I think the majority of golf bros will disagree with Bo.
If 99 percent of golfers thought, "whats the point, im never going to break 80" then alot of them would quit.
I see a ton of people at my course who are 6-15 caps who could easily go down to a 2 if they spent a ton of time practicing, most of those guys play once a week and only hit range balls before around

Its obviously a bit of both for any sport.

Some people are naturally good and then put in the hardwork to get to the top.

Some people can be naturally poor but if they dedicate their life to it, theyre gonna vastle improve etc.

I got a mate (Now a pro RL player) who was just gifted in every sport from soccer, RL, tennis etc.

He used to shoot like par to +6 each round on average not even taking it that seriously. Never had lessons etc.

Give him 10k hours of practice and theres no doubt he would up there

I probably am. I know what I want to say but can't find a good way to say it. So I'm not going to try anymore.

I did work hard, no question. But I know others who worked just as hard and still couldn't break an egg. All I know is that there are plenty of people out there that could work infinitely hard and still not break par.

BO

Agree with that ^

Same as poker or anything. Some people are more naturaly dispositioned? to it.

Actually, you are right on with my point! I mentioned Heath, only because he is a personal friend, who is much like your personal fav (Pavin) - small, short off the tee, but a true bulldog grinder. He got where he is through hard work, not pure physical ability (btw, Mugsy & Spud both had verticals of over 40 inches which I consider insane physical ability - Heath's vert is about 14 inches - lol). Heath played on the same high school team w/Boo Weekley & later Bubba Watson & was only recruited by one D1 team - S. Alabama, where he played & became a 1st team All-American. I can tell you with certainty, that he could not have played in the NBA no matter how much time he put into the craft. I agree with you that hard work & great coaching help foster a great desire to reach one's potential.

Just so you all know - I'm not saying talent isn't a factor - I don't believe every person in the world can shoot par. I do believe the average human with desire, time, proper resources & coaching can break 80. To play to scratch or to excel on the PGA Tour takes unbelievable talent in all areas, in addition to a massive desire to reach ones goals.

Here's a story that some of you might find interesting - I've been fortunate to work with some amazing professional athletes (a few are Bo Jackson, Michael Jordan, Kordell Stewart, Steve Smith ((dream team)), Eric Snow, Jerome Bettis, Chris Chandler, John Smoltz, & Dr. J), and I've asked everyone of them if they could have played professionally in a sport other than for which they were known. Everyone said "yes" - obviously a couple did either play or attempt it, but they all felt that had they put their effort into a different sport, they could have played it at a professional level. Eric told me he was better at football, but loved basketball, Kordell was the top point guard in the state his sr. year, but loved football.

So today I'm on the range with Jerome "the Bus", and I'm talking to him about this thread - I asked him what percentage of NFL players is talent & what is hard work. He thought about it & said "in the league - it's 75% talent, 25% hard work - for the elite, top players, it's 95% talent 5% hard work" - he went on to explain that the top, elite players are so good, that when they have that ability & combine it with hard work & desire, they rise above everyone. He also said for every 1 player in the NFL with that elite talent, there are at least 5 who don't make it because they don't have the desire, drive, coaching, or motivation to work hard enough to foster their talent. I mentioned to him a saying I give to high school players "Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard" - - he laughed & said it was in his locker room in high school. FWIW, I asked him about what percentage he thought could break 80 with complete resources - he said he felt anyone with desire could break 80 - a player who couldn't hit it far would learn to chip & putt & play to those strengths, & keep the ball in play, manage their game, etc. When I asked what percentage of people could be scratch with unlimited resources, he felt 25% - he said they would be the same people who are the CEO's, presidents of companies, and leaders because they have the drive to succeed & find their way to the top with or without resources. I felt it was a pretty interesting perspective from someone who has been at the top of the athletic food chain. I asked him if he could have played another sport professionally, and he laughed - Jerome didn't play any football until high school - before then he was the top ranked bowler in the country. He chose football because only 1 school offered a full-ride for bowling - Ohio State. He had bowled a 300 before high-school, but felt football offered more opportunity. I got a good chuckle out of that.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this guy progresses. I think we all agree the odds are against him, but we'll see how he does.

Another piece of trivia about my school I didn't know. This school is full of surprises. Maybe I'll bump elbows with someone who becomes famous before the next three years are up

Sick life! Bus is probably over-estimating the general population ability, seeing as he's a physical freak of nature and probably can't much relate to mortals. But he definitely brings up good points there.

Don't know that I would agree that those reaching scratch are the CEOs of the world because they are competitive and have drive. Maybe. But there are going to be plenty of CEOs out there who simply aren't very coordinated. If someone isn't coordinated or doesn't have control/command of their muscles, there is very little hope for them. I know guys who are in great physical shape but are not athletic at all. A good friend of mine is 165 pounds and benches over 300, sprints fast, and jumps high, yet he's awful at sports b/c he's like a bull with no command of his muscles. It's just all out all the time. Like when playing basketball he'll literally get a sick vertical then fire the ball at the bottom side of the rim. That's how bad it is. Or when playing tennis the ball will clearly be past him yet he'll swing as hard as he can and hit it sideways over the fence 100 feet away.

Being a Steelers fan one of my favorite bar trivia questions has been who is the only man who has rushed for 10,000 yards and bowled a 300 game?

off topic:
how the F* Jordan is not in the first place ?

[x] Jordan's fanboy detected

The discipline and determination necessary to become a scratch golfer, bowler with a 230average* or a winning high limit poker player are innate abilities that most people do not possess. Be it nature or nurture, these qualities are typically derived very early in life and are more similar to vertical leap or hand-eye coordination than anyone gives them credit for.

I think a relatively high percentage of people have the physical ability (golf and bowling) or intelligence (poker) to reach the above mentioned goals. A very low percentage of those that have the physical ability actually have the discipline and determination to get there.

There are those that basically can accomplish these examples with nearly natural physical ability alone, but those are also the type that would be high level professionals if that natural physical ability were combined with high discipline and determination to put the hours into practice.

* No idea if a 240 avg bowler is equivalent to a scratch golfer, so use whatever number makes the statement make sense...

I agree with this.

People underestimate natural abilities and overestimate drive and motivation. While golf and bowling have really low physical needs, there are some things people just will never be good at. Likewise, there can be people who are in the top 1% of the natural ability pool who get easily discouraged when practicing a lot or just don't give two ****s about being great.

Given 10k hours of guided practice, I think from a random sample of healthy, physically active people I think:

95%+ would break 80 (and wouldn't argue that much with somoeone suggesting this should be 99%)

~o.o1% would make the PGA tour in some fashion and a far smaller number could have a career on tour.

95% of people would end up with a handicap between scratch and 8.


The handicap level of the random population of golfers is pretty irrelevant in thi discussion. Basically, 0% of them ever put in anything remotely close to this type of practice time. I can't think of a single friend of mine that I do not think would get down to sub 5 handicap with this type of work. About half of them I would bet could reach a 2. I am not belittling professional golfers here, I just think 2 handicaps aren't that great golfers. I am a 5.9 right now and to be honest , I think I am pretty terrible.

I think the main issue in this thread is that we have moved from professional golfer to 2 hc, and these things are two different animals. If an NBA player is the equivalent of a PGA player, a 2 hc (after 10k hrs practice) is like the second best player on an average high school basketball team who has no prayer of even playing in college.

Just now opened this thread...good times.

Or a solid dose of something anyway!

I rolled....Unfortunately BO does NOT have that ability!

This is a dumb statement (by McLaughlin). How about testing that ability by becoming a biomedical engineer, or inventing something to improve life for everyone.

Or maybe he'll just be a hack...didn't Gabriella Reece try this?

"Contrarians" isn't the right word for those agreeing with the vast majority opinion...

I was LOLOLOL reading the headlines, but yeah, after reading the in-depth article, he's a very different type of cat, and this is both a very interesting experiment in general, and in specific how his coach is going about it.

99% of guys who tried this would've quit by now, or else demanded to be taught how to drive the ball 350yds on a straight line from day one, and fired coach after coach every week he couldn't do it.

My guess is his coach bits his lip whenever the subject of the PGA Tour comes up, and I think Dan only has a vague idea of what that is anyway. I certainly think it's unpossible the guy will ever cash a tourney check, but he should become a very good recreational golfer.

Spending the first 5 months on putting kind of reminded me of an interview I read with Phil Laak on how he taught Jen Tilly poker. She had to read such and such books before she could play, then had to show a profit after 100 straight $1 sit-n-go's before she could play higher, and so on. She didn't exactly turn into Phyllis Ivey, but she had some success. LDO, the #1 quality for winning a poker tourney at some point is being able to buy into enough of them.

Teaching someone something who is a complete blank slate with no preconceived notions or ego, and also has plenty time & money and is willing to work and stick with it has to be fascinating. Ironic in this case as Dan seems to have quit on everything he's ever tried before, and done a lot of wandering. I read an interview with a shooting coach who said teaching women was much easier because every guy comes in thinking he knows it all already from watching Dirty Harry movies.

LOL at bolded, Ayn Rand rolls in her grave. Should pro golfers have to donate every dollar they make over $100K/yr to charity, in order to "improve life for everyone"? Maybe he's interested in golf more than biomedical engineering, and knows he could never last 10K hours at the latter, but maybe his experiment will inspire others to try this in fields that interest them, some of which are probably more noble?

I remember the Gaby Reece thing. I could be very wrong, but I highly doubt she spent 6hrs a day, 6 days a week for 6 years at it, and I bet she spent far more time on the driving range than anywhere else.

It's a shame Jerry Rice didn't keep detailed records of all his practices & lessons when he tried to become a pro golfer. It would be interesting to compare what he did for how long with what Dan is doing; historic athletic super-freak (who had an insane off-season work ethic) v average guy off the street.

Very true. I had a friend in HS who was a fabulous natural athlete & artist, but he was the laziest alcoholic imaginable. The best football/basketball/baseball player at my school never touched a weight (we were class of '83). He was all-state everything, benched 300 the first time he was dragged into the college weight room, quit before the first game, just wanted to party.

On the flipside, I'm reminded of this old SI story on Terry Bowden:

I didn't see anything saying that this guy is trying to play the tour. It used to be that in order to join the PGA as an apprentice you need to pass the PAT and then you're a "professional golfer." Anyone with the time and half-decent athletic ability can pass the PAT. In 2003, in Phoenix for 36 holes in tourney conditions the score was 152 or 153 at a pitch n putt course. Simple.

It's still about the same - to register for the apprentice program, you must first pass the PAT (8 shots over course rating for 36 holes - target score is usually around 150, courses are generally setup pretty easy, moderate to short yardage), once you pass you only begin the program - you're looking at 3-6 years before you would be a member of the PGA. As simple as it sounds, the pass ratio for the PAT is 29%. I didn't struggle with it, but I have known several guys on the PAT Tour - some taking it 15-20 times. There's reasons behind that, but they don't really apply to this thread (course mgmt, short game, etc).

Yeah I knew guys who had taken it 10-15 times and couldn't pass. But they didn't practice and had little athletic ability. I passed my first time - even taking a 10 on a par 5. I ordered the books. Then i shortly realized that club members suck, i hated customer service, and I could barely play anymore. Burned out.

From reading the people official handicap thread on this forum about 20 people are playing off scratch. I have no idea how much work goes into getting that good, but it seems like quite a high proportion of people who actively speak/learn about golf on the internet can get to a scratch handicap.

Are people in this thread over estimating how hard it is to get really good?

Sounds to me like his goal is to play on tour- or a tour. Otherwise, anyone can be a "professional golfer".

From his blog:

did you look at all? even bother reading the short page describing his plan?

it says

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6...chool-obsolete


Apparently he won't be able to go to q school anymore. Also I'm unsure as to how someone will be able to get to these rankings to join the three week tourney.

I disagree that golf has low physical needs. Sure to just play the game doesn't take anything, but to get to scratch does require some physical abilities. I agree that 90% of the population could break 80 given the work and time, but that is nowhere near scratch...let alone +3 or more.

I think showing a picture of Spud or Mugsy to show that with work you can do anything is a crazy comparison. Those two were a couple of the fastest and possibly most physically gifted people to ever play in the league. Sure they had to work their butt off to play in the NBA, but that doesn't mean every 5'7" guy could have won the dunk contest (which I was at and still have the program from)if they had just worked hard. I tried my ass off to dunk in college and did finally dunked a volley ball but never could dunk a basketball. Still haunts me to this day.

Many people don't realize what great athletes the guys on tour really are. Just look at the slow motion swingvision on the broadcast sometime. Your normal weekend golfer can't physically come close to replicating that. For example, it's a little known fact that Tim Herron finished 8th at the Athens trials for both the marathon and triple jump.