Is skiing too dangerous for serious elite junior golfers?

[iteachgolf]

Plenty of the top players I teach didn't touch a club until they were 12 or older. The "skills" you're talking about learning 9-12 aren't golf specific. They are simply being an athlete. You're thinking about it only in golf terms, those "skills" are learned throwing a ball, running, playing tag, climbing fences, the stuff kids do being kids when not playing video games.

 

i did things way more dangerous than skiing ( but also including skiing and snowboarding) my entire childhood and had several injuries, none of which held me back in golf.

 

You are 100% correct

 

The skills you mentioned above - how many can you do with a broken leg or torn knee?

 

Sure, that's a straw man. But, you sound like a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. You're the head of the household, choose a vacation based on your whole family's enjoyment, not a 9 y/o's hobby and recreation. What you don't understand is that this kind of mentality is exactly what will hold him back. Not only does he have the pressure of competition, but also having detoured family vacations, which I'm sure is just the tip of the iceberg. Let him be a kid, that happens to enjoy golf right now. Not that you're going to listen to a guy on the internet, but maybe you'll get the point. Don't help him obsess over golf. Help him have balance in life.

 

Oops. Wrong quote. Should be the straw man quote.

 

iTeach- when I was a kid in the 80's, our best kid golfers largely didn't pan out as very few of them matured into having club head speed. Is that still true?

 

I'd say how good a kid is at 8-12 is really meaningless due to how different kids mature and grow. A lot of kids get burnt out and don't love it when they get older. The juniors I teach who are the best ( have taught 4 NCAA national champions) were well rounded and while they have a passion for golf, they have lives outside of golf too.

 

iteachgolf - you make some very good points, but your comment "how good a kid is at 8-12 is really meaningless" is a false narrative IMHO

 

only 1.8% of high school golfers go on to compete at the NCAA D1 level

http://www.scholarshipstats.com/golf.htm

 

I think if you actually looked very closely at the stats and history, the top golfers at a young age (8yo, 12yo, whatever - pick an age) actually have a significantly higher % chance of playing at the D1 (or higher) level than 1 in 50; you could simply cross-reference the Pinehurst World Championship historical results (top 100) with list of college/pro golfers as a back of the envelope sanity check

 

as has been discussed in other threads/topics, showing promise at an early age doesn't *guarantee* success later, but it is a better predictor of it than anything else

 

btw I also agree with Matt J that having requisite club head speed is a limiting factor for junior golfers who make it to the next level

 

Go back to 2010 (current 2018-2019 grads) as an example Noah Goodwin finished middle of the pack and only broke 80 one day at US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 28 shots. The kid who won is currently ranked outside the top 1100 on JGS. Noah is the 2nd ranked player in the world on JGS.

 

In that same event Cole Ponich shot 88-80-83 and finished near the bottom of the field in US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 42 shots. Now he’s ranked 32nd in the world on JGS.

 

Liam Powderly shot 91-89-99 and finished almost dead last 70 shots behind the winner. He’s now ranked 286th in the world on JGS

 

So kids finishing middle of the pack and near dead last at 10 years old ended up WAY better than the kid who won and shot -5. I could post a ton more examples, I literally just picked 2 kids middle of the pack and one at the bottom.

 

I’ve had multiple kids who couldn’t break 100 at 12 and ended up playing college golf on scholarships

[BlackDiamondPar5]

You need to put this in proper context. Assuming you also ski, it seems you accept the risk of personal injury that could inhibit your ability to work and earn money to care for your family.

 

Bottom line, ski!

[CTgolf]

 

Go back to 2010 (current 2018-2019 grads) as an example Noah Goodwin finished middle of the pack and only broke 80 one day at US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 28 shots. The kid who won is currently ranked outside the top 1100 on JGS. Noah is the 2nd ranked player in the world on JGS.

 

In that same event Cole Ponich shot 88-80-83 and finished near the bottom of the field in US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 42 shots. Now he's ranked 32nd in the world on JGS.

 

Liam Powderly shot 91-89-99 and finished almost dead last 70 shots behind the winner. He's now ranked 286th in the world on JGS

 

So kids finishing middle of the pack and near dead last at 10 years old ended up WAY better than the kid who won and shot -5. I could post a ton more examples, I literally just picked 2 kids middle of the pack and one at the bottom.

 

I've had multiple kids who couldn't break 100 at 12 and ended up playing college golf on scholarships

 

No one is saying where the above-mentioned players finished in a single tournament determines their future success.

 

There are so many variables (too numerous to mention) that could be relevant to this discussion:

When did the various players start playing?

How did they play for that single tournament vs their 'typical' performance?

Any major injuries since then? (maybe the top players went SKIING and got hurt)

Other activities/sports that they ended up deciding to focus on later instead of golf?

 

The fact that juniors qualify and compete in the world championship event itself may qualify them as being 'serious and potentially talented' players.

 

Furthermore, from a purely statistical perspective, the fact that there are many players out of the top 100 from that single 2010 tournament you reference who are playing at a high level now disproves your initial statement: "how good a kid is at 8-12 is really meaningless"; many players on that list of 'top players' from 2010 are now succeeding at a disproportionately higher rate than the national average, thereby showing that early success is actually a better predictor of success than random chance

[iteachgolf]

 

Go back to 2010 (current 2018-2019 grads) as an example Noah Goodwin finished middle of the pack and only broke 80 one day at US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 28 shots. The kid who won is currently ranked outside the top 1100 on JGS. Noah is the 2nd ranked player in the world on JGS.

 

In that same event Cole Ponich shot 88-80-83 and finished near the bottom of the field in US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 42 shots. Now he's ranked 32nd in the world on JGS.

 

Liam Powderly shot 91-89-99 and finished almost dead last 70 shots behind the winner. He's now ranked 286th in the world on JGS

 

So kids finishing middle of the pack and near dead last at 10 years old ended up WAY better than the kid who won and shot -5. I could post a ton more examples, I literally just picked 2 kids middle of the pack and one at the bottom.

 

I've had multiple kids who couldn't break 100 at 12 and ended up playing college golf on scholarships

 

No one is saying where the above-mentioned players finished in a single tournament determines their future success.

 

There are so many variables (too numerous to mention) that could be relevant to this discussion:

When did the various players start playing?

How did they play for that single tournament vs their 'typical' performance?

Any major injuries since then? (maybe the top players went SKIING and got hurt)

Other activities/sports that they ended up deciding to focus on later instead of golf?

 

The fact that juniors qualify and compete in the world championship event itself may qualify them as being 'serious and potentially talented' players.

 

Furthermore, from a purely statistical perspective, the fact that there are many players out of the top 100 from that single 2010 tournament you reference who are playing at a high level now disproves your initial statement: "how good a kid is at 8-12 is really meaningless"; many players on that list of 'top players' from 2010 are now succeeding at a disproportionately higher rate than the national average, thereby showing that early success is actually a better predictor of success than random chance

 

There was barely over 100 kids in the field. So using top 100 is a joke. You couldn’t paint with a broader brush. The kid averaged high 80s and was more than 23 shots worse per round than the winner. That’s not even close. The three kids I chose finished outside of the top 40% of the field and averaged 80+. Considering how short US Kids sets up their events those kids aren’t “Top” players.

 

You’re defining it as everyone in the field including kids that shoot 100 count. And defining high level including kids outside the top 1000 in JGS as juniors and seniors in High school. I have 20 kids that have been top 150 who never played or qualified for US Kids Junior Worlds. Some weren’t the top 10 players in the city at 9-12 years old let some top player in the country. But hey became top players in the world.

 

Have kids who averaged 78-80 in high school and had no college offers who now play professional golf and have status on a world major tour or are now top ams (one just shot 63 to win prequalifying for this week’s PGA Tour event)

 

I can show plenty of examples locally of a kid who at 12, who had been playing several years, averaged over 85 (finished 5th in local US kids points), who now at 15 is one of the top juniors in the country. I’m ranked as one of top coaches in the country at developing juniors into elite players and college golfers. I have a good handle on it and can show just as many who weren’t good at all at 12 as kids who were the best at 12 who were average by 18

[CTgolf]

Go back to 2010 (current 2018-2019 grads) as an example Noah Goodwin finished middle of the pack and only broke 80 one day at US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 28 shots. The kid who won is currently ranked outside the top 1100 on JGS. Noah is the 2nd ranked player in the world on JGS.

 

In that same event Cole Ponich shot 88-80-83 and finished near the bottom of the field in US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 42 shots. Now he's ranked 32nd in the world on JGS.

 

Liam Powderly shot 91-89-99 and finished almost dead last 70 shots behind the winner. He's now ranked 286th in the world on JGS

 

So kids finishing middle of the pack and near dead last at 10 years old ended up WAY better than the kid who won and shot -5. I could post a ton more examples, I literally just picked 2 kids middle of the pack and one at the bottom.

 

I've had multiple kids who couldn't break 100 at 12 and ended up playing college golf on scholarships

 

No one is saying where the above-mentioned players finished in a single tournament determines their future success.

 

There are so many variables (too numerous to mention) that could be relevant to this discussion:

When did the various players start playing?

How did they play for that single tournament vs their 'typical' performance?

Any major injuries since then? (maybe the top players went SKIING and got hurt)

Other activities/sports that they ended up deciding to focus on later instead of golf?

 

The fact that juniors qualify and compete in the world championship event itself may qualify them as being 'serious and potentially talented' players.

 

Furthermore, from a purely statistical perspective, the fact that there are many players out of the top 100 from that single 2010 tournament you reference who are playing at a high level now disproves your initial statement: "how good a kid is at 8-12 is really meaningless"; many players on that list of 'top players' from 2010 are now succeeding at a disproportionately higher rate than the national average, thereby showing that early success is actually a better predictor of success than random chance

 

There was barely over 100 kids in the field. So using top 100 is a joke. You couldn't paint with a broader brush. The kid averaged high 80s and was more than 23 shots worse per round than the winner. That's not even close. The three kids I chose finished outside of the top 40% of the field and averaged 80+. Considering how short US Kids sets up their events those kids aren't "Top" players.

 

You're defining it as everyone in the field including kids that shoot 100 count. And defining high level including kids outside the top 1000 in JGS as juniors and seniors in High school. I have 20 kids that have been top 150 who never played or qualified for US Kids Junior Worlds. Some weren't the top 10 players in the city at 9-12 years old let some top player in the country. But hey became top players in the world.

 

Have kids who averaged 78-80 in high school and had no college offers who now play professional golf and have status on a world major tour or are now top ams (one just shot 63 to win prequalifying for this week's PGA Tour event)

 

I can show plenty of examples locally of a kid who at 12, who had been playing several years, averaged over 85 (finished 5th in local US kids points), who now at 15 is one of the top juniors in the country. I'm ranked as one of top coaches in the country at developing juniors into elite players and college golfers. I have a good handle on it and can show just as many who weren't good at all at 12 as kids who were the best at 12 who were average by 18

 

iteachgolf,

 

I am not questioning your credibility, qualifications or success as a coach or instructor

 

I do think you might be falling victim to cognitive biases and over/underestimating probabilities, perhaps based on your personal experience (availability heuristic) or based on hearing secondhand about random, unconnected occurrences (clustering)

 

Even qualifying to play at Pinehurst is a hurdle that a strong majority of 'participants' will not be able to accomplish, and I referenced that results list simply to demonstrate that the players who have passed some minimum level of ability by qualifying (at a young age) are able to succeed at a much higher rate than would be predicted by chance or the overall average. Of course there is self-selection in players/parents who are motivated enough to make the trip (we've never gone ourselves) but that is a separate discussion.

 

Regardless, I think this topic has run out its usefulness: it started as a way for me to question whether I should think about other vacation options instead of skiing (to avoid risk of serious injury) and turned into a referendum about bad parenting and personal anecdotes. Statistically speaking, by definition there is simply no way you or anyone else are going to be able to 'prove' your point based on personal experience (speaking of painting with a broad brush). This doesn't invalidate your opinion: indeed some people have more relevant opinions (based on experience or expertise) than others - and I would definitely put you in that latter category.

 

If the point you were trying to make is that "there are many variables that could cause a player who succeeds at young age to not be successful (as defined as playing at some pre-defined level, e.g. D1 college) later" then I agree with you 100%. However, common sense, as well as the information available to me, prevents me from agreeing with your comment "how good a kid is at 8-12 is meaningless".

[heavy_hitter]

Go back to 2010 (current 2018-2019 grads) as an example Noah Goodwin finished middle of the pack and only broke 80 one day at US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 28 shots. The kid who won is currently ranked outside the top 1100 on JGS. Noah is the 2nd ranked player in the world on JGS.

 

In that same event Cole Ponich shot 88-80-83 and finished near the bottom of the field in US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 42 shots. Now he's ranked 32nd in the world on JGS.

 

Liam Powderly shot 91-89-99 and finished almost dead last 70 shots behind the winner. He's now ranked 286th in the world on JGS

 

So kids finishing middle of the pack and near dead last at 10 years old ended up WAY better than the kid who won and shot -5. I could post a ton more examples, I literally just picked 2 kids middle of the pack and one at the bottom.

 

I've had multiple kids who couldn't break 100 at 12 and ended up playing college golf on scholarships

 

No one is saying where the above-mentioned players finished in a single tournament determines their future success.

 

There are so many variables (too numerous to mention) that could be relevant to this discussion:

When did the various players start playing?

How did they play for that single tournament vs their 'typical' performance?

Any major injuries since then? (maybe the top players went SKIING and got hurt)

Other activities/sports that they ended up deciding to focus on later instead of golf?

 

The fact that juniors qualify and compete in the world championship event itself may qualify them as being 'serious and potentially talented' players.

 

Furthermore, from a purely statistical perspective, the fact that there are many players out of the top 100 from that single 2010 tournament you reference who are playing at a high level now disproves your initial statement: "how good a kid is at 8-12 is really meaningless"; many players on that list of 'top players' from 2010 are now succeeding at a disproportionately higher rate than the national average, thereby showing that early success is actually a better predictor of success than random chance

 

There was barely over 100 kids in the field. So using top 100 is a joke. You couldn't paint with a broader brush. The kid averaged high 80s and was more than 23 shots worse per round than the winner. That's not even close. The three kids I chose finished outside of the top 40% of the field and averaged 80+. Considering how short US Kids sets up their events those kids aren't "Top" players.

 

You're defining it as everyone in the field including kids that shoot 100 count. And defining high level including kids outside the top 1000 in JGS as juniors and seniors in High school. I have 20 kids that have been top 150 who never played or qualified for US Kids Junior Worlds. Some weren't the top 10 players in the city at 9-12 years old let some top player in the country. But hey became top players in the world.

 

Have kids who averaged 78-80 in high school and had no college offers who now play professional golf and have status on a world major tour or are now top ams (one just shot 63 to win prequalifying for this week's PGA Tour event)

 

I can show plenty of examples locally of a kid who at 12, who had been playing several years, averaged over 85 (finished 5th in local US kids points), who now at 15 is one of the top juniors in the country. I'm ranked as one of top coaches in the country at developing juniors into elite players and college golfers. I have a good handle on it and can show just as many who weren't good at all at 12 as kids who were the best at 12 who were average by 18

 

iteachgolf,

 

I am not questioning your credibility, qualifications or success as a coach or instructor

 

I do think you might be falling victim to cognitive biases and over/underestimating probabilities, perhaps based on your personal experience (availability heuristic) or based on hearing secondhand about random, unconnected occurrences (clustering)

 

Even qualifying to play at Pinehurst is a hurdle that a strong majority of 'participants' will not be able to accomplish, and I referenced that results list simply to demonstrate that the players who have passed some minimum level of ability by qualifying (at a young age) are able to succeed at a much higher rate than would be predicted by chance or the overall average. Of course there is self-selection in players/parents who are motivated enough to make the trip (we've never gone ourselves) but that is a separate discussion.

 

Regardless, I think this topic has run out its usefulness: it started as a way for me to question whether I should think about other vacation options instead of skiing (to avoid risk of serious injury) and turned into a referendum about bad parenting and personal anecdotes. Statistically speaking, by definition there is simply no way you or anyone else are going to be able to 'prove' your point based on personal experience (speaking of painting with a broad brush). This doesn't invalidate your opinion: indeed some people have more relevant opinions (based on experience or expertise) than others - and I would definitely put you in that latter category.

 

If the point you were trying to make is that "there are many variables that could cause a player who succeeds at young age to not be successful (as defined as playing at some pre-defined level, e.g. D1 college) later" then I agree with you 100%. However, common sense, as well as the information available to me, prevents me from agreeing with your comment "how good a kid is at 8-12 is meaningless".

 

I don't always agree with iteach. As an example, I don't agree with his philosophy on mats because he isn't an orthopedist that has done research on the subject of injuries due to hitting off of those surfaces.

 

In this case, he is 100% accurate. It doesn't matter how good an 8-12 year old golfer is. Just like it doesn't matter if you are throwing 70mph in Little League won't cross over to throwing 90mph when you are in high school. There is too much growth that happens at puberty both physically and mentally that is going to determine the future for each kid. I personally know a kid that won the 12 year old US Kids Championship a few years ago. My son and him cross paths through instructors and they play together. He was JGS number 1. As a sophomore while he is still a nice player, a bunch of kids have passed him up. He is now 170 in his class which makes him an afterthought. At 16 he was just recently beat by a 12 year old.

 

I have had this same conversation over the years with multiple coaches, really good coaches who work with the best junior golfers in the state of Florida. They all say the same exact thing. What a kid does at 8-12 years old is meaningless. There are no guarantees in life. Have fun and go skiing.

[jslane57]

I think if your young golfer wants to skip skiing to practice golf, let them. But to force your golfer to skip skiing because it is too dangerous? Silly. My golfing friends and I all went skiing when kids, and those ski trips, just for fun with my golfing friends, were the best times ever. One thing I always enjoyed was watching how people's personalities show up in both of these sports. The bomb and gouge golfers used to pound the moguls. The smooth swing golfers used to smooth the moguls. Both are athletic endeavors, and both are great!

[CTgolf]

 

I don't always agree with iteach. As an example, I don't agree with his philosophy on mats because he isn't an orthopedist that has done research on the subject of injuries due to hitting off of those surfaces.

 

In this case, he is 100% accurate. It doesn't matter how good an 8-12 year old golfer is. Just like it doesn't matter if you are throwing 70mph in Little League won't cross over to throwing 90mph when you are in high school. There is too much growth that happens at puberty both physically and mentally that is going to determine the future for each kid. I personally know a kid that won the 12 year old US Kids Championship a few years ago. My son and him cross paths through instructors and they play together. He was JGS number 1. As a sophomore while he is still a nice player, a bunch of kids have passed him up. He is now 170 in his class which makes him an afterthought. At 16 he was just recently beat by a 12 year old.

 

I have had this same conversation over the years with multiple coaches, really good coaches who work with the best junior golfers in the state of Florida. They all say the same exact thing. What a kid does at 8-12 years old is meaningless. There are no guarantees in life. Have fun and go skiing.

 

what % of kids who eventually throw 90mph threw 70mph in little league?

 

if that % is greater by a statistically significant margin than the number of kids who throw 90mph vs the overall population, and I would guess that it is, then your statement is empirically false

 

again, your personal anecdote about former #1 now #170 (which, as an aside, I would argue does not make him an 'afterthought') is not relevant to the discussion: I'm sure there are at least 5 different examples I could point to of top players who remained top players between 12yo and college

[CTgolf]

Go back to 2010 (current 2018-2019 grads) as an example Noah Goodwin finished middle of the pack and only broke 80 one day at US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 28 shots. The kid who won is currently ranked outside the top 1100 on JGS. Noah is the 2nd ranked player in the world on JGS.

 

In that same event Cole Ponich shot 88-80-83 and finished near the bottom of the field in US Kids Worlds. The winner beat him by 42 shots. Now he's ranked 32nd in the world on JGS.

 

Liam Powderly shot 91-89-99 and finished almost dead last 70 shots behind the winner. He's now ranked 286th in the world on JGS

 

So kids finishing middle of the pack and near dead last at 10 years old ended up WAY better than the kid who won and shot -5. I could post a ton more examples, I literally just picked 2 kids middle of the pack and one at the bottom.

 

I've had multiple kids who couldn't break 100 at 12 and ended up playing college golf on scholarships

 

No one is saying where the above-mentioned players finished in a single tournament determines their future success.

 

There are so many variables (too numerous to mention) that could be relevant to this discussion:

When did the various players start playing?

How did they play for that single tournament vs their 'typical' performance?

Any major injuries since then? (maybe the top players went SKIING and got hurt)

Other activities/sports that they ended up deciding to focus on later instead of golf?

 

The fact that juniors qualify and compete in the world championship event itself may qualify them as being 'serious and potentially talented' players.

 

Furthermore, from a purely statistical perspective, the fact that there are many players out of the top 100 from that single 2010 tournament you reference who are playing at a high level now disproves your initial statement: "how good a kid is at 8-12 is really meaningless"; many players on that list of 'top players' from 2010 are now succeeding at a disproportionately higher rate than the national average, thereby showing that early success is actually a better predictor of success than random chance

 

There was barely over 100 kids in the field. So using top 100 is a joke. You couldn't paint with a broader brush. The kid averaged high 80s and was more than 23 shots worse per round than the winner. That's not even close. The three kids I chose finished outside of the top 40% of the field and averaged 80+. Considering how short US Kids sets up their events those kids aren't "Top" players.

 

You're defining it as everyone in the field including kids that shoot 100 count. And defining high level including kids outside the top 1000 in JGS as juniors and seniors in High school. I have 20 kids that have been top 150 who never played or qualified for US Kids Junior Worlds. Some weren't the top 10 players in the city at 9-12 years old let some top player in the country. But hey became top players in the world.

 

Have kids who averaged 78-80 in high school and had no college offers who now play professional golf and have status on a world major tour or are now top ams (one just shot 63 to win prequalifying for this week's PGA Tour event)

 

I can show plenty of examples locally of a kid who at 12, who had been playing several years, averaged over 85 (finished 5th in local US kids points), who now at 15 is one of the top juniors in the country. I'm ranked as one of top coaches in the country at developing juniors into elite players and college golfers. I have a good handle on it and can show just as many who weren't good at all at 12 as kids who were the best at 12 who were average by 18

 

iteachgolf,

 

I am not questioning your credibility, qualifications or success as a coach or instructor

 

I do think you might be falling victim to cognitive biases and over/underestimating probabilities, perhaps based on your personal experience (availability heuristic) or based on hearing secondhand about random, unconnected occurrences (clustering)

 

Even qualifying to play at Pinehurst is a hurdle that a strong majority of 'participants' will not be able to accomplish, and I referenced that results list simply to demonstrate that the players who have passed some minimum level of ability by qualifying (at a young age) are able to succeed at a much higher rate than would be predicted by chance or the overall average. Of course there is self-selection in players/parents who are motivated enough to make the trip (we've never gone ourselves) but that is a separate discussion.

 

Regardless, I think this topic has run out its usefulness: it started as a way for me to question whether I should think about other vacation options instead of skiing (to avoid risk of serious injury) and turned into a referendum about bad parenting and personal anecdotes. Statistically speaking, by definition there is simply no way you or anyone else are going to be able to 'prove' your point based on personal experience (speaking of painting with a broad brush). This doesn't invalidate your opinion: indeed some people have more relevant opinions (based on experience or expertise) than others - and I would definitely put you in that latter category.

 

If the point you were trying to make is that "there are many variables that could cause a player who succeeds at young age to not be successful (as defined as playing at some pre-defined level, e.g. D1 college) later" then I agree with you 100%. However, common sense, as well as the information available to me, prevents me from agreeing with your comment "how good a kid is at 8-12 is meaningless".

 

I don't always agree with iteach. As an example, I don't agree with his philosophy on mats because he isn't an orthopedist that has done research on the subject of injuries due to hitting off of those surfaces.

 

In this case, he is 100% accurate. It doesn't matter how good an 8-12 year old golfer is. Just like it doesn't matter if you are throwing 70mph in Little League won't cross over to throwing 90mph when you are in high school. There is too much growth that happens at puberty both physically and mentally that is going to determine the future for each kid. I personally know a kid that won the 12 year old US Kids Championship a few years ago. My son and him cross paths through instructors and they play together. He was JGS number 1. As a sophomore while he is still a nice player, a bunch of kids have passed him up. He is now 170 in his class which makes him an afterthought. At 16 he was just recently beat by a 12 year old.

 

I have had this same conversation over the years with multiple coaches, really good coaches who work with the best junior golfers in the state of Florida. They all say the same exact thing. What a kid does at 8-12 years old is meaningless. There are no guarantees in life. Have fun and go skiing.

 

another way to think about it is this:

 

If you had to guess, what % of PGA Tour Pros won a tournament (at any level) when they were 12yo?

 

I would guess it is very very high

 

Note: that does not mean that anyone who wins a tournament at 12yo is likely to be a PGA Tour Pro!

[nbg352]

Some interesting responses

 

We have seen some major injuries (broken or dislocated limbs, sprained joints) that took kids out for an entire season or longer, and in some cases they could not catch up to their peers after falling behind

 

That would be a tremendous loss if the goal is to maximize a child's potential in a sport - and at a crucial age during the narrow window of skill development (9-12yo) no less.

 

The likelihood of such an event happening is not extremely high, but if it were to occur the outcome so negative that I believe it might be worth considering vacationing elsewhere (maybe even somewhere warm playing golf!) instead of rolling the dice on the slopes - particularly in the northeast, where conditions are icier. So a better way of thinking about the decision would be how much more fun would a ski trip be vs some other type of vacation or activity, and is the incremental enjoyment worth the risk.

 

The expected value of an event with a small probability but with very large consequence is not something to be ignored IMHO.

 

Make sure he doesn't wear socks in your house if you have hardwood floors. Could slip and fall, miss the masters and never achieve #1 in the OWGR.

 

This is a perfect example of a straw man fallacy

 

Internet trolls are experts at it

Actually, he is talking about life. Life can be dangerous at any time for everyone including someone wandering the house in his socks.

Let the kid enjoy life and learn from it, not be afraid of it. There are always exceptions, but the vast majority of kids get along just fine doing the things they enjoy.

[heavy_hitter]

I don't always agree with iteach. As an example, I don't agree with his philosophy on mats because he isn't an orthopedist that has done research on the subject of injuries due to hitting off of those surfaces.

 

In this case, he is 100% accurate. It doesn't matter how good an 8-12 year old golfer is. Just like it doesn't matter if you are throwing 70mph in Little League won't cross over to throwing 90mph when you are in high school. There is too much growth that happens at puberty both physically and mentally that is going to determine the future for each kid. I personally know a kid that won the 12 year old US Kids Championship a few years ago. My son and him cross paths through instructors and they play together. He was JGS number 1. As a sophomore while he is still a nice player, a bunch of kids have passed him up. He is now 170 in his class which makes him an afterthought. At 16 he was just recently beat by a 12 year old.

 

I have had this same conversation over the years with multiple coaches, really good coaches who work with the best junior golfers in the state of Florida. They all say the same exact thing. What a kid does at 8-12 years old is meaningless. There are no guarantees in life. Have fun and go skiing.

 

what % of kids who eventually throw 90mph threw 70mph in little league?

 

if that % is greater by a statistically significant margin than the number of kids who throw 90mph vs the overall population, and I would guess that it is, then your statement is empirically false

 

again, your personal anecdote about former #1 now #170 (which, as an aside, I would argue does not make him an 'afterthought') is not relevant to the discussion: I'm sure there are at least 5 different examples I could point to of top players who remained top players between 12yo and college

 

You are missing my entire point just like you are missing iteaches point because you want to believe what you want to believe. Kind of like Noles.

 

iTeach works with some of the best junior players in the country and is putting kids into major collegiate programs year after year. A kid playing at a high level in and sport from 8-12 years old does not equate to success when they are 16-25. Either a kid is given the talent to success in their genetics, or they aren't. A kid that was successful at 8-12 and goes on to be successful at 16-25 does so because they have the genetics and are just that talented. Being successful at 8-12 isn't going to make them talented at 16-25. Regardless of what you think, it just doesn't. You now have an expert telling you this in iTeach, but you refuse to believe it.

 

Life is fragile and there are no guarantees, especially at the ripe age of 8-12. Go Skiing. If he gets hurt then he gets hurt.

[farmer]

Injuries skiing are 2-3 per 1000 skier days. If your child rides a bicycle, there's a greater chance he sustains a serious injury.

[Nessism]

Jack Nicklaus played basketball, football, tennis, and track & field when he was a kid. Having a diversity of different sports he played early on didn't seem to hurt his golf career any.

[billh17]

You need to gather every article you can in reference to Wei and Ko having their career guided by their parents. You need to read every sentence

and understand where they maybe were a little over controlling. And then, you need to take a very HONEST look at yourself. You may be

a great father. And it sounds like you are spending time with the youngster. Realize that it is a very thin line between helping and being

controlling. The boy may in fact end up being a whizz at golf. Then again ..he may choose to quit it all together.. I agree with ITeach and others.

What a 9 year old enjoys today does in no way guarantee that he will enjoy it next year. Kids change..They grow. The hardest thing for a parent

to do is to give them room to fail Good luck to you. Sounds like you have a great kid

[CTgolf]

 

You are missing my entire point just like you are missing iteaches point because you want to believe what you want to believe. Kind of like Noles.

 

iTeach works with some of the best junior players in the country and is putting kids into major collegiate programs year after year. A kid playing at a high level in and sport from 8-12 years old does not equate to success when they are 16-25. Either a kid is given the talent to success in their genetics, or they aren't. A kid that was successful at 8-12 and goes on to be successful at 16-25 does so because they have the genetics and are just that talented. Being successful at 8-12 isn't going to make them talented at 16-25. Regardless of what you think, it just doesn't. You now have an expert telling you this in iTeach, but you refuse to believe it.

 

I very specifically stated in multiple posts above that success at a young age does not equate to success later. Read carefully and think critically.

 

As to the question of whether success at an early age is at all correlated with the likelihood of success later...put aside personal anecdotes and find hard data/statistics on actual results and future success.

 

2% of all high school players play D1 golf. I would venture to guess even iteachgolf would acknowledge that the probability of a good 12yo player becoming a good 18yo player is greater than 2%

[Nessism]

Another story...

 

Friend's son got the golf bug when he was maybe 10 or so and lived within walking distance of the local muni. Not sure how many formal lessons he received but the pro's saw him on the range all the time and provided him guidance, paid or otherwise. I had the privilege of playing with him and his dad a few times and at 12 years old this kid was phenomenal; he couldn't hit the ball far but his swing was so grooved he could hit driver off the fairway and I never saw him miss hit the ball; he hit the ball dead solid pretty much every time. He used woman's clubs that were not fitted to him and the driver was maybe 12* loft. He just wound up and smacked that thing right off the deck and knocked it maybe 200 or so. By 16 he lost interest and his dad tells me he didn't pick up the clubs again until he was finished with collage. I have no doubt that this kid could have parlayed his skills into a scholarship somewhere but he didn't care, and neither did his father. It's all good if you just put it into perspective.

[BeerPerHole]

Interesting question. I say, let kids have their fun. You only get one childhood.

 

I don't purposely aim my kid toward anything. He's pretty small, but fast as hell. Fastest kid we saw in his soccer league this year - the whole division. But, I was a little relieved to hear him say he's hanging up his soccer cleats after his last game this past weekend to concentrate on golf. I also hope he tries track, because all agree he has very good potential as a sprinter. Had I stuck with track as my focus I wouldn't be walking like Fred Sanford now in my later years... That said, kids can get hurt riding their bikes. Gotta enjoy life...

[golfer55082]

I think CTGolf asked a legit and sincere question. His argument that an "elite" young golfer will statistically more likely (vs. than "average" young golfers) become an elite adult golfer sounds logical. However, this transition is never natural and automatic. A lot of factors can play positive or negative roles. It is very likely no one has the absolute answer about which factor plays what role. I would argue (like to believe) that playing multiple sports will help; keeping open-mindness will help; keeping strong interest and curiosity will help. Skipping skiing at that young age (meaning giving up fun sports) may not help.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I think CTGolf asked a legit and sincere question. His argument that an "elite" young golfer will statistically more likely (vs. than "average" young golfers) become an elite adult golfer sounds logical. However, this transition is never natural and automatic. A lot of factors can play positive or negative roles. It is very likely no one has the absolute answer about which factor plays what role. I would argue (like to believe) that playing multiple sports will help; keeping open-mindness will help; keeping strong interest and curiosity will help. Skipping skiing at that young age (meaning giving up fun sports) may not help.

 

While a legit question, I don't see "injury risk" as a compelling reason to skip a family ski vacation if that's what your family likes to do. I tried to bring the OP's concern into context earlier by asking the OP if he could afford to be injured skiing (or whatever activity) such that it caused him to be out of work for months. Frankly if the guy that puts food on the families table can take the risk, then so can his "elite athlete." Besides that, if his kid resented not being able to ski, the long term implications could be farther reaching than anything physical.

 

Additionally there are numerous PGA Tour players that ski, surf, ride motocross, street bikes and drag racing just to name a few hazardous hobbies.--- if they can do it so can an "elite" child athlete.

[Matt J]

I appreciate your enthusiasm CTGolf, and I wish you and your child the best. But, to me, "serious," "elite," and 9 years old shouldn't be used in the same sentence. These days we have 70+ years to be an adult and only 14 to be a child. Use them wisely. He needs to learn how to play for a lifetime. Grinding away comes with being an adult. Don't ask him to do that prematurely.

[drn92]

Some people are skiers and some are not. CTGolf does not seem like a skier, more like someone who skis.

 

drn92

[MathiasAndersen]

Been skiing at least twice a year since I was two years old, been playing since I was 9. I have never had a serious accident even though I have had some harsh falls on skiis but I would never give it up because I am an elite golf player. If he likes to ski then let him, that's the way to go about it. If it comes to a point where he has to be limited to golf then the chance of him getting burned out from golf increases.

[heavy_hitter]

I appreciate your enthusiasm CTGolf, and I wish you and your child the best. But, to me, "serious," "elite," and 9 years old shouldn't be used in the same sentence. These days we have 70+ years to be an adult and only 14 to be a child. Use them wisely. He needs to learn how to play for a lifetime. Grinding away comes with being an adult. Don't ask him to do that prematurely.

 

This ^^^^^

[fawley]

My son is 7. He was on our club's swim team for the first time this year. He was racing against kids who were 1 or 2 years older, many of whom were in year round swim programs, and he managed to win a bunch of races in very good times.

 

The coach talked to my wife and I at the end of the season about his potential to be an elite swimmer, and that he'd like to see him in a year round program. I thanked him for his work with and interest in my son, and said we'd talk about it, and make a decision. The coach said something like "you're not understanding me - if he works at this, he's going to be truly elite, and he's going to reward you". I don't think he was just blowing smoke up my a*** - there was no reason for him to do so.

 

I talked to my son about it, and asked him what he'd like to do. We talked about the commitment it would require (3 to 4 days a week) and the work he would need to put in. We talked about things he might need to give up if he wanted to pursue swimming in the way his coach suggested.

 

In the end, he decided he'd like to keep doing his other sports and just swim in the summer for now. He's somewhere between pretty good and very good at the other sports he plays (golf, baseball, basketball, lacrosse) and is an excellent skier (coaches have strongly encouraged him to get into a race program).

 

I want to give him every possible chance to excel in whatever (if anything) he turns out to be great at, but I'm also not going to push him towards one thing at the exclusion of others, and risk having him burn out or get tired of something. I'm a strong believer in exposing kids to a lot of different things, allow them to develop athletically, and have them choose the things they really want to pursue as they get older. If a kid has the raw talent to be truly elite at a sport in their teens and beyond, they're going to get there regardless of whether they focused primarily on that sport in their pre-teen years.

[MathiasAndersen]

My son is 7. He was on our club's swim team for the first time this year. He was racing against kids who were 1 or 2 years older, many of whom were in year round swim programs, and he managed to win a bunch of races in very good times.

 

The coach talked to my wife and I at the end of the season about his potential to be an elite swimmer, and that he'd like to see him in a year round program. I thanked him for his work with and interest in my son, and said we'd talk about it, and make a decision. The coach said something like "you're not understanding me - if he works at this, he's going to be truly elite, and he's going to reward you". I don't think he was just blowing smoke up my a*** - there was no reason for him to do so.

 

I talked to my son about it, and asked him what he'd like to do. We talked about the commitment it would require (3 to 4 days a week) and the work he would need to put in. We talked about things he might need to give up if he wanted to pursue swimming in the way his coach suggested.

 

In the end, he decided he'd like to keep doing his other sports and just swim in the summer for now. He's somewhere between pretty good and very good at the other sports he plays (golf, baseball, basketball, lacrosse) and is an excellent skier (coaches have strongly encouraged him to get into a race program).

 

I want to give him every possible chance to excel in whatever (if anything) he turns out to be great at, but I'm also not going to push him towards one thing at the exclusion of others, and risk having him burn out or get tired of something. I'm a strong believer in exposing kids to a lot of different things, allow them to develop athletically, and have them choose the things they really want to pursue as they get older. If a kid has the raw talent to be truly elite at a sport in their teens and beyond, they're going to get there regardless of whether they focused primarily on that sport in their pre-teen years.

 

Literally the best decision you could've chosen. Let him create his own path and support him no matter what, that will give the best outcome no matter what.

[AlecEmersonGolf]

Depends on how old he is, also how aggressive of a skier he is. I just graduated high school, and during the winter of my junior year I was skiing very aggressively and fell hard and badly sprained my wrist. I took about a month off and came back and had the best season of my career.

[Mr. Grumpy]

Let him have an enjoyable life, don't turn him into a singularly focused protege. Keep skiing there's more to life than golf and that applies to all of us, even the professionals amongst our ranks.

 

Maybe I should have asked a different question: are there activities your kids enjoy but you now avoid in order to prevent injury (for golf or life in general)?

 

Seems like Rory regrets getting injured playing soccer and missing the 2015 Open Championship.

 

The head rackets pro at our club specifically avoids skiing (despite competing in it as a youth) as he says it is very bad risk/reward for his livelihood.

 

Cycling seems like another activity where, given enough iterations, there is almost certainty that one will get into a serious, potentially life-threatening, accident.

 

The kid has so much to experience and enjoy... And, you picked very specific examples that really do not apply to your son. It's not how he earns a living, provides for a family, or is under contract for. And despite the number of fatalities among city commuters and racing athletes, cycling is a pretty safe activity for the multiple millions who ride every day..

Injuries are everywhere among everything we as humans do in life.. Live it to it's fullest....

[Forged4ever]

No.....

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever My Friends⛳️

RP

[KTEXAS1316]

Got to live life my man. Can't have your kid be a bubble boy just for their own protection!

[JBirdUt]

Considering the lack of snow locally, skiing is too dangerous for anyone.