Jan2002

We have taken the liberty this month 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 and we will send no more. Thanks, CGM

This issue of our newsletter is guaranteed to carry the sound of a tirade of the first order. Frankly, we are weary of the quality of what passes for "expert" information, advice and instruction that pervades the golf market when it come to the mental game. Up to this time (in space) we have resolved to be kind, generous, forgiving, tolerant, non-confrontational, even obsequious. But that time has now passed. We are too old to mess around anymore.

The "press" aimed at the golf game is sadly lacking for certifiable documentation. There is little or no evidence of attachment to research. What little research we could find is at least suspect. The breach of principles in favor of unsupported opinion is everywhere. Maybe it's just literary license, but if it is, it doesn't belong in this arena. If the information era of golf is not already "way down the tubes," it is well on its way. If it is not lost, it is misplaced.

At KeyGolf, while we listen to strange sounds, we refuse to accept unsupported assertions billed as truth, even those that are praised as "prize-winning," "notable," the best ever," and "must have." And make no mistake. There is a lot of that around. More often than not, these are no more than old notions wrapped in new language. While they may not represent "snake oil," and may be OK as far as they go, at the very best, they are rehashes of old prep material. In other words, what is being presented as "vital" can be recognized as a variety of recycled inspirational approaches to "getting ready for battle." There is plenty of "On Your Mark, Get Ready" - but the "Go" part is missing. Even clues to the matter of how "Go" is shaped and activated, managed and developed are so hard to find that we haven't been able to locate them. In many cases, what we have found are skewered inaccuracies that distort both the original intent and meaning of one or more true principles. The residue of distortion leaves a core mystery full of wondering "How and Why." All that can possibly follow that is a whole lot of unwitting, misdirected readers.

It amazes us to see how much green is put down to hear someone say "You just have to have confidence," but they can't tell you how to go about it, except to "Just do it," or "Keep saying it to yourself" or "Listen to a tape on the way to the course," or "Visit a hypnotist," or "Just keep hitting balls till you get it." The deception is: it sounds like you are doing something, or supposed to be, when, in fact, all you are doing is going around in circles. It's one recycle after another. If you can't see that, just try to put on paper the steps to "Just do it."

To further complicate things, those who are producing the words seem to believe their own distortions. Because readers generally don't have the means to measure accuracy, (they rarely do any in-depth research) they praise the "clever wording" and "novel simplicities." They judge word value by who said it rather than what is said and that, in turn, seduces authors into believing their own creations and readers into accepting under-evaluated messages.

Several years ago, Golf magazine presented an issue (1992, as I recall) that featured Golf's Mental Game and listed 14 "golf psychologists," of which your author here was one. Following that issue, we wrote to the other 13 and invited them to get together, as professionals, to review, share, research and find new ways to help players. (That, of course, is a common practice of professional groups that counsel, treat, rehabilitate or otherwise venture into helping others). We received one affirmative response, three or four "Too busy" responses and the rest were silent. Maybe that meant nothing, but we took it to mean that there was a lagging interest in professional growth. Nearly ten years later, we see that lack of growth showing up as a stagnant professional environment, if, in fact, it has not regressed.

Last summer, we sent a survey to more than 40 professionals with websites indicating that their "practice" was aimed at golf and golfers. The survey was designed to find out how many of them use a developed marriage between psychology and physiology to inform and empower their portfolios. (We didn't ask the questions that way, but our questions required knowledge in both areas for comprehensive responses). We did not get a single reply that even indicated knowing what we were talking about. One did say that our questions had the makings of "a project that would create a doctoral thesis." Otherwise, the responses we did get were essentially defensive in nature, as if to ask "Why are you asking me this?" or "What does this have to do with my work?"

We don't know, as a fact, why the field has allowed itself to become stultified. "Preserving the mystery" appears to have something to do with it. At least if one keeps the mystery going, players have to keep coming back. It tends to encourage "repeat business." Secrecy that promises "great things" is more likely to produce sales for books and clinics, too. Furthermore, sharing among professionals might blow too many holes in the thin walls of "exclusiveness."

Or maybe, it points to another, more critical issue. There just isn't a lot to share from those who work from their own opinions or misrepresented natural laws and principles. Consequently there is a need to protect whatever particular version of reality is being promoted. They'd rather not be caught with their pants down. And if you know anything about sociology, you know that "turf defense" is a primal, animal instinct. Maturity is way up the ladder from there.

There is an old "trick" math formula showing that 2 is equal to 1. It can even be "proved" if the opening premise (which is false) is accepted. Then, if it is wrapped in enough clever "Christmas paper," it will even look like a gift. I really can't recall the "formula" that my mathematician father employed to demonstrate that slight-of-hand many years ago. He did it, of course, to entertain, but I still remember how clever it seemed. The point, however, is that we can acquire an awful lot of bent, or broken, information and never know we have been led down the path to some local garden...unless we have a superb evaluation system that recognizes the difference between truth, half-truth, and outright fallacy.

The most recent illustration - a real camel-back-breaking straw - in our view, is found in a new book (2001 publishing date) by T.J Tomasi, called "The 30 Second Golf Swing." It has a subtitle: "How to train your brain to improve your game." Now that sounds good on the face of it...Right? The problems begin as you get into the book and start to hear what is being said. Here's what one reviewer says about it:

"No matter what game you play, or job you do, you will only attain peak performance if you know how to Run Your Own Brain - and if you don't run it, someone else will. Dr. Tomasi is an expert in teaching people how to become the master of their own minds. He will lead you through his program of self-management that shows you how to train your own brain."

That sounds reasonable enough until you go a little further and discover that assertion is then used in connection with more than one ill-conceived notion. The book proceeds to recommend that you should use your brain to change your behavior style. I can show you psychiatric hospitals full of patients who either tried that or were urged by others to do so. That behavioral change notion is supported by the book's assumption that all brain work is conscious. (Approximately 97% is unconscious, however). And it pushes the idea that changes are as simple as thinking them. Taken together, the book's content is an invitation to the highest levels of stress you can put upon yourself. If you'd like a recipe for shooting yourself in the foot, then by all means, this is your book.

Of course, thought, or thinking, does precede action - always - but there is much, much more to be considered than just that. And mental management is important, but this book only takes notice of the conscious mental process, which is the very least part of mental activity.

First of all, the book recommends doing the very things that we have found creating problems with human behavior styles. The original architect in this department was Hippocrates (400 BC). What is not found in the book is any reference to Hippocrates' work. And there is no recognition that there are two fundamental ways you can cause yourself style problems. One is by overextending the style you own so that you nullify it's effectiveness (too much of a good thing is self-defeating). The other is by trying consistently to do something in a style you do not own. Tomasi's new book recommends, in fact, that for success, players should be doing both of those!

In addition, the book pushes other matters that work in direct opposition to Mother Nature's way. Clever manipulation of a natural principle will never be as powerful as the laws of nature themselves. Do you realize how much fun you could have if you could just think "suspension," and cause the law of gravity to suspend itself so you could hit a 500 yard golf shot? (Of course, once you got it suspended, it might be hard to stop the shot short of the next zip code)! If we could just manipulate principle without penalty, we could do all sorts of clever things.

We can point you to any hospital, medical, surgical, or mental. All of them are filled with those who tried to go that route to the exclusion of all else. Remember, the conscious mind is only about 3% of the thought process at any one given time. That leaves 97% you can't see or hear to be dealt with somehow - the part that is unconscious and largely subject to non-discriminatory activity. To deal with that, one must have knowledge of how to apply conscious management to unconscious mental processes to keep them orderly. This book does not acknowledge that concern at all. Consequently, it does not provide a means for dealing with that issue. Like most, it leaves the matter of a process to guesswork.

In another review of Tomasi's book by Lance Cagle for eGolf Weekly, we found the following:

"In his new book, The 30-Second Golf Swing, author TJ Tomasi takes an exhaustive look at the mental side of golf. The book's title refers to the approximate 30-second period of time that it takes to plan, execute, and evaluate a shot. According to Tomasi, most golfers make their most scorecard damaging errors before they ever swing the club. Poor strategy, lack of proper focus, and a lack of realism in assessing strengths and weaknesses are just some of the mistakes that players on all levels can be guilty of during this crucial period. The 30-Second Golf Swing examines the processes that champion golfers go through to insure that they give themselves the best possible chance to play their best golf."

That, too, sounds plausible. Notice, however, the persistent attention to the "Get Ready" syndrome, along with the subtle absence of any "Go" activity. But now the problem arises of what to do after the pre-shot plan is laid. Tomasi says focus on the target (same as the majority of other sports psychologists).

He fails to note, however, that fatal errors often tend to accompany a target orientation carried forward into shot-execution. Sure, the target is important, but that attention belongs in pre-shot only. Otherwise, it will produce a non-discriminatory response in the human nervous system that sets anxiety in motion, followed instantly by blocking, physical tension, and hesitant action. Why? Because anxiety is anchored in the future where targets exist and in the past where mechanics of the swing thrive. And those are the only two places in golf that harbor and nourish anxiety that is potentially dangerous to execution. To that we must add the reality that the instant the human system "hears" an anxious signal, the immune system rises up to block it. We take note that it may not wreck your train every time, but often enough to cost you a few shots each round, more often than not at the most critical times.

"To excel at golf, you must have an accurate Strength and Weakness Profile, and then fit that profile into the defenses set up by the architect, given the circumstances and conditions of play."

That's the final lick in the bruising of the human system should one try to change behavior styles to fit a golf course. One must simply learn to play by his or her style, which has long since been found to be workable for any golf course. You will go nuts trying to change yourself to fit the difference on each course you face, not to mention each shot you make. It is apparent that Tomasi doesn't distinguish between "personality" and "style." Golfers play golf through their styles, not their personalities. Personality, can be altered, and is used primarily to gain the endorsement of others. It has nothing to do with swinging a club or playing the game. We employ style, even if we aren't aware of it. completely in playing, and any attempt to change it is a dangerous business.

We won't bother to elaborate on the fallacies in his "strength/weakness" concept. Except to remind that there are no human weaknesses, beyond over extension of strengths and trying to do something in a style you do not own. There are, of course, "absences" in each of us - traits we don't have, but those have not shown themselves to be weaknesses.

Another that caught my attention is Larry Miller's new book, "Exploring the 'Zone'." He does a very good job of presenting the benefits of developing one's senses and perspective toward securing an inner world that can handle the pressures of golf and life. He has a grasp of Eastern philosophies, ala Tiger Woods, and moves toward helping readers to understand what that means. Even so, he devotes 40 pages to the theme of going "from theory to practice," but never seems to arrive there in those pages. He talks plenty about preparation, but very little about how to translate that into action. So basically, it becomes yet another instance of rehashing the popular "Get Ready" theme.

At one point in the book, he discusses an opinion suggeting the way in which "expectation" is more powerful than "confidence." His words:

"There is a vast difference between 'having confidence' and 'expecting.' Having confidence is an 'empty construct of language.' It means 'I think I can do this.'...Expectation, however, is altogether different. Expectation has a finer energy, a higher vibratory wave...Put another way, having confidence is simply believing that it is possible for something to happen. But an expectation is 'feeling and sensing that it will'."

How can confidence be prerequisite and be less important? Oh, well, I know it's just words, and so do you, but the dynamic of confidence comes from having both the information and skill to do something. That's it. It is an outcome of the proper application of information and skills. Expectation is what we anticipate, which can be either good, as in "I know I can," or bad, as in "Geez, that lake in front of the green may grab this shot." With confidence present, neither the good expectation or the bad one can create an interference. Expectation is nothing more than an unfinished wish. It's better if it is informed, but it is still a wish. Confidence is grounded in an experience of faith. Expectation is vested in hope. Neither is a primary, core matter. Both are spokes in the wheel, not the hub.

There is more to say, but we'll leave that for another day. There is another book we haven't looked at yet, but we will. It's Andrew Cooper's "Playing in the Zone." We'll look there for any clues that the gurus have turned the corner and are now finding an action plan for all that good golf. See the next report.

Meanwhile, we've got a working design here at KeyGolf and we'll share it. The "How and Why" have been in all three versions of our book, "The Double Connexion," for more than ten years.