The Master how to become a "Professional Golfer" thread?

[mmoan2]

Yeah, @mmoan2, I see your points.   I still say people like Tiger, Kobe, and some of us are born with obsessive drive DNA that average Joe lacks.

-Joe

Agreed. DNA is there, but upbringing is equally as important in my book. Can't discredit talent either.

I also find it interesting that you say you could have made it but claim you don't have enough talent. We're talking going pro here, not being a top 10 pro. For all the Tigers and Phils there's hundreds of pros on the PGA and other tours who just make a living without being world beaters. If you think you had enough talent to make it as a pro, that's a lot of talent in my book. Boxing, though - man, tough sport. I can see why you would've bowed out of it knowing you wouldn't get rich doing it. I'd much rather be a low-paid pro golfer than a boxer. Only one risks being half brain-dead for most of your adult life.

[ccotenj]

boxing comes in very low on the list of athletic talent that i would choose if i had been allowed to choose my genetic makeup... it is a brutal sport (and that comes from someone who really misses boxing being a big thing), and very very few make any "real money"...

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Yeah, @mmoan2, I see your points.   I still say people like Tiger, Kobe, and some of us are born with obsessive drive DNA that average Joe lacks.

-Joe

Agreed. DNA is there, but upbringing is equally as important in my book. Can't discredit talent either.

I also find it interesting that you say you could have made it but claim you don't have enough talent. We're talking going pro here, not being a top 10 pro. For all the Tigers and Phils there's hundreds of pros on the PGA and other tours who just make a living without being world beaters. If you think you had enough talent to make it as a pro, that's a lot of talent in my book. Boxing, though - man, tough sport. I can see why you would've bowed out of it knowing you wouldn't get rich doing it. I'd much rather be a low-paid pro golfer than a boxer. Only one risks being half brain-dead for most of your adult life.

In boxing, anyone can turn pro.   There is no qualifying school so to speak.   So, going pro does not mean you are necessarily good.   Me and my bros could have been "decent" pros - beat half the field.    In golf, that's another story.  Beating half the field in PGA Tour - that's going to take a whole lot more talent than I had with boxing.

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

I consider the "drive" to make you the best is something you are born with, i.e, part of talent.    I have 3 other siblings.  We grew up in same env. but we have very varying degree of drive.

I know of only 1 that started at age 18 and made it to PGA tour - Y. E. Yang.   That's probably not even possible in this day and age.

Talent is rather easy to see, not just in sports but in everything we do.  Not everyone can be Hemingway, Mozart, Rembrandt no matter how hard they try.     It didn't take too long to see I don't have talent in many things, including golf.   No amount of practice is going to make me a scratch golfer.   I think deep down inside unless you are fooling yourself, most of us know how much real talent we have on any particular area.

I disagree with the first statement. In studying it, I know there's a biological component to obsessive drive, I think your environment and upbringing are far more important. Being the youngest vs. oldest child, being a certain size, your peers, luck of the draw, etc. The myriad factors that go into developing one's "drive" are difficult to point out individually, but collectively they form your identity, especially as a youth when you aren't even aware of how your environment forms your identity.

I agree with your talent statement to a point, but I think you are selling yourself (and "untalented" people everywhere ) short. I think what is missing is that by the time you are old enough to recognize your own talent and actually do something about it, your proclivities have pretty much been set. No one here would have heard of Tiger Woods if it wasn't for Earl Woods. Tiger has natural talent, but is he "the most naturally talented golfer ever?" I think the fact that he putted against Bobe Hope on TV at 3 years of age was a bigger factor. As an 18 handicap who has only been playing for 2 years starting in your 40s, if your parents had you playing golf every day for hours throughout your youth, I guarantee you'd be a scratch golfer. If you quit your job tomorrow and practiced for 3-4 hours a day, played in tournaments, got the best equipment, a coach, and basically put golf "in your blood" for 10 years, as long as your body held up, you could probably be a scratch golfer. I've known Olympic athletes who were absolutely lost when they played pickup basketball or football with me. Even their basic coordination didn't stand out necessarily.

The more compelling question is, could every kid* who started playing golf as a youth and practiced/played for hours every day end up as a PGA Tour Pro?  Or even a scratch golfer?  My own theory is that the majority of them could at least become competent, maybe even pretty darn good, but there's that intangible "talent" that makes the difference between "pretty darn good" and "elite".  I just don't believe that every person has unlimited potential in whatever field of athletic endeavor they dedicate themselves to, no matter how motivated or dedicated they are.

I think that if you took 100 kids of the same age and put them all through the same coaching/practice/playing regimen, there would be many different levels of success.  Maybe there would be one who reached PGA Tour Pro status (although I consider 1% as much too high an estimate), maybe a few would be Web.com/mini-tour material, there would definitely be some scratch golfers in there, but there would probably also be some who would never even reach single digits.  It's my (unqualified) opinion that everybody has a different "ceiling" and that's where the talent (or lack thereof) manifests itself.

(* when I say "every kid", of course I'm excluding those with ailments or physical/mental disabilities which would preclude them from learning/playing golf)

[Oz Max]

I think the ability to resist pressure is also very important, those 5-6 feets easy putts might become the hardest thing when you putt to earn your card, 1st check, 1st tournament... I heard somewhere that pros cam have their heart rate can go up to 160 on the 1st tee shot, 1st putt and lat one. I think they were the 3 most pressure inducing shots.

I mean, all those guys in Q-school have amazing swings and golf shots in them, but those who can handle their nerves the best will be the successful ones.

[Unforgiven93]

I'm going to join in on this conversation.

In order of importance, IMO:

1. Talent

2. Work ethic/drive to be the best

3. Money

Absolutely some people have more natural talent than others, in all aspects of life, not just golf.  I'm not sure how anyone could dispute that.  Everyone is different, if you had two identical people who had never played golf before hit 100 balls a day on the range with the same swing coach for a year, they would never end up with the exact same skill level after a year.  There could be a huge difference.  One person will characteristically be better certain than the other, for whatever reasons.  Working hard at something can only get you so far, you have to have a natural talent if you want to be one of the best.

If you have the natural talent, you have the work ethic to put in 6 hours of practice a day, and you have the financial backing that you can practice 6 hours a day without living on the street, I think you could make it.  You have to be able to play under pressure to play well, too, but I think that can be learned much easier than my top 3 choices.  Every tournament you play in you'll get more comfortable being in pressure situations.