Jump to content
Note: This thread is 758 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

I found this Podcast interesting. I like Adam Grant's Podcast a lot. He does a really good interview. 

1200x600wp.png

‎Show ReThinking, Ep The problem with setting goals, with NFL linebacker Emmanuel Acho - Nov 15, 2022

This topic might be more towards setting big life goals. It is trying to rethink the idea of goals, or should we even focus on goals. The premise is around the following. 

1. Goals can actually be limiting if you set a goal that is to easily achieved. Even if the goal seems so far out of reach to begin with. 
2. Not achieving a really important goal can be harmful from a psychological standpoint.

Example, I do think this hits hard on kids in school. They are told they need to get into X college, or get this scholarship, or get this GPA. It is tough when you put so much energy and focus into a goal you want to hit, and are looking on with massive anticipation for that result you want. If they do not get the result they anticipate, they are devastated. 

I was thinking, OK how do I apply this way of thinking to my golf game. I thought it would be better to focus on creating habits that will improve my game. I will not care about how much my game improves. In the end, it would be nice to say, "I want to be a scratch golfer by the end of the year!" But, what about the years after? Did I build the habits to maintain that level? Will my sole focus on that one number cause me to just stop wanting to improve once I hit that goal? 

It might be a bit of semantics. I can understand people could argue, "well you are just setting smaller goals". Maybe. I think there is a difference in saying I want to lose 10-lbs in 6 months, versus saying I will create a habit of going to the gym 3 days a week to weight lift,  learn to cook so I can eat healthier, and not buy sugary drinks or snacks to have at home. My objective is to live a healthier lifestyle versus saying I want to lose x-amount of weight. In the end, I do not think I want to be tied down to achieving the goal of one number. 

I think you can still measure as you go along. Reassessing habits, or the systems, is a good idea. 

Maybe it totally is a non-issue. I found the reframing of this idea of goal setting interesting to ponder. It was on my mind when thinking about golf goals and how I want to go about improving my golf game. Maybe it is because I suck at trying to start good habits, that this sort of idea peaked my interest. 

 

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

23 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I found this Podcast interesting. I like Adam Grant's Podcast a lot. He does a really good interview. 

1200x600wp.png

‎Show ReThinking, Ep The problem with setting goals, with NFL linebacker Emmanuel Acho - Nov 15, 2022

This topic might be more towards setting big life goals. It is trying to rethink the idea of goals, or should we even focus on goals. The premise is around the following. 

1. Goals can actually be limiting if you set a goal that is to easily achieved. Even if the goal seems so far out of reach to begin with. 
2. Not achieving a really important goal can be harmful from a psychological standpoint.

Example, I do think this hits hard on kids in school. They are told they need to get into X college, or get this scholarship, or get this GPA. It is tough when you put so much energy and focus into a goal you want to hit, and are looking on with massive anticipation for that result you want. If they do not get the result they anticipate, they are devastated. 

I was thinking, OK how do I apply this way of thinking to my golf game. I thought it would be better to focus on creating habits that will improve my game. I will not care about how much my game improves. In the end, it would be nice to say, "I want to be a scratch golfer by the end of the year!" But, what about the years after? Did I build the habits to maintain that level? Will my sole focus on that one number cause me to just stop wanting to improve once I hit that goal? 

It might be a bit of semantics. I can understand people could argue, "well you are just setting smaller goals". Maybe. I think there is a difference in saying I want to lose 10-lbs in 6 months, versus saying I will create a habit of going to the gym 3 days a week to weight lift,  learn to cook so I can eat healthier, and not buy sugary drinks or snacks to have at home. My objective is to live a healthier lifestyle versus saying I want to lose x-amount of weight. In the end, I do not think I want to be tied down to achieving the goal of one number. 

I think you can still measure as you go along. Reassessing habits, or the systems, is a good idea. 

Maybe it totally is a non-issue. I found the reframing of this idea of goal setting interesting to ponder. It was on my mind when thinking about golf goals and how I want to go about improving my golf game. Maybe it is because I suck at trying to start good habits, that this sort of idea peaked my interest. 

 

Give yourself some credit, Matt.

You are thinking about this at a deeper level. 

You are probably on to something. I suspect you may be able to blend both ideas together. Here's what you made me think about. I'll use this example. Let's say I set the goal to win the tournament I am playing this April. I may shoot the best score of my life each day. I may shoot a score low enough to win the tournament most years. But, somebody else may stand on his head and shoot an even lower score. 

I could look at that outcome two ways. I could say "Dang, I didn't achieve my goal." or, "Because I made that goal I played the best tournament of my life." 

To your point, if my goals had been: I'm going to practice the weak points in my game for 90 minutes per week. Work on practice habits that will translate to the course. And Do a better job preparing myself for every tournament I play. Then let's say I have the same outcome as above. One might argue that I would have achieved my goals and because of because of achieving my goals I played the best tournament of my life. 

So, yes, I guess it could be semantics. I think however, it's something slightly different. For me, it sounds more like making sure the goals I set are actually within my control. For you, it sounds like the goals you are interested in are more life-style goals rather than mile-stone goals. 

I think either can work. 

Thanks for at least making me think. 👍😁👍

My bag is an ever-changing combination of clubs. 

A mix I am forever tinkering with. 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

I too think either can work.

If you set a goal of a 3.8 GPA, and you get to a 3.72 GPA, you can choose to be devastated, or you can just look at the reasons why and re-assess. Or, like @ChetlovesMer said, you can say "well, good thing I set that goal, or I might have gotten only a 3.2."

If goals are too easy and you achieve them, set another. A tougher one.

If goals are too difficult or things prevent you from achieving them, then learn and adjust.

So, I get what he's saying, but at the same time… I don't think there's as much to it as you might. Goals are good. How you deal with them could be good or bad, but the goals themselves I don't think are bad.

Combine them.

If you want to lose ten pounds and keep it off, say:

  • My goal is to lose 10-15 pounds, and to stay below 195 for the rest of my life.
  • I will achieve this goal within 3 months by doing this and this and this and this.

Then you get your goal AND your process.

And be open to changing either as things warrant.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 758 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Yea, but a deeper face makes it not as useful off the fairway. This is why the driver is not easy to hit off the fairway.  For a select few PGA Tour players, it might be good. The concept of the mini driver has been around for a long time now. Very few ever keep it in their bag. This is a guess, but probably because it sucks off the ground. Nothing here looks like it is any different than the other mini drivers of the past.  I get it from Cameron Young and Will Zalatoris point of view. They hit the ball a long way. The odds they ever hit a 3-wood off the turf is like what, a handful a times a year? They probably would hit it 98% off the tee and 2% off the ground. They probably want something that think is longer off the tee versus their 3-wood because they don't hit the 3-wood off the ground much at all.  This is where I say, Titleist claiming "worked as a go-to club off the tee and off the deck." is more marketing than something that is actually beneficial to a golfer. This is primarily for off the tee.   
    • One thing I've noticed with Mini Drivers is that the manufacturers seem like they keep their quantities somewhat limited.  The last two TaylorMade Mini's and the Callaway AI Smoke Mini were sold out quickly. 
    • Huh? That's the niche of these mini-drivers. They can still work off the tee and off the fairway. They're designed for and work for both things, which is all that blurb says. You can see from the photos that it's a bit of a deeper face, which I find is more important off the tee than the fairway.
    • This statement doesn't make much sense to me.  So, I think the push and pull between a 3-wood meant for off the turf versus off the tee is how tall the face is on the 3-wood. I do not get how this mini driver would be good off the turf, or at least get the height needed to stop the ball as a normal 3-wood meant for off the ground. Maybe they care more about hitting the 3-wood off the tee versus off the turf. Nearly every strike would be low on the clubface relative to the CG location.  I would take that statement as more as marketing over what you would actually expect the club to perform.   
    • No, not that Minnie Driver. This one: It's a mini driver from Titleist, available for Tour validation/testing starting this week at Kapalua. It's available in righty and lefty and is only in 13° models for now. GT280 is a direct result of Titleist’s collaboration with PGA TOUR players on the development and testing of the TSR 2W prototype, which debuted on TOUR at last year’s PLAYERS Championship. With many players seeking an additional option at the top end of their setup, Titleist tour reps and R&D engineers worked with players such as Cameron Young and Will Zalatoris to dial in a 13-degree head that worked as a go-to club off the tee and off the deck. Now on Tour: New Titleist GT280 The arrival of the 2025 PGA TOUR season this week in Maui brings with it an addition to Titleist’s breakthrough line of GT metalwoods: the new Titleist GT280.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...