The thinking mans game

First topic message reminder :

Golf clearly requires more planning and thought compared to most sports due to the difficulties of navigating the course and the hazards along the way. At all times the player must decide how the shot they plan to hit will react to the conditions and landscape and where that leaves them for the next shot. Unlike many sports where most decisions are made in a millisecond in golf you have many minutes to think about each shot. Both in terms of how to play it strategy wise and how to execute it technically.

The main advantage a more intellectual or academic player would have is the ability to understand course management (the probabilities related to each shot outcome and longer term statistical nature of shot choice) and an understanding of the architecture and how this impacts how to play the course.

Is this apparent advantage actually a disadvantage, although some thought must be given to the game, I do wonder how complex the thought process really is and whether it is no more than experience as opposed to logic and analysis of the situation. I would not think that intelligence would really help a player gain an advantage in the game, so if we were to conduct a study where all other factors of success on the course could be held constant but intelligence of the payer increased I do not think we would see and improvement in scores.

Now of course this also assumes that intelligence would not contribute to the base level of performance the player had, for example being able to understand a coaches instructions more clearly. If an increase in performance is not expected then is it possible that with greater intelligence there is actually a drop in performance, once a relatively high intelligence is reached. The time to think about shots in golf is wide open to over analysis and complication of the task at hand. The less thought that goes into it the more a natural reaction can dictate how the shot is hit.

This raises an interesting thought which proposes that although the intellectual element of the game is one of the real joys it is not crucial to shooting the lowest scores. Again we must assume that course management can be gained through experience by even the lower intellect player.

As an example of a sport where the intellectual element is crucial we need to look at F1, the smarter teams always win. In golf we do not always see the smartest players win despite the amount of time you have to think about it.

So in golf monthly’s game improvement section I hope to see in the near future a section which recommends skipping school, ignorance of classic literature, refusal to do mental arithmetic and a general apathy to learning.

mac

good post. ive enjoyed reading through it.

many of the good amatuers ive played with give the impresion that they have left their brain at home. a definate vacancy sign where the grey cells should be.

however they have good jobs and careers....teachers ,aircraft engineers, succesful self employed people.

as someone pointed out, its having a quite mind that is the secret.....that and ability.

super_realist wrote:Doesn't Martin O Neil have a degree in Law?
Maurice Malpas is a qualified Civil Engineer and I think Iain Dowie has a degree in Astrophysics.

I suppose it's only fair that Iain Dowie was given brains because he certainly wasn't given looks............

Is having a quiet mind comparable to getting into the zone, as in background noise from other thoughts are suppressed and you can focus on your game?

Or is it more like a meditative state where you are relaxed and able to think clearly?

Definitely Mac, One of my main aims of the year was to try and think less whilst on the course this year, forget about my score and bad shots.

Whilst I haven't been able to forget about my score as you always know what you are to par, my mind has not been overly concerned with the consequences of a bad shot.
I just try and think about other things instead. We're lucky to play this game.

McLaren wrote:Is having a quiet mind comparable to getting into the zone, as in background noise from other thoughts are suppressed and you can focus on your game?

Or is it more like a meditative state where you are relaxed and able to think clearly?

When I've played well at any sport (particularly golf, cricket, snooker where you have time to think rather than just react) being in the zone means you don't think much at all - it just all seems to flow naturally. Steve Davis was once asked how he managed to stay calm when under immense pressure at the Crucible and his answer was pretty much 'You have to act as if nothing you do matters at all, when in fact everything matters!'

I would say its comparable to just not caring.

How often do you play poorly, before finally just thinking sod this, just swing and hit a peach.

This is the same with many other sports, but in golf terms i assume its because you stop thinking of technical things before shots, your grip, stance, alignment have been done thousands of times and so you are just trained to do it with minimal thought process.

Thats how it is for me anyway

im not really sure of the definition of a quite mind but my idea of a qiute mind is one that isnt screaming "SHANK!!!!!" or "watch the OB!!" or talking yourself through your swing mechanics before you stepup to the ball.

we all know that when we have played our best golf and when you sit down and think about why we played so well we usually realise that everything "just clicked".

So is there a way to turn a golf swing into a reaction like pouncing on a loose ball in football?

is that not what your pre shot routine is designed to acheive.??

it would be alot easier if all we did was play and practice golf.....


we have a new member joined our group and he got his first handicap of 18 and he only took the game up last year. he plays cack handed and he said he cannot believe how difficult the game is...and frustrating!

One thing Mac is to perhaps spend less time over the ball. Make it a reaction to a specific thing. i.e as soon as you return your eyes to the ball then start your swing.
Not reactive in the sense of a football arcing through the air, but enough of a stimulus to get the movement going without hesitation, see what I mean.
How often do you have to wait on someone who spends an age over the ball, getting ever more tense and tight only to fluff the ball.
The best golfers I know are the ones who play with fluidity and without fear. Look at how you do on the range. I bet you hit it great at the range, because you aren't thinking about the shot. You might even wonder why you can hit it great on the range, but not on the course. It's simple. On the range the shot doesn't matter, on the course, it does, so people get hesitant and tense over it. All you should do is react to the target and swing away, no swing thoughts, nothing.

I think for me the big thing about being ine the "zone" is acceptance. By that I mean don't think about the shot once its completed. Once you learn to accept you hit the shot and its result is a direct consequence of your actions no matter good or bad you soon stop being negative. Which allows you to forget about the last shot hit as the only shot that ever matters in golf is the next one.

Course management is by far the sharpest tool in my bag and that has come through accepting everything that happens and moving onto the next shot with no negative thoughts even if the last shot was a shank! Works for me

With regards to turning the swing into a reaction as you say mac the best way I was taught this sort of principle was to practice as you play. When on the range don't simply just reload the ball and whack away a hundred balls +. Better to have a bucket of 40, walk away from each shot and go through every shot with the same pre-shot routine as you would on the course. It's amazing how grooved the routine becomes and how much easier it is to stand over the ball and pull the trigger without other things getting in the way because your simply playing the way you practised!

We had a saying in my old regiment "train hard, fight easy" all that meant is through training the same way and same intensity as you would in action, when required everything was grooved and came as second nature under pressure. That easily translates to golf and the method I mention above it all becomes second nature

oldparwin wrote:A footballer like Messi, or a golfer like Woods, has just pure skill in their particular sport, this does not mean they are intelligent or even well educated, it just means they have outstanding skill in their sport.

Disagree, I think a lot, not all, top top sportspeople are also very intelligent - not necessarily academic wise but why would they when they were so good at sport? I think its a combination of skill and intelligence. Just because they have succeeded in sport doesnt mean they are not clever.

It kind of aligns with what some are saying about a quiet mind and controlling physical actions. Emotional intelligence is part of that and part of being intelligent.

Cor blimey! Didn't think this would garner the amount of comment it has.

I think this presumed lack of a link between 'academic' intelligence and 'sporting' intelligence is a myth. Just because Rooney et al can't hold up bits of paper to prove they can do maths etc doesn't mean he doesn't have a decent intellect academically. Could be any number of reasons why he might not have the paperwork to 'prove' he's bright but his brain can certainly do all the spatial gymnastics, deal with relative speeds, aerodynamics etc that is required for him to hit a cross field pass for Hernandez to take on the run, without breaking stride and score.

As someone has already very astutely mentioned, many of the top sports people were playing sports when they should have been studying. Hard to 'prove' you have academic smarts if you don't actually study. It's very rare to find those who are World beaters at a sport and an academic polymath.

Whichever way you cut it, the great sportsmen and women have to be physically gifted and intelligent for their sport, whether they have a Degree to prove it or not. You can get so far on physical ability alone but you'll get found out at the top if that's all you have.

navyblueshorts wrote:his brain can certainly do all the spatial gymnastics, deal with relative speeds, aerodynamics etc that is required for him to hit a cross field pass for Hernandez to take on the run, without breaking stride and score.

But is that intelligence or instinct?

Davie wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:his brain can certainly do all the spatial gymnastics, deal with relative speeds, aerodynamics etc that is required for him to hit a cross field pass for Hernandez to take on the run, without breaking stride and score.

But is that intelligence or instinct?

In Rooney's case, much as I hate to admit it, I'd say it was pretty intelligent. He spots the run, appreciates the possibilities, knows just how he has to strike the ball to place it in the path of the other player and he can execute it. He has many other flaws but he's a very intelligent footballer as far as I can see; just not in an academic bookish way.

There is a huge difference between an intelligent footballer and an intelligent person in general terms, which I think in honesty leaves this debate rather pointless.
I've played with some seriously good footballers who are the thickest guys you will ever come across.

If you're going to call a talent at something 'intelligence', well most people are good at something....so is EVERYONE intelligent??

navyblueshorts wrote:Whichever way you cut it, the great sportsmen and women have to be physically gifted and intelligent for their sport, whether they have a Degree to prove it or not. You can get so far on physical ability alone but you'll get found out at the top if that's all you have.

NBS nails it for me. Yes everyone is good at something but the worlds best, even in sport, I think, must be very intelligent. Kind of does leave the debate pointless other than an academic playing golf might have an advantage or he might not. haha!

Good footballers like good golfer, have the brain to go with it, a good footballer, can look up, in a second asses the situation and make the telling pass, like the golfer, he can visualise the shot he wants play and then executes it.

Very good sportsmen have the brains to go with their sport, this does not make them more intelligent or stupid than everyone else, just means their brains can get the best out of the skill they have got to make them great players.

Whilst i would love to agree that a good footballer must be intelligent - as it would move some of my friends right up the ladder of life! - i'm not sure i do.

The skills that make someone like Messi the player he is are bravery, speed, agility, dexterity, co-ordination, reflexes. In other words, reaction type abilities. Even the spotting of a pass is in a slit second. There's no decision making going on there. Not really. It's reactions.

For me, true intelligence in the general sense must involve some sort of evaluation and decision making.

Golf, to be fair, might require a little more of that. But not much

MustPuttBetter wrote:If you're going to call a talent at something 'intelligence', well most people are good at something....so is EVERYONE intelligent??

I am at best average at everything and not very good at anything.

Does this mean i am unintelligent.

Makes me sad

Yes~ well said NBS.

Instinct~ Fight or flight~ Intelligent~Educated

Right here's one for you.

In the 1970's there was a greenkeeper at a south coast golf club with Downes Syndrome. He played off about 12 handicap. He carried a wee bag with half a dozen clubs and just walked up to every shot and hit it.
The interesting thing with his game was that he never took any chances. He only played shots that he knew he could make.
Unfortunately I never had the chance to play with him but those who did said it was an education.

Just returning to the subject of "intelligent" (in the wider sense) sportsmen again...

This morning on TalkSport breakfast there was an interview with an ex Arsenal player (talknig about the Arsenal back four amongst other things). I only heard them refer to him as "Martin" but the only Martin I know from that era is Martin Keown. Yet whoever it was, didn't fit my impression of Keown (books and covers, yes I know).

Whoever it was spoke extremely well and seemed extremely intelligent and eloquent.

Anyone know if it really was Keown?

No idea if it was Keown Davie but I can say he is a very bright and eloquent guy. Done a fair bit of punditry and comes across well. My mate works with Arsenal on a community project and he said he was a really good guy, always one of the first to help out with kids in the community. Just a bit of an animal on the pitch.

Sounds like it probably was him then Diggers. Certainly shot down any preconceived ideas I may have had about him!

Keown will never be forgiven for his attack on Ruud Van Nistelrooy.

McLaren wrote:Keown will never be forgiven for his attack on Ruud Van Nistelrooy.

He should be knighted for it

It was Keown, Davie.
I heard the interview as well. As Digs says he is known for being well spoken. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but he says it well!

McLaren wrote:Keown will never be forgiven for his attack on Ruud Van Nistelrooy.

Keown made himself look a right tool in that incident, he behaved like he was on a school playground.

JPX wrote:

McLaren wrote:Keown will never be forgiven for his attack on Ruud Van Nistelrooy.

Keown made himself look a right tool in that incident, he behaved like he was on a school playground.

In all fairness though it was Van Nistelrooy and he does have one of those faces you just want to slap

Maverick wrote:In all fairness though it was Van Nistelrooy and he does have one of those faces you just want to slap

Or ride.........

He certainly does have a Horses face.....