• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Mike closed his eyes and recaptured the memory of the last shot and said, “Okay,” implying he was finished.

Then I asked him to do the same thing with one of his great shots to the green five minutes or so earlier. Again he went inside and thought about the good shot.

“Now we’re going to find out the difference that makes the difference between those two shots,” I said to Mike. “As you think about the A’s and V’s and K’s for each of those shots, what was different about them?”

“The main difference,” he answered, “was in seeing the ball. In the bad shot I didn’t see the ball clearly; it was fuzzy, similar to the images I had of the ball during the first twelve holes at Willow Ridge.”

Earlier, I had had Mike go through this same metaskills technique with a round of golf he had played at Willow Ridge several weeks before. Mike had indicated that he had made a complete reversal in his playing ability from poor play during the first twelve holes, followed by a dramatic improvement in his performance on the 13th hole. We were both curious about what made the difference. The main difference there was the brightness and sharp focus on the ball.

Mike continued saying, “On the good shot the ball was really bright white and it was in focus. ”

“Now, Mike,” I said, “let’s test the difference that makes the difference between good and bad approach shots right here, to find out if this difference prevails here as well as at Willow Ridge.”

I had him set up to a ball, deliberately defocus, make the ball dull white, and then hit it. The shot was a poor one. Then I told him to sharpen the focus and brighten the ball just before take-away, and hit another shot. The second shot was a fine one.

Mike’s conclusion was, “I’m going to add seeing the ball bright and in focus to my preshot checklist. It’s really important.”

Bill Adams, the Ridgewood pro, discovered that he was “double-crossing” himself when he became confused about what kind of shot to make on an approach. In one instance, comparing a poor approach shot with a good one, the difference that made the difference was in the nature of the images of the intended shot which he made while he was setting up. In the good shot he saw a clear image of the trajectory of the ball and the path of the clubhead; in the poor shot he saw two trajectories superimposed upon each other, one a fade, the other a draw, crossing over each other. When he told me that, I said, “No wonder you messed up that shot; you double-crossed yourself.” He had a double-exposed image in his mind’s eye at the address position. That would confuse anybody. Do it yourself and find out what happens.

While working with other golfers I found a number of unique differences that made the difference. During his preshot routine one golfer would silently tell himself how he wanted to execute the next shot as he approached the ball. He discovered that on bad shots his internal voice was harsh in pitch, but on good shots it was melodious. Another golfer was extremely aware of a quiet, internal voice on good shots, and a barking marine sergeant on bad shots. A third golfer heard silence on good shots, and lots of internal debate and chastisement before bad ones.

Here are instructions for determining the difference that makes the difference for you.

DISCOVERING DIFFERENCE

Identify two similar shots, one that was excellent and one that was terrible.

Relive each shot separately, making notes of the auditory, visual, and kinesthetic representations that were involved in the preparation, setup, and swing.

Compare those representations to determine the differences in nature, not in content. For example, pictures might vary in focus or brightness; sounds might vary in volume or tone; and feelings might vary in intensity or location in the body. (See Appendix B for additional ways to vary the A’s, V’s, and K’s.)

Select one difference and apply it to making a shot on the practice tee. Use the difference you found for the bad shot first, then for the good