Becoming an "Expert" golfer

[Borf]

It has been said that you need to put in 10,000 hours of a certain activity to become a so called "expert". I have been trying to estimate how many hours I have in in my whole life and how much more time I need to put in to get to the magical number.

I have pretty good records for all the tournaments I have played but it gets kinda foggy when I try to estimate the total number of casual rounds I have played and also how long the average round is. I have other time played when i started also that I will attempt to estimate sometime soon.

Heres currently where I am at, I have 240 tournament + practice rounds in, and I have estimated 5 hours for tournament round and 4 hours for a casual round. Here are my estimates:

High: 4000
Medium: 3600
Low: 3200

[alo1984]

I am whatever I say I am.

[iacas]

I'm pretty sure you don't get to count 5 hours for a tournament round since almost none of that time is used actually perfecting golf, but is rather spent walking around or standing around.

[iPutt]

How about range time??

[Borf]

I'm pretty sure you don't get to count 5 hours for a tournament round since almost none of that time is used actually perfecting golf, but is rather spent walking around or standing around.

alright, so what do you suggest doing?

How about range time??

I will have to figure out some kind of time spent on the range...

[Nyper]

I'm pretty sure you don't get to count 5 hours for a tournament round since almost none of that time is used actually perfecting golf, but is rather spent walking around or standing around.

I would agree.. but not just tournament rounds. In a 4 hour casual round, most of the time is spent waiting on other players, etc. However, I guess this also depends on your definition of "expert". Do you mean an "expert" at playing golf, or just an "expert" of the game in general (play, rules, etiquette, etc).

[WUTiger]

It has been said that you need to put in 10,000 hours of a certain activity to become a so called "expert". ...

Those hours would be required for complex activities, but not necessarily for simpler tasks.

Also, the 10,000 hours would need to structured purposefully so that you develop all skills required for the activity. As for professional expertise, often the profession or industry has standards of education, licensing, and performance which you must meet. For sports, it's a little more difficult to chart. If you spend all that time trying to perfect a structurally flawed golf swing, and the swing never takes, 10,000 hours of effort won't make you an "expert." I have pursued golf for a long time, starting as a caddie in grade school and high school. I was actually a backup player on my junior college golf team for two years - we had a small squad, and needed four to play a match. Each season, I prevented us from having to forfeit a match because I was a fourth warm body. I have broken 80 twice, but did so with a structurally flawed swing which often fell apart when I couldn't play multiple times a week. Starting about 2001, I began working toward a more reliable repeating swing , but I'm not quite there yet. I might be an expert in overall knowledge and understanding of "things golf," but as my HDCP says, I'm not an expert as a performing golfer.

[walk18]

Why does it matter? It's a label, nothing more.

[BostonSully]

I am whatever I say I am.

and if I wasnt then why would I say I am?

[kafka01]

This number you are referring to is widley regarded as the effort you have to put in in all kind sports to be able to compete at the highest level. Considering that golf is one of the most difficult sports out there the number of hours & talent it takes probably range more on the upper scale than anywhere else.

As other said before, playing a round of golf isnt even close contribute much to this number. Efficient and purposeful practice gets you there not playing 5hour rounds. During your practice you continously need to evaluate your strengths and weaknesses and work on balancing them. Whats the use of being the best putter in the world if you can hit GIR since you lack consistency and distance.

[Shorty]

This number you are referring to is widley regarded as the effort you have to put in in all kind sports to be able to compete at the highest level.

Widely regarded? By who?

If a person spends 50,000 hours doing something the wrong way, he may as well have spent an hour doing it, because he's doing the same thing over and over again.

[Zeph]

Time is not the factor of importance here, it is what you do with the time you got. Trying to do something the wrong way for 10 000 hours does not make you an expert at it. I'd rather spend more time researching and understanding, than just hitting balls.

[jamo]

Widely regarded? By who?

I'm pretty sure the OP is referencing the Malcolm Gladwell book.

Also, the theory is that you are using that 10,000 hours to learn from your mistakes, not just the same things over and over. I'm not saying I agree 100% with the theory, but I'd be willing to bet that there is a decently strong correlation between time put into an activity and performance at that activity. And to Zeph's point, maybe you could take into consideration that time you are researching the topic when calculation your hours spent. But like I said, I don't agree 100%. Also:

Why does it matter? It's a label, nothing more.

The point of the theory is that it's not a label. They say that once you reach 10,000 hours you should have put enough time in to be sufficiently good to be called an expert.

[kafka01]

There have been done studies about this topic that this number was derived from. Of course if you do it wrong 10k h long, well, you dont get anywhere with it, but seriously who would put in the effort to do this and then not doing it properly, thats why i said "Efficient and purposeful practice".

And lets face it, most athletes have to start very young, get their 15 years of practice (or whatever 10k hours translate into years) done and then go on and compete. Otherwise they just messed up their career, since in most sports you are old very quick. Golf is kind of an expeption though.

Zeph - i fully understand what you mean by researching. Personally it i like to do it too, it helps me understand and translate things into practice a lot better. But i bet you, there are guys out there who never read a book on golf technique or physics of golf and they could quick all our asses. Different people - different approaches. But then again, this research and study time is something you would have to add to these 10k hours, since this is really only the time you have to spent to ingrain motions, learning putting on a high level and so on in practice, and so on.

[Shorty]

Let's put some perspective into this nonsense.
A 50 year old who started golfing when he was 12 and currently plays off 20 organises a series of lessons with the 23 year old assistant pro.
On the way to the range for his first lesson, the young pro casually asks the 50 year old to tell him a little about his game.
He replies "I am an expert golfer".
The term just doesn't fit our sport, does it?

[kafka01]

You understand the difference between an athlete with a goal-driven approach to excel in a sport and a casual golfer, right? I´d say a 50y old playing for 38 years and playing off 20 hardly can be described as goal driven, and also not as an expert golfer.

The term does fit our sport, but only is applicable to people who actually have the goal to become experts (professionals) in the game. So that would reduce the golfing population to a very small number.

[Shorty]

I´d say a 50y old playing for 38 years and playing off 20 hardly can be described as goal driven, and also not as an expert golfer.

Which is my point exactly.

[jamo]

Which is my point exactly.

Then you might be missing the point of the theory. Just haphazardly playing 10,000 hour of golf for fun with no intention or desire to improve doesn't put you on the path to being an expert. The theory is partially assuming that the person is willing and actively trying to get better and improve through practice, etc.