ItsTooSweet:Do you routinely give advice somewhere between horrible and sage, but you don't dole out the sage advice?
"I don't characterize the advice I give. I just give it and hope it's helpful. Sometimes, it hits the mark; other times, not so much. Nevertheless, it's not for me to determine the quality of my own advice. I let others do that, if they want to take the time."
What a cop out. You're certainly not winning any credibility points with statements like that. Hey DoctorLarry should I do the heart surgery? Well I don't actually
characterize my advice as having any real merit that's for others to
decide but sure, why not? You just got to laugh.
ItsTooSweet: I didn't think you would be posting a winning scorecard, or post any top players espousing your guy's starter club theory. There's a reason for that.
"The reason is simple: I didn't say a person could score well with starters." I said a player could learn a lot about the game while playing starters. What a person learns isn't captured by a scorecard."
That's right you can't score well with the starters. That's precisely why you do not tell people to waste their time mastering the starters. We're not building rockets here.
What are you talking about? Your scorecard is the only valid test. The rest is hot air. Considering your previous statements I'm not sure you or DoctorLarry really understand that. What underlying criteria are you training too? Some mythical level 48 starter club theory.
Your playing advice should not only translate to the scorecard but also do so in an efficient manner, especially when you are the one giving advice. Credibility matters. DoctorLarry has none and your laissez faire attitude on advice doesn't give you any either.
All the things that you say you can learn with the starters, you can learn with other clubs too. You act like there is some masterful thing that will be learned by banging around starters for 48 levels.
Robert1893: You do understand that someone
can know what to do or how to do something and still not be able to
execute it in a highly proficient manner, yes?
Indeed, some of the greatest teachers or instructors are not those who are the best at the game or their profession.
If it's your contention that DoctorLarry is a great golf instructor
but just can't execute you're off your rocker. I have no idea why you are trying to sell that
drivel to me. You are just going to have to sell that to someone who is stupid enough to believe that crap. You are aware that some people play well and also give great advice, yes? You are also aware that some people play like crap and give crappy advice, yes?
No one is saying you have to be the best player in the world but you need to have some credibility. There should be at least some standards. Telling people to waste their time getting proficient with the starter equipment makes me question yours. Level 48 with starter equipment is that a joke?
Robert1893: I'm a very good teacher (going by course
evaluations by both teachers and my peers), but I'm a mediocre (at best)
researcher.
I noticed you didn't post any research to back up DoctorLarry's master the starter's theory. This supposed good advice. I also noticed he didn't post proof that I am a red-tee player. It seems when it comes time to post actual proof you guys are amazingly silent.
Robert1893: It's false logic to conclude that someone has to play very well in order to give proper advice.
What's false logic is to even consider that DoctorLarry is qualified to give playing advice at all. Why don't you explain to everyone DoctorLarry's qualifications. This should be good.
Robert1893:
ItsTooSweet: No one is attacking you personally Robert, just the "horrible advice."
I didn't say you were attacking me. I said you were snarky, and it's unnecessary.
I think you guys are in left field. I'm not buying the snake oil that you guys are selling and if others are smart they won't either. If that's "snarky and unnecessary", it's a chance I'm willing to take.