“Aim Small, Miss Small” is a popular, intuitively appealing method that is often used by many golf teachers, coaches and players (e.g., (Busbee, 2015; Finnegan, 2015; Golfweek Junior Tour, 2010; Jerome, 2013; Kopanski, 2011)). It holds that the amount of shot error is positively related to the size of the target at which one aims. Thus, if one aims at a small target, one is likely to miss small (have a small amount of shot error) when the target is not hit, whereas if one aims at a large target, one is likely to miss large (have a large amount of shot error) when the target is not hit. This method is also widely used in the shooting sports (e.g., (AccurateShootercom, 2015)) and was made even more popular in the movie titled “The Patriot” (The Patriot, 2000). When teaching Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger how to shoot a muzzle-loading rifle, the movie’s technical advisor Mark Baker gave them the advice to “Aim Small, Miss Small”, meaning that if they aim at the whole body of an enemy soldier (large target) in the distance and miss, the soldier is missed, whereas if they aim at a button on his uniform (small target) and miss, they still hit the soldier’s body.
Although the effectiveness of the method is widely accepted in the shooting sports (e.g., (AccurateShootercom, 2015)) and there is testimonial evidence claiming support for its effectiveness in golf from individuals such as PGA Tour player Jordon Spieth (Busbee, 2015), the extent to which it is effective for playing various types of golf shots has yet to be scientifically determined. And while it is reasonable to think that it would be just as effective for golf shots because the shooting sports and golf shots have the common goal of hitting a target, the movements and degrees-of-freedom that have to be organized and controlled in firing a bullet or arrow to successfully hit a target are quite different from those used to play various golf shots to successfully hit a ball to a target. Thus, in the absence of any scientific evidence one cannot be certain whether the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method is effective for all types of golf shots (e.g., drives, iron shots, pitching, chipping, putting) or just some types of golf shots (e.g., putting or chipping) or not effective at all.
You are viewing: What Does Aim Small Miss Small Mean
Another reason to question the effectiveness of this method is that it is not consistent with the research evidence revealing that aiming at targets perceived as being larger than they actually are can lead people to think that they are easier to hit (e.g., (AccurateShootercom, 2015; Witt et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2013)). And, if they think they are easier to hit, they feel more confident about hitting them and this increased confidence can improve performance (Woodman & Hardy, 2003). Specifically, for example, Witt et al. (Witt et al., 2012) found that participants putted more successfully to a hole that was perceived as being larger than it was in reality. And, Wood et al. (Wood et al., 2013) found that holes perceived as bigger than they were in reality promoted longer quiet eye durations (e.g., (Vickers, 1996, 2007)) and more accurate putting. This finding supported the work of Witt et al. (Witt et al., 2012) and extended it by discussing possible mechanisms connecting perceptual and motor biases, as defined by Glover & Dixon’s (Glover & Dixon, 2001) planning-control model. Essentially, both perceptual-cognitive judgments and movement-planning processes were found to be biased by the visual conditions associated with the Ebbinghaus illusion and these biases were related to subsequent performance variability (e.g., (Witt et al., 2012); (Wood et al., 2013).
Lastly, advocating the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method for all golfers is not consistent with those golf teachers and coaches (e.g., (Alderink, 2016)) who argue that it may work for some players, but it is not for everyone because everyone’s brain is not wired the same way. Alderink envisions two opposing schools of thought regarding the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method. One school encourages players to aim at the smallest target they can see so that their error can be small. The other school encourages players to see the big picture and aim at a larger target so that they can swing more freely (Parent, 2002). Clearly, teachers and coaches are not in agreement over the extent to which the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method works and there is a lack of scientific evidence available to help resolve this issue.
In summary, there are at least two reasons to question the extent to which the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method is effective for minimizing error when playing golf shots. One reason is that in spite of the method’s popularity and anecdotal support, there is ample anecdotal evidence from many players, teachers and coaches that is not consistent with the method. The second and most important reason to question the method is that no evidence emanating from direct scientific tests of its effectiveness was found. Thus, the main purpose of the following three studies was to determine the extent to which the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method was effective in minimizing error when playing a variety of golf shots.
Study 1: Driving Performance
Purpose
The purpose was to study driving performance with a driver and three-metal as a function of aiming at a large and small target.
Method
Participants
A total of 32 adult male golfers (M age = 65 years; SD = 14.55) with an average USGA handicap index of -12.84 (SD = 7.83) volunteered to participate. Sixteen golfers with indexes ranging from -1 to -11.8 (M = – 6.87) and 16 golfers with indexes ranging from -13.4 to -30 (M = -18.81) were placed in a lower and higher handicap group, respectively.
Dependent Measures
Driving error, the main dependent measure for each drive played, was the perpendicular distance from the middle of the fairway to where each driven ball came to rest. Using a metal measuring tape, the distance was measured from the leading edge of the ball (i.e., the edge nearest to the center of the fairway) to the middle of the 29.26-m wide fairway. Another measure of driving accuracy was the number of the 96 drives played with both clubs when aiming at both targets that ended up in the fairway. A Flight Scope (KUDU) launch monitor was used to measure total driving distance, club-head speed, ball speed, and smash factor. Severely missed shots (e.g., topped, hit thin or fat) were defined as those that were so poorly executed that they were not measurable and not representative of the participant’s typical driving performance as judged by the participant and the tester. Severely missed shots were replayed and the number of them was recorded.
Study Design and Procedures
A 2 x 2 x 2 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Clubs) design was used with repeated measures on the last two factors. Handicap Groups were lower and higher; Target Sizes at which participants aimed were small and large; and the Clubs used to hit drives were the participants’ own driver and three-metal. The small .30 m diameter target was the middle of the fairway and the large target was the 29.26 m width of fairway, which was defined by a yellow rope on each side (edge).
Before the study began, participants completed a brief questionnaire to determine what their preferences were in terms of aiming at a target in preparation to hit drives and the club (three-metal or driver) with which they hit drives. The questionnaire consisted of seven questions with five response choices for each question, which is described in the Results section along with the results under the heading of Pre-study Questionnaire.
All golfers were right-handed and used their own driver and three-metal to hit new Titleist Pro V1x golf balls. Participants were instructed aim at the small and large target in the distance about where they thought their ball would land after being driven. They also were instructed not to use an intermediate target. The participants warmed-up as they usually did by stretching and swinging a club. Next they hit six warm-up drives into a net (three with the driver and three with the three-metal) alternating drives with each club. After warm-up, participants were instructed to play their drives as though they were playing in a medal (stroke play) tournament. Specifically, their goal was to play each drive as accurately and as far as they could such that the ball ended up in the center of the fairway when aiming at the small target, and anywhere within the fairway when aiming at the large target. Each participant experienced four testing conditions: (1) aim at a small target to play a drive with the driver; (2) aim at a small target to play a drive with the three-metal; (3) aim at a large target to play a drive with the driver; and (4) aim at a large target to play a drive with the three-metal. Participants were randomly assigned to a testing condition order and the order in which participants performed the four testing conditions was counter-balanced. Thus, each participant hit a total of 12 drives (three drives in each of the four testing conditions).
Results
Pre-study Questionnaire
The number of participant responses (in bold) resulting for the five choices for each question of the pre-study questionnaire was as follows:
How often do you use a (an)
-
small target to aim at when preparing to hit drives in a fairway?
Never = 1 Infrequently = 8 Frequently = 6 Quite Frequently = 7 Always = 10
-
target in the distance to aim at when preparing to hit drives in the fairway?
Never = 1 Infrequently = 4 Frequently = 7 Quite Frequently = 12 Always = 8
-
intermediate target to aim at when preparing to hit drives in a fairway?
Never = 5 Infrequently = 17 Frequently = 5 Quite Frequently = 3 Always = 2
-
driver to hit drives?
Never = 0 Infrequently = 1 Frequently = 0 Quite Frequently = 21 Always = 10
-
three-metal to hit drives?
Never = 1 Infrequently = 24 Frequently = 7 Quite Frequently = 0 Always = 0
-
three-metal when you are not hitting your driver well?
Never = 7 Infrequently = 17 Frequently = 6 Quite Frequently = 2 Always = 0
-
three-metal when the golf-hole design calls for its use?
Never = 1 Infrequently = 1 Frequently = 6 Quite Frequently = 17 Always = 7
These responses indicated that, before the study began,
-
71.9% of the participants (23 of 32) aim at a small rather than a large target;
-
84.4% of the participants (27 of 32) aim at a target in the distance;
-
68.8% of the participants (22 of 32) rarely or never use an intermediate target;
-
96.9% of the participants (31 of 32) usually use their driver to hit drives;
-
75% of the participants (24 of 32) continue to use their driver rather than their three-metal when they are not hitting their driver well; and
-
93.8% of the participants (28 of 30) reported that they do use their three-metal to hit drives when the layout of the hole calls for it.
Taken together, these results suggested that, before the onset of the study, the majority of the participants had more experience aiming at a target in the distance and a small target rather than a large target or an intermediate target. Also, the majority had more experience playing tee shots with their driver rather than their three-metal.
Average Driving Error and Fairways Hit
No drives had to be replayed because they were severely missed. The 2 x 2 x 2 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Clubs) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors revealed a significant main effect for Target Sizes, F (1, 30) = 4.86, p < .05. Aiming at the large target (M = 12.39 m, SE = .81) resulted in appreciably less average driving error than aiming at the small target (M = 14.11 m, SE = .87). The main effect for Clubs, F (1, 30) = 4.87, p < .05, also was significant with more average error for the driver (M = 14.32 m, SE = 1.02) than for the three metal (M = 12.18 m, SE = .74). None of the other effects were significant (p > .05).
Analysis of the number of drives that finished (hit) in the fairway revealed that of the 96 drives played to each target with the driver, aiming at the large target resulted in 64 fairways hit, which was significantly (Yates correction for continuity, χ2 (1, N = 96) = 4.38, p < .05) more than the 48 fairways hit than when aiming at the small target. However, of the 96 drives played to each target with the three-metal, aiming at the large target resulted in the same number (64) of fairways hit as aiming at the small target.
Average Total Driving Distance
The 2 x 2 x 2 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Clubs) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors revealed a significant main effect for Handicap Groups, F (1, 30) = 24.73, p < .01. The lower handicap group (217.16 m) had longer total driving distance than the higher handicap group (174.73 m). A significant main effect was found for Target Sizes, F (1, 30) = 17.01, p < .01, and for Club, F (1, 30) = 198.89, p < .01. However, the interaction between Target Sizes and Clubs also was significant, F (1, 30) = 5.22, p < .05. The follow-up one way within-subjects ANOVA revealed that significantly, F (1, 31) = 17.20, p < .01, more average total driving distance was achieved for the driver when aiming at the large target (M = 210.33 m, SE = 4.57) than the small target (M = 204.69 m, SE = 4.93). Average total driving distance was significantly, F (1, 31) = 99.22, p < .01, longer for the driver (M = 210.33 m, SE = 4.57) than the three-metal (M = 185.16 m, SE = 4.32) when aiming at the large target. And, it was significantly, F (1, 31) = 224.25, p < .01, longer for the driver (M = 204.69 m, SE = 4.93) than the three-metal (M = 183.61 m, SE = 4.14) when aiming at the small target. Aiming at the large target (M = 185.16 m, SE = 4.32) with the three-metal resulted in slightly more average total driving distance than aiming at the small target (M = 183.61 m, SE = 4.14 ), but this difference was not statistically significant (p > .05). Thus, the longest average total driving distance was achieved with the driver when aiming at the large target and regardless of the target size at which participants aimed, the driver produced longer average total driving distance than the three-metal.
The longer average total driving distance finding for the driver was expected based on factors such as the (a) structural differences between the two clubs (e.g., longer length of the driver, larger club-head size for the driver); (b) faster average club-head speed for the driver (M group speed = 144.00 km/h; SD = 20.23) than the three-metal (M group speed = 137.33 km/h; SD =18.83); (c) faster ball speed for the driver (M group speed = 206.82 km/h; SD = 29.98) than the three-metal (M group speed = 194.92 km/h; SD = 29.69); and (c) a slightly higher smash factor for the driver (M = 1.44; SD = .06) than the three-metal (M = 1.42; SD = .04).
Read more : What Does Pending Delivery Confirmation Mean On Dhgate
Summary of Results
Prior to the study, the majority of the participants reported being more comfortable playing tee shots with their driver rather than their three-metal. Aiming at the large target produced appreciably less average driving error, a greater number of drives finishing in the fairway for the driver, and the longest average total driving distance for the driver than when aiming at the small target. These beneficial effects of aiming at the large target occurred despite the fact that a majority of the participants reported prior to the study that they aimed at a small target more often than a large target in the distance or a small intermediate target. Lastly, regardless of the target size at which participants aimed, the driver produced longer average total driving distance than the three-metal, which was expected.
Study 2: Iron-Shot Performance
Purpose
The purpose was to study shot performance with a nine and six iron as a function of aiming at a large and small target.
Method
Participants
A total of 30 adult male golfers (M age = 50.4 years; SD = 21.78) with an average USGA handicap of -12.40 (SD = 8.04) volunteered to participate. Seventeen golfers with indexes ranging from +1 to -11.8 (M = -6.87) were placed and 13 golfers with indexes ranging from -13.4 to -30 (M = -18.81) were placed in a lower and higher handicap group, respectively. None of these golfers participated in Study 1 or 3.
Dependent Measures
Iron-shot error was the distance that the ball was right or left of the middle of the green. The small target (15.24 cm in width) was a pole located in the middle of the green and the large target (13.72 m in diameter) was the width of the green. The right- and left-side edge of the green was defined by five white cones (45.72 cm in height) positioned in a straight line on each side. The cones were positioned 27.43 m apart beginning at 66.88 m from the tee. This resulted in a rectangular shaped green (109.72 m in length and 13.72 m in width) whose front edge began 66.88 m from the tee. This shape of green was used to accommodate the different distances players hit their nine and six irons. Error and carry distance were measured in meters by a Flight Scope (KUDU) launch monitor. Another measure of iron shot accuracy used was the number of iron shots landing on the green of 96 shots played with both clubs when aiming at both targets. Severely missed shots (e.g., topped, hit thin or fat) were defined as those that were so poorly executed that they were not measurable and not representative of the participant’s typical iron-shot performance as judged by the participant and the tester. Severely missed shots were replayed and the number of them was recorded.
Study Design and Procedures
A 2 x 2 x 2 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Clubs) design with repeated measures on the last two factors was used. Handicap Groups were low and high; Target Sizes at which participant aimed were small and large; and Clubs used to play iron shots were a nine and six iron. Before the study began, each of the participants completed a brief questionnaire to determine their preferences were or what they usually did in terms of aiming at a target in preparation to hit their iron shots. The questionnaire consisted of three questions with five response choices for each question, which is described in the Results section along with the results under the heading of Pre-study Questionnaire.
All golfers swung their own nine and six irons right-handed to hit their shots with new Titleist Pro V1x golf balls. The participants warmed-up as they usually did by stretching and swinging a club. Next they hit six warm-up iron shots (three with their nine iron and three with their six iron) off a grass mat alternating shots with each club. After warm-up, participants were instructed to play their iron shots using a full swing as though they were playing in a medal tournament in which every shot counted. Specifically, their goal was to play each shot as accurately and as far as they could such that the ball ended up in the center of the green when aiming at the small target and anywhere on the green when aiming at the large target. Participants experienced four testing conditions: (1) aim at a small target to play a full shot with their nine iron; (2) aim at a small target to play a full shot with their six iron; (3) aim at a large target to play a full shot with their nine iron; and (4) aim at a large target to play a full shot with their six iron. Participants were randomly assigned to a testing condition order and the order in which participants performed the four testing conditions was counter-balanced. The resulting effect was that each participant hit a total of 12 iron shots (three shots in each of the four testing conditions).
Results
Pre-study Questionnaire
The number of participant responses (in bold) resulting for the five choices for each question of the pre-study questionnaire was as follows:
How often do you use a (an)
-
small target to aim at when preparing to hit iron shots to a green?
Never = 0 Infrequently = 8 Frequently = 6 Quite Frequently = 13 Always = 3
-
target in the distance to aim at when preparing to hit iron shots to a green?
Never = 2 Infrequently = 6 Frequently = 8 Quite frequently = 9 Always = 5
-
intermediate target to aim at when preparing to hit iron shots to a green?
Never = 8 Infrequently = 4 Frequently = 9 Quite Frequently = 2 Always = 7
These responses revealed that, before the study began,
-
73.3% of the participants (22 of 30) aim at a small rather than a large target when preparing to play iron shots to a green;
-
93.3% of the participants (28 of 30) aim at a target in the distance when preparing to play iron shots to a green; and
-
60% of the participants (18 of 30) use an intermediate target to aim at when preparing to hit iron shots to a green?
Collectively, these results suggested that, prior to the study, the majority of the participants had more experience aiming at a distant small than a distant large target when preparing to play iron shots to a green. However, a little more than half of them also reported using an intermediate target as well, which was not allowed in this study.
Average Iron Shot Error and Greens Hit
The number of missed iron shots that had to be replayed was 17 out of a total of 360 shots. The breakdown of the number of missed shots for each condition was as follows: Aim at small target with nine iron was two; aim at large target with nine iron was five; aim at small target with six iron was six; and aim at large target with six iron was four. Thus, the number of missed shots did not appreciably vary as a function target size and club condition.
The 2 x 2 x 2 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Clubs) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors revealed a significant main effect for Clubs, F (1, 30) = 7.85, p < .01. As expected, average error for the six iron (M = 2.06 m, SE = .18) was more than for the nine iron (M = 1.53 m, SE = .12). None of the other effects were significant (p > .05).
Of the 90 iron shots played to each target with the nine iron, aiming at the small target (68) resulted in about the same number of greens hit as aiming at the large target (70). And of the 90 iron shots played to each target with their six iron, aiming at the small target (59) resulted in about the same number of greens hit as aiming at the large target (60).
Average Carry Distance
The 2 x 2 x 2 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Clubs) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors revealed a significant Handicap Groups effect, F (1, 28) = 12.12, p < .01. The average carry distance for the lower handicap group (M = 137.11 m, SE = 5.33) was longer than it was for the higher handicap group (M = 108.78 m, SE = 7.93). The Target Sizes factor was significant, F (1, 28), = 37.24, p < .01, as was Clubs, F (1, 28) = 240.73, p < .01. However, the Target Sizes by Clubs interaction also was significant, F (1, 28) = 7.08, p < .05. Post hoc analysis of the interaction using the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons revealed that aiming at the large target (M = 112.29 m, SE = 3.65) resulted in significantly (p < .01) longer carry distance for the nine iron than aiming at the small target (M = 109.45 m, SE = 3.66). And, aiming at the large target (M = 138.05 m, SE= 4.48) resulted in significantly (p < .01) longer carry distance for the six iron than aiming at the small target (M = 132.88 m, SE = 4.72). Thus, longer average carry distance was achieved with each iron when participants aimed at the large rather than small target. As expected, average carry distance for the six iron was significantly (p < .01) longer than it was for the nine iron when aiming at both size targets.
Read more : What Does Pending Delivery Confirmation Mean On Dhgate
Summary of Results
Appreciably longer average carry distance was achieved with nine-iron and six-iron shots when aiming at the large rather than the small target while maintaining shot accuracy. And, the longer average carry distance resulted despite the fact that the majority of the participants reported prior to the study that they aimed at a distant small target more often than a distant large or an intermediate target. As expected, average error and carry distance was significantly less for the nine iron than the six iron.
Study 3: Short-Game Shot Performance
Purpose
The purpose was to study shot performance of short and long putts, chipping, and pitching as a function of aiming at large and small targets.
Method
Participants
A total of 30 adult male golfers (M age = 65 years; SD = 14.83) with an average USGA handicap index of – 13.94 (SD = 6.23) volunteered to participate in Study 3, which included putting, chipping and pitching. Sixteen golfers with indexes ranging from 0 to – 14 (M = – 9.45) and 14 golfers with indexes ranging from – 15 to – 27 (M = – 19.07) were placed in the lower and higher handicap group, respectively. None of these golfers participated in Study 1 or Study 2.
Dependent Measures
Putting, chipping and pitching error was measured in cm from where the ball (new Titleist ProV1x golf balls were used) came to rest to the middle of the target. Specifically, using a metal measuring tape, the distance was measured from the leading edge of the ball (i.e., the edge nearest to the center of the target) to the middle of the target. Severely missed putts, chip and pitch shots (e.g., topped, hit thin or fat) were defined as those that were so poorly executed that they were not measurable and not representative of the participant’s typical performance as judged by the participant and the tester. Severely missed shots were replayed and the number of them was recorded.
Study Design and Procedures
A 2 x 2 x 3 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Shot Distances) design was used with repeated measures on the last two factors to study putting, chipping and pitching performance. Before the study began, each of the participants completed a questionnaire asking about the size of the target at which they prefer to aim for short and long putts, and chip and pitch shots. Participants were instructed to circle the letter of the best answer to each of four multiple choice questions. The questionnaire is described along with the results in the Results section along with the results under the heading of Pre-study Questionnaire.
Short-putt procedures. Using their own putter, participants stroked four warm-up putts; one each from 91.44 cm, 152.4 cm, 213.36 cm, and 274.32 cm (putted in that order), to a 457.2 cm- long string. The goal was to have the putted ball end up on the string. The warm-up was given to help each participant get a feel for the speed of the green. After warm-up, each participant stroked one putt from 121.92 cm, 182.88 cm and 243.84 cm to a small and large target. The large target was a white circle 10.795 cm in diameter and the small target was a white circle .635 cm in diameter. Each target could be removed so that only one of them could be seen when aiming and putting. The goal when aiming at the large target was to putt the ball so that it ended up anywhere within the target. The goal when aiming at the small target was to putt the ball so that it ended up on the target. Participants performed the six putting conditions in a counter-balanced order. A total of six putts were stroked; three to the small and large target at 60.96 cm, 121.92 cm and 243.84 cm. Three different hole locations were used for the three distance putts. All putts were quite level with little or no break.
Long-putt procedures. Each participant stroked four warm-up putts, one each from 670.56 cm, 792.48 cm, 914.4 cm, and 1,036.32 cm (putted in that order) to a 457.2 cm-long string. The goal was to have the putted ball end up on the string. The warm-up was given to help each participant get a feel for the speed of the green. After warm-up, each participant stroked one putt from 731.52 cm, 853.44 cm and 975.36 cm to a large and small target. The large target was a white circle 182.88 cm in diameter and the small target was a white circle .635 cm in diameter. Each target could be removed so that only one of them could be seen when aiming and putting. The goal when aiming at both targets was to aim at the whole target and putt the ball so that it ended up anywhere within it. Participants performed the six putting conditions in a counter-balanced order. A total of six putts were stroked; three for the small target and three for the large target at 731.52 cm, 853.44 cm and 975.36 cm. Three different hole locations were used for the three distance putts. All putts were quite level with little or no break.
Chip-shot procedures. Participants used their own irons to play their chip shots, which ranged from an eight iron to a lob wedge. A pitching wedge (48 degrees) and sand wedge (56 degrees) were used by 80% of the 30 participants (60% used their pitching wedge and 20% used their sand wedge). An eight iron and 52-degree wedge were used by 13% of the participants, and a nine iron and 60-degree wedge were used by 7%.
Each participant warmed-up by playing four chip shots that were 670.56 cm, 792.48 cm, 914.4 cm and 1,036.32 cm (chipped in that order). The ball was played four feet off the green to a 609.6-cm long string so that the ball ended up on the string. After warm-up, each participant played a chip shot from 731.52 cm, 853.44 cm, and 975.36 cm to a large and small target. The large target was a white circle 182.88 cm in diameter and the small target was a white circle .635 cm in diameter. Each target could be removed so that only one of them could be seen when aiming. The goal when aiming at both targets was to aim at the whole target and chip the ball so that it ended up anywhere within it. Participants performed the six chipping conditions in a counter-balanced order. A total of six chips were played; three for the small target and three for the large target at 731.52 cm, 853.44 cm and 975.36 cm. Three different hole locations were used for the three distance chips. The green on which the chip shots were played was quite level with little or no break.
Pitch-shot procedures. Participants used their own wedges, which had lofts of the wedges ranging from 48 to 60 degrees with 73% of the participants using either a 56 or 60 degree wedge. Forty percent of the participants used a 56 degree wedge and 33% used a 60 degree wedge.
Each participant warmed-up by playing four pitch shots that were 1,280.16 cm, 1,645.92 cm, 2,011.68 cm and 2,377.44 cm (chipped in that order). Pitch shots were played to anywhere on the green to get a feel for the distance. After warm-up, each participant played a pitch shot from 1,463.04 cm, 1,828.8 cm and 2,194.56 cm to a large and small target. The large target was a white circle 365.76 cm in diameter and the small target was a white circle 4.635 cm in diameter. Each target could be removed so that only one of them could be seen when aiming. The goal when aiming at either target was to pitch the ball so that it ended up anywhere within it. Participants performed the six pitching conditions in a counter-balanced order. A total of six pitch shots were played; three for the small target and three for the large target at 1,463.04 cm, 1,828.8 cm and 2,194.56 cm. Both targets were placed on the green such that their center was in the same location, which was in the middle of the green. Three different teeing areas were used for the three different pitching distances. All pitch shots were similar and did not have to go over sand, water, or any other type hazard.
Results
Pre-Study Questionnaire
Read more : What Does Lauren Conrad’s Sister Do
The number of participant responses resulting for the possible answers for each question of the pre-study questionnaire is shown in “bold” print after each answer.
- What size target do you aim at when preparing to stroke straight (no break) putts that are about 121.92 cm to 243.8 cm in length?
-
a. Target diameter that is .635 cm or smaller – 5
-
b. Target diameter that is .66 cm to 5.40 cm ( about half the diameter of a hole) – 8
-
c. Target diameter that is 5.41 cm or larger, but smaller than the diameter of the hole – 3
-
d. Target that is equal to the diameter of the Hole (10.795 cm) – 14
-
e. Target that is larger than the diameter of the Hole (10.795 cm) – 0
- What size target do you aim at when preparing to stroke straight (no break) putts that are about 7.32 m to 9.75 m in length?
-
a. Target diameter that is less than the diameter of the hole – 6
-
b. Target diameter that is equal to the diameter of the Hole (10.795 cm) – 14
-
c. Target that is larger than the diameter of the Hole (for example, a 30.48 cm, 60.96 cm or 91.44 cm diameter circle) – 10
- What size target do you aim at when preparing to play chip shots from about 1.22 m off the green that are about 7.32 m to 9.75 m in total length to the pin and that have no break?
-
a. Target diameter that is less than the diameter of the Hole (10.795 cm) – 1
-
b. Target that is equal to the diameter of the Hole (10.795 cm) – 12
-
c. Target that is larger than the diameter of the Hole (for example, a 30.48 cm, 60.96 cm or 91.44 cm diameter circle) – 17
- What size target do you aim at when preparing to play pitch shots from about 9.14 m to 16.46 m?
-
a. Target that is less than the diameter of the Hole (10.795 cm) – 2
-
b. Target that is equal to the diameter of the Hole (10.795 cm) – 6
-
c. Target that is larger than the diameter of the Hole (for example, a 60.96 cm, 121.92 cm, or 182.88 cm or larger diameter circle) – 22
These responses indicated that, before the study began,
-
100% of the participants (30 of 30) aim at a target that is equal to the hole or smaller on short putts with 53% of them (16 of 30) aiming at a target that is smaller than the hole;
-
66.7% of the participants (20 of 30) aim at a target equal to or larger than the hole on longer putts with 80% of the participants (24 of 30) aiming at a target larger than the hole;
-
96.7% of the participants (29 of 30) aim at a target that is equal to or larger than the hole when playing chip shots, with 56.7% of them (17 of 30) aiming at a target larger than the hole; and
-
93.3% of the same participants (28 of 30) aim at a target that is equal to or larger than the hole when playing pitch shots, with 73.3% of them (22 of 30) aiming at a target that is larger than the hole.
Taken together, these results suggested that, before the study, the size of the target at which most participants preferred to aim increased with the distance of the putt. With chipping and pitching, nearly all of the same participants preferred to aim at a target that was equal to or larger than the hole, with most of them aiming at a target that was larger than the hole.
Average Putting, Chipping and Pitching Error
No putts had to be replayed because of being severely missed. Thirteen out of 180 chip shots (five for the small target and eight for the large target) were severely missed and had to be replayed. Thirty six out of 180 pitch shots (six for the small target and 20 for the large target) were severely missed and had to be replayed. The Chi Square Analyses revealed that none of these differences were significant (p > .05).
Short putts. The 2 x2 x 3 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Putt Distances) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors revealed that only the main effect for Putt Distances was significant, F (2, 56) = 5.67, p < .01. Post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons indicated that average putting error was essentially the same (p > .05) for the shortest distance (M =11.92 cm, SE =1.36) and middle distance (M = 11.74 cm, SE = 1.68) distances. However, the putting at the longest (243.84 cm) distance resulted in appreciably more average error (M = 16.71 cm, SE =1.40) than the other two distances (p < .05).
Average error for the lower handicap group (M = 15.13 cm, SE = 1.55) was slightly more than for the higher handicap group (M = 11.78 cm, SE = 1.66). And, average error for the small target size (M = 14.09 cm, SE = 1.32) was slightly lower than for the large target (M = 12.82 cm, SE = 1.29). However, these differences were not significant (p > .05).
Long putts. The 2 x2 x 3 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Putt Distances) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors revealed that only the main effect for Putt Distances was significant, F (2, 56) = 5.16, p < .01. Post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons indicated that average putting error resulted in was essentially the same (p > .05) for the shortest distance (M =55.88 cm, SE =5.17) and middle distance (M = 60.07 cm, SE = 4.37). However, the putting at the longest (243.84 cm) distance resulted in appreciably more average error (M = 72.99 cm, SE =5.20) than the other two distances (p < .05).
Average error for the lower handicap group (M = 58.90 cm, SE = 5.11) was less than for the higher handicap group (M = 67.07 cm, SE = 5.46). And, average error for the small target size (M = 66.80 cm, SE = 5.74) was higher than for the large target (M = 59.17 cm, SE = 4.05). However, these differences were not significant (p > .05).
Chips. The 2 x2 x 3 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Chip Distances) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors revealed no significant effects (p > .05). Average chipping error for the lower handicap group (M = 110.89 cm, SE = 8.70) was about the same as that of the higher handicap group (M = 113.02 cm, SE = 9.31). Average error for the small target size (M = 108.81 cm, SE =8.79) was less than that of the large target (M = 115.11 cm, SE = 11.05). And, average error for the shortest distance (M = 108.76 cm, SE = 7.64) was less than that of the middle distance (M = 110.18 cm, SE = 9.39), and the middle distance was less than that of the longest distance (M = 116.93 cm, SE = 114.81). However, none of these differences were significant (p > .05).
Pitches. The 2 x2 x 3 (Handicap Groups x Target Sizes x Pitch Distances) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors revealed that only the main effect for Pitch Distances was significant, F (2, 56) = 7.72, p < .01. Post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons revealed that the shortest distance (M = 177.63 cm, SE = 15.73) resulted in less average pitching error than the middle distance (M = 274.37, SE = 26.11) and the longest distance (M = 269.82, SE = 26.63).
Average error for the lower handicap group (M = 245.44 cm, SE = 23.21) was slightly more than for the higher handicap group (M = 235.76 cm, SE = 24.82). And, average error for the small target size (M = 229.03 cm, SE = 24.14) was slightly less than for the large target (M = 252.18 cm, SE = 21.93). However, none of these differences were significant (p > .05).
Read more : What Does Pending Delivery Confirmation Mean On Dhgate
Summary of Results
Average error for putting, chipping and pitching was not found to be a function of the target size at which participants aimed. Although some average error differences were found for the two handicap levels, they were not significant. As expected, average error was appreciably more for the longest of the three short- and three long-putt distances. No appreciable average error effects were found for chipping, but the shortest distance resulted in significantly less average pitching error than the middle distance and the longest distance.
Discussion
Despite the popularity and anecdotal evidence claiming support for the superior effectiveness of the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method (e.g., (Busbee, 2015; Finnegan, 2015; Golfweek Junior Tour, 2010; Jerome, 2013; Kopanski, 2011)) for minimizing golf shot error, no evidence was found in these three studies to support the superior effectiveness of the method for minimizing error of drives, iron, chip and pitch shots, and short and long putts. In fact, the average error (or conversely accuracy) findings for the driving performance supported the opposite method, that is, “Aim Large, Miss Small”. Specifically, aiming at the large target in preparation to play drives with the driver and three-metal produced appreciably less average driving error than aiming at the small target. Moreover, aiming at the large target resulted in a significantly greater number of drives finishing in the fairway than aiming at the small target for the driver. And although the number of drives finishing in the fairway for the three metal was the same for both target sizes, that number was the same as it was for the driver when aiming at the large target. Thus, it is clear that aiming at the small target resulted in appreciably more drives missing the fairway for the driver. These beneficial driving accuracy effects that occurred when aiming at the large target emerged in spite of the fact that about 72% of the 32 participants reported before the study began that they were more accustomed to aiming at a small target rather than a large target. Further, these effects are consistent with the perception-action research evidence revealing that aiming at targets perceived as being larger can make people feel more confident about hitting them, which can increase confidence and lead to improved performance (e.g., (Profitt & Linkenauger, 2013; Witt et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2013; Woodman & Hardy, 2003)).
One possible explanation for the driving performance accuracy findings was that aiming to drive a ball to the large target enabled players to swing more “freely” or “naturally” with less cognitive control of their movements because there was simply more room for error than when aiming at the small target. Less cognitive control meant that participants did not have to attend to or think about constraining (controlling, guiding or steering) their swing movements at all or nearly as much as they did when trying to achieve the greater accuracy demands imposed by aiming to drive the ball to the small target. In other words, aiming at the large rather than the small target may have allowed for more non-cognitive, automated processes to plan and control the swing movements, which resulted in movement coordination proceeding more “naturally” for the large target than the small target.
This proposed explanation is consistent with the “Action-effect Principle”, which emanates from “Common Coding Theory” (e.g., (W. Prinz, 1984, 2005; Wolfgang Prinz, 1997)). The Principle holds that perception and action are directly linked by a common code or shared representation such that actions (e.g., golf swing movements) are planned and controlled in relation to perceivable effects they should generate. It is possible that aiming at the small target with the driver encouraged participants to cognitively control their swing movements more than when aiming at the large target. This would have disrupted the congruence between movement planning and control, and the effects they should have produced more for the small target than the large target. Congruence is important because it optimizes the efficiency of centrally planning and controlling the many degrees of freedom in performing the acquired swing movements. It allows for the usual non-cognitive, automated processes to plan and control the movement coordination needed for the swing to proceed “naturally” in relation to the perceived effects the swing should generate. The greater accuracy demands imposed by the small target could have interfered with this congruency and efficiency by encouraging golfers to cognitively attend more to controlling the movements during their swing to ensure that the effect of their swing (i.e., where the ball landed) met those demands. Such cognitive intervention would have disrupted or interfered with the “natural” automated control processes involved in planning and controlling learned swing movements in relation to the perceivable effects they should produce. The resulting effect would have been that the movement coordination responsible for generating the swing would have been somewhat disrupted from proceeding “naturally”, which would have negatively affected the accuracy of the drive. Although further research is needed before the validity of this explanation can be ascertained, the full-swing distance findings discussed in the next paragraph seem to provide additional evidence that is consistent with it.
If full-swing movements are less cognitively controlled or constrained and movement coordination proceeds more “naturally” when striving to achieve the lesser accuracy demands afforded by the large target as compared to the small target, one would expect to find a longer distances for the full swing shots played in Study 1 (driver, three-metal) and Study 2 (nine and six irons), which was indeed what was found. Aiming at the large target not only produced appreciably better average driving accuracy for the driver, but also appreciably longer average total driving distance than when aiming at the small target. A similar finding occurred for the full swing nine- and six-iron shots. Specifically, appreciably longer average carry distance was achieved with nine- and six-iron shots when aiming at the large rather than the small target without sacrificing any shot accuracy. Moreover, the longer average total distance for the driver when aiming at the large target resulted despite the fact that 72% of the 32 participants reported before Study 1 began that they were more accustomed to aiming at a small rather than a large target. And, the longer average carry distance for the nine iron and six iron when aiming at the large target resulted in spite of the fact that 73% of the 30 participants reported before Study 2 began that they were more experienced aiming at a small rather than a large target.
Taken together, this evidence indicates that the benefits of aiming at the large instead of the small target were longer average total driving distance with better shot accuracy for the driver, and longer shot carry distance with no loss in shot accuracy for the nine and six irons. Clearly, this evidence is counter to what the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method would predict, but it is consistent with what some leading teachers and coaches (e.g., (Alderink, 2016; Parent, 2002)) and the “Action-effect Principle” (e.g., (W. Prinz, 1984, 2005; Wolfgang Prinz, 1997)) would forecast. They would predict that aiming at a large rather than a small target is more likely to free-up the participants’ full swing to a greater extent because of the demand for shot accuracy is less, which can lead to greater shot distance with either better accuracy or no loss in accuracy at all. In other words, their swing was more freed-up with the large rather than the small target simply because there was more room for shot outcome error, which afforded more of an opportunity for non-cognitive, automated processes to plan and control the swing movements to operate, which enabled movement coordination to proceed more naturally. Conversely, the greater accuracy demands imposed by aiming at the small target with the driver and irons may have prompted the participants to cognitively attend more to controlling their swing movements to ensure that the shot generated by their swing met those demands. And of course, cognitively trying to control a learned or acquired golf swing when aiming at the small target would have interfered more with the congruence between movement planning and control of the swing, and the shot it should have generated.
Also damaging to the belief in the superior effectiveness of the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method was the finding that average accuracy performance produced by the three-metal, nine and six irons, short putts, and chip and pitch shots was essentially the same when aiming at the small target as it was for the large target. Perhaps the effectiveness of the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method is not as superior as has been believed by many teachers, coaches and players. And, while it may work for some players, it may not work for others and hence, should not be imposed on all students by teachers and coaches, which is consistent with the position taken by Alderink (2016). It is also unclear why this finding did not demonstrate beneficial large-target effects on average accuracy similar to those found in Study 1 with driving performance and with putting performance in the perception-action research (e.g., (Witt et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2013)). Nor was it consistent with the cognitive intervention account we proposed to explain the beneficial large-target effects on average accuracy found in Study 1 based on the “Action-effect Principle” (e.g., (W. Prinz, 1984, 2005; Wolfgang Prinz, 1997)). Perhaps beneficial large-target effects on average accuracy for the three-metal, nine and six irons, short putts, and chip and pitch shots would have been found if the experimental design of our research had accounted for the major personality difference among participants in terms of being more “process-oriented” or more “feel-oriented”. More specifically, for example, Alderink (Alderink, 2016) proposed that players who tend to become more rigid, mechanical, anxious and cognitive, and lose their rhythm and timing when aiming at a small target are probably better suited for aiming at a large rather than small target. However, if players tend to become more doubtful and less focused, and the swing becomes too loose resulting more variable shot patterns when aiming at a large target, they are probably better suited for aiming at a small rather than a large target. Hence, he suggested that players who prefer aiming at smaller targets tend to be more “process-oriented”, prefer to do things step-by-step, and like to practice and follow routines. Conversely, he reasoned that players who tend to be “feel-oriented” players, prefer variety over routines, like to learn new ways of doing things, and usually like seeing the big picture and aiming at larger targets. Alderink’s speculations seem reasonable, but the extent to which being a more “process-oriented” versus a more “feel-oriented” player was a factor that could explain the finding that did not demonstrate beneficial large-target effects on average accuracy will have to be determined by future research because the design of the current research did not account for this factor.
The pre-study questionnaire findings also revealed some interesting evidence about the relationship between the target size at which golfers prefer to aim and the distance as well as type of shot played. The size of the target at which one aims seemed be partly related to the shot distance and the type of shot. For instance, 53% of the 30 participants reported that they aim at a target that is smaller than the hole on short putts, but on longer putts that decreases to 20% with 80% aiming at a target equal to or larger than the hole. The size of the target at which one prefers to aim also seems to be related to the type of shot. For example, 53% of the 30 participants reported that they usually aim at a target that is larger than the hole when playing chip shots and even more (73%) of the same participants preferred to do so when playing pitch shots. Of course, other factors also may be involved such as how skilled the participants are at playing a given type of shot and their level of confidence in playing a shot. For example, the more skilled and confident participants are in playing a given type of shot, the more confident they may be in aiming at a smaller target and vice versa. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which these and other factors that influence one’s preference for aiming at different target sizes actually affect one’s golf shot performance.
And lastly, several significant effects were found that were completely expected. The lower handicap group drove the ball a longer average total distance than the higher handicap group. And, average total driving distance was longer and with less accuracy for the driver than the three-metal. Surprisingly, three-metal driving performance was not found to be a function of the target size at which the participants aimed and the reason for this finding is a matter of some uncertainty. As expected, average shot accuracy was greater and average carry distance was shorter for the nine iron than the six iron. Moreover, the lower handicap group had a longer average carry distance with both irons than did the higher handicap group. And, shorter distance putts resulted in more average accuracy as did shorter pitch shots.
In summary, the purpose of this research was to determine the extent to which the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method is effective in minimizing error when playing a variety of golf shots. The evidence from the three studies did not find this method to be superior in terms of enhancing shot performance. In fact, some evidence was found to support the performance benefits of aiming at a larger rather than a smaller target, especially for driver and full iron shots. The absence of evidence supporting the superiority of the “Aim Small, Miss Small” method does not deny that it may work for some players, but it does suggest that it is not for everyone and thus, should not be imposed on all students by teachers and coaches. This being the case, it seems reasonable to recommend that players should be encouraged to experiment with different target sizes for different types of shots in various playing contexts, and use the target size for each type of shot in each situation that works for them to produce their best performance. Clearly, further research is needed not only to replicate the present findings, but to extend them to better understand how the target sizes at which golfers of different skill levels aim for various types of shots in various situations affect their shot performance. And of course, additional research is needed before more definitive practical application recommendations can be made.
Author Note
Bob Christina is Emeritus Professor of Kinesiology and Emeritus Dean of the School of Health and Human Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Eric Alpenfels is the Director of Instruction of the Pinehurst Golf Academy, Pinehurst Resort and Country Club, North Carolina.
Please address correspondence concerning this article to Bob Christina, 4501 Highberry Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27410.
E-mail: [email protected]
Source: https://t-tees.com
Category: WHAT
