Geoff Mangum's PuttingZone Podcasts

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Putting Neuroscience</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">In general, with only the rarest of exceptions and then only in the most limited ways, golf teachers, golf psychs, and motor sports experts know nothing about "putting neuroscience." There are a number of reasons for this, including:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">1. laziness</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">2. stupidity</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">3. ignorance</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">4. lack of knowledge of putting skills</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">5. lack of knowledge of neuroscience</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">6. inability to apply neuroscience to putting skills</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">And yet, "putting neuroscience" is unquestionably the most important science for understanding and teaching the "Indian, not the Arrow" and for the Indian's performing skillfully with the "know-how".</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Accordingly, people who display little or no interest or facility in applying neuroscience to putting skills cannot claim with much persuasive force to be labelled "putting instructors."</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">So, how difficult is it to be a "putting instructor" in the sense of studying and understanding and teaching how the Indian actually functions in performing putting skills? A little, hence the absence of a crowd at the "putting instructor" stall.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Modern neuroscience has exploded since 1990, so that the NEW knowledge of the human brain compiled in thousands of research efforts around the world in the two decades 1990-2000 and 2000-2010 now represents approximately 300 times more knowledge of how the organ of the brain operates non-consciously than all knowledge in human history prior to 1990. That means that the pre-1990 concepts of how the brain-mind-body is structured and operates are outdated, incomplete, incorrect, misleading and wrong. People who have "taken a powder" on the NEW brain research after 1990 do not have real knowledge about the brain-mind-body, and so are similar to "flat-earthers" standing on the docks of Cadiz looking after the stern of Columbus' ship headed to the New World wagging their tongues about the certain impending doom of the project as it sails off the Edge of the World into the Abyss of Oblivion. As noted, those people currently include: golf teachers, golf psychs, and motor sports experts.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Here is a small example -- taken somewhat randomly from the available brain literature -- of what COULD be the discussion in golf teaching if these folks actually were doing some reading and keeping up, instead of sitting inertly on the dock of the bay for the past 20-25 years or more ignoring the responsibility to learn something that needs learning.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">From the book Developing Individuality in the Human Brain: A Tribute to Michael I. Posner, ed. by Ulrich Mayr et al. (Washington DC: American Psychological Assoc., 2005): IOR and Prefrontal Task Processing.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">IOR</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">IOR or "Inhibition of Return" is a feature of attention whereby recent attention to an object or detail of space is followed by a blockage or inhibition of returning the attention to this object or detail. The purpose seems to be to foster a more robust scanning of the environment in the "foraging" behaviors of animals, preventing re-attending to past scanned areas in favor or moving on, a clear evolutionary advantage in most situations. The IOR can last up to 3 seconds after attention with an object or location is disengaged. Raymond M. Klein, "On the Role of Endogenous Orienting in the Inhibitory Aftermath of Exogenous Orienting,"&nbsp;Developing Individuality in the Human Brain, ch. 3, pp. 45-64.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Applying the insights of this research to putting tasks and skills, one such application would be on the "attention" to the hole in putting. The hole is an object for USE, in the same way that a coffee cup is something to grasp by the ring-shaped handle and pick up and deliver to the lips for drinking the contents. The hole is for delivering the rolling ball into with the putting stroke. Attending to the hole with this intended USE is a subskill in putting that can and should be developed and taught, fleshing out the details of ball delivery speed, capture profile of the space of the hole, effects of surface tilt towards or away from the entry trajectory, etc. But the IOR appears to be contrary to the putting skill, undermining effective performance.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">That's correct: the NORMAL pattern of the brain is to skip away from the last thing attended to in favor of subsequent "foraging" for the next opportunity. That's not good golf.&nbsp;So, apparently, there is an innate "habit" of the brain enshrined in the IOR. What to do? More research would be a good plan.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">The "exogenous" orienting is how the brain "codes" the object in terms of its seating in the external environment, not in terms of body-only processes such as the aim of the eyeballs or the direction the face aims over the trunk. This sort of out-there coding allows the coding to operate even when the eye or body changes location or even when the object itself moves. Okay, the golf hole doesn't move, so that part doesn't apply to our problem.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">The "endogenous" orienting is "top-down" internal control of the IOR. That sounds useful for our application. How to enhance IOR control? Less foraging, more reluctance to disengage attention with the hole as location to use. More knowledge of what is relevant to the task of the putt, less ignorance and complacence about these relevant aspects. Better eye usage to "pay attention" to the relevant cues and aspects of the space of the hole to be used appropriately with the putted ball.&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Interestingly, old people have increasing difficulty disengaging with attended objects and locations, and that's a good thing for putting. It dovetails perfectly with Walter Hagen's seminal advice: "Slow down and smell the roses", and the advice of putting great Bobby Locke: "Slow down and don't let anything make you hurry." Now we have some deep insight into why that advice might have a physical basis in the body and also gain some know-how about operating the body to better effect in putting, according to the way the research tells us the body works for subskills like attention.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">A putting instructor in the 21st century needs to know about these issues and get on with the learning and understanding and effective teaching thereof, or else stop claiming to be a putting instructor and be perfectly happy to hold oneself out to the golfing public as "just another dude with an opinion."</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Prefrontal Task Processing</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">The "old school" psychology concept of the prefrontal cortex is that this area exerts abstract controls such as inhibition or mental set switching, with the central concept of "working memory". New research supports a different idea about the prefrontal cortex: &nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">"Working memory is often taken to be a central aspect of prefrontal function (Goldman-Rakic, 1988). As Posner himself has expressed it, an appealing [new] idea is that prefrontal cortex might "represent information in some temporary store while the brain provides information on what is known about the item" (Posner, 2004). &nbsp;This is a perspective rather different from that of abstract control functions such as inhibition or switching. Instead, prefrontal control is exerted by holding a salient representation of task-relevant content, allowing other processing systems to deliver additional information about that content and related material (se also, Miller, 2000)."</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">John Duncan, "Task Models in Prefrontal Cortex,"&nbsp;Developing Individuality in the Human Brain, ch. 5, pp. 87-108, at pp. 87-88.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">According to Duncan, the new model of the prefrontal cortex works more like this:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">"At the heart of the model, working memory builds up a temporary model of some aspect of the world. This can be anything -- a chess problem, an environment to be navigated around, a product to be designed. the model includes both the current state of the world, and the goals to be achieved or actions to be taken. In part, it is built up by new perceptual input, and in part, by the program's long-term knowledge of the world and its structure. As reviewed above, the responses of the prefrontal neurons suggest exactly this sort of temporary, online model of task-relevant facts and actions."</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Id. at 92-93. Okay, now we're talking! Let's get applying this to putting skills!</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">The facts and actions relevant to putting skills are green contour and ball speed control resulting in one curved pathway from ball at address at time 1 to ball dropping nicely into the hole at time 2, caused by the stroke for line and distance at the start. The "read" of any putt is the brain's accurate prediction of how the golfer's ball speed fits with the surface shape and condition of the green in the specific situation between ball and hole, and this requires one unique start line for aim and stroke and the SAME distance control in execution as is used in the future predicting of the "read". That's the "task": all four skills (reading, aiming, stroking, and controlling pace and distance) integrated in one effective action. Enriching this process by teaching task-relevant facts and actions is called "putting instruction".</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Here are some task-relevant facts and actions for the "putting instructor" to study, understand, and teach and then for the golfer-player to understand, practice, and perform skillfully:</div><ul style="list-style-type: disc;"><li style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Perception of the green surface conditions that affect the read, such as flatness or contouring shapes, tilt direction, tilt steepness, and green friction or green speed;</li><li style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Perception of ball speed over the course of various length putts and especially the terminal speed at and near the hole for capture;</li><li style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Perception of ball-capture trajectories into the cup representing good and effective delivery speeds or otherwise;</li><li style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Perception of ball speed in misses wherein the ball continues past the hole but is subject to the frictional slowing and stopping of the green so that different patterns of roll-out past the hole are appreciated for whether they are good or bad, safe or dangerous;</li><li style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Perception of the combination of green slope and green speed and appreciation of what that means for the terminal velocity pattern of the ball nearing and arriving at the hole;</li><li style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">General knowledge of the "ballpark" reality of break amount for different combinations of green slope and green speed as an anchoring reality for further adjustments away from paradigmatic patterns to the specific "warts and all" situation of "this and only this" putt;</li><li style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Proper "action" knowledge of what different features of the situation mean to the reading prediction and the start line identification to avoid misconceptions engendered by ignorant language common in golf culture, as evident in the widely held but stupid notion to "putt the ball to the "apex" of the break and let gravity then take over and move the ball the rest of the way downhill into the hole";</li><li style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Proper "action" knowledge concerning poor aiming and non-straight stroking habits that infect over 90% of all golfers -- pros included -- without which the reading prediction mis-identifies the start line that will work for the golfer without additional skills development for aiming and stroking;</li></ul><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">And much more of the same. In contrast, instruction that uses technology to "number" the slope of a green and to "number" the distance of a putt and to set an arbitrary delivery pace for all golfers and then calculates an aim for all golfers and then provides a booklet of paradigm putts and bids the golfer USE it during a round of golf, but without teaching the perception skills and relevant facts and without teaching the effective actions of good aiming, and straight stroking, and astute ball speed control skills is emphatically NOT "putting instruction" in any mature sense of the expertise, since it does not teach the skills.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">The human body works in specific ways that have been evolving in the animal experience of the planet for over 3,000 million years, and the past two decades have seen the science of how the human brain as organ of the body actually interacts with the world in tasks grow to over 300 times all prior knowledge. Golf instructors and people expressing "opinions" as if experts in putting skills cannot "take a powder" on this new knowledge any longer and still claim to be serious about the game.&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">It takes a little work, but, hey, if you don't like studying the subject, why don't you stop pretending to be an expert? You can always tell whether someone has put in the time on this new science simply by checking their footnotes. Here are some names the absence of which indicates no real knowledge of this science: &nbsp;Gazzaniga, Posner, Churchland, Damasio, Ledoux, Jeannerod, Paillard, Berthoz, Llinas, Libet, Hubel, Livingstone, Koch, Chalmers, Melvin, Goodale, Noe, ....</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Cheers!</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Geoff Mangum</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Putting Coach and Theorist</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">PuttingZone.com -- golf most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.</div><div><br /></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><p> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone">Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone</a> <a href="feed://puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default">Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default</a> </p></div>

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><br /><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The "Optional Optimal" Stroke is Simple but not Mandatory</span></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Golf conventionally teaches for putting little other than a confusing and confused myriad of stroke techniques, each claiming it is the best and only way to stroke the ball. That's accepted by golf culture, but actually makes little sense.</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">There are FOUR skills for putting that must be performed well every putt:&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">1. reading the break of the putt that is set by the delivery pace of the ball (touch);&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">2. aiming the putterface along a startline that matches or arises from the read;&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">3. starting the ball online with the stroke;&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">4. stroking the ball with the appropriate force or touch so the pace of the ball matches the pace used to read the putt initially and that matches the break.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Of these four skills, the PRINCIPAL skills are touch and reading. While touch is the foundation of reading, and hence all four skills, touch and reading are far more determinative of success or failure than aiming and stroking. That's because aiming and stroking have simple objectives that are performed by simple mechanics. In comparison, touch and reading with touch are very tricky skills to perform accurately and consistently.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Regarding aiming and stroking: Over 90 percent of all golfers -- pros included -- do not aim the putterface inside the hole from 10 feet away on a straight putt, and almost all of these golfers are completely unaware of the problem in aiming but believe erroneously that the putterface aims straight at the center of the hole. That's bad, but it has always been the case throughout golf history. What does this mean for the strokes used by over 90% of all golfers? It means that IF they sink the putt, then they must not be stroking the ball where the putterface aims, since putting the ball on that line would miss. So what do golfers actually do when they sink putts with bad aim? They don't know. That's the problem, since this is what makes golfers "streaky" and leaves golfers in the dark when "whatever sort of stroke they are using doesn't work and they don't know what went wrong or how to fix it."</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Why do golfers aim poorly? There are two reasons: First, golfers use poor physical movements beside the ball when looking along the line of aim to see where it ends up, and have little skill in directing the line of sight straight sideways along the ground. This leads to odd physical movements that confuse and misdirect the aim offline. Second, golfers don't know that the body aims with its habitual movements, and this biases the mind in perceiving the aim of the putterface, so that (for example) a golfer who habitually has some "pull" action in his stroke will look down at a putterface aimed perfectly straight at the hole 10 feet away and yet will "perceive" and think erroneously that the putterface "looks aimed to the inside", since that is where the body expects the stroke habit to send a ball off the perfectly aimed putterface.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">What does it matter? Poor aiming engenders corruption of the stroke. Aim to the outside; stroke with a pull to compensate (all without awareness).</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">How do you fix this "chicken and egg" problem? If you fix only the aim, the stroke with the poor habit remains uncorrected. That's why using a line on the ball results in near-perfect aiming of the ball from behind the ball, but then the golfer sets up beside the ball and looks down and "perceives" that the ball "seems" to aim to the inside. That's the "pull stroke habit" biasing the mind in perceiving where the stroke will send the ball. If you fix only the stroke so all strokes always and only send the ball wherever the putterface aims, this leaves the aiming unfixed, so it doesn't rescue the golfer from the streakiness that accompanies lack of awareness of what the golfer is doing.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">However, fixing either the aiming or the stroking will eventually drag the other skill into a more and more correct pattern. While fixing both aiming and stroking at the same time is advisable, it is nonetheless wise to know which fix of the two has greater effect in bringing both aim and stroke into correctness.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Fixing the stroke has greater and quicker effect in helping correct bad aim than does the effect of fixing the aim on correcting the stroke.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">And fixing the stroke is easy: just putt the ball wherever the putterface aims, always and only.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">This brings us to why conventional stroke teachings are non-sense: none of the strokes taught in golf define what the stroke is required to accomplish. The strokes all teach a method, not the accomplishing of an objective.&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">But once the objective of the stroke is clearly defined, the performance of the objective turns out NOT to require one stroke method more than another. The OBJECTIVE is what is mandatory; the method of accomplishing the objective is merely OPTIONAL at best. All strokes taught today are merely optional, but more fundamentally, they aren't even calculated and designed to accomplish the obvious OBJECTIVE. Well, perhaps it is not at all so "obvious" that the stroke "should" simply roll the ball wherever the putterface has been aimed. After all, hardly anyone actually does this, and teachers of stroke don't even bring it up. But that's golf culture.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Building the stroke method up from the objective teaches volumes about what really matters for setup and stroke path and movement pattern.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Here are a series of elaborations on this single theme:</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">1. Putting the ball always and only wherever the putterface aims is the only way to get feedback that teaches how to aim.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">2. Putting the ball always and only wherever the putterface aims is the only way to putt it, or else why bother reading and aiming the putter?</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">3. Putting the ball always and only wherever the putterface aims is simple and can be done in many ways -- no special stroke technique required.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">4. If the read and aim is correct (as it should be), putting the ball always and only wherever the putterface aims is the only way to putt it.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">5. Regardless of whether the read and aim is correct, the golfer should always and only putt the ball wherever the putterface aims anyway.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">6. The aim of any putterface is easily perceived as the perpendicular line straight off the face thru the center of the ball: putt that line.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">7. Once the read and aim is finished, the putterface is then aimed, and the golfer is "off the hook" for the stroke: just start the ball online.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">8. Starting the ball online does not require any stroke technique; it requires putting the ball always and only wherever the putterface aims.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">9. Putting the ball always and only wherever the putterface aims is mandatory; stroke method or technique is optional.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">10. A stroke technique that does not promote always and only putting the ball wherever the putterface aims is not a stroke to adopt.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">11. An "optional optimal" stroke technique promotes the biomechanics and movement that always and only putts the ball wherever the putterface aims.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">12. An "optional optimal" stroke method has simple posture and movement that does not unnecessarily burden the golfer with tasks to monitor or perform.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">13. The "optional optimal" stroke uses inherent physics in the setup when swinging the arms and putter sideways squarely thru impact, as this promotes sending the ball always and only wherever the putterface aims at address.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">14. The "optional optimal" stroke swings arms primarily, as the mass of the arms is ten times greater than the mass of the putter.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">15. Arranging the body first to the aimed putterface so the chest / shoulders orient parallel to the aim of the putterface and then simply swinging the arms sideways in front of the body and the chest inherently promotes an online stroke.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">16. Holding the putter handle with sufficient grip muscle tone and in the squareness to the aim line at address matches the aim of the putterface to the orientation of the shoulders and chest at address, so that during the stroke the putterface will remain coordinated with whatever orientation the chest and shoulders move.</div><div style="font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">17. Swinging the arms straight across the front of the body with the grip maintaining the putterface the same as the chest and shoulders means that the ONLY determinants of a good stroke are shoulders and chest parallel thru impact as at address, arms swing the putterface online, and the hands maintaining the putterface the same as the chest and shoulders thru impact.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">18. Swinging the arms straight along the aim line thru impact is most easily accomplished by fully hanging the arms and hands with relaxation in gravity at address, as opposed to reaching away from or closer to the body or crooking the elbows high at address.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">19. An "optional optimal" stroke that promotes sending the ball always and only wherever the putterface has been aimed hangs the arms naturally, incorporates the aimed putterface into the body's orientation of the chest and shoulders with sufficient grip muscle tone, and then swings the arms back and thru across the front of the body in order to move the putterface squarely online thru the ball in the forward stroke.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">20. An "optional optimal" stroke not only sends the ball wherever the putterface aims; it also at the same time sends the ball with the timing of the stroke that generates the appropriate force for the required touch.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">21. The TIMING of the stroke is what determines the force of the stroke, but it is also true that the rhythm of the stroke timing is critical to the accuracy and consistency of the LINE of the stroke.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">22. An "optional optimal" stroke uses rhythm to execute the stroke with BOTH line and distance.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">23. A stroke that sends the ball always and only wherever the putterface aims, with good touch, is performed most simply by an "optional optimal" biomechanics and stroke motion performed with the usual rhythm and tempo.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">24. When the golfer uses the principal tempo installed into the body by the world swinging the arms back to the body, the "rhythm" for the "optional optimal" stroke simply matches the backstroke tempo to the world's downstroke tempo to achieve the "rhythm".</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">25. Using the world's tempo for the downstroke, the golfer's stroke for distance consists solely in starting the stroke back with the same tempo and then the line control consists solely in standing still while the arms and putterface swing straight sideways in front of the body.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">26. The "optional optimal" stroke promotes sending the ball always and only wherever the putterface aims, but is nonetheless no more than optional.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">27. A great golfer knows that whatever stroke method he or she practices, in the middle of the round, if the method seems difficult of problematic, the great golfer doesn't worry about that and simply uses "whatever" stroke that sends the ball online wherever the putterface has been aimed.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">28. The priorities for the stroke, in order, are: 1. stroke the ball always and only wherever the putterface has been aimed any way that accomplishes this with effective / good touch; 2. use any stroke that features effective physics in the impact to send the ball with good touch down the line without excessive bouncing or bounding or skidding or sidespin; and 3. use a stroke method that does not impose unnecessary demands on the golfer but instead reduces all possible aspects of the stroke for line and distance to the inherent physics of the setup and movement.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">29. An "optional optimal" stroke features effective physics from rhythm because the putterface moves slightly upwards from the rhythm-defined bottom of the stroke into and thru the ball squarely and online thru the center of the ball beginning about 1 dimple below the back equator and exiting the front equator of the ball 1 dimple high.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">30. The usual rhythm combined with simple biomechanics of setup and movement rolls the balls wherever the putterface aims for both line and distance.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">This all means that the stroke method MUST be structured according to the objective, or else the stroke tends to undercut the reading and aiming and touch skills, and serves as a "stand-alone" method to compensate for poor reading and aiming and touch skills. Such a stroke encourages poor reading and aiming and touch. A stroke that always and only rolls the ball wherever the putterface aims necessarily encourages better reading and aiming and touch skills.</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Cheers!</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;"><br /></div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Geoff Mangum</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Putting Coach and Theorist</div><div style="color: #444444; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">PuttingZone.com -- golf most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.</div></span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><p> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone">Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone</a> <a href="feed://puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default">Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default</a> </p></div>

description overflow, removed

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /><div style="color: #2929ee; font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://puttingzone.blogspot.com/2011/09/brain-science-and-putiing.html">Brain Science and Putting: What IS the Non-conscious?</a></span></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">In golf strokes, the non-conscious body-brain is oriented to the objective world-as-it-is, and not concerned with the subjective state of the conscious mind for "feel" of the body.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">"Feel" is the worst term bandied about without clear definition in golf. Golf psychologists who use this term certainly should know better, if they have been keeping up with the incredibly rich and important new brain science spawned since 1990, but of course they have not read any of this new science at all, as is pretty evident to anyone who has.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">What is "feel", and why is it poison for golfers?</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">"Feel" is a subjective registering in the conscious mind of a state of the body for position or movement, used to allow the mind to "judge" whether the "feel" comports with expectations and memories of what the golfer "thinks" is the correct and appropriate body action for the immediate stroke.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">What's poison about that?</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">What is absolutely bad about "feel" is:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">first, what gets elevated to the conscious mind is not especially accurate and real, but is an assemblage of ad hoc sort-of's about the body that may or may not be accurate reporting of the body state;&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">second, the conscious mind is not an impartial judge of "feel" but is tainted by habits and expectations and also false or partially false memories;&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">third, the implicit notion that unless the conscious mind "approves" the current "feel" as correct and appropriate for the stroke, then the golfer is unlikely to execute the shot well, is a formula for de-emphasizing the world-as-it-is in favor of the body-as-it-might-be-if-that-matters, which promotes error in performance; and&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">finally, routing the movement thru the conscious mind prevents or at least obstructs and interferes with reliance upon the body processes at the non-conscious level of the brain-as-organ/not-awareness and the body-as-organ-operated-by-the-brain-as-organ.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">So what is superior to "feel" -- what is the better way to play golf? Non-consciously, with the body.&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">But isn't that what golf psychs teach -- to play golf non-consciously? Yes, that's what they "say", but "feel" is NOT playing by non-conscious processes -- "feel" is only "feel" when it is in the conscious awareness. Evidently, golf psychs don't really know the difference between the mind and the non-mind.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Golf is a game played in the six inches between the ears? Well, sort of. Golf is 100% physical and mental in assessing what to do and getting prepared for the stroke, then it's 100% physical and 0% mental in executing the stroke. How's that?</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">I guess you'd have to have been keeping up with brain science to realize how this is all VERY DIFFERENT from how golf psychologists talk about the mind and the non-conscious. The non-conscious is FAR, FAR MORE than simply shutting off the mind, Bob.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">In modern neuroscience, "consciousness" means "subjective awareness", and non-consciousness means "brain and body processes of which we have no subjective awareness".</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">In a nutshell, the BODY and it's processes (especially for movement) comprise the non-conscious processes of the brain as organ operating the body, and those processes account for about 90% or more of ALL brain processes. And the "conscious" experiences in the MIND don't seem to have much purpose, at least for human movements such as those in golf. But then that knowledge is pretty new, compared to the pop psychology of the 1970s and 1980s that infuses all "golf psychology" today, which is uniformly ignorant of the new brain science.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">The better way is to play golf "non-consciously" with the body, not with the mind, and this means, frankly, that reliance upon "feel" is not only ill-advised, but counter productive by blocking off use of better ways of getting it done.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">This brings us to the odd crux of the matter: the body is not concerned with "subjective" states and instead is "all about the external world". "Huh, come again?" the golf psychs mutter incredulously.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Your non-conscious brain and your body -- when it comes to moving in the world -- basically could care less what your mind thinks about things.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Contrary to what golf psychs and most motor sports experts believe (as evident by their writings and teachings), the body is not unintelligent compared to the mind, as in the old attitude that the body is the dumb brute and mind is the cultivated human part of ourselves. This notion is utterly pervasive in western society.&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Golf psychs certainly believe that playing non-consciously is little more than turning off and not using all the usual stuff that accounts for intelligence, such as analysis and language and avoiding error with check lists. That's the problem: modern brain science says that the non-conscious brain-body processes ARE intelligent in ways that the mind has no clue about. Turning off the mind is not at all what is needed to play golf with the non-conscious brain-body informed by current science. The golfer needs to KNOW about the body's movement intelligence and know also how to operate these processes to take advantage of the body's knowledge for movement.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">So let's get serious and stop pretending it is unnecessary to incorporate the NEW brain science in golf. Teaching wrong stuff is just bad teaching. Teaching out-dated wrong stuff is bad and LAZY.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">In what sense is the body in its non-conscious processes intelligent and educated?</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">The way the world and objects in the world including the body operate together in motion is called "physics". The BODY knows more specific and accurate physics about the world and body movement in the world than the MIND by a factor of 50 to 100 times. That's because the ONLY physics the MIND knows is the physics the mind assumes or the physics that a high school teacher implanted to replace misconceptions about how the physics of the world works. That is also because the world trains the BODY according to how the physics of world-body operates, and does not train the MIND at all. In fact, the MIND is completely ignorant that the world is training the BODY so that the BODY "knows" and "accurately uses" the real physics in movement planning and execution. The MIND believes and claims that the only the MIND could comprehend such a sophisticated science as physics and that the brutish BODY couldn't possibly hold a candle to what the MIND knows. This is the problem.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Ask any high school physics teacher what he faces when a new crop of bright-eyed students occupy the chairs in his or her classroom at the start of the academic period: all high school teachers know the students, be they ever so intelligent, are invariably besotted with firmly held but mistaken beliefs about the physics of the world. Among teachers, this is called "the usual collection of beliefs of naive physics". That's why the teacher has a job, and always will.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">For example, Aristotle around 500 BC contemplated which mass will drop faster from the same height and reach the ground sooner: a bowling ball weighing 20 pounds or a golf ball weighing 45 grams (a little less that 2 ounces or 1/8th of one pound, 160 times less than a bowling ball). his answer, supported by sophisticated reasoning as usual, was that the bowling ball gets to the ground sooner. He didn't actually perform any experiment to check this, as Greek thinkers didn't do such menial things as experiments.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">And for the ensuing 2,100 years ALL humans who inhabited the earth SWORE that the more massive object will always outrace the less massive object to the earth when released from the same height at the same time. Until ONE PERSON actually checked it, and found the claim and the belief to be wrong.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Galileo in about 1600 AD checked, and he was the first person who said, no, ANY two objects always fall side by side when dropped simultaneously from the same height, regardless of even the largest differences in mass of the objects. All masses always fall at the same rate of accelerated motion, side by side, no matter what!</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">And then for the following 400 more years to today, all the humans STILL get this wrong unless they take a physics class and hear the gospel, and remember it when asked the question. Otherwise, since Aristotle, every human on the planet, without specific education to correct this error, has a firmly held and completely incorrect belief that can be invalidated instantly by simply checking OR by observing what actually happens all the time on the planet.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">This is the nature of the the MIND's stupidity about the real world and it's physics.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">A similar misconception in the MIND is that two arms held out to the sides away from the thighs, with one being held a short distance and small angle off the thigh and the other being held a large distance and angle off the other thigh, when dropped down to the thighs by relaxing, reach the thighs in different times -- the closer one hitting the thigh first, followed by the farther-off arm and hand striking the thigh later. Wrong, and not only wrong, but always and forever happens a different way, but the MIND for some reason doesn't ever see the real answer.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">As to these two fundamental examples of important physics for movement on earth (free fall of all objects and pendular motion of arms and legs and sticks and metronome rods pivoting on a point), the BODY knows the accurate physics and always gets this correct, and the MIND firmly believes an obviously incorrect if not to say stupid notion of real physics.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Okay, just how educated is the BODY? Very, and very specifically.&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">An example is how the world trains the body to ONE TEMPO. A tempo is how long a stick takes to swing from top to top in pendular motion. The world's physics for this is set once and for all time by the size of the rock we live on, which has been the same for about 4 or 5 billion years and isn't likely to change this week. The earth swings ANY stick in ONLY one timing or tempo, and the timing depends solely upon the length of the stick, not the weight or mass of the stick (remember free fall, where mass is irrelevant?) That applies to the human arm of the adult as well, since the arm has finished growing longer and has been the same length now for years.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">When a human moves about, the arm separates from the body by turning or by voluntarily swinging it away from the side, against the force of gravity, and then the earth swings the arm back down to the side according to the laws of earth's gravity. The timing of ALL these motions down are always and forever ONE TEMPO -- short or long swings all get returned in exactly the same timing every single time when the earth swings the arm down. Roughly speaking, every human BODY gets about 857 doses or trainings of the earth's tempo for the arms every single waking day since adulthood.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">What is that timing or tempo? It simply depends upon the length of the human's arm. For most people, the arm is about 3 feet long from shoulder to fingertips. How long does the earth's physics take to swing a stick that long from top to top? A smidgen less than one second or 1,000 milleseconds, perhaps around 980 milleseconds. That's because a second (1,000 milleseconds) is the time required to swing a "meter stick" from top to top, and a meter stick is slightly longer (39.37") and slower than a human arm at 36", but not by much. Yes, each individual has a somewhat "unique" timing because each arm has a unique length, but that's dicing the matter too finely, and the reality is that the different lengths of adult human arms aren't all that different, and the overlap is very prominent among a random group of people.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">The MIND is utterly unaware of this on-going, ceaseless, "mind-numbingly the same" BODY training that the world carries on. And golf psychs and motor sports experts are also completely unfamiliar with (ignorant of) this training relationship between the BODY and the WORLD.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">How things fall from any given height is also trained into the body, and likewise how much force is required to SEND a given mass up away from the earth thru its gravity is also constantly trained. There is one and only one force that sends a golf ball to a height of 16 feet, ever, for every human who wants to send a golf ball that high.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">This brings us to the OBJECTIVE nature of the NON-CONSCIOUS brain and body processes.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">The essential purpose of the BRAIN is to record the WORLD and it's invariable physics so that the unchanging BODY can use this knowledge to make safe and successful motions, and avoid pain and injury as the top priority and achieve success as the secondary priority. The BRAIN is midway between the WORLD and the BODY.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">That's the odd thing. The WORLD is what it is, regardless of what you or anyone might think. And, as it happens, the same is true about your BODY, since you won't be sprouting an extra arm in the next few days or hours. So the BRAIN is recording the physics of this WORLD as they objectively operate in terms of moving the only BODY it knows. For the BODY motion to comply with the objective requirements of the WORLD, then, the BRAIN in moving the BODY has to meet the objective requirements of the WORLD. Otherwise, the movement fails or at worst incurs pain and injury.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">This all means that the BRAIN in movement of the BODY is not at all concerned about internal states of MIND. Of course, MIND can completely ruin a movement, but MIND actually is irrelevant otherwise to the BRAIN and BODY for safe and successful movement.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Okay, you say, this is way too theoretical. No, it's not. It's ACTUAL.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">But how do you use it? Touch or pace control in putting is an excellent example of how this new brain science applies to golf.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">First, the BRAIN cannot change space or mass, and can only influence the TIMING of movement of BODY parts. The BRAIN times movement. Period. Given a mass, such as the hand, or the arm and hand plus a putter, the timing defines the force. There is no calculating the force in the BRAIN -- there is only timing the mass in relation to the requirements of the WORLD. And timing is OBJECTIVE -- you either play the music in compliance with the conductor's tempo, or you get kicked out of the orchestra as a poor musician.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Second, the intentionality of a movement to a space and the definition of the space's perception in terms of what matters for the movement is what determines the force required for a given movement. In order to fly a ball 150 yards from tee to par-three, the force required is X ergs for all comers, Sally or Tom. You either deliver the goods required or you're short or long of the target. The MIND is not part of this except when the self-reflective human starts asking what's going on. What's going on is making a good stroke so the ball goes correctly to the space. That's pretty much it for the MIND, and that only comes up if you feel a need to be reflective. But it need not and should not come up at all, unless perhaps you suck at doing what is required when you play golf, or just don't like the challenge. Then perhaps the MIND has a role to keep you on task with your perceiving and your intentionality.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">For force control in putting, the BRAIN uses the perceptions of the WORLD as it is with the clear intentionality to LIMIT the force first and foremost to insure safety in the motion by avoiding and ruling out "overshoot" or spastic movement that poses a substantial risk of pain or injury. But the BRAIN does not limit the force unreasonably so that success is thereby sacrificed: the limit is only imposed when the force reaches 100% of what the WORLD requires.&nbsp;</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Specifically, the force of a putting stroke starts with tempo and then the velocity of impact at the bottom of the swing is simply a matter of the SIZE of the backstroke, as the size determines how much downward acceleration the stroke undergoes to peak at a specific velocity at the bottom of the stroke. That's what the BODY knows specifically. The BODY knows for the given main tempo the WORLD daily installs in the BODY what exact size stroke goes with what exact velocity. The "knowing" of this is not knowing in the same way a student answers a test in a class, but in terms of using the knowledge reliably and consistently. The BODY for this specific tempo very intimately knows exactly how an entire spectrum of backstrokes correspond to velocity of impact, and when a specific putter mass is used familiarly, the BRAIN/BODY then also knows every backstroke size in terms of the force of impact, since force is mass combined with velocity.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Now, to simplify: the BRAIN pays attention to the WORLD as it is and this sets the SIZE of the backstroke using the main tempo to 100% of what the WORLD requires, using the BODY that is essentially unchanging as is what it is. With the size of the backstroke set, and the tempo in place, a backstroke uses one dose of tempo to reach the full size of the backstroke and then expends this energy by repeating another dose of tempo from top of backstroke to top of thru-stroke. Anything else will be short or long.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Eh, that means the BODY processes of setting the backstroke and getting the touch correct are COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE. Here's the "check list" of things that the golfer either does or does not do, in a yes/no or black/white sense:</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">1. Did the golfer formulate the intentionality with seriousness and commitment to move accurately all the way to and not too far past the hole? Yes or no.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">2. Did the golfer pay attention to and take into account whatever matters for the WORLD's force requirement, such as distance, green speed, and elevation change uphill or downhill from ball to hole? &nbsp;Yes or no.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">3. Did the golfer then respect and allow the toss-back impulse used to send the arms and hands and putter into a backstroke swings that achieves the only correct size (safe and sufficient) for the WORLD's requirement for force in this putt? Yes or no.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">4. Did the golfer's backstroke persist for one full dose of the chosen tempo? Yes or no.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">5.Did the golfer's thru-stroke match the backstroke timing with another dose of tempo? Yes or no.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">None of this is subjective or at all dependent upon anything subjective or even conscious, with the possible exception of sticking to the task and keeping the perceptions going after useful and relevant perceptions.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">But when it comes to the actual stroke motion, assuming the intentionality and perceptions have accurately set the size of the backstroke that will take place, nothing is subjective and everything is completely "do it right or mess up." Respect the impulse without knowing or having any awareness in advance (or even needing a practice stroke or any memory of what to expect, and certainly no judgement of the size as the stroke unfolds). Comply with the WORLD's tempo in the backstroke. Allow the WORLD to handle the thru-stroke, since that will always comply with the WORLD's tempo. Basically, touch is simply pay attention to the WORLD's space for the putt with movement intentionality and then start the backstroke with good tempo and whatever impulse that the non-conscious BODY has set by prior tempo-force training from the WORLD.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">You can work math problems while you putt so long as you stay on movement task and comply with the tempo, without any effect at all on the safety of success of the touch.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">So teaching that golf should be played non-consciously by turning off the mind is half-assed teaching that leaves out the positive information about HOW to employ the non-conscious processes. Turning off the mind is not really necessary OR sufficient to use the non-conscious processes effectively. That requires some real knowledge about how those processes are structured and operated.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">From touch in putting to all human movement, it's a new century, folks. Catch up and stay up, and if you're a golf psych too lazy to incorporate the new knowledge about the BRAIN and the BODY, I would suggest you shut up about the MIND and the Non-conscious.</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Cheers!</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;"><br /></div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Geoff Mangum</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">Putting Coach and Theorist</div><div style="font: 14.0px Optima; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">PuttingZone.com -- golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.</div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><p> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone">Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone</a> <a href="feed://puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default">Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default</a> </p></div>

Severiano Ballesteros Sota and "Ritmos" Bobby Jones in the 1930s wrote that "Timing is the most important skill in golf, and yet no one teaches it." Seve Ballesteros was a great putter, one of the best, and he simply used "ritmos" as his "technique", but he wasn't the greatest explainer of how that might be an accurate and consistent way to putt. No one in golf history has ever taught how "touch" works. It's timing. Here's how it works: THE BRAIN, THE WORLD, THE BODY The human brain "times" the body motion to comport with the objective requirements of the world. In order to do that consistently and accurately, the brain uses "tempo" and "rhythm". "Tempo" is the conductor waving his arms in the air to indicate the quickness or slowness with which the orchestra should play the sheet music. A metronome is set to one particular tempo by adjusting the length of the rod and bob. One length, one tempo. "Rhythm" on the other hand is what the drummer does when he plays all quarter notes on the sheet so that all notes of the same sort are "equal duration", whatever the "tempo". Four quarter notes are always played "bang bang bang bang" or "pop pop pop pop", whether the playing is short and quick or slow and leisurely. But the brain does not use just "any old" tempo and rhythm. There is a "wheelhouse" tempo in each body and also a "wheelhouse" rhythm, and neither of these has anything to do with the personality and preference of the golfer. The world uses the golfer's body to INSTALL the tempo and the rhythmic pattern in the brain, and the brain is designed in evolution expressly for the purpose of accepting and recording what the world does TO the body, over what the body does to the world. And these timing aspects are very similar from golfer to golfer, insofar as each adult body is pretty much similar in size and proportionality and mass distribution. Ask any clothing manufacturer what are the most numerous sizes sold for shirts and pants. Certain sizes are FAR more numerous than other "outlier" sizes -- it's just the demographics and anthropometrics of our species. THE WORLD TRAINS THE BRAIN, THE BRAIN LEARNS THE WORLD FOR SAFETY AND SUCCESS The LENGTH or SIZE that swings with only one second tempo is a meter stick, 100 cm or 39.37 inches in length. The adult human arm is not far off this length. Consequently, when the EARTH BALL moves the arms, adults typically experience a tempo that is close to a 1-second tempo in the natural swinging of the arms. The adult human leg is also not far off this meter-stick length. And not surprisingly, adults typically experience a gait tempo of nearly one second per stride when walking in a casual manner. Studies show that the speed of walking depends upon the stride length (which depends generally on stature or height), BUT that given a specific height and stride length and speed, the step FREQUENCY tends to be about the same for adults, regardless of preferred speed or stature. The expression "Speed / Squareroot(Gravity acceleration x Height)" is pretty constant for a wide variety of adult sizes and speeds. (R. Alexander, Stride length and speed for adults, children, and fossil hominids, Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 63(1) (Jan. 1984): 23-27.) The usual step frequency correlates with the pendular action of the limbs and centers on 2 steps per second, for a gait frequency of 1 Hz. (J. Bertram, Constrained optimization in human walking: cost minimization and gait plasticity, J. Exper. Biol. 208 (2005): 979-991.) The rule for pedestrian crosswalks is that people walk at about 3.5 feet/second and the crosswalk lights are set to a "slow" walker at 3.0 feet/second (e.g., 10 seconds to cross a 30-foot wide crosswalk). (J. LaPlante and T. Kaeser, A history of pedestrian signal walking speed assumptions, 3rd Urban Street Symposium, Seattle WA (June 24-27, 2007).) When height is factored out ("normalized"), the usual walking pace for adults centers on 1 Hz. Male sleeve lengths range (age 40, US population) from 34" (5th percentile) to 38.5" (95th percentile), with the actual "reach" from shoulder to wrist ranging from about 27" to 32". Therefore, since the EARTH BALL swings a 39.37" meter stick in precisely 1 second, the same EARTH BALL "naturally" swings the adult male arm is a little less than 1 second. (NASA, Man-Systems Integration Standards, vol. 1 sec. 3, Anthropometry and Biomechanics, Fig. 3.3.1.3-1 (12 of 12) Anthropomteric Dimensional Data for American Male (dimensions 67 and 772).) This natural "tempo" is served up to the recording brain hundreds of times each waking day by the casual swinging of the arm, regardless of the size of the arm swing. Both the legs and the arms in daily experience get TIMED by the EARTH BALL physics and trained relentlessly to something very close to 1 Hz timing by casual reactions. In the neuroscience of the European Space Agency, Alain Berthoz in 1999 demonstrated that the human brain has deeply embedded inside it this "gravity" timing for falling objects. The rate of falling is effectively "hardwired" in the brain by the brain's recording the physics of the EARTH BALL. (A. Berthoz, The Brain's Sense of Movement (Harvard Univ. Press, 2000).) The same sort of recording process occurs for pendular motion with the legs and arms. The brain in effect is "hardwired" to know the tempo of the arms and legs in a "wheelhouse" tempo that was installed by the repeating experience of the world. Why fight it? It's the tempo that never changes and doesn't require learning or practicing. So how does this work in putting for so-called "touch"? PERCEPTION LIMITS ACTION, ACTION SHAPES PERCEPTION Basically, the awareness of the safe and acceptable limits of the space for motion use the tempo to "size" the backstroke, which in itself sets the power or force level of the stroke. If you're careful not to blow the putt long past the hole, the brain instinctively and effortlessly sets the backstroke size without any need to run the problem thru the thinking mind, and also without troubling the mind for permission to use a specific backstroke. Indeed, the MIND doesn't know much about it, compared to the mute body and brain, which have been "hardwired" to get the motion just right merely from paying attention to the space for the careful motion that does not go too long. Careful? Yes, "touch" is a direct result of being attentive and careful. That's because the brain cannot afford to allow spastic over-shooting of the limbs in space, as this is very dangerous and may cause injury and pain to the body (and brain) by colliding violently with objects in space. The brain always moves carefully "to" and not usually "thru" objects in space. The spastic person swats the water glass off the table when reaching for it, or reaches for a door knob and fails because he broke his thumb against the door knob. Failure WITH pain and injury is always much more important to avoid than success is important to attain, or failure short is important to avoid. Safety first, or there will be NO motion. A brain that evolved according to any other rule would not survive in evolution. Carefulness "sizes" the backstroke? Yes, a tempo is the same regardless of the size of the swing of the particular stick. Short swings and long swings of the same stick, according to the EARTH BALL tempo and physics, all take exactly the one same time, every time. The adult arm, for example, held away from the side and then dropped to strike the thigh, takes about 1/2 second regardless of how many inches away from the thigh the arm and hand are suspended before dropping down at the thigh. So why would the backstroke gain a size limit? What changes when the arm and hand are held closer or farther from the thigh before dropping is the velocity of the hand at impact against the thigh. A short backstroke strikes the thigh with low velocity, and always the same velocity if started from the same distance. A long backstroke strikes the thigh faster (and harder), and always with the same velocity (and force) so long as started into the drop from the same distance off the thigh. Hence, backstroke SIZE combines with tempo to cause one and only one velocity of impact and force or impact. Size = Force. This size = This force (only and always), provided the tempo is stable. The EARTH BALL tempo is extremely stable. To wrap it up, "touch" then uses everyday "wheelhouse" tempo and attention and carefulness about not going long in the space with the motion to size the backstroke and hence limit the force for safety and for success. Both. SEVE AND RITMOS: BOTH LINE AND DISTANCE FROM TIMING Now, we come to Seve and "ritmos" or rhythm. The golfer is the drummer and pays heed to the EARTH BALL conductor's tempo. That means that the backstroke is ONE-HALF of the rhythm, and a rhythm is a proportionality between the back and the thru. Because the timing of the stroke is just a single pattern, the first half of the tempo's total time is the backstroke. The backstroke is half of the rhythmic swing. This means that the brain "sets" the backstroke size using half the tempo and half the rhythm. Once set, the golfer has to "complete the deal" by sticking to the timing in the thru-stroke. The backstroke loads the correct force, but the timing of the thru-stroke spends or uses the force. Unless the thru-stroke timing matches "whatever timing the backstroke used according to one half of the tempo", the putt runs short (a slower thru-stroke than the backstroke) or long (a quicker thru-stroke than the backstroke). The rhythm is always right when you pay attention and are careful not to blow past the target. If the rhythm were not safe and successful, your brain is unsuitable for survival. And yet, here you are, so what other proof do you require to believe that the brian's got your back and keeps you safe against over-shoot when you "trust" the usual tempo and rhythm? With careful intentionality in space and the usual tempo, the rhythm is NEVER short or long, and the backstroke will NEVER be allowed to get too powerful a size. The limit on the backstroke size guards against getting 105% force at impact, but the stopping of the backstroke by the instinctive brain (not the mind) does not happen earlier than very close to 100%. Otherwise, the golfer would be dead from being short all the time when he tries to place food in his mouth. Short is never good, but too long is downright dangerous! So much for "ritmos", right? Wrong. In addition to force and distance control for "touch", the rhythm of the careful golfer with the usual tempo is ALSO what CAUSES straight strokes. Rhythm is a "what-is-where-when" deal. Te essential key to striking the ball exactly where the putter face aims at address is to KNOW when the putter face re-occupies the address location in the forward swing. That is like wanting to KNOW WHEN will the pendulum re-occupy the position in the swing when the rod is perpendicular to the floor and the pendulum bob is closest to the floor at the bottom of the swing. That's easy: each half second once the pendulum at the top of its stroke starts down. Every time. In putting, the golfer rolling balls straight where aimed with good touch needs to do nothing if he has good rhythm except start the stroke back into the usual tempo with a confident full-bodied swing. The brain and body limit how far back the putter will swing the same way a ceiling limits how far a ball gets tossed to "touch" the ceiling. The space and the intentionality to go "to" and not "thru" the space is what limits the backstroke size and force. A diffident backstroke won't work, as that won't fully load the force at the 100% level. And any mistake in the rhythm so that the forward stroke timing doesn't mirror the backstroke loading timing will cause long or short results. Load and go. TEACHING HOW THE NATURAL BODY ALREADY HAS GREAT TOUCH So how do you teach "touch"? First, the golfer witnesses a demonstration of the setting of the limit to the backstroke size and force, by being careful not to go too long past the target. Then the golfer tests this personally -- jumps up and down on that plank to see if he can crack it, or not. Once the limiting of the backstroke is accepted as a literal, physical, daily, non-conscious property of the body and brain as hardwired by experience of the planet, the MIND begins to relent in its desire to control the force of the putt and relinquishes control to the music of the golfer moving with the tempo of the world. The golfer is the drummer with rhythm, and only needs to follow the conductor's tempo. The world itself and the body jointly comprise the "wheelhouse" conductor with the always-the-same tempo. About 25 years ago, a friend of mine (Steve Rey) was practicing putting on the European PGA Tour with various training aids scattered about and Seve Ballesteros walked up and commented: "Steve, you don't need any of that stuff for excellent putting. You only need ritmos." Instant improvement in results, from that day to this. ANYONE who has a modicum of experience on golf greens already has embedded in their brains and body a deep and detailed physics knowledge of great touch. All that is required is attentiveness to the space and reliance upon the usual tempo and rhythm of the world. Intend a good result for distance, pay attention, and join the music of the world -- a backstroke results from the body's know-how, and if the rhythm is right, the distance is right. It's normal, not special at all. Thanks, Seve. Cheers! Geoff Mangum Putting Coach and Theorist PuttingZone.com Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction, combining the best of golf lore with modern physics, anatomy, and the neuroscience of perception and movement processes on the green for optimal and instinctive performance of the four skills of putting: reading, aiming, stroking, and controlling distance and pace. Subscribe to: Posts RSS (XML): feeds.feedburner.com/puttingzone Subscribe to: Posts RSS (Atom): puttingzone.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default