10,000 hours tp become a golf pro?

[Padraig Dooley]

The six hours a day can not include playing. That is why it is called playing.

John, the best form of practice is playing, so time spent playing is included in the 10,000 hours.

Sorry but no, he said he was practicing six hours per day for six years.  If that includes playing he is just a golf bum.  If he practices 6, plays 6, trains 4 and sleeps 8 hours per day for six years he will make it.  The only key is that he will have to love doing it.

John, he needs competitive rounds to learn about the mental game, strategy, recovery shots etc. I include this as practicing. Has he defined what practicing is?

[David_Elvins]

This premise of the article is clearly as ridiculous as every single other article that has tackled the same task beforehand.

One of the true mysteries of golf is how people are continually not able to understand that golf requires natural talent.  Just like EVERY other sport.

No average Joe decides to dedicate 10,000 hours to becoming an olympic 100m runner.  Or an NBA basketballer.  The natural talents required to be a professional in these endeavours are more evident to the naked eye, but it is ridiculous to belive that specific talents are not applicable to every sport in roughly equal proportions.  

[Anthony Butler]

I think the writer John Paul Newport attempted a similar thing... it was documented in a book called the Thin Green Line.

His attempt at qualifying for the tour through tour school was, by his own account, an unmitigated disaster. Not sure if he put in 10,000 hours, but unlike Dan McLaughlin, he was a high single figure golfer at the time he attempted it.

Like the other posters here, I think some natural talent or inclination towards the task helps a lot... for instance, it seems that being a weasely little prick from Harvard helps a great deal if your ambition is to start a world dominating technology company (Microsoft, Facebook). For a start, you quickly understand how important it is to steal your ideas from the other smart people around you.

To that point, perhaps Dan should have checked first to see if he'd be willing to run over his opponent in the car park to win a golf tournament.

[Padraig Dooley]

This premise of the article is clearly as ridiculous as every single other article that has tackled the same task beforehand.

One of the true mysteries of golf is how people are continually not able to understand that golf requires natural talent.  Just like EVERY other sport.

No average Joe decides to dedicate 10,000 hours to becoming an olympic 100m runner.  Or an NBA basketballer.  The natural talents required to be a professional in these endeavours are more evident to the naked eye, but it is ridiculous to belive that specific talents are not applicable to every sport in roughly equal proportions.  

David, if you go through the history of any olympic athlete you will find a history of hard work not a history of natural talent. The exceptions are the NBA for example where a basketballer needs to be tall but that's the only physical requirement otherwise it's all work.

Can you provide examples where talent is a requirement?

[George Pazin]

David, if you go through the history of any olympic athlete you will find a history of hard work not a history of natural talent. The exceptions are the NBA for example where a basketballer needs to be tall but that's the only physical requirement otherwise it's all work.

Can you provide examples where talent is a requirement?

I think David is assuming that everyone at the highest levels has put in the work and that talent is what separates, not the hard work isn't required. For every guy that makes it, there's plenty more who spent the time but didn't have the talent to make it.

[JESII]

Padraig,

I don't want to disagree with your comments about hard work too much, but I doubt there are 5 players on Tour that were not in the top 1% of their competitive pool from the very earliest tournaments they played in. At 10 years old they were good and you can't credit hard work with too much of that I don't think.

If there are 200 PGA Tour players there are another 2,000 that had/have a ton of talent and worked really hard.

Also...to be a pro all you have to do is declare that you would accept pay for teaching or playing...no actual success required...

[Padraig Dooley]

David, if you go through the history of any olympic athlete you will find a history of hard work not a history of natural talent. The exceptions are the NBA for example where a basketballer needs to be tall but that's the only physical requirement otherwise it's all work.

Can you provide examples where talent is a requirement?

I think David is assuming that everyone at the highest levels has put in the work and that talent is what separates, not the hard work isn't required. For every guy that makes it, there's plenty more who spent the time but didn't have the talent to make it.

George, using Jerry Rice as an example. I don't know much about football but I do know he was one of the best receivers. He wasn't in the first draft out of college. I think he was in the 3rd or 4th draft. So there were lots of players who were rated higher than him out of college. It was the subsequent work he did that made him one of the best players. The work seperated him not the talent.

Work makes the talent.

[David_Elvins]

Padraig,

I am comparing Jerry Rice to you and I, not other super gifted athletes.  Sure hard work helps the very best seperate themselves from the next best (being able to work hard is partly a natural talent too though, don't forget), but talent is what elevates them above you and i to start with.

I don't think it is any secret that sprinters have fast twitch fibres, endurance runners have good cardio vascular systems, weightlifters have big muscles and cyclists have long thigh bones (as well as good lungs).  etc etc

The idea that a top sprinter could become a top marathon runner if he chose to work on it is ridiculous.  He just doesn't have the natural talents. 

[George Pazin]

George, using Jerry Rice as an example. I don't know much about football but I do know he was one of the best receivers. He wasn't in the first draft out of college. I think he was in the 3rd or 4th draft. So there were lots of players who were rated higher than him out of college. It was the subsequent work he did that made him one of the best players. The work seperated him not the talent.

Work makes the talent.

Sure, pick one of the most overrated football players of all time... (Just trying to draw out some people)

I think you are partly right - the willingness to do the work required is a talent in and of itself. But when it comes to being the best of the best, there are certain physical and mental skills within any profession that are required, and not everyone possesses those.

Think Salieri and Mozart!

[Padraig Dooley]

Padraig,

I don't want to disagree with your comments about hard work too much, but I doubt there are 5 players on Tour that were not in the top 1% of their competitive pool from the very earliest tournaments they played in. At 10 years old they were good and you can't credit hard work with too much of that I don't think.

If there are 200 PGA Tour players there are another 2,000 that had/have a ton of talent and worked really hard.

Also...to be a pro all you have to do is declare that you would accept pay for teaching or playing...no actual success required...

Jim

If somebody is good at 10 years of age it's all about what they have done with their time. I have a good bit of knowledge of Long Term Athletic Development. In order to be a success it's all to do with what you did while growing up. If the hours are put in correctly a child will become an expert in their chosen field.

[jeffwarne]

It's 10,000 hours and 10 years of work to become an expert in a given field. Doing 10,000 hours in less than 10 years won't speed up the process it will still take 10 years.

However for golf there is a lot of crossover between other sports and can count towards the time required e.g. American Football quarter backs make good golfers, the motion required to throw the football is very similar to the weight transfer motion in golf.

As for people who talk about natural talent, it doesn't really exist by which I mean unless there is a physical impediment (e.g unless you're 6 foot 7 or higher you can rule out the NBA) the only thing stopping a person from playing sports at the highest level is work.

The interesting thing from our perspective is do the architects on the site feel they clocked 10,000 hours of work to reach the high level they're at?

there are plenty of people who work their tails off at golf who can't break 85
couldn't work any harder
no substitute for talent,
then no substitute for hard work

people talk about a Tom Kite being untalented-nonsense
very talented and obviously a hard worker

a sprinter has a hell of a better chance of being a great marathoner than an average guy has of going to the tour
TOUR players are working way harder than 6 hours a day, have talent, experience, resources, and did i mention, are already on the TOUR...

[Padraig Dooley]

Padraig,

I am comparing Jerry Rice to you and I, not other super gifted athletes.  Sure hard work helps the very best seperate themselves from the next best (being able to work hard is partly a natural talent too though, don't forget), but talent is what elevates them above you and i to start with.

I don't think it is any secret that sprinters have fast twitch fibres, endurance runners have good cardio vascular systems, weightlifters have big muscles and cyclists have long thigh bones (as well as good lungs).  etc etc

The idea that a top sprinter could become a top marathon runner if he chose to work on it is ridiculous.  He just doesn't have the natural talents. 

David

The question is what did Jerry Rice do when he was younger to become a college athlete. I can be certain he put in a lot of hours to become 'talented', he then upped his work load after college and became one of the best footballers. There is no talent it's all work.

[David_Elvins]

David

The question is what did Jerry Rice do when he was younger to become a college athlete. I can be certain he put in a lot of hours to become 'talented', he then upped his work load after college and became one of the best footballers. There is no talent it's all work.

Padraig,

Your theory might be a good way to get money out of parents for extravagant junior coaching, but there is little foundation in medical or biomechanical knowledge. 

[Jim Nelson]

A couple of thoughts on this
1.  Pick up the book "Unbroken" by the author of "Seabiscuit". Although primarily about his time in WWII as a Japanese POW, the book also spends a lot of time on the track exploits of Louis Zamperini. His was pure raw talent which took only a short time to blossom. Many thought he would be the first to break the 4 minute mile. As a teenagers he ran in the 1936 olympics at a much longer distance than was his specially. The war cut short his athletic career, but he was way under 10000 hours.

2.  I think you can argue that sports which require high skill levels require the time, such as golf and basketball. But when they compete at the highest levels, physical type, size, hand eye coordination etc also come into play. Not many really tall golfers on tour nor really short players in the NBA. Outliers?  Sure, but the number is very, very small.  In these sports, there is no substitute for hard working and great coaching, but you need to have the physical foundation to compete on the highest level.

[Padraig Dooley]

It's 10,000 hours and 10 years of work to become an expert in a given field. Doing 10,000 hours in less than 10 years won't speed up the process it will still take 10 years.

However for golf there is a lot of crossover between other sports and can count towards the time required e.g. American Football quarter backs make good golfers, the motion required to throw the football is very similar to the weight transfer motion in golf.

As for people who talk about natural talent, it doesn't really exist by which I mean unless there is a physical impediment (e.g unless you're 6 foot 7 or higher you can rule out the NBA) the only thing stopping a person from playing sports at the highest level is work.

The interesting thing from our perspective is do the architects on the site feel they clocked 10,000 hours of work to reach the high level they're at?

there are plenty of people who work their tails off at golf who can't break 85
couldn't work any harder
no substitute for talent,
then no substitute for hard work

people talk about a Tom Kite being untalented-nonsense
very talented and obviously a hard worker

a sprinter has a hell of a better chance of being a great marathoner than an average guy has of going to the tour
TOUR players are working way harder than 6 hours a day, have talent, experience, resources, and did i mention, are already on the TOUR...

I don't think I'm explaining this well enough. Talent is aquired it's not innate. Different talents are aquired during different stages of a child's developement, eg the best stages to learn speed are at 5-8 and 12-15, if you don't learn speed at these ages it is very difficult to learnfor example how to hit the ball a really long way.

If a person hasn't developed fundamental movement skills and fundamental sports skills by the time they're an adult they cannot become a world class athlete no matter how much work is put it.

The so called 'talented athletes' are people who developed these skills at the appropriate age whether intentionally or not, most athletes just played sports all day long while growing up.

It's all about what was done when growing up. Google the Polgar sisters and chess and see what it says.

[Padraig Dooley]

David

The question is what did Jerry Rice do when he was younger to become a college athlete. I can be certain he put in a lot of hours to become 'talented', he then upped his work load after college and became one of the best footballers. There is no talent it's all work.

Padraig,

Your theory might be a good way to get money out of parents for extravagant junior coaching, but there is little foundation in medical or biomechanical knowledge. 

David

I'm not trying to extract money from anybody. There is a ton of research on Long Term Athletic Development. Most great athletes developed by playing sports all day long while growing up. What I'm saying is that it's all about putting in the time, the time develops the talent. Can you show me medical and biomechanical research that says something different?

[David_Elvins]

Padraig, 

I am not claiming you are trying to extort money from people. I am just trying to work out who would push such a theory.  I think a bit of it probably started with that everyone is created equal stuff that has been fashionable for a few decades.

I will dig up a wealth of articles for you when I get back to my big computer but in the meantime I am interested in you take on the horse breeding industry.  Why do people pay millions for a horse with good parents if performance is entirely due to training and development?

[RJ_Daley]

It seems to me that 10,000 hours of practice may get this guy to a level of scratch, yet it still isn't guaranteed. But, if he doesn't have that certain something, he will never get to a serious professional competitive ability on a Nationwide, Euro, Australasian tour, let along our big show PGA.  

If within the first 2000-3000 hours he doesn't show some flashes where he can shoot 70-74 every 10 or so outtings, and make 4 or more birdies in rounds on a serious golf design, he is never going to make it in the next 8000 hours.  If he can't frequently have less than 30 putts per round, no matter what his other scores are in that first 2000-3000 hours, practice or play, he isn't going to ever make it, IMHO.

I think the fellow that may have the best insight on this is Mr Burke, on first page.

http://www.southlandgolfmagazine.com/t-People_Pat_Burke_Former_PGA_Tour_Pro_Golf_Instruction_Get_A_Grip_Foundation1009.aspx

If I'm not mistaken, Pat is a pro I once watched on the practice range for an hour or more, and marveled at his graceful swing.  If he is the pro that had long brown hair in a ponytail, (I think it was the year Tiger was at the Milwaukee Open at Brown Deer in the 'Hello World' event) Pat was on the range for hours practicing, and if I'm not mistaken, didn't even make the cut!  But, he was practicing none the less, and was clearly one of the most watchable swings I'd ever seen, and stood out compared to other pros hitting balls right next to him!  Am I correct on that Pat, was that you?  For  what it is worth, I'd love to have a swing like that, and wouldn't even care if I was making big tour money.  

But there are examples both ways of guys that do put in incredible time in their sport and will and work themselves to highest levels, and guys that put in the time and can't make it that extra way, and guys that don't seem to put in that much time and still play at high levels.  Can you say, Bruce Lietzky?  
 

[Jud_T]

Padraig,

Are you the guy who used to recruit 5 year-olds for the East German swim team?  

So I guess if you took 100 male children, raised them exactly the same, gave them the perfect nutrition and coaching, they'd each end up tied for #1 in the world golf ranking?  

[Tim Martin]

David

The question is what did Jerry Rice do when he was younger to become a college athlete. I can be certain he put in a lot of hours to become 'talented', he then upped his work load after college and became one of the best footballers. There is no talent it's all work.

Padraig,

Your theory might be a good way to get money out of parents for extravagant junior coaching, but there is little foundation in medical or biomechanical knowledge.  

David

I'm not trying to extract money from anybody. There is a ton of research on Long Term Athletic Development. Most great athletes developed by playing sports all day long while growing up. What I'm saying is that it's all about putting in the time, the time develops the talent. Can you show me medical and biomechanical research that says something different?

Padraig-I think you are way off the mark on this subject. What makes someone who played muni golf for a couple years become a single digit player versus the guy who has been playing all his life with the finest equipment,teachers,practice regimen,private club membership a 15 handicap? I would say that you could watch 4 random 7 year old kids play 4-Square for 15 minutes and tell who is the naturally gifted athlete and who is not. Chess is not a fair comparison as there is nothing athletic about it.

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, that quip ought to be on golf channel 'shot of the day'. 

I predict if this guy really sticks to the 10,000 hours, his orthopedic or hand surgeon makes more money on his golf than he ever will.

  LOL 

[Joe Bausch]

Did anyone here take a tough class in college, say like organic chemistry?  

Do you think if you were given 'unlimited' time to study the material, would you have gotten an 'A' (assuming you didn't get an 'A'; Bart, I bet you did!)?

Now, remember that the equivalent grade in orgo wouldn't just be an 'A' to be a "tour caliber organic chemist", but an A+++!

[Kalen Braley]

I think its interesting how the PC idea that "everyone is the same" has now crept into sports.  There are so many things that have to go right to make pro in any sport.  Hard work is only one of em!

If it were as simple as do step A thru G, everyone would have a kid who plays at the professional level.  If anything this type of mentality has been harmful  in terms of wasted time/efforts/and money in trying to push thier kid to be the next high profile athelete.

I'd like to see someone teach how to hit a 95 MPH fastball
Or do a backwards skating piorette while striking a puck 40 feet into the net within a 4 inch square space.
Or chase down a 5 foot 8 running back who runs a 4'4 with two guys in the way.
Or run a mile in under 4 minutes.

[Kenny Baer]

Jerry Rice was a first round draft pick; and held the all time receiving yards record while he was in college; if I am not mistaken some of his college records still stand.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

"It takes ten years of applying ones trade to be considered an expert...to become a Master involves some devine intervention...whtever that may be"
Einstein