Why does everything have to be put into the SG model. I mean how do you add getting physically stronger into SG. Being in a great mental state one particular week doesn’t need a SG value but might actually make a difference. If I’m correct (often not) SG is based on averages, over time versus other players. How can you possibly think of giving a value to standing on the 12th tee at Augusta, with the lead, partnered with Tiger? I’m guessing it was a completely different shot earlier in the day for others.
If getting physically stronger had a positive impact on your game, then the requisite categories (ex: driving, assuming you hit it further) would go up because your total score would go down
Yes I get that honestly. So Norman blasting it way right with an 8 iron on the 72nd hole is just a missed green and some number in SG. Correct. No account for his individual circumstance, mindset in that moment or comparison with all the other mid iron shots played that day on that hole. Obviously SG has great value but so does situation, mindset and I’m guessing (not been there myself) many other factors. I could well be reading this all wrong but why does it feel like golf is SG only?
I see what you are trying to get at here and it’s a really difficult problem to negotiate. How can you adjust an average for a situation?
Obviously SG isn’t a perfect metric, but, it’s always a retroactive analysis tool and not a forecasting tool, so, you can’t look forward and say “I expect to gain ____ shots” (well you can, but it’s zero shots).
One thing that I’ve heard a lot of great players talk about is that “in a tournament, all shots count equally”, and they use this to help not lose their minds when they miss the last putt on the 72nd hole that takes them from 2 to T-3 and costs them $300,000.
Sure, that iron approach at the last got fanned, but you also missed a 3-footer on Friday morning. Which was a “worse” miss? From SG, probably the putt, but, everyone is going to remember you choking away that approach at the last, you know?
Totally agree with you here (in general I’m a SG geek and shoutout @iacas’ book LSW where he outlines and defends all of these points - which I love), but what you’re getting at here seems to be exactly what Pia and Lynn discuss in their book and on the pod. The increased emotional response stores this memory stronger - just the science of it - so how you manage those emotions is the skill. They call them human skills and argue there is a benefit to pairing them with the physical skills you also practice.
Let me first get out of the way that I think the physical part of the game is the most important and the way to get better. But in my mind, the mental part helps you get the most out of your physical abilities. There’s a reason why we can hit 10 straight drives down the middle but slice it into the water on the only hole with water right. There’s a reason people talk about having a swing that holds up under pressure. I think a good mental game could be even more important to an average golfer than to a pro. How many times have you had a good round going and one bad shot ruins it? How many times are you playing with someone that is playing great but just has a disaster hole and the rest of the round is screwed?
Shit now that I am in here haha I just think its so interesting how widely applicable what Pia and Lynn describe is. In a nut shell the book and pod discussion are looks into performance science and, at times, learning science adjacent, which has been a big kick for me recently.
I’m currently taking a coursera course on the science of learning as I prepare for grad school this fall and its been striking how relatable the material is. Modern brain science has given us a much more accurate look into how humans learn - whether informational or physical expertise - and when and how they do it the most quickly and deeply. Pia and Lynn seem to touch on these topics and, to me, have been my favorite parts of the book so far (~half way through). I think there is value in understanding these topics and how they apply to you and your game, especially if you can’t play right now like some of us.
This is exactly what my thoughts are on this. Yes, physical ability, technique, etc. is going to determine how well you can play (top end), but the mental aspect must be there in order to achieve that top end. Bad mental can detract from good physical whereas good mental won’t make up for bad physical.
The part I’m not 100% sure on is what part of the spectrum mental makes the most difference. I would argue if you took most 15-18 handicaps and made them mentally strong they would improve 3-5 strokes simply from that. I think 10 handicaps could drop ~2 from improved mental abilities. Caveat: encompassed in mental strength I would also pair course management, etc. which is another conversation and maybe should not be included (although is relevant as you can significantly reduce the fear of the water right by playing a different shot/club).
I’m hard selling that take. Maybe if you got to hand-pick the guys, you could get to 51%, but no… people over-value and over-weight the mental game, IMO.
Sorry, but you can’t take “Jack Nicklaus’s mind” and put it in the average guy that shoots 100 and have him shoot 90 or something. Jack is used to knowing where his ball is going to go within a very small area. His “mental strength” isn’t going to do a lot to help the guy who shoots a hundred and hits every type of bad shot imaginable.
I might be able to summarize my opinion by just saying that “IMO, the mental game tends to be over-rated by golfers.” Not all, but most.
May or may not have more to say later specifically in response to @Soly (who I would call an outlier, and someone with a “glaring weakness” if he really self-talked that negatively during rounds).
This is where I’m at. I’d say a mental game does more to lift your floor than raise your ceiling. How many times have you or someone you’re playing with hit a terrible shot, walk to the ball, and swing again without a full pre-shot routine. It never goes well. But that’s a lot less common the better the player. That’s definitely my weakness. I’ll shoot 3 over for 15 holes but 9 over on the other 3 holes.
Fair points. I just see these guys who are not good that I play with just making bad swings, careless errors consistently and feel like if they they just improved mentally it could eliminate some of the big errors. But that is just my take and you have way more experience in this game than I do (and likely working with some of the types of guys I’m thinking about).
I also could be biased because reading Soly’s post, it sounds like I am very much skewing towards him. Playing tennis at elite level while being extremely mentally weak, I could have been much better simply by improving mentally. Unfortunately the same thing has translated to my newfound obsession here. I am working on it slowly, but know that I have much more room for improvement which is why I am intrigued by these guys’ stuff.
Exactly. Also thought you were going to say +9 on the last 3. That brings up the point of losing rounds at the end. I don’t know how (read: curious to hear a counter) you can say mental doesn’t matter when approaching the last few holes at/near a milestone score people consistently fall apart. Whether that is breaking 70, par, 80, 90, etc. I would reckon almost every golfer has experienced this. You didn’t become a physically different person walking off 16 green at E or -1, but you did mentally and that’s why you doubled the last two holes…
Before I get into specifics, I will state a few of my opinions:
First, I view “the mental game” as mostly your emotional state, your “mindset.” I don’t call GamePlanning (choosing a shot and where to hit it) the “mental game,” I don’t call your mind telling your muscles what to do the “mental game,” etc. For example, your pre-shot routine can make you feel more “prepared” or “comfortable” to hit the shot, but it isn’t directly the “mental game” itself.
Golfers fail to recognize how often they hit a good shot after a poor mental process. Why? They have no reason to go back to review “what went wrong?” after a good shot, so these instances go unnoticed. When golfers hit a bad shot, they usually have to find a reason, and they often land on “the mental game” (another popular one: “I rushed it”).
People love to blame their mental game instead of their actual physical game because they over-rate their physical game. They under-value how often they hit horrible shots.
People over-value how well they hit the ball on the range. They almost never have game-like conditions: not hitting a shot for the past 12 minutes, using a completely different club, having a specific target with a specific set of consequences, a varied lie… So, since they’re the same person, they land on “mental game” as what’s different. The italicized part is the only part that is really “mental game” related - the consequences of a poor shot on the course. The other factors affect the shots, too, and are physical.
Golfers under-value the amount of work it takes for the physical game to get to a point where it’s up to snuff. They like to “con” themselves into thinking that they just need “a better mental game” to shave strokes, because that sounds easy to do. I don’t know why in golf it is that way, but golfers rarely want to blame their physical game, even if they hit a shot that is perfectly normal for their distribution, but will blame their mind at the drop of a hat (or the drop of a clubhead 3" behind the golf ball ).
The only response I had to @Soly directly would be:
Those types of things put you into the “glaring weakness” category, IMO. You’re right that you needed to address it, and I’m glad you feel you have.
I play as a single at lots on Muni courses in NYC. I get placed with groups of golfers whose skill is all over the map, though mostly of the high handicap variety. It is my experience that the majority of these people overestimate both their physical game and mental game.
I seldom if ever see one of these golfers blame a poor shot on a mental error. They almost always blame it on a perceived cliche swing flaw (moving head, hanging back, standing up,et cetera).
I have a good friend, we play about 40 or 50 rounds together a year. Our games are very similar. Both fluctuate between 9 - 11 handicap. We commonly comment, that if either one of us had the other one caddying, (and took the advice) we could shave 1 or 2 strokes a side. It’s amazing how many dumb things we do that are so easy to see from the outside looking in, but get messed up when you are “on the clock”
With no change in physical ability, I think I could play better if I played smarter.
As I mentioned above… Applying Pia and Lynn’s theories is hard work and requires discipline
I have another regular partner who we call “diagnosis man”. Every poor shot is followed by an instant swing analysis I looked up, I didn’t finish my backswing, I swayed off the ball, too quick, I tried to baby it…
Perhaps he just sucks like the rest of the guys in our group
I have not listened to the pod yet, but I’m 2/3 of the way through the audiobook after struggling to find value in the actual book (I own both).
I’m not sure I’ve heard anything that wasn’t already covered in “Every Shot Must Have a Purpose”. I guess now there’s a memory box instead of just a think box and a play box that they had before. I’m not getting a lot of value out of this book right now.
).