Golf's Mental Game Aspect

[chspeed]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

26 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Seems like their are two topics going on that have nothing to do with each other. Physical skill could be 99.99% of golf, but that doesn't mean that stress doesn't affect performance. Those are not mutually exclusive.

To me, stress is a reaction, not an ingredient that causes issues. How many bad shots does a person have to hit before they get stressed out? Their swing is their swing. It's volatile because of how bad it is. No amount of mental game will fix that other than realizing they need to improve their golf game. 

 

That’s just not true. On average, The same golfer, with the same swing, will perform worse under stress.

What is true, however, is that the difference on his entire round, on average,  will be small simply because mental game is a relatively small part of your golf score.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

Huh? There is a negative correlation between pressure and performance in athletics,

Where did I say differently?

I said for any one case - for "someone" - could shoot better even if they perform worse, or shoot worse even on days when their performance is worse.

The thought experiment is pointless because it's an extreme outlier type of situation.

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

What is true, however, is that the difference on his entire round, on average,  will be small simply because mental game is a relatively small part of your golf score.

Yes, that's been my only real point: the mental game, except in rare cases (outliers), has a small role in affecting your score.

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

That’s just not true. On average, The same golfer, with the same swing, will perform worse under stress.

What is true, however, is that the difference on his entire round, on average,  will be small simply because mental game is a relatively small part of your golf score.

I think where I differ from others on this is that some people seem to think that 5% is the right percentage difference between any pair of people. That reads to me that the difference between a 68 shooter and a 100 shooter would be about 1.6 shots mental game. It’s conceivable, but the difference between a 68 shooter and a 69 shooter is also necessarily only 5% I.e. 0.05 shots. 

I on the other hand think it’s quite conceivable that if the 68 shooter has a great mental game and the 69 shooter has a dreadful one then 100% of the difference between them could be mental game. Every time I say this someone will say that it doesn’t matter how poor DJ’s mental game is, he’ll always beat me. Well duh. Either that or they pick at some little nit in what I said and ignore the substance. 

You would think that people would be able to understand that the fact that two people with the same physical skill set (that is who shoot similar scores) who react differently to a significant amount of pressure means that you have two people otherwise equal who have different scores entirely due to mental game differences. I.e. 100%. Sadly that nuance seems to be missed as people keep arguing against what they think I said rather than what I actually said. 

Back to hiatus for me though. 

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

You would think that people would be able to understand that the fact that two people with the same physical skill set (that is who shoot similar scores) who react differently to a significant amount of pressure means that you have two people otherwise equal who have different scores entirely due to mental game differences. I.e. 100%. Sadly that nuance seems to be missed as people keep arguing against what they think I said rather than what I actually said. 

I don't think anyone's "missing" that. They just don't agree with you.

You're just making things up to try to make your case. The truth is you can't find someone who is exactly the same but who shoots 68 or 69 based purely on their mental game. One player is going to hit different shots than the other.

It's a hypothetical with no actual answer. You just pre-determine what you want - you determine that people can be separated entirely by mental game stuff. I say hooey, doesn't happen that way.

Go on hiatus all you want; nobody's ever stopped you from posting in this topic or, you know, the thousands of other topics here.

[saevel25]

 

22 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I on the other hand think it’s quite conceivable that if the 68 shooter has a great mental game and the 69 shooter has a dreadful one then 100% of the difference between them could be mental game.

That is only assuming their swings stay consistent. Which for the most part they are. Still, even those on that end of the spectrum could have a wide range of values. It could be because somedays he's one and somedays he's not. There are golfers who end up averaging around 69, but end up with a wider range than those who also average 69. It is very probably that it's not the mental game. 

Example, Is Rory a bad putter because of his mental game? I could easily say that Rory could be that 69 shooter. He might have a weakness in his putting that flares up from time to time. That has nothing to do with his mental game. It has everything to do with his putting ability. Maybe his swing gets stuck and he hits the ball wild for a month. Again, still averages 69, but has nothing to do with his mental game. 

The picture is complicated, and you can't just say when it comes to the best of the best that the final difference is the mental game. 

Edited May 1, 2019 by saevel25

[Ty_Webb]

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

That is only assuming their swings stay consistent. Which for the most part they are. Still, even those on that end of the spectrum could have a wide range of values. It could be because somedays he's one and somedays he's not. There are golfers who end up averaging around 69, but end up with a wider range than those who also average 69. It is very probably that it's not the mental game. 

Example, Is Rory a bad putter because of his mental game? I could easily say that Rory could be that 69 shooter. He might have a weakness in his putting that flares up from time to time. That has nothing to do with his mental game. It has everything to do with his putting ability. Maybe his swing gets stuck and he hits the ball wild for a month. Again, still averages 69, but has nothing to do with his mental game. 

The picture is complicated, and you can't just say when it comes to the best of the best that the final difference is the mental game. 

I’m not saying it is. I’m saying it could be. There is only one side here dealing in absolutes. Apparently it’s impossible for a 69 shooter to be a stroke worse than a 68 shooter purely because of their mental game. That’s nonsense. Utter drivel. 

[iacas]

Just now, Ty_Webb said:

I’m not saying it is. I’m saying it could be. There is only one side here dealing in absolutes. Apparently it’s impossible for a 69 shooter to be a stroke worse than a 68 shooter purely because of their mental game. That’s nonsense. Utter drivel. 

You've been disrespectful a few times (that we "missed" things, "utter drivel," etc.). Stop.

We're not saying it in absolutes either.

[chspeed]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

I on the other hand think it’s quite conceivable that if the 68 shooter has a great mental game and the 69 shooter has a dreadful one then 100% of the difference between them could be mental game. Every time I say this someone will say that it doesn’t matter how poor DJ’s mental game is, he’ll always beat me. Well duh. Either that or they pick at some little nit in what I said and ignore the substance. 

 

I don't know enough to answer whether the mental game is a bigger or smaller percentage of the game at different levels of competence. I don't know if that's been studied well enough.

Regardless, the reason the mental game is more important for pros than amateurs is that .05 (or whatever the number is) of a stroke, over the course of a year, or a career, can make a huge difference. In other words, while difference in mental game is a small part of your golf score, that small part of your golf score is very important to some people.

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by chspeed

[ncates00]

On 10/4/2017 at 12:56 PM, iacas said:

The effect swing thoughts have on your swing. I play with one swing thought almost every time I play (at most, two, but never on the same swing) because they lead to a change my physical swing. It's a fine line to draw, but let's try to draw it.

I know we drew the line with this, but outside of course management, I think swirling swing thoughts can materially affect your game.  I appreciate @iacas's distinction he drew though.  This one here I'll grant as something that needs controlled.  But it's an easy one because it has physical ramifications.

[klineka]

12 hours ago, chspeed said:

Regardless, the reason the mental game is more important for pros than amateurs is that .05 (or whatever the number is) of a stroke, over the course of a year, or a career, can make a huge difference. In other words, while difference in mental game is a small part of your golf score, that small part of your golf score is very important to some people.

I mean yeah, that's pretty obvious, but that is just a result of them playing in order to make a living and provide for their families' so yeah I'd hope every part of their golf score is more important to them than it is to me. 

That isn't just related to the mental game though, all parts of the game should be more important to them.

[chspeed]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

I mean yeah, that's pretty obvious, but that is just a result of them playing in order to make a living and provide for their families' so yeah I'd hope every part of their golf score is more important to them than it is to me.  

Not quite what I was getting at.

Number 125 on tour's scoring average is 71.504. Number 135 is 71.562. A tiny difference in scores can make or break a career. Obviously, they are working as hard as possible on their swing and physical skills, conditioning, etc. But they are so grouped together in talent that the mental game's contribution to score matters. For us, not so much.

edit: I realize that number 125 in scoring avg isn't 125 on money list, but I'm assuming (without checking) that there is a strong correlation between money list and scoring average.

Edited May 2, 2019 by chspeed

[klineka]

1 minute ago, chspeed said:

But they are so grouped together in talent that the mental game's contribution to score matters. For us, not so much.

Just because their scores are more important to them doesn't mean the mental game has a larger affect on their scores though...

[chspeed]

1 minute ago, klineka said:

Just because their scores are more important to them doesn't mean the mental game has a larger affect on their scores though...

That's not what I was saying.

[klineka]

5 minutes ago, chspeed said:

That's not what I was saying.

What are you saying then?

When I said that it's obvious that all parts of their game (including mental part) are more important to them since they have more on the line, you said that wasn't what you were getting at.

But then when I said that the importance of their score likely doesn't affect how much the mental game contributes to their score, you said that's not what you are saying either.

Edited May 2, 2019 by klineka

[chspeed]

2 minutes ago, klineka said:

What are you saying then?

When I said that it's obvious that all parts of their game (including mental part) are more important to them since they have more on the line, you said that wasn't what you were getting at.

But then when I said that the importance of their score likely doesn't affect how much the mental game contributes to their score, you said that's not what you are saying either.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that for professional and amateur golfers, on average, the golf game is 99% physical and 1% mental. What does this really mean? This means that for some score, let's say 70, the mental aspect of the game can only contribute to a variation of 7/10th of a stroke.

For an amateur, improving his game by learning mental techniques is not as important because the improvement will max out at 1% of his score. If he averages 100, he's not going to bother to learn how to meditate and reduce stress just so he can shoot 99.

For a pro however, assuming his scoring average is 70, improving his score by 7/10th of a stroke has meaning, because it can make the difference between being at the top of the money list and selling shirts at a country club. This is one reason why mental game may be more important for a pro.

Of course, I'm assuming that the cost of improvement for physical vs mental are equal for amateurs and pros. The reality is that the the "cost" of improvement almost certainly diverges. In other words, the amount of physical swing practice required for a pro to improve by a stroke will be significantly higher than that for an amateur. This is simply because pros are close to their limits of golf swing technique and their physical ability. They may not be as adept or practiced at the mental aspect of the game, so the cost of improvement may be lower to the degree that it overcomes it's limited affect on their scores and becomes a more attractive area for improvement.

 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that for professional and amateur golfers, on average, the golf game is 99% physical and 1% mental. What does this really mean? This means that for some score, let's say 70, the mental aspect of the game can only contribute to a variation of 7/10th of a stroke.

I don't mind a lot of what you've posted, but I'm still not agreeing with this direct application of "percent" to score because the best golfers in the world rarely shoot 64 or below, yet at a "10%" difference you might have one person shooting 70 and another shooting 63.

It doesn't work that way. Especially over a single round. Dustin Johnson is a better golfer than Jordan Spieth right now, and yet… in any given round. But over the long haul…

13 minutes ago, chspeed said:

For a pro however, assuming his scoring average is 70, improving his score by 7/10th of a stroke has meaning, because it can make the difference between being at the top of the money list and selling shirts at a country club. This is one reason why mental game may be more important for a pro.

That depends on too many other things, though. Every time you invest time into one thing you have the opportunity cost of not spending time doing other things. So while I understand what your line of thinking is, I don't agree, necessarily, because that same pro might be able to save 1.2 shots per round by improving his putting in half the time.

[criley4way]

Maybe I am missing something but when I say "mental game" I am talking about my level of arousal/calm, about being conscious of my routine and being in the moment of the shot. All of this is to try and ensure that my body is in the place "most likely" to produce the shot in my mind. 

If I am sore or injured it messes with my "mental game". If I am stressed and can't quiet my mind or I am sad or whatever, I am less likely to get my body to the right place.

How do you POSSIBLY separate mental and physical? And who can say that the right approach for DJ and Rory are the same? These are just different ways to help prepare to make a good shot more likely by giving your body the best chance of executing.

"mental game" is like set-up or swing thoughts, a concept to make it more likely to produce a good swing.

[iacas]

Whether you’re sore/tired and your “setup” is not your mental game. That’s broadening it so much as to be ridiculous. It’s half a step short of saying since your mind controls your muscles than everything is the mental game. Which has been tried.