|
|
Articles published by or about Steven Hendlin, Ph.D.
Originally published in Fortune Magazine, October 17, 2005.
Where There's a Will, There's a Fray
Boomers, don't count on a gift from Mom and Dad. Your parents may opt for performance-based inheritance. My grandmother, Mary Jane Billy, was hardly what you would call ahead of her time. In 1979 she bought a brand-new powder-blue Buick LeSabre with vinyl seats and whitewall tires and drove it, quite proudly, into the 1990s. She didn't trust modern contraptions like washing machines either, so she'd roll up her sleeves and dig right in as the machine agitated, scrubbing her clothes by hand to the rhythm of the Kenmore motor. But several years ago, before Alzheimer's silenced her memories and cancer stole her breath, she did something that put her among a growing cadre of aging parents who are redefining how they view, value, and distribute their inheritances. Mary Jane, headstrong as she was, decided not to disperse her assets equally among her four children. She chose to leave more to one child in particular—the one who took her to the bank every Friday, balanced her checkbook, and escorted her to doctor's appointments—my mother. My grandmother didn't explain why she had favored one child in her will. The very idea of it flies in the face of a basic tenet of parenting, namely that parents love and treat their children equally. Or so we thought. Recently the Allianz American Legacies Study, a groundbreaking look at attitudes toward inheritance, showed that 54% of elders believe in some form of "performance-based inheritance." In other words, they think a child deserves more if, for instance, he or she provides care for the parent. And one-third think children deserve less if they cause conflict or disrespect the family. In fact, 45% of high-net-worth and 23% of lower-net-worth elders do not feel that all children have the right to share equally in their inheritance, according to the survey. "Inheritance used to be a formula: The oldest son got the farm, and the oldest daughter got a dowry," says Ken Dychtwald, a gerontologist and CEO of Age Wave, a consulting firm in San Francisco that designed the Allianz study. "In the 20th century we moved to a more equal distribution as the accepted norm," he says. "Now there is no clear prescription." Estate planners say clauses stipulating that a child be a productive member of society are popping up more and more. Don Weigandt, a wealth advisor at J.P. Morgan Private Bank, calls them "incentive" provisions. Another increasingly popular clause is one that leaves a child an annual "match" equal to what he or she earns in employment—but not a penny more. "It's the make-a-dollar-get-a-dollar model," says Weigandt. "I don't believe in equality," says Jayne Buchanan, 72, a retired nurse and mother of two daughters, who lives in Canandaigua, N.Y. "I treat my children as individuals, not equals." Although she plans to split her assets between the two, she will distribute some prized personal items as she sees fit, not based on their actual monetary value. Parents who earned rather than inherited their wealth are more likely to adopt an I-earned-it-now-you-earn-it-too approach that bucks the sense of entitlement many children have, says Scott Farber, a wealth-management advisor in Natick, Mass. And that's exactly the kind of thinking that is shaking up family dynamics: Suck-ups who thought they were a shoo-in for a piece of the inheritance pie now find themselves forced into another round of campaigning. Attitudes are changing just as we're poised for what researchers say will be the biggest wealth transfer in the nation's history: somewhere between $41 trillion and $136 trillion over the next four decades, according to estimates by two economists at the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College. That has financial planners gearing up for an onslaught of inquiries from boomers who had hoped for an infusion from Mom and Dad for the retirement kitty, but who now may need to reframe their expectations. "We're seeing a lot of disappointment among our clients," says Marjorie Fox, a Falls Church, Va., financial advisor. "They're realizing they will either have to work longer or change their lifestyle." And shrinks are buffing up the leather couches in anticipation of all those clients who will need to work through their entitlement issues. "A high sense of entitlement is one of the defining characteristics of the baby-boomer generation, and it influences our beliefs about what we deserve," says Steven Hendlin, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist in Newport Beach, Calif. Some attorneys are being driven to bizarre lengths—like writing a song. Les Kotzer, an estate lawyer in Toronto, recently released a CD to encourage families to talk about this dicey new world of inheritance. (One jaunty little number is titled "The Family Fight Song.") The battle over the boomers' inheritance is going to be a doozy, because it concerns two bedrock principles that can't be reconciled. On the one hand is meritocracy: It's how we get ahead at school, land a solid job, and get promoted. But for some reason, that thinking has rarely applied to wealth transfer—until now. "We accept meritocracy on the football team or at work, but somehow we've held inheritance in a loftier, altruistic zone where such ideas should not enter," says Dychtwald. On the other hand is equality—our Founding Fathers were pretty big on that one. "There's a strong culture of equality that's deeply embedded in the American character," says Paul Schervish, director of the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College. The problem, Schervish says, is how merit and equality can coexist when it comes to inheritance. Marty Carter, a communication consultant in Jefferson, Maine, recently encountered a family facing that conundrum. The case involves two siblings. One is a successful doctor who worked his way through medical school, and the other is affectionately known as the family slouch. The parents decide to give the doctor less money because he doesn't really need it, and more to the other child, whose financial future looks shaky. Is it fair to in effect punish the doctor for being successful while rewarding the other for having little ambition? On the other hand, would it be fair to give them both equal shares when one has a greater need? "Parents are trying to reach Solomon-like decisions in their giving," says Dychtwald. An 80-year-old dad from Orville, Calif., is still torn about the inheritance he is leaving his three sons. The youngest, by the father's candid description, "fritters his life away, drinking it up, getting involved with strange women," and living in a one-room apartment. This parent gave serious thought to decreasing that son's share. "I talked myself out of it. He's still my son, and that wouldn't be fair. I just hope he sees the error of his ways," he says. It's easy to understand why parents feel so conflicted: Children are apt to take a parent's will as a final report card. "It goes deeper than money; it goes to love," says Jed Albert, a partner with Farrell Fritz, a wealth-management law firm in Uniondale, N.Y. "One child feels loved less, and it destroys relationships." Doug Neal, a principal in Neal Financial Group in Houston, recalls his resentment after his maternal grandmother gave 40 acres of prime farmland in Minnesota to a distant cousin, while he, a direct successor, was left with a souvenir pillow from South Dakota. "Needless to say, I don't have a need to visit those people anymore," he says. Like Neal, most children have an expectation of some inheritance. And therein lies the real problem, according to Hendlin, author of Overcoming the Inheritance Taboo. "We view inheritance as a birthright, because we're taught that love means giving," he explains. That's why inheritance will always be a hot-button issue, because it's highly emotional. "Logic goes out the window," says Farber. Hendlin argues in his book that the sign of a healthy and mature adult is the ability to give up any expectation of inheritance of any kind. Children across the nation could be liberated forever from psychological suffering, he says, if they would just let go of the infantile wish to be taken care of forever by parents. Originally published in the Daily Pilot, February 12, 2005 Unique Valentine treats
As we once again approach Valentine's Day, let us pause for a minute to look at how we can best use this happy occasion to enrich our most intimate love relationships. The hectic pace of our lives makes it easy to dispense with Valentine's Day with a cute card and a box of candy or bouquet of roses. Or to dismiss the day altogether as just another commercial gain for Hallmark and the candy industry. While a card and gifts are the traditional way for many to say "You are my Valentine," this occasion can be used in a more conscious and powerful way to communicate to our loved one how we feel. Don't let cards or gifts act as substitutes for putting your feelings into words. Don't be afraid to say, "I love you" loud and clear. It's too easy to let the prefabricated sentiments of a card do your talking for you. Say it out of your own mouth—and then say it again. This is especially important for longer-term marriages and committed couples, where the significance of these words is all too easily glossed over. Feel the words in your heart while you say them so that you may connect more deeply than usual. One way to nourish a love relationship on Valentine's Day is to plan a special dinner or outing where the focus is just on the two of you, without any interruption from kids or work projects. Consider using this special time to reaffirm your vows to each other, or to create new vows for the rest of the year. Do tell your partner what makes him or her special to you. You can't be too mushy on Valentine's Day. If you happen to be carrying any resentment toward your partner into this day, consider letting it go. Consciously tell yourself that this day is for opening your heart and releasing any hard feelings that may have created distance from your loved one. If you are unable to give up your resentment, it may be necessary to discuss with your partner the need to get professional help to resolve your differences. No matter whether the problems lie in the areas of communication, sexual incompatibility, money matters, dealing with the kids or leisure time civilities, don't be afraid to confront these problems directly. Valentines' Day is a good opportunity to honestly and lovingly reflect on where your relationship is and where it is going If you are single and not dating or involved in a relationship, use this day to be especially kind and loving to yourself. Resist the temptation to feel left out or depressed just because you are alone and not with a partner. Remember that "loved ones" means children, friends and family — not just romantic partners. My mother used to send me a Valentine Day's card every year once I left home. Enjoy this happy day and remember the meaning of love, commitment and the playful side of life. Catch that glimpse of love shining from your partner's eyes and let it soak in longer than usual. Originally published in the Orange County Register, November 28, 2004. Defuse inheritance fights before they happen
Before my grandmother died, she sent her oldest son a letter listing her most prized possessions. He could pick one, she said, then he was to forward the list to my mother, who was to pick one and forward the list to the next sibling, and so on, until all five children had made their choices. The list was a wise move on my grandmother's part. When she died at age 92, no one focused on divvying up possessions. Things were already spoken for, and everyone knew who got what. Most families are not so forthright, says Steven J. Hendlin, a clinical psychologist and author of "Overcoming the Inheritance Taboo," (Plume, 2004). They duck the subject of inheritance until it's too late, he says, because children don't want to appear greedy. Or they don't want to "bury" their parents before they die. Or the parents feel part of holding on to life is holding on to stuff. "Oh, people do the legal affairs. That's easier than facing the psychological, emotional stuff, although that's what they should be dealing with before they are worried about death and dying," he says. And possessions definitely are emotional stuff - particularly for boomers. Hendlin's book is laced with personal examples and situations from his 30 years of counseling in Orange County and years of writing on the psychology of investing for The Street.com. The family inheritance game begins when everyone assumes a role, Hendlin says.There's the Favorite Child: "Mom loves me the most, you'll see." Often resented by the other siblings. Or the Lost and Forgotten Child, who can show up at the end of life and make a legal claim for an inheritance. There are Problem Children, who think they deserve more, and Trust Fund Babies, who suck up to elders to feather their own nests. Caregivers, second spouses, good friends and deserving charities also play a role in inheritance decision making. Not to mention the parents who need to face the issue of their mortality. Hendlin puts all these role-players into perspective in his book, a unique treatise on a subject generally avoided in polite society. "It is time for families to stop thinking that the more secretive they are about inheritance, the less everyone will be hurt," Hendlin says. "It just isn't true. It never has been, and it never will be." Odds are that few of us hear inheritance tales. Most families hold those stories close. The tales we do hear are often bitter, severing sibs from each other or creating a painful legacy that a parent never intended. The solution seems so easy: Talk about it now. If you need a guidebook, check out Hendlin's step-by-step guide at www.hendlin.net. Try to give away some of your stuff. We tried that a couple of years ago when we downsized from a family home to "retirement" digs. Furniture went to one kid, crystal to another. The china was sold because no one liked it. Cases and crates were shipped away. Now I can go visit my stuff in someone else's home. The true joy of a legacy is seeing it flourish in your lifetime. Originally published in the Daily Pilot, November 5, 2004 Managing the post-election letdown
Finally, after all the anticipation, the election results are in. But keep your seatbelts fastened, folks, because the frenzied ride isn't over yet: Here comes your post-election let-down. Even if your candidate won, you may be affected, as sometimes the only thing worse than not getting what you want, is getting it. Political pundits, talking heads of all persuasions, and the electorate all perceived high stakes in this election. All around town I heard people concerned about the outcome at national, state and local levels. With the political sleaze-ball tactics spiking off the Richter Scale, and the polemics reaching an unusually feverish pitch, we were reminded repeatedly how our polarized electorate held our future in their balloting hands. Whether it was who's sitting in the Oval Office, the chance of third strike offenders being freed from prison, or what to do with the prime Marinapark land on Balboa Island, this time, they told us, we're playing for keeps. We've been deluged by the media, unable to escape the message that terrible things can and will happen if the "wrong" man wins. This was punctuated by doomsday threats from Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. Lions and tigers, and bears—oh my! You know the litany: The economy, terrorism, taxes, health care costs, gay marriages, illegal aliens, Supreme Court appointees, secure borders, better schools, stronger defense, and preserving Social Security. Not to mention a nasty foreign war, in which they got the "rockets red glare and the bombs bursting in air" part right but miscalculated picking up the pieces after the destruction. The world agrees: We're between Iraq and a hard place. Typically mild-mannered and rational voices from coast to coast were caught in the fray. They created an uproar, telling us one candidate was is an incompetent cowboy intent on making up for his father's lack of follow-through while the other was into exaggerating his courage and heroics while he rides on the (mink) coattails of his fabulously wealthy wife. Many voters have had definite opinions, while others remained ambivalent. But hardened voters who have seen it all think the differences between the candidates are substantial, even if more apparent than actual. From my view as a psychologist, this looks like the perfect set up for an emotional crash. Big expectations lead to big disappointments. If you've got a lot invested emotionally in winning and "your" candidate lost, get ready for your post-election emotional let-down—and maybe even a short-term depression. What can you do to manage your post-election let-down? First, accept that it is a normal reaction to bitter disappointment, especially if you care deeply who wins the race and believe that your own life will be drastically altered by the outcome. Expect to feel irritation and anger, which, if you are not careful, may be displaced onto those around you at work and at home. Try to identify this anger as being related to your disappointment reaction and not something that is caused by other people. You may get anxious and feel dread if you believe that your personal world is going to be negatively impacted because of who won. And you may even experience a depressive reaction lasting days, weeks or longer, where you ruminate on the miserable long-term consequences of the next four years with the "wrong" man. You may be preoccupied for the next few days or even weeks with election-related thoughts, doomsday scenarios, disgust for the system or fantasies about wanting to escape to Canada or the South Pacific. Let all of these thoughts and fantasies come and go, not feeling the need to obsess on any of them. Remember that having the thought does not make it real. Challenge your all-or-nothing thinking that the next four years will determine the future of the country or deeply impact the rest of the world. It's rarely been true before—only when great leaders collided with the destiny of circumstance and opportunity—and it won't be true now. Recall that the three branches of government were created to insure checks and balances and that many attenuating factors limit the power of one man or administration to dictate policy. We know that no matter who's in office, decisions may always lead to unintended consequences. The spiraling out of control of the Iraq war is but one example of this doctrine. Also, keep in mind that our system tends to force consensus and slows down change so that wild political swings are unlikely. Your individual life will most likely not be irrevocably shaped by the decisions of the wining candidate for the next four years, no matter what the pundits try to convince you with their rhetoric. Keep your perspective by remembering the non-political things in your life that really matter. Try not to jump too far into the future with catastrophic thinking about all the things that go wrong because of one administration's decisions. When you find your thoughts off into the future and filled with dread, bring yourself back to the present and go about the daily business of finding meaning in your own life and the lives of those you care about. To manage your post-election let-down, make sure you get enough sleep, watch your diet, and don't forget to exercise to help deal with your anger, irritation, anxiety, and despair. Lastly, make your thoughts and feelings about the election known to others by writing letters, talking to friends and family, and doing your best to gain the larger perspective that this too, shall pass. Originally published in the Daily Pilot, September 14, 2004 Terror doing its job of causing stress
It's been three years since the devastation and horror of Sept. 11,
2001. We've had three years to grieve and to recover. And, at least
outwardly, we've done a pretty good job of it. But how has our jarring
wake-up call to terrorism affected us emotionally?
As a clinical psychologist in private practice for 30 years, here's what I notice, not only in my consulting room, but in my community and culture at large. I see many of us having become more hardened and desensitized to one another than we were three years ago. The world around us seems to be getting tougher, not kinder and gentler. Of course, love, caring and sensitivity still fight the good fight to make themselves felt. But the rage and hate engendered in terrorism have clearly affected us and are showing strong resistance, especially when fueled by righteousness in all of its flavors. On the social level, I notice this in a growing number of acts of common incivility. From golfers attacking each other on the course to rage-filled drivers putting others in danger, to spouses who can't stand each other, to "reality" television that promotes lying, humiliation and manipulation, we see all kinds of examples in the news media and our entertainment &mdash'; examples of a lack of respect and concern for one another and a quickness to follow our impulses. Does this growing lack of decency have anything to do with terrorism? I think it does. I view our incivility as a defensive mechanism to survive the ongoing terror of our lives. We feel, both consciously and unconsciously, the need to defend ourselves against the helplessness we feel in the face of terrorism. And, as they like to say in the military world, "The best defense is a good offense." We have been forced to numb ourselves to the relentless acts of unconscionable cruelty and violence so that we will not become overwhelmed. We have learned to emotionally turn off, to harden our hearts, in order to maintain a semblance of control and sanity. And I would suggest that this numbing leads to incivility. How many beheadings can we tolerate? How many times will we be able to tolerate the pain of hearing about hundreds of school children dying innocently at the hands of terrorists, as they did recently in Beslan, Russia? When the agony of war drags on, at what point do we just not care anymore about politics or elections and just want to stop feeling the pain? And yet we are still on edge, still anxious, still wondering what will happen next that will test our ability to cope. We struggle against becoming too negative, too depressed, fearful or angry. We don't want to let in too much of the absurdity that we know is always lurking just around the bend. So we protect ourselves by tempering the power of the news, making sure only a tolerable measure touches our hearts. Because of this numbing, it's clear to me that three years later, we are experiencing a stress from terrorism that is insidious and yet effective. Whether we want to admit it, terrorism works. It's working on all of us, and it doesn't make us "girlie men" to admit it. Originally published in the South Florida Sun Sentinel, August 29, 2004 A generous giver shares inheritance now and later
We want to share two very different letters today. The first, edited for length and to clean up rough language, reads: "My 55-year-old son has taken up with a much younger woman who is after his money [and mine]. Sometimes I am of a mind of disinheriting him, but I have no other family. Please advise how I can make my will so this woman can't get my money, or if I can make my will contingent upon my son leaving her." The second letter, a much happier one, is from Elaine Barrist of Boca Raton, who returned from a vacation/reunion aboard a cruise ship along with her husband, Ellis; their four grown children; the children's spouses; and four school-age grandchildren. "There were 3,000 passengers and most seemed to be in family groups. ... Maybe because of 9-11, but for whatever reason, families are wanting to enjoy their time together," Barrist wrote. "Our family had a wonderful time. We feel we made an investment for our family that has enriched them more than any stocks or bonds we might leave them. We invested in family memories that will last long after we're gone. We hope we can do it again." The reader who asked the inheritance question — the only advice we'll give is to consult a lawyer — comes across as the controlling type. The Barrists strike us as a generous and loving couple, happily sharing money and time with their children. In fact, such terms as "controlling/punishing" and "generous" are used by licensed clinical psychologist Steven J. Hendlin, of Newport Beach, Calif., to describe different types of inheritance givers in his new book, Overcoming The Inheritance Taboo: How To Preserve Relationships and Transfer Possessions (Plume Trade Paperback, $14). A role we'd never like to play is the controlling type, the one who says, "If you want to see your inheritance, you'd better do what I say." "The controlling/punishing type is clearly the most detrimental," Hendlin told us. "The relationship, instead of becoming more one of equals as the children become adults, continues to be based on fear and disapproval." The children need to continue to please the parent at the risk of both emotional loss (the parent withdraws love) and financial loss (the inheritance is withdrawn). Hendlin describes other types in his book. The miser says, "It's my money and I don't have to share it with anyone." The martyr says, "My needs are small, don't worry about me." The wishful thinker keeps saying (even if it isn't true), "Don't worry about me, everything will be just fine." The squanderer boasts of spending his children's inheritance and living for the moment. Misers can make their children resent them with their stinginess. Martyrs "often can become an annoyance to live with," Hendlin said. Wishful thinkers are basically poor planners and managers of their finances. Squanderers can be perpetual or "nouveau" squanderers — the latter those who go on spending sprees in their 60s and 70s after being frugal all their lives. "It's not necessarily a bad thing from the parents' point of view," Hendlin said of those who finally spend on themselves. The danger is going too far and not having enough money left over for life's necessities, let alone leaving an inheritance. That leaves "generous" as our preferred type, those who take pleasure not only in leaving an inheritance but also in seeing their children enjoy their money while they are alive. "It is somebody who is not trying to control the children but basically a generous and loving person who wants to give from the heart," Hendlin said. (The best "receivers" are those who stand on their own two feet financially and are grateful for whatever they receive but don't feel they are "owed" any gifts or inheritance). So how do you become "generous" if you are not so inclined? "It's a good question and not simple to answer," Hendlin said. For some, it is a gradual process of change. But generally "it often takes a radical jarring for people to evaluate how they want to be with other people and how they want to spend their money." The terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001 was such a jarring event for many, Hendlin said. A serious illness or accident can have the same effect. "Something like that, a close call with death, can shake people up into thinking, `There is no sense for me to hoard my money ... I am going to enjoy sharing it while I am alive more than squirreling it away.'" Originally published in the Daily Pilot, July 28, 2004 A Cellphone Hang-Up
Don't get me wrong. I'll be the first to admit that cellphones are a
wonderful convenience. Beyond keeping us in touch in myriad important
and mundane ways, they can be a great distraction. You know what I'm
talking about, right?
Kids graduate from playing with Game Boys to playing games online on their phone, peering into the miniature screen. They sit around, downloading sports scores from the Internet, keeping themselves insulated from the dreaded state of boredom. Teenagers send instant text messages to one another, giving their opinion of the latest movie or voting for the hottest teen singing "idol" of their choice. They buy color-coordinated shells for their phones to match the clothes they wear. Have you seen those adult women who love to match their phone shell to their tennis shoes? Talk about color-coordinated! And let's not forget the latest craze - holding a walkie-talkie a foot from your face and having an instantaneous conversation across the country with one push of a button. Who wants to live without these high-tech distractions, which keep everyone occupied when they have nothing better to do? I do, that's who. The price we pay for the great convenience of cellphones is noise pollution. It's not the kind of pollution we usually think of. It's not loud and overwhelming like the jets taking off from the airport. No, it's more insidious and chronic. We are held captive, forced to listen to everyone's personal business, which we can't escape and couldn't care less about. Like it or not, cellphones have turned what used to be private conversations into everyday, public babble. When we used to hear someone muttering to himself, we thought he was probably deranged. Now we are conditioned to know he's just talking on the phone. Whether I want to, I'm forced to have to listen to you when you're in line ordering a bagel, when you're trying on clothes in a stall at Bloomingdales, sitting in a restaurant while I'm trying to have a peaceful meal, or when I'm trying to concentrate on my golf swing on the driving range when you happen to get a call from your boss. Let me tell you, I don't want to hear it! And do these conspicuous cellphone-talkers care about showing courtesy when they get these calls? Of course not. They receive a call, and they are going to take it, whether it happens to interrupt my concentration and my enjoyment of being in my own personal world. Before cellphones, we could be in public but still be with our own thoughts. I wasn't forced to listen to endless blabbing about absolutely nothing just because someone didn't want to be forced to confront his own thoughts and feelings of isolation. But now, everything is different. Some people wear cellphones like a gun on the hip, in a silly-looking little holster. And when it starts ringing, they draw it as fast as Jesse James drew his six-shooter. I've had patients who, while consulting me, jumped every time their phone went off. They felt so dependent on their phones, they refused to turn them off even during a psychotherapy session. At least I've been able to convince them to turn down the volume so as not to create a startled reaction every time it rings. All I'm really saying is give peace a chance. See what happens when you turn the thing off for a few hours. And please, when you get the message, hang up the phone. Originally published in the Daily Pilot, July 2, 2004 Leaving it all behind
Corona del Mar resident's new book encourages people to discuss estate
matters before they become issues.
Death - the last hurrah, the great mystery, the final adieu - may be the ultimate earthly presence an individual will have, but the legacy of a lifetime of accumulation and the destination of that booty can live on long after the final breath or heartbeat. Oftentimes grief is compounded by family members bickering over just who inherits what is left behind. This can lead to feelings of guilt, greed and anger - enter Dr. Steven Hendlin. Hendlin, who lives in Corona del Mar and has been in private practice focusing on psychotherapy with adults since 1976, has just released a book on the subject - his fourth - called "Overcoming the Inheritance Taboo." "My book deals with all aspects surrounding the death of a parent . grief, the need to have an estate plan or will, trust, emotional problems within the family, all of it," Hendlin said. Hendlin's contention is that many squabbles over estates start because people are conditioned to not breach the topic before the person dies. When a loved one has reached a dire stage, it is often taboo or morbid to begin talking with them about how their possessions will be split up, who they want to have what and how they want things wound up. "The best thing is to deal with these family issues of inheritance when you can and not when you have to," Hendlin said. "Emotions run high during times of crisis, and that's when a lot of deep-seated feelings come out." Those emotions can often trigger sibling rivalries that have been there all along. "People are really superstitious about dealing with inheritance," he said. "They think people will look at them as vultures if they bring it up too soon. No kind of family argument that happens is happening for the first time; the death just helps bring it to the surface." One way he pushes to help ease the tension is for parents to give possessions to children before they die. That way they can take pride in seeing their children enjoy them. Just as Hendlin was set to begin writing the book, he was faced with these issues firsthand with the death of his mother. "That was a hard time for me, and I was faced with the dilemma of whether or not to fulfill my commitment and go on writing the book or just step away from it," he said. "I think going through that experience ultimately helped me write the book." Although the book is largely targeted to more affluent families with large estates, Hendlin says the basic principles apply to everyone. "Just because a family may not have as much to divide up does not mean the same emotional attachment is not there," he said. "The same problems can creep up with every family." The book, released by Penguin/Plume Books, is available at bookstores everywhere. This article was originally published in Golf News magazine October, 1997 issue. All rights reserved. The Challenge to Measure Up
The need to "level-up" is a consistent and predictable obstacle presented in all sports, as competitors strive to achieve their highest level of performance "comfort." Either tour-level pros become "tournament tough" playing in front of large crowds with multiple distractions and attendant pressures, or they simply don't maintain at this level for very long. This is pro golf's version of the survival of the mentally and emotionally fittest. One reason a player may have difficulty "measuring up" is that he may question whether he "belongs" at the next higher level in terms of his talent. It is easy for those who may feel like big fish in a relatively small pond to entertain debilitating self-doubt thoughts when swimming in the company of bigger, more talented fish in a larger and much more visible pond. Over the years I have known dozens of players who had highly proficient shot-making ability, short-game skills, and were able to shoot low scores. They had proven themselves in high school, college, state or national amateur com-petition. They had much of what it took to qualify for and maintain on the "big-time" professional golf tour. And a few who I played against as a kid actually did made it and had some success on the tour. But what most of them ended up not having was the psychological self-knowledge and emotional temperament to be able to perform under the fierce pressure that is part of this environment. They just couldn't cope with the stress and strain of earning a living under this kind of intense daily pressure. And so, at some point, they would be forced to give up their dream of playing on the PGA Tour, and have to settle for dropping to lower levels of competition. Some became teaching pros or ran the pro shop at a country club. Some "stayed in the game" by becoming sales representatives for equipment companies. Others found a way to earn a living outside of golf. Most found it tough to admit they just couldn't make the grade and move on.
There are various demarcated levels of competition, and then nested levels of performance success within the main levels. Each broad level of play (for example local, regional, state, national for amateurs; state "mini-tours," regional tours, European and Asian tours, Nike Tour, PGA tour for male pros) may be assigned a greater degree of importance by the player. The higher the importance attributed, the corresponding higher degree of nervousness and felt pressure may be hypothesized to exist during any given tournament at that level. The recognition of levels of competition is important to understand why a skilled amateur or professional will perform well at one level but not as well when pushed up to the next level. If a player consciously or unconsciously believes he is out of his element of performance comfort and skill, added pressure will be one result. For example, there are some pros who play well in small tournaments in various regional "mini-tours" with players who are good but at least a notch or two below PGA Tour mastery. As long as these players compete in these smaller tournaments (less money offered, smaller or nonexistent crowds, less glitzy event, and less skilled players) they perform reasonably well. But should they qualify to play in a larger tournament, like a PGA Tour event or the U.S. Open, the new environment will create added pressure, making it difficult for them to "measure up" to this higher level. All professional golfers who play the game for a living are aware of these levels and sooner or later, figure out where they stand. It is safe to say, however, that almost all pros currently competing believe they are capable of moving to the next level. It is this belief and hope that keeps some competing for years despite little or no success. Even when one is able to make it to the PGA Tour, there continue to be nested levels of achievement that distinguish the players. So, a player may be skilled enough to make it through the rigorous qualifying rounds to get his Tour card for one year, but unable to perform well enough (i.e., be in the top 125 of money earnings) over that year to keep his privileges. At the next level is the pro who can win enough money to keep his tour card but is unable to ever contend to win a tournament. A few top 10 or top 5 finishes become his best showings. The next level might be the player who can finish in the top five when playing well, makes a lot of money, and is periodically "in the hunt" to win on the final day, but is unable to break through and win. One notch up would be the player who occasionally wins a tournament but is unable to contend for a major championship. Or contends for a major but is unable to ever secure victory. It should be noted that a player who wins ten or more tournaments in a whole career is a very well-respected player and in the minority. This benchmark indicates how tough it is to win very many tournaments against the best in the world. We are now approaching the higher altitudes of pro tournament golf. The next level includes those who were able to win one or two major championships over a career, perhaps a handful of lesser tournaments, and are considered to be in the upper echelon of players. A few dozen players over the decades would fall into this group. As the air continues to thin, we have those "near greats" who won more than one major championship, have won numerous lesser tournament titles, and became "name" players to the golfing and sporting public during their respective eras. In this group, we might include players from the past like Walter Hagen, Jimmy Demaret, Cary Middlecoff, Lloyd Mangrum, and current senior players like Billy Casper, Gene Littler, Lee Trevino, Raymond Floyd, Hale Irwin and Johnny Miller. We would also include such current players as Tom Watson, Greg Norman, Nick Faldo, Seve Ballesteros and maybe Nick Price. The penultimate level would be reserved for that handful of players who, thorough major championship performance, total number of tournaments won, money list standing over the years, and shotmaking ability as assessed by their peers, are considered to be the greats of all time. In this rarefied group we would find Gene Sarazen, Byron Nelson, Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, and Ben Hogan. Arnold Palmer holds an honored place as not only one of the best ever but as the most colorful, electrifying player of his time and the single most influential figure to the growth of the game in the modern era. And, at the top of the heap, we would co-crown as "greatest to ever play the game," Jack Nicklaus and Ben Hogan. Nicklaus would clearly stand out for all-time tournament performance records and playing longevity. And Hogan would get the nod for the best shotmaker who ever lived and for, arguably, the greatest sports comeback of all-time after severe injury. (Curiously enough, Hogan died at age 84 as I was completing this article.) I might add that Tiger Woods, despite just beginning his pro career, appears capable of making it into at least the penultimate group. That is, if he is able to continue on his current trajectory without alien abduction, major injury, or loss of motivation. In twenty five years or so we will be in a better position to judge. He may also end up rivaling Palmer as most able to influence the future popularity of the game. Originally published in Golf News magazine, July, 1996. All rights reserved. Putting Improvement is a Breath Away
We all know what it's like to stand over a five foot putt when the
pressure is on and the putt really matters: doubt-thoughts tend to
sneak in, nervous twitches take over, the hands begin to tremble, and
all we're aware of is our heart beating through our chest. How can we
increase our chances of successfully coping with the pressure so that
we can sink more of these putts?
Most of us are unconscious of our breathing pattern when we stroke a putt. You can ask 10 players of all skill levels where their breath is and they will all give your a puzzled look as if to say, "Who cares about my breath? It's already tough enough thinking about pace and line!" But I contend that the relationship between our breath and stroking a putt really does matter. What I have discovered is that the body tends to relax if the putt is stroked after an exhalation of air. Especially on shorter putts, in the range of two to eight feet, you want to eliminate as much nervous body movement as possible and to be completely focused on a smooth stroke. Because short range putts tend to create more doubt-thoughts and anxiety than longer putts, working with the breath is particularly important on these putts. The first step is simply to become aware of your breathing pattern when you stroke your putts in your usual manner. Many players tend to inhale and hold their breath before taking the putter back and exhale either as they make contact with the ball or after contact. This will only result in making the heart beat faster. Some inhale as they take the putter back. Just notice your own pattern. The second step is to practice making your stroke from a distance of five feet but without a ball. After you have done your pre-putt routine but just before you take the club back, consciously exhale through your nose in a pronounced way to make sure you get all the air out of your lungs. You should make a slightly audible sound as you exhale. This will give you an immediate sensation of "letting go" and a feeling of relaxation. Then, with the lungs empty, make your stroke. Do not inhale until after the stroke is completed. Practice this numerous times without a ball to develop a sense of the rhythm of exhaling and then making your stroke. The third step is to practice with three balls from the same distance. Do not worry about whether the ball drops, as the point is to begin to feel the natural rhythm of this sequence. What this sequence does is give you an anchor — the exhalation and sense of letting go signal readiness to stroke the putt. This routine will counter the common tendency to hold your breath under pressure. The result of practicing this routine for at least a couple of weeks is that the sequence will gradually become second nature. You will no longer need to consciously think about exhaling before you stroke, as it will occur on its own. Then begin to apply this method to longer putts and watch your putts stay more consistent and pure. |
