In the December 2007 issue of Golf Magazine, there was an interesting piece of instruction by Charlie King that I’m not sure I agree with.
In the “Your Game” section (p. 68) in an article titled “How to Putt for Birdie Every Time“, King brings up an interesting concept in target selection in golf.
He says that instead of shooting for the pin (in a situation that calls for it – fairway lie, center-cut hole), that you should instead give yourself a much bigger target than just the flag stick. He says that with such a precise target, you might tend to put too much pressure on yourself and tend to not swing freely.
I agree with the part about not swinging freely if you put too much pressure on yourself, but I don’t believe the cause is a target that is too specific.
Everything I recall reading and learning about the mental game says that the more specific the target, the better.
The problem instead comes when we become results oriented. When we don’t have absolute commitment to a shot because of fear of the outcome, we’re doomed to failure.
King goes on to suggest a drill where you hit balls to a target on the driving range, five at a time. If you don’t get three of them in your target area, then you’d widen it and hit five more balls until three out of five land within your area. Then, you’d take this “zone” out to the course and use it when faced with a similar shot.
I’m really having trouble seeing how this will help a player make more birdies.
Typically, when we widen our margins for error, we’ll perform to that level. It’s like giving our minds permission to get lazy.
If you stand on the tee and your target is simply the fairway, then you’re going to have trouble seeing the shot in your mind, committing to it, and having trust that you will execute it.
Mentally, golf is a very difficult game. I’ve come to appreciate the ideas of the mental game gurus like Bob Rotella. One of the principles in his book Golf is Not a Game of Perfect is that, “before taking any shot, a golfer must pick out the smallest possible target” (p. 61).
After having applied his principles to my own game, I’ve seen definite improvement.
When I came to understand that trust in my swing and commitment to the shot were very important, I started to improve, even when my technical competence was failing me.
I’ve given this topic a lot of thought. My intent was to write about it soon after I read it, but I wanted to think about it a little more. After letting the idea stew for a while, I just can’t see the benefit.
The idea simply gives players the permission to not focus on specific targets and to be results oriented, instead of simply being shot committed and realizing that we’re not always going to hit the mark.
I just don’t believe that a player that’s just aiming for somewhere on the green will make more birdies.
What do you think about this concept?
Loading ...
I’ve not read the magazine article, but based on what you are saying, I could see sense in the idea of widening your target, getting 5 out of 5 and then narrowing your target slightly. Then when you get 5 out of 5 narrow it again and so on. This has the benefit of achieving goals and building on confidence.
I agree that just widening the target won’t do you any favours as you are changing the target to meet your abilities not changing your abilities to meet your target.
I agree, YellowYards. That would make much more sense to me as a confidence building drill that uses positive reinforcement and increasing challenge to motivate and refine.
I just reread the article to make sure I didn’t misunderstand anything and it’s definitely a widening with no eventual narrowing.
At the very least, as a player improves, he would need to go to the range and recalibrate his target zone, but there’s no mention of anything like that.
The bottom line is that it doesn’t address the reason players tense up when they agonize over a shot, it just teaches them to stay loose by lowering expectations instead.
I can see this technique who put too much stress on themselves by focusing too much on aiming at a precise molecule.
However, most golfers do not suffer from over focusing. Most don’t have a target in the distance like a tree, a cloud, a spot on the horizon. They just aim somewhere out there and if that is their target guess what they will hit it everytime.
I like Yellow Yards idea of gradullay narrowing your focus after gaining confidence. Espeically for golfers who don’t aim a specific target
I agree with you DE. In accomplishing any goal, the more specific the target the better chance for yourself.
The target is not the problem, the stress is. It would seem that any drills designed to fix the problem should be aimed at being able to deal with stress in a way that allows you to get back to aiming at specific targets. Yellow Yards drill could be useful to that effect.
I agree TP Online. Many amateurs don’t even aim correctly, let alone get a more refined one.
I know this is a lengthy reply but bear with me. My son is left eye dominant, never loses sight of the ball. I mention this due to his uncanny ability and raw talent to hit to just about anywhere he wishes. Not to mention, his relaxed attitude while sinking putts without as much as a glance from out of the corner of his eye, as long as it does not count i.e. Tournament play. Not to say he can’t score he just does not do as well, until lately. He averaged 76 during casual play, but could score anywhere in the 80s due to accuracy problems caused by nerves. I realize that he needs a way to confidently pull the trigger and expect certain results. Something to rely on other than a zone somewhere in the distance. I have learned that targeting closer to the ball results in better accuracy. Since he had no professional lessons (I could not afford them) I learned how to teach the game to him. I did have three pros take a look at him, at different times over the years, and the consensus is that he is doing great and there was nothing they could add. But I seen weakness in his game, so targeting is now the lesson. I am increasing my accuracy with intermediate target use, while the target zone I want the ball to hit has narrowed. I was asked by my son what had changed (chronic back and leg problems afford me about nine – eleven holes before pain stops my progress) so I clued him in. Now I am witnessing improvement leaps and bounds, he is averaging 73 and I have broken 85(6 of the last 10 rounds. The point is that when we were targeting where we wanted the ball to go, with all the variables that can come into play, less consistency under pressure was realized. I can see where widening or using a target zone would allow a freer swing with results in less accuracy. After all you are apt to hit the barn if the entire barn is the target zone. I have found that using a target that is a quarter of an inch in size located two or three feet in front of the ball in alignment with a finite target down range has resulted in accuracy that boggles my mind. Once I line up and setup to my intermediate target, the target/landing zone (for us a finite point) has gotten smaller based on results. After adding this to our pre-shot routine, and both of us scoring par on the first 5 holes during our last outing; he says with his boyish grin “There might be something to this intermediate target thing, huh?” He shot 71. For instance, I have realized success from 150 yds and closer. Instead of landing on the half of the green I decide to play, I am landing inside of 20 feet of my initial target point. My son has had the same results, as well. We have also started using the same method while chipping, pitching, and putting and are seeing success there as well. So using a finite target as small as possible tends to improve accuracy and confidence, based on what we are learning.