Golf's Mental Game Aspect

[Lihu]

34 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

There's ideas I'd like to share here since I sort of promoted Gallwey.  I wholeheartedly believe in his ideas first off however they are based in tennis.  In tennis,  the racquet is essentially very 'light' in comparison to the golf club.  So,  imo the problems faced by the golfer physically are different to the problems faced by the tennis player.

In golf we all know feel is not real;  every teacher brings this up and it's very true.   Why?  IMO it's because of the club.  The clubs in golf are relatively long and the weight is at the end.  IMO it's tougher in golf to 'imitate' another swing vs in tennis.  It's physics.  In tennis I can imitate any players swing mechanics pretty well.  In golf it's far tougher because of the physics.  In golf the forces we are dealing with as we swing are much greater than in tennis where the tool is relatively short and light.  

I believe that it can be very tough in golf for example for an overswinger to shorten the swing.  That was my experience.  I simply failed to understand momentum.  You cant just swing back and stop wherever you want.  Absolutely you stop applying force at some point going back but there's momentum in the swing at that point and it carries the club further back past where you 'feel'.  The same effect is present coming forward.  The forces of the swing are what makes feel and real differ and it's what makes golf a different problem from tennis mechanically.  

So,  imo Gallwey's mental approach is still correct.  You can't think a swing.  You do however have to realize the fact that while you feel you are doing something,  it happens during other forces which make it a little more complicated.  

So,  people get confused when what they feel they are doing looks nothing like a result on video.

I felt it was important that I in no way discount the physical issues faced by the golfer.  

 

First of all, I don't think anybody thinks that you discounted the physical part of golf. The issue is the amount of emphasis on the mental part you put into it that surprises many people given your handicap and experience.

So, the essence of your argument is if someone like me could blame 3 or 4 lost strokes per round on a bad mental game. Could I, yes? Do I? No, because I can attribute every single bad shot I make to not having the skill to overcome an adverse situation.

For example, if I can carry my 7i 165 yards on the range with a nice and high trajectory, but on the course I get this pulled anemic 150 yard carry that rolls for another 20 yards so do I blame my inability to "take my driving range game"? No, I blame my inability to take into account the lie and my awkward body position. Do I feel nervous about hitting off an upward lie having to choke up 2" on my club even though it's the first time I have to do it? No, I just setup as best as I can as I do on every shot, take my practice swing, step up, and swing. Same as I always do. Could I have done it any better? Could I have had a better attitude about it? No. I didn't feel anything, no apprehension, no doubt that I could swing properly. Just made terrible contact. It's the norm. When I make a "picture perfect shot that I can sometimes make on the driving range", that's the exception for me at my current skill level. If I could hit perfect shots all the time, I'd be much better than I am. But that's a lot more work than thinking that it can be fixed "if only I could take my driving range game onto the course". It's not easy.

So, that's only one example of why I think my game is almost all >95% physical.

[mvmac]

18 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

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?

Still physical. The top players on tour are generally longer and better ball strikers than the average tour player. Their swings produce better shots. Brooks Koepka has a swing that produces better shots than someone like Mark Wilson. Koepka can do things in his swing that Wilson can't do.

Tiger hit the ball higher, farther and closer to the hole than his competitors. He was able to hit shots round after round that most players on tour couldn't hit.

Who else in the game at this time had the physical ability to hit this shot? David Duval was a great player in '00 and it doesn't matter what his mental state was, he's not hitting this shot. Tiger had a clear physical advantage. Just look at how he played the '97 Masters. 

 

[Marty2019]

As defined in the original post, of course golf is mainly physical.  It's a physical activity and those who are physically superior will have an overwhelming advantage on those of us who are not physically superior. 

But deviating from the definition in the original post, and perhaps because I am a nerdy non-athletic type who is always trying to learn how to play, I regard a very large part of playing golf as an intellectual, as well as physical, activity.   For a person like me, the golf swing has to be learned.  I need to know how to swing the club, why to swing it that way, how to get myself to do that.  And in the middle of the round, if I am playing poorly, I need to know what I am doing wrong, how to stop doing it, how to get myself back on track, how to get my mind to control my body. 

As I said, if we define the mental aspect of golf as it was defined in the original post, then of course golf is almost all physical.  But to me, that definition unfairly removes most of what I would call the mental aspect of golf.  I see a lot of physically superior guys hacking around out there because they refuse to engage in what I would call the mental aspect of golf: the learning, the study, the attempt to have the mind control the body, figuring it out. 

I can't argue with the original post.  But if someone asked me if golf was as much mental as physical, I would say yes, because I just define the question differently.   Heck, if golf didn't have a huge mental component, people wouldn't write books about it. 

But again, I know I am deviating from the terms set out in the original post. 

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Marty2019

[iacas]

@Marty2019 you can “mentally” know all the right things. All the info in the world. You’ve still gotta physically pull it off.

Also, Bubba Watson might not know much of anything about the swing. He knows less than I do. Yet he’s gonna have to spot me four or more a side for a fair match.

[billchao]

I keep wavering back and forth over whether to comment on this thread or not because I've said what I had to say in similar threads in the past. This just seems like one of those topics where people believe what they believe and then we all end up talking in circles.

So here's my take, one more time: Golf skill is predominantly physical. Mental ability allows you to get the most out of your physical game, but you cannot exceed your physical limitations by having a strong mental game. You can make up for having a weak mental game with a strong physical game, but a weak mental game can also cause you to play below your physical potential. Your physical game can similarly affect your mental game.

I remember being in a great mental state during my all-time low round last year. I was calm, confident, and played a great round. Why? Because my physical game was the best it has ever been that day. I hit more GIR than average and scrambled at a significantly higher clip than usual. The ability to hit the ball well gave me the confidence that I could hit the shots I needed and score well even if I missed. But most importantly, I just didn't miss as often or as far as I usually did.

I've had some rounds where the swing isn't there and it puts me in a tough place mentally. More than once this year I was tempted to bag it after nine holes. I grind out these rounds, partly because I don't get to play that often and because I hate giving up. Sometimes the ballstriking improves on the back and sometimes it doesn't. Yet at the end of the day, I scored better during my bad rounds this year (with some notable exceptions) than my bad rounds in previous years. Why? Because my physical game has improved. So even though I'm in that same crummy place when my ballstriking eludes me for the day, I put up lower scores simply due to the improvements I've made to my physical skills.

Sometimes I'll get my swagger back on one of those rounds and go even par or better for a string of holes, and then launch a tee shot OB. It's not a mental lapse, it's just what my swing is physically capable of producing, whether or not I'm feeling good about myself, mentally.

That's my experience. If you want to play your best, you need to be strong mentally. Make good decisions, stay calm under pressure, cool after a bad shot or bounce, focused, etc. But if you want to be better than you are now, you need to improve your physical skills.

[JonMA1]

Nice post @billchao.

[Lihu]

4 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

As defined in the original post, of course golf is mainly physical.  It's a physical activity and those who are physically superior will have an overwhelming advantage on those of us who are not physically superior. 

But deviating from the definition in the original post, and perhaps because I am a nerdy non-athletic type who is always trying to learn how to play, I regard a very large part of playing golf as an intellectual, as well as physical, activity.   For a person like me, the golf swing has to be learned.  I need to know how to swing the club, why to swing it that way, how to get myself to do that.  And in the middle of the round, if I am playing poorly, I need to know what I am doing wrong, how to stop doing it, how to get myself back on track, how to get my mind to control my body. 

As I said, if we define the mental aspect of golf as it was defined in the original post, then of course golf is almost all physical.  But to me, that definition unfairly removes most of what I would call the mental aspect of golf.  I see a lot of physically superior guys hacking around out there because they refuse to engage in what I would call the mental aspect of golf: the learning, the study, the attempt to have the mind control the body, figuring it out. 

I can't argue with the original post.  But if someone asked me if golf was as much mental as physical, I would say yes, because I just define the question differently.   Heck, if golf didn't have a huge mental component, people wouldn't write books about it. 

But again, I know I am deviating from the terms set out in the original post. 

 

I don't think that's what this topic is about this at all, and some really fit looking people can't hit the ball as far as some really nerdy looking people. Golf is >95% physical for more than 95% of golfers who play regularly, but that doesn't mean you need to look like a super athlete to play well. Certainly not to play at your best.

The thread and it's predecessor thread are about how much emphasis you need to put on your mental game. This one is more about if you think mental game is more important than 5%, then please answer why? So far, no one has stated anything or cited precise examples as to why they think metal game is more than 5%. I think it's possible that it could be as much as 20% only because I don't exclude any possibilities, just like I still consider evolution a "theory" even though it's very strong, but so far I've not read any specific examples that couldn't be answered by a physical deficiency.

If we put this topic in a sport that most of can relate to like running. If I ran track in high school and could normally run a 400m anywhere between 50 seconds and 58 seconds depending upon the surfaces and conditions, and in one race I run a tough track in 50 seconds beating everyone then another where I feel like the competition is not so great and run it in 58 losing to everyone. 58 was my worst time and my normal range was 50 to 51. Was it my mental attitude? Some coaches think it is. I told my coach "I just didn't have it in me today." He said work on your "mental game". It turns out that hours before that race I had a leg press competition with some football players, and didn't feel the soreness until the following two days. My coach was so pissed off he made me run 800m runs for the remainder of the week and season.

So, when you are not at your best, it's probably not your "mental game" as it was in my case running track and also playing golf.

I think lied about when I was a beginner in golf that I'd think it could have been 50/50 because I don't think I'd have ever thought that. If my swing was bad I always went to a coach to teach me to get better. I didn't meditate for hours, although that would have been better than beating 600 balls a day.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Lihu

[Jack Watson]

12 hours ago, Lihu said:

First of all, I don't think anybody thinks that you discounted the physical part of golf. The issue is the amount of emphasis on the mental part you put into it that surprises many people given your handicap and experience.

So, the essence of your argument is if someone like me could blame 3 or 4 lost strokes per round on a bad mental game. Could I, yes? Do I? No, because I can attribute every single bad shot I make to not having the skill to overcome an adverse situation.

For example, if I can carry my 7i 165 yards on the range with a nice and high trajectory, but on the course I get this pulled anemic 150 yard carry that rolls for another 20 yards so do I blame my inability to "take my driving range game"? No, I blame my inability to take into account the lie and my awkward body position. Do I feel nervous about hitting off an upward lie having to choke up 2" on my club even though it's the first time I have to do it? No, I just setup as best as I can as I do on every shot, take my practice swing, step up, and swing. Same as I always do. Could I have done it any better? Could I have had a better attitude about it? No. I didn't feel anything, no apprehension, no doubt that I could swing properly. Just made terrible contact. It's the norm. When I make a "picture perfect shot that I can sometimes make on the driving range", that's the exception for me at my current skill level. If I could hit perfect shots all the time, I'd be much better than I am. But that's a lot more work than thinking that it can be fixed "if only I could take my driving range game onto the course". It's not easy.

So, that's only one example of why I think my game is almost all >95% physical.

I can't say at any time that the mental side absolutely accounts for x percentage of shots or x number of strokes per round.  It absolutely varies day to day shot to shot.

Also quitting on a bad round is out of the discussion on my end.  I used to get where I'd be playing bad and I'd give up and just start trying to smash Driver and hit crazy shots.  Anymore it's more fun to keep grinding after a bad start for me.  Playing a round is a commitment and I've had some pleasant surprises after some bad starts.  

On the range thing,  for me,  on the range,  I can do x with the ball.  I am warmed up,  perfect lie,  hitting shot after shot.  On the course I almost never warm up before playing and have to hit a shot I can hit just walking up cold.  For myself,  I call it my comfortable swing.  It's one shot.  No messing with things just my normal shot.  On course what works for me best is keeping it simple.  

The thing I have trouble relating to in your post is that if I took the attitude that I don't have the skill to hit a shot on course i.e. that I can't hit hanging lies,  I would be done for the most part before even swinging.  I would feel like I am mentally defeating myself before the shot even if what you say is true in a sense.  

It relates to what @Marty2019 said above.  He said something to the effect that since he has no athletic ability he needs to intellectually learn what how why,  basically everything technical and also (imo the worst thing to do on course) how to figure out exactly what's going wrong on course and correct it.  It's a very very common attitude you see from a lot of people on the internet who study golf.

All that information being fed into the conscious mind imo has almost nothing to do with learning about swinging a club.  You could have so much info that's of good quality and go and top and whiff all the shots because golf is a sport.  To me taking that attitude that you have to become an encyclopedia of mechanics in order to play golf is self defeating in most cases.  The basic premise that one lacks coordination or physical skill is simply untrue.  Everyone has some.  Furthermore,  trying to self teach in this informational way is imo conditioning you to tend to be the exact opposite of what Gallwey espouses or as it was said in the opening post 'being able to get out of your own way'.   People need to take advantage of good pros.  Info overload leads to paralysis by analysis.

Quick example of a misguided self teaching attempt in music was a guy I saw who was teaching himself bass guitar.  He first memorized all the notes on the fretboard.  This was before trying to do anything with the instrument!

Edited October 8, 2017 by Jack Watson

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

The thing I have trouble relating to in your post is that if I took the attitude that I don't have the skill to hit a shot on course i.e. that I can't hit hanging lies,  I would be done for the most part before even swinging.  I would feel like I am mentally defeating myself before the shot even if what you say is true in a sense.  

I'm not mentally defeated. I feel perfectly confident that I can make my swing, just not necessarily great contact. I take the attitude "Swing my best, and hope it strikes well". You can play some pretty good golf thinning your shots to the green, so if you think that that's part of my mental strategy of "What? Me worry?" golfing then I agree it could be mental. I don't really give it much conscious thought. I think the most thought I gave was during a round back in my last outing because my partners depended upon me to score well. Every 3 putt was a nail in the coffin, and I felt kind of bad. Normally, I don't really give a crap about my scoring. I shoot and go, and end up with whatever score I get.

 

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

It relates to what @Marty2019 said above.  He said something to the effect that since he has no athletic ability he needs to intellectually learn what how why,  basically everything technical and also (imo the worst thing to do on course) how to figure out exactly what's going wrong on course and correct it.  It's a very very common attitude you see from a lot of people on the internet who study golf.

I wanted to correct that. You don't have to be an athlete or look like one to play your best game.

Why does it matter if your partners play at scratch and you play at 26? Handicap evens out the match. I have a co-worker who plays against a childhood friend who's a professional, and sometimes wins because he's got 40 strokes more than the pro. +4 versus a 36

That being said, why do people want to improve? Why does anyone want to improve? It makes them feel better to play at their best. The main thing is a swing that feels like you gave it your "all". Feels better than a flippy one where you feel really crappy and "incomplete". That's why we're all on this site. To help us play at our best, no matter what that is.

 

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

All that information being fed into the conscious mind imo has almost nothing to do with learning about swinging a club.  You could have so much info that's of good quality and go and top and whiff all the shots because golf is a sport.  To me taking that attitude that you have to become an encyclopedia of mechanics in order to play golf is self defeating in most cases.  The basic premise that one lacks coordination or physical skill is simply untrue.  Everyone has some.  Furthermore,  trying to self teach in this informational way is imo conditioning you to tend to be the exact opposite of what Gallwey espouses or as it was said in the opening post 'being able to get out of your own way'.   People need to take advantage of good pros.  Info overload leads to paralysis by analysis.

That's part of the argument. I don't overthink anything anymore. The mental game for me is pretty non-existent, even though I probably should think more. I don't. Golf is a fun and relaxing sport for me at this point, if I took that away then what's the point of me going out and beating balls across a field of nice and green grass? My son enjoys playing more now too, now that he's not playing for a team. Pressure is bad, why give yourself more?

[Jack Watson]

Let's just say,  Tigers greatness was in no way just simple physical advantage.  Listen here...he talks of everything slowing down feeling more calm (alpha brain waves?). He even mentions blacking out...

 

[phillyk]

Tiger's D- game was still better than most players B game.  His consistency in his prime was unparalleled.  That is purely physical greatness.  On his bad "mental" days, he was beating most of the competition.

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Let's just say,  Tigers greatness was in no way just simple physical advantage.  Listen here...he talks of everything slowing down feeling more calm (alpha brain waves?). He even mentions blacking out...

Its primarily a physical advantage. No one could do what Tiger did. 

Did he have a physiological advantage, sure. He wouldn't have that advantage if he didn't have the physical one. 

[Lihu]

16 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Its primarily a physical advantage. No one could do what Tiger did. 

Did he have a physiological advantage, sure. He wouldn't have that advantage if he didn't have the physical one. 

I don't know if you meant "psychological" or not, but either way you got the correct message through.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Lihu

[Jack Watson]

16 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Its primarily a physical advantage. No one could do what Tiger did. 

Did he have a physiological advantage, sure. He wouldn't have that advantage if he didn't have the physical one. 

Hm...Explain this.  Amateur archers improve performance.

 

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

Hm...Explain this.  Amateur archers improve performance.

 

Hey, I was an amateur archer. Ranked 61st nationally in the last competition I attended. It was pretty much all physical. My physical shooting was worse than 60 others. The Olympic level archers shooting side by side with us mortals didn't have a mental edge over the rest of us. They had more stable forms, better aim and better releases than the rest of us.

[Jack Watson]

This guys pretty into this subject.  

 

[MarvChamp]

46 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

This guys pretty into this subject.  

Wow!

[Ty_Webb]

On 10/7/2017 at 2:44 PM, iacas said:

Choking is not entirely mental either. In fact it’s only a problem when the mental aspect of choking leads to physical differences.

The root cause is mental but I’ve seen people mentally choke and their physical skills on autopilot got them through.

Interesting viewpoint. I asked about this elsewhere, but I'm not sure that I got an answer, so I'm going to ask it in a different way.

Let's suppose that a player is playing the Players Championship. They are tied for the lead after 16 holes on Sunday. They take dead aim at the flag on 17 - the back right one. They push their shot 15 feet right of the flag and it goes in the water. That's basically two shots wasted right there. Would you say that was a mental error or a physical error? If it was a bit of both, what proportion would you say it was? Personally I would say that was about 80% on the mental side and 20% on the physical side. He's an idiot for aiming at that flag, but he also missed his target, so it's a little of both. 

Part of the reason that I'm surprised about the 5% for the mental side is I've been reading another thread on here (it's long, so I'm working through it slowly) about aiming at the middle of the green and not the flag from outside 100 yards. It seems like a lot of people are pretty foolish about where they aim. That's a mental issue and I'm surprised that it only contributes 1 shot in 20 shots difference.