Monthly Archives: November 2014

WITH APOLOGIES TO BEN HOGAN

Posted on by

Joe Wilkins, Copyright (c) 2014

When I dropped baseball and took up golf at the age of sixteen, it was with mixed feelings. I was a very good baseball player, and I really wanted to play both sports in high school, but that was not possible because high school participation in both these sports was in the springtime. As I plunged into golf with my high school buddy, it was not long before I was hooked–and golf was the winner! Also, at this time I had to change high schools due to unfortunate family circumstances, and the new high school’s baseball team was set, while the golf team was begging for players. It was an easy choice. The year was 1953.

Having an analytical type mind, I proceeded to learn as much about the game as possible. So I purchased Ben Hogan’s instruction book, Power Golf. Having been told by other golfers that I had a very good natural swing–getting into the 80’s within a few months–I became determined to improve and shoot in the 70’s. Hogan’s book promised that was possible if I would just follow his techniques. Well, it didn’t happen–in high school, at least.

After high school I joined the US Air Force for four years, playing no golf whatsoever from the age of eighteen until age twenty-six. By then my interest was rekindled and I took up the game with renewed vigor. I was quickly shooting in the eighties again, with an occasional foray into the high seventies, but consistently good scores were elusive. Sadly, I soon realized that absence had not made my golf swing better. In high school I had a long, flexible swing that produced considerable distance, with balls that started straight, but faded or sliced to the right. Draw shots were non-existent. This pattern of golf shots remained the same.

So I re-studied Hogan’s Power Golf  book, as well as his more recent Five Lessons, The Modern Fundamentals of Golf. However, despite extensive study, lessons, and practice, my game remained much the same. I did get my handicap down to four at one time, but becoming a par golfer eluded me, primarily because of those left-to-right ball flights, often into adjoining fairways. And this problem persists in my game today.

Even though advancing age is now limiting my game even further, I still desire to get better. This has recently prompted me to rethink my relationship with the golf swing as advocated by Hogan, and I think this will be of interest to those golfers who are analysts of the game.

My recent thoughts focus on the left wrist during the swing. Hogan, Bobby Jones, and countless others have advocated a “cupped” left wrist when the club is held in the address position, with the clubhead being square to the target line. This is almost universal positioning when viewing photos, TV images, and live-action pros at address. However, not much is said about this, so we must presume that it is as standard and correct as standing on two feet while getting ready to hit a ball. Further, they state that to get an idea of what the position of the hands should be at the top of the backswing, simply break the wrists straight up from the address position, then move the hands to the top of the backswing. When this is done the golfer will notice that there will be varying degrees of cup in the left wrist at the top. If the amount of cup at the top is the same as was at address, then the clubface will still be square to the plane of the swing and the direction line. And if the other parts of the swing are correct for the individual golfer, then straight shots should be the result.

But Hogan was plagued with an occasional duck hook that was  “the terror of the field mice,” as he described in an article in Life magazine in June, 1955, as he relented and told his “secret” to the world. This secret entailed taking his normal address position, fanning the club open at the beginning of the backswing, and cupping his left wrist slightly at the top. From this position he could go into his downswing and hit as hard as he wished and he would get a higher flight with a slight fade–with no loss of distance!

When looking at the drawings of Hogan in the address positions in his two books it is clear that he addressed the ball with a cupped left wrist, with the clubhead being square to the line of flight. Now, if he had maintained that degree of cup throughout his swing, the geometry of his efforts should have produced relatively straight shots, with hooks being quite rare. However, in his early days he did not maintain that cup; in fact when one views photos of him at the top, we see that his left wrist is flat, meaning that the clubface is now closed relative to its position at address. Not wonder he was always fighting a hook. Even after he made his “secret” changes we will note that his backswing plane was flat, with a relatively flat left wrist at the top. It is my belief that it was the rolling or pronating of the hands at takeaway, considerably opening the clubface, being the primary reason he was able to eliminate the hook.

Now what does all this mean to you and me? I contend that the cupped wrist at address is natural and more free from tension than other positions, and would benefit most golfers. Since most golfers are always fighting a slice, maintaining the cupped wrist throughout the swing and letting centrifugal force release the clubhead at impact, maintaining its relative squareness to the line of flight, will serve most golfers the best. I have tried removing the cup during my backswing by flattening my left wrist at the top, but this produces increased tension in my hands and arms, resulting in Army golf shots that go left-right, left-right! I am now trying to go back to my natural cupping, with increased relaxation in my entire upper body, with “spaghetti” arms and hands. I will try to incorporate this increased relaxation into a longer, looser swing, which will allow centrifugal force to exert its natural action. In effect, I am going back to the natural swing of my youth, correcting the major deficiency of that swing by staying as relaxed as possible in my hands and arms as the clubhead goes through impact.

In closing, all dedicated golfers know how difficult and mysterious this game can be. The combinations of things we can try to get better approaches infinity, so we will not live long enough to try them all. It took Ben Hogan almost twenty years to figure out what was best for his game, so I doubt if many of us will do any better.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend at Mystery Valley Golf Club in Georgia. His name was Red Dobbins, one of the best amateur golfers anywhere. During a period when I was going through all sorts of swing experiments and changes, and being very frustrated because they were not helping me, I asked Red if he ever experimented with his swing. He said, “Joe, if I couldn’t experiment and try things to get better, I’d give up the game!” I said to myself if it was good enough for Red it was good enough for me. I’ll keep on trying. Don’t you quit either!  Fore!

 

 

 

 

 

THE ‘I’ FACTOR

Posted on by

By

Joe Wilkins

Copyright  © 2014

There’s a basic truth about us human beings that, when understood, eases our ability to make sense of all the turmoil that’s occurring in politics and social discord in America today. I call it the “I” factor, which asserts that all human beings think about themselves first and others second. Religious people might call it original sin. The ancient Greeks called it hubris. We counselors and psychologists call it narcissism. The guy in the street might call it self-centeredness.

Political progressives might state that, “No, I do not think of myself first. I think of the common good first! I want there to be peace and harmony in the world so we can all live together without strife and turmoil.” A noble goal, but I offer the proposition that while kumbahyah-togetherness is important to them, it is secondary to the more primary need to serve themselves first! With their efforts to ignore or oppose opposite views—despite possible facts to the contrary–they are demonstrating that these strongly held attitudes about serving their fellow man are actually supported by a more fundamental need, which is to feel good about themselves by supporting such causes—ideals which may or may not be supported by objective reality. Some progressives’ lifestyles, careers, and self images may become based on their positions on such matters, making these issues of primary importance to them. This whole process reflects their primary state of mind, and demonstrates that they are defending themselves first and their actual causes secondly.

This pervasive process affects all humankind in varying degrees. For illustration, people who hold certain polarizing positions—such as global warming, political ideologies, religious orientations, and other views—often structure their entire lives in support of these positions. Over time, this support can evolve to mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, strong enough to incline them to alter everything about their lives to support their views even more intensely—often when the facts suggest they should moderate or change their behavior. The social psychologists have termed this process the “effort justification hypothesis,” which states that people who hold strong attitudes about certain beliefs and opinions, will do almost anything to defend these attitudes—even when reality proves them wrong. And, paradoxically, they will engage in continuous behavior to prove themselves “right,” even going to the extent of “recruiting” more converts to their views, supposedly supporting the notion that if everyone thinks like them then they must be right!

All this illustrates that there is something inclining all of us to serve ourselves first, nurturing that state of mind around which we orient our entire lives, followed by structuring our lives to conform to these attitudes. Moreover, other people come in second to this process. We might say that we all have a bit of narcissism in our souls.

This is much like two-year old children who “want what they want when they want it,” and go into tantrums when their parents do not comply with their wishes. In young children, this I-Factor often prompts self-centered outbursts of anger, because they have not yet learned to consider other people’s feelings and needs. Unfortunately, some children pass into adulthood never learning the need to consider others also.

Of course, most people, if properly parented, modify this I-Factor sufficiently to consider others’ positions— but they still value themselves first. If a tiger charges into a primitive village, threatening to kill and eat someone, the first instinct will be for everyone to react to save themselves. Closely following this will be for them to save their loved ones.

Soldiers in combat sometimes sacrifice themselves for their comrades or their country—but this is in service to some “code” they have been taught and believe in. If they did not follow the code, they would have to live with guilt and shame, which is something they are unwilling to endure. Paradoxically, they are still serving themselves first by avoiding shame, even though it could cost them their lives.

I have known people to commit suicide so others will not have to take care of them in their old age. A first impression might be that they do not want to inconvenience others by becoming dependent on them for care, but what they are usually doing is taking care of their need to be independent, and not rely on others. Thus, they are serving themselves first, and others second. I once had an elderly client who said if he got ill to the point he was dependent on others, he’d put a gun to his head. It was more important for him to maintain his “I-Factor” of being independent than to worry about how his suicide would affect his family and friends. Fortunately, he died of natural causes—with no one else having to care for him.

In this regard, conservative people have the same orientation as progressives. They have political and social positions they want to promote, and they too are serving their ideologies first and others second. Some religious leaders are in the same position when they promote their religious beliefs to their followers, suggesting they are taking care of themselves first, and others second.

Even in the animal world, we see this scenario playing out. A mother bear has to feed herself before nursing her cubs. If she does not they all die. This is pretty much true of all animals. The mother bear is like the dedicated soldier in combat: she instinctively preserves herself first against all threats, but will fight to the death to protect those cubs.

Ancient humankind had a similar orientation: survival meant serving the tribe, in hunting, gathering food, building shelter, etc, but all had to serve themselves first, to do what they had to do to stay alive, so they could serve the tribe.

Psychologists have explained this conflict between the “I-Factor” versus serving the rest of humankind, with the concept of independence vs. mutual inter–dependence: We have to maintain our own independence first, thus freeing us to then serve others. But we cannot serve others very well if we neglect our own needs. Since few can survive solely on their own, we are forced to think of ourselves first, keeping ourselves fit and healthy, so  we can then serve others to get certain mutual needs met, promoting the survival of us all.

However, many well-intentioned persons get confused when going about this process. Our recent Congressional leaders are prime examples. For instance our Congress-persons, in the recent health care fiasco, have evolved into two opposing factions, whereby the Democrats got what they wanted by out-maneuvering the Republicans. In essence, they went to “war” and defeated the Republican opposition. The Harry Reids and the Nancy Pelosis got what they wanted by using superior Congressional   force. In addition, they were serving themselves first by passing legislation that completed their fundamental psychological need to give the American people what they believed was needed, completing a deep-seated need- fulfillment within themselves. The little voice inside them was probably saying something like, “We have given the American people a great healthcare system, so what  wonderful  people we are!” This helps them complete benevolent self-images of themselves, which is necessary to maintain their basic egos, and the ego always demands to be served first.

Thus, we have the great conflict within ourselves to reconcile this primal need to serve ourselves first and others second. The narcissistic and pathological people never consider others first, but we will dismiss them for obvious reasons and look at the average citizen who faces this dilemma. What does one do?

One technique is to “surrender” our egos to a higher power. This is a process whereby we look for something outside ourselves to reconcile life’s problems. Some people surrender to God, Allah, the Happy Hunting Ground, Buddha, etc. This helps them  struggle with their own egos, and they can assign a portion of the responsibility to their God of choice:  “It’s what God wants me to do!” Others typically assign a portion of their egos to their ideal view of government, believing it can create a better world.

Some alcoholics and drug addicts, when they have demonstrated they cannot stay sober using their own willpower, are asked to surrender their egos to the God of their understanding. This suggests that only when they do this can they get sober—and most who choose this path, do get better. Like the child who has accepted that others are important also, they are then free to relate properly to the rest of the world. There is no greater I-Factor than that state of mind in an alcoholic or drug addict, whereby the primary motivation in their lives is to get that next drink or drug fix. But if they have truly gotten clean and sober, they will have rid themselves of their self-serving way of thinking, by surrendering it to a higher power, thus freeing themselves to devote their actions to others in the ways they are supposed to.

Summing up, we all have a primal need to take care of ourselves first and foremost. Without proper socialization at an early age, many are prone to neglect their relations with others. Clever I-Factor people will construct elaborate rationales and belief systems to cover up their narcissism and will convince themselves that they are truly in service of others, when deep down in their egos they are really doing these outward acts of benevolence to maintain their incomplete ego identities. Sometimes this works out to the good—sometimes not!

 

AMERICA BASHING

Posted on by

By

Joe Wilkins

Copyright © 2014

Recently, on the Fox network’s program “The Five,” one panelist started condemning America for conquering and subduing the Indians, continuing the mistreatment over the years. His response was in concert with the tendency of many people to take the position that America is an arrogant power—and always has been—trying to impose its will upon the rest of the world.

Trying to connect America’s recent military actions with past mistreatment of America’s Indians is a stretch, in my opinion. In his view, we are a cause for most of the problems in the world today, citing our belligerence for starting the wars in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  Though many may argue the appropriateness of our engaging in certain military actions, he neglected the fact that America rescued the world during World Wars I & II, without our help we would probably be speaking German and Japanese today. He seemed to be using our treatment of the Indians to justify his attitude that America needs to be “perfect” when engaging in foreign affairs and wars—actions which are impossible.

If all groups of people followed the Golden Rule, then his view of how nations should behave would be possible. Unfortunately, throughout history, almost all groups, tribes, and nations have conquered and subdued others for their own benefit. It appears to be the basic human way of behavior. A review of the history of slavery, for instance, shows that almost all nations have engaged in slavery in one form or another. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Greece, Persia, China, European countries, Rome—the list goes on and on.

And some of the American Indians are not innocent either; they too, like all of humankind, suffer from this condition, whereby conditions in the collective human psyche, and numerous external conditions, impel one group to control and subdue others—usually for economic or survival reasons.

About the American Indian situation, the first American settlers—our ancestors—came from Europe seeking religious freedom, economic opportunity, and escape from various forms of oppression. They did not come with the idea of suppressing the Indians, being rather unaware of the New World in many respects, especially the extent of the American Indian population. Most of the original colonists tried to cooperate with the Indians simply to survive the harsh conditions, but were often treated in a hostile manner, causing them to reciprocate in a like manner.

The point of this column is to show that it is often inappropriate to connect or blame present day groups for the sins of their ancestors. It is doubtful if any reader of this column has ever thought ill of, or mistreated, an American Indian. Perhaps Hollywood’s western movies are guilty of misrepresenting Native Americans, but there have recently been many movies representing them in a more accurate light.

Even so, the Indians seem to suffer from the same human frailties as the rest of us. It seems to be a major human flaw to portray today’s misbehavior as being caused by events in the past. While the past does have its role, it is not the cause of today’s misbehavior, because we still possess free will, and we need to choose to exercise it more often.

Thus, I am advocating the use of past human misdeeds, not for blame, but as learning experiences to correct our behavior today.

LEARNING NEW GOLFING TECHNIQUES

Posted on by

 

Joe Wilkins

Copyright © 2014

When people want to change their golf swing, they typically rehearse it a few times in their minds, take a few “new” practice swings, and then try to swat the ball with their new techniques. After completion of the new swing they will perceive that they have done what they intended. However, video analysis of such motions usually shows they have just repeated the old, dysfunctional swing. Apparently, the subconscious mind stays rigidly attached to the old swing—as opposed to what the new thought patterns are trying to achieve.

It is as if there are two parts to golf movements: 1) the original, much practiced, repetitious, enduring old swing, which has become a part of one’s current physical capabilities and comfort, as opposed to 2) the new swing that the mind is trying to get the muscles to perform. In addition, this new swing “thinking” seems to have power to deceive the participants, in that they will believe they have performed the new swing when careful observation shows they are still repeating the old one.

So, what is going on here?

It is apparent if a golfer wants to change a swing to one that is more proficient, one has to do more than just think about it, followed by just a few practice swings

The research on this—and observations of musicians, typists, trapeze artists, and golfers—among others–who have made constructive changes, shows that ten to twenty thousand correct repetitions are necessary to implement a new swing change, to the point that it becomes automatic, letting the natural flow of things happen. These many repetitions are essential before the new swing becomes imbedded in the subconscious, and no longer has to be thought about, with the actual number of  repetitions needed depending on the talent of the individual.  The goal is to free the conscious mind away from  swing mechanics while playing, allowing the golfers to focus on tempo, target, etc.

It is apparent that focusing on new swing changes while playing is distracting, and usually presents conflict between the old and the new, usually resulting in bad shots. New swing techniques have to be repeated until they are “grooved” so they can be performed during a round without thinking about them.

This author has been a victim of this “improvement ideology” for over 50 years. I always believed—and would actually feel– that I had performed a new swing when I thought about it, but objective analysis usually showed that I had repeated my old swing—but I was fooled into thinking I had performed the new one. During practice sessions, I could usually perform the new swing when it was possible to hit ball after ball in rapid succession, but the old swing was always trying to take its primary place. As I write this I am trying to use the touch system on my computer keyboard, where I don’t look at the keyboard, like all good typists are trained to do. But it is so slow, awkward, and mistake prone that I soon revert back to the typing system that I taught myself as a teenager—the two finger method, while looking at the keyboard. For me to learn the touch system would require me to engage in a formal course, with very rigid structure and many repetitions of correct practice; even then, I would not be as good as some high school typing student who had learned the proper way. Golf is like that too.

There are many learning, psychological principles that apply to this dilemma, but the two most important are proactive inhibition and retroactive inhibition. They demonstrate the difficulty of learning new golfing procedures.

Proactive inhibition shows that an old golf swing, with which we have played for years, gets in the way of learning a new swing. The original swing has established its place in our brain and muscles through years of use, and it very strongly resists allowing the new swing to establish itself without extensive constructive work and repetition. Consider the act of your individual walking style, which began its development when you were about one year old. How much work do you imagine it would take to develop a new manner of walking? Similarly, if a golfer is having difficulty in learning a new swing technique, it is because of the different habits that were learned it the past. However, if the new techniques to be learned are similar to the old ones, then the task of learning will be somewhat easier than if they were grossly different; the more different they are, the harder the task of learning the new ways.

Next, retroactive inhibition occurs when a golfer has taken a golf lesson to learn something new, but does not practice and rehearse the new technique soon thereafter, allowing too many other things to occur between the lesson and the following practice session, causing the new learning to fade away or be forgotten. Restated, the more competing events that occur between the lesson and the following practice, increases failure in ability to perform the new methods.

Now, this applies to all golfers in varying degrees. The more experienced the golfer is with various swing techniques, he will more easily implement the new swing changes. However, the task will still be difficult. For example, Lee Trevino originally had a hooking swing in his early years, which occasionally got him into trouble. Then, one day he was at Shady Oaks, watching Ben Hogan hitting those lovely fades,so he decided if it was good enough for Hogan he should develop a fade also. So Trevino spent the next year, hustling other golfers and working at his driving range, experimenting and developing that fading shot for which he became famous and successful. Trevino estimated that he had a golf club in his hands about 15 hours per day during this time of change, but at the end of the year, the change was fully implemented. The time of investment in these changes was over 5000 hours, and who knows how many repetitions.

 

So what does all this mean to you? It would seem that any golfer desiring to change should follow these procedures:

1) Team up with a professional golf teacher that you are comfortable with, and have him evaluate your swing and what needs to be done to accomplish your goals.

2) Take lessons on a regular basis and make any changes one at a time, followed by as much corrective practice as you can manage after each lesson. Do not introduce any other complicating items into your swing at this time.

3) If you play between lessons, keep any swing thoughts to your one new swing change. Continue this process of play and practice until your pro thinks you are ready to progress to the next needed change.

4) Though it will be difficult to do, and your handicap is likely to rise for a while, try to ignore your scores and your past golfing habits, focusing on your new goals and efforts.

5) If going to the driving range frequently is not practical, put up a hitting net in your back yard. Repeat your latest swing change several times without hitting a ball, then, before the feel goes away (usually within 7 to 10 seconds) go ahead and hit a ball using the swing change. Repeat until you begin to tire or lose concentration.

6) Repeat all of the above until the swing change is automatic, and then progress to the next change. The goal for each change is to make it automatic, whereby you no longer have to think about it.

7) Avoid other golfing instruction, such as Golf Channel tips, golfing magazines, golf videos, tips from friends, etc., that might prompt you to try other things. Any new material will conflict with your efforts and cause you to revert to the old dysfunctional ways. All instruction and evaluation should come from your pro and your own thinking processes. Discuss all factors with your pro as necessary.

8) As an added bonus, recent research has demonstrated that relaxing and imagining your new swing change during “quiet times” will help speed up the learning process. I have found that rehearsing the changes in my mind in bed before going to sleep (instead of counting sheep) is of great help.

Try all this. Good luck!