compensation for any ball that might be selected for near-green shots that I doubt will ever be needed for anything other than the Punch, I just added all of the shots to be thorough and just about got them all in!!!!
Now, Magnets wind advice on the putt has been added today.......Is there anything else I have missed before i write the damned report up??!!!!
deeeeeeenaaaa (mad as a hatter)!!!