The importance (or not) of ego within golf.

[Peter Bowman]

K - yes, I know what you're saying: perhaps TW didn't mean it in exactly the way JD took it, but it does still highlight the many faces of "ego".

Here's another interesting one, re the golfer and ego. I find it fascinating: Jackie Burke talking recently about Ben Hogan. Elkington asks what Hogan would do after a win and how he felt. And Jackie says: 'well, he'd feel good about it on Sunday night, and we'd go out and have a drink to celebrate, but then on Monday Ben would immediately go back to insecurity. Ben was an insecure person anyway, but also he didn't want to feel secure [italics, mine]. He believed that it was the insecurity that brought him success and the win, and he didn't like feeling secure -- he thought nothing good came out of feeling secure. So he'd let himself have a drink and enjoy the win and feel secure for one night, and then he'd go right back to that insecure place on Monday".

I haven't captured exactly what Jackie said, but that's the gist of it -- and as I say, I can't stop thinking about it, especially in the context of this question. I find it fascinating.

It would take a very big ego to think that at some point you could stop doing all the work that had made you successful, and just coast from there.


But it's different in different fields.  In golf architecture (or fashion or many orher businesses), you might be able to coast by relying more on the people you've taught, as long as they are not coasting.  An athlete does not have that luxury!

This is 100% truth in my industry.  As long as the associates are doing the work as trained and the creator/entrepreneur maintains oversight of the brand he/she created, it works.

How to train the egos of the associates to be of the mindset of the culture is more challenging.  You dismiss those that don’t, and you golden handcuff those that do.

[Ira Fishman]

Tom - yes, that's one of the reasons I thought the story applied here. With the way we tend to define ego, many might say -- given his personality and great accomplishments -- that Ben Hogan had "the biggest ego of his generation'. And yet, that same man actively & purposely denied himself many of the sought-for qualities and ostensible benefits of ego -- ie the self satisfaction, the pride of individual success, the sense of security, the pleasure of having 'made it', the belief that one is better/more talented than others etc. In a way, I can't really see the difference between that and ego's opposite, i.e. humility. Anyway, I do find it fascinating.

Well, a lot of top athletes are like that.  Nobody is more confident than Michael Jordan, or Tiger Woods, yet they constantly looked for little slights or something to get themselves fired up.  I never really got to see Hogan, but what I've read suggests he was different . . . I think the little slights might have been coming from within, for him.


There is a huge difference between getting to the top of one's game, and trying to stay there for years.

The very best of the best in any field never grow complacent. They are always looking to get better and to achieve the next goal. Whether that is a function of ego or some other characteristic, the will to reach and stay at the top is what distinguishes the very best of the best. I think one interesting question is whether one can develop that will or you either have it or don’t.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Something is amiss when we're called 'consumers' instead of 'customers', and when we strive for a 'lifestyle' instead of a 'life' -- and when golf represents something other than itself, a game. Golf courses are best when they don't mean anything except what they actually are, fields of play. But I don't think the human "ego" likes things that simple.

I am struggling to think of a single golf course architect who ever thought they were building something *more* than a field of play.  Maybe late-stage Desmond Muirhead, but even that was probably just p.r. babble.

[Tom_Doak]

The very best of the best in any field never grow complacent. They are always looking to get better and to achieve the next goal. Whether that is a function of ego or some other characteristic, the will to reach and stay at the top is what distinguishes the very best of the best. I think one interesting question is whether one can develop that will or you either have it or don’t.

I certainly had a period where I had a hard time identifying more goals.


Again, in business this is different than in sports -- in business, staying at the top means $$$$, in sports it just adds to your legacy for bar-room arguments.


But I don't know the answer to your last question.  Tiger Woods was always the best for his age from the time he was five or six [or maybe even before that]; Michael Jordan wasn't until his last year in college, so it's harder to imagine he always had that in him.  But both of them were completely consumed with beating their opponent on the day, even when their supremacy was unquestioned -- that "chip on the shoulder" thing.  Many people would attribute that to insecurity, but it is hard to think of either of those two as insecure!

[Ira Fishman]

The very best of the best in any field never grow complacent. They are always looking to get better and to achieve the next goal. Whether that is a function of ego or some other characteristic, the will to reach and stay at the top is what distinguishes the very best of the best. I think one interesting question is whether one can develop that will or you either have it or don’t.

I certainly had a period where I had a hard time identifying more goals.


Again, in business this is different than in sports -- in business, staying at the top means $$$$, in sports it just adds to your legacy for bar-room arguments.


But I don't know the answer to your last question.  Tiger Woods was always the best for his age from the time he was five or six [or maybe even before that]; Michael Jordan wasn't until his last year in college, so it's harder to imagine he always had that in him.  But both of them were completely consumed with beating their opponent on the day, even when their supremacy was unquestioned -- that "chip on the shoulder" thing.  Many people would attribute that to insecurity, but it is hard to think of either of those two as insecure!

I have a different take on a few points.


The very best of the best athletes that I have met are not motivated by debates that fans may have in bar rooms or even by what the media says about them. They care about three things: Championships, how they stack up against their peers and predecessors, and most importantly how they perform relative to their own standard of excellence.


I also have found that the very best of the best in business view money as just a quantitative way to measure their success, but care much more about if they are the most dominant and most prominent and once again that they live up to their own standards. I remember a conversation 25 years ago with perhaps the most successful Venture Capital investor when I asked him why he worked 18 hours a day with unbelievable focus even though he already had more money than most of us combined. His answer was simple: it is who I am and what I like to do. I have heard variations of the same from several others.


I do not know any golf course architects, but my guess is that they are not all that different. Financial success and what we golfers think are far less important than how they stack up against their peers and predecessors and how close they have come to designing their standard of the best course.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I have a different take on a few points.


The very best of the best athletes that I have met are not motivated by debates that fans may have in bar rooms or even by what the media says about them. They care about three things: Championships, how they stack up against their peers and predecessors, and most importantly how they perform relative to their own standard of excellence.


I also have found that the very best of the best in business view money as just a quantitative way to measure their success, but care much more about if they are the most dominant and most prominent and once again that they live up to their own standards. I remember a conversation 25 years ago with perhaps the most successful Venture Capital investor when I asked him why he worked 18 hours a day with unbelievable focus even though he already had more money than most of us combined. His answer was simple: it is who I am and what I like to do. I have heard variations of the same from several others.


I do not know any golf course architects, but my guess is that they are not all that different. Financial success and what we golfers think are far less important than how they stack up against their peers and predecessors and how close they have come to designing their standard of the best course.

I guess I agree with most of what you've said. 


My standard has always been whether I could build golf courses of the same quality as the older courses I love.  I never thought much about competing against my peers; I just figured if I could build courses to that standard, the business side would take care of itself.