Interesting Insights from Rory Mcllroy's Psych Doc

[APA Operator]

Yes, there is. Of course your muscles don't literally have memory. It's just a term. Muscle memory refers to the body's ability to retain and recall motor skills through repetition and practice, allowing you to perform actions without conscious thought.

Is there somebody out there that thought muscles actually have memories? Maybe...? Is there somebody out there that didn't think your brain is involved in physical activity? I...hope not.

That's what I don't get about these psych coach guys. It seems like they just ladle up the simplest most obvious statements as deep thoughts, like, "We are all human and make mistakes". If it helps somebody, great, I just honestly don't get it. "Your mind is involved in physical action." Yeah, obviously.

It goes deeper than that, but I think you know that. Muscle memory (all in the brain) is all subconscious and is a very hard thing to forget. Just stroking a cue or swinging a golf club involves dozens of muscles in your body, each one needing a signal from your brain to "fire" (both when to fire and how much). Through repetition, that sequence and its timing become subconscious, resulting in what we call "coordination". All the brain knows is to send signals to specific neurons at the right time. The more precise the brain gets at doing that, the more coordinated we become. If something happens to just one of the neurons involved in that sequence (killed by alcohol or by age or by a stroke, etc.), the brain doesn't know that. So it keeps trying to fire that neuron and others (there are multiple neural pathways to each muscle in the body, each taking a different amount of time to arrive at the right muscle, like roads on a map) until it gets some kind of signal that the muscle fired, but by the time it has the timing and coordination of the entire sequence is off. It takes the brain a long time to realize that neuron is dead and to start with another, and even more time to coordinate the different sequencing that has to occur, because in the time it takes to "forget" that one neuron different muscle memory develops, which may or may not be right and may or may not have unintended side effects. Maybe someday there will be a way besides repetition to "rewire" the subconscious brain - that's something to hope for.

That's probably more than anyone here wants to know, but it's become fascinating to me since a series of minor strokes destroyed my pool stroke, my golf swing, and pretty much anything that required "coordination" overnight. Literally, it's like I physically aged 25 years overnight, but retained all of my cognitive abilities. It's tough to overcome, both physically and mentally.

I don't think it's unreasonable to get help understanding the relationship between conscious and subconscious thinking. Maybe Nicklaus would have won 30 majors with the help of a psychological coach. Like the answer to the age-old question "How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a Tootsie Pop?", the world may never know.

 

[Hoser]

It's about conditioning your mind to think positive thoughts vs negative thoughts, Negative thoughts usually revolve around fear and anxiety. Both thought processes impact physical ability and "muscle memory". Some need help harnessing this, some don't. I don't think people who seek a better understanding of how to accomplish this should be knocked.

Rory received excellent advice. The right amount of physiological/neurological activation coupled with objective, positive, minimal self-talk maximizes performance in many disciplines. Is it necessary to understand these concepts to play the sport? No if you want to play your best, Yes

 

[Baby Huey]

Greatness is achieved by following greatness. Understanding how to achieve is a building bloc from those who came before you. Could Babe Ruth achieve in today's baseball game?? Who really knows but we measure his statistical greatness to todays players ALA Ohtani. That's progress. The elements of mathematics and advanced mathematics were formulated thousands of years ago and REFINED over and over, over time. So golf, pool and the other games we play are also in the same mode. Rory struggled at the Masters for years but he probably needed a little psychological intervention to achieve BUT he was previously a three time winner in Grand Slam events so his talent was there. He kept his composure, didn't quit and had his full game available. I don't agree with those who feel past greats couldn't achieve in todays games. Willie Hoppe won his first world title around the turn of the century and his last almost sixty years later. He played all the greats of his time and actually forced the game of billiards to be changed to 3C because he was too good for the other talent available. That's greatness and that's a record that may stand a long long time. Could he beat todays greats? Probably not but that doesn't take from HIS accomplishments. Players like Trevino, Nicklaus, Bobby Jones and many others were prodigy"s in their own time and IMO given today's game they would have dominated if they had the same tools available to them as today's players have.

 

[Island Drive]

This reminds of this gem from the immortal Lee "Buck" Trevino.

When asked why he never had a swing coach? Trevino replied, "I never found one who could beat me."


That being said, if Rotella provided something that McIlroy found useful, more power to him. Different strokes for different folks.

Didn't Hal Mix Coach Varner in the 70's?

I did correct nix to Mix.

 

[Moe Szyslak]

I like to think of these old school guys laughing in the face of somebody who told them, "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" and "Golf is a game of mistakes" and expecting to get paid for it.

 

[j2pac]

Didn't Hal Nix Coach Varner in the 70's?

I'm not sure.

 

[j2pac]

Greatness is achieved by following greatness. Understanding how to achieve is a building bloc from those who came before you. Could Babe Ruth achieve in today's baseball game?? Who really knows but we measure his statistical greatness to todays players ALA Ohtani. That's progress. The elements of mathematics and advanced mathematics were formulated thousands of years ago and REFINED over and over, over time. So golf, pool and the other games we play are also in the same mode. Rory struggled at the Masters for years but he probably needed a little psychological intervention to achieve BUT he was previously a three time winner in Grand Slam events so his talent was there. He kept his composure, didn't quit and had his full game available. I don't agree with those who feel past greats couldn't achieve in todays games. Willie Hoppe won his first world title around the turn of the century and his last almost sixty years later. He played all the greats of his time and actually forced the game of billiards to be changed to 3C because he was too good for the other talent available. That's greatness and that's a record that may stand a long long time. Could he beat todays greats? Probably not but that doesn't take from HIS accomplishments. Players like Trevino, Nicklaus, Bobby Jones and many others were prodigy"s in their own time and IMO given today's game they would have dominated if they had the same tools available to them as today's players have.

Very well written. Just some food for thought...When Tiger Woods won his first Masters in 1997 at the age of 21, he averaged 323 yards off the tee, with a 43.5" long, 130 gram steel shafted King Cobra driver, and a wound golf ball.
Those stats, with that gear, is relatively inhuman. To imagine what he might have achieved with todays equipment back then, is interesting to say the least.

 

[JPB2]

Very well written. Just some food for thought...When Tiger Woods won his first Masters in 1997 at the age of 21, he averaged 323 yards off the tee, with a 43.5" long, 130 gram steel shafted King Cobra driver, and a wound golf ball.
Those stats, with that gear, is relatively inhuman. To imagine what he might have achieved with todays equipment back then, is interesting to say the least.

Would have achieved more with the old equipment potentially. His advantage over the field was reduced a little with the new stuff. IMO.

 

[JPB2]

Oh, and if they didn’t add 500+ yards to every course..,

 

[j2pac]

Oh, and if they didn’t add 500+ yards to every course..,

The "Tiger proofing" was a mistake IMO.

 

[Island Drive]

I'm not sure.

Hal Mix book -- Pocket Billiard Secrets​

Jewett's selling thee above.
In an az post.
From our era he/Nix just popped up/helped Nick in his youth.
Never did hear much about Hals book in the late 60's early 70's but he took Nick under wing for awhile.
I'm guessing a couple 2-3 yrs.
He set em straight.
I moved to CO after that era.
1969
IU bowling alley/then pool room gambling.

 

[robertod]

everybody needs coaching and trainers and advice and criticism and praise

the Bob Rotella quotes above sound like
he got them from a cereal box or a fortune cookie

but if he helps people, great

Rory makes on the average over $5M a year

You can up that average a bit. He 's probably closer to 40-50 million a year when you add endorsments.

That's how far pool has to go.

 

[straightline]

Back to muscle memory. Muscles develop as trained and as such have not only memory but verbatim memory. The trigger data is of course neural and the "mental" memory is holographic.

 

[garczar]

The "Tiger proofing" was a mistake IMO.

They had to. When you factor in the modern driver, ball, perfect course conditions and real athletes playing the game 7,600yds is the new 7000-7100yd layout. Had they not done it the game would have become a joke for pros. That being said the downside was/is making courses longer gets REALLY expensive for one and the average Joe in trying to play from longer tees can't handle the yardage. Golf Digest/USGA did a study and they said the average weekend player should never play a course over 6100-6200yds and yet you see JoePublic back at the blues trying to play 6,700yd tracks and they has NO chance.

 

[rexus31]

They had to. When you factor in the modern driver, ball, perfect course conditions and real athletes playing the game 7,600yds is the new 7000-7100yd layout. Had they not done it the game would have become a joke for pros. That being said the downside was/is making courses longer gets REALLY expensive for one and the average Joe in trying to play from longer tees can't handle the yardage. Golf Digest/USGA did a study and they said the average weekend player should never play a course over 6100-6200yds and yet you see JoePublic back at the blues trying to play 6,700yd tracks and they has NO chance.

Kinda like sub-500 Fargo players wanting to play on 4" pockets.

 

[garczar]

Kinda like sub-500 Fargo players wanting to play on 4" pockets.

Pretty much. I see guys all the time playing the tips and they couldn't break 95 from the senior tees. I used to marshal at a tough local course and i'd ask people where they normally played and what the usually shot. I'd direct them to the tee's i thought fit and i got a lot of kudos from them afterwards. Golf is tuff enough from the correct tees, its brutal and zero fun from the wrong ones. The pocket-size analogy is spot on.

 

[JPB2]

They had to. When you factor in the modern driver, ball, perfect course conditions and real athletes playing the game 7,600yds is the new 7000-7100yd layout. Had they not done it the game would have become a joke for pros. That being said the downside was/is making courses longer gets REALLY expensive for one and the average Joe in trying to play from longer tees can't handle the yardage. Golf Digest/USGA did a study and they said the average weekend player should never play a course over 6100-6200yds and yet you see JoePublic back at the blues trying to play 6,700yd tracks and they has NO chance.

I think the USGA pretty much blew it on distance regulation. They have moved to dial the ball back a bit. But IMO they should have done it sooner and also limited driver head size - maybe sub 300cc. The ball and driver together- along with the new fitting technology- swamped the distance standards. I don’t have a problem with guys hitting it miles if it is relatively hard to hit the sweet spot on the driver and there is some risk of going at it 100%. There are so many problems with having to lengthen courses, especially classic ones. I also don’t have a problem with lower scores if it comes from skill and athleticism. I’d rather see the modern guys play with persimmon and balata on 1975 Augusta or Oakmont than wondering what prior eras would do with new equipment.

The average amateur won’t know the difference if they set ego aside. As you point out, they overestimate how far they hit it and how much the new ball helps them. I was playing with a guy once and I hit a pretty good one on one par 4. He said that I hit it like 270. I told him it wasn’t close to 270. More like 240. We gps measured 238. Needless to say I think he overestimated how far he hit his own drives.

The modern ball is better because it is cheaper to manufacture and is more durable while still playing well. That was a good advance, like steel shafts. And it is the cheapest piece of equipment except the tee. People lose them all the time. So dialing back the ball is relatively easy. Limiting driver head size would have let the manufacturers develop technology and sell new models but kept more skill in the mix making it a bit more unforgiving. Instead, courses had to be longer and the course is the most expensive piece of equipment. USGA failure IMO.

 

[JPB2]

carl jung isn’t for everyone
but the marion woodman book
on perfection is worth a read

I looked at the summary and probably will pass. Jung isn’t for everyone as you say. But we’ll see. The summary itself had some interesting info. Being too high on the perfectionism scale is a problem. I recently got the book Sports Psyching by Tutko. It has a sports personality test in it where you can see your problem areas. My biggest problem area is the perfectionism scale. And it can really hurt progress and benefiting from practice etc…

In a way I knew that, but seeing it on paper and then seeing things that might help it is different. As I mentioned earlier, I picked up the Rotella books again. Seeing some of that information in light of the information from the Tutko book may be helpful. We’ll see. OTOH, players without that issue might need something else.

 

[garczar]

I think the USGA pretty much blew it on distance regulation. They have moved to dial the ball back a bit. But IMO they should have done it sooner and also limited driver head size - maybe sub 300cc. The ball and driver together- along with the new fitting technology- swamped the distance standards. I don’t have a problem with guys hitting it miles if it is relatively hard to hit the sweet spot on the driver and there is some risk of going at it 100%. There are so many problems with having to lengthen courses, especially classic ones. I also don’t have a problem with lower scores if it comes from skill and athleticism. I’d rather see the modern guys play with persimmon and balata on 1975 Augusta or Oakmont than wondering what prior eras would do with new equipment.

The average amateur won’t know the difference if they set ego aside. As you point out, they overestimate how far they hit it and how much the new ball helps them. I was playing with a guy once and I hit a pretty good one on one par 4. He said that I hit it like 270. I told him it wasn’t close to 270. More like 240. We gps measured 238. Needless to say I think he overestimated how far he hit his own drives.

The modern ball is better because it is cheaper to manufacture and is more durable while still playing well. That was a good advance, like steel shafts. And it is the cheapest piece of equipment except the tee. People lose them all the time. So dialing back the ball is relatively easy. Limiting driver head size would have let the manufacturers develop technology and sell new models but kept more skill in the mix making it a bit more unforgiving. Instead, courses had to be longer and the course is the most expensive piece of equipment. USGA failure IMO.

Everyone tends to over-estimate how far they hit. I've had friends tell me they can hit driver 300. I tell then yeah maybe on a airport runway. Most weekend players have avg. clubhead speed of around 90-95, many are slower. At 90mph a well hit tee ball will carry around 230ish.

 

[garczar]

I think the USGA pretty much blew it on distance regulation. They have moved to dial the ball back a bit. But IMO they should have done it sooner and also limited driver head size - maybe sub 300cc. The ball and driver together- along with the new fitting technology- swamped the distance standards. I don’t have a problem with guys hitting it miles if it is relatively hard to hit the sweet spot on the driver and there is some risk of going at it 100%. There are so many problems with having to lengthen courses, especially classic ones. I also don’t have a problem with lower scores if it comes from skill and athleticism. I’d rather see the modern guys play with persimmon and balata on 1975 Augusta or Oakmont than wondering what prior eras would do with new equipment.

The average amateur won’t know the difference if they set ego aside. As you point out, they overestimate how far they hit it and how much the new ball helps them. I was playing with a guy once and I hit a pretty good one on one par 4. He said that I hit it like 270. I told him it wasn’t close to 270. More like 240. We gps measured 238. Needless to say I think he overestimated how far he hit his own drives.

The modern ball is better because it is cheaper to manufacture and is more durable while still playing well. That was a good advance, like steel shafts. And it is the cheapest piece of equipment except the tee. People lose them all the time. So dialing back the ball is relatively easy. Limiting driver head size would have let the manufacturers develop technology and sell new models but kept more skill in the mix making it a bit more unforgiving. Instead, courses had to be longer and the course is the most expensive piece of equipment. USGA failure IMO.

totally agree. smaller driver has smaller sweet-spot and less spring-effect. i heard a good saying about equipment: 'the players that need the least help benefit the most'. modern equip. is made to help JoeHacker, especially the driver. what's funny is that the avg. drive for regular joes hasn't changed much in the last 30yrs, even with all the tech. can't buy a swing will always rule.