Best route to the Tour? It's not college.

[ezmoney5150]

Hank Haney wrote an article http://www.golfdigest.com/features/i...0703haney.html in the March 2007 Golf Digest reflecting on the Ryder cup losses and he says going to college is a bad idea if you want to be a superstar and make it on the tour. When I read it I just kind of thought ok this is obviously something he's thought about since he's been a college coach at SMU, until I read this weeks Golfweek. They rebutted the article, if I can sum it up:

"Regardless of what path our athletes take, it's a numbers game America can't win. Consider the Ryder Cup. The Population of Europe is roughly 490 million compared to 300 million in the United States. Advantage, Team Europe."

Just curious what everyone else thinks.

[Shindig]

Originally Posted by ezmoney5150

Hank Haney wrote an article http://www.golfdigest.com/features/i...0703haney.html in the March 2007 Golf Digest reflecting on the Ryder cup losses and he says going to college is a bad idea if you want to be a superstar and make it on the tour. When I read it I just kind of thought ok this is obviously something he's thought about since he's been a college coach at SMU, until I read this weeks Golfweek. They rebutted the article, if I can sum it up:

"Regardless of what path our athletes take, it's a numbers game America can't win. Consider the Ryder Cup. The Population of Europe is roughly 490 million compared to 300 million in the United States. Advantage, Team Europe."

Just curious what everyone else thinks.

Take a field of study you absolutely hate in college, put a minimum of time into it to stay NCAA eligible, and play golf day and night. Don't be afraid to be redlined for a year so that you can make a swing change you'll need to be better afterward. Spend 5 years in college so you can focus more on golf. Between all the practice you get and the job prospects that your hated field of study get you, you'll be properly motivated come Q-School.

I would never actually recommend the above to anyone I cared about.


Meanwhile, we need Australia to count as US for Ryder/Presidents cup. England got Europe, it's only fair. ;)

[Will]

The two articles are talking at cross-purposes. Haney's focus is on how to make America more competitive in world golf. Golfweek doesn't speak to that issue directly, instead talking about what is best for the person. They both are correct on their respective issues.

The American system of college golf was never meant to provide the best world-class athletes, it is a system to provide an education to those who otherwise couldn't attend college (due to finances or grades). Haney is right, that with the new emphasis on having the players do well academically, the focus is removed from golf.

I think people should go to college who want to study and improve themselves, and if golf can get them there, that's fine. The problem is, America doesn't have another way to develop talent, we don't have National Institutes of Sport. Even though it's not in our character, I think that's the only way we can remain competitve in the future, for all the individual sports. That will open the game to those who are talented, but cannot afford to pay for private academies, or pay to get on the mini-tours. Will it happen? It might, if there's a concerted push by a group of influential types.

On the other hand, it's actually a good thing to see the internationals developing great players and doing well. It reflects the general increase in the world's standard of living. You now see golf being played in eastern Europe, the near and far East, former repressed areas now experiencing freedom. Golf is a sign of economic vitality, and an indicator of a good social fabric. As the world continues to develop, there's no reason the U.S. should remain dominant in golf.

[ezmoney5150]

Originally Posted by Will

The two articles are talking at cross-purposes. Haney's focus is on how to make America more competitive in world golf. Golfweek doesn't speak to that issue directly, instead talking about what is best for the person. They both are correct on their respective issues.

The American system of college golf was never meant to provide the best world-class athletes, it is a system to provide an education to those who otherwise couldn't attend college (due to finances or grades). Haney is right, that with the new emphasis on having the players do well academically, the focus is removed from golf.

I think people should go to college who want to study and improve themselves, and if golf can get them there, that's fine. The problem is, America doesn't have another way to develop talent, we don't have National Institutes of Sport. Even though it's not in our character, I think that's the only way we can remain competitve in the future, for all the individual sports. That will open the game to those who are talented, but cannot afford to pay for private academies, or pay to get on the mini-tours. Will it happen? It might, if there's a concerted push by a group of influential types.

On the other hand, it's actually a good thing to see the internationals developing great players and doing well. It reflects the general increase in the world's standard of living. You now see golf being played in eastern Europe, the near and far East, former repressed areas now experiencing freedom. Golf is a sign of economic vitality, and an indicator of a good social fabric. As the world continues to develop, there's no reason the U.S. should remain dominant in golf.

It kind of reminds me of what Lou Holtz said about having a "pro college" league.