Golf's Mental Game Aspect

[Yff Theos]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Oh my, Spieth and McIlroy flamed out (at Augusta National)… yet both have been OWGR #1, and both have many more majors than Rose. So what's your point exactly?

Again, my point is that if McIlroy and Spieth had been properly coached mentally they would not have played such ridiculously bad holes. Being OWGR#1 has nothing to do with it.

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Huh? I bolded the major winners from @mvmac's list below. I could make red the ones below who were OWGR #1s, but Rose's name wouldn't be red

I meant besides the three prominent ones only Koepka was a major winner. I forgot about Thomas and his PGA Championships win.

 

31 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Come on @Yff Theos, you expect them to be perfect every time they're in the lead? Every great player has "collapsed" in big tournaments. Nicklaus, Watson, Hogan, Palmer, Mickelson. 

Not the way McIlroy or Spieth did. Correct me if I am wrong I have never heard them ever had such a bad double-digit par4 or almost double-digit par3 hole.

 

31 minutes ago, mvmac said:

This is getting ridiculous. Jordan Spieth has a weak mindset?!

He had it that time at Augusta for sure. I never said he has it on a constant basis. He is really mentally strong but I saw a shy rookie with red cheaks at Augusta that year. Sometimes mental coaching can help even the strongest players and he could have easily ended with a bogey or a double there.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Yff Theos
I have added a sentence

[mvmac]

50 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

He is really mentally strong but I saw a shy rookie with red cheaks at Augusta that year. Sometimes mental coaching can help even the strongest players and he could have easily ended with a bogey or a double there.

Looked like a shy rookie? The year before Spieth led wire-to-wire and shot a record-tying −18, four strokes ahead of Mickelson and Rose.

Going into the final round of the 2016 Masters Spieth had lead for the first three rounds rounds and didn't lose it until 12.

50 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Not the way McIlroy or Spieth did. Correct me if I am wrong I have never heard them ever had such a bad double-digit par4 or almost double-digit par3 hole.

So having longer stretch of bad holes is better than having just one bad hole?

Spieth made a quad on 12 and still shot 73. 

[Yff Theos]

27 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Looked like a shy rookie?

Yes, he did, on the 12th after sinking the second approach.

 

28 minutes ago, mvmac said:

So having longer stretch of bad holes is better than having just one bad hole?

No, it is not. At least not always is. But a good mental coaching will rather not help to avoid a longer stretch of bad bogey holes (that can happen to everyone) but imo can help to avoid a one extremely bad hole. As I said, he could have ended with bogey or double the worst provided his blood is cool, so to speak.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Again, my point is that if McIlroy and Spieth had been properly coached mentally they would not have played such ridiculously bad holes. Being OWGR#1 has nothing to do with it.

4 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

I meant besides the three prominent ones only Koepka was a major winner. I forgot about Thomas and his PGA Championships win.

Right, oh, except for the 30%, there's only one other major winner on there… Gee whiz.

Except you're still wrong… there are four other major winners (plus Koepka) out of the nine other golfers. So 56% of them have major wins, and of those 56%, none have fewer major wins than Rose.

Do you realize how stupid what you're saying sounds? You're just throwing out 44% of the golfers (or again 56% if you want to throw out Koepka, too), just because? That's not how this stuff works.

Five of the top ten in the OWGR that don't have mental coaches are major winners, and nine of the top ten in the OWGR don't use mental coaches. The one guy who does has only one major win. The other nine have a combined, what, 13?

4 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Not the way McIlroy or Spieth did. Correct me if I am wrong I have never heard them ever had such a bad double-digit par4 or almost double-digit par3 hole.

Not even worthy of a response. Seriously man. I don't even think the people who think the mental game is important want your "support" in this - you're making their side look bad.

4 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

He had it that time at Augusta for sure. I never said he has it on a constant basis. He is really mentally strong but I saw a shy rookie with red cheaks at Augusta that year. Sometimes mental coaching can help even the strongest players and he could have easily ended with a bogey or a double there.

And in my world where I just get to make up whatever the hell I want, Justin Rose would have won six majors by now if he didn't have a shrink messing with his head.

Cuz that's what you're doing - just making stuff up to back up your already firmly entrenched opinion.

[Secretmove]

nerJuly 18, 2017, 12:11 pm

SOUTHPORT, England – Jon Rahm said that his mental coach, Joseba del Carmen, was instrumental in his climb from lightly recruited junior to No. 1-ranked amateur.

Del Carmen might be even more important now if Rahm is to maximize his immense potential.

Criticized for his outbursts at the U.S. Open, Rahm knew there was work to do with Del Carmen, a former bomb-disposal expert with whom the fiery Spaniard has worked since the summer of 2014. Managing his emotions has been an ongoing struggle for Rahm, even as a kid, and he later apologized to his fellow playing competitors for his actions at Erin Hills.

The Open: Full-field tee times | Full coverage

“Lately there’s been a lot of things going on,” Rahm said Tuesday, “but we’ve been working a lot on mindfulness – being aware of the moment, and trying to focus on right now.”

Rahm said he started doing a couple of new breathing exercises Sunday at the Irish Open to help control his temper. Clearly they worked – he blew away the field by six shots for his second pro title.

“I surprised myself,” he said. “It shows that whatever we’re doing is working, so hopefully I can keep it up.”

So...I guess John Rham didn't get the message that tour pros aren't using mental coaches.  

http://thegolfacademyla.com/top-10-mental-coaches-golf/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/sports/olympics/olympians-use-imagery-as-mental-training.html

for every study claiming mental coaching and visualization doesn't work for golf, I can show you 10 studies that top athletes are all using mental visualization, imagery and all that hocus pocus.   for golf, it might have peaked and is no longer such a wave, but its still there big time in all sports.  Jack never hit a shot with out visualizing it first.  Jason day makes a big deal out of that ever fraeking shot.  Tiger same.  

 

 

[Vinsk]

42 minutes ago, Secretmove said:

I can show you 10 studies that top athletes are all using mental visualization,

Right. And I can use mental visualization all I want but I'm not gonna stick that 200yd 6i 10-20' to the pin. There are of course some 'mental tactics' that all athletes use. But it is not those tactics that separate them from us. And only to a small degree, on occasion, from each other. 

[mvmac]

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, he did, on the 12th after sinking the second approach.

You said "that year" but ok.

I think anyone would have looked pretty messed up after starting the hole with the lead and hitting two in the water. And how much did his look really affect him? He went -2 the next 3 holes!

8 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

No, it is not. At least not always is. But a good mental coaching will rather not help to avoid a longer stretch of bad bogey holes (that can happen to everyone) but imo can help to avoid a one extremely bad hole. As I said, he could have ended with bogey or double the worst provided his blood is cool, so to speak.

I would argue the opposite. A better overall game will help prevent the long stretch of bad holes, everyone is going to have a really bad hole every once in a while. The fact that Jordan made a quad and still shot 73 supports that his overall game is pretty strong. A strong "bounce back" game illustrates he not only has good technique but also a good mental game.

[Yff Theos]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

Right, oh, except for the 30%, there's only one other major winner on there… Gee whiz.

Except you're still wrong… there are four other major winners (plus Koepka) out of the nine other golfers. So 56% of them have major wins, and of those 56%, none have fewer major wins than Rose.

Do you realize how stupid what you're saying sounds? You're just throwing out 44% of the golfers (or again 56% if you want to throw out Koepka, too), just because? That's not how this stuff works.

I forgot to mention only one more major winner which Thomas was. Your percentage calculations are ridiculous. Quoting your rude sentence: do you realize how stupid they look?

9 hours ago, iacas said:

Not even worthy of a response. Seriously man. I don't even think the people who think the mental game is important want your "support" in this - you're making their side look bad.

Maybe, maybe not. We could see it when these mental game supporters commented it. The problem is that we can never know it because you threaten everyone who does not agree to you with your arrogance and people prefer to stay quiet here.

 

9 hours ago, iacas said:

And in my world where I just get to make up whatever the hell I want, Justin Rose would have won six majors by now if he didn't have a shrink messing with his head.

Maybe, maybe not. It could have also happened that McIlroy had already a green jacket and Spieth had two of them with a help of a shrink. In fact, this is much more probable situation than your assumption.

 

4 hours ago, mvmac said:

You said "that year" but ok.

I think anyone would have looked pretty messed up after starting the hole with the lead and hitting two in the water. And how much did his look really affect him? He went -2 the next 3 holes!

We still do not understand each other. I was and still am of the opinion that Spieth's tee shot in the water messed his head and he could have not be cool-headed when playing his third. He wanted imo desperatedly either to hole it or to be very close to the hole and he blew it off. If he could accept the double as normal on this hole standing before the water with the wedge and played cool he would have never made what he made. That is a role of mental coaching, imo: to learn how to deal with sudden unexpected problems.

On the other hand, I agree to you that he is a very strong mentally player despite his young age. Which provokes the next importat question: is it possible that a mentally weak person plays the PGA tour? and if yes, would he need a shrink?

4 hours ago, mvmac said:

I would argue the opposite. A better overall game will help prevent the long stretch of bad holes, everyone is going to have a really bad hole every once in a while.

Well, the point is that it is a very rare thing to see, as I said, the best ballstrikers in the world having that extremely bad holes as Spieth or McIlroy. It is much more common to witness a double or a streak of bogeys. Let us agree to disagree since I think your arguments are also good.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

I forgot to mention only one more major winner which Thomas was. Your percentage calculations are ridiculous. Quoting your rude sentence: do you realize how stupid they look?

Buddy, you're the one who said "I meant besides the three prominent ones only Koepka was a major winner."

You may as well have just said "I'm just going to choose to exclude three major winners (which is actually four, because you forgot Justin Thomas)" because it's really damning to the case I'm trying to make." You were just choosing to ignore 44% of the "other" golfers inside the OWGR top 10. Why you didn't just choose to ignore Koepka too, I have no idea. You should have just said "except for those five, none of them have won majors!" At least that would have been accurate.

The simple fact of the matter is that 56% of the people without mental coaches inside the top 10 in the OWGR have won majors.

That's not "stupid" or "ridiculous" - that's just math. Excluding four or five golfers (out of nine possible!) just because they hurt your argument, that's stupid.

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

The problem is that we can never know it because you threaten everyone who does not agree to you with your arrogance and people prefer to stay quiet here.

@Secretmove has posted some stuff worthy of discussion, and gotten good responses. He has not made the ridiculous types of posts you have made.

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Maybe, maybe not. It could have also happened that McIlroy had already a green jacket and Spieth had two of them with a help of a shrink. In fact, this is much more probable situation than your assumption.

You don't seem to understand how to argue a point.

You don't just get to make up whatever shit you want, to support your already flimsy supposition. If those were the rules, then I would stand by something like I mockingly said before: "

12 hours ago, iacas said:

And in my world where I just get to make up whatever the hell I want, Justin Rose would have won six majors by now if he didn't have a shrink messing with his head.

I'll add to that the utterly stupid "In fact, this is much more probable situation than your assumptions."

No, it is not "In fact".

@mvmac can respond to the Spieth/Rory stuff. Because, man, you just keep digging…

[Yff Theos]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Why you didn't just choose to ignore Koepka too, I have no idea.

Because I watched him winning the US Open and I remembered he had won a major. I had not watched PGA Championships last year and hence I forgot about Thomas. They both are much less known players than McIlroy, Spieth and Johnson anyhow.

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

You should have just said "except for those five, none of them have won majors!" At least that would have been accurate.

Yes, that is correct, I should have said that. But most probably I would not have done it since it was not a good argument with two more major winners.

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

You don't seem to understand how to argue a point.

You don't just get to make up whatever shit you want, to support your already flimsy supposition. If those were the rules, then I would stand by something like I mockingly said before: "

13 hours ago, iacas said:

And in my world where I just get to make up whatever the hell I want, Justin Rose would have won six majors by now if he didn't have a shrink messing with his head.

I'll add to that the utterly stupid "In fact, this is much more probable situation than your assumptions."

I would repeat again what I said. I see nothing wrong in what I said.

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No, it is not "In fact".

Hmmm...I used the 'in fact' expression not in the sense of underlining something is a fact. I used it in the sense of 'likely'. There are more probable things and less probable ones. Imo, mine is much more probable scenario.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Because I watched him winning the US Open and I remembered he had won a major. I had not watched PGA Championships last year and hence I forgot about Thomas. They both are much less known players than McIlroy, Spieth and Johnson anyhow.

You're still missing the fact that you - because it hurts your argument, I suppose - said "ignoring those three guys…"

My goodness.

3 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, that is correct, I should have said that. But most probably I would not have done it since it was not a good argument with two more major winners.

It would have been just as stupid to say that! "Ignoring those five who have double-digit majors between them…".

Hell, ignoring Justin Rose, none of the top ten players in the world have a mental coach!

That's a better argument than anything you've presented, because I'm just choosing to ignore one person, not FIVE.

2 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

I would repeat again what I said. I see nothing wrong in what I said.

You're just making shit up.

2 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Hmmm...I used the 'in fact' expression not in the sense of underlining something is a fact. I used it in the sense of 'likely'. There are more probable things and less probable ones. Imo, mine is much more probable scenario.

That's not the definition:

And again, you're just making shit up.

---

Look, it's simple: 9 of the top 10 players in the world don't have mental game coaches.

My position (and I suspect @mvmac's) is that this is pretty damning evidence, and indicates a shift away from the 90s-era thing where it seemed like everyone had a mental game guru. Mike and I (I'm assuming on Mike's behalf, but he knows he can correct me, as anyone can) are operating under the assumption that, by and large, these guys are looking for every little edge they can get, and yet 90% of them don't feel that a mental coach is worth it.

Your position is that they'd have had even more success if they had mental game gurus.

The facts - that 9 of 10 don't have mental game coaches - support the opposite more readily than your position. The facts support the idea that it's Justin Rose who would stand to gain by ditching his mental game coach. He has fewer majors by average than the other nine. He is outnumbered 9 to 1.

Now, I'm not making that argument, because I think Justin Rose got off to such a poor start in his career, maybe he feels he needs a mental game coach. We can't know, though, whether it helps him or actually hurts him. It's impossible to say, because we don't have the ability to clone a universe and alter this one specific thing, and let history play out for 30 years.

So when I say you're just making shit up, you are: you're so blinded, it seems, by your hard-baked, fast, fixed, unchanging, unflinching opinion that you can't conceive of a world in which Justin Rose could have been better off without a mental game coach, or those 9 other golfers would have performed worse with a mental game coach.

[Yff Theos]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Hell, ignoring Justin Rose, none of the top ten players in the world have a mental coach!

That's a better argument than anything you've presented, because I'm just choosing to ignore one person, not FIVE.

Yes, that is true.

 

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

You're just making shit up.

No, I am not.

 

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's not the definition:

OK, I used the expression incorrectly then.

[Ty_Webb]

Just found a recent quote on another thread:

Jason Gore collapsed in the final round of the US Open at Pinehurst. Dustin Johnson at Pebble Beach. Sometimes it’s just pressure, not “intimidation.”

Almost makes you wonder if perhaps pressure has an impact on these guys. Pressure - is that mental or physical?

This thread has descended into something of a farce. I see people suggesting that if they had a better mental game then they'd be out there winning majors. That's clearly nonsense. What's needed is clarity. For example, the difference between Tiger Woods in 2000 and a typical 12 handicap might be of the order of 25 shots a round. Probably 24 of those are physical, if not 25. A tiny percentage is therefore mental. The difference between Tiger Woods in 2000 (adjusted scoring average of 67.79 and 3 majors) and Tiger Woods in 2013 (adjusted scoring average of 68.94 and zero majors) was 1.15 strokes. I think it's easily plausible that this difference was 50% mental and 50% physical. That's what needs clarity. I think personally it's ridiculous to suggest that it's 5% mental in all cases. I think the difference between Greg Norman's 63 in round one of the 96 Masters and 78 in round four of the 96 Masters was perhaps 1-3 shots physical, 6 shots of just random variance (a few missed putts vs a few holed ones) and 6-8 shots mental. I think Faldo was in his head. I think he had been ever since the 1990 Open at St Andrews (both shot 132 over the first two rounds, before Faldo shot 67 to Norman's 76 in round 3). 

Case 3 - Ian Baker-Finch. Guy won the Open in 1991(?) and a few years later couldn't hit the first fairway at St Andrews. He knocked it round his home club in 63 when no one was watching, but a few weeks later, in front of a crowd, he couldn't hit the widest fairway in the game. Incredible physical changes in such a small space of time.

[iacas]

It's always going to be a bit of a farce, because there's no way to actually measure and ascribe value to something like "how much did his mental game contribute to such and such."

The fact of the matter is that when you're discussing the mental game on the PGA Tour, and particularly in the incredibly small sample sizes of "people with a chance to win a tournament this week," they've already narrowed it down to a sample size of only about five players. Jason Gore could having the worst mental game of his life… and still beat a +2 handicapper 98 times out of 100. Why? Because of his game, not because of his mind.

I've never said that, in every instance, the mental game is a complete non-factor. It can affect players sometimes, yes, absolutely. But it's routinely over-stated in its importance, IMO. It's not a complete non-factor, but it's a small factor.

And even in Jason Gore's case, it's pure guesswork as to what caused the downfall. He hit some poor shots. Then he hit some more. Was he in a poor mental state before he hit the shots, or only after when he'd fallen out of contention?

None of us can say. Not even Jason Gore, really.

Majors have likely been won when a guy was completely breaking down. Ken Venturi won the U.S. Open and can't even remember stuff because he was so exhausted and, really, ill. I doubt he had a strong mental game in the afternoon round there in the heat.

Other major champions have admitted to choking their guts out in closing out their wins. Of not being able to think or see straight. Of not remembering some of the shots they hit. Of having to rely on their caddies just to get them to the next tee or something.

Point is, we can all make one-off cases like that. By and large, the guy who is physically superior, plays better golf. The mental game is an aspect of golf, but an over-rated one IMO, and a small factor all things considered.

[Ty_Webb]

Fair enough. Speaking from personal experience, I know that my mindset has a pretty big impact on how well I play. It may be that my mindset is better when I'm swinging better, but I think that's getting to be a little bit of a stretch. I went through a looooong period of playing solid, shooting 1 or 2 under through 11 holes and then I'd slip up. Virtually every time I played. I'd start thinking about shooting under par (I never had) and I'd start playing worse, end up shooting 73. Then one day I managed to play through it and got to -4 (67). After that I broke par a few more times in fairly quick succession. I didn't get any better, but my scores did. People have issues with barriers. Some of them do anyway. It's why you have awards for breaking 100, 90, 80, par on your website. Because breaking those barriers is hard. A 100 shooter is not going to break par because he improves his mental game, but within the window of his scores, it will have an impact.

Greg Norman was talking about going low and he said that he would go play, get to -7 after 10 and he'd think, right that's good enough and start playing for pars, not birdies. He'd fritter a couple and drop a couple of shots and wind up shooting -5. Then one day he went out and was -7 after 10 and he said to himself, if I'm -7 through 10, let's see how low I can go. He shot 61 and he said he never looked back. Physically he was the same player but he changed his mindset and it changed substantially his score.

[mvmac]

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

He wanted imo desperatedly either to hole it or to be very close to the hole and he blew it off. If he could accept the double as normal on this hole standing before the water with the wedge and played cool he would have never made what he made. 

I'll just say that we have no idea what Spieth was actually thinking. With the "accepting" double part, that shot from that drop area isn't an easy one, it's not like it was a simple pitch or chip.

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

That is a role of mental coaching, imo: to learn how to deal with sudden unexpected problems.

Again, he went -2 the next 3 holes.

7 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Which provokes the next importat question: is it possible that a mentally weak person plays the PGA tour? and if yes, would he need a shrink?

Depends on what we mean by mentally weak. I would say yes and no they wouldn't need a shrink. 

Mac would actually be a good example of someone with a "weak" mental game who played on tour.

Bobby Jones would get ill because he got so nervous before an event.

http://www.golf.com/photos/11-things-you-didnt-know-about-bobby-jones#10

Quote

Jones was a nervous wreck at tournament time So fragile were Jones' nerves that it was remarkable that he could win anything. He suffered from a severe fear of heights, and "relaxed" the night before a tournament round by chain-smoking and drinking mass quantities of corn whiskey. During a week of major competition, he usually lost between 12 and 18 pounds and occasionally endured fits of vomiting.

I've used this example before and I say it again. I've hit some of my best shots when I've been nervous/anxious/uncomfortable and I've hit some horrible shots on the range with nothing on the line. How you're feeling doesn't have a direct correlation to the quality of shot you're going to hit. 

Xander Schauffele is a member at our club at did a little clinic a few months back. He talked how nervous he was feeling on the back nine on Sunday and how he let his mind wander to thinking how big the win would have been for him. All the things the sports psychologist say you're not suppose to do. Yet he won the tournament and hit a 335 yard drive and 18 down the pipe.

Point is, physical skill, ability, technique plays a much, much bigger role than the mental game.

Dustin Johnson is basically brain dead (what Butch Harmon has said about him) so depending on how you look at it that could make him a mentally strong or weak player 

3 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Because I watched him winning the US Open and I remembered he had won a major. I had not watched PGA Championships last year and hence I forgot about Thomas. They both are much less known players than McIlroy, Spieth and Johnson anyhow.

"Much lesser known"?

Justin Thomas was player of the year. Koepka made the Ryder Cup, made the cover of Sports Illustrated after his US Open win and is a top 10 OWGR player.

[Yff Theos]

5 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Mac would actually be a good example of someone with a "weak" mental game who played on tour.

Perhaps he played on tour for a relatively short period of time because he was mentally weak first of all?

 

7 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Bobby Jones would get ill because he got so nervous before an event.

Yes, I read about it and I watched a movie about him where it was mentioned.

 

9 minutes ago, mvmac said:

I've used this example before and I say it again. I've hit some of my best shots when I've been nervous/anxious/uncomfortable and I've hit some horrible shots on the range with nothing on the line. How you're feeling doesn't have a direct correlation to the quality of shot you're going to hit. 

Well, yes and no. There is a famous word "zone". Those who "are in the zone" play excellent golf. Perhaps the role of mental coaching is to teach students how to drive into this "zone" and stay there until the 18th hole ends.

 

12 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Dustin Johnson is basically brain dead (what Butch Harmon has said about him) so depending on how you look at it that could make him a mentally strong or weak player 

Interesting. The way he handled putts on the 18th during US Open 2 years ago reminded me more of a guy who could not bear the pressure.

 

15 minutes ago, mvmac said:

"Much lesser known"?

Justin Thomas was player of the year. Koepka made the Ryder Cup, made the cover of Sports Illustrated after his US Open and is a top 10 OWGR player.

They are lesser known that those three players anyhow. Perhaps I should have not used the word "much" here.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Fair enough. Speaking from personal experience, I know that my mindset has a pretty big impact on how well I play.

You're defining "pretty big impact" and then you talk about going from 1 under through 11 to shooting 1 over through 18. That's not a "big impact." Or, we define "big" very differently.

21 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Greg Norman was talking about going low and he said that he would go play, get to -7 after 10 and he'd think, right that's good enough and start playing for pars, not birdies. He'd fritter a couple and drop a couple of shots and wind up shooting -5. Then one day he went out and was -7 after 10 and he said to himself, if I'm -7 through 10, let's see how low I can go. He shot 61 and he said he never looked back. Physically he was the same player but he changed his mindset and it changed substantially his score.

Again, we can all give you one-off scenarios. I gave a few above about guys winning majors while choking or breaking down. @mvmac gives a few examples right after your post, for example.

Greg Norman was still a world class golfer, and he got there by fine-tuning his physical game for years. Even he didn't suddenly shave even half a stroke from his score, most likely, with the "breakthrough" you cited just here.

16 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Point is, physical skill, ability, technique plays a much, much bigger role than the mental game.

That's all I'm saying, ultimately, as well.

6 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Well, yes and no. There is a famous word "zone". Those who "are in the zone" play excellent golf. Perhaps the role of mental coaching is to teach students how to drive into this "zone" and stay there until the 18th hole ends.

And yet, 10 of the top 11 players in the world don't need a mental coach to do it, so maybe it's just easy.

Maybe the "Zone" is just a period of good ball-striking, so you don't have to worry about things. But the cause is actually the physical - you're hitting good shots, so you don't need to think about the "what-ifs" of hitting a bad one. End result: physical stuff leads to you getting into the zone.

Put that another way… I've never heard of a player who is hitting it poorly talk about getting into the Zone. It's always "I started hitting it good, and I got into the Zone for a few holes there…".

The Zone, I could argue, is a result of good ballstriking.

6 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Interesting. The way he handled putts on the 18th during US Open 2 years ago reminded me more of a guy who could not bear the pressure.

Regardless of what you think, the dude is #1 in the world right now.