That's a weird title for a post, isn't it? But a placebo, in case you didn't know, is a substance that creates a desired effect merely by suggestion. Placebos are commonly used when testing new drugs -- one group of test subjects, called the control group, is given something that may be no more than a sugar pill but they're told it's a new high-powered medicine. Sometimes the placebo has an effect almost as good as the real medicine, simply because the control group subjects BELIEVED it would.
Well, it appears some researchers at the University of Notre Dame conducted a similar test using golf equipment... and found that there's a placebo effect with that as well. (This is the link to the original article at phys.org.)
I found out about the test from this post at Golf Digest . And to be honest, I think it's not just enlightening but funny as well.
You can read the Golf Digest post and the research posted at phys.org to get the full story, but here's the condensed version:
Players who accept as true with that their gadget offers them an advantage whilst setting -- and possibly when making other shots as nicely -- tend to play higher than folks who trust they may be just using regular system. And the effect is greater for negative gamers than true players. However, the ones gamers will now not credit score the gadget; they will agree with they just putted higher.The irony here is that they really DID putt better because of their confidence and not the equipment... but they wouldn't have putted better if they didn't believe their equipment WAS better. Sort of Catch-22, don't you think?
What I suppose this virtually proves is that many gamers are struggling just because they THINK they may be struggling. Or, to place it some other way, they battle due to the fact they EXPECT to conflict. So, if you comply with this to its logical end, those gamers ought to be able to improve in the event that they simply anticipate to play higher.
Of course, a lot of you have got probably tried this -- can you say 'tremendous attitude'? -- but it did not provide you with the results you hoped for. Worst of all, you do not know why it failed to paintings.
Let's see if I permit you to improve without shopping for new system.
The real problem here is unrealistic expectations. Most of our expectations are subjective -- that is, we don't have any concrete measuring stick to compare our 'before' and 'after' results. Unlike the Tour pros, we don't have a detailed list of stats showing how many putts we make from various distances or how many we make overall. Without those, we're forced to guess how many putts we THINK we should make, and then make our comparisons with that.
And we always suppose we ought to make more putts than we do. It's just human nature to think we should be better than we're. Why else might pro golfers rebuild their swings when they win a major?
I hate to use psychologist talk here, but the key really is to be more concerned with the process than the results. We have to make our judgments based on how well we execute the putt -- did I start it on the line I chose? did I stroke it too softly, too hard or just right? -- and accept the fact that we might do everything correctly and still miss the putt. That's just the nature of being imperfect humans living in an imperfect world.
Otherwise you're just depending on a placebo effect. That's what the Notre Dame studies tells us. And, as drug manufacturers will tell you, it is now not going to offer you any lasting results.
0 comments