Look, almost none of you guys really have any idea what it's like to compete at the Tour level or even at the serious amateur level. Believe it or not, there are differences in pure physical skill. You see it out there if you know what you're looking at. The problem is that most people who watch the Tour on TV can't tell one swing from another, so they resort to this abject default BS of "it's all mental", basically because they don't have the eye to tell the difference in the physical.
What you guys are really saying is that if you take two guys who are physical equals, the only difference between them is mental. That, of course, I agree with entirely. But the mistake I think you're making is that you're simply assuming that all top pros have equal physical talents, and that's simply not so. It may APPEAR that way to you, but that's because you simply don't have the eye to tell the differences.
Let's get more specific. Do you think Greg Norman did not have the physical ability to win more than two majors?
IMO he had the ability to win maybe ten. But he made so many mental mistakes, he threw away tournaments (major and otherwise) that were his to take. He eventually became a basket case, who found more ways to lose big tournaments than Sam Snead did the U.S. Open.
I'll give you two examples. The British Open that Calc won in a playoff with Norman and a third player. Greg threw it away on the 2nd to last hole, by crushing his tee shot as hard as he could. It flew straight, amazingly long -- and right into a pot bunker placed to capture exactly that kind of shot. He bogeyed the hole, Calc birdied and one hole later MC was British Open champ.
Second example is one I saw, in the 1993 Tour Championship. 12th hole, last round, Norman leading by about two, sitting in the middle of the fairway, short iron in his hand. Either nine iron or wedge. Pin on the right side of the green, sand on the right. The smart play is to the center of the green. Almost sure par, and chances for birdie. But Norman shot for the pin, pushed it into the trap, bogeyed the hole. I was stunned when I saw it.
Then on 16 he did the same thing, pin hunting with his wedge, dumping it into the bunker, making bogey. He ended up losing the tournament, but he really just gave it away.
He threw away three Masters I can think of. At least one British Open. He even came close to ruining one of the most perfect rounds ever, his brilliant 64 to win his second Open Championship, by missing a putt under two feet on the 71st.
Mental mistakes were Greg's downfall. Then he came to believe he was cursed. I heard an announcer ask him in the mid 1990's if he thought he was owed a major. Greg gave him an exasperated look and semi-exploded, "I'm owed a helluva lot more than just one."
Arnie threw away tournaments in unbelievable ways, too. Did he lose the 1966 U.S. Open because he wasn't good enough physically? The 1961 Masters when he doubled the last hole? The 1961 and 62 U.S. Opens?
Did Van de Velde all of a sudden become a 32 handicapper on the last hole at Carnoustie?
Did Thomas Bjorn suddenly lose his touch in 2003, outperformed by the obviously superior physical specimen, Ben Curtis?
The examples go on and on.
Tom Weiskopf was announcing the 86 Masters. As Jack was making his charge, his co-announcer said, "Tom, what is going through Jack's head right now?"
Weiskopf said, "If I knew what goes through that man's head, I'd have won this thing myself four times."
I don't think all the pro's have the same physical abilities. All sorts of differences. I do think the players that rise to the top are the toughest, mentally and emotionally, out there. And I think if some of the other guys were that tough, they would have great success, too.