In golf your strengths and weaknesses will always be there. If you could improve your weaknesses, you would improve your game. The irony is that people prefer to practice their strenghts. ~ Harvey Penick,
Or simply a human failing.
It's an interesting quote to me because focusing on what you're good at is what makes someone an expert, but being well-rounded is a safer strategy in golf (and life).
And, I didn't make up the title, if you dispute it's ironicalness take it up with the late Penick and his estate.
Just curious, is that 7-irony or 9-irony?
Zing! It's more niblick-y.
I agree with the statement. Putting is my big weakness in the game, which sucks since it is the most important part, and it is what I practice the least. It's definitely mental. If I sit on the putting green for an hour, I KNOW that I could have the same putts on the course that afternoon and still leave them short or run them 6 feet by. It's very frustrating.
In regard to life, there are no weaknesses I can work on because I rule.
And to all you Johnstoners...Egg, Bear, Slush...Woods' wife had their baby girl yesterday.
It is funny how American this post is. There is a good book called "The Geography of Thought." It talks about Western (i.e. American) vs. Eastern thinking.
Apparently, Americans Love to practice things they are good at and Asian folks love to practice things their weaknesses.
We believe in specialization and they believe in the jack-of-all-trades.
Now this doesn't exactly translate into our educations but it is how our minds work, which is something to think about.
Sounds like an interesting book, though many people, like Ralph White, are critical of the author's work:
Richard Nesbett's hypothesis, that there are distinctly Western and Eastern ways of thinking is an intriguing one. I'm sure it has occured to many of us who have lived among them, and they among us. The bottom line, though, is that Nesbett's anecdotal approach cannot yield sufficiently solid data to draw the conclusions which he does. It will make for interesting cocktail party chatter, but solid scientific methodology isn't evident. None of the experiments are double-blind, there are no statistically significant correlations to ethnicity in any of the tests, the sampling techniques are suspicious, and he has not submitted his work for peer review.
And since it's not offered in audio format, I doubt I'll read it. But for $6.00 (used), I might just buy it so that it can sit on my desk and mock me as I continually avoid actually cracking it open.
Or simply subscribe via email:
For reservations, call
Send fan mail to our work location at
101 N Main Street, Third Floor,
Lovingly crafted by orangecoat with some rights reserved, and a promise not to spam you.