(geez, these riomar shoes are nice…)
2 Likes
Curious for those who have read both, how do these ladies compare to Rotella? Seems like might be a little similar but they are more technical and specific?
Got it in the mail a week ago. I need to sit down and read it finally. I got 30 pages into it and got distracted with other things. It seems like a great way to work on the mental side of the game.
I’ve had the fortune to know both. It’s a bit like comparing coaches. Some people will accept or believe the same basic information depending on how it’s presented or communicated. Rotella likes to question you or tell stories to make you think or see a different possibility or view of a situation. Enjoy making putts more than mind missing them. If you miss a green you now get to show off your short game. Can seem stupid to one but profound to another.
Vision 54 has more science and explanations of how the mind and body function. For someone like me certain things from both have made me learn more about how I play, react or progress in the game.
Both I think are well worth looking at if you have time.
Solid deal with the code in the podcast!
it makes so much sense when you read it in the book, but actually applying it, (the 3 boxes) requires incredible discipline on the course. I can’t say of ever been able to do it for more than 2 or 3 holes
I think, I need to try harder
Awesome. Thanks. This is exactly what I envisioned from the snippet of them. I always think of the Tom Kite and the UT team story from Rotella to sum him up kinda. Very interested in diving deeper into these guys (ladies). As you said, can likely take a little from each and apply to yourself in the most productive manner for you.
1 Like
We are all very different people. I personally don’t think one coaching style or method suits all. Golf is a personal journey for me, finding the correct people to make it with is important. Tiger, Bubba, Norman and Furyk are all very different, all can play exceptional golf.
Maybe they’re just flat out wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
It’s considered “not cool” to say things like “Well, I’m just better than they are. I have shots they don’t have, and better control and more distance than others.” Sure, others will say that about Tiger, or about Jack, but if they said it, it’d be taken badly. It wouldn’t be the “gentlemanly thing” to say.
How strong was Tiger’s “mental game” when he was struggling with chipping or pitching, or making short putts in 2013, or whatever? Or how strong mentally was Tiger when he could stripe it all day on the range, but would blow it 60 yards right off the first tee (or duck hook it)? The same guy that won 15 majors and would win another (after his technical skills improved again)… suffered because of a faulty swing. He knew how to do the “mental game” stuff - he missed putts, hit bad chips, and blew drives off the planet because of his swing. Physical stuff.
The mental game is a sliver, on average. Golfers, even at that level, can’t appreciate the fractions of a shot that make up a score… so they (like amateurs), often attribute it to the mental game. But yet we have major winners (like Rich Beem) admit to winning majors while thinking “I’m totally gonna shank this.”
Most of them, yeah.
Some have an issue with the mental game, sure. I’m not saying it doesn’t affect some people.
Doesn’t mean they’re right. Can you prove they would not have won if they had been “different” that week, too?
Humans con themselves.
Golfers hit a bad shot, even if their mental process was the same as the previous 10 average to good shots, and they say “ahhh, I had a bad mental game there.” No, that was just the law of averages, buddy. That golfer is retroactively trying to assign a reason for the shot, when none really exists. It wasn’t an extra-ordinary shot.
Who said it was swing faults? Conditions are different in majors, and the people that you think might be great “ball strikers” might not be up for it. Plus, again, I’ve never said “all” or “everyone” here.
2 Likes
Idk it seems like there is some science that backs up the idea that your mental state impacts your physical performance more than you’re admitting. “Does it make a difference to the average player” is a good question but I’m not sold on it being inconsequential for pros.
1 Like
A sliver.
Giving much weight to the mental game simultaneously de-values the thousands of hours guys or gals have spent honing their physical craft.
But like I said, hey, I’m in the minority on this one. So be it.
2 Likes
I feel like a lot of it is just confirmation bias too. Oh that guy wins a lot he must have a great mental make up, or maybe he’s just better.
A lot of the “clutch” players aren’t actually that “clutch” they just find themselves in that moment more often and are better than other guys so they pull it off and that’s what we remember.
1 Like
gotta admit, when I first saw the title on the podcast description / title, I thought the subject material was going to be VERYdifferent.
**
I mean, step back for a hot second and think about this.
We are talking about the two players with the best control of their golf ball in the history of the game, and they are crediting their “mental strength”? That is a little patently ridiculous.
What do they really do better? They hit it closer from just about everywhere. Why are they “mentally tough”? Because they know that their game is better and can trust it better. Even Hogan talks about this in Five Lessons (loosely paraphrased) - “the best swing should get better, the more pressure you put on it”.
You don’t achieve “FIGJAM” with a mental coach, you build it on the range.
Yeah I’m better than you, why? I work more, I work harder, I work better.
(Note - the “theoretical” I because I’m not that good at golf even if I want to imagine that I am.)
3 Likes
No idea, I’ve never asked them. You all seem to have all the answers and know more than the worlds best, even what they are actually thinking. Maybe your right and all the tour guis here at The Medalist are delusional or just not as bright as you guis. Why anyone thinks talking about the mental game somehow devalues ball striking, practice time or technique is beyond me.
2 Likes
Phil literally got a negative nickname because of his trust in his ability “arrogance”, “FIGJAM”.
A lot of tour guise are great at many things, but, if you ask them to compare themselves to players who are super-elite at a specific skill (Tiger + irons, Rory + driving, etc), they will acknowledge that they fall far short of those peers.
1 Like
Oy, I check out when you start to make up things like that.
Sorry @ajsmith it seems the boys want to end your thread. Hope you enjoy the book. Maybe ask @Soly what/if he finds any value in the Vision 54 views, as to be honest it’s quite a while since I met them.
As far as me defending views expressed by tour pros, I’ll think I’ll leave it to them.
1 Like
I think everyone should read this book, because many of the assumptions about the book’s content are off. Pia and Lynn absolutely never claim top pros are good because of their mental game, and that focusing on the mental side of things will turn you into a good player. They talk about some of the things good players do naturally that others can learn from.
This shouldn’t be a practice on the range vs work on your mental game thing. The book spends a decent amount of time on making practice sessions more productive and carrying over those skills to competition.
Make up things?