What Makes PGA Tour Players Freaks of Nature?

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

But look at it from the other side. What athletic talents do golfers NOT need?

Great strength, speed, or endurance. (Though golfers need the endurance to walk 5 miles a day! Speed in the swing is nice, but according to Bobby Jones, not necessary. "No one ever swung too slow.")

Yeah, some eye-hand coordination is essential. But it's not like you were trying to hit a golf ball that is bouncing around, or moving at 100 mph. Or that you need fast reflexes.

Gosh! Looking at it this way, golf is a sport for old folks, or for those who flunked out of other sports!

I do agree though that golfers need great awareness of their own bodies.

[verse214]

That "slight edge" is what makes them freaks.

If they are truly "freaks" then they would not have to practice nearly as much as they do and wouldn't have had to play for the years that they did; of course there will be one offs who can perform at the highest level after several years of play. Plus if they were truly "freaks" each and every single one of them would be able to tell from the moment they picked up a golf club whether they can make it on the PGA Tour. In fact, golf is the ONLY sport where at the collegiate level you still have NO idea whether you will be able to play at the PGA Tour level. There is NOTHING freakish about this - it's all hard work with a little luck. There is no common statistic among collegiate players that guarantees them a spot on the PGA tour except for one: to win both the NCAA individual tournament and the US Open Amateur in the same year and only 4 people have ever done it Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and Ryan Moore. Since there is no common statistic amongst all PGA Tour players who did compete at the collegiate level, it shows you that it is not simply talent or their "freakishness" that boosted them to the PGA Tour Level. Sure, you're naming all these big names who have played on tour, and of course these are the legends and the biggest names in golf - but you forget every other player who hustles and scrambles on tour week and after week - they are NOT freaks, but hard working golfers.

[iacas]

But to say they are just merely freaks of nature is an insult to the players themselves. People seem to forget Tiger logs in around 9 hours of practice a day.

I don't think anyone has said "merely." In fact, I specifically said "freak + hard work."

I think Phil has just as much natural talent than Tiger.

And I think Phil might have MORE talent - he might be a bigger freak - than Tiger.

The great players are damn hard workers not just natural talents. Period.

Nobody's saying they're "just" natural talents.

If they are truly "freaks" then they would not have to practice nearly as much as they do and wouldn't have had to play for the years that they did; of course there will be one offs who can perform at the highest level after several years of play.

Why wouldn't they? They're competing with other freaks. What'd I write above - a freak that doesn't work hard may not make it onto the Tour. A freak that works hard wins tournaments.

Consider top-level chess players. They have a freakish ability... and they practice.

Plus if they were truly "freaks" each and every single one of them would be able to tell from the moment they picked up a golf club whether they can make it on the PGA Tour.

I disagree.

Since there is no common statistic amongst all PGA Tour players who did compete at the collegiate level, it shows you that it is not simply talent or their "freakishness" that boosted them to the PGA Tour Level.

Tell me, please - who has said "simply" or "just" or "merely" will get you anywhere?

P.S. I may have made the "freak + hard work = ...." posts in the original thread.

[Vance87]

What about YE Yang? The dude didn't pick up a club until he was 19. He had athletic ability (former powerlifter) and he was able to turn pro 5 years later.

[sean_miller]

The more I read the more I side with the non-freak camp. They're good athletes - in a specialized sport. Everybody's good at something. That doesn't make people freaks of nature.

Last year people debated whether or not anybody could be scratch with enough practice. People argued it was possible (several physical ability stipulations were added). I was watching the tournament in Texas today (on TV) I didn't see anything freakish going on there, other than Steve Elkington's shirt.

[verse214]

Nobody's saying they're "just" natural talents.

So after reading all of your responses it's become apparent that the way you're using the word "freak" is as a simple substitute for the word "talent".

So yes of course, all pro athletes have talent - And if the only reason why "freaks" had to practice was because they had to compete "with other freaks" - "normal" people like us would immediately recognize a "freak" when we saw one even if they didn't practice. Sorry, but i think your just confusing the word "freak" with "hard work and a little talent". And hard work and a little talent/luck is what makes people successful in ALL walks of life; people aren't successful by just being freaks of nature with a God given ability. Plus, if they were TRULY freaks of nature, they would NEVER have a bad round or shoot double bogeys EVER through their career. I think in order for people to really understand your point or for you to successfully state whatever it is you're trying to state, you need to define what you mean by freak of nature and you will soon see yourself that PGA tour pros are not freaks of nature but really just people like you and me.

[iacas]

So after reading all of your responses it's become apparent that the way you're using the word "freak" is as a simple substitute for the word "talent".

Nah. They're different things. You can learn to be talented at something. Talented golfers are the "hard work only" golfers. Hell, I'm an incredibly talented golfer - I'm better than 99% of people who play golf (and thus 99.999999999% of people in the world). But am I a freak to the level of PGA Tour players? No way. PGA Tour players are both more talented and more freakish than me. (Again, "freak" is used in a good way throughout this discussion.)

"normal" people like us would immediately recognize a "freak" when we saw one even if they didn't practice.

Huh? What makes Gary Player look like a freak? Or Retief Goosen? Or even Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson? They are. Why do you keep making up bizarre ways to "prove" that you're right?

Sorry, but i think your just confusing the word "freak" with "hard work and a little talent".

Nah, I'm not.

And hard work and a little talent/luck is what makes people successful in ALL walks of life; people aren't successful by just being freaks of nature with a God given ability.

Did you read what I said? I never said you could "just" be a freak and get anywhere. Freak + hard work (developing talent).

Plus, if they were TRULY freaks of nature, they would NEVER have a bad round or shoot double bogeys EVER through their career.

Again with the "let me make up something so I can say 'see, I'm right.'" Heck, the corollary isn't even true - why does a sucky golfer occasionally get a hole in one? Or a net eagle? Or occasionally hit a ball 270 yards?

I think in order for people to really understand your point or for you to successfully state whatever it is you're trying to state, you need to define what you mean by freak of nature and you will soon see yourself that PGA tour pros are not freaks of nature but really just people like you and me.

No, they're not "just people like you and me."

Freaks are not just "talented" people - anyone can learn to be talented. I'm reading a book right now that talks about talent, in fact, but I've felt this way long before it. Talent is simply reasonably well directed hard work. A lot of golfers can make it to the PGA Tour on talent - hard work - alone. Very, very few of those golfers will win tournaments. Think about being a "freak" in other sports. I can train you to have a talent for sprinting or running long distances (a marathon, even). You can work hard enough that you can beat just about everyone in your hometown at some form of running - and you'd be a talented runner - but unless you're a freak you're not going to be winning the Boston Marathon or competing in the 100 meter hurdles at the Olympics. Tiger Woods was given a set of the irons Ben Hogan played once. Ben famously played incredibly heavy, very flat irons. Virtually every pro who tried to swing them hit low bullets well right of the target. Tiger Woods hit two such shots and then said "wait, I've got this" and proceeded to hit high draw after high draw. That's a freak. Freaks have certain combinations of things - speed, hand-eye coordination, power, ability to feel their body positions, touch, grace, minds, vision, ability to deal with pressure, (etc etc etc - I could list more and still forget 95% of the things) - that can't be taught or learned. They still have to develop those things into talent. If you want to call the things I listed "talent" then we disagree on the definitions, but we completely agree that PGA Tour players are "freaks." Here's my math another way: Nature Alone = Breaks 100. Or 90. Or maybe 80. Nurture Alone = A few make it to the PGA Tour. They almost never win anything. (And I'm including people with some "freakness" to them, but low levels.) Nature + Nurture = The bulk of the PGA Tour. Freak = nature. Talent = nurture. Talent (hard work on appropriate things) only takes you so far. Just as "freakness" alone will only take you so far. Talent (hard work) alone will almost always get you farther than freakness alone, but you need both to really, really shine. All that said, I'm just going to be repeating myself from here on out, so I'm done. Enjoy the discussion.

[jamo]

I'm reading a book right now that talks about talent, in fact, but I've felt this way long before it. Talent is simply reasonably well directed hard work. A lot of golfers can make it to the PGA Tour on talent - hard work - alone. Very, very few of those golfers will win tournaments.

Just out of curiosity, what is the book?

[iacas]

Just out of curiosity, what is the book?

The Talent Code. It doesn't really talk about "learning" so much as it talks about "how to learn most efficiently." So it almost starts with the assumption that "talent" is "learned" and builds from there.

I've read several other books about how you can "learn" to have "talent." That book about becoming an expert requiring 10,000 hours of practice is one of them... and The Talent Code is basically saying "sure, but you can do 10,000 hours worth of practice in 500." I'm reading The Talent Code because I think it will help me to become a better player AND a better instructor. Anyway, this was probably better suited for a PM, but there it is.

[Easy]

I get ya now. I think everyone has misinterpreted peoples choice of words. Some people are born freaks. No matter how hard I work I will never win a gold medal at the 100m sprint or the 100m freestyle at the Olympics.
Someone mentioned that if Kobe Bryant or Lebron James took up Soccer instead of Basketball America would win the World Cup. I bet my house that they wouldn't. Show me a player over 6'5 who was brilliant at Soccer in it's whole history besides a goalie? (Although I do think Lebron James is a super freak who has more natural ability than M.J).

It gets to me when people look at Tiger Woods or some other great player and say "He's so lucky, I wish I was naturally gifted at golf...."
We all do but it takes a bit more than that mate.

[Fatphil]

Someone mentioned that if Kobe Bryant or Lebron James took up Soccer instead of Basketball America would win the World Cup. I bet my house that they wouldn't.

yeh it was me...what's your house look like?

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

Ever notice how those who have been successful in business tend to think it's because of some innate and repeatable ability? How oilman H.L. Hunt thought he had a "genius gene" and was therefore entitled to have three families going, all at the same time, to spread his genetics? How John Forsythe's character in the TV show "Dynasty" declared, "If I went broke this morning, by evening I'd have a thousand dollars, by tomorrow night ten thousand, by the end of the week 100,000, and I would be a millionaire again in two weeks." Nice to have such confidence.

Whenever there is any individual or group that stands out, the tendency is to think there is a clear reason for standing out. And if you are the individual or a member of the group in question, you tend to give yourself the credit, either for innate genius or hard work or both. And you believe you deserve the honor, if it is an honor.

One reason we invent gods is to explain things, easily. The rich and successful are beloved of the gods or have worked to please the gods, or whatever.

What nobody gives much credit to is chance and opportunity. Yet chance and opportunity are often the most important factors in success of any type.

[andef]

if Kolbe and Lebron had played soccer the US would win the World Cup

Really? The US is not even close to winning the world cup, they would need 5 Kobes and 5 LeBrons to even have a shot.

Going back to the topic, great hand-eye cordination, great talent and mental strenght. Just as an example, I have played golf for a year and a half and I'm 10.1. I bet 80% of players will never get to that level no matter how long they play. P.S. I'm not comparing myself to these freaks of nature but I have definately achieved more than most people ever will.

[Williamevanl]

I wonder how much practice that 16 year old kid that played in the pga tour this weekend has had. I'm sure he's practiced a lot but I bet there's a single digit handicapper on here thats put in more time.

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

I wonder how much practice that 16 year old kid that played in the pga tour this weekend has had. I'm sure he's practiced a lot but I bet there's a single digit handicapper on here thats put in more time.

Don't know anything about his background (and hope I don't! Hope they keep it quiet) except that he goes to what has to be a pricey "prep" school. You can bet that before this, he didn't play the local 9-holer or muni or learn to play golf from an article in the school Britannica. Or start with garage sale clubs picked up for $10.

There was a kid from my home town, basically raised and trained by his dad to be a golfing phenom, which he sort of is, though he was never any threat to Tiger. Kid revolted and left the program for a while, then went back to what he was trained to do. Name of Sean O'Hair. I keep thinking about the poster whose 3-year old didn't show signs of being a golf prodigy. Well, kids and adults mature at different rates. You have to be patient, to catch them when they are ready. Kid might still be the next Tiger. And Tiger may have peaked at about 30; we will see how he resurrects himself. When did Kenny Perry peak--at 48? How old was Kurt Warner when he peaked as a quarterback? TTT.

[sean_miller]

How old was Kurt Warner when he peaked as a quarterback? TTT.

~ 3 weeks before the Superbowl.

[microcrayfish]

It never ceases to amaze me how many threads here turn into multi-page arguments because nobody bothered to define what they mean when using some simple little subjective term on the first page. Come on guys, is it really that hard to think "hmm maybe the other chap means something different when he says freak than I do? I should probably clear that up". Instead we end up with pages and pages of pointless discussion because people are discussing completely different things.