Tiger Wants to Ban the Long Putter

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by k-troop

In order to disprove his argument, you'd have to find a substantial number of elite professional athletes who picked up a sport one year and and competed in the Olympics the next year.

Err...no... the problem with his argument is that like all pseudo intellectual pop psychology it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

And the onus is upon him to prove, not for others to disprove.

These sorts of things are designed to make ordinary people think they can be extraordinary. Reality takes a back seat, predictably. They deny the notion of genius and try to make us think that if it weren't for our circumstances we'd be rich and famous too.

Yes, people who are good at things usually have done them for a long time, but look at the Mozarts, Picassos, Van Goghs of the world.

And the notion of being "world class" at something in a time frime reduces the whole process to something that he thinks can be quantified but can't.

To embrace the theory that repetition leads to excellence is hardly new. But imagine looking at people like the Beatles or Bill Gates and applying his "laws".

And the fact that his books have been referenced by at least one President doesn't inspire one greatly. With the exception of Bill Clinton and Obama, I would not be banking on the intelligence of some of the others to hold the highest office in the last couple of decades. And I'm sure Dr Phil is someone that they like too.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Err...no... the problem with his argument is that like all pseudo intellectual pop psychology it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

And the onus is upon him to prove, not for others to disprove.

These sorts of things are designed to make ordinary people think they can be extraordinary. Reality takes a back seat, predictably. They deny the notion of genius and try to make us think that if it weren't for our circumstances we'd be rich and famous too.

Yes, people who are good at things usually have done them for a long time, but look at the Mozarts, Picassos, Van Goghs of the world.

And the notion of being "world class" at something in a time frime reduces the whole process to something that he thinks can be quantified but can't.

To embrace the theory that repetition leads to excellence is hardly new. But imagine looking at people like the Beatles or Bill Gates and applying his "laws".

And the fact that his books have been referenced by at least one President doesn't inspire one greatly. With the exception of Bill Clinton and Obama, I would not be banking on the intelligence of some of the others to hold the highest office in the last couple of decades. And I'm sure Dr Phil is someone that they like too.

What "scrutiny" has disproved his arguments?

Err, in Social Sciences, nothing can ever be "proven."  The best one can hope for is to establish correlation, but causation can never be established.  Once correlation is established (through sufficient observation), it may be refuted by sufficient mass of outliers--but anecdotal examples which fall outside of the correlative relationship do not disprove or refute.

Again, Gladwell does not argue that 10,000 hours of practice will make one great.  He simply notes that all of those who are "great" have innate talent and have amassed 10,000 hours of practice.  These are both "necessary" preconditions (at least necessary enough that you can scientifically conclude a correlative relationship) to greatness, but are not sufficient.

As for the specific people you mention, the Beatles and Bill Gates are two people he talks about in his book who have innate talent, have amassed 10,000 hours practice, and are "great."  He also notes that both were very lucky in their circumstances.  They are two of the people who help establish his argument that if you want to be great, you must have innate talent and must commit yourself to 10,000 hours of practice.  (Again, it's not a guarantee.)  I'm not sure where VanGogh, Mozart, and Picasso fit into this argument, because you have dropped these names as if the conclusion should be obvious to everyone.  I'd have to dig out the book, but Mozart may be one of the examples he gave of composers who fit into the talent+10,000 hours rule.

And Obama is the President who reads and references Gladwell.  I omitted his name from the previous post, as putting his name on a post will almost certainly lead to political judgments, arguments, etc. which are not relevant.

And to loop, the entire point of this completely off-topic discussion of Gladwell was that someone said that long putters are unfair because obviously you can be good with them without spending 10,000 hours practicing with it.  That is not, IMO, a proper application of Gladwell's argument.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by k-troop

What "scrutiny" has disproved his arguments?

The weighty tomes of pop psychologists and self-help gurus are scrutinised by ordinary people. People who have spent 10,000 hours becoming world class analysts and critics do not concern themselves with this kind of stuff. It would be like wasting a research grant or spending your own time analysing the shortcomings of a book written by Dr Phil's son.

That is my final comment on the matter. This topic is too clogged up as it is and I'll take some responsibility up to this point but no further.

[Texian]

The golfing world is apparently still not ready to ban the long putter. In the Sand Trap poll 57 percent said "No."

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Prohibition didn't work because the word was not ready for it. Back then, we weren't even ready for civil rights? It was practically still legal to hang black people. But the world changes.....

[newtogolf]

I'm not sure the Beatles would be considered master musicians.  They were innovators but I've never heard anyone give them much praise as actual musicians.  In fact, Ringo has been often criticized for not being a very good drummer.  Lennon was considered a genius, but again I've never heard people rave about his technical ability to play a guitar.  But none of this has much to do with banning a long putter so.....

Originally Posted by k-troop

As for the specific people you mention, the Beatles and Bill Gates are two people he talks about in his book who have innate talent, have amassed 10,000 hours practice, and are "great."  He also notes that both were very lucky in their circumstances.

[brocks]

It takes someone really smart to throw around insults without provocation and with a lack of reasoning. It also takes a big boy to be a jackwagon on a forum; you wouldn't be one to my face I promise you that.

Strange, I thought this forum was moderated. In this thread alone, in which at least a couple of site admins are active participants, I've been called a liar and a retard by two different "gentlemen," and now we have a resident tough guy, who wants to beat up people whose comments he doesn't like. And not a peep from the admins. Does anybody know of a forum where intelligent discussion is encouraged?

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Shorty

The weighty tomes of pop psychologists and self-help gurus are scrutinised by ordinary people. People who have spent 10,000 hours becoming world class analysts and critics do not concern themselves with this kind of stuff. It would be like wasting a research grant or spending your own time analysing the shortcomings of a book written by Dr Phil's son.

That is my final comment on the matter. This topic is too clogged up as it is and I'll take some responsibility up to this point but no further.

So the stuff you posted about "peer review", well that was just something you made up, wasn't it.  And the part where you claimed to be insulted because someone might suggest you don't really know who Gladwell is, or what his arguments are, well that was basically BS too.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by brocks

Strange, I thought this forum was moderated. In this thread alone, in which at least a couple of site admins are active participants, I've been called a liar and a retard by two different "gentlemen," and now we have a resident tough guy, who wants to beat up people whose comments he doesn't like. And not a peep from the admins.

Does anybody know of a forum where intelligent discussion is encouraged?

Brocks:  I enjoy intelligent discussion, and I think you contribute to it.  I didn't call you a liar, per se--and it wasn't intended that way.  I said "now you're lying" because I think you mischaracterized my prior post, and it would have been easy for you to go back and read my prior post before claiming that it "clearly implied" something that it expressly disclaimed.  I still think you mischaracterized my prior post, but I appreciate reasoned discussion based on actual facts and with assumptions disclosed and opinions treated as such--something which I think you do.

(BTW I still think you're a Tiger apologist, but it is certainly your right to be one.  I've come close to losing hope that Tiger will ever be great again, and we simply disagree on his current state.)

[brocks]

There's no need to paint every person as a hater for thinking fans of certain celebrities tend to share their opinions on their pet causes, and that if the celebrity had a change of heart, more than a few fans would experience the same change of heart. It's a fact. We see it every day.

Correct. Witness the number of Rush Limbaugh fans who suddenly decided that budget deficits were horrible on the day Obama was sworn in. On the other hand, I wish I had a nickel for every Tiger hater who proudly cited Tiger's opinion on the importance of majors, as if that settled things.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by brocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merfal

It takes someone really smart to throw around insults without provocation and with a lack of reasoning. It also takes a big boy to be a jackwagon on a forum; you wouldn't be one to my face I promise you that.

Strange, I thought this forum was moderated. In this thread alone, in which at least a couple of site admins are active participants, I've been called a liar and a retard by two different "gentlemen," and now we have a resident tough guy, who wants to beat up people whose comments he doesn't like. And not a peep from the admins.

Does anybody know of a forum where intelligent discussion is encouraged?

http://forums.prospero.com/tigerwoods

[dmnoland]

Originally Posted by brocks

Correct. Witness the number of Rush Limbaugh fans who suddenly decided that budget deficits were horrible on the day Obama was sworn in.

On the other hand, I wish I had a nickel for every Tiger hater who proudly cited Tiger's opinion on the importance of majors, as if that settled things.

Really??? What the hell does Rush, politics, or dittoheads have to do with Tiger or the longer putters?

This is supposed to be a golf discussion, take your leftist politics somewhere else.

[brocks]

Brocks:  I enjoy intelligent discussion, and I think you contribute to it.  I didn't call you a liar, per se--and it wasn't intended that way.  I said "now you're lying" because I think you mischaracterized my prior post, and it would have been easy for you to go back and read my prior post before claiming that it "clearly implied" something that it expressly disclaimed.

I'm not sure what kind of hair you think you are splitting, but among native speakers of English, if you say someone is lying, you are calling him a liar. Also among native English speakers, a lie is not merely an incorrect statement, but a deliberate attempt to deceive. You are welcome to disagree with me, or to think I mischaracterized what you said. The thing to do in the latter case is to clarify the disputed statement(s), not assume I am lying. It is the most natural thing in the world for a writer to judge his post by what he meant to say, and to expect everyone to fill in what was unsaid the same way he would. It's also natural for a reader to filter what he reads through his own knowledge and biases, which may be very different from the writer's, and so misunderstandings are bound to arise, but there is no need to assign base motives in either case.

[brocks]

Really??? What the hell does Rush, politics, or dittoheads have to do with Tiger or the longer putters? This is supposed to be a golf discussion, take your leftist politics somewhere else.

LOL. Calling people liars or retards, or threatening them with violence, is fine here. But if you use an illustrative example I don't like, NOW YOU'RE GOING TOO FAR!!

[brocks]

[URL=http://forums.prospero.com/tigerwoods]http://forums.prospero.com/tigerwoods[/URL]

Thanks for the link. Seriously.

[zeg]

Somebody needs to put a stop to this madness.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zeg

Somebody needs to put a stop to this madness.

Fine. It stops now.

Originally Posted by Texian

The golfing world is apparently still not ready to ban the long putter. In the Sand Trap poll 57 percent said "No."

Fortunately - or unfortunately - the only opinions that will truly matter are the USGA's and/or the R&A;'s. A great many people don't like the rules about DMDs and cell phones, but they are what they are.

Originally Posted by brocks

Strange, I thought this forum was moderated. In this thread alone, in which at least a couple of site admins are active participants, I've been called a liar and a retard by two different "gentlemen," and now we have a resident tough guy, who wants to beat up people whose comments he doesn't like. And not a peep from the admins.

Does anybody know of a forum where intelligent discussion is encouraged?

That's mildly insulting to me and the other moderators we have here.

This forum offers the LEAST editing and the lightest "hand" (in terms of moderation) of ANY golf forum I've ever been on or seen. Bar none. We rely on people to act like adults, to give the benefit of the doubt, and will almost always choose to not edit posts when it's "iffy." We don't ban many people. We expect people to have a moderate skin thickness.

What any of the recent conversation - like your post above - has to do with the TOPIC at hand I don't know, but if I want to use your post as an example, you didn't contribute to the conversation and in fact continued to push the thread further off-topic.

Again, this forum relies on people to be adults and does NOT rely on heavy moderation. This is by design and by choice. We'd ask that you - and everyone else - do their best to stick to the topic. If you'd prefer a more heavily moderated forum, I'm sorry, but this one ain't it, and will not be.

[BugDude]

I'd like to see the PGA go back to wooden woods, steel shafts, and forged blade irons.  Get rid of the hybrids and rescue clubs and go back to long irons...and wound golf balls too.  Back in the day Nicklas was hitting wound golf balls with a 1 iron 220.  Now that's a 6 iron.  The techno impact of golf has gotten ridiculous.  Guys are hitting Driver, wedge to 500 yard par 4s. They keep stretching the courses out to compensate and that just narows the field to the long ball hitters.  It's time golf got back to being about strategy, course management, ball striking, and shot making.  A majority of the difference is in the golf balls.  In the old days you had to choose either distance or spin...now you get both with the multi-layer soft skin solid core balls.  In the old days the guys were hitting hard golf balls 200 yards with a 4 iron and had to roll the ball onto the green.  Now they hit a high 6 or 7 iron 200 yards and spin it back 6 feet.

[Phil McGleno]

Thanks. You hate technology but what does any of that have to do with putting with the butt of the club anchored in your belly lint repository?

Originally Posted by BugDude

I'd like to see the PGA go back to wooden woods, steel shafts, and forged blade irons.  Get rid of the hybrids and rescue clubs and go back to long irons...and wound golf balls too.  Back in the day Nicklas was hitting wound golf balls with a 1 iron 220.  Now that's a 6 iron.  The techno impact of golf has gotten ridiculous.  Guys are hitting Driver, wedge to 500 yard par 4s. They keep stretching the courses out to compensate and that just narows the field to the long ball hitters.  It's time golf got back to being about strategy, course management, ball striking, and shot making.  A majority of the difference is in the golf balls.  In the old days you had to choose either distance or spin...now you get both with the multi-layer soft skin solid core balls.  In the old days the guys were hitting hard golf balls 200 yards with a 4 iron and had to roll the ball onto the green.  Now they hit a high 6 or 7 iron 200 yards and spin it back 6 feet.