I think playing neat is a way to go, from losing doing things right to winning consistently. We seek to build a simple, automatic game, with the ability to repeat the same shots and with the same emotions. That is, instead of winning by doing things wrong, losing doing things right until you build a game. Trying to do things well without wanting to do great things.
The shot is there, we do not have to look for it all the time. It’s like the key inside the bag, we know it’s there even though we do not know exactly where. If not, we enter into a destabilizing change.
One of the risks of perfectionism is to be permanently looking to improve the blow or have a better feeling when hitting, and that search leads to great instability. The priority is to have a stable game that can eventually be improved but not at the cost of losing the consistency achieved.
Birdies appear, bogeys we make them, we build them. They tell us about a stabilization process that is not yet consolidated.
When the prolixity is prioritized over the result, the player builds a guaranteed game floor, which has to do with the relative guarantee that the shots have. In this way, the game, beyond the margin of error that every shot can have, ends up having a margin of error that is guaranteed to be limited.