What Would Jack Nicklaus Shoot if.....

[mvmac]

By defect he is meaning a very glaring physical limitation. Like lets say the guy has a herniated disk or maybe had an accident to his knee. 
The OP was probably talking about your typical middle aged hacker on the course who can't break 100. 

Yep.

Given this criteria, what would any golfer shoot if he only hit 190 off the tee, missed every green, hit a few OB, hit plenty of fat and thin shots. Not sure it makes a difference who's brain is in that body, he still can't break 100. 

That's the point trying to be made 

The mechanics/swing/ballstriking are far more important to score than mental game. A 5 handicap is better than a 15 handicapper because of his ballstriking, not because of his mental game. 

Human beings all have basically the same muscle groups, the same anatomic assembly, etc. But I don't think that was the question the OP was asking....he wasn't asking a science question, he was trying to illustrate his beliefs about the mental aspects of golf.

Right. We have a golfer who can't break 100, wave a magic wand so that his mental game is perfect for 1 round, he has a shot of breaking 100 but no way is he going to shoot in the 80's or 70's.

[nevets88]

Of course motor coordination is stored of brain.Those movement instructions have to get to the body part accurately, quickly. That wiring is in the body. Amateur's wiring is 5 times slower than Nicklaus's for instance. And loses 25% of original instructions vs none for JN. 

[iacas]

One more point, regarding some of the other responses...motor movements are stored in the brain, not in muscles. Learning a motor movement means that the brain has automated a complex series of neuronal activities.

This applies:

Of course motor coordination is stored of brain.Those movement instructions have to get to the body part accurately, quickly. That wiring is in the body. Amateur's wiring is 5 times slower than Nicklaus's for instance. And loses 25% of original instructions vs none for JN. 

Additionally…

The mechanics/swing/ballstriking are far more important to score than mental game. A 5 handicap is better than a 15 handicapper because of his ballstriking, not because of his mental game. 

Right. We have a golfer who can't break 100, wave a magic wand so that his mental game is perfect for 1 round, he has a shot of breaking 100 but no way is he going to shoot in the 80's or 70's.

Right.

I've never seen anyone take time off from playing golf and just work on their mental conditioning and "strength" and so on and come back and immediately play significantly better golf.

Furthermore, if I stop playing golf, but think about it every day for 5 years, I'm going to play worse (likely significantly so) than I am playing right now. The club will feel foreign to me, shots will not be as fine tuned, my sense of touch will not be there.

Nor would the Hacker Jack's touch be there, etc. His body would feel and seem foreign to the Jack Brain.

This thread reminds me of this:

[natureboy]

yes. Do you believe that was considered by op or that the intent is all else being equal jacks brain 101 golfers body and the body and brain are compatible?  That is how I am reading the question. Otherwise the answer is no because because jacks brain couldn't regulate anything and the golfer would be a vegetable with a great golfing mind no one can access

see below

The age stuff is getting off-topic. The gist of those pages, the way I'm interpreting it, is connections are important.

You want to lift your hand 2 inches above the table. So you think - move hand this much so. But that thought has to go through pathways to the arm and hand in order to do so. How accurately those pathways work to convey 2 inches above the table makes a difference. If info is lost along the way, forget about 2 inch accuracy. Now for a super complex motion like the golf swing, those pathways have to be super accurate in retaining information, super fast and super coordinated. I'm in agreement w/OP that score isn't going to change much. I'm just trying to understand the science of it. I'm certainly not an expert, so I may be expressing myself incoherently.

 

see below

 

I think of it in terms of the matrix. Jacks brain is stored on a disk and downloaded. Keanu wakes up and instead of saying "I know Kung fu" he says "I am a really great golfer". Larry fishbourne hands him a sunday bag with 7 clubs and some golf balls and says show me. And although at first he isnt Bruce lee  he certainly isn't looking like us when we were 10 and thought we were ninjas. 

These are fair points about the OP intent I hadn't thought about. If the OP intent was to assume a perfect brain body connection with no transfer problems like 'Spock's Brain' or Matrix, I would say that FrankenJack is neurologically 80% the golfer jack was with poorer flexibility and physical conditioning - so maybe 60% of his full ability. The cerebellum damage studies indicate that physical coordination and error correction ability is mostly in the brain. There aren't a lot of stories of human bodies walking around without heads a la chickens. If you want to think in real world terms then a brain that has developed and pruned pathways over a lifetime with a particular body then there is no way FrankenJack doesn't shoot worse let alone get out of bed.

My response is now in a Schrodinger quantum state of both 'worse' and shooting in the 80's awaiting some better science on the topic to collapse the waveform.

Maybe that was your intention, but I don't think the post illustrates that point.

The post only begs the question of what, exactly, the mental game IS. One's answers in this poll reflect their opinion or bias on that question.

In your original post, you specify that all Jack's mind can do is "make decisions" for the golfer. That is your definition of the mental game, and you further add, that such decision making can't "override" poor swing habits, etc. Set up this way, with these biases or assumptions, you could only draw one conclusion.

But I don't share your belief - and I don't think it's been proven - that all the mind does is "make decisions" for the golfer, decisions such as (I presume you mean) club selection, target, etc., and I'm not sure that an expert mind which knew how to golf at a world class level couldn't, to some degree, override crappy swing habits and mechanics.

My answer to the original question would be that the 100 shooter would be "better than average" with the benefit of Jack's brain. Predicting one round? I don't know....can we predict what Rory is going to shoot on his next round? I think with a pro's brain captaining your ship, you are likely, over say 20 rounds, to play the best golf of your life. You'd have more rounds closer to your all time best than ever before, and fewer blow up rounds than you would ordinarily have over that time period. Exactly how much better? Again, you can't answer it. I can think of three 18 handicappers at my club who usually shoot one round per year either in the high 70s or low 80s, and I know of other 14-15 handicappers who never shoot less than 83 or 84. I guess you specified a golfer who "can't break 100," so the scores would be unlikely to dip much lower than 100, but the point is the scoring average would be better than what the golfer is used to.

One more point, regarding some of the other responses...motor movements are stored in the brain, not in muscles. Learning a motor movement means that the brain has automated a complex series of neuronal activities. Automated in that when we walk, we can continue to do it as long as we wish, and relatively "correctly" without having to think about the separate parts of the movement ("ok, lift my left foot...now push off with my right...swing the right leg back...."). So in reality, if we had some sort of "Star Trek" ability to actually transplant Jack Nicklaus's brain into one of our bodies, most likely we would be able to play very good golf, right away. If we use the analogy of a computer, learned movements are like software code or subroutines which we have. We have to write the routine and debug it to make sure it works, but once it's there, it works well....and it resides in the computer (the brain) and not in the peripheral device that the routine controls. Of course every body is different, and we wouldn't expect Jack's "software" to produce the same product from your muscles that they produced from his, but they would likely still be very good results. Human beings all have basically the same muscle groups, the same anatomic assembly, etc. But I don't think that was the question the OP was asking....he wasn't asking a science question, he was trying to illustrate his beliefs about the mental aspects of golf.

Good points. Good post.

As Ben Hogan once said, "My muscles don't have memory, they do what I tell 'em." Though I do think there is definitely some neuromuscular training in the body as well as the mind, but I would expect it to be 20% body to 80% brain.

[sirhacksalot]

I think we basically agree, I think "Jack Brain" would make a run at breaking 100.

That's the thing with this kind of golfer, there is no pattern, there is no "I'll aim 20 yards left and fade it back to the target" because you don't know what shot is coming. Could be a big pull, a slice or a shot he duffs 20 yards.

Right, the body type isn't the biggest obstacle, it's that he's in the body of a guy that can't hit the ball solid.

Golfer before didnt hit greens etc. but I think Jack brain would over come this.  I have played golf with a guy who opens the face about twenty degrees and swings like he is aiming just left of his left foot, and the ball always goes straight. I think Jack would find a shot quickly that would work all day for his new body after hitting those bucket of balls. I think he would break 90 and shoot in the 80's.  That being said anything under 85 with bandaid swing would probably be a stretch 

[mvmac]

Hopefully it's pretty clear now but obviously the point of the thread isn't to discuss a "Matrix-like" transfer of the brain or the possibility that Jack could use his "muscle memory" to override the bad golfer's mechanical swing faults.

I did reference a post having to do with the mental game in the OP 

If the hacker's mental game dramatically improved (thanks Jack) he might have a shot at breaking 100 but he's certainly not shooting in the 80's or 70's.

[Gator Hazard]

Hopefully it's pretty clear now but obviously the point of the thread isn't to discuss a "Matrix-like" transfer of the brain or the possibility that Jack could use his "muscle memory" to override the bad golfer's mechanical swing faults.

I did reference a post having to do with the mental game in the OP 

If the hacker's mental game dramatically improved (thanks Jack) he might have a shot at breaking 100 but he's certainly not shooting in the 80's or 70's.

I get that, but I don't see the relevance of the post if that is the case.  You could have illustrated your point the same by saying if you put Jack's brain in a ginger bread house.  One cannot assume that there is trauma, neurological deficiencies due to putting the brain into a different host body, etc.  If that is the case then of course the golfer (now a vegetable) is not going to break a 100.  But if you replace the brain, a brain belonging to an assumed healthy enough body to golf near 100 (as they are a golfer, a golfer who "cannot break 100") there is just too much similarity, that body doesn't have all the precise fine tuning and motor memory of Jack, but it does have some and it does know how to make some contact and move the ball as that body golfs a fair amount to get even to 105-110 (I am not there yet, but I can still hit the ball pretty far a lot of times).  Jack's brain knows the small details better on what is wrong with set up, selection, grip pressure, hand placement, keeping head still and staying over the ball, not swaying etc.

Being able to deal with anticipation, expectations, shooting well and keeping composure and not blowing it due to nerves, etc. etc. etc........... I still think that Jack's brain in an otherwise healthy body of a golfer who cannot break 100 is going to fare much better.  Your original post mentions that the golfer is reasonably healthy and with no issues.  A large part of the reason this golfer may only hit it 190 could very well have to do with how they hold the club and how they approach the shots that take the 100s player several swings to get out of a bad spot as opposed to Jacks one or two.

I understand the point you were trying to make but I don't think this was a good example (and I respect you and your golf knowledge very, very much); I just believe that barring all of these extraneous factors, such as said golfer has stitches on his head and corks on the side of his neck, is 7 feet tall wearing boots, and freaks out at the sight of fire (HAPPY HALLOWEEN EVERYONE!), this golfer is quite capable of shooting a noticeably lower score, 16 strokes (105-89) is one stroke saved per hole roughly.  I think that is plausible.  

Having said all of that, I do agree with you that the mental side of the game is not as big of a factor as many would say, but I think that is far more apparent when you are talking about people in groupings that are more homogeneous like golfers in the scratch category or even golfers with a 10 handicap or better.  At that point, sure, because the diminishing returns due to approaching the physical limits of what can be done in terms of golf.

 

Edited October 30, 2015 by Gator Hazard

[Lihu]

I get that, but I don't see the relevance of the post if that is the case.  You could have illustrated your point the same by saying if you put Jack's brain in a ginger bread house.  One cannot assume that there is trauma, neurological deficiencies due to putting the brain into a different host body, etc.  If that is the case then of course the golfer (now a vegetable) is not going to break a 100.  But if you replace the brain, a brain belonging to an assumed healthy enough body to golf near 100 (as they are a golfer, a golfer who "cannot break 100") there is just too much similarity, that body doesn't have all the precise fine tuning and motor memory of Jack, but it does have some and it does know how to make some contact and move the ball as that body golfs a fair amount to get even to 105-110 (I am not there yet, but I can still hit the ball pretty far a lot of times).  Jack's brain knows the small details better on what is wrong with set up, selection, grip pressure, hand placement, keeping head still and staying over the ball, not swaying etc.

You could get all those things to "feel" like they're right, but then shank one ball and hit another one pure. You could tense a tiny bit on the grip, sway an inch or two the wrong way, or whatever. . .

I was thinking exactly the same thing as you were, but now that I understand what Mike is getting at.

The way I am seeing it now is that higher handicaps generally do have Jack's "mental game", but lack the skills to carry out a good swing.

For instance, I see a lot of high handicap golfers on the range and even on the course that think they are capable of hitting good shots because they happened to make great contact on that one lucky shot with the same bad swing that made all their bad shots. It's the con that makes them think that they are capable of getting the millisecond timing they need with their swings to reproduce that perfect shot. They think that they are capable of making good shots and have higher confidence in their skill than a lower handicap with theirs. The mishits they make are 40 yard rollers, then a nice 140 yard shot every 10th shot or so that doesn't even go where they wanted. Yet, they feel like the 140 yard shot is their true potential.

I see that as having a superior "mental game", but lacking all the skills commensurate to that mental level.

Whereas, lower handicaps have way less confidence, but tend to make most of their shots much closer to where they want. They don't always have the flights and distances they want, but generally stay in play. The better the player the less confident they are at making their targets. Part of it is because they expect to get closer, but also part of it is because they know that any shot could go very wrong as well for no obvious reason.

So, my new assertion is that Jack's high level thinking mental game is exactly what most higher handicaps already have. They think there is no good reason why they make bad shots.

[iacas]

I think some people took this the wrong way.

@mvmac was simply asking what you'd shoot if you had Jack's mental game. Meaning game planning, "mental toughness," etc. It's not about how biologically this whole thing would work and whether Jack's brain could "control" the golfer to make him swing like a slightly less capable Jack Nicklaus swing.

So, I blame Mike for a badly worded question!   

[LagShaft]

 

 

Yep.

That's the point trying to be made 

The mechanics/swing/ballstriking are far more important to score than mental game. A 5 handicap is better than a 15 handicapper because of his ballstriking, not because of his mental game. 

Right. We have a golfer who can't break 100, wave a magic wand so that his mental game is perfect for 1 round, he has a shot of breaking 100 but no way is he going to shoot in the 80's or 70's.

Bad Mike Bad!!! Lol I don't have a problem with the question or the conversation it was enjoyable but It doesn't portray the mental game it the way that I perceive the mental game.  I absolutely agree that swing mechanics are the most important aspect of the game but I don't believe that there is any reason that working on mechanics can't parallel a good mental game.  My point comes more from the perspective of dreading or being excited about your next shot...Sure I hit it into the rough but this next shot is going to be good...the reality is that they seldom are with out good mechanics but ones shouldn't approach their next shot with the attitude that their swing sucks so they'll probably duff it too.  I'll never be a PGA player but with a good attitude my rounds are a lot more enjoyable and I swing a lot more freely and maybe hit a few shots that I can be proud of as opposed to reinforcing the negative and running myself down for the blading a shot over the green(or hitting a putt a little to hard as I like to refer to it) last time out I turned around an chipped in for par and had fun with it.  But again I believe there is no substitute for good mechanics, I just thought the thread lacked a little bit of insight and understanding of  what an anxious golfer might go through when they approach the tee box.

I think some people took this the wrong way.

@mvmac was simply asking what you'd shoot if you had Jack's mental game. Meaning game planning, "mental toughness," etc. It's not about how biologically this whole thing would work and whether Jack's brain could "control" the golfer to make him swing like a slightly less capable Jack Nicklaus swing.

So, I blame Mike for a badly worded question!   

The second quote should have been to only quote lol I still suck at this posting stuff... Damnit Jim I'm a builder not a writer lol

Edited October 30, 2015 by LagShaft

[natureboy]

Hopefully it's pretty clear now but obviously the point of the thread isn't to discuss a "Matrix-like" transfer of the brain or the possibility that Jack could use his "muscle memory" to override the bad golfer's mechanical swing faults.

I did reference a post having to do with the mental game in the OP 

If the hacker's mental game dramatically improved (thanks Jack) he might have a shot at breaking 100 but he's certainly not shooting in the 80's or 70's.

I'd agree with that assertion, but the other stuff was fun to consider and discuss. I think i's a good thread for that reason even if responses weren't quite what you had intended.

 

@Lihu I don't think it's necessarily a 'con' that makes higher handicaps take on low percentage shots. If you don't challenge yourself to try them sometimes, it is far less likely you will ever progress enough to hit tougher shots consistently. Plus it can be part of the fun of golf. Some rounds I want to see how low I can score. Some rounds I don't really care as much about the score if I pull off a few really good and challenging shots.

Edited October 30, 2015 by natureboy

[LagShaft]

I'd agree with that assertion, but the other stuff was fun to consider and discuss. I think i's a good thread for that reason even if responses weren't quite what you had intended.

 

@Lihu I don't think it's necessarily a 'con' that makes higher handicaps take on low percentage shots. If you don't challenge yourself to try them sometimes, it is far less likely you will ever progress enough to hit tougher shots consistently. Plus it can be part of the fun of golf. Some rounds I want to see how low I can score. Some rounds I don't really care as much about the score if I pull off a few really good and challenging shots.

I agree it's not a con...I highly doubt that young Jack when he was learning approached the game with dread or apprehension.  But an over confident approach could also be a disability ie. Bad mental game.

[nevets88]

I have to apologize for rat holing into the science-y stuff. I got what @mvmac was getting at but I took the hypothetical too literally. 

[LagShaft]

I have to apologize for rat holing into the science-y stuff. I got what @mvmac was getting at but I took the hypothetical too literally. 

I enjoyed your posts and learned something nevets88 so I call it a net win.

[iacas]

I absolutely agree that swing mechanics are the most important aspect of the game but I don't believe that there is any reason that working on mechanics can't parallel a good mental game.

Nobody (that I can see) has said to work on your swing mechanics only or your mental game only. Though, I will say two little things:

1. The mental game is easily an SV① skill.
2. The mental game "improves" as your full swing mechanics improve. It's virtually impossible to feel good about a tee shot if you haven't hit a good one in a few weeks.

2a would be "If you shoot in the 100s, even if you feel good about a tee shot you'll probably not hit a very good drive."

[Lihu]

I'd agree with that assertion, but the other stuff was fun to consider and discuss. I think i's a good thread for that reason even if responses weren't quite what you had intended.

 

@Lihu I don't think it's necessarily a 'con' that makes higher handicaps take on low percentage shots. If you don't challenge yourself to try them sometimes, it is far less likely you will ever progress enough to hit tougher shots consistently. Plus it can be part of the fun of golf. Some rounds I want to see how low I can score. Some rounds I don't really care as much about the score if I pull off a few really good and challenging shots.

Con in this case means simply to dupe yourself into thinking you can easily repeat a good shot with a bad swing.

BTW, low percentage shots are fun, but you have to be careful not use the score for your handicap. That's one of the reasons I like practice rounds.

[natureboy]

BTW, low percentage shots are fun, but you have to be careful not use the score for your handicap.

Says who? Does taking on a risky shot invalidate a PGA tour win or loss? Intentionally failing or flubbing shots would be against the principles of the game, but there is no rule that says you have to play every shot conservatively. Risk / reward choices are part of the game.

I could take an approach someone recommended to just hit like 3 seven irons (plus a wedge) down a par 5 to protect my chance at bogey and irons off every par 4. Next year, I'll probably try it to see what kind of score I get (irons are more consistent than driver). But I was more than okay to lose a few balls in the process of building technique and confidence to where I could finally play a round with that aggressive strategy, but still not lose a ball. I had to to make up for my terrible short game.  Lost balls still happen, but my percentage continues to drop. Does it make my scoring less consistent, yes. But I am looking at my long term progress as well as my enjoyment from the game. It's really fun to hit long shots well. While I'm still quite inconsistent, the long game has improved measurably since I've started.

Edited October 31, 2015 by natureboy

[LagShaft]

Nobody (that I can see) has said to work on your swing mechanics only or your mental game only. Though, I will say two little things:

1. The mental game is easily an SV① skill.
2. The mental game "improves" as your full swing mechanics improve. It's virtually impossible to feel good about a tee shot if you haven't hit a good one in a few weeks.

2a would be "If you shoot in the 100s, even if you feel good about a tee shot you'll probably not hit a very good drive."

Well if someone walks up to their tee shot with tense muscles and shallow breathing they will not hit the same shot that they may have hit numerous times at the range you'd probably call them range rats.  As with many other things I agree that it will improve with time effort and preparation but it could also inhibit progress if dismissed or not dealt with.  I understand that you've played with a guy that blamed his entire lack of game on his mind but those people are both rare and extreme.  So far almost every thread I've seen on this site that discusses this subject has been met with dismissive tones and a thread that basically states that I could put Jack Nicklaus' mind in your body and you'd still suck because the mental game doesn't matter comes across as a complete lack of understanding on the subject.  I think simply stating that the mental game is a factor but should not be overstated and that there is no substitute for good swing mechanics would be a far more marketable than uh huh and whatever type comments.  Just my thoughts and for what it's worth I'm glad you've stated you thoughts more clearly in the quoted post.