A "KEY TIP" FOR THE MONTH

While it is not one of the more prominent concerns to come to our attention, and even though the conflicting views about it don't get much press, we are calling attention in this issue to the considerable difference between "concentration" and "focus of attention."

"Concentration" is tossed about among golfers and their coaches with the same zeal as missionaries talking about salvation. In the sense in which most players and teachers appear to be using the word, the "concentration" notion isn't likely to help much in the game and actually is apt to increase tension, anxiety and stress. In other words, it seldom lives up to the proclamation that if you want to play well, "you have to concentrate."

Concentration is a theme that golfers seem to have adopted from watching Analyzers (the proper name for one of the four basic behavior styles) go about their business. (Analyzers you may recognize are Ben Hogan, Bernhard Langer, Justin Leonard, and Scott Simpson, to name a few. If they are not Analyzers, they certainly show that style on the golf course). Concentration is the word the other three styles tend to use when they want to describe the intensity they perceive in Analyzers that they think they ought to be imitating. It is most likely traceable originally to the Hogan mystique.

Analyzers have a tendency to draw themselves in, narrow their range of vision, and maintain intense single-mindedness while involved in their tasks. Their need for, and strict attention to accuracy and perfection reinforces others' perception that concentration is a prime route to success. The problem is, unless you are an Analyzer, it is unlikely that you will be able to see it or do it the way they do, even if you think you "ought to ." Those who approach the game trying to be like someone else soon enough realize that "something" is not working the way they want. They just can't quite figure out what it is. That's one of the reasons style information is a valuable tool in the hands of a player or teacher.

Actually, what most golfers are inclined to call "concentration" is a misnomer. It may be in the Analyzer's portfolio of normal ways to "focus attention," which is fine for them, but it does not belong to the other three styles in the same intense way. For the rest of us, concentration feels and acts like a "grinding" process, because it is unnatural. And it also provokes tension, anxiety and, occasionally, headaches. The message and the real issue, then, for all four styles is "focusing attention." It just happens that the rest of us view the Analyzer method and label as though that were the whole "concentration" issue. We've even learned to speak of "grinding" on our games as though it were a virtue.

Drivers "zap" their attention. Persuaders wander with theirs, and Craftsmen are so easy-going that it may look as though they are totally lacking in attention, even though they aren't. Analyzers literally "zone in," appearing to "grind," even though they really are only doing what is natural for them.

The passing, ordinary mixed perception of concentration tends to leave everyone a little bit short and vulnerable to distraction or invasion of the thinking paths we really need, especially for shot making. Lacking a clear understanding of what we mean by "concentration" also interrupts the development of the Clear Key process, which is the chief guardian against "grinding."

Players who have worked with our Clear Key process report that, at times, they struggle with keeping their keys in focus at the moment of execution. Their conditioning in the "need for concentration" is so great that they find it difficult to refrain from thinking about the mechanics of the swing. We already know that disciplined practice will help in that respect, so long as it accomodates normal variations in behavior style. The use of Clear Keys is the generic path to allowing focus of attention to be at the forefront, rather than the harder line of "concentration.".

There is an effective reinforcement for focusing attention during execution that is compatible with the three innate human channels of information processing, as described by the study and research in neurolinguistics. The three pathways are visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.

This is how it works. Let's suppose that your Clear Key is "If you ain't Dutch, you ain't much." In addition to saying those words while you execute, if it is determined that your lead information processor is visual, you may also add a picture of tulips or a windmill in your mind. If your lead is auditory, you might add the swishing sound from the windmill or simply sing your key. If your lead is kinesthetic, you might entertain the sensation of wind in your face or the feel of the texture of tulips. Of course, those are examples, and since there are as many clear keys as there are players, there are also countless reinforcers one may insert to accompish the same result.

One of the players we work with uses a person's name as a Clear Key. She now adds a "picture" of that person's face. Another uses "I love chocolate chip cookies." Adding a mental snap shot of the cookie increases the ability to focus attention, without grinding. Remember, however, that the reinforcing sound, picture, or sensation must match your own primary processing path. So you will need to discover whether you use the visual, auditory or kinesthetic path as your primary resource in that respect.

We have also found that this addition enables players to strengthen the buffering process. They are much less likely to have other thoughts leak through during execution of the swing when they "cover" their priimary intake route in that fashion.

Focus of attention is the issue, not concentration. No one, not even an Analyzer, needs a grinding process. What is needed is a firm, but gentle, self-management skill, and it only requires a kind of active "labor" for the two seconds it takes to execute the swing. Not too much energy expended there!

The games number one problem? Perhaps, though the vote seems still to be out.

Rarely does anyone raise the question, but we'll try to identify the culprit anyway! It's not surprising that the "#1" idea hasn't arisen, since there is such a large number of "problems" raised by those of us who play the game. Indeed, a player may point to as many as a dozen in one round, any one of which is capable of producing disaster.

As we see it showing up in between the lines, the number one problem may be a leading precipitant of the "concentration" notion.

We identify the problem as too much concern for perfection and too little appreciation for a broad range of what is acceptable. That learned bent toward perfection leads to constant experimentation and failure to focus on a set of fundamental skills long enough for them to stabalize and become automatic. It is not a generic problem. It is acquired, learned, borrowed. So we can alter it, if we choose to do so.

Unfortunately, chasing perfection leads to excessive preoccupation with avoiding or overcoming anything that even appears to be imperfect, and that just about covers the whole game, since it is rare for anyone to generate one perfect shot after another. Many times even if the shot is perfect, the result may not be.

The consequence is that we fall victim to dissatisfaction with ourselves, putting more and more emphasis into "concentration" and pressure on our performance until there are no wheels left to come off. In the process, we experiment with everything we ever heard about or read to the point that we can't even remember what we had in mind in the first place.

That circle is a big one. The only way we can figure to counter that tendency is to learn to accept the fact that some things are variable. In fact, most things are. Then we need to learn to live with, rather than fall victim to, them.

We also need to learn to distinguish between what is constant and what is variable. And that may be the most difficult of our tasks. For instance, our equipment offers us a constant, as do the laws of motion and the principles that connect our minds and our actions.

But swing planes, alignment, grip, posture and all of those moves we make have variations in them, even for the best of players. There is no "perfect" there, unless we can identify "perfect" as having a range of allowable variation. It should not be too difficult to see how much disservice we do ourselves when we "contentrate" on making a "perfect" move each time we swing.

This is no small matter, especially when you consider how much time is given to finding the perfect swing, the perfect club, the perfect ball, and to trying to identify who, in all the world, comes closest to whatever the popular model happens to be. You can also access, on the internet, or via a CD Rom, or by visiting a center, any of several computerized versions of a composie of the "best" swings in golf, by which to measure yourself. Presumably, in composite, the best produce "perfect." And now we have Tiger, and even he can't lay claim to "perfect." In fact, he doesn't, and many think he's being cocky when he says "There's room for improvement."

We believe you will find that "allowable variation" is as perfect as we humans can get, and that's all we need for successful performance. By the way, it took Al Geiberger several goes at it to produce swings that could be regarded as good enough to duplicate and put on the Sybervision tape that became the hallmark of the "perfect" swing. So even he can't do it "right" every time.

Lighten up! You'll play better!

===============================
Let us know if you have questions or comments.