Outrageous Golf Fraud

[dgs49]

The Golf Channel has started airing the latest in their series of celebrity golf tune ups, this time featuring the Golf Cinderellization of Michael Phelps, swimmer extraordinaire. Previous celebrities featured on the show have been Charles Barkley, Rush Limbaugh, Ray Romano, and a few others.

Oddly, other than short-term, minimal improvements, none of the previous subjects of the program have actually improved their golf games, despite intensive, top-level instruction and despite playing much more than the typical casual golfer. Barkley still stinks, Limbaugh is still a hacker, and Romano is still shooting in the 90's.

The Program, and in fact golf instruction itself, is largely fraudulent - sold on a false premise.

This is because a good golf swing is something that must be the product of "muscle memory," and muscle memory is something that cannot occur during adulthood. In my opinion, the deadline for muscle memory is about 10 years old, but honest physiologists disagree about the exact age. A 27-year-old, male or female, can repeat a swing a Brazillion times under the close observation of the greatest golf analysit in the world, and the Brazillionth swing is no more likely to be a "perfect" one than the first. I know this from personal experience as well as from readings on the subject. Notice the bio's of every golfer on tour: ALL of them took up the game as little chlldren.

The reality of "muscle memory" is easily observed in two arenas. First and most obviously, consider people who learn to ride a bicycle as adults. Riding a bike is a complex task that requires coordination of many muscles to propel, balance, and steer the bike simultaneously. And to ride a bike competently, YOU CANNOT BE THINKING ABOUT RIDING THE BIKE, you have to be watching your surroundings for obstacles, safety hazards, and your immediate destination. People who learn to ride as adults must always be thinking about the riding process, and they will never be competent enough to ride in heavy traffic or mountain-bike. It just won't happen. If you learned to ride as a child, all of that muscle activity is intuitive and you don't even have to think about it. This is what is meant by "muscle memory."

Also, consider those who have had a stroke as an adult and have to re-learn how to walk, They NEVER completely re-learn it, because walking must be a matter of muscle memory.

Swinging a golf club is just such an activity. If you haven't learned how to hit a golf ball by the time you are ten years old, you will NEVER be a GOOD golfer.

Most golf instruction is based on the false premise that if you practice "enough," you will develop muscle memory and your swing will become "automatic," so that when hitting a golf ball you can think about WHERE YOU WANT THE GOLF BALL TO GO rather than HOW YOU ARE HITTING THE BALL. Also, it assumes that there is a "perfect" swing that every golfer must emulate in order to hit the ball properly. This is also baloney.

Proper golf instruction for adults starts with a person's natural golf swing, and adapts it to get the best results. It teaches what clubs to use in given situations - particularly around the green - and how to keep the ball in the fairway. Expectations must be normalized to expect nothing better than "bogey golf" as a goal - meaning that a good round for most adult learners is 15-18 strokes over par for 18 holes. Anything better than that is party time.

This golf program is entertaining for a number of reasons, but to the extent that it is based on a phony premise, it may even be doing the game and its participants a disservice. It promotes the illusion that a casual amateur golfer can become a GOOD golfer, merely by "trying hard" and devoting "sufficient" time and energy, which is bullshit. It might work for swimming, but not for golf.

[Big RR]

If I recall, there are some successful pro golfers who began play at 14-16; not adulthood, but well over 10. It's not common, but some people can learn late.

[Crackpot]

According to Dave it's impossible to learn the friction point of a clutch

[Sean]

This is because a good golf swing is something that must be the product of "muscle memory," and muscle memory is something that cannot occur during adulthood. In my opinion, the deadline for muscle memory is about 10 years old, but honest physiologists disagree about the exact age.

As someone who has successfully taught adults to play guitar (a process which relies heavily on muscle memory) I can tell you that what you have written there is a load of old toss Dave. Do you really think that all great musicians had completed their learning by the age of 10? Someone ought to inform Eric Clapton... he didn't even pick up a guitar until he was in his teens. I'd be very interested in seeing any kind of research that suggests that there is a cut-off age for muscle memory.

The reality of "muscle memory" is easily observed in two arenas. First and most obviously, consider people who learn to ride a bicycle as adults. Riding a bike is a complex task that requires coordination of many muscles to propel, balance, and steer the bike simultaneously. And to ride a bike competently, YOU CANNOT BE THINKING ABOUT RIDING THE BIKE, you have to be watching your surroundings for obstacles, safety hazards, and your immediate destination. People who learn to ride as adults must always be thinking about the riding process, and they will never be competent enough to ride in heavy traffic or mountain-bike. It just won't happen. If you learned to ride as a child, all of that muscle activity is intuitive and you don't even have to think about it. This is what is meant by "muscle memory."

This has got sweet fuck all to do with muscle memory. The reason it is harder to learn to ride a bike as an adult (or roller skate, ice skate etc) is because as an adult you have an inbuilt caution which a child does not possess. Being acutely aware of what injuries you might incur from falling off is what stops you from 'letting go' and throwing caution to the wind (which is essntial for learning to ride a bike).

[Long Run]

I would think the two main reasons that these golfers do not improve are: 1) they do have muscle memory -- but it is how to do it wrong -- and unlearning the wrong way and then relearning the right way takes a lot more effort than learning it right in the first place; and 2) they do not have much talent for golf, so even with their unorthodox or slightly incorrect swings, they are at about their peak for making golf shots (e.g., Barkley plays a lot, and even though his swing is horrid, I doubt it could get more effective by cleaning it up since he just doesn't have the requisite eye-hand coordination for this sport (as opposed to basketball) or the flexible torso and shoulders).

[Jarlaxle]

Off the top of my head, Meat Loaf never touched a guitar until he was an adult. Yet...he's a decent guitarist.

A baseball swing is very similar to a golf swing (a golf swing is essentially a baseball swing turned 90 degrees or vice versa), and MANY baseball players totally change their swing long after adulthood. (This year, Kevin Youkilis revamped his swing...Carl Crawford did it last year.) A dude playing for the Phillies changed his swing later in his career. I'd say the results were pretty good: he's a first-ballot Hall Of Famer!

[Guinevere]

Dave doesn't give a damn about the ongoing rape of children by the Catholic church (and the cover up), but he sure as heck cares about golf instruction.

[rubato]

Weight-loss, hair restoration, reversing aging, miracle stain removers, smoking won't hurt you, loss of libido*, and NOW Golf!

Will the false claims and deception made for profit never end?!

yrs,
rubato

* Oh, wait, that one actually works.

[dgs49]

Guin: Go fuck yourself. For a person who claims to be educated, you are an ass and an idiot.

[rubato]

Guin: Go fuck yourself. For a person who claims to be educated, you are an ass and an idiot.

She has a point, though. Everywhere they have actually looked. Everywhere in the world. For all of human memory. Going right back to the throne of St Peter. The church has been running a systematic child-rape organization and doing everything to protect perpetrators and doing nothing for victims and all you have to say is .... nothing.

The larger a group of human beings is the more like the mass of humanity I expect them to be in morals &c. The shocking thing about the Catholic Church is that you are so much WORSE than average. There is no parallel in any other organization.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

She has a point, though.

No, she doesn't have a point....not in this case...

I've taken Dave to task a number of times over the years, when he seemed to be somewhat "casual" regarding his attitude towards Priests taking advantage of relationships with children and seemed to be trying to create some sort of justification for it......

But to say:

Dave doesn't give a damn about the ongoing rape of children by the Catholic church

Seems to me to be entirely unfair...

There's no justification for that....

Dave has never said anything of the sort.

More to the point, if a man starts a thread about say, golf, is it appropriate to use that as opportunity to attack him for whatever other reason one feels justified to hold him to account?

To draw an analogy....

If rube starts a thread about the proper raising of petunias, or the historic musical value of Patsy Cline, would it be appropriate, in that thread, for me to point out that he's pretty much an ignoramus on any other topic?

Of course not...(well...maybe... )

Lord knows Dave's got his faults...

(For starters, he believes that the Supreme Court can act Unconstitutionally; which by definition it cannot)

But he ought to able to start a thread about "golf swing muscle " (whatever one may think of that) without being accused of indifference towards child molestation...

Just sayin'....

[Guinevere]

It is absolutely valid to comment on the fact and, based on his own words and posts, Dave finds tv golf instruction "outrageous" yet continuously finds excuses and pathetic justification for the catholic church's coverup of the pedophilia problem with its priests.

So yes, as rubato said, I do indeed have a damn good point.

[Lord Jim]

Okay Guin, well what are the parameters here...

If I start a thread about something related to my home life with Tati and Jimmy, would it be fair game in that thread for someone to bring up my views about Ronald Reagan's winning of the Cold War? (Even if that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was discussing?)

Or should the responses properly be related to the subject at hand?

[Guinevere]

Given your propensity to draw into/bring up rubato's name into threads where he hasn't even posted, do you think *you* should be the one making this protest? I explained where I saw the relationship and the incongruity. Agree with me or not, I don't particularly care. It's not like I follow Dave around the board and call him names, or bring up his name in threads he hasn't even posted in.

I did a quick search this morning -- I cannot search on "rubato" because it is too common a term, but here are a couple of links to where you brought up rubato (mostly to make a snarky comment), in threads where he hadn't even posted:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7121&p=88146&hilit=rube#p88146

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2229&hilit=rube&start=20

[Crackpot]

So giving Rube Gobs music is an insult?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Okay Guin, well what are the parameters here...

If I start a thread about something related to my home life with Tati and Jimmy, would it be fair game in that thread for someone to bring up my views about Ronald Reagan's winning of the Cold War? (Even if that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was discussing?)

Or should the responses properly be related to the subject at hand?

Speaking of golf, are you still banging on about how Reagan won the Cold War?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Speaking of golf,

Tiger Woods was not very good this weekend. Maybe he should have practiced last week with someone other than Obama.