Is it possible for Mr Average to become a scratch golfer in just 12 months?

[Stuey01]

It's an argument from ignorance and pre-conceived ideas that is being thrown around though. It's really very similar to religion.

I don't know how the universe could have got here. Must be God.
I don't know why he's better than me. Must be natural talent.

Rather depends on how you define natural talent doesn't it.
It is undeniable that some people are genetically predisposed to be taller, to have more fast twitch muscle fibres, or more slow twitch muscle fibres, or to have a different length lower leg to upper leg ratio, to be more intelligent, to have faster reflexes, to be left brain dominant, or right brain dominant. All of these things and more could in the right combination contribute to being naturally better at a particular activity than another person. Natural talent.

 

[Andr3w]

Rather depends on how you define natural talent doesn't it.
It is undeniable that some people are genetically predisposed to be taller, to have more fast twitch muscle fibres, or more slow twitch muscle fibres, or to have a different length lower leg to upper leg ratio, to be more intelligent, to have faster reflexes, to be left brain dominant, or right brain dominant. All of these things and more could in the right combination contribute to being naturally better at a particular activity than another person. Natural talent.

You make good points especially in relation to physical attributes. There are certain natural physiques that will prosper in the NBA and some that won't.

However, something like 'faster reflexes' benefiting in sport is actually a myth. Ability to respond quickly to a tennis serve comes from experience in subconsciously reading the motion of a server's body as he prepares to strike the ball. Matt Syed notes in Bounce that the player with the slowest natural reflexes in the club was actually the quickest at reacting to the ball i.e. it's domain dependant and based on experience.

 

[Snelly]

There's some really fascinating books out on this that would give answers to this that would do far more justice to the topic than I could in a forum post, try:

Bounce, Matthew Syed
Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell
The Talent Code, Daniel Coyle
Talent is Overrated, Geoff Colvin


But, I mean, in summary the problem is they are just 'beating balls'. They say to master a field you need 10,000 hours of deliberate practise. I'd hazard many amateurs have scarcely achieved 1 hour of quality, deliberate practise!

I agree with you entirely. I used to think natural talent was a key component to sporting excellence and I was completely wrong.

Bounce is a great book and I would advise all armchair experts on this thread that believe in the concept of natural talent to read this book carefully and re-consider their position.

 

[Qwerty]

Andrew & Snelly, if we're stripping this down to the bare bones and saying that natural Talent/ Ability doesn't exist Both Physically and Mentally...
Would we then be saying that its a totally level playing field for every individual from the moment we're born? and what happens from then on determines the outcome?

 

[londonlewis]

...or maybe he just found it easier.

Or maybe he is just more naturally talented ....

 

[Andr3w]

Andrew & Snelly, if we're stripping this down to the bare bones and saying that natural Talent/ Ability doesn't exist Both Physically and Mentally...
Would we then be saying that its a totally level playing field for every individual from the moment we're born? and what happens from then on determines the outcome?

My position would be that the importance of natural talent, whatever that is, is colossally overrated in our society and is a limiting way of thinking that holds children back.

ps thanks Snelly was beginning to feel a bit outnumbered!

 

[londonlewis]

My position would be that the importance of natural talent, whatever that is, is colossally overrated in our society and is a limiting way of thinking that holds children back.

ps thanks Snelly was beginning to feel a bit outnumbered!

A hard worker will outperform a talented individual that doesn't work hard, no question. I don't think anyone in this forum is saying you can't be successful if you work hard but aren't actually talented in the beginning.
But, you can't deny that some people have a natural ability to perform certain tasks - whether it is academia, languages, music or sports.

Think about IQ levels for example.
Some people have a low IQ, some people are off the charts. Are those that have an IQ of 180 always successful? no. Do they always achieve the best grades in exams? No.

 

[CMAC]

A hard worker will outperform a talented individual that doesn't work hard, no question. I don't think anyone in this forum is saying you can't be successful if you work hard but aren't actually talented in the beginning.
But, you can't deny that some people have a natural ability to perform certain tasks - whether it is academia, languages, music or sports.

Think about IQ levels for example.
Some people have a low IQ, some people are off the charts. Are those that have an IQ of 180 always successful? no. Do they always achieve the best grades in exams? No.

The majority of graduates I've hired in the last 20 years havent worked out. 1 was exceptional, most were average and the rest were awful.

To be fair thats only about 60-70 so not enough for a credible sample but the percentages extrapolated don't make good reading

 

[Andr3w]

A hard worker will outperform a talented individual that doesn't work hard, no question. I don't think anyone in this forum is saying you can't be successful if you work hard but aren't actually talented in the beginning.
But, you can't deny that some people have a natural ability to perform certain tasks - whether it is academia, languages, music or sports.

Think about IQ levels for example.
Some people have a low IQ, some people are off the charts. Are those that have an IQ of 180 always successful? no. Do they always achieve the best grades in exams? No.

But why are they better at music for example? Perhaps Kid1's father played classical music in the house all day long from when he was born until he went to school. Kid2 was not exposed to any music whatsoever before going to school. The music teacher's conclusion will unfortunately be that Kid1 has a "natural talent" for music and can pick up tones easily while Kid2 is just "tone-deaf".

 

[CMAC]

nature or nurture

 

[Stuey01]

nature or nurture

My view, nurture trumps nature, but nature + nuture trumps all.

 

[TheClaw]

Since we are all different:

Are there certain physical and mental attributes that are important for golf?

If you have these attributes are you predisposed to being better than others who work as hard (or harder) than yourself?

What about proprioception rather than hand-eye coordination? Some folk are awkward and clumsy.

 

[Hacker Khan]

You make good points especially in relation to physical attributes. There are certain natural physiques that will prosper in the NBA and some that won't.

However, something like 'faster reflexes' benefiting in sport is actually a myth. Ability to respond quickly to a tennis serve comes from experience in subconsciously reading the motion of a server's body as he prepares to strike the ball. Matt Syed notes in Bounce that the player with the slowest natural reflexes in the club was actually the quickest at reacting to the ball i.e. it's domain dependant and based on experience.

Must say Bounce is a cracking book and well worth a read for anyone really. Certainly opened my eyes and found it very relevant to sport, my personal life and it also explained a lot why my company runs as it does.

 

[williamalex1]

In 1983 a 13 h/c mate of mine who had only been playing about 3 years, scored a scratch 70 net 57 at Carluke GC.
He's never scored that low again.

 

[RollinThunder]

Natural sporting ability will definitely play a role. If your a "natural athlete", who can play any sport to a good level, then you'll definitely have an advantage over someone who's not.

To GO AROUND in scratch I reckon is possible. I play off 18, and even I have parred 6 holes in a row, on what could be considered a mediocre day with the swing, so someone with a bit of luck, a few chip-ins, and a few long putts, just could go round in scratch. But in order to do that, you'd need to have a pretty solid game to rely on in the first place, so I reckon you'd need to get down to at most 10.

To go from PLAY-OFF scratch in a year is a bit deep though, unless you can naturally swing a club well, practice HELL of a lot, have a lesson every week, and probably give up everything in your life.

If you go on the theory that it takes 10,000 hours to become "an expert" at something, 10,000 divided by 365 days is 27 hours per day of practice

If it's to go around in scratch, If you got down to less than 10, then had a really good round, with a bit of luck thrown in, I reckon it can be done. To officially get your CONGU handicap down from 22 to 0 in a year seems a bit steep though, unless you practice and play every day, for the whole year.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Said this before but stand by it. By no way am I a talented sportsman (you only have to look at my swing) but I played football to a decent level, was a good club cricketer and did get down to single figures in my teens. However all of those successes have been the result of hours of work in training, the nets and on the practice ground to wring as much out of what little talent I possessed.

 

[garyinderry]

what about singing? natural talent?

 

[stevelev]

how many times do we see posts like this,most have a book or dvd to flog and we all know us golfers are the most easy led lot,if someone brought out a cream that you rubbed on your balls(steady) and put them in the fridge overnight to gain 50yds of the tee it would sell in its thousands,it you think a 24h/c golfer can get to scratch (congu)in twelve months its just wishful thinking.

I've got a supplier of provisional balls if anyone is interested. If you use these instead of your usual ball its almost a dead cert that you'll stripe it down the middle or be pin high a few feet away for a birdie putt. If you want 3 they are slightly more expensive than ProV's but then again they are probably more accurate too

 

[MadAdey]

In the case of the Murray brothers perhaps it's just a case of different personalities. Jamie seems a lot more laid back while Andy has an almost psychopathic determination and competitiveness and hates losing. It's easy to imagine that he trained a lot harder than Jamie did.

So what you are saying is that Andy has more of the killer instinct in him compared to Jamie? But they had exactly the same coaching. Would you say then that Andy's killer instinct is something that comes naturally to him then?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

...and going back to the OP. As the goal is not becoming a scratch golfer but being able to knock it round in level par then I suppose that that is achievable in a year from the given starting point.

My observation would simply be that watching the 'Round One' video I see an awful lot of 'emotion' on show and disappointment at not meeting 'expectations'. For me these are representative of the 'mental' aspect of game and unless these can be changed significantly they will undermine any improvement in his game brought about by lessons, practice and playing.

In my experience in life - changing how you think, is a lot harder than changing what you say and do.

So good luck buddy - but don't beat yourself up if your progress towards a level par round is slower than you'd hope. Changes in thinking can happen out of the blue and with these can come significant step changes in scoring.