The Arm Swing Illusion / Jim Waldron's Swing Philosophy

[Jim Waldron]

[quote name='Michael C.' timestamp='1417298657' post='10518699']
Jim,

Thank you for the reply. The book sounds philosophical. I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

You mentioned that the inputs have to meet critical intelligence in educated adults. Is that due to a child's brain not having all the neural connections that adults have? It seems to me that kids have more of a "see the ball, hit the ball" mentality where as adults are more analytical. Wouldn't the perfect combination be to train correct and consistent movement in the subconscious and play golf like a kid? I know some of my best rounds have come after a previous bad round or range session where I went out to play with no expectations. Just hit the ball and go get it.

I tend to have a two way miss. Usually stems from missing one way and over correcting. I have a good idea what is causing this and what my tendencies are but have been unsuccessful in properly correcting them. I'm now looking forward to consciously training myself to subconsciously fix my now subconscious swing flaws. Wow, that was a mouthful!

Thanks again. I hope to pick your brain and continue this back and forth in the future.
[/quote]

Not about the brain difference between child and adult(although partly true as the child can learn more directly to the subconscious from modelling the new behavior) so much as the adults have their "censor" or critical intelligence already in place, whereas a child does not. The "censor" will not allow any information to pass into the subconscious that does not pass the reasonability standard. Which is why adults need some swing theory - but not too much. Just enough to be able to carry on the discussion with their teacher in a way that makes sense.

[mikah]

Not about the brain difference between child and adult(although partly true as the child can learn more directly to the subconscious from modelling the new behavior) so much as the adults have their "censor" or critical intelligence already in place, whereas a child does not. The "censor" will not allow any information to pass into the subconscious that does not pass the reasonability standard. Which is why adults need some swing theory - but not too much. Just enough to be able to carry on the discussion with their teacher in a way that makes sense.



The reasonability standard. There s the rub.

Why arguments are so heated when discussing golf swing theory.

What the conscious mind does not accept as fact, will not be reflected in our subconscious action. Or as is more often the case; a golfer accepts an erroneous caveat about the golf swing and that becomes a part of the golfers subconscious presumption of fact.

Eg square at address... totally unjustifiable, ‘a priori’ for the golf swing
How many winners of Majors were not square at address?

If there was anything similiar to peer review in PGA golf instruction, maybe the reasonability standard, might have some relevance.

[Jim Waldron]

[quote name='mikah' timestamp='1417309337' post='10519355']
Not about the brain difference between child and adult(although partly true as the child can learn more directly to the subconscious from modelling the new behavior) so much as the adults have their "censor" or critical intelligence already in place, whereas a child does not. The "censor" will not allow any information to pass into the subconscious that does not pass the reasonability standard. Which is why adults need some swing theory - but not too much. Just enough to be able to carry on the discussion with their teacher in a way that makes sense.



The reasonability standard. There s the rub.

Why arguments are so heated when discussing golf swing theory.

What the conscious mind does not accept as fact, will not be reflected in our subconscious action. Or as is more often the case; a golfer accepts an erroneous caveat about the golf swing and that becomes a part of the golfers subconscious presumption of fact.

Eg square at address... totally unjustifiable, ‘a priori’ for the golf swing
How many winners of Majors were not square at address?

If there was anything similiar to peer review in PGA golf instruction, maybe the reasonability standard, might have some relevance.
[/quote]

Reasonability standard is a piece of cake, at least for 99.9% of my students who come to work with me, for two simple reasons. They come with an open mind and I am very good at explaining the swing theory part.

But you would never know that it is indeed a piece of cake if your only exposure to golf was reading golf forums, ie all the teacher-bashing, negativity, fake made-up controversies, gossip, etc. I shudder to think what beginner golfers must think of our game when exposed to such utter nonsense.

What actually happens on the lesson tee bears no resemblance whatsoever to what is discussed on this and other forums. None.

Golf instruction is not nearly as controversial as it appears on the forums. It is actually quite simple and pragmatic. If you are smart enough as a golf student/consumer to do your research, ask around and found out who in your area is getting good results with his or her students, and go see that guy or gal, you are very likely to have a positive learning experience.

[mikah]

[size=4]Reasonability standard is a piece of cake, at least for 99.9% of my students who come to work with me, for two simple reasons. They come with an open mind and I am very good at explaining the swing theory part.[/size]



[size=4]I think we have a different understanding of 'reasonability standard'[/size]

[size=4]If a student doesnt bring an open mind to a lesson he/she is paying for, [/size]
[size=4]it would be a waste of time and effort.[/size]


[size=4]However, it there are any errors in the 'swing theory' he/she is taught, those 'censors' as you rightly tagged them become embedded in the students subconscious. ditto for what he reads/believes; video he sees/believes. [/size]
[size=4]Cumulatively, this becomes our subconscious paradigm that sets the parameters for unconscious movement.[/size]

[size=4](garbage in , garbage out) [/size]


[size=4]An extreme example are those successful pga pros who venture away from the method that got them success and end up loosing it all.[/size]

[size=4]Its a piece of cake to indoctrine the subconscious but if the well gets poisoned, its not so easy to clean it up.[/size]

[size=4]caveat emptor[/size]

[Jim Waldron]

[quote name='mikah' timestamp='1417360754' post='10521103']
Reasonability standard is a piece of cake, at least for 99.9% of my students who come to work with me, for two simple reasons. They come with an open mind and I am very good at explaining the swing theory part.



I think we have a different understanding of 'reasonability standard'

If a student doesnt bring an open mind to a lesson he/she is paying for,
it would be a waste of time and effort.


However, it there are any errors in the 'swing theory' he/she is taught, those 'censors' as you rightly tagged them become embedded in the students subconscious. ditto for what he reads/believes; video he sees/believes.
Cumulatively, this becomes our subconscious paradigm that sets the parameters for unconscious movement.

(garbage in , garbage out)


An extreme example are those successful pga pros who venture away from the method that got them success and end up loosing it all.

Its a piece of cake to indoctrine the subconscious but if the well gets poisoned, its not so easy to clean it up.

caveat emptor
[/quote]

I think your "reasonability standard" is unreasonable, LOL! (Just kidding).

Of course I agree with you on the garbage in, garbage out part. No doubt about it. But the reality of teaching/learning is far more nuanced and complex than that single issue.

My critique is that this kind of discussion on golf forums, about how awful golf teaching is, creates a totally false impression that this "garbage in" is the norm in close to 99% of everyday actual teaching. My point was that anyone reading this would think that the ONLY issue is that the information being presented needs to be 100% scientifically proven and "accurate", before the student will see any improvement. It is a silly arguement on many levels. Again - in the real world, there are thousands of teachers out there getting very good results with their students everyday, and there is ZERO discussion about complicated, technical swing theory during the lesson. And not one of those teachers achieved their knowledge about what and how to teach from the Golf Science Review Board.

The problem with golf forums is that they attract both armchair swing theorists with ZERO actual experience in teaching actual live human golfers on the lesson tee, who think they already know it all, because as a hobby, they read golf books and forums and look at Youtube videos. So that becomes their context in carrying out a discussion.

The fact is, the reason most golfers fail to improve is NOT because they got some bad information from a lousy teacher imbedded in their subconscious Swing Map. I would guess that is only 10% of the bad stuff in there - at most. (And when golfers do indeed breakthrough to the next level of ballstriking it isn't usually due to their intellectual understanding of swing theory becoming scientifically more "accurate") The rest of the bad stuff is "natural", ie based on some very natural and destructive impulses, and on the many Sensory Illusions, especially 2D visual Illusions, that create a false and toxic understanding.

But - even that bad stuff in there is only part of the story. What about the fact that many golfers never learn to set up and to swing in rock solid Balance? Or with a Tempo that is not too slow or too fast for their own good? Or how to grip the club properly and with right amount of pressure to match their Release? What about the fact that most golfers have very poor mental focus, or are in fact focusing on the wrong things while swinging, things that tend to make them flinch? These are just a few examples, that get very little play on this and other forums, but which have WAY more influence on the ball flight than probably 90% of the technical and "controversial" swing theory that is constantly talked about here.

My suggestion is that the owners of the forum re-name this one "Golf Swing Armchair Metaphysics", because that is precisely what most of the threads have devolved into. Then have another forum where teachers and students can discuss what actually goes on in the golf learning environment.

[Reasonability]

^^^^

Jim may have just entered the post of all posts. It certainly hits home for those who simply love to learn and share without proving points at the personal expense of others.

Argumentative and sarcastic positions taken inside a forum about the swing far too often are nested in a personal/emotional/selfish and possibly even financial agendas. No one speaks "for" everyone leaving the vast opportunity for individuals to speak "at" each other. Demoralizing, humiliating, discrediting, others, completely rejecting someone's swing philosophy, does NOTHING to help us learn anything. Lively and even spirited debates "can" be fun or even humorous - at times. Even the funny little video scene clips can be fun -- until/unless they represent pure sarcasm and close-minded cheap-shots.

A public platform for sincere discussions, a willingness to connect our mind and body in the honest desire to help not only ourselves but each other may be a little too much to hope for. That would require generosity and caring. That would require open minds, hearts, and patience. But that's a choice, just like raking each other over the coals is a choice.

Thank you Jim (and Mikah) for honoring that spirit and caring enough to have an elevated conversation. Its refreshing and makes me (for one) ready to pay attention to your future thoughts and comments.

[Michael C.]

I think its great, too. And, I love the fact that you, reasonability, come in when the reasonability standard is being discussed. Funny thing about irony it can be so ironic. Bravo, my friend, bravo. Just to be clear - my inflection harbors no sarcasm only sincerity.

[mikah]

[color=#282828]What about the fact that many golfers never learn to set up and to swing in rock solid [b]Balance[/b]? Or with a [b]Tempo [/b]that is not too slow or too fast for their own good? Or how to [b]grip the club[/b] properly and with right amount of pressure to match their Release? What about the fact that most golfers have very poor [b]mental focus[/b], or are in fact focusing on the wrong things while swinging, things that tend to make them flinch? These are just a few examples, that get very little play on this and other forums, but which have WAY more influence on the ball flight than probably 90% of the technical and "controversial" swing theory that is constantly talked about here. [/color]




[color=#282828]Totally agree. Balance, Tempo, Mental Focus and even Grip are unconscious and should be discussed in that realm; rather than within swing theory [/color][color=#282828]or internal thinking. [/color]

[color=#282828]Lets do it. Feel and external thinking rule.[/color]

eg.
[color=#282828]Lydia Ko, uses left hand low and conventional grip to putt, in the same round.[/color]

[color=#282828] which she uses is based upon feel. She doesnt know herself until she actually addresses the ball. She ALLOWS her unconscious to determine which. (8:56)[/color]
[color=#282828]Congrats and thanks for sharing Lydia![/color]

[color=#282828] [/color][url="http://www.golfchannel.com/media/iron-and-driver-tips-lydia-ko/"]http://www.golfchannel.com/media/iron-and-driver-tips-lydia-ko/[/url]

[Michael C.]

Jim,

I'm not an educated man so, I'm wondering if my grasp on critical internal thinking and the reasonability standard are correct. I'll give 2 examples and then, I have a question.

1. A hockey player shooting a slapshot

2. A baseball player hitting a 90+ mph fastball.

Most people would struggle with performing these two feats. They would recognize this and rationalize this because of the motion. In hockey, the body and the puck are both in motion and the target (net) is stationary making the feat reactionary(subconscious) because of the motion involved. In baseball, it's similar because the ball is in motion. The batter reacts to the ball. To perform these tasks, there is some swing theory involved and it is critical but, performing these motions successfully are almost entirely reactionary.

Now, my question. Is the reason most golfers struggle because, in golf the body, the ball, and the target are all stationary? Preshot routine, setup, and takeaway are all performed at the players own pace. However, somewhere in transition, we react to the ball. At full speed, we are just along for the ride. People's critical internal thinking tells them that golf isn't reactionary like in other sports. Their reasonability standard says I can do this because I'm consciously in control of the movements.

I believe instructors realize this either completely or on some level. I know you do and I've read a post or blog where Monte stated that he could make you a little better now and much better in 6 months.

I may be repeating what we've already discussed but, when new terms are introduced I want to make sure I understand their definition and application.

Being a simple man, I have only 2 swing thoughts. Turn behind the ball and keep my head back on the downswing. I've learned in the past few months at the age of 47 that this is maintaining secondary tilt. I'm on my way to swing theory. LOL.

BTW - my local bookstore didn't have a copy of the book. I'll be ordering it this week.

[Jim Waldron]

[quote name='Michael C.' timestamp='1417474554' post='10527255']
Jim,

I'm not an educated man so, I'm wondering if my grasp on critical internal thinking and the reasonability standard are correct. I'll give 2 examples and then, I have a question.

1. A hockey player shooting a slapshot

2. A baseball player hitting a 90+ mph fastball.

Most people would struggle with performing these two feats. They would recognize this and rationalize this because of the motion. In hockey, the body and the puck are both in motion and the target (net) is stationary making the feat reactionary(subconscious) because of the motion involved. In baseball, it's similar because the ball is in motion. The batter reacts to the ball. To perform these tasks, there is some swing theory involved and it is critical but, performing these motions successfully are almost entirely reactionary.

Now, my question. Is the reason most golfers struggle because, in golf the body, the ball, and the target are all stationary? Preshot routine, setup, and takeaway are all performed at the players own pace. However, somewhere in transition, we react to the ball. At full speed, we are just along for the ride. People's critical internal thinking tells them that golf isn't reactionary like in other sports. Their reasonability standard says I can do this because I'm consciously in control of the movements.

I believe instructors realize this either completely or on some level. I know you do and I've read a post or blog where Monte stated that he could make you a little better now and much better in 6 months.

I may be repeating what we've already discussed but, when new terms are introduced I want to make sure I understand their definition and application.

Being a simple man, I have only 2 swing thoughts. Turn behind the ball and keep my head back on the downswing. I've learned in the past few months at the age of 47 that this is maintaining secondary tilt. I'm on my way to swing theory. LOL.

BTW - my local bookstore didn't have a copy of the book. I'll be ordering it this week.
[/quote]

My meaning of "reasonability standard" is pretty simple, it just means that when a golf teacher is explaining to a new student some aspect of the golf swing - usually mechanics - the concept being discussed has to "seem right" to the student's basic intelligence. If it does not "make sense" then they are never going to practice it long enough to form a habit, and even if they did, the subconscious won't accept it. That standard is usually met within just a few minutes time and it almost never requires the kind of long-winded, technical explanations found on golf forums.

Yes - you are right about the reacting to the stationary ball thing. Boomer talks about this in "On Learning Golf". I teach that one should never - ever - react to the golf ball, not physically, mentally or emotionally. The ball just happens to be occupying a point on the ground, that the clubhead will pass through on it's journey to your Finish. The opposite of this state of freedom and no concern about the ball, and impact whatsoever, is a golfer who suffers from the yips. Yippers are ball-bound, both consciously and subconsciously, and they flinch or yip because they are reacting to the ball and impact. They are ball-bound, impact-bound, clubhead-bound, and swing-bound.

But this is just one big reason golfers struggle with improvement - not the only one, not by a long shot!

Hogan talked about not "adding yourself" to the shot, but rather "removing yourself". It means achieving a state of "not caring" about the outcome so much, or emotional detachment. The ball represents the possibility of both failure and success, two sides of the same coin really, same as hope and fear. One needs to move beyond both hope and fear when creating a golf shot. Attachment to either tends to make one flinch.

Head behind the ball is not exactly the same thing as secondary tilt. You can have your head back with no or almost no tilt....just a suggestion!

You will get a lot out of the "User Illusion" book. Makes a very strong case for how small a role our conscious mind actually plays.

[mikah]

Hogan talked about not "adding yourself" to the shot, but rather "removing yourself". It means achieving a state of "not caring" about the outcome so much, or emotional detachment



Lydia cares. Shes trying to make those putts, even on golf channel. Watch her body language when she misses.

When shes playing, she says until the last moment, even I don’t know whats going on, referring to whether its going to be left hand low or conventional grip.

8:56 Lydia said, “until the last moment I don’t know whats going on”.

Ie she has taken herself out of the process. Its unconscious and that is how it is... she ‘removes herself’ She removes her conscious self.....kudos to her coach, Guy Wilson, from 8 years of age.
He obviously didn’t create unnecessary, erroneous ‘reasonability standards’

[Jim Waldron]

[quote name='mikah' timestamp='1417478559' post='10527643']
Hogan talked about not "adding yourself" to the shot, but rather "removing yourself". It means achieving a state of "not caring" about the outcome so much, or emotional detachment



Lydia cares. Shes trying to make those putts, even on golf channel. Watch her body language when she misses.

When shes playing, she says until the last moment, even I don’t know whats going on, referring to whether its going to be left hand low or conventional grip.

8:56 Lydia said, “until the last moment I don’t know whats going on”.

Ie she has taken herself out of the process. Its unconscious and that is how it is... she ‘removes herself’ She removes her conscious self.....kudos to her coach, Guy Wilson, from 8 years of age.
He obviously didn’t create unnecessary, erroneous ‘reasonability standards’
[/quote]

I think she is caring after the miss or make - not during the stroke. In fact, I was watching her last week and noticing how she really has mastered the "art of not caring" and how free she is when executing, and it wasn't just me, Judy Rankin said exactly the same thing about her, and in her opinion, that accepting, detached from the outcome attitude of Lydia's was her "greatest strength" as a player.

[mikah]

[quote name='Jim Waldron' timestamp='1417480222' post='10527807']
[quote name='mikah' timestamp='1417478559' post='10527643']
Hogan talked about not "adding yourself" to the shot, but rather "removing yourself". It means achieving a state of "not caring" about the outcome so much, or emotional detachment



Lydia cares. Shes trying to make those putts, even on golf channel. Watch her body language when she misses.

When shes playing, she says until the last moment, even I don’t know whats going on, referring to whether its going to be left hand low or conventional grip.

8:56 Lydia said, “until the last moment I don’t know whats going on”.

Ie she has taken herself out of the process. Its unconscious and that is how it is... she ‘removes herself’ She removes her conscious self.....kudos to her coach, Guy Wilson, from 8 years of age.
He obviously didn’t create unnecessary, erroneous ‘reasonability standards’
[/quote]

I think she is caring after the miss or make - not during the stroke. In fact, I was watching her last week and noticing how she really has mastered the "art of not caring" and how free she is when executing, and it wasn't just me, Judy Rankin said exactly the same thing about her, and in her opinion, that accepting, detached from the outcome attitude of Lydia's was her "greatest strength" as a player.
[/quote]


We can disagree. When asked Lydia confesses to being nervous, although it doesnt show.

She appears detached; like MJ used to be detached/ cool.
IMO, its letting the unconscious take over from the conscious /ego.

There is caring, wanting, desire but very little trying. There is a difference in not trying and not caring, IMO.

Discipline to care, but know how to channel that desire and allow the unconscious to perform.

If you told Lydia the reason she performed was because she didnt care about the outcome, she would laugh.

PS if we agree that we perform movement by our unconscious, involuntarily
and the subconscious doesnt know golf , golf swing and never will
then unconscious performance has to be detached from outcome.

The unconscious knows nothing about golf, only about keeping us upright and to serve our survival needs.

[Jim Waldron]

[quote name='mikah' timestamp='1417482523' post='10528055']
[quote name='Jim Waldron' timestamp='1417480222' post='10527807']
[quote name='mikah' timestamp='1417478559' post='10527643']
Hogan talked about not "adding yourself" to the shot, but rather "removing yourself". It means achieving a state of "not caring" about the outcome so much, or emotional detachment



Lydia cares. Shes trying to make those putts, even on golf channel. Watch her body language when she misses.

When shes playing, she says until the last moment, even I don’t know whats going on, referring to whether its going to be left hand low or conventional grip.

8:56 Lydia said, “until the last moment I don’t know whats going on”.

Ie she has taken herself out of the process. Its unconscious and that is how it is... she ‘removes herself’ She removes her conscious self.....kudos to her coach, Guy Wilson, from 8 years of age.
He obviously didn’t create unnecessary, erroneous ‘reasonability standards’
[/quote]

I think she is caring after the miss or make - not during the stroke. In fact, I was watching her last week and noticing how she really has mastered the "art of not caring" and how free she is when executing, and it wasn't just me, Judy Rankin said exactly the same thing about her, and in her opinion, that accepting, detached from the outcome attitude of Lydia's was her "greatest strength" as a player.
[/quote]


We can disagree. When asked Lydia confesses to being nervous, although it doesnt show.

She appears detached; like MJ used to be detached/ cool.
IMO, its letting the unconscious take over from the conscious /ego.

There is caring, wanting, desire but very little trying. There is a difference in not trying and not caring, IMO.

Discipline to care, but know how to channel that desire and allow the unconscious to perform.

If you told Lydia the reason she performed was because she didnt care about the outcome, she would laugh.
[/quote]

I have spoken with many tour pros over the years, and studied and taught martial arts as well. I can assure you that they do "care" but not in the act of execution. There is a long history of this concept in the Asian martial arts tradition that you can read about, if you care to. It is quite well known in that tradition. Bob Rotella has also written extensively about this in golf. You can care all you want to in between shots, but not when executing. People try too hard precisely because they care too much about the outcome while in the act of executing.

I have taught a one day mental game "boot camp" called Rip It to the Target since 1995, with several thousand graduates. i have hundreds of letters and emails from them describing their results from taking the school. The concept of "not caring" while executing is at the top of the list.

[Michael C.]

I stated in an earlier post that I have had some of my best rounds when I had no expectations. "Removing myself" or getting out of my own way.

As far as secondary tilt. I understand. My weight shifts forward and I finish in balance on my front foot. I've seen people reverse pivot or load into their trail leg and spin out on that leg instead of having a weight transfer trying to stay behind it. There are multiple causes and effects I'm sure. Swing theory isn't my strong suit. I learn through trial and error. Maybe I'm a fan of Einstein's definition of insanity. LOL.

Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions.

Michael

[oikos1]

Jim Waldron Wrote:

[i]I have taught a one day mental game "boot camp" called Rip It to the Target since 1995, with several thousand graduates. i have hundreds of letters and emails from them describing their results from taking the school. The concept of "not caring" while executing is at the top of the list. [/i]

Ok, just for fun, how many tour winners have you taught this approach? Ya, I bet this works great for 90+ hacks, but come on Jim, really, when the rubber meets the road, when the big bucks are on the line, ha-ha-ha...

[grizztrax]

[quote name='oikos1' timestamp='1417489796' post='10528789']
Jim Waldron Wrote:

[i]I have taught a one day mental game "boot camp" called Rip It to the Target since 1995, with several thousand graduates. i have hundreds of letters and emails from them describing their results from taking the school. The concept of "not caring" while executing is at the top of the list. [/i]

Ok, just for fun, how many tour winners have you taught this approach? Ya, I bet this works great for 90+ hacks, but come on Jim, really, when the rubber meets the road, when the big bucks are on the line, ha-ha-ha...
[/quote]

So the system only has validity if it has been taught to tour winners? Give me a break.

[RBImGuy]

[quote name='grizztrax' timestamp='1417500678' post='10529455']
[quote name='oikos1' timestamp='1417489796' post='10528789']
Jim Waldron Wrote:

[i]I have taught a one day mental game "boot camp" called Rip It to the Target since 1995, with several thousand graduates. i have hundreds of letters and emails from them describing their results from taking the school. The concept of "not caring" while executing is at the top of the list. [/i]

Ok, just for fun, how many tour winners have you taught this approach? Ya, I bet this works great for 90+ hacks, but come on Jim, really, when the rubber meets the road, when the big bucks are on the line, ha-ha-ha...
[/quote]

So the system only has validity if it has been taught to tour winners? Give me a break. Go back to your troll hole.
[/quote]

"Major winners"
fixed it for you.

[mikah]

[quote name='Jim Waldron' timestamp='1417483576' post='10528167']
[quote name='mikah' timestamp='1417482523' post='10528055']
[quote name='Jim Waldron' timestamp='1417480222' post='10527807']
[quote name='mikah' timestamp='1417478559' post='10527643']
Hogan talked about not "adding yourself" to the shot, but rather "removing yourself". It means achieving a state of "not caring" about the outcome so much, or emotional detachment



Lydia cares. Shes trying to make those putts, even on golf channel. Watch her body language when she misses.

When shes playing, she says until the last moment, even I don’t know whats going on, referring to whether its going to be left hand low or conventional grip.

8:56 Lydia said, “until the last moment I don’t know whats going on”.

Ie she has taken herself out of the process. Its unconscious and that is how it is... she ‘removes herself’ She removes her conscious self.....kudos to her coach, Guy Wilson, from 8 years of age.
He obviously didn’t create unnecessary, erroneous ‘reasonability standards’
[/quote]

I think she is caring after the miss or make - not during the stroke. In fact, I was watching her last week and noticing how she really has mastered the "art of not caring" and how free she is when executing, and it wasn't just me, Judy Rankin said exactly the same thing about her, and in her opinion, that accepting, detached from the outcome attitude of Lydia's was her "greatest strength" as a player.
[/quote]


We can disagree. When asked Lydia confesses to being nervous, although it doesnt show.

She appears detached; like MJ used to be detached/ cool.
IMO, its letting the unconscious take over from the conscious /ego.

There is caring, wanting, desire but very little trying. There is a difference in not trying and not caring, IMO.

Discipline to care, but know how to channel that desire and allow the unconscious to perform.

If you told Lydia the reason she performed was because she didnt care about the outcome, she would laugh.
[/quote]

I have spoken with many tour pros over the years, and studied and taught martial arts as well. I can assure you that they do "care" but not in the act of execution. There is a long history of this concept in the Asian martial arts tradition that you can read about, if you care to. It is quite well known in that tradition. Bob Rotella has also written extensively about this in golf. You can care all you want to in between shots, but not when executing. People try too hard precisely because they care too much about the outcome while in the act of executing.

I have taught a one day mental game "boot camp" called Rip It to the Target since 1995, with several thousand graduates. i have hundreds of letters and emails from them describing their results from taking the school. The concept of "not caring" while executing is at the top of the list.
[/quote]


Seems to me that those who are successful, have a steady demeanor. Not really 'up' (caring , then down again for 2 seconds for the golf shot.

Of course we can only have one thought at a time, but to think we can consciously turn, 'caring' on and then off for every shot isnt logical, IMO.

You actually teach a course on how to turn our conscious effort on and off? That in itself creates a 'reasonability standard', that IMO is unreasonable.

Wouldnt it be more effective to teach someone to swing using their feel/subconsciously?


[b][color=#282828][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]People try too hard precisely because they care too much about the outcome while in the act of executing.[/background][/size][/color][/b]

[color=#282828][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]IMO, people try too hard, because they have been taught the golf swing as a physical movement with muscles consciously controlled,.[/background][/size][/color]

[color=#282828][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]"give up control to gain control" .. George Knudson?[/background][/size][/color]

[Jim Waldron]

The concept of "not caring" is a cornerstone of peak performance psychology, both in the ancient East and the modern West. Nothing controversial about it, and starting about 20 years has become more and more understood and employed by top golfers. You can call it what you want, and it does indeed have many names, but what matters is the concept itself, and not the name you use. (Although in Internet Golf Forum Land, one would think the ONLY thing that matters is that you call it by the "correct" name).

I have to laugh at the criticism that this has already generated precisely because when I was first teaching this to golfers twenty-five years ago, including at PGA Education Seminars, most people had no idea what I was talking about, had never heard of the concept before, and now today almost every single time a Tour winner is interviewed, he or she says things like "...well I almost blew it yesterday, when I was trying too hard and getting in my own way, but today I just stuck to my game plan, stayed patient, let the bad shots go, and kept my focus". Or "my first few years out on Tour, I wanted my first victory too much, and it kept me from playing my best, and I only broke through to winning when I realized that golf is just a game, and that there are far more important things in my life, and I learned to keep winning a golf tournament in perspective".

Moe Norman called it "Positive Indifference" and he believed it was the most important fundamental in golf.

Eugene Herrigel wrote a classic about it called "Zen in the Art of Archery" back in 1957 I think.

And yes - Knudson knew about it, Hogan certainly knew about it as I already mentioned.

Phil M talks about this concept a lot. Bruce Lee understood it, taught it and practiced it. Michael Jordan understands it and has talked about it, especially in the part of the game that is most similar to golf, shooting free throws.

Tiger talked about it a few years ago when he admitted that he was struggling with being "ball-bound". When you are "ball-bound" - (or "bound" in any way!) your mind cares too much about success and/or failure.

Micah - you need to expand your understanding of the game. Total beginners with NO instruction whatsoever struggle with trying too hard. Please stop laying the blame at "instruction". Yes - teaching folks to consciously try to control the body is a big mistake, but not even remotely the ONLY reason why folks struggle with golf.

The track record for the success of the concept is staggering: just look at Rotellas roster of Tour winners, or other Tour sport psychologists.

As for my students, the ones who benefit the most are the advanced players, although anyone who can break 100 will see some advantages for sure.

No - I don't teach "turning caring on and off" - you are taking things too literally.

Caring is on a continuum - another concept apparently foreign to Golf Forum Land, where "either/or" thinking reigns.

The point is that a tipping point on that sliding scale is often reached, where if you "care too much", you start to flinch, ie somewhere in your body a muscles tightens, that should not be tightening.

Ideally, you would train yourself to reach a point of emotional detachment from before you walked on the first tee until you walked off the 18th green - that is the goal, certainly.

At Balance Point, we have a saying "mentally engaged, emotionally dis-engaged". That means 100% mental focus (from your Mental Center) on your proven effective Focal Point, while at the same time you are dis-engaged (from the Emotional Center) in the outcome of the shot, ie success or failure. This allows your Movement Center (the part of the brain that controls your body) to function at the highest level, ie no mind/body interference factors, no flinching.

The classic sports psychology way of demonstrating this concept is the 2x4 layed on the ground. The student is asked to simply walk along the length of the board, and asked afterwards, "how hard was it to do, any anxiety?" And of course, everyone says "piece of cake". Now imagine walking that same 2x4 suspended 50 feet in the air. Same board, but the possibility of failure looms larger in the mind of the walker, so much so that if one thinks about the chance of falling, that very thought will tend to make you lose your focus and thus flinch, and then fall.

You learn to "tone down" the part of your mind that is too emotionally connected or "attached" to the outcome, so that your mind/body is free to perform at the highest level.

You can call this "detachment", "lowered expectations", "freedom", "letting go of control", and likely scores of similar names.

[Atrayn]

[quote name='Jim Waldron' timestamp='1417537544' post='10530941']
The concept of "not caring" is a cornerstone of peak performance psychology, both in the ancient East and the modern West. Nothing controversial about it, and starting about 20 years has become more and more understood and employed by top golfers. You can call it what you want, and it does indeed have many names, but what matters is the concept itself, and not the name you use. (Although in Internet Golf Forum Land, one would think the ONLY thing that matters is that you call it by the "correct" name).

I have to laugh at the criticism that this has already generated precisely because when I was first teaching this to golfers twenty-five years ago, including at PGA Education Seminars, most people had no idea what I was talking about, had never heard of the concept before, and now today almost every single time a Tour winner is interviewed, he or she says things like "...well I almost blew it yesterday, when I was trying too hard and getting in my own way, but today I just stuck to my game plan, stayed patient, let the bad shots go, and kept my focus". Or "my first few years out on Tour, I wanted my first victory too much, and it kept me from playing my best, and I only broke through to winning when I realized that golf is just a game, and that there are far more important things in my life, and I learned to keep winning a golf tournament in perspective".

Moe Norman called it "Positive Indifference" and he believed it was the most important fundamental in golf.

Eugene Herrigel wrote a classic about it called "Zen in the Art of Archery" back in 1957 I think.

And yes - Knudson knew about it, Hogan certainly knew about it as I already mentioned.

Phil M talks about this concept a lot. Bruce Lee understood it, taught it and practiced it. Michael Jordan understands it and has talked about it, especially in the part of the game that is most similar to golf, shooting free throws.

Tiger talked about it a few years ago when he admitted that he was struggling with being "ball-bound". When you are "ball-bound" - (or "bound" in any way!) your mind cares too much about success and/or failure.

Micah - you need to expand your understanding of the game. Total beginners with NO instruction whatsoever struggle with trying too hard. Please stop laying the blame at "instruction". Yes - teaching folks to consciously try to control the body is a big mistake, but not even remotely the ONLY reason why folks struggle with golf.

The track record for the success of the concept is staggering: just look at Rotellas roster of Tour winners, or other Tour sport psychologists.

As for my students, the ones who benefit the most are the advanced players, although anyone who can break 100 will see some advantages for sure.

No - I don't teach "turning caring on and off" - you are taking things too literally.

Caring is on a continuum - another concept apparently foreign to Golf Forum Land, where "either/or" thinking reigns.

The point is that a tipping point on that sliding scale is often reached, where if you "care too much", you start to flinch, ie somewhere in your body a muscles tightens, that should not be tightening.

Ideally, you would train yourself to reach a point of emotional detachment from before you walked on the first tee until you walked off the 18th green - that is the goal, certainly.

At Balance Point, we have a saying "mentally engaged, emotionally dis-engaged". That means 100% mental focus (from your Mental Center) on your proven effective Focal Point, while at the same time you are dis-engaged (from the Emotional Center) in the outcome of the shot, ie success or failure. This allows your Movement Center (the part of the brain that controls your body) to function at the highest level, ie no mind/body interference factors, no flinching.

The classic sports psychology way of demonstrating this concept is the 2x4 layed on the ground. The student is asked to simply walk along the length of the board, and asked afterwards, "how hard was it to do, any anxiety?" And of course, everyone says "piece of cake". Now imagine walking that same 2x4 suspended 50 feet in the air. Same board, but the possibility of failure looms larger in the mind of the walker, so much so that if one thinks about the chance of falling, that very thought will tend to make you lose your focus and thus flinch, and then fall.

You learn to "tone down" the part of your mind that is too emotionally connected or "attached" to the outcome, so that your mind/body is free to perform at the highest level.

You can call this "detachment", "lowered expectations", "freedom", "letting go of control", and likely scores of similar names.
[/quote]


Definitely have to agree with this concept. Especially after I made the major swing change and trusted the changes.
This is my mantra before every shot: See it, feel it, execute it...
1) See the shot - I visualize the shot shape I'm trying to hit and have a "tracer image" in my mind when I am behind the ball.
2) Feel the shot - I line up next to the ball and rehearse the swing required to produce the shot.
3) Execute the shot - This is just the execution of the visual and feel I just pre-programmed. (no swing thoughts)

[Reasonability]

Some things are so deeply personal that its really hard to find the words for it. Since we're all golfers here we've all experienced that "thing" where a shot feels so pure and unforced. Some sort of "spirit" just takes over and you seem to "let" it happen. To Jim's point, I can well envision the nexus with martial arts and such. Of course we care... but we can learn to NOT flinch and become ball bound - PROVIDED we practice finding that state of being. I realize this is a very deep and personal dimension.

I surely can't nor will I even attempt to say it better than Jim did. Rotella has already put it out there for all of us to take in as well. The very feeble way I can even come close to describing it is that there is a "flow". Its the ONLY single word I can give it. This word applies to being relaxed physically and emotionally. It applies to the mechanics of the swing as well. And somehow that one word falls woefully short of what "it" truly is. Interestingly (to me) it applies regardless of club-in-hand - even between shots if that makes any sense. Its so hard to even give it a name. Being so deeply internal, I suppose some find that space through meditation, some back into it through mechanics... for me its a little more fleeting than I would like but I know its in there and I can reach for it and find it so long as I don't force it.... its a "thing" I have to LET happen. ....I know... its a little whacky - LOL. But its in there. I KNOW its in there.

[mikah]

[b]Yes - teaching folks to consciously try to control the body is a big mistake, but not even remotely the ONLY reason why folks struggle with golf. [/b]


IMO, teaching folks to consciously try to control the body is The Biggest mistake when teaching people the golf swing.
....for sure, the game of golf is a complicated game with many nuances to learn.

Golf swing on the other hand is straight forward... Give up control to gain control... [size=1]of the golf swing[/size].

[Millbrook]

I think the point about the static ball is a valid explanation for the amount of theorising about the swing. Even more so as golf may be an athletic sport but it is played from a static position. Both these facts great the 'illusion' that the mechanics can be understood theoretically and applied accordingly.

Of couse because of this it has enabled a multitude of different theories which the learner has to sort through when seeking understanding.

This isn't to rubbish the desire to understand but how it is put into practice.

I would overstate things a bit and say that most folks are poor learners and if they understood the learning cycle then they may improve quicker. A good instructor builds this into their teaching methodology as well as their swing theory and fault analysis to produce the results they do.

On the topic of giving up control, I played squash 6 days a week (sometimes several times a day) for about 10 years and I experienced being in the zone [u][b]twice[/b][/u]. Of course I only realised I had been in the zone afterwards.

Golf is different and Zen in the Art of Archery is a good book to read. There really can be a feeling of connection between you, the swing, the ball and the target devoid of conscious thought and emotion, the purest feel ever but elusive.

[Jim Waldron]

[quote name='Reasonability' timestamp='1417543496' post='10531517']
Some things are so deeply personal that its really hard to find the words for it. Since we're all golfers here we've all experienced that "thing" where a shot feels so pure and unforced. Some sort of "spirit" just takes over and you seem to "let" it happen. To Jim's point, I can well envision the nexus with martial arts and such. Of course we care... but we can learn to NOT flinch and become ball bound - PROVIDED we practice finding that state of being. I realize this is a very deep and personal dimension.

I surely can't nor will I even attempt to say it better than Jim did. Rotella has already put it out there for all of us to take in as well. The very feeble way I can even come close to describing it is that there is a "flow". Its the ONLY single word I can give it. This word applies to being relaxed physically and emotionally. It applies to the mechanics of the swing as well. And somehow that one word falls woefully short of what "it" truly is. Interestingly (to me) it applies regardless of club-in-hand - even between shots if that makes any sense. Its so hard to even give it a name. Being so deeply internal, I suppose some find that space through meditation, some back into it through mechanics... for me its a little more fleeting than I would like but I know its in there and I can reach for it and find it so long as I don't force it.... its a "thing" I have to LET happen. ....I know... its a little whacky - LOL. But its in there. I KNOW its in there.
[/quote]

Have you read the book "Flow" describing various aspects of the Zone? The author - like you - calls the Zone state "flow".

I always ask new students what their lowest score ever round was like and usually they report not feeling well that day, or sick, or a headache, or playing really badly the previous round, etc - the point being that they had much lower or even zero expectations, so did not "try hard" emotionally, and instantly played better.

I do a lot of playing lessons and the one thing I almost always see with new students is their strong tendency to "try much harder" emotionally on the golf course instead of how they were on the range. When I remind them not to try so hard, they always say something like "Really? I thought you were supposed to try harder on the golf course, you know, try your hardest so you can shoot a lower score". The funny thing is, trying harder can indeed work in some other sports, where adrenalin and cortisol provide a strength or endurance advantage, but golf is not power lifting. Golf is more a game of finesse.

But I also see much more "wandering mind" syndrome in those playing lesson, much less focus than on the range. Think about that - this is literally the polar opposite of what is required to play well. When I mention it, the student will say something like "well, I know you are supposed to be relaxed, so that (wandering mind) is my way of doing that".

They have the two things exactly backward: they are trying hard emotionally and trying to be "relaxed" ( literally not focused) mentally. When they reverse those two things, they start to play better immediately.

[Jim Waldron]

[quote name='Atrayn' timestamp='1417542237' post='10531347']
[quote name='Jim Waldron' timestamp='1417537544' post='10530941']
The concept of "not caring" is a cornerstone of peak performance psychology, both in the ancient East and the modern West. Nothing controversial about it, and starting about 20 years has become more and more understood and employed by top golfers. You can call it what you want, and it does indeed have many names, but what matters is the concept itself, and not the name you use. (Although in Internet Golf Forum Land, one would think the ONLY thing that matters is that you call it by the "correct" name).

I have to laugh at the criticism that this has already generated precisely because when I was first teaching this to golfers twenty-five years ago, including at PGA Education Seminars, most people had no idea what I was talking about, had never heard of the concept before, and now today almost every single time a Tour winner is interviewed, he or she says things like "...well I almost blew it yesterday, when I was trying too hard and getting in my own way, but today I just stuck to my game plan, stayed patient, let the bad shots go, and kept my focus". Or "my first few years out on Tour, I wanted my first victory too much, and it kept me from playing my best, and I only broke through to winning when I realized that golf is just a game, and that there are far more important things in my life, and I learned to keep winning a golf tournament in perspective".

Moe Norman called it "Positive Indifference" and he believed it was the most important fundamental in golf.

Eugene Herrigel wrote a classic about it called "Zen in the Art of Archery" back in 1957 I think.

And yes - Knudson knew about it, Hogan certainly knew about it as I already mentioned.

Phil M talks about this concept a lot. Bruce Lee understood it, taught it and practiced it. Michael Jordan understands it and has talked about it, especially in the part of the game that is most similar to golf, shooting free throws.

Tiger talked about it a few years ago when he admitted that he was struggling with being "ball-bound". When you are "ball-bound" - (or "bound" in any way!) your mind cares too much about success and/or failure.

Micah - you need to expand your understanding of the game. Total beginners with NO instruction whatsoever struggle with trying too hard. Please stop laying the blame at "instruction". Yes - teaching folks to consciously try to control the body is a big mistake, but not even remotely the ONLY reason why folks struggle with golf.

The track record for the success of the concept is staggering: just look at Rotellas roster of Tour winners, or other Tour sport psychologists.

As for my students, the ones who benefit the most are the advanced players, although anyone who can break 100 will see some advantages for sure.

No - I don't teach "turning caring on and off" - you are taking things too literally.

Caring is on a continuum - another concept apparently foreign to Golf Forum Land, where "either/or" thinking reigns.

The point is that a tipping point on that sliding scale is often reached, where if you "care too much", you start to flinch, ie somewhere in your body a muscles tightens, that should not be tightening.

Ideally, you would train yourself to reach a point of emotional detachment from before you walked on the first tee until you walked off the 18th green - that is the goal, certainly.

At Balance Point, we have a saying "mentally engaged, emotionally dis-engaged". That means 100% mental focus (from your Mental Center) on your proven effective Focal Point, while at the same time you are dis-engaged (from the Emotional Center) in the outcome of the shot, ie success or failure. This allows your Movement Center (the part of the brain that controls your body) to function at the highest level, ie no mind/body interference factors, no flinching.

The classic sports psychology way of demonstrating this concept is the 2x4 layed on the ground. The student is asked to simply walk along the length of the board, and asked afterwards, "how hard was it to do, any anxiety?" And of course, everyone says "piece of cake". Now imagine walking that same 2x4 suspended 50 feet in the air. Same board, but the possibility of failure looms larger in the mind of the walker, so much so that if one thinks about the chance of falling, that very thought will tend to make you lose your focus and thus flinch, and then fall.

You learn to "tone down" the part of your mind that is too emotionally connected or "attached" to the outcome, so that your mind/body is free to perform at the highest level.

You can call this "detachment", "lowered expectations", "freedom", "letting go of control", and likely scores of similar names.
[/quote]


Definitely have to agree with this concept. Especially after I made the major swing change and trusted the changes.
This is my mantra before every shot: See it, feel it, execute it...
1) See the shot - I visualize the shot shape I'm trying to hit and have a "tracer image" in my mind when I am behind the ball.
2) Feel the shot - I line up next to the ball and rehearse the swing required to produce the shot.
3) Execute the shot - This is just the execution of the visual and feel I just pre-programmed. (no swing thoughts)
[/quote]

This is pretty much (in a boiled down version) exactly what i teach under shotmaking routine.

[mikah]

[color=#282828]This is just the execution of the visual and feel I just pre-programmed. (no swing thoughts) [/color]


[color=#282828]Atrayan,[/color]

[color=#282828]Suggest that once the pre-program exists in your subconscious. That specific sequential movement of over 200 bones and 600 muscles[/color]
[color=#282828]is called upon by a single intent. [/color]

[color=#282828]Its not necessary to physically practice that pre-program. No practice swing.[/color]
[color=#282828]Relaxed, sitting comfortably in a chair you can play that program in your subconscious.[/color]


[color=#282828]no muscle memory. Muscles dont have memory.[/color]
[color=#282828] [/color]
[color=#282828]Practice by recalling your pre-program. [/color]

[Michael C.]

Of course we care. But, caring, fear, anxiety are emotions we can experience playing this game. Emotions aren't logical, we understand them because we're human. We can learn to control them. Preshot routine is huge. Focus and confidence. Concentrating on the task at hand can often push these emotions in the background. When the task is trained to the point of being subconscious and we stay out of our own way well, then, good things can happen. When good things happen it builds confidence. Learning how to learn. Doing the reps. Gotta do the reps!!

[mikah]

[color=#282828]On the topic of giving up control, I played squash 6 days a week (sometimes several times a day) for about 10 years and I experienced being in the zone [/color][u][b]twice[/b][/u][color=#282828]. Of course I only realised I had been in the zone afterwards.[/color]

[color=#282828]Golf is different and Zen in the Art of Archery is a good book to read. There really can be a feeling of connection between you, the swing, the ball and the target devoid of conscious thought and emotion, the purest feel ever but elusive.[/color]

[color=#282828]yes there are some very good books on "Flow', the 'Zone'. None are a how to instruction. If there was, everyone would be playing in the 'Zone'[/color]

Doing what those book say, isnt the answer; are we going to continue doing it and expecting a different outcome?

Sally Gunnel only experienced the 'Zone', twice, also. Your in good company.LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHEuRJmAo9Q

[Millbrook]

Of course you are right that there are no how to's to get into the zone. There are however some tips on how not to, the Inner Game books provide usefull insight in keeping the ego ( really anything other than the subconscious) engaged and none interfering.