[Steve Lapper]

Friday's leader of the Canadian Open, Neil Lancaster made a very interesting observation:
"One thing about this game, if you play it long enough, you're going to see more disappointment than your going to see success, unless you're Tiger Woods."

He goes on to say he's seen enough disappointment that he's capable of handling anything.

Several questions come to mind. Do most(or, many) amateurs view the game similarly?  Isn't the game a matter of success on so many different levels? Is this just another pro pouting over Tiger? Didn't the pro game of the 70's and earlier dispell this attitude with their gratitude to just be out there doing what they love for a living?

We all know golf has it's masochistic moments and trys mightly to constantly remind us of the virtue of humility. But isn't it the spirit of the game, at every level, that should instead provide relief from disappointment and encouragement to achieve?

A bit away from architecture, but a spiritual hot topic in my book nonetheless and one worthy of discussion among my esteemed GCA brethren!

[Mike_Cirba]

Having seen a quick descent in my own game from a low-handicap player in my 20s to someone who can shoot literally "anything" in my 40s, I generally enjoy the game much more these days.

The answer is attitude and priorities.  These days, I'm much more into enjoying the challenge, the architecture, the scenery, the companionship, the "much less archieved successes", and the adventure.  The game has become much more "fun", particularly on a golf course that provides interesting shots, then it was when a missed three-footer would irritate the hell out of me for the next three holes.

I used to envy the tour professionals.  Now, ironically, I often feel that they are missing something.

[michael miller]

You may be reading this just a little too literally.  The guy has struggled on the tour his whole career. We all know how good a player has to be to just keep his card. This guy can flat play, but not good enough to be tour winner on a regular basis. I remember a few times he was right there at the end only to see his hopes be dashed by some late poor play.  The game has kicked his ass a few times when it really mattered.  Unlike us, it mattered to his income, his life style, and even his whole career.  He's not he only one. Not by a longshot.  But since he was asked, he told the truth.  Maybe the pressure has been relieved by him getting used to so many disappointments.  Maybe lower expectations, alone, will put him in a position to be able to win. Tour pro's aren't out there to get a sun tan. They have to produce, period.

[A_Clay_Man]

I think Mike Miller hits the nail with the expectations line. Confidence is one thing but acting like a pissy baby when the ball misses your spot by a foot or less is just plain "bad attitude". And I don't mean putts. There is nothing worse than playing with a guy who thinks every shot should have the exact result they intended. And whines about it when reality hits.

That's how I percieved his comments you quoted above. It shows a maturity that is only gained from experience and the knowledge that when it is your day, it's your day.

Now try to put four days back to back, that has to be tough and that is what seperates us from them.

[Steve Lapper]

To all,

I wasn't attempting to tie the quote literally to Lancaster's career. Indeed, he has seen his fair share of struggles trying to earn a living on the otherwise cutthroat pro tour. Instead, I was hoping this quote would be measured as a reflection of the state of the game, professional and amateur, its rewards and travails.

I see way too many daily fee players, private-club members and other golfers all too upset and disappointed with their games. As Mike Cirba alluded to, the "enjoyment of the challenge, architecture,scenery, companionship, etc.." is paramount to his game. Same for me! As someone who has seen his game deteriorate, it is interesting that I enjoy it now more than ever. With the exception of mostly purists, I really don't think that is the attitude of many. That is a shame IMHO. Amateurs expectations can and never will be able to match those of the pro's and still remain reasonable.

The pros regularly complain that only Tiger is the full-time success story. Gone are the days that the up and coming Trevinos, Jacobsens, et.al. reflected daily on the enjoyment of their profession. They chased Jack, but didn't do it with the public awe and intimidation they practice today. Back then, the pressure of a major or a first win was vastly different than today's commercial measurement of success.

We here debate the merits of classic architectual defense against modern technology...a near losing battle, but spend little time thinking aloud about the state of the game's philosophy. We must remember in today's nanosecond information dissemination era, GCA has assumed, like it or not, some of the mantle of the H.W. Wind's and others who previously guarded the game.

Again, just a thought provoking question of attitude and priority.

[michaek miller]

What you are addressing is not the "game" but the egos of the people playing it. Good luck giving the modern golfer a dose of reality. Today golfers are deluged with hype about every concievable "quick fix" to imprive their games. Clubs, balls, instruction, videos, diet, computer club fitting, lob wedges, 52 degree, 56 degree, nth degree, different shaft materials, lengths, launch angles, etc. and this is the "short list"!  No wonder they expect results. Their expectations and accompanying egos have been inflated to the beaking point. So when their games ultimately "blow up", so do they. Interestingly, the only thing you don't see in mainstream golf hype on improvement is credible instruction on playing the game with course strategy in mind.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()