With Winning In Mind 3rd Ed. __EXCLUSIVE__
In 1972, at the Munich Germany Olympic Games, Lanny Bassham failed in his attempt to win the Gold Medal in International Rifle Shooting. He had a mental failure resulting in his taking the Silver instead. He had not mentally prepared for the Olympic Pressure and chocked in the most important competition of his life. Frustrated, Lanny wanted to take a course in controlling the mind under pressure. After looking for such a seminar and not finding satisfaction, Bassham began to interview Olympic Gold Medalists to discover what they were doing differently to win.
With Winning in Mind 3rd Ed.
What he discovered was truly remarkable. Bassham created a system of mental control he calls Mental Management. Within the next six years Lanny Bassham dominated his sport, winning 22 world individual and team titles, setting 4 world records and winning the coveted Olympic Gold Medal in Montreal in 1976.
How many times have you heard: "Golf is 90% mental"? For years golfers have either heard this statement but how do you address the mental side of the game? If it's so important, why aren't there any teachers out there? Well, your search is over. With Winning in Mind can provide you with a roadmap to follow that will allow you to play up to your physical potential. He is the best mental coach on the PGA Tour today and his principles are timeless. Cameron Doan PGA teaching pro of the year.
Parenting Champions is a book designed to help parents of competitive children/teens learn how they can be better mental coaches for their children. Parents are the first and most important mental coach a child has in their life, yet parents are not taught how to help their competitive child build their mental toughness for sport, or any other competitive environment. This book helps equip parents with understanding the mental game, and how they can better help their children grow.
CrossFit trainer Ben Bergeron has helped build the world's fittest athletes, but he's not like other coaches. He believes that greatness is not for the elite few; that winning is a result, not a goal; and that character, not talent, is what makes a true champion. His powerful philosophy can help anyone excel at all aspects of life. Using the dramatic competition between the top contenders at the 2016 Reebok CrossFit Games as a background, Ben explores the step-by-step process of achieving excellence and the unique set of positive character traits necessary for leveling up to world-class. The mindset and methodology that have produced some of the greatest athletes in the world's most grueling sport can work equally well for golfers, lawyers, artists, entrepreneurs - anyone who's willing to commit totally to becoming better than the best.
In Organize Tomorrow Today (OTT), two of the top minds in human performance come together to deliver the pathway to extreme success: Doing more is not the answer, and Selk and Bartow walk you through how to achieve more by doing less. Together, Selk and Bartow reveal the secrets of how both elite athletes and business leaders climb to the top. Selk and Bartow offer the eight fundamentals of doing what is most important. OTT will show you the performance gains that athletes, executives, and salespeople spend tens of thousands of dollars to achieve.
This is a great book for anyone interested in having a consistent mental performance under pressure. The book, used by PGA Tour winners, will give you an introduction to mental management and is packed with techniques for competitors. Learn how performance is a function of three mental processes, how to control the mind under pressure, and how to train for competition.
In their complaint, plaintiffs, in part, allege that the article "* * * is replete with statements that are false, misleading, or flip, which defame Plaintiff by holding him up to public ridicule as a stupid, awkward and incompetent person and portrays him as a crass, materialistic, selfish and thoughtless businessman, interested in nothing in life but business. * * *"
Plaintiffs do not dispute the public interest in the decision of this Court in Walsh v. Sellers.[3] However, they claim that the aforesaid privileges were lost because of the improper way in which Time unfairly and inaccurately portrays plaintiff in a "slanted", "smart alecky" and "flippant" manner with a reckless disregard of the actual facts caused by defendant's failure to properly check out the story.
After argument and careful consideration of the motion, with its attached materials, the article and the pertinent law, it is the opinion of the Court that the article comes within the common law and constitutional privileges previously set forth.
We disagree with the plaintiff's contention that the article loses its privilege by reason of the alleged "flippant" and "smart alecky" style of writing which was utilized by Time to create reader interest. Even such a respected periodical as United States Law Week, sometimes adds "color" to enliven an otherwise routine and dull account of a legal decision.[4]
The two outstanding points of reader interest in the article are the unusual flight of the ball and the legal decision that the defense of assumption of risk was inapplicable under the particular facts. We think this decision qualifies as a matter of public interest and comes within the New York Times rule requiring the plaintiff to prove "actual malice" on the part of the defendant.
The supporting affidavits attached to the motion together with the depositions and answers to interrogatories, manifestly demonstrate the complete lack of any knowledge of the falsity of the article or reckless disregard of the truth on the part of Time's employees. The plaintiff has submitted no affidavits to the contrary and, so, has failed to offer evidence of the existence of any genuine issue of actual malice.
Additionally, plaintiff imputes a defamatory meaning to statements in the article which allegedly infer that plaintiff was "crass", "thoughtless", "stupid" and thereby "wilfully" struck his partner with the errant shot.
We are not persuaded that such a tortured construction of the fair and accepted meaning of the statements[5] can be squared with ordinary common sense. Such language could only offend a person of the most highly developed sensibilities. The fact that Time could not know what was on Sellers' mind when he hit the shot does not render Time's conclusion defamatory.[6] "* * * Such a statement is merely an expression of the opinion of him who makes it. Its truth or falsity is probably not even susceptible of proof."[7]
[2] In order to overcome this privilege plaintiff must prove with "convincing clarity" that the statement was false and that it was made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of whether it was false or true. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964).
A kindly old grandfather who sold his 10-year-old grandson a horsie, or at least a piece of one, is slapped by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit with a $37,000 tax bill on the horsie's winnings at grown-up places like Arlington Park. (Greer v. United States, 6 Cir., 408 F.2d 631, 3/21/69).
The grandfather insisted that only after the 10-year-old called him and asked to buy a `racing interest' in the horse Ridandid he sell a one-fifth piece of the action to both the boy and his five-year-old brother for $550 each. The precocious tykes may have had one eye on the racing form, since on the day of the transfer the horse was the odds-on favorite to win a $127,000 race three days later. He won it, and kept on winning for two more years, and the court just can't quite call the whole affair an arms'-length deal.
The taxpayer doesn't fare any better in trying to convince the court to allow capital gains treatment for insurance proceeds on a foal that only lived five days. The foal was carried by its dam for 11 months, the court observes, but it wasn't held by the owner for more than six months within the meaning of the statutory requirement. `It is not enough to conjure up a hypothetical course of dealing in unborn foals' to satisfy the standard. Besides, the court adds, reductio ad absurdum is clearly applicable: suppose the mare miscarried seven months after conception, but four months before birth. A foetus may be aborted, but it isn't depreciated in the eyes of the court, even if it was an en ventre sa mere for over six months" (Page 2575) (emphasis ours).
The issue in regards to voting is that how the brain decides to catalog and store the information can create an unconscious bias influencing our decisions without the full awareness, recognition, and cooperation of our conscious mind. "The job of the hidden brain is to leap to conclusions. This is why people cannot tell you why one politician looks more competent than another, or why one job candidate seems more qualified than another. They just have a feeling, an intuition." 25 When you vote, are you consciously aware of the influence of your hidden brain? Me either. 041b061a72