Becoming a European Tour Pro

[iacas]

  On 9/14/2016 at 2:48 PM, IanW said:

Fortunately I am not wrong. There has been lots of research in the social psychology field to back up my position.

Expand  

Cite some of them.

  On 9/14/2016 at 2:48 PM, IanW said:

Taking two people and an indeterminate duration, the individual with more drive/motivation/dedication will advance a given skill beyond that of the individual with the lower drive/motivation/dedication regardless of 'talent' or initial level of skill.

Expand  

That's not true at all.

Just this past summer I had two junior golfers show up. Same age, build, etc. One could instantly - with a goofy grip, a weird stance, a big sway, the works… - hit the ball pretty solidly each time he swung (particularly off a tee). The other, after 20 hours of effort, still struggled to not whiff every third or fourth swing.

Talent matters quite a bit.

How much drive did John Daly have? Dustin Johnson?

There are guys on mini-tours losing money who work nearly every waking hour, but will never make the PGA Tour. The contractor I hire out occasionally spent sixteen years in the minor leagues. Never got above AA ball. He worked his ass off.

Some of the guys who reached a higher level than him would show up for games and skip the weight room and would party all winter while he was putting in hours in the gym each day.

  On 9/14/2016 at 2:48 PM, IanW said:

Taking two people and an indeterminate duration, the individual with more drive/motivation/dedication will advance a given skill beyond that of the individual with the lower drive/motivation/dedication regardless of 'talent' or initial level of skill.

Expand  

Cite the study. Because I cannot fathom that being a logical conclusion.

Given two people of the same talent, I could easily see the one with more "drive" having more success. But then that gets into whether "drive" is a talent, too…

Some people will never be as good as this kid was at 8:

  On 9/14/2016 at 2:48 PM, IanW said:

If you want to get into the gory details you can read Carol Dweck's research as she is one of the pioneers of this type of stuff in the late 70s.

Expand  

I've read plenty of her stuff. I've read The Talent Code and many other books of that nature.

  On 9/14/2016 at 2:48 PM, IanW said:

Golf is actually extremely ripe for this research given it is a very results oriented sport with little impact from outside forces as compared to other sports.

Expand  

So let me ask you this…

You have a Dustin Johnson type. Good hand-eye coordination. Really good clubhead speed. Etc.

You also have a 4'10" guy who surprises people when he's able to hit his mouth with his fork and maxes out swinging the club at 40 MPH.

The latter guy, if he has more "drive," will be better than Dustin Johnson in 10 years? 20 years? 30?

Really?

  On 9/14/2016 at 2:48 PM, IanW said:

It should largely explain how your opinion that there has to be something special about a person in order for them to achieve something is likely causing you to turn away 'untalented' students that do in fact have the drive to eventually play golf at a professional level.

Expand  

Where did you get the idea that we've turned away students?

Playing golf at a top level requires certain things, and though "drive" is on the list (how much remains debatable… John Daly, my contractor and his peers, etc.…), but so are things like "speed" and "hand-eye coordination" and so on.

  On 9/14/2016 at 2:48 PM, IanW said:

There is a big change in the coaching world (largely in hockey that I am familiar with, sadly golf appears to be behind the times) to try and deter this attitude because it is 'old school' thinking that is actually incorrect. This research area has been embraced by a few countries with regards to hockey (notably Sweden in the late 80s) and they are now reaping rewards having moved from low positions at international events to now competing for first place over the last 10 years.

Expand  

Sweden was one of the top four teams in the 1960 Olympics.

In the 1972 Olympics, they were ranked inside the top three or four (and finished fourth) as well.

They were third-ranked (and won bronze) in the 1980 Olympics.

They've been competing at a high level for over 50 years.

  On 9/14/2016 at 2:48 PM, IanW said:

That said, if you have research (ie: not anecdotal evidence) that disputes the above claims I would love to read it.

Expand  

Anecdotal evidence is based on personal accounts or stories. There are millions, though, and so it crosses into what I'd more accurately (IMO) call empirical evidence.

Thousands and millions of people with more drive have lost out to people with less.

You could go out and rank everyone's "drive" in sport or business or whatever you want, and while I'm sure you'd see a trend line, I doubt the R² value would be through the roof.

---

Your position, @IanW, is so goofy that I can only imagine you're talking about something like "on an infinite timescale, the person with more drive will have more success." If that's the case, let's stick to reality, where athletes have about 10-20 years to reach a peak level, and this guy has significantly less.

[IanW]

You have read The Talent Code. Thanks for the laugh :) I will let you continue on with your anecdotal evidence. I will continue reading the work of researchers in the fields who study this and only this for a lifetime.

@iacas: I suggest you approach the researchers researching things and explained to them how they are all wrong. You clearly know more than anyone else on any particular topic. As such, given this is the third time I have tried and failed to engage in rational discussion with you (wherein I provide actual researchers arguments), I will no longer attempt it. Your debate style is that of counter-example. In the research world, excepting the cases of proofs, counter-examples are ignored. Instead, trends and typical cases are what matters. You don't seem incapable of grasping that concept which makes debate futile. 

You are free to accept this as a victory and I will gladly concede it as such.

 

 

 

[iacas]

  On 9/14/2016 at 3:49 PM, IanW said:

You have read The Talent Code. Thanks for the laugh :)

Expand  

C'mon… I clearly said I've read several things, including that book. I know about Dweck's "growth mindset" and have read at least a few of her written works.

A growth mindset is great. But it's not gonna get someone on the PGA Tour without a whole heaping of talent to go along with it.

  On 9/14/2016 at 3:49 PM, IanW said:

I will let you continue on with your anecdotal evidence.

Expand  

It's not anecdotal. I devoted at least a few sentences to this.

  On 9/14/2016 at 3:49 PM, IanW said:

I will continue reading the work of researchers in the fields who study this and only this for a lifetime.

Expand  

I don't think you know what they're studying if you think that drive trumps everything else; if you think that a player can make the European Tour if he wants it enough.

  On 9/14/2016 at 3:49 PM, IanW said:

@iacas: I suggest you approach the researchers researching things and explained to them how they are all wrong.

Expand  

I have asked you to cite something, but instead you just tell me "hey, go talk to them?" I'm discussing it with you, because you have the opinion that differs from me. From what I've read of them, they don't disagree with me either, so I'm trying to determine, right now, if you've misread their positions, or if perhaps I have, or if perhaps still they've written more that I haven't read and should consider.

  On 9/14/2016 at 3:49 PM, IanW said:

As such, given this is the third time I have tried and failed to engage in rational discussion with you (wherein I provide actual researchers arguments), I will no longer attempt it.

Expand  

We agree on something! That you've failed to engage in rational discussion…  Just kidding. You said it…

You haven't cited anything, and you've seemingly ignored the posts I've made. Where are these arguments you've made? After we got past the admittedly stupid "nah" "yeah" stage, you've mentioned one thing ("Static versus dynamic theories and the perception of groups: Different routes to different destinations") which - as far as I can tell - has nothing to do with athletic performance. From the abstract:

  Quote

Research on lay theories suggests that people who begin the task of social perception with different starting assumptions follow different cognitive paths and reach different social endpoints. In this article, we show how laypeople's fixed (entity) versus dynamic (incremental) theories of human nature foster different meaning systems for interpreting and respondingto the same group information. Using research with adults and children, in the United States and East Asia, and concerning familiar and novel groups, wedocument how these theories influence susceptibility to stereotyping, perceptions of group homogeneity, the ultimate attribution error, intergroup bias,and discriminatory behavior. Further, we discuss social-cultural factors that produce and perpetuate these theories as well as why and when these theories are maintained and changed. The implications of this work for reducing stereotyping and intergroup conflict are considered.

Expand  

Please tell me how that relates to athletics? Tell me how the conclusion at all supports anything you've said here:

  Quote

In this article, we have provided substantial evi- dence of two contrasting ways that people come to an understanding of groups and their members. We have illustrated that perceivers’ a priori lay theories about the static or dynamic nature of human nature instigate distinct, contrasting networks of allied beliefs and, in turn, notably different patterns of perception, infer- once, judgment, and behavior with respect to target groups. We have shown that the entity mode is primar- ily trait and stereotype oriented and the incremental mode is more concerned with dynamic processes that may provide context-based explanations for a group member’s behavior. These differences indicate that lay theories are a useful tool for coming to a richer and more nuanced understanding of how people arrive at coherent impressions of individuals and groups. As we move toward a fuller understanding of the motiva- tional and functional roots of these theories, we also may move closer to a fuller understanding of how to al- ter people’s theories in ways that can reduce stereotyp- ing and intergroup conflict. 

Expand  

I don't think that has much to do with what we're talking about here.

  On 9/14/2016 at 3:49 PM, IanW said:

Your debate style is that of counter-example. In the research world, excepting the cases of proofs, counter-examples are ignored.

Expand  

I'm well aware of how things are done in the research world, Ian. And the scientific community.

Your cited source, the one thing you've mentioned, seemingly has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

  On 9/14/2016 at 3:49 PM, IanW said:

You don't seem incapable of grasping that concept which makes debate futile. 

You are free to accept this as a victory and I will gladly concede it as such.

Expand  

I don't care about victories. I care about learning and gaining an understanding.

I also hate weak arguments. They're a waste of time. I'm starting to fear that's all this has amounted to…

 

[natureboy]

  On 9/14/2016 at 12:46 PM, iacas said:

It also doesn't include the entire rest of the world.

It also doesn't include people who don't keep handicaps… like pros.

I figured you'd say that, and you predictably failed to consider those other things. And I'm not saying that I'm right… hence "you sure about that?" followed by some things to make the person to whom I was responding think.

Expand  

True, but the OP was asking about Europe and likely what @Grinde6 was thinking when he questioned the number of scratch golfers cited. The universe of golfers and handicap players is roughly comparable between the U.S. and Europe at this point (they have more golfers with GHIN, but many countries require you to register for a HCP in order to play).

The error I was pointing out was applying the 1.6% to the universe of all golfers. In the universe of golfers with a GHIN in the U.S. that percentage was derived from, you get ~ 40,000 confirmed scratch players. We can include pros if you want, but you know they are a miniscule fraction of all golfers (let aone scratch) up to maybe a few thousand and I already rounded up to the ~40,000 number from ~37,000.

Even if you assume that 50% of players of scratch ability in the U.S. do not have GHINs (extremely generous IMO), that only gives you 80,000 scratch players in the U.S. with a comparable number in Europe. But that's a bad assumption, because scratch players are way more likely to be serious, regular golfers who are also much more likely to hold a GHIN. They are over-represented in the universe of golfers with handicaps. The 'average' handicap of ~15 among GHIN holders is also low for the universe of all golfers and an average HCP over 20 is more likely if you consider 'all' golfers.

Marketing groups estimate ~60 million golfers worldwide (before the world-wide economic downturn contraction). This very generous estimate includes huge swaths of casual golfers who play no more than a few rounds a year. They aren't going to be scratch players since 'golf is hard' and takes a lot of work to get to scratch and maintain it. Even took Greg Norman with loads of natural talent 1.5-2 years. If we assume maybe 1/4 of those are serious, regular enough players to have a chance to get to scratch and apply the 1.6% you get about 240,000 scratch golfers worldwide, which I consider a very generous estimate.

Edited September 14, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

  On 9/14/2016 at 3:26 PM, iacas said:

Given two people of the same talent, I could easily see the one with more "drive" having more success. But then that gets into whether "drive" is a talent, too…

Expand  

Agree with this. For golf it's likely long-term dedication / commitment / patience / focus. Good talent in lots of other areas too.

Interesting article on topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/opinion/david-brooks-learning-is-no-easy-task.html?_r=0

[iacas]

  On 9/14/2016 at 4:37 PM, natureboy said:

True, but the OP was asking about Europe and likely what @Grinde6 was thinking when he questioned the number of scratch golfers cited.

Expand  

Move on, Kevin. It was a throw-away comment designed to make the person think that maybe what they were saying wasn't right (maybe it is?), and now you're trying to guess at what someone else was thinking. That should be a sign that you're venturing into some weird territory.

  On 9/14/2016 at 4:37 PM, natureboy said:

The error I was pointing out was applying the 1.6% to the universe of all golfers.

Expand  

There was no error because I wasn't actually stating it would be factually accurate to take 1.6% and multiply it by some other unrelated number. The facts of "1.6%" and "25 million" are unrelated, but they may have - if he chose to do so - caused the person to whom I responded to think about whether what he said so confidently was even accurate.

That's it. Move on. It's not the topic here.

[Buckeyebowman]

It may not have been the topic, but it sure was interesting!

I read the first page, skipped 2 & 3, then came here, so I don't know where the discussion veered off course into talent vs drive.

However, to the OP's point, the usual route to any tour, let alone the European tour, is starting young and coming to love the game. Competing in junior tournaments, high school and college golf, then competing on any one of the many mini tours, and maybe, just maybe you might get a shot at one of the major tours. It is a constant, relentless grind!

And let's say you get there. There is no guarantee that you will stay there! Never mind the water walkers in the top ten, or even twenty. The remainder of tour card holders shift around and drop out at an astounding rate!

There was a Buy.com tour event near Cleveland last week. A quick peek at the field revealed any number of golfers who seemed to be fixtures on the PGA tour just last season! And here they are again, trying to get back to the bigs. I've been to a few Buy.com events, and I would kill to have the game any of those guys do. But in the larger scheme of things they're just not good enough to make it on the big tours, PGA or Euro.

On the first page of this thread valleygolfer said, something like, "Never say never, but the odds are stacked against the OP". When you stop and think about making it on the tour, the odds are stacked against EVERYBODY!

[Phil McGleno]

It is the web.com tour @Buckeyebowman.

[natureboy]

  On 9/15/2016 at 3:22 AM, Buckeyebowman said:

It may not have been the topic, but it sure was interesting!

I read the first page, skipped 2 & 3, then came here, so I don't know where the discussion veered off course into talent vs drive.

However, to the OP's point, the usual route to any tour, let alone the European tour, is starting young and coming to love the game. Competing in junior tournaments, high school and college golf, then competing on any one of the many mini tours, and maybe, just maybe you might get a shot at one of the major tours. It is a constant, relentless grind!

And let's say you get there. There is no guarantee that you will stay there! Never mind the water walkers in the top ten, or even twenty. The remainder of tour card holders shift around and drop out at an astounding rate!

There was a Buy.com tour event near Cleveland last week. A quick peek at the field revealed any number of golfers who seemed to be fixtures on the PGA tour just last season! And here they are again, trying to get back to the bigs. I've been to a few Buy.com events, and I would kill to have the game any of those guys do. But in the larger scheme of things they're just not good enough to make it on the big tours, PGA or Euro.

On the first page of this thread valleygolfer said, something like, "Never say never, but the odds are stacked against the OP". When you stop and think about making it on the tour, the odds are stacked against EVERYBODY!

Expand  

Quite true about the churn of even very highly skilled players. If the OP wants some inspiration, consider Zach Johnson. He was on nobody's radar as a teen, but now he's a likely Hall of Fame candidate.

Golf takes time to get good. That's one of the reasons a lot of players who made it to the tour started early as kids. That early start isn't a necessary condition, though. Zach's talent ceiling was higher than a lot of juniors who were way better golfers when he started. He loved the game and stuck with it as he kept improving, passing a lot of those serious junior grinders who had a head start along the way. It's quite likely a lot of late-starting, athletic kids with talent are discouraged by how much better their peers are when they start out and don't stick with it, thinking (wrongly) that there's no way for them to catch up. If they have talent it's possible (harder but possible).

Greg Norman started late, Larry Nelson started late, Nick Faldo and Lee Trevino started relatively late (compared to the modern junior) with relatively limited resources.

Some comments in the thread somehow put me in mind of the situation on The Big Break where a clique of women pros were clearly intimidated by Pam Crikelair, who had serious long game and definite LPGA potential if she stuck with it. I remember coming away from those episodes with a sense some of them felt the time and money they had invested to get to their 'moment' wasn't going to be taken from them by some no-name amateur with genuine physical ability / talent. They kind of socially ganged up on her as the 'outsider' to discourage her. It was a sad display when you think about the stories of Palmer actually giving Nicklaus advice as a new pro.

@Connor, going from a ~35 to an 18 in a year is good, probably not great. But it's really too early to tell without you giving it some dedication. If you like the game itself, dig in for a bit and see where it leads. There's a saying to keep in mind too, "Just because I'm behind, doesn't mean I'm not gaining on you."

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by natureboy

[Phil McGleno]

@IanW you never answered the really obvious question-What does the paper you cited have to do with the topic here about becoming good at golf?