Now we are hearing "Well...what happened to Beem? Is he a flash in the pan? That is only rivalled by "What's going on with Tiger?" We, of course, don't have access to their minds so we really don't know THEIR answers. But we know something about the human condition that will lend you a clue.

In Beem's case, it is called things like "letdown," "morning after," or "can't stand prosperity." Actually, it's more direct than that. Anytime your system, mine, or anyone else's passes a milstone (not to be confused with kidney stone), it produces a jolt (shock) to the system. It's part of the 97% unconscious mode of thinking. The human system does not recognize any difference between what our conscious minds want to see as "good" or "bad." The system doesn't know - or care - whether that jolting shock it just got came because you won the lottery or because you four-putted a green from five feet. It just reacts to the "jolt."

New scenario. If you think for one minute that winning the PGA championship was not a shock to Beem's system, then you aren't eligible to make a comment here. If you can see that, then read on.

Continue the theme on the human system. Whenever there is that kind of shock, it produces a sense of "loss." What? you say! He won, for crying out loud! True, he did, but that win also calls for new responsibility and giving up his old position in life and the game. Now there are demands from everywhere and there goes the neighborhood - that special part of what we call freedom - out the window. That's a loss. So there has to be time for the system to do its thing to recover. And that thing is this:

The shock of winning is followed by confusion, and then anger, and then depression and finally a return to normal. (All golfers have witnessed this phenomenon by making a birdie and following it with a bogie or double). It is a constant, certain to occur cycle. No one is immune. No situation can receive a free ride or pass. It's in the book, the cards and our lives.

So what about Tiger. If he is not worn out by the load all of us have asked him to carry, he ought to be. He is fatigued. That is also a loss. Give him time to ride out the cycle. He will be back, and it is quite likely that you will see Rich Beem again, too.
Give them all a break. They are, after all, Human Beings, just like you and me.

I absolutely love the forums on Golf Channel! They have to be the most comprehensive collection of BS the world has ever known. The people (I guess we should say "players," since most of them seem to believe they are among the best in the world) who post there are a true confluence of arrogance, ignorance, naivete, obsessive/compulsive fixation, mythology and self-aggrandizement - the largest I have ever had occasion to notice. Case in point to illustrate.

I tried this point once with a person who thought that Phil Mickelson was choosing too many tournaments with "weak field strength," and that was why he won a few, but still couldn't challenge Tiger, as if that is the only thing a player has to do now - beat Tiger. My comments about field strength being down the line in the order of priority apparently fails the understanding of others, perception being what it is. Sure the pros talk about "field strength," but not in the way it's being used by most casual observers. The pros look at it thus: "The stronger the field, the more players that are capable of making the winners circle." They are not thinking about 200 individual players they have to "beat." Our so-called preoccupation with "competition," is at best a misnomer. Observers look at it like a lottery. They don't.

Competition in golf is with self and the course in stroke play. The only time it is "competition" with another player is in match play, one on one, or in match play, four ball, or any other of the match play games. Arnie used to say that he always played the course, not opponents. Does that mean he was not competitive and unconcerned about "field strength?" I think not. It meant that he had his priorities in order. If you play one opponent in stroke play, the rest of the field may catch you while your back is turned. One can become so enthralled with the scores others are shooting that he/she forgets to play the course underneath their feet. True professionals know that. Posters on the Golf Channel don't.

Field strength merely increases the number of players who are capable of winning. But others can't afford to get into a "fist fight" with any one of them. Play the course against par. That's the deal.

Just finished hours of surfing to find what anyone has to say about golf and getting rid of "bad habits," or golf and forming "good habits." Take your pick. The search engines treat those differently, so maybe w should, too.

The thin and fat of it is this. All, but a couple of the URL's I found, just say "get rid of the bad and commit yourself to the good. But that's not all. Most of what we found was about smoking and drinking. Wasn't much there about golf. For golf, about all we could find was that very mundane statement that it takes 21 days of 60 repetitions (each day, we suppose), to "change" a habit. We can't, however, find any research to confirm that time frame, but we can find several proponents who use that formula. We've asked where the research is, but no one wants to answer that question.

What we have seen is that there is no such thing as getting rid of a habit. You may displace an old one if you have the fortitude and gumption to work on it, but you will never get rid of the old. The sooner you figure that out, the easier it will become to make a swing change, since you will not expect it to be upon you immediately, if not sooner!

Thje best you can hope for (if you want to replace an old, miserable habit) is to build a new one until it has the strength to displace (we emphasize "displace") the old one. That will take whatever time it takes. Diifferent for you and me, for sure. Then, if you are successful with the strength factor, the old one, in its own time may atrophy, and slide into the background. But it will never disappear, and may on occasion, rise up to haunt you. You cannot rid yourself of any habit you form.

The moral. then, is this. Be careful what you choose to build. It will be around for a long time. And don't get down on yourself if you can't make a change instantly. It will take awhile and you'll get many repeats of the old before the new takes hold.

Yet another player said today, and we quote, "I'm way too mechanical with my thinking when I play." Of course, you never heard anyone say that. And of course, we've never heard that before today. And if you believe that, I have a couple of old hickory slats from a chair that I will swear were used by Old Tom Morris that I'll gladly sell for an undisclosed figure. Then I will use the money to buy some Enron and WorldCom stock.
Being mechanical with your thinking isn't bad as long as you do it before you walk up to the ball. If you confine those mechanics to pre-shot, it's a good thing. Once it's time to make the shot, your thought pattern needs to be about your wife and kids - or anything else that doesn't relate to your golf swing.
That begs another bummer. Ask any player on the course and the chances are the responses will be similar. When you are making your shot, don't think about anything. Now that's one of those things called a "barn-burner." To begin with. It's impossible to not think about anything. Can't be done. So the kicker is that you must choose what you will think - and that better be neutral to your game.
On this one, the psychologists miss it, the players miss it and so do the instructors. So your options are limited from them. Better get it right yourself, even if they don't.

Have you watched Sergio milk his grip? If you haven't, get ready for the most nerve wracking experience you've had recently in golf, unless it was that four footer you needed for a five-putt on number 18.
I won't knock Sergio's approach, since he gets the job done that way most of the time (I think). At least his scores show that. But he's got to be a mental basket case at some point. He is so far out of sync on that score that, if he keeps it up, he'll wind up in a worse ditch than Seve, who can't get it under 80 very often anymore.
What is it with these guys? Even Chuck Hogan could figure that one out and I'm pretty sure that Peter Kostis would have as remedy. If not them, then try the Golf Channel.
Oh well, so it goes. After all, it's only a game. Yeah, right!

You don't really think that Tiger is any good, do you? Isn't he just lucky, or doesn't he just have some potion he rubs on dolls to mess up his opponents? Seems to us like he's just an abberation or a figment of the masses' imagination. He's not really there. He's a myth, a mystery and ghost. He only shows up once in awhile. How do we know he is really winning? Maybe he's got a million stand-ins who can run the gun on any given day and through the technical aptitude of Hollywood are made up to look like Tiger. For all we know, he's really Elvis, gone golfer! Do you believe in reincarnation? See if Bobby Jones has changed his stripes. Could be that St. Peter took the best of about five hundred champions and fashioned a man named Tiger. Anyway. Just watch. If you have any doubts that this person will eclipse every great golfer who has ever come down the pike, then forget about it. Tiger is here and he will take the cake, ice cream, strawberries and whipped cream all the way to the bank, not to mention the steak and lobster for dinner.

We certainly hope you've been keeping up with the great debate over that 3/100ths of a point concerning the COR rating of golf clubs! Don't know how anyone could possibly play this game without being up on that subject.

Here's a proper description of what you should be thinking about while you are playing these days:

COR is "coefficient of restitution." (You knew that, right?) It is more generally known as "spring-like effect." You measure it by dividing velocity out by velocity in. When a ball is shot into the clubface at a velocity called V1, it "springs back" at a velocity called V0. The ratio between them is called COR. Presumably, the greater the ratio, the more distance the ball will fly. The USGA says velocity out (V0) divided by velocity in (V1) cannot exceed .83. They and the R&A have now come to an agreement about how all that works and also created a different standard for amateurs that will take effect in 2003. Amateurs will be able to take the COR all the way to .86! Like wow! 5.5 more yards off the tee. Whoopee, folks. Now all you have to do is find a DOF that matches the COR and you'll be AHC with your new SBH. (DOF=direction of flight; AHC=a happy camper; SBH=sand bag handicap).

Go for it! And be sure and carry your gun to shoot the ball into the clubface. Not sure how the measurement works when the ball is standing still. Oh well, what's another two shot penalty, anyway?