or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Natural athletes are naturally good at golf. Agree or disagree?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Natural athletes are naturally good at golf. Agree or disagree? - Page 3

Poll Results: Are natural athletes natural golfers?

 
  • 64% (20)
    No. Look at Charles Barkley.
  • 35% (11)
    Yes. Look at Tony Romo.
31 Total Votes  
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthehole View Post

I don't think this can be taught - seems to me you clearly either have this ability or you don't.
strongly disagree. To paraphrase Jesse pinkman ... "Yeah bitch!!! ... Aimpoint!!!"
post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post


strongly disagree. To paraphrase Jesse pinkman ... "Yeah bitch!!! ... Aimpoint!!!"

 

Yeh, I couldn't disagree any more, how can someone think green reading and feel for putting can't be learned!!

 

I guess you could paraphrase him again I'd say it's just "Science"

post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker View Post

Yeh, I couldn't disagree any more, how can someone think green reading and feel for putting can't be learned!!

I guess you could paraphrase him again I'd say it's just "Science"

The thing is that so many people could learn to putt well with the proper knowledge of how to do it. Maybe almost anyone could do it. I used to think I could never learn to put well or read greens. After some solid instruction and also taking AimPoint earlier this week, my putting is already getting much better and maybe I can. Erik would probably say my stroke and green reading was pretty messed up. However my green reading and feel was much improved by the end of the lessons. If you read greens incorrectly and get a feel for the stroke incorrectly who is to say you cannot learn to do so when shown a proper method. Methodology in this case helps feel and reads.
post #40 of 53
There is a huge difference between " natural athlete " and professional..

Romo would be a natural athlete that excels in football. Barkley is or was a professional basketball player. His size and ability to play basketball would have translated to football and maybe first base in his baseball team.

Bruce Jenner is a natural athlete that excelled in many sports as did Jim Thorpe.
post #41 of 53

Let's just put it this way.. It never hurts!

post #42 of 53

I haven't read all the responses, so I am probably echoing some things already said, but felt compelled to post anyhow since BMW is still on rain delay...

 

"Natural athletes" are so, by and large, because they have great hand-eye coordination, and excellent physical coordination in general.  Most have also learned that to be good they need to work at it, i.e. train, and they have the desire and drive to do it with a grin.  This certainly puts them in a great starting position for golf, but golf, IMHO, is a different sort of animal than most other sports.  And golf is hard.  I think that is probably what draws so many great athletes to become pretty avid golfers in their spare time.  They walked onto a golf course at some point and it kicked their butt, and being the athletes they are they rose to the challenge.  Now they're hooked.

post #43 of 53

I voted no for a few reasons. One is I have a number of friends and co-workers that played both baseball and hockey at the college and semi-pro ranks and they suck at golf!

 

I think it's easier for a golfer with certain physical abilities to cross over and play other sports than it is for a pure athlete to jump into golf!

 

But it's hard to put labels on everyone, not every football player is going to suck at golf, and not every golfer is going to be good at another sport! The question is really dependent upon the individual!

post #44 of 53

I voted no.  I have zero "natural" athletic ability and got to be a decent player.  Played D1 college golf.  Having said that I think having some natural athleticism can't hurt and I think it depends what sport you're good at.  

 

The following is just speculation: I would guess most of the professional athletes that are good golfers had some experience swinging a golf club growing up, golf can be tough to take up as an adult. Yes I know about Larry Nelson ;-)

post #45 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker View Post
 

I would look at it more like this, if you took 25 everyday people, and then 25 "naturally athletic people" all who have never picked up a golf club, they practiced for a certain amount of time etc. it's almost certain the athletes would be have better results in my opinion.

 

People who are athletic and excel in a particular sport are often good at other sports, you know, the guy who is good at everything even though he only just started playing 2 weeks ago or something, so I would say it would just translate into golf too.

 

I agree with this. Being naturally athletic doesn't mean you'll automatically be good at golf, but it certainly gives you an advantage over someone with relatively little natural athleticism. I feel like there are definitely more exceptions (going both ways) in golf than there are in other major sports, however. 

post #46 of 53
Here's Richard Sherman from the Seahawks at the golf range with his boyzzzzz.

http://instagram.com/p/c-LVuuGdpQ/

Guess what I voted for!? Lol
post #47 of 53

This poll and its answers are non sequitur because you have to define what constitutes a "natural athlete."  If you mean one who has a good hand-eye coordination, Charles Barkley does NOT fit that definition even in basketball.  He mostly overpowered his opponent.  He is more in line with a brute force athlete rather than a finesse or good hand-eye coordination athlete.  That is why, IMHO, he sucks at golf.  He does not possess good hand-eye coordination or finesse that is required in golf.

 

Look at hockey players.  In general they are very good golfers because they rely more on hand-eye coordination than brute strength.

post #48 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukari View Post
 

This poll and its answers are non sequitur because you have to define what constitutes a "natural athlete."  If you mean one who has a good hand-eye coordination, Charles Barkley does NOT fit that definition even in basketball.  He mostly overpowered his opponent.  He is more in line with a brute force athlete rather than a finesse or good hand-eye coordination athlete.  That is why, IMHO, he sucks at golf.  He does not possess good hand-eye coordination or finesse that is required in golf.

 

Look at hockey players.  In general they are very good golfers because they rely more on hand-eye coordination than brute strength.

 

Maybe off topic - but I would argue that Charles Barkley has plenty of hand-eye coordination.  Just because he was a power player doesn't mean he didn't handle the ball pretty well, shoot well, deliver no-look behind the back passes, rebound well, make semi-acrobatic saves of the ball going out, etc.  

 

Also, hand-eye coordination isn't his problem at golf.  It is the giant pause in the middle of his downswing.  I think I remember during the Haney show they said he was like a 6-cap before he developed that hitch.

post #49 of 53

Just because someone is naturally athletic, doesn't in any way guarantee they'll be naturally good at golf.  Does it give them a leg up over those that are athletically inept?  Sure, but that wasn't the question.......

post #50 of 53

Disagree because golf is much more of a mental game than it is a physical one.

post #51 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaijinGolfer View Post
 

Disagree because golf is much more of a mental game than it is a physical one.

 

he didn't, did he ?    :scared:

 

j/k - let me leave my take on it ... scoring looooooow, is a mental game, only because the physical game is in place and well established.     Golf for all but the top players is IMO far more physical than mental.

 

Pandora's box has been opened ...

post #52 of 53
Quote:

Originally Posted by inthehole View Post

j/k - let me leave my take on it ... scoring looooooow, is a mental game, only because the physical game is in place and well established.     Golf for all but the top players is IMO far more physical than mental.

 

Pandora's box has been opened ...

 

I agree.  I think golf has some definite mental aspects.  And it is a 'technique' type sport more than basketball or something. But it is still very physical.

post #53 of 53
I will say disagree.

As Erik said, no one is really naturally good at golf, although there are some that obvioulsly have certain talents for it. There are unique skills that are aquired through practice and experience that make one good at golf. Of course good is a relative term. I do believe athleticism is an asset though, in that being fit, strong, flexible, and having good hand-eye coordination will help one become better quicker than someone who does not naturally have those attributes.

In my case, I was not particulary athletic, and golf actually helped my hand-eye coordination, flexibility, and other things. As I said, good is relative. There are folks I play with who would consider me a "good" or "pretty good" golfer, but I am a 15 hc. Maybe slightly better than average, but not much. So, if by good, you mean scratch or single digit, then no, I don't think natural athletes are naturally good at golf. I think most have a leg up on the rest of us at just getting to the point of consistently hitting the ball with mostly forward motion and reasonable distance. After that, it takes work, same as the rest of us, and to be really good, that "good golfer" fairy dust or whatever it is.

Inthehole--I think most anybody can learn to be an OK putter. We can't all be Ben Crenshaw or Loren Roberts, but most can get to where you at least 2 putt most of the time. If you can't , you just haven't found the right combination of training, practice, and putter--keep trying.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Natural athletes are naturally good at golf. Agree or disagree?