Ryder Cup Lessons, Part 3a

Today's publish will probably span or even 3 days as I'll need to show why we have a problem information what is occurring, lay out a proper know-how of how things truely paintings, and then follow that expertise to the query of what came about this beyond weekend. But earlier than we get started out...

Yesterday I looked at the team sessions. I'll recap those points here, in case they weren't quite clear -- because I realized later that I used the best Euro players to explain why the US won those sessions:

• It's not a case of having the "best" players as determined by the stats on paper. Those stats are based on stroke play, where every stroke matters. In match play, stroke count is relative and bad scores don't hurt you as long as you have more good holes than bad holes. That's why Poulter is such a threat in match play despite not having the best stats -- he generally has more good holes than his opponents, so the bad holes don't matter as much as they would in stroke play. You may remember some charts that NBC and GC showed that compared the birdies each team scored the first two days... and the US had nearly a 2-to-1 advantage. Translation: More good holes than bad holes.
• The teams that were truly dominant for both sides were the accurate teams, not the long teams. Bombers paired with straight shooters did well as long as the shooters were consistent; their consistency allowed the bombers to win the occasional hole and make the team more dangerous. Note that no bomber/bomber combination was able to win unless one of them was really on fire, Keegan Bradley (paired with an often wild Phil Mickelson) being the prime example.
• Streakiness is good in match play. Colsaerts is the best example here; in the only match he won, he made 8 birdies and an eagle to carry his team. Obviously you get the best results if a consistent player is paired with a streaky one... and the streaky one gets hot.

Now let's look at the singles and ask the same simple question we asked back in 1999: What happened?

The answer to this question could potentially help your game as well, because a lot of it has to do with belief. No doubt you've been told to use positive self-talk to build your confidence -- among other psychological tricks of the trade -- and have been less than impressed with the results. It's particularly confusing when you consider that tournament leaders seem to have more problems with this than chasers, as happened in both 1999 and 2012 Ryder Cups... as well as in numerous regular Tour events this season. Why is it so hard to win with a lead? Shouldn't leaders be the most confident golfers on the course? Why are the chasers so often successful?

I promise you this won't degenerate into an evangelistic presentation. (I say that upfront because I realize a lot of you aren't Christians.) But it's impossible to talk approximately this topic without non secular references due to the fact... Nicely, "perception " features the same way whether it is perception in God or belief in your self. In fact, most sports psychologists discover themselves resorting to theological phrases while coping with self-self belief, and that they often use them with out fully information the implications of the terms.

It's very much the same with concepts like "love." Guys say "I love my wife" and "I love pizza" in the same breath and expect you to understand that the concept of "love" is the same in both cases while the difference is merely a matter of degree. (At least, we hope so. If you love pizza the same way you love your wife, I smell trouble brewing!) So if you don't understand both usages, you likely don't understand either.

The hassle starts due to the fact so few current humans recognize what it manner to virtually "accept as true with." For instance, I'm sure you have seen this industrial for Progressive Insurance:

"Why am I not going anywhere?" the clerk asks. And Flo replies, "You don't believe hard enough."

That's how most people view belief... and they're completely wrong. I wouldn't be afraid to say that most Christians view their faith this way as well, even though the Bible presents a much more complex picture. Let me show you three Bible verses that illustrate that complexity. (The verses came from the King James Version, but I've "de-eth'ed" the language so it's easier to understand. In other words, I changed phrases like "thou doest" to "you do." ) These are vital concepts if we expect to understand why leads are so hard to hold.

Most people, whether they visit church or not, have heard Mark nine:23:

Jesus stated to him, If you can agree with, all matters are possible to him that believes.

By itself, this verse doesn't contradict Flo's assertion that you just need to believe "hard enough." Most of us do just that with self-talk. We try to talk ourselves into believing that we can do anything if we set our minds to it; and if we can't convince ourselves, we hire motivational speakers and sports psychologists to help us.

However, that is rarely the only verse approximately belief within the Bible. Most human beings, in the event that they understand about James 2:19, surely gloss over it:

You accept as true with that there is one God; you do well: the devils also accept as true with, and tremble.

I'm not going to quote the entire section this verse is from -- this isn't a sermon, after all, though I'll have to come back to this Bible section later -- but I think most people would agree that all things are NOT possible to demons, no matter how hard they believe! Clearly there's more to this "belief" stuff than just agreeing with the right ideas.

Even Jesus, the speaker of the primary verse I noted, could trust that. In Matthew 17:20 we discover this little gem. Jesus's disciples had tried to exorcise a few demons and failed. When they asked Him why, we examine:

And Jesus said to them, Because of your Unbelief: for verily I say to you, If you've got religion as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove therefore to yonder area; and it shall eliminate; and not anything will be not possible to you.

First, Jesus says His disciples failed because of Unbelief. Surely they believed the right things -- just like those demons mentioned earlier -- so again, belief must be a bit more complex than just believing the right things.

But He doesn't stop there. Jesus says that if they just had "a mustard seed" of belief, they could toss mountains around, let alone those nasty demons. (Again, even people who don't attend church have probably heard that "mustard seed faith" phrase.) Make sure you understand what Jesus is saying here -- mustard seeds are really small, folks.

QUICK NOTE: Here's one of those spots where I need to make sure you differentiate between having faith in God and having faith in yourself. "All things" might be possible in God's power, but not in a human being's power. Obviously tossing mountains around would require God's power! Again, we're talking about a matter of degree, as when we talk about loving both our spouse and pizza. But the broad principles of belief are the same, and that's what we're interested in here.

So now maybe you can see the problem:

• Jesus say it's not enough just to believe, even if you believe the right things.
• Furthermore, He says it's not a matter of believing "hard enough" -- just a "tiny bit" of belief will get the job done!

And yet, He still says "all things are possible to him that believes."

So simply what the heck IS "notion," besides? How did it have an effect on the final results of the Ryder Cup? And how can it assist you perform better under pressure?

Since this post is getting lengthy (much like the closing two...) I'll select up right here the following day. And I promise it is going to be well worth the wait.