| x | xx | |
Comment on Formalism by Taylor Spalding You have likely arrived from either, "Clarifying the Notion of Walking" or "Comments on the Re-route." Here is the great question: Which article is more valid? If you haven't read one of the articles, please do so now. Have you formed an opinion? If you answer correctly, You may be just at the edge of Satori! Well, in my humble opinion the first article listed at the top of this page is far more valid than the other! Here's why: Though the nature of walking may be constricted by the social pressure to "just hit the ball already!" there are no other time limits on walking. The mind may settle itself during this brief waiting period. See the Method Triangle. A stray thought may be dispatched by just attending to the reality of the ball. In this part of the shotmaking process formalism is a bit less evil. After the Whening moment, however, formalism is extremely destructive. Though the experiment may demonstrate a reality of movement, the mind cannot form a concept before something changes during that movement. To enter into an investigation about whether or not your hands are re-routing is wholly unproductive. I published the re-route article for a reason. If you find yourself at the range trying to determine the nature or your re-route then the only important thing being left out during this time is ...the ball. This little pendulum experiment serves to demonstrate the sophistry that is called "modern golf instruction." It may be superficially pleasing and sound but it leads the seeker to sensation hunting. See "The Greatest Illusion in Golf." The pendulum experiment may not be as detrimental as the pro on one knee caressing the student in the eight o' clock position, but it still tends to lead the student down the path of attempting to create formal concepts during the golf motion. It simply doesn't work! Waning will determine the exact shape of the swing. Trust it!
|
xxx | |
 |
xx | |
|
Copyright © 1999, Golden Barefoot Golf. All rights reserved |
x |
