Golf's Mental Game Aspect

[Jack Watson]

@Vinsk  please read

https://www.buzzfeed.com/reeveswiedeman/the-inner-game-of-everything-why-is-a-four-decade-old-tennis?utm_term=.nnw7eB9jQD#.qenxvOVnwD

Pete Carrol advocates a tennis book?

Edited October 7, 2017 by Jack Watson

[Runnin]

On 10/5/2017 at 8:06 AM, jamo said:

Speaking only for myself, the mental aspect of golf is one I struggle with quite a bit. I always have to an extent - I remember being a little kid, I basically grew up playing this par 3 course where the last two holes had water, and just thinking about the water basically guaranteed I'd hit the ball into it. (Oddly, I don't struggle with this particular issue at all anymore.)

Throughout high school and ever since (I play in a men's league through work, the occasional scramble here or there, and I was going to play in the CT State Public Links this year until work travel got in the way) I've pretty consistently played much better by myself or in a casual round with friends than in tournaments, even when I'm taking the practice round completely seriously, playing strictly by the rules, putting everything in, etc.

I get awful first tee jitters. In about a third of my league matches this season I topped my opening drive so badly it didn't even go 100 yards (relatedly, the first tee anxiety has always made me loathe any opening shot where I can't hit driver). 

If I'm just playing with friends (all of whom I'm much better at golf than) I make sure to take myself and my play extremely casually, otherwise I get too hard on myself and stop enjoying it. (I also don't want to look like an egotistical, ungrateful asshole when I'm still beating them by a few strokes every hole.)

One of my biggest frustrations the last few years has been that I just don't have the time to play and especially practice like I used to (I've also got some different priorities, admittedly). My handicap this year in my league was 3 for 9 holes, so it's not like I'm terrible, I'm just much less consistent. The struggle is that I still expect myself to be able to play nearly scratch golf, and tend to get frustrated when that doesn't happen. 

If I've got a strength it's that I don't spend too much time complaining about things I can't control - bad bounces, wind, hitting a spike mark, etc. (It's also possible that's actually a weakness because I tend to be pretty hard on myself for the things I can control.) My memory also isn't such that I only remember bad shots and not the good ones. If anything, one good shot can have a much bigger impact than one bad one - the bad one tends to just challenge me into trying to salvage a good score. 

Sometimes I think about quitting golf, if only because it would be nice to not have the anxiety and the self-flagellation in my life. But I do enjoy it on balance, and it's nice to be good at something, y'know? I actually had the lowest handicap in my division in my men's league (out of about 100 players I think), so that's something. For a while I was hesitant to join because I knew I'd be one of the better players, and I didn't want the pressure and expectations that come with that (a feeling I still get when I have a poor round). 

Anyway, I'm not even sure this post was what this thread was looking for. Felt nice to type though. 

P.S. Despite this all, I completely agree that golf is much much more physical than mental. 

In college, several of my best rounds came after I topped the first tee shot and hacked it all the way through the first hole. It seemed to shock me into settling down and playing well from then on and perhaps kept me from getting complacent, which I have a tendency to do.  Conversely, bad rounds often came after nailing the first tee shot down the middle.  But maybe that's just the nature of golf.  Now I've lived long enough not take 2 or 3 good holes for granted and know the wheels can come off quickly.  And there are gonna be bad shots.  You can use them for immediate feedback to get back on track.

Stoicism has a lot to offer golfers, imo, in particular, its distinction between external (uncontrollable) and internal (controllable) goals.  Winning a tournament, beating your buddy or even making a dead straight 4 footer is not completely in your control.  All you can do is what you can do, play your best, get the ball started online with the proper speed, etc.  Seems to me that golf is a battle between the process and the result.  The trick is to stay focused on the process that will produce the result you want. But the genius of the game is the trappings suck you into caring too much about the future outcome.  You don't want to hit your first shot OB in front of a lot of people.  You do want to hit a good one down the middle, or at least in play.  But in order to do that you are going to have to stay focused on the process of hitting the ball, staying in your pre-shot routine, staring at your target, keeping good balance, hands low, clear the left side, finish pretty, swing your clubhead at least 123 mph, etc.  For me, that's all mental because I already know how to physically do those things, except for hitting 123 mph.   Now it's more a matter on not doing the bad stuff. 

I think Eric Clapton said about learning the guitar, the first 10 years you learn what to play and the next 10 you learn what not to play.  I think golf is like that.  At first you learn what to do and at some point it becomes an endless process of simplification. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Runnin

[mvmac]

5 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Why? It's a feeling. I'm not sure why a feeling should be physical and not mental.

What you just said basically answers your questions, it's how your swing feels to you, that's physical. There is no mental training you can do to change that.

Remember how @iacas defined the mental in the first post

Quote

And, because it's going to be necessary, I'm going to define the mental game as such:

• Shot selection, game planning, strategy (though this is pretty simple, and even non-golfers can make these decisions).
• Ability to focus or "get out of your way." (i.e. some people perform best when they aren't hyper-focused, some do). This can also include visualizing shots, not having too many swing thoughts, etc.
• Nerves, even though they may manifest as shaking hands, sweaty hands, accelerated heart rates, etc.

 

5 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

If it was a sore neck or something like that then I agree that's physical, but if my swing just doesn't feel right, that could be tension caused by nervousness, which would be more like a mental thing no?

Maybe for a short amount of time but you can't be nervous for an entire round of golf, emotions are fluid, they are always changing (especially during a round of golf). 

You originally said, "I have other days where I feel like I have two left arms. No matter what I do, I can barely get the ball on the golf course." Again that sounds physical. Nerves will only have so much of an effect on your swing. Being nervous doesn't automatically result in bad shots. Some of my best shots I've hit have been when I've been nervous.

Xander Schauffele is a member of my club and he was out there a few days ago. He was talking about how nervous he was on the back nine of the tour championship. If you recall he hit a ton of good shots that last day, in spite of letting his mind wander to how much money was on the line.

At the end of the day golfers with better mechanics (better physical ability) are going to shoot lower scores than golfers with less physical ability, regardless of how good or bad their mental games are.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, mvmac said:

At the end of the day golfers with better mechanics (better physical ability) are going to shoot lower scores than golfers with less physical ability, regardless of how good or bad their mental games are.

Yup. That’s the part people keep overlooking.

A PGA Tour player can have the worst mentality ever but he’s still gonna whoop the 18 handicapper with the best mentality. Every time.

[Lihu]

7 hours ago, Runnin said:

In college, several of my best rounds came after I topped the first tee shot and hacked it all the way through the first hole. It seemed to shock me into settling down and playing well from then on and perhaps kept me from getting complacent, which I have a tendency to do.  Conversely, bad rounds often came after nailing the first tee shot down the middle.  But maybe that's just the nature of golf.  Now I've lived long enough not take 2 or 3 good holes for granted and know the wheels can come off quickly.  And there are gonna be bad shots.  You can use them for immediate feedback to get back on track.

Stoicism has a lot to offer golfers, imo, in particular, its distinction between external (uncontrollable) and internal (controllable) goals.  Winning a tournament, beating your buddy or even making a dead straight 4 footer is not completely in your control.  All you can do is what you can do, play your best, get the ball started online with the proper speed, etc.  Seems to me that golf is a battle between the process and the result.  The trick is to stay focused on the process that will produce the result you want. But the genius of the game is the trappings suck you into caring too much about the future outcome.  You don't want to hit your first shot OB in front of a lot of people.  You do want to hit a good one down the middle, or at least in play.  But in order to do that you are going to have to stay focused on the process of hitting the ball, staying in your pre-shot routine, staring at your target, keeping good balance, hands low, clear the left side, finish pretty, swing your clubhead at least 123 mph, etc.  For me, that's all mental because I already know how to physically do those things, except for hitting 123 mph.   Now it's more a matter on not doing the bad stuff. 

I think Eric Clapton said about learning the guitar, the first 10 years you learn what to play and the next 10 you learn what not to play.  I think golf is like that.  At first you learn what to do and at some point it becomes an endless process of simplification. 

I'd say this pretty much wraps up your original discussion that golf is almost all physical rather than mental. Possibly even more than 95%. For me, to shoot bogey scores takes no mental effort. To shoot better, my mental effort might take up to 10% right now because I haven't learned the physical skills necessary to score around the green. The more physical skills you learn, the less dependent upon the mental aspect you become.

BTW, 123mph SS? That's pretty impressive!

Edited October 7, 2017 by Lihu

[Ty_Webb]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yup. That’s the part people keep overlooking.

A PGA Tour player can have the worst mentality ever but he’s still gonna whoop the 18 handicapper with the best mentality. Every time.

I don't think I'm overlooking that. Clearly the vast majority of the difference between a tour player and an 18 handicap is physical. But what about the difference between two tour players? Do you think the difference between them is 5% mental and 95% physical? Why do you suppose peak Tiger was such a good closer compared to other players who were not?

Or a different question - my range of scores is around 7 or 8 shots wide most of the time. In my last 20, my lowest is 71 and my highest is 81. The 81 was in miserable weather where I struggled to hold on to the club because I was so wet. So if that range of scores is explained by 5% mental differences and 95% physical differences (or 0.4 shots mental and 7.6 shots physical), what's the point of reading Lowest Score Wins?

or to put that yet another way, why not just aim at all the flags? It only makes 0.4 shots difference anyway...

[Lihu]

6 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I don't think I'm overlooking that. Clearly the vast majority of the difference between a tour player and an 18 handicap is physical. But what about the difference between two tour players? Do you think the difference between them is 5% mental and 95% physical? Why do you suppose peak Tiger was such a good closer compared to other players who were not?

Or a different question - my range of scores is around 7 or 8 shots wide most of the time. In my last 20, my lowest is 71 and my highest is 81. The 81 was in miserable weather where I struggled to hold on to the club because I was so wet. So if that range of scores is explained by 5% mental differences and 95% physical differences (or 0.4 shots mental and 7.6 shots physical), what's the point of reading Lowest Score Wins?

or to put that yet another way, why not just aim at all the flags? It only makes 0.4 shots difference anyway...

Because LSW focuses mainly on the physical aspects and statistics of golf rather than trying to "pump you up" for golf. It's all about making physical changes and learning to play well with what you already have through statistics.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Lihu

[Ty_Webb]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

Because LSW focuses mainly on the physical aspects and statistics of golf rather than trying to "pump you up" for golf. It's all about making physical changes.

mvmac just pointed out to me that iacas's definition of mental game included strategy

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

mvmac just pointed out to me that iacas's definition of mental game included strategy

I was thinking more about "shot zones". That uses statistics that are simplified by LSW in its application to make things really simple mentally to us. On the course, it takes very little mental effort. Just look at your spread on the course. For me that might actually take like 5% mental effort at most, and I envision it taking a lot less as it becomes more of a feel thing to me?

Edited October 7, 2017 by Lihu

[JonMA1]

I can't speak for anyone else, but during these discussions the importance of sound mechanics and how it impacts score has never been lost.

From what little I've seen of good players, if you took the most consistent part of my game - say flighted shots ranging from 50 to 120 yards - and put me up against a 5 who struggles the most with these shots, they'd still kick my butt in any competition that would measure that particular skill.

The only reason any of this is worth discussing (for me), is whether improving something as small as the mental side of golf is worth any effort.

I think it is - even if the potential is as low as 1 or 2 strokes per round.

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but during these discussions the importance of sound mechanics and how it impacts score has never been lost.

From what little I've seen of good players, if you took the most consistent part of my game - say flighted shots ranging from 50 to 120 yards - and put me up against a 5 who struggles the most with these shots, they'd still kick my butt in any competition that would measure that particular skill.

The only reason any of this is worth discussing (for me), is whether improving something as small as the mental side of golf is worth any effort.

I think it is - even if the potential is as low as 1 or 2 strokes per round.

Not necessarily, they could be a 5 because they are stronger off the tee and have more capability to make the 120+ approach shots. Your skill inside 120 is likely an advantage for you over a 5 who uses a 9i for 150 yards but makes misses with his gap wedge inside 120.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Lihu

[Ty_Webb]

4 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I was thinking more about "shot zones". That uses statistics that are simplified by LSW in its application to make things really simple mentally to us. On the course, it takes very little mental effort. Just look at your spread on the course. For me that might actually take like 5% mental effort at most, and I envision it taking a lot less as it becomes more of a feel thing to me?

That's a fair point although I think the effort spent on it is a different point from the difference in scores between players. 

I think LSW is a great resource because I think that good strategy has a significant impact on your scores. Making poor choices or taking too much risk, which a lot of people do, will add quite a bit to your score. It's also easy to implement, so if you want to knock three shots off your average score and you have poor strategy, I think it would be far more productive to focus on fixing that mental side of things than trying to improve your swing. It won't turn you into Dustin Johnson and he will still beat you, but your scores will be better. 

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

That's a fair point although I think the effort spent on it is a different point from the difference in scores between players. 

I think LSW is a great resource because I think that good strategy has a significant impact on your scores. Making poor choices or taking too much risk, which a lot of people do, will add quite a bit to your score. It's also easy to implement, so if you want to knock three shots off your average score and you have poor strategy, I think it would be far more productive to focus on fixing that mental side of things than trying to improve your swing. It won't turn you into Dustin Johnson and he will still beat you, but your scores will be better. 

Yes, agreed. Most of this mental work cam be done in praparation to a round on the range or something. When I went to an LSW clinic, they showed me how to get my shot zones. This is where it takes some mental effort to map things out. On the course, I just look left and right with any club and guesstimate the landing area, but that's still a physical measurement.

 

On a side note, given how many trees I hit my last round, I think I actually need to look more at my shot zones in the air as well.

[JonMA1]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Not necessarily, they could be a 5 because they are stronger off the tee and have more capability to make the 120+ approach shots. Your skill inside 120 is likely an advantage for you over a 5 who uses a 9i for 150 yards but makes misses with his gap wedge inside 120.

Possibly, but it would have to be proven to me. We're talking about someone who regularly shoots in the 70's.

My point was, their mechanics are far, far better than mine. That fact has never been lost regardless of how much or little the mental game impacts scores.

[Lihu]

Just now, JonMA1 said:

Possibly, but it would have to be proven to me. We're talking about someone who regularly shoots in the 70's.

My point was, their mechanics are far, far better than mine. That fact has never been lost regardless of how much or little the mental game impacts scores.

Yes, but good mechanics is more important for long shots. If you are an outlier who is deadly accurate and consistent within 120 yards, then that 5 will not score much better from inside 120. The advantage the 5 has over you is distance. They can hit much farther off the tee and hit approaches from a much longer distance.

However, that being stated, that same 5 will likely not be within 120 as often as you. They hit more greens and near greens as well because of their distance advantage.

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

So,  in the other thread I think someone mentioned Gallwey,  I've read two of his books.  I thought inner game of tennis was a groundbreaking work.  Inner game of golf was meh.  I give it about a 5.8 on a 1-10.  Imo the tennis one is the one to read because everything else for Gallwey was an adaptation of his tennis concepts applied in other areas.  You can make more money with many books as opposed to one.  I did find this interview where the topic is coaching.  Many great thoughts here.  

 

Alpha and theta brain waves are associated with the subconscious or  edge of conscious/subconscious or as Gallwey terms it simply self 2.  Some researchers have espoused that the 'zone' involves this type of brain activity.  Ultimately yes absolutely a physical thing measurable by instrumentation.

so let's assume I am wrong and most here are correct in terms of percent.  @mvmac said he gives the mental a 5 percent influence on the strokes taken.

Do some math,  for the touring pro that could be 12 under or even par in a tournament.  That's a lot of money.

 

I've read both books. I get the opposite sense from them than you seem to. I feel Gallway's ideas help you take your mind out of the game. Being in the "zone" is when your physical self takes over and controls everything.

A busy mind in sports causes confusion for your body. Don't think, just play.

There was an extension of these ideas in an episode of Scientific American Frontiers with Alan Alda that ran 15 years ago.  It was called Quiet Eye. Researchers presented this technique with putting in the episode. They showed that your brain doesn't need more input to execute the putt. First, the player stared and the hole and the line of the putt. Then, without ever looking up again, they executed the putt. Tests showed better accuracy and speed control with this method. They, in effect, took their mind out of the putt and just let their body execute. Their brain already knew where the hole was.

I use this method when putting and Dave Stockton teaches it. He teaches students to never look up again at the hole after setting up. 

I used this same approach coaching my teams in soccer, especially with free kicks and penalty shots. Stare and the net and pick your spot (Aim Point). Without ever looking up at the net or keeper again, take your shot. It not only resulted in a better shot, but the keeper had no clue to where they were going. They took their active mind out of execution and let their body take control.

We taught this in our bike riding clinics when I was racing too. Look only where you want go, not at the other riders or obstacle in Mountain Biking. Your brain knows where the obstacles are. Let you physical self take control. Try this. Place a stick on the grass and ride over it looking at the stick. Then do it again without looking at it, but after it, where you want to go. Your peripheral vision sees the stick, no need to keep focus on it and in effect have your active mind control you.

All of this applies to golf. Get your mind out of the shot execution business. Use your active mind to pick the club and aim point. Let it line your body up. Then turn it off and let your physical self execute. I play much better this way. When I was down to a 10 HC, I was playing this way. I need to get back to it when my injuries heal. I need to practice smart to get my swing to be better and just play on the course.

[JonMA1]

Off Topic:

Spoiler

@Lihu

I disagree... somewhat. I said it's the best part of my game, not that I'm deadly accurate (I understand you said "if" but how common is that?). I also said for the 5 it's the part they struggle with the most. Not that they were terrible at it, even if they believe so.

Even if it's the best part of my game, that's relative to some pretty poor golf. For the low capper, what they consider to be "bad" is compared to the rest of their game which is obviously, pretty good golf.

Regarding the distance, that's almost irrelevant because...

1. Throughout a round, everyone has shots left from 50 to 120 yards.
2. Yes, most 5's hit longer but some less so than others. And some high cappers hit far but not straight.
3. If we're both playing from the appropriate tees, the distance factor only means that he/she is using less club from the same distance - not that they're closer to the hole on every shot. Advantage low capper. Even more reason the believe their "poor" partial shot game is better than my "great" partial shot game.

Anyway, this would be an interesting discussion for a different thread. Yes? We can do a challenge or compare GameGolf stats.

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by JonMA1

[Lihu]

13 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Off Topic:

I disagree... somewhat. I said it's the best part of my game, not that I'm deadly accurate (I understand you said "if" but how common is that?). I also said for the 5 it's the part they struggle with the most. Not that they were terrible at it, even if they believe so.

Even if it's the best part of my game, that's relative to some pretty poor golf. For the low capper, what they consider to be "bad" is compared to the rest of their game which is obviously, pretty good golf.

Regarding the distance, that's almost irrelevant because...

1. Throughout a round, everyone has shots left from 50 to 120 yards.
2. Yes, most 5's hit longer but some less so than others. And some high cappers hit far but not straight.
3. If we're both playing from the appropriate tees, the distance factor only means that he/she is using less club from the same distance - not that they're closer to the hole on every shot. Advantage low capper. Even more reason the believe their "poor" partial shot game is better than my "great" partial shot game.

Anyway, this would be an interesting discussion for a different thread. Yes? We can do a challenge or compare GameGolf stats.

I was only stating that the statistical (based upon trackman distances) 5 handicap will have his approach shots from 50 to 120 more often than approach shots that end up 50 to 120 yards away even playing the appropriate tees. The 5 handicap hits farther than you, that's why he would be a 5.

People who hit farther generally have the potential to have a lower handicap, if they practice enough and work out their swing mechanics.

So, that's why I really think there's not much mental game, it's much more physical and statistically proven to be so.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Lihu