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://clearkeygolf.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. You’ll 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 clips. 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://clearkeygolf.com .
Let us know if you have questions or comments.
Email Us