section is being built. I have tons of info, so if
you have a specific interest, don't hesitate to email
me and I'll load you up.
"Belief can be generated without much proof at all. The widespread assumption that 'scientific facts' are facts because they have data behind them, have been experimented (and) validated, and so on, is wrong. Lots of things have been 'black-boxed' as facts without data and experimental verification for all kinds of reasons." -- Simon Cole, Cornell University Science Historian, 2002, quoted in Keay Davidson, Scientific head-scratchers survive: Meteorites, flapping flags remain mystery, San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, January 21, 2002, p. A-8.
Translation: Golfers believe many things about putting, and many of these beliefs have NO scientific data to justify them as reasonable and accurate; and also many golf SCIENTISTS even with clipboards filled with precise numerical data in hand have beliefs about the SIGNIFICANCE and MEANING of the data that are equally unfounded -- data is simply data and the trick of science in putting is to understand what it means to the golfer in terms of his performing the tasks of putting, whether reading, aiming, stroking, or controlling distance.
It's never solely about the "arrow", so data about the "arrow" or the bare physics of a putt is just the beginning, but is certainly not an understanding of what the golfer needs to DO when he putts, in light of the data. That correlating of data and peformance is why a teacher is always superior to a scientist, both in terms of what data to seek out and also in terms of what the data means in application. A scientist who is not a teacher can ONLY serve as a helper to the teacher, and is NOT a teacher simply because he is able to act like a scientist. A teacher may but is usually not also a scientist, but the teacher should never simply accept the data of a scientist or the scientist's interpretation of the data, unless the teacher also agrees the scientist has the right sort of data and that the interpretation of the significance of the data accords with the teacher's interpretation of the performance in light of the data. Now if the teaher also happens to be a scientist, ... game on!
word "Science" intimidates a large number
of people. But it really means "understanding."
So, let's take a look at how a little science can
help in putting. Here is a general organization of
how some areas of science relate directly to your
putting. These relations will be fleshed out in detail
as this site is constructed. If you're hopelessly
one of those people who just can't stand science,
please don't tell yourself it's not useful to read
this stuff or that it's hurtful for golfers to think
about putting this way. How could you know? Reading
or thinking about putting and putting-related science
is not the same as advocating "paralysis by analysis"
on the course. It means do a little learning and analysis
before you go to the course, so you'll be better equipped
to get the job done or handle problems as they pop
Friendly and Useful.