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.

Fortunately I am not wrong. There has been lots of research in the social psychology field to back up my position. However, I will correct myself slightly, because perhaps it is the cause of the misunderstanding. Here is my thesis: 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. So yes, this isn't exactly 'you can have anything if you try hard enough'. I forgot that I can't paraphrase or dumb things down with you guys :) 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. 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. Unfortunately, a copy of an artists art is much more subjective so would be difficult to assess. Soccer players, one of the focus of Dweck's research is somewhere in the middle. Her paper entitled "Static versus dynamic theories and the perception of groups: Different routes to different destinations" is a particularly good read for this scenario. 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. 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. That said, if you have research (ie: not anecdotal evidence) that disputes the above claims I would love to read it.

Bullshit. You can do anything if you have drive. Drive will foster talent, speed, or whatever.

Uhhhh, yes.

Dan didn't have the desire. He stopped and gave up. That is the anti-thesis to desire. Even though Dan had the worst plan ever if he was a junior improving at the rates he did (from never playing golf to a 5 handicap with a few rounds under par in 2 years) he would have the top junior coaches of the area he lives in talking to him. Unfortunately, Dan was old and didn't work with the right people. Then good old desire kicked in. When he wasn't improving like he wanted to he gave up rather than worked harder.

I completely agree with you. Golf is a sport where one's physical size is largely irrelevant. All shapes and sizes on the tour. Mike Weir. 5 foot 6 and 110lbs soaking wet. I'm not sure if there is a smaller player on tour, but he had an amazing career in the era of the bomb and gougers. He probably averaged a whole 260 off the tee. If he hit 2 or 3 a year that went 280 I would be impressed.

I agree. Drive is the most important thing. If you want it bad enough you can find a way to do it. IMO, the word 'talent' is hugely overrated. There are guys on the PGA Tour that I dominated on the golf course as a 14 year old. Problem is I went out drinking with friends and chasing girls while they were on the range and putting green. They wanted it more than me even though I was better than them. They improved at a faster rate than I did. By the time we were 18 they were playing for the national team and I was still chopping it around the course near par. I declined a golf scholarship because I could see the writing on the wall. I was never going to be a tour pro and working as a pro in the golf shop for $40k a year didn't interest me. They took the scholarships and continued to improve. Now I sit at a desk all day and they travel the world living the dream! Your starting point doesn't matter. Your age doesn't matter. Your ABILITY to dedicate every waking hour to the game matters. Your DESIRE to dedicate every waking hour to the game matters. If you have the option to party with friends or get an extra hour on the range you will choose the extra hour on the range every time without thinking twice about what you are missing out on with your friends. If that isn't you, then you aren't making the tour. You can, however, play extremely good golf as a competitive amateur while working a full time job that pays the bills. No, you likely won't win the US Amateur but you just might challenge for club champion.

I see where he is coming from with the 'golf is boring' thoughts. When I played at 'fancy' courses I was always waiting. Rounds would take 5-6 hours. It was ridiculous. Almost an entire day on the weekend burned to hit 75 golf shots. Now I play an 'executive' course where I can play 27 holes by myself in about 1.5 hours. The course is a mix of half par 3s and half par 4s, with one par 5 (that is really just a 460 yard par 4). Golf has become much more fun. My Monday night foursome can play 18 holes in 3 hours. I don't have to leave work early and we rarely wait for anyone in front of us. I think this guy should get a simulator. This is what I am contemplating doing. Then I can play rounds of golf much more frequently than I do now. Perhaps 3 or 4 rounds a week on the simulator, then one round a week on the 'big boys' courses to keep a handicap.

Titleist clubs are fairly similar. I have the 710 AP2s. I have found zero difference in the results from getting fit for the 712s or 714s. So I never bothered 'upgrading'. My guess is you can go get fit for some new Titleist irons, then look for used ones of the previous generation with the same specs. Good luck though if the fitting results in clubs 3 degrees upright with some weird shafts. You won't be finding those on the used market and you will bust a club or two trying to bend them. Result: You end up spending money on replacement heads and should have just bought the new ones :) One of the best things I ever did for my golf game was to get a full set fit for me. I then knew I couldn't blame the club and instead focused on my swing.

This won't actually help. Instead, it will mess up your lie angle at impact and will probably end up causing you to hit the ball to the left more than your current swing (assuming you were fit for your club and proper lie angle at contact was determined). It will also likely have you hitting the ball off center on the club. Both of these will result in less distance and less accuracy. Club length has _almost_ zero to do with your height (almost because it is a result of many things, a small contribution of which is height). If your fitting involved measuring you in any way shape or form without hitting golf balls then it was a poor fitting and should be disregarded. A proper fitting is done hitting shots. Measurements can be used to zero in on a starting point, but any competent fitter can look at someone and be in the ballpark enough to start hitting shots. I will preface this by saying I have never been a long hitter by 'tour' standards. When I was playing near scratch I would carry my driver about 255 and roll out to 270 with a normal swing. I would hit my 8 iron about 155. I have no idea what my swing speed was at the time. But I previously hit the ball shorter than that. Two years prior I was at about 250 total driving yardage and an 8 iron would go 140ish. I did nothing but work on the quality of contact and gained 20 yards with my driver and 15 yards on an 8 iron. It may have been a result of swing speed increases. However, I lean more towards hitting the ball better being the deciding factor in that increase in distance. FWIW, now I drive the ball about 250 again and hit my 8 iron 150ish. I am quite sure my swing speed is still around the same speed as when I was a scratchish player, but my contact is far far worse. I recently did some work on a flightscope and my 7 iron swing speed averaged 83.8mph with a ball speed of 115.7mph. Although I am not as good as I once was, I am seeing my game get better every month since I started playing again late last year. Keep at it and keep focusing on improving. Make sure you are practicing the right things in the right way and you will continue to shoot better and better scores.

If it goes straight and peels right then your clubface wasn't open. Your clubface was 'straight'. Your swing path was outside to in. Clubface dictates start direction and clubpath dictates curvature (roughly speaking). Slap up a myswing thread. You will likely get feedback that is more helpful there :)

One thing that helped me improve my game was to take an honest look at my round. I would write out every hole and what happened. Something like this: Hole 1 [] - bogey - driver to right rough. 50deg from 120 to front bunker. 58 to 15ft. 2 putts (15,1) I did this for about 4 rounds and immediately started to see some common themes. Here is a direct example out of my file from 2014 for the first hole that paved the way to me dropping at least 5 shots per round. Hole 1 [] - bogey - driver to right rough. 50deg from 120 to front bunker. 58 to 15ft. 2 putts (15,1) Hole 1 [gir] - par - driver to right rough. 58deg from 92 to 20ftt. 2 putts (20,3) Hole 1 [gir] - bogey - driver to left bunker. PW from 128 to 60ft long. 3 putts (60,7, 1) Hole 1 [fw,gir] - par - crap driver in fairway. 9 iron from 140 to 22ft. 2 putts (22,1) I remember when I wrote that last one out kind of laughing. That hole felt easy to make a par on once I was on the fairway. I would stand on the tee and be scared of the water right, or the OB left, or the bunkers left, or the cart path (can't count how many times I hit it). Here is the hole I then decided that trying to hit a driver over the bunker on the left was stupid. I started hitting a hybrid to just short of that bunker. ie: the fattest part of the fairway. I was around 70% pars on that hole. The previous year I was probably something like 40%. It went from my most hated hole to one I enjoyed as it was low stress. A hybrid would never go in the water. Longest I would have in to the pin would be a 7 iron. If the pin was back right I would aim for middle back of the green and call it good. I did this for the remainder of the year. I ended up hitting driver less. About 5 times less. Which, surprise surprise, saved me 5 shots per round :) As the season progressed I dropped my handicap from about 8ish to 4. I have stuck around the 4 since then. I still shot the odd 92, almost always on a course I have never played before. If I have played the course I generally expect to be in the 70s. Now with the advent of things like GameGolf, Sky Golf, and Arccos, you can pretty easily get this information and figure out where you are throwing shots away.

No idea. I had never played the course before and was playing with someone who has. They told me that is what we do so away I went. Another issue I had was marking the putts with Arccos. I didn't make it up a hill on one hole. Started out with a 40 footer and had a 20ish footer remaining. Couldn't find a way to denote that :( The app only seems to let me put how far away my first putt was.

Very good question! Unfortunately, I don't have an answer :( Maybe try calling them? hehe fwiw, I have found a few other nitpick things that are either not possible, or I can't figure out how. I hit into a hazard on Saturday. There is a drop zone. So I went to the drop zone and hit a wedge. Now I have a 396 yard drive skewing my stats :(