| We have taken the liberty to add
friends with whom we wanted to share our newsletter. As
with all transmissions these days, this one doesn't have
to be in your inbox. If you prefer not to have it sent
every two months, just let us know. Also, we had a request from one reader that this be transmitted as a "blind copy" attachment via email, as a deterrent to email addresses being harvested by spammers. We think that is a very good idea. Thanks, CGM |
One Under Par
A Newsletter from KeyGolf.....August, 2003
Avoiding
Golf's Traps...
Pitfalls
in Golf
Can you identify the traps on any golf course? Of course you can! They are filled with sand or grass, are they not? Or they are found in clever pin placements by some devious grounds keeper - the goal apparently being to confound players as they make their rounds. (They seem to find sardonic satisfaction in the procedure. And yes, we know we should refer to the sand and grass variety as "bunkers").
But those may be the least problematic traps golfers face!
The
following was edited by Ron Sirak and Geoff Russell for Golf
World. We quote it here to make a point. You may read the entire
article at http://www.golfdigest.com/newsandtour/index.ssf?/newsandtour/gw20030718bunker.html
If it doesn't curl your golfing hair, it should! Between this
entity and Mayo Clinic, these two organizations, dedicated to
health, and all their research may have set up a majority of
golfers to land in one of the biggest traps that has ever found
its way into the game.
Here's a clip from the aforementioned article.
<<Idiots' Delight
Study finds that better golfers have less
brain activity...
For those of you who have not yet received your June/July copy of
the American Journal of Neuroradiology, we recount for you here
an article about a study that arrived (more or less) at this
conclusion: Better golfers are empty-headed.>>
(Check
the URL above for the rest).
That, from not only a reputable golf magazine, but a respected
scientific journal. And it misses not only the point, but informs
unsuspecting readers that something which sounds reputable has no
more relevance than a gross generality - "less" of
something.
It's much like the rather mundane joke with the punch line
reading "Well, she was just a little bit pregnant." Or
"what makes more noise than a B-52?" Answer: "Two
B-52's."
"Less brain activity"
says nothing about what kind, when, how to apply it or what is
required for effective implementation.
"Empty-headed"
implies that you are able to induce a nonthinking head, and that,
folks is just plain NOT SO!
So what do these two studies by respectable institutions have in
common?
They have succeeded in creating sandless, grassless
"traps" for unsuspecting golfers.
They have produced statements that may be devoured as a complete
statement and a "whole truth," unless the observer
possesses sharp evaluation skills. And from all accounts, it
seems that the originators and purveyors of such statements are
unprepared or unwilling to give credible explanations for what is
offered as authoritative, but is often bereft of anything other
than casual "definition." There is an outside chance
that they are saying "nothing of the kind," though
we've seen enough of their raw work to suspect that's not how it
is. But even if it is not the case, it may help us to recognize
that many of those among journalists, editors and sportscasters,
who are in the business of information sharing, are passing out
"canned food way past the expiration date."
If that is not a trap for the unsuspecting, then neither is a
hidden fairway bunker at the British Open (Yep. We know we're
supposed to say just "The Open").
If you care about your game, you should now stop, look and
listen. How do you know when you are getting good information for
anything, let alone your golf game? Think about it. How do you
know if the news reports you hear and see on TV are correct? Or
the reports from Washington, or the admonitions from your
congressman, or the instruction from your favorite golf
professional, or the article you just read in the latest journal,
or some of the promise-laden spam you just received in your email
come with full merit?
What do you use for a measuring "rod?" We intend no
offense here, but it is truly rare to encounter anyone who has
developed a "game plan" for determining the value of
what is put on the plates of the world through multimedia.
One of the announcers on USA with the Buick, mentioned that Peter
Jacobsen was good with the gallery and that "we needed more
of that out here." (I think it was Jim Gallagher, but there
was no face, only a voice). Once again. That's a comment with no
clue about the style of the player he's talking about. Sure,
Peter will be good with the galleries. He's a Persuader. That's
their nature. But getting a lot of Persuaders on tour is not
highly realistic. They play too much army golf, so their number
on the tour is small. Persuaders tend to beat themselves up early
in their game development, so even if they can play, their
confidence and energy levels are often over worked in competition
(at least at the tour level). It's too bad it's that way. They
can actually play as well as anyone else, but that's what happens
with the kind of "trap" we are referring to in this
issue of One Under Par.
Since golf and life take a great deal of our time and energy
directed to understanding who we are, what we are doing, how we
are doing it and why, it would seem that everyone would or should
have a way to measure all those things. When one pauses to
consider it, an acceptable baseline for measuring (for any human
task or activity) requires knowledge of ones-self and the ability
to differentiate self from others (when that is missing, all you
get is prejudice). It requires knowledge of how human beings
learn and develop (without that, all you get is a haphazard
approach to life and a lot of unfinished business). It requires
proficiency in the knowledge and understanding of the inner
workings of whatever tasks one finds to do. (Without that, a
great deal of what is identified as "task-related" will
be fractured, unrelated to the whole, and hard for anyone to
appreciate and evaluate. It is difficult to do a job that no one
can describe).
And, ultimately, there is a requirement for integrating the
knowledge and skill we derive from all of those resources. Some
of that happens quite naturally as we invest our time and energy
early in life. The problem for all of us, though, lies in
differentiation. Most of us learned from someone else and the
earliest of that was carried out most often without our
permission. It seems, also, that our teachers,
unintentionally, omitted essential definition concerning the
consequences, both positive and negative, of what we were
learning.
Notice that players, even Tiger, "mess" with their
swings, almost like a fetish. Even with the eastern influences in
Tiger's growing years, that naturally support a quiet inner
world, it appears that the how to utilize that at its
peak level may still be unfinished. At least, that has
become a point at issue concerning his performance this year.
He's not in a slump, or if he is, it must be measured by his
game not by some mythical assumption about what is generally
thought to constitute a "slump."
Far too many players are overwhelmingly hooked on
experimentation. They wind up doing a hundred different things,
one time each, in a desperate search for something
"new" that just might work. They search for any
adjustment here, there, followed by another, until the past can
no longer join itself to the present, let alone the future. One
can wonder if that's what has happened to David Duval (even
though we know that he's had some vertigo problems, but he's also
made some instructor changes). It certainly found its way into
the games of players like Chip Beck, Ian Baker-Finch, and Lee
Westwood, to name a very few. Then there are others, less
notable, who rose to the top briefly, and fell back almost as
quickly as they arrived. How much of that accrues to the lack of
a competent skill for measuring and evaluating? What and how much
is enough and when does one know it?
It remains to be seen how the recent emergence of some
"oldies" will be accounted for. It should be fun to
listen to reasons given for the success of the likes of Kenny
Perry, Jay Haas, Jeff Sluman, Nick Price, V.J. Singh, Scott Hoch,
Freddie Couples and Peter Jacobsen. Notice that there is a lot of
silence around that theme, due in part to the high level of
insistence that there is a "perfect swing" (or, maybe
even a "perfect club") that everyone needs to copy
(imitate or use). So the guru crowd is strangely quiet about so
many "exceptions" to what they are offering as a
"rule." (Take a good look at some of the swings of the
aforementioned. Not many duplicates there!)
Meanwhile, back to the original stimulus that prompted this
content. This "sermon" is dedicated to players who want
to develop their games. Roaming around the internet, looking at
websites to post in The Open Directory Project (as one of many
volunteer editors for ODP), and passing through every golf forum
to be found (of which there are only a couple showing signs of
being worth spending anything more than "investigation"
time), it is frequently shocking to encounter the lack of
knowledge, even the most basic kind, that is displayed by those
who post comments. If one put all the accounts together, there
would be something like 95% informed by desperation, 3% by
intelligence, and a couple of percentage points left for doubt.
For those interested, there is more on one of our most recent
webpages at http://keygolf.com
In the meantime, here are some random comments from forums
(altered in words - but not meaning - to preserve anonymity) that
illustrate the "trap's" existence and captivation of
players. Youll notice a considerable distance (absence)
from the kind of awareness and knowledge that might help them.
Those who have either read the Double Connexion or previous
issues of this newsletter are not likely to need any editorial
comment about the following clipits. If you do, just let us know.
There is a fascination that goes with being close to the real
thing without really getting there. Some of the comments sound
right, until they are put under an evaluative light.
They are a lot like what is coming from various
research projects.
These comments were in response to a question about how golfers
should deal with a "wandering mind."
<<Once
set up and lined up, just let my mind wander and let muscle
memory take care of the shot. >>
<<go through preshot routine, setup, then use one swing
thought daily...all I think about before take away.>>
<<concentrate on each shot. Visualize sharply, invision
shot, do the pre- shot routine, pull trigger. Wonder why it
doesn't more often end up as visualized>>
<<use set preshot routine, final practice swing, setup,
look at target, and swing.>>
<<think about baseball to prevent hitting too soon.>>
Then, there were these heard on TV from the Warwick Hills Buick
Open:
Feherty says, " Paul Gow hasn't lined
up his practice swings the same twice all day. Sometimes he's
closed, sometimes open. One of the other commentators (might have
been Lanny Wadkins) replied "Maybe he's searching for
something."
Also at the Buick: "That's one of the
great things about Kenny Perry... Watch. He'll hardly show any
emotion, even after a miss like that." (They
obviously don't know he's a Craftsman. If they did, they would
also point out that it's exactly in style for him).
Lanny was heard to say (Buick) that Tiger feels much more
comfortable with his old driver. Wow! They got one
"right," but now we have to ask "How come it took
so long for both Tiger and the commentators to figure that one
out?" How many tournaments since Tiger quit using the
"old" driver and went to the "new" Nike? And,
yes, don't we all know he has a big contract with Nike?
What do these illustrate? The consistency, and repetitive number
of "almost, nearly, not quite, incomplete, cerebral,
cliched" messages being passed around like so many urban
legends, asking others to pass it on - so they'll get a prize if
it doesn't stop in their computer.
It would be easy for us to beg off as being plain old pessimists,
but that would not be the case now and never has been. There is
some dismay to be found in viewing what's being presented, but
that's not a downer. It's a challenge. Knowing the difference
between validated information, the uninformed variety, and the
kind that needs further investigation and study is a valued asset
from this desk.
One Under Par will continue to be a platform to do all that is
possible to help keep the record straight and find ways to pass
that on to anyone who cares. It's not just about golf. It's about
life. It just happens that golf, in its entirety, comes closer to
life than any other activity to be found.
Stay tuned for some outstanding, exciting future developments
that are now on the table.
===============================
We have placed past issues in an Archive at http://keygolf.com . The link is just
beneath the American Flag.
Let us know if you have questions or comments.
Email Us