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.

Thats why I said most Diggers because there is always the exception and Gazza was certainly one of them! Not really one of the greatest of all time though is he? (as a Rangers fan I cant believe I just said that!)

Gazza would probably not fit my theory and be one to succeed academically if given the chance but I dont think he's great enough to qualify in the first instance. We both agree that he had plenty 'other' intelligence to succeed at his choosen career but perhaps if he was more intelligent he might have been up there with best? Also, its interesting that a lot of definitions of intelligence include things that straight away can be applied to sports.

Kwini, Messi is still ahead of Rooney right now. One of his goals at the weekend was a great example of combining all the things we have talked about on this thread - spacial awareness, skill, athelitism and intelligence. Most players get you out of your seat because you appreciate what they are about to attempt and if then they pull it off. With Messi you have to wait until he's finished before you know what he's attempting. Different planet.

Mav and others, dont confuse thinking and understanding. If two golfers have the same skill level but the one has a higher academic intelligence he may better understand the forces at work in striking a ball and use this knowledge to better his practice and game. Of course, even if the skill level is the same there is still other factors in who might be the better player like bottle etc. but its not automatic that academic intelligence hinders a gofler into thinking too much - not that anyones categorically stated that but its the other side of the coin.

I don't think Shane Lowry is very bright.

Lairdy, I just dont really get where you are coming from with the ones you mention, Zidane, Messi, Rooney, Pele, Maradona, Best (who I met and was pretty thick)....none of them strike me as being particularly intelligent to be honest. Cruyff certainly, maybe Gullit as well. To be fair most of the Dutch guys seem pretty bright. Platini is another one who Id say was intelligent.

Fletcher, Owen and Hargreaves seem pretty bright. Lampard and Terry sound like retards though.

SR, certainly Terry. Lampard is recognised by most, even his dissenters, as being one of the more intelligent guys playing today. Did very well academically at school and has impressed with his speeches at awards.
Agree Hargreaves seems like he has his head screwed on.

Sorry Diggers, I meant to say Gerrard, who clearly isn't very bright.
Lampard despite his monotonous goal celebration does appear quite intelligent and generally speaks well.

Definitely agree about Hargreaves - I wonder if it is related to the fact he grew up outside of the UK

Also agree with Diggers about Lampard; maybe not Nobel prize winning material but shows much more intelligence than most of the football "stars" these days.

I seem to recall that they always used to say Pat Nevin was one of the most educated and intelligent footballers around.

As for golfers, it's harder to tell as you only normally see short interviews rather than in depth features on them. McIlroy seems to be pretty lacking; Westwood slightly better. Donald is hard to tell - I suspect he is better educated than most but doesn't really show it. He has a tendency to come across as a bit "nice but dim" but I think there is more to him than that. Kaymer and Stricker both seem quite switched on. GMac is suspect is the surprise package - put aside the mid-Atlantic accent and I think you'll find a fairly smart brain.

Mickelson, Watney, Bubba - the less said the better

The commentators used to say about Harrington that he was a trained accountant. Personally I think there is a village missing an idiot somewhere - in the same category as the above-mentioned Americans

Agree about Pat Nevin, he's an excellent pundit and wasted by being on the backwater that is Scottish television. Could easily take the place of Alan Shearer on MOTD.

I think Harrington's problem is he's got that simpleton "Irish" look of having his eyes to close together.

Davie, I read an article about Donald a while ago. Apparently he is one of those guys who is annoyingly good at everything, academically and artistically gifted, great at most sports he tries and a genuinely nice bloke to boot. Factor in his fit wife and we should all hate him really.

Would say that Mickelson is one of the most intelligent, articulate guys you'll find in any sport anywhere.
Perhaps he's too much the deep-thinking end of the spectrum for his own good.

Luke Donald is from what I can gather a fairly clever guy but keeps himself to himself damn fine artist though.

Harrington indeed an accountant but looks like a complete simpleton. Hunter Mahan another who comes across as being more clued up on the end of a shotgun from the back of a trailer park than someone likely to debate the pro's and cons of the meaning of life.

As for footballers most intelligent one i've met is Clarke Carlisle very clued up guy indeed on all matters and very good at putting across his point on tv in an articulate manner

The guys who impress me are people like Jon Webb. International rugby player and internationally acclaimed surgeon, you'd have to be happy with those achievements really.

kwinigolfer wrote:Would say that Mickelson is one of the most intelligent, articulate guys you'll find in any sport anywhere.
Perhaps he's too much the deep-thinking end of the spectrum for his own good.

Surprised to hear that Kwini but perhaps you have been exposed to him more than we have.

To me he has that look of the lights being on, but nobody home

Mav, Carlisle is clearly a bright guy but I think he falls slightly into the trap of using a few big words when they arent really correct in the context or indeed necessary. This was on Question Time (I think), I got the impression that he was trying a little bit too hard personally and he was a little out of his depth on some of the topics. Colin Jackson does the same, sadly he is just thick so there is no hope for him.

Digs: Didn't see question time, not into political shows personally as fed up hearing the same guff. However when I met him and have seen him on the footy he comes across very well, does sound like he may have been trying to hard to be like to politcial buffoons though if thats what he was doing

Diggers wrote:Lairdy, I just dont really get where you are coming from with the ones you mention, Zidane, Messi, Rooney, Pele, Maradona, Best (who I met and was pretty thick)....none of them strike me as being particularly intelligent to be honest. Cruyff certainly, maybe Gullit as well. To be fair most of the Dutch guys seem pretty bright. Platini is another one who Id say was intelligent.

I just look at Zidane and Messi on a pitch and think yes they are some of the most talented footballers I have ever seen but they also must be so intelligent to get where they are. The brain has go to be working so much better than those around them. Their skill sets them apart from most others but to keep doing it game after game so consistently they must also be very clever and articulate. Some players just fold when given time to make a decision when natural ability isnt enough - players like Zidane and Messi are never found wanting in situations like that. Cant believe you included Rooney in that list btw... I never included him thats for sure! Maradona and Best probably wouldnt be academics I'll give you that. Maybe its just the type of player I like and appreciate, Platini I like from what I have seen on tape. A lot of the German players also.

Re Luke Donald, his journey to the top and the changes he made to his game actually fits some of the definitions of intelligence quite well.

Howard Gardner's thoughts on intelligence straight from the wiki oracle -

To my mind, a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills of problem solving — enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that he or she encounters and, when appropriate, to create an effective product — and must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems — and thereby laying the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge.

Carlisle is chairman of the PFA, which looks impressive until you realize that Dean Holdsworth and Garth Crooks were too!!

He's clearly a clever lad though having won Britains Brainiest Footballer and appearing on Countdown

Yeah I too thought Mickelson was as thick as.

One that an old house-mate of mine and I used to mock for seeming thick, though of course we had no basis for our mocking, was Justin Rose. I remember in the Ryder Cup we used to reckon Poulter had to tell him who had won each hole after the hole.

I've seen him interviewed recently though and although I'm not convinced he has an opinion of his own he can at least articulate his feelings.

I tell you what McLaren for a "pointless" topic you haven't half created a lot of debate.

One sportsman who i think comes across incredibly well is Michael Johnson.
Excellent work on Athletics and a good coup for the BBC.

It's probably one area where Tim Henman still outshine Andy Murray

Sorry Lairdy, thought you were saying they seemed like bright guys off the pitch. Actually re Rooney (the one playing now) Id say he was nowhere near as gifted as Messi or Ronaldo but he is a far more intelligent player. He plays for the team and makes a team tick, I dont think the other two do that at all, their talent causes mayhem for opposing teams but they dont tend to dictate the flow of a game. For Real its players like Kaka and for Barcelona Iniesta and Xavi, Id say hey were the cerebral players in those teams.

MustPuttBetter wrote:Carlisle is chairman of the PFA, which looks impressive until you realize that Dean Holdsworth and Garth Crooks were too!!

He's clearly a clever lad though having won Britains Brainiest Footballer and appearing on Countdown

Ahh, Garth Crookes, now there is a man who is nowhere near as bright as he seems to think he is. Used to like him as a player, now I think he is a complete see you next Tuesday.

He is indeed Digs. I can't stand him. As you say he thinks he's far more intelligent than he seems to be. Plus his eyelids are far too big!!

His whole head is too big MPB. Be easy to punch it though.

I think if you ignore Andy Murray's monotone voice there's a pretty bright and opionated guy in there.

super_realist wrote:I think if you ignore Andy Murray's monotone voice there's a pretty bright and opionated guy in there.

Kwini, if you get chance read this and put one of your extra commas in and tell me it wouldn't matter.

Sorry the thought just made me chuckle.

I'll go now.

Disagree about Garth Crooks, always comes across as a step up from the majority of footballers.

D4S, its not that he's thick, far from it. Its just that he pontificates, he says something like its fact just because he is saying it, which in the world of punditry and opinion is clearly not always the case.
And his head is too big.

Wouldn't be that hard D4S, when you get called The Professor for having an O Grade.

Gavin Peacock and Brian McClair reportedly got stick for daring to read broadsheets.

Rio Ferdinand seems to be a grade "A" mong.

Diggers, based on football intelligence I would agree with you on Rooney and Ronaldo there, not on Messi though he does plenty of dictating the pace of play. Incidentally, I've come to the opinion that Xavi and Messi are the only two good eggs in a bunch of bad eggs in that Barca team. They know how to play AND how to behave.

Garth Crooks master of stating the bleeding obvious with great verve. Even his team of the week feature on the bbc website grates me. "What do you reckon?"

Diggers wrote:D4S, its not that he's thick, far from it. Its just that he pontificates, he says something like its fact just because he is saying it, which in the world of punditry and opinion is clearly not always the case.
And his head is too big.

Diggers,

Isn't pontificating half the battle to getting people to believe what you are saying? As a general rule, the masses will often believe what somebody says if they are saying it with enough authority.

Obviously not necessarilly correct but I'd say a fact of life.

Yeah but its not a political party broadcast he's on every week Drive, its Football Focus. He needs to lighten up a bit and realise he is just giving an opinion. The problem is he talks like a politician, appears really defensive, and its just not the right kind of attitude for a sports pundit, IMO anyway.
And his heads too big.

Nice but Tim brighter than oor Andy, you are joking!
Crooks is awful. I really do not know why he is there.

Interesting that no one has picked up on my 'instinct' comment.

A Rooney run
A Seve wonder shot
A Radcliffe break
A Senna overtake

Ther must be a split second thought/decision process in there.

Hibbz,
I would never have put just one comma in there. But I might have put two!

I remember watching a clip of Henman at Wimbledon, was a rain delay and they were asking him how he killed time, did he read books etc. He said straight away no, books are really boring. As an avid reader I kind of lost a bit of respect for him after that comment to be honest.
I certainly dont think he's dim though, but Id say Murray was the brighter of the two. Apparently very wry and dry on the Twittering front is Andy.

Digs,
Murray interviews very well on US TV, always gently, or not so gently, looking to take the p--s; joining in banter with Gilbert, Cahill etc - good fun.

Don't know that most viewers "get" his sense of humour but lovely to see him having a go at Brad Gilbert especially.

Hibbz wrote:
McLaren I'm not an Air Traffic Controller at all. I'm a postman.

I think this is my favourite ever comment on this board

Kwini, to be honest Id say all the top 4 tennis guys are pretty bright as well as being fantastic players. I think tennis can be proud to have those guys at the top of the game. Lots of mutual respect and they play the game in the right spirit for the most part.

I would say a rooney run, a senna overtake, radcliff move etc are great examples of sporting intelligence and as I've said before nothing to do with how articulate or academically gifted someone is; as I think the 2 are very different things but as is pointed out on here you can also have someone who is both.

Henman said what, I've just lost respect for him too, nothing wrong with books. I love to immerse myself into a good novel far more entertaining than the tripe on the gogglebox.. Also takes more imagination to set the scene in your own mind. When I'm travelling which is often I can easily take 3 books for a weeks break/work and still need to buy another before the trips over

NedB-H wrote:

Hibbz wrote:
McLaren I'm not an Air Traffic Controller at all. I'm a postman.

I think this is my favourite ever comment on this board

I agree its quality. My barely 2 year old daughter came up with something similar last week, she was going a bit crazy and I called her a mentalist to which she replied "Im not a mentalist, Im a big girl".
Made me laugh anyway.

Digs:
Didn't Christina Kim say that too?

Lots of postpersons are golfers~they have loads of time to play.

Just as well I said a Radcliffe move and not motion.

Diggers

I think you have to watch messi of the ball to understand what he does for the team. Not only will he pop up all over the place he will have dragged two players out of position while doing so, whether he gets the ball or not. He is also very good at poking those little through balls to villa, just like iniesta and Xavi.

Interestingly I watched barca vs athletico in a spanish bar last week and I was thew only one interested. Whats wrong with the spanish?

It was a masterclass from Barca.


Back to the topic, could an interest in the history of the game ever improve your chances on the course? This is nothing to do with intellect just a general interest and willingness to learn. This could be studying how the best players have played a course or looking to understand why the architect chose to utilize the features they did.

Messi of the ball? Is that like Jones the Steam on the old Ivor the Engine cartoon?

Mac, and you were doing so well too, and then you had to mention history and course design.

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.

The number of very good footballers who are now out of work, or are doing "charity work" after their careers in football finished.

Back in the 60s/70s young players were encouraged to take up another career to fall back on when their football days were over, it was not unusual to have dentists, doctors and solicitors, playing for their country, but not today

Dr Kenny Deuchar still plays at a decent level in Scotland.
Falkirk I think [if you can call that decent].

Pat Nevin ex Chelski is a great pundit [ex grad I think].

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.

JPX wrote:To be honest I think you're being harsh on mclaren, he has a valid point. I don't think it's intelligence in an academic way but a kind of a "Sporting intelligence" shall we say.

The intelligence to manage your way around a golf course

The intelligence to position a cue ball on a snooker table for the next shot in order to keep a break going

Intelligence in movement when not in posession of the football

....and so on.

Friend of mine who plays golf is good ability wise, but has none of the above, just smashes it as hard as he can all the time. I try and get across to him the benefits of course management but it's just in one ear out the other.

I think it certainly helps to have a good 'strategic intelligence' in a few sports as opposed to 'excellent reactions' in others. Golf, in many ways, is like snooker and darts in that you have time to think (loads in snooker if you wait 10 minutes while your opponent is break-building), less so in darts but you have to think of your route to finishing on a good double, just as you may 'lay up' rather than going for it on a tricky par-4 or 5. I don't think there has been anyone better at stratregy than Nicklaus who could (apparently) suss out each and every shot in his mind's eye, before he even arrived at the course. Seve on the other hand was the 'ultimate fire-fighter'. He could use his creativity and vision "what the mind can conceive, the body can achieve" possibly in the same way someone like Alex 'Hurricane' Higgins could nail the seemingly impossible shot or build a stupendous break from nothing. Vis-a-vis intelligence for you and I on the course; hmm not sure about that. I think sometimes you can suffer 'paralysis by analysis' if you go too deep into what you're doing wrong. Ian Woosnam was hardly a Mastermind candidate but his simple swing and no-nonsense approach to the game would certainly serve a lot of us well.....