Lanny's Theory (and Mine)
Hello. Lanny Wadkins, CBS golf analyst, was asked where all the American golfers in their 20s are when the winners are announced. Now that Tiger Woods is 30, the number of wins for the twentysomethings is very low. Players like Charles Howell III, Matt Kuchar and Ricky Barnes are unable to convert their talents to the top stage. Why is this so?
Lanny replied that today's breed of golfer coming out of the college programs are more like robots than golfers. They spend more time practicing than playing. They practice making "perfect" shots, not intentionally hooking or slicing or low or high shots. Because of this, Wadkins claims, the US pros are unfamiliar with what to do when conditions are less than ideal. Their European counterparts, meanwhile, are turning pro at a younger age, and travelling all over the world, facing adversity at every turn. Sounds like Michelle Wie, huh (by the way, congratulations Michelle on winning your 18 hole qualifier. Good luck in the sectionals!)?
I like this theory for a lot of reasons. I've always believed the range is for technique only. Learning to golf, and score low, can only be learned on the course, when faced with adversity. Only there can you learn to play in different situations.
What strikes me as odd, especially now that Doug Flutie has just announced his retirement, is the young pros have an NFL-mindset - think out each situation to its logical conclusion, follow the playbook, don't improvise. Flutie spent a lot of time on the bench because he didn't "fit in" with the game plan his coaches had ingrained into the team.
Well, the "little quarterback who couldn't" ended up playing for 23 years as a pro, with lots of success, especially in the CFL. Meanwhile, a lot of QBs deemed "better" than Flutie because they were "prototypes" (tall, pocket passers) ended up with much shorter careers.
My theory is the junior programs and individual tournaments have to reward low gross scores more than they do. In other words, forget about handicaps.
Why? Because if low gross gets first prize, and low net gets 2nd prize, there isn't as much incentive for a player to improve. Usually low net is won by a higher handicapper, so players may be getting a mixed message. Rather than going all out to improve, they may be tempted to stay at a higher handicap to finish 2nd. Guess which one requires less effort?
If handicapping is deemed essential for a tournament, make low net prizes start at the middle of the pack instead of 2nd. Give out prizes for finishing low, instead of being above average.
In summary, let the golfers enjoy their time out on the course, and learn the innovative, creative side of the game, a la John Daly. And teach them that low gross is WAY better than low net. Maybe that will get them on TV faster.
Regards,
Steve
Lanny replied that today's breed of golfer coming out of the college programs are more like robots than golfers. They spend more time practicing than playing. They practice making "perfect" shots, not intentionally hooking or slicing or low or high shots. Because of this, Wadkins claims, the US pros are unfamiliar with what to do when conditions are less than ideal. Their European counterparts, meanwhile, are turning pro at a younger age, and travelling all over the world, facing adversity at every turn. Sounds like Michelle Wie, huh (by the way, congratulations Michelle on winning your 18 hole qualifier. Good luck in the sectionals!)?
I like this theory for a lot of reasons. I've always believed the range is for technique only. Learning to golf, and score low, can only be learned on the course, when faced with adversity. Only there can you learn to play in different situations.
What strikes me as odd, especially now that Doug Flutie has just announced his retirement, is the young pros have an NFL-mindset - think out each situation to its logical conclusion, follow the playbook, don't improvise. Flutie spent a lot of time on the bench because he didn't "fit in" with the game plan his coaches had ingrained into the team.
Well, the "little quarterback who couldn't" ended up playing for 23 years as a pro, with lots of success, especially in the CFL. Meanwhile, a lot of QBs deemed "better" than Flutie because they were "prototypes" (tall, pocket passers) ended up with much shorter careers.
My theory is the junior programs and individual tournaments have to reward low gross scores more than they do. In other words, forget about handicaps.
Why? Because if low gross gets first prize, and low net gets 2nd prize, there isn't as much incentive for a player to improve. Usually low net is won by a higher handicapper, so players may be getting a mixed message. Rather than going all out to improve, they may be tempted to stay at a higher handicap to finish 2nd. Guess which one requires less effort?
If handicapping is deemed essential for a tournament, make low net prizes start at the middle of the pack instead of 2nd. Give out prizes for finishing low, instead of being above average.
In summary, let the golfers enjoy their time out on the course, and learn the innovative, creative side of the game, a la John Daly. And teach them that low gross is WAY better than low net. Maybe that will get them on TV faster.
Regards,
Steve
posted by Irrelevant at 1:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home