Posted June 11th, 2011 @ 12:15pm by Erik J. Barzeski
The Three Imperatives and Essentials operate to correct faulty procedures. So, if they seem elusive, it is invariably because you are trying to execute them while you hit the ball - in your accustomed manner. That must be reversed. Learn to do those things even if you miss the ball - until you no longer miss it. There is no successful alternative (3-B).
Posted June 8th, 2011 @ 12:07pm by Erik J. Barzeski
Hitting a ball is the easiest part of the game - hitting it effectively is the most difficult. Why trust instinct when there is science? The instructor can only inform and explain - the student must absorb and apply.
Posted June 5th, 2011 @ 10:46am by Erik J. Barzeski
I posted this on Facebook in regards to "method instruction" being bad or close-minded or fixed or whatnot, and I disagree entirely. And I wanted to share it here as well, as it's important and relevant.
Every good instructor has a method. A method is "a procedure, technique, or way of doing something, especially in accordance with a definite plan." Who would admit to not having a plan for a student?
In golf "method teacher" seems to be used as a bad thing, as in "he applies the *same* method to every student." But there's a whole large swath of space between the method being very general like "good contact, hit the ball reasonably far, know where the ball is going" and "the shaft needs to twist about its axis 17.5 degrees while the left arm moves 35 degrees across the chest" (to be clear, I don't think anybody's teaching the latter). Where's the line in the middle that separates those two? Or are both of those "methods"?
Everyone is a method teacher to some degree or another, because nobody who says "no method" really means that - they're simply trying to sell themselves as "I teach the golfer" or "I just teach good impact." Their method is the "'No Method' Method!" To truly have no method is to truly have no plan for a student, and again, nobody teaches that way.
"Method" is misused. Every good instructor teaches the student they have in front of them. Every good instructor teaches "impact." Every good instructor has a "method" because to claim otherwise is to claim that you don't have a plan.
And finally, IMHO, the only way a "method" limits growth is if the "method" becomes so precisely defined that acceptable ranges shrink and cease to become wide ranges of acceptable values or components. Personally, I like generous ranges with constant prioritization so the student can improve.
To put it another way: if you ask any "no method" teacher enough questions, you'll be able to suss out their "method."
Dave tells me "weird things happen in tournaments that don't normally happen" and this was the case for me. I had two bogeys going into the sixth hole (bounced a wedge over a green, tried to cut a shot with the ball a foot above my feet, dumb) but was getting good looks at birdies and tap-in pars on the other holes. Feeling good, striking the ball well.
Thing #1 that doesn't normally happen:
I hit a ball on the line I was told would be good. Ball clips the top of a tree and bounces backwards and I have to pitch out backwards. I don't remember the last time I pitched out backwards. Tried to make up for it from there and ended up doubling the hole. Pffft.
There may also be a medical reason for the decline in crime. For decades, doctors have known that children with lots of lead in their blood are much more likely to be aggressive, violent and delinquent. In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency required oil companies to stop putting lead in gasoline. At the same time, lead in paint was banned for any new home (though old buildings still have lead paint, which children can absorb).
Tests have shown that the amount of lead in Americans' blood fell by four-fifths between 1975 and 1991. A 2007 study by the economist Jessica Wolpaw Reyes contended that the reduction in gasoline lead produced more than half of the decline in violent crime during the 1990s in the U.S. and might bring about greater declines in the future. Another economist, Rick Nevin, has made the same argument for other nations.
Posted May 30th, 2011 @ 08:51pm by Erik J. Barzeski
The movie "Wanted" with Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman is a fun little movie I've seen a few times now…
Is it safe to call it a "kung fu movie, western style"? Both "Wanted" and kung fu movies have lots of (highly unrealistic) fighting and seem to be based on fairly simple motives1 - love, revenge, vengeance, and other venge-words.
Just a thought. Probably not a fully complete one at that…
Posted May 28th, 2011 @ 06:23pm by Erik J. Barzeski
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty. Think big.