Why are there so many top asian LPGA players compared to PGA?

While watching LPGA on TV I've been thinking about this. On the PGA Tour you can almost count the number on two hands. I know they play in Singapore this weekend, but still, the money list got far more than on the PGA Tour.

Anyone got thoughts on why this is?

A lot of it has to do with junior golf programs for girls that they have in Asian countries that we dont really have here in the U.S.
I also think some of it has to do with the fact that in the PGA, the men from America and Europe are so much stronger and hit the ball so much farther than do the Asian mean.
I know that in Japan, the courses arent as long as they are here in the U.S., so there isnt as much emphasis on driving the ball long. Because of this, when the Japanese come play here in the states, they are at such a disadvantage because they dont hit the ball nearly as far.

- We talked about that briefly a couple weeks ago in a LPGA thread and it indeed seems that amongst teenagers years ago there was a boom when they saw what some early asian players could achieve.

- I disagree. Just look at Rory Mcilroy - he isnt the tallest guy in the world and yet in his 2008 season on the european he ranked 19th in driving distance with an average 295y - compared to the PGA tour thats about the same spot.

I think a better argument why there arent that many Asian players yet on the PGA or European tour compared to the LPGA is that its much easier to obtain a LPGA card since the entry level easier than on the PGA tour.

I'm confused, Ireland isn't part of Asia!

ARE YOU SURE?

But after you obv. exploited my geographical non-knowledge i went to asiantour.com to check for driving stats - and - there are none... Thats strange.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons:

1. There are excellent golf schools and development programs in Korea and Japan for young girls to really learn the game and develop their talents. 2. They have a tremendous work ethic, and make golf the #1 priority in their lives. Se Ri Pak showed them the way to fame and fortune, and they have worked hard to follow the path that Se Ri laid out for them.

I don't know about Asians in general, but for Koreans from Korea, the men have compulsory military service for a few years right in what would be their prime for developing the game.

Now, there are some Koreans born (Anthony Kim) and/or raised (Kevin Na, Charlie Wi) in America that play pretty well. All of the aforementioned three are American citizens, and I don't think they had to serve. I think Kevin Na, born in Korea but raised in USA, was playing in Korea at a time when many boys his age were in the service, thanks to that U.S. Passport.

The vast majority of the Asian women are actually South Korean. I read a study last year (I've tried finding it again to no avail) that indicated part of their success was due to their genetic makeup (a golf gene if you will) that gives them a better chance at succeeding in golf (just like some are better at distance running, others at sprinting, and others at hockey). Korean woman as a whole, are very flexible, very coordinated, and have a high power to weight ratio.

Another point is that we are only now beginning to see the wave of S. Korean golfers starting with Se Ri Park. She showed them it was possible. It was less than 25 years ago, that S. Korea was considered a third world country. Bring on the Seoul Olympics and with sweeping, progressive changes, the country has emerged with a top ranked economy. This has naturally followed with the development of athletics and sport. Other sports such as swimming, and baseball are starting to notice an influx of athletes from S. Korea. As for the men, as mentioned earlier, they are required to spend 2-3 years for military service right in the prime of their learning. Prior to military service this education obsessed society is only concerned about achieving good grades, (schooling basically from 7am-11pm, sometimes more) so they can pass their university entrance exams, get into a good school, and get a good job so they can care for their families. There was no time for golf, this is changing now, and I'm sure in the future we will see more and more men on the PGA Tour.

I have read this statement before, but I don't agree. I don't think someone is born better equipped for playing golf, hockey or running.

What difference a "golf gene" would make is impossible to tell, but you still need to put a lot of effort into getting good enough for the LPGA. Schools and early focus sounds like a reasonable explanation.

well... the best player on the planet IS half asian... :P

I disagree 100%, but that's a different discussion. Just take a look at the Olympics, or World Cups, and see that for many sports, there is often a very specific group, or body type, or ethnic background that are more prone to succeed in a particular athletic endeavour. Some people are definitely born with a better chance of succeeding in a sport than others.

Well, it's a part of this discussion so why not. There is no doubt that most sports have their distinct national elite. I believe this is because of the geographic placement, economic situation, interest in sports etc.

Lets look at long distance running. There is no doubt african nations are very well represented and have great athletes. They are generally well established in endurance sports. Why? Because most african countries are poor, equipment is hard to get. The geographical placement deny them any snow. Running is a fairly cheap sport, with some clothes and a pair of shoes you can run all day. Which is what they do to become great runners, they run around all day under the heat of the sun in the desert. It's one of the sports where they can train every day without money and I also believe that their dark skin and ability to run in scorching heat is an advantage.

What about winter sports? Skiing have been dominated by scandinavian and european countries. There's lots of snow in the the winter and the traditions of skiing runs deep. Especially the east european countries are represented. They are also very much represented in running and other olympic sports. Again, these are cheap sports where you can practice as long as you have snow, warm clothes and a pair of skis. The east european countries do not have the economy of the west european ones, which is reflected in which sports they are able to compete at the highest level. Winter and summer olympics have all pretty much sports which does not require a stadium or expensive equipment. This limits the access to other, more expensive sports, but it also mean that the majority will opt to olympic sports.

In apline skiing we see less of the east european countries, but more of scandinavia and the countries around the alps, like Austria, France, Italy, Germany. Apline skiing require more expensive equipment and, more importantly, courses. You need a place with a steep downhill and the machines to prepare the hill for skiing, very expensive.

Hockey, a sport which definately require an expensive stadium or cold weather. Sweden and Canada are two nations which are well represented and both have access to ice in large parts of the year. Both are financially stable and can afford both equipment and stadiums.

Ice skating, with no doubt a sport where the Netherlands contribute with many of the best partitipants. The Netherlands is a very flat country, they have no access to steep hills. The climate offer them cold, they have access to lots of water and ice.

I agree that ethnic background can make a small difference, but in total I don't think it matter anywhere as much as the reasons I have given. The two major factors are geographical placement/climate and economy. The traditions are of course of importance, but they are a result of the climate and economy. Austrians are great at alpine skiing because of their climate, economy and geographical placement. In contrast to the Netherlands, which have the economy and climate, but lack the hills.

USA, which is is a rather large country are represented in most sports. They have the economy and is so large that they have everything from sunshine and warm weather around the year for golf players to a colder climate in Salt Lake City. Russia do have the mountains and climate to be great in most winter sports, but they are not as represented as the geographical placement would suggest due to their economy. Still, they are well represented within the winter sports which require less economic foundation.

Could the disparity be due to the fact that more Asian women are exposed to the game than Asian men? In Japan, golf is extremely expensive to play. Most golfers in Japan never play on a course, only at the driving range. If you have ever played golf in Asia, you might also notice that many courses employ caddies, and all the caddies are women. Many people in the US that play now as adults came up in the game as caddies in the good old days, why not in Asia too?

I think the point that someone made about military service is probably valid, but with all the female caddies working in Asia, they must develop at least some interest in the game. It is also true that the junior programs in Korea are very strong with the help of Se Ri Pak, KJ Choi and Tiger promoting golf in the region.

Genetics explains everything. Genetics dictate your mental make up and physical ability-probably say 70% with the other 30% being the environment. Ok Im guessing, but genetics does dictate if someone will have the potential to be a top class golfer. Of course some people are born with a better make up to play golf. If you don't believe that, well, your wrong. Simple as that. Also the environment is key too. As has been mentioned, they seem to have a good work ethic. Dont overtly display emotions and seem to all be lean and in good shape-personally I find them boring, like golf robots. But definitely their environment, upbringing and genetics explains a lot. Wow Im rambling again. I guess there are a lot of religous nuts on this board with it being heavily US, so genetics won't go down too well. When I went to the US I found lots of people heavily into church and stuff-I found it unbelievable, literally!

Genetics dictate potential. Everything else is detirmined by outside influences.

Its no use being genetically gifted, but too poor\lazy\whatever to use it. You can be geneticall predisposed to golf as much as you like, but if you don't have a course, or set of clubs, or a will to practice with them you'll not be a great golfer. No need for the comments about religion.

Do you have any documentation for this? How have they documented that genetics give someone a chance to be a better golfplayer than the other? Also, how can they determine that 70% of a persons skill within something is dictated by his or hers genes?

I would be interested to see this too.

I believe genetics can dictate potential because if your range of motion, or strength, or thought power is limited there is only so far you can go. However you have to train to reach this potential. In my mind it is like a race car and a driver. Genetics is the car. Training and outside factors are the driver. The car needs to be reasonably good to be able to compete, however if you put any old person in the car they may not get the best out of it or crash it. On the other hand put a world class driver in an average car and they will astound you with what they can get out of it. Finally put a superstar driver in a supercar and they will be unbeatable.

Also, unless a family has played golf for generations, where should this golf gene come from? Does it just pop up out of the blue because the nation the family live in is statistically good at golf?