How low could you go with 10,000 hrs practise

Which I have now done. Jeez, with the 'Buy Now with 1 click option' set up in Amazon that was frighteningly easy. From wanting a book to being able to read it within about 10 seconds. God bless technology.
 
How many on here would even be in a position to contemplate this. Add in the climatic hinderances in the UK, access to top drawer regular practice facilities and it becomes nigh on impossible. I think I'll stick to regular lessons, working hard at the range and seeing where that takes me.
 
If I had the financial ability to take 6 or 7 years out and find a pro that really suited my learning style and he was also able to dedicate a large amount of his time; I think I would get to scratch and possibly even better.

I have played for coming up to 3 years now and in a bounce game have shot consistent low 80's for the past 2 months. Starting back in comps from end of March, having regular lessons. I think with a lot of us it is all to do with thought processes and our ability to focus to the right level when it matters every time.

So if there are any backers out there who have a spare £250K to back me on my quest I would love to take you up on that hahahaha... Maybe if I had a rich nigerian relative who needed to use my account I could do this.
 
Rory Mcilroy was + 6 when he turn pro , but he had Irish Business man paying his dues , Poulter was 4 handicap when he done it , hours of practice does not mean anything if you are grooving a faulty swing then you still must have talent or in Poulter`s case a very strong self belief , some call it bottle ..........for a young golfer whose parents have money to pay for him , that be maybe a good investment , for us on here , not so , that would leave no time to post on here
 
I think age has a lot to do with this too. A kid is like a sponge, soaks up information, technique, is keen, bounces back from adversity, etc. 10 k hours when young is going to count for something.

As a 48 year old, I'm not sure it would work. I'm jaded. I have 28 years of golfing failures, shanks, fats, chunks, hooks etc to get rid of. I learn slower, I'm losing brain cells by the day, I drink too much, I'm getting fatter, I'm lazy, I have the concentration span of one of my cats, and she appears to have attention deficit disorder. I can practice, and do, but am I focused?

The 10k hours has to be focused, relevant practice. I don't think I could do that.
 
I think age has a lot to do with this too. A kid is like a sponge, soaks up information, technique, is keen, bounces back from adversity, etc. 10 k hours when young is going to count for something.

As a 48 year old, I'm not sure it would work. I'm jaded. I have 28 years of golfing failures, shanks, fats, chunks, hooks etc to get rid of. I learn slower, I'm losing brain cells by the day, I drink too much, I'm getting fatter, I'm lazy, I have the concentration span of one of my cats, and she appears to have attention deficit disorder. I can practice, and do, but am I focused?

The 10k hours has to be focused, relevant practice. I don't think I could do that.

very good points Murph but it does remind me of the guy who wrote Dream On after breaking par in a year from shooting 100+ he was all of those things but somehow kept finding the motivation to practice and improve.
 
Well i was unable to start on my quest today with exactly 0 hrs practice due to finishing the decorating. I think ive started to late in life to even get 10,000 hrs in :D
 
How many on here would even be in a position to contemplate this. Add in the climatic hinderances in the UK, access to top drawer regular practice facilities and it becomes nigh on impossible. I think I'll stick to regular lessons, working hard at the range and seeing where that takes me.

The guy lives in Oregon (similar climate to Scotland? - It's where they built Bandon Dunes) - gave up his job to do it and doesn't appear to have wonderful practice facilities.
 
The guy lives in Oregon (similar climate to Scotland? - It's where they built Bandon Dunes) - gave up his job to do it and doesn't appear to have wonderful practice facilities.

having lived in both (short time in Oregon) the similarity is that the scenery is similar except Oregon is mahoosive, trees are mahoosive and unfortunately some of the people.

Their weather is way better and predictable, you can almost set your watch to spring and summer and plan a BBQ 2 weeks in advance knowing its going to be a lovely day- some great courses, even a muni we played was better than some resort courses over here. Man I miss that:(



on the practice OP question, I got to my lowest with constant daily practice, no lessons, no t'interweb youtube videos and no talk of shafts and shovel headed irons. Blades and "swing like this, hit the ball first, and trial and error" was the order of the day. During a summer of 8 hrs a day play and practice I felt I had the ball on a string shooting under par regularly.
 
Last edited:
From what I remember of Bounce or The Talent Code (can't remember which) they went into quite some detail to disprove that "natural talent" exists and instead that it's all about learning circumstances and hours practicing. Numerous examples were given but I just don't buy it.

Put 10 kids in a room together with the same coach, learning the same thing, and some kids will pick it up quicker than others (dare I say would be more "natural"). If this wasn't the case then surely we must all be robots!
 
From what I remember of Bounce or The Talent Code (can't remember which) they went into quite some detail to disprove that "natural talent" exists and instead that it's all about learning circumstances and hours practicing. Numerous examples were given but I just don't buy it.

Put 10 kids in a room together with the same coach, learning the same thing, and some kids will pick it up quicker than others (dare I say would be more "natural"). If this wasn't the case then surely we must all be robots!

Quite right , we are not robots , and not always the one that learns the fasters will be the best either
 
From what I remember of Bounce or The Talent Code (can't remember which) they went into quite some detail to disprove that "natural talent" exists and instead that it's all about learning circumstances and hours practicing. Numerous examples were given but I just don't buy it.

Put 10 kids in a room together with the same coach, learning the same thing, and some kids will pick it up quicker than others (dare I say would be more "natural"). If this wasn't the case then surely we must all be robots!

It was (and maybe still is) this robotic approach that was the cause of such a long period of relatively low performance of US Tennis - and a similar issue seemed to pervade UK too.

The ability to pick up a skill quickly doesn't, of itself, mean that the individual will eventually be more skilled than someone who has to work a bit harder, initially, to acquire the skill. In that regard, I agree with what 'Bounce' and 'The Talent Code' seem to be saying. I still call that 'natural talent' though. Such 'natural talent' can also be a problem. I know of quite a few 'natural talent' guys who got bored and tried something different, or lazy and didn't maximise the advantages of their skills!
 
Last edited:
From what I remember of Bounce or The Talent Code (can't remember which) they went into quite some detail to disprove that "natural talent" exists and instead that it's all about learning circumstances and hours practicing. Numerous examples were given but I just don't buy it.

Put 10 kids in a room together with the same coach, learning the same thing, and some kids will pick it up quicker than others (dare I say would be more "natural"). If this wasn't the case then surely we must all be robots!


That would seem to be an evidently false proposition. I have no doubt that if you hothouse kids you can install a certain level of performance, say low single figures, but making them great is quite another thing. .

There are factors outside the control of training that determine ability too and these can't be trained. These could include physical attributes such as fast or slow twitch muscles, psychological factors embedded in the personality or hard wiring in the brain which optimises performance.

For all any of us know, we had the potential to be a great piano player, physicist, linguist, skateboarder or philosopher, if only the right exposure and stimulus had been given. But the basic template needs to be there before training finishes the product.
 
That would seem to be an evidently false proposition. I have no doubt that if you hothouse kids you can install a certain level of performance, say low single figures, but making them great is quite another thing. .

There are factors outside the control of training that determine ability too and these can't be trained. These could include physical attributes such as fast or slow twitch muscles, psychological factors embedded in the personality or hard wiring in the brain which optimises performance.

For all any of us know, we had the potential to be a great piano player, physicist, linguist, skateboarder or philosopher, if only the right exposure and stimulus had been given. But the basic template needs to be there before training finishes the product.


^^ This......




"...I could've been a contender......."

[video=youtube_share;3QsNXd57Ppw]http://youtu.be/3QsNXd57Ppw[/video]
 
There are factors outside the control of training that determine ability too and these can't be trained. These could include physical attributes such as fast or slow twitch muscles, psychological factors embedded in the personality or hard wiring in the brain which optimises performance.

Yep I agree - it's these factors (and general hand-eye coordination that some people seem to have and others don't) that help make up "natural talent" in my opinion.
 
Yep I agree - it's these factors (and general hand-eye coordination that some people seem to have and others don't) that help make up "natural talent" in my opinion.

the book suggests that hand eye coordination is developed through the hours of practice. They had a table tennis player, supposedly the fastest reacting player in the world. They put him on a hand eye reaction machine and he scored lowest of all the team. They all said the machine was faulty and the results wrong but they were not. His lightning reactions were specific only to table tennis. Apparently he grew up with a table in a shed with no room to back away. Constant hours in these conditions finely honed his ability to read the shot direction early and react quickly. If it was built in to his genes he would have those same reactions and fast twitch muscles for all tasks.
 
Top