Visually focusing on the far versus the near target during the putting stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose was to evaluate the traditional method, of visually focusing on the ball, in comparison to focusing on the hole, during the putting stroke. The study design consisted of a pretest, a 4-week practice period, and a posttest. Participants (n = 31, handicap: 18.7 ± 10.4) practised using only one of the two gaze techniques. Testing consisted of having all participants putt using both gaze techniques from both a 1.22 m and a 4 m distance. Five putts were executed for each gaze technique/putt length combination for a total of 20 putts in each testing session per participant. The kinematics of every putting stroke executed during testing (1240 strokes) were captured using a TOMI® system. There was a significant improvement in putting success for both groups following practice (P = 0.001). Practising while visually focusing on the hole, resulted in a statistically significant reduction in putter speed variability in comparison to practising while visually focusing on the ball (P = 0.017). Visually focusing on the hole did not meaningfully (nor statistically) affect the quality of impact as assessed by the variability in face angle, stroke path, and impact spot at the precise moment the putter head contacted the ball.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".