grinder vs naturally talented

[KRAMER1997]

A lot of times when watching golf you hear announcers say thing's like Jim Furyk is a grinder or Phil Mickelson is one of the most naturally talented players ever. Which category would you rather fall into if you played, someone who just plugs away and has to work a bit harder and grind more to succeed (not saying that guys like Phil don't work hard) or be more like a Phil Mickelson?

[tw_focus]

Once upon a time you might be able to get away with being hung over for your Friday round, smoking cigars the night before with the fellas, show up for the tourney 30 mins before your tee time. Then TW showed up and made all of those players look like fools.

 

Everyone on tour is a grinder AND naturally talented. Just one won't cut it. And it's not just about putting in the hours, it's about putting in the right hours.

[MPAndreassi]

I think I’d prefer to fall in the hard worker category. John Daly was someone who I would consider a natural talent, and if he had a bit more of the grinding mentality he would’ve had a lot more runs to his name. I’m a fan of his, but I always think about what he could’ve really been had he needed to work a bit harder. 

[straightshot7]

Where do we put discipline, wise decision making, and AMBITION into the equation?

 

it’s not just about “working hard” or “grinding”. It’s about knowing what to work on and avoiding things that make you worse (stress, alcohol, drugs, party life, and etc)

 

I think John Daly probably played a ton of golf but I think he just didn’t care to be #1 in the world. He didn’t have that ambition. No amount of hard work or non hard work matters unless you have a goal that you’re trying to achieve. 
 

having said that, I’d rather be very naturally talented if it gave me Phil’s career, sure. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by straightshot7

[iBanesto]

Always have to respect a grinder.

 

Grinder!

 

[80sFredriksson]

Well obviously best would be both but assuming I cant pick that I dont think you would get to the pga tour without grinding so that would be my pick, obviously you need some natural talent as well but I dont think you need to be a savant

[MattyO1984]

I’d fall on the line of natural talent. Add hard work to that and you have a potent combination.

 

That said, the notion that guys like Mickelson rely on natural talent is based on no more than their game has a certain flair. Not a chance that any of these guys get to where they are based on natural talent. If they were relying on that alone, they’d maybe be decent club players, no more.

[Short Pete]

I would fall into the grinder category. I have no particular strength in my game, nothing spectacular, nothing really bad. My course management is good, I can hold my game together, I seldom shoot extremely high or low numbers.

 

All the guys who are branded as the great naturals talents have spent hours and hours in their youth and at the beginning of their careers honing their skills. Even guys like Fred Couples and John Daly have. And just because the swing of Webb Simpson doesn't look as fluid as Mickelson's has nothing to do with his talent. And as the great Ivan Lendl said once, putting the work in in an effective manner and being disciplined to practice the right way is a talent too. If you are talented on this level and don't put the work in, you have John Daly. Twice a year he shoots lights out, the rest is mediocre results because he doesn't bother to practice.

[nikeblades00]

Agreed with above that everyone on tour is a grinder. Was there ever a player the media obssessed over more for practicing than VJ? To the point where it almost was insulting. Instead of celebrating his work ethic they basically would imply VJ is good only because he practices so darn much. I felt he never got his due he deserved. However all the greats grind, they say no one works harder than Tom Brady and LeBron James in their respective sports. So yah if you want to be great then you must grind. 

[Ferguson]

7 hours ago, KRAMER1997 said:

A lot of times when watching golf you hear announcers say thing's like Jim Furyk is a grinder or Phil Mickelson is one of the most naturally talented players ever. Which category would you rather fall into if you played, someone who just plugs away and has to work a bit harder and grind more to succeed (not saying that guys like Phil don't work hard) or be more like a Phil Mickelson?

 

It goes without saying, I would never want to be "tagged" as a natural, like Phil.   I believe aligning oneself with a single characteristic would, by default, drag over the stuff I don't want.   

 

Phil practiced golf like crazy as kid.  He had to hone his skills.   In fact, I would assert his outstanding creativity stemmed from a natural lack of talent, and from all that creativity he built an incredible skill set.  I would say he is a natural, fierce competitor but not a natural talent from the womb.  

 

Fred Couples is a natural talent.  The same can be said for Brooks Robinson in baseball. 

 

 

Jim Furyk got it done as a grinder - he was always fun to watch. 

 

 

Love the game, and I have good eye/hand coordination but I have always been somewhat of a grinder.   To me, a short-sided up and in feels better than a 6-foot birdie. 

 

[extrastiff]

Human brains have immense potential. All humans have talent, even those we have deemed cognitively impaired or criminal. 

 

Grind is what differentiates, not just your grind, but the hustle of your support system (parents during upbringing, coaches taking job seriously, partner being supportive, etc)

Edited February 26, 2021 by extrastiff

[Ferguson]

27 minutes ago, extrastiff said:

Human brains have immense potential. All humans have talent, even those we have deemed cognitively impaired or criminal. 

 

Grind is what differentiates, not just your grind, but the hustle of your support system (parents during upbringing, coaches taking job seriously, partner being supportive, etc)

 

Good points. 

 

A grinder work ethic mixed with grit is a hard combination to beat.   

Vijay for example (sans deer spray).

 

 

[bladehunter]

Naturally talented for sure.  You can always work harder. But , you can’t grow talent. 

[phizzy30]

8 hours ago, KRAMER1997 said:

A lot of times when watching golf you hear announcers say thing's like Jim Furyk is a grinder or Phil Mickelson is one of the most naturally talented players ever. Which category would you rather fall into if you played, someone who just plugs away and has to work a bit harder and grind more to succeed (not saying that guys like Phil don't work hard) or be more like a Phil Mickelson?

I've always had to work harder at golf than my counterparts.  Being only 5'7 with short limbs didn't help the cause.  You got guys like DJ are immensely talented and physically gifted.  However, with that being said, I've never had a problem with distance off the tee.  I still can still drive it further than most kids half my age.  Hard work always works to some degree whereas with talent it can go either way.  Johnny Morton who played WR in the NFL was genetically gifted and had great hands.  His downfall was that he was that his work ethic sucked.  I've talked his former trainer many eons ago when we met through a mutual friend.  Same for IFBB pro body builder Paul Dillett. 

'

Edited February 26, 2021 by phizzy30

[DavidCrockett]

9 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Naturally talented for sure.  You can always work harder. But , you can’t grow talent. 

 

Exactly.  I know plenty of extremely hard working people with zero athletic ability or eye/hand coordination.

[golfortennis]

17 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Naturally talented for sure.  You can always work harder. But , you can’t grow talent. 

 

This.  The only reason you hear about grinding is because most guys are so incredibly talented, that the work is what separates.  

 

Everyone here knows the guy who had never played a sport before and are real good right off the hop.  Some guys have it.  

 

There is a thing in baseball about the "no talent, scrappy hard worker."  Usually a middle infielder.  When compared to the top players, they appear to have very little talent.  But guaranteed, unless they were in an incredibly fertile area for major talent, they were the best player growing up almost through the end of high school.  

 

It's like vertical jump.  You can work and improve it a bit, but you're not going from 22" to 36".  Just not happening.

Edited February 26, 2021 by golfortennis

[Pmookie]

Look, if one first doesn’t have the talent, one’s not getting on Tour no matter how much they “grind”, so let’s just agree that talent is more important.

[oikos1]

I didn't know we get a choice.

[jordan2240]

9 hours ago, KRAMER1997 said:

A lot of times when watching golf you hear announcers say thing's like Jim Furyk is a grinder or Phil Mickelson is one of the most naturally talented players ever. Which category would you rather fall into if you played, someone who just plugs away and has to work a bit harder and grind more to succeed (not saying that guys like Phil don't work hard) or be more like a Phil Mickelson?

My initial thought was that, given the two choices, I'd RATHER be someone with natural talent.  But thinking about it, the trouble with having natural talent is it may actually inhibit you from working as hard as you need to in order to be really successful.  So, I think I'd actually rather have a 'grinder' mentality, and if I happen to have natural talent as well, all the better.  As for me personally, I definitely fall into the 'grinder' category when it comes to golf, though it doesn't seem to help my game much.  Musically, I had some natural talent growing up, but let that carry me as far as it could and went no further.  Had I been a 'grinder', I might have found some success in that field.

[Ferguson]

18 minutes ago, Pmookie said:

Look, if one first doesn’t have the talent, one’s not getting on Tour no matter how much they “grind”, so let’s just agree that talent is more important.

 

And if one doesn't read the question in the original post, one's reply doesn't make much sense.  

[Pmookie]

6 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

And if one doesn't read the question in the original post, one's reply doesn't make much sense.  

Or, if one DID read the question, then they WOULD pick natural talent because it’s more important!

You might need a snickers this morning.......

[PoolPond]

My question has always been, if you have some sort of natural golfing ability, let's say you easily can maintain a single digit handicap in high school and early college, with little practice vs people I see who play 6 days a week, hit away at the range, and still have an 18 cap; could you get good enough to at least attempt to make it on some professional level, if you were able to spend 8 hours a day working on your game like most people spend 8 hours a day at the office?  I tend to think that if you have at least some natural ability then putting in 8 hours a day, possibly 7 days a week, could produce a tournament ready- plus handicap golfer. 

[extrastiff]

35 minutes ago, Pmookie said:

Look, if one first doesn’t have the talent, one’s not getting on Tour no matter how much they “grind”, so let’s just agree that talent is more important.

Talent is a vague term, but I believe if someone was to work with respected Neurologists, therapists, and world class golf instructors And has a ridiculous work ethic that’s golf 24/7 for years, Any physically capable person could do it.

 

nature vs nurture. Good luck getting us to “just agree” 

Edited February 26, 2021 by extrastiff

[KRAMER1997]

2 minutes ago, PoolPond said:

My question has always been, if you have some sort of natural golfing ability, let's say you easily can maintain a single digit handicap in high school and early college, with little practice vs people I see who play 6 days a week, hit away at the range, and still have an 18 cap; could you get good enough to at least attempt to make it on some professional level, if you were able to spend 8 hours a day working on your game like most people spend 8 hours a day at the office?  I tend to think that if you have at least some natural ability then putting in 8 hours a day, possibly 7 days a week, could produce a tournament ready- plus handicap golfer. 

Yeah honestly if let's say a 15 year old kid is a scratch without putting in too much work to get to that, they could be a plus handicap if they put in the 8 hours a day for 3-4 years. Maybe this means a future on tour.

[jordan2240]

We tend to assume that people who have a certain level of success in a field have a natural talent for it, but I'd suggest that passion and the willingness to want to do something are far more important, and can negate not having a 'natural talent'.  When I was younger, the Philadelphia Phillies had a shortstop named 'Kevin Stocker'.  His tenure wasn't very long, but he did make it to the major leagues.  I recall him claiming that he didn't really feel he had a natural talent for baseball, but got where he did through hard work.  And we all know the story about how Michael Jordan got cut from his high school b-ball team.

[Ferguson]

8 minutes ago, Pmookie said:

Or, if one DID read the question, then they WOULD pick natural talent because it’s more important!

You might need a snickers this morning.......

 

Again, Mr. Kramer did not ask about a specific level of importance.  

 

He asked - as a golfer, would you rather be a grinder by category or a natural talent by category?

 

 

[Pmookie]

Just now, extrastiff said:

Talent is a vague term, but I believe if someone was to work with respected Neurologists, therapists, and world class gold instructors And has a ridiculous work ethic for years, Any physically capable person could do it.

 

nature vs nurture. Good luck getting us to “just agree” 

Sure. Someone MAY be able to do it, but there isn’t a guy on Tour that was a 15 handicap that just put his time in and became a Tour Pro. They have to have natural talent, even enough to play in college, at minimum. There’s a guy here at our local CC who played in college, won tournaments, but wasn’t the best in his conference. He had the minimum natural talent needed to even think about being a Pro and he put the time in and did it. He won once on Tour, and he then he lost his card. He was a grinder. Spent hour after hour. His parents were wealthy so he had the means. But, he had some natural talent first...

If I’m on Tour, I want the natural talent first. Grinders just have to do so much more to just get even with a natural talent. A natural talent falls out of bed and shoots 70. A grinder can’t...

 

Lastly, if anyone on here thinks that someone EVER is just going to “agree”, they need their head examined. Someone can make a firm point, knowing there will ALWAYS be dissent. It’s what these boards are for...

 

[Pmookie]

1 minute ago, Ferguson said:

 

Again, Mr. Kramer did not ask about a specific level of importance.  

 

He asked - as a golfer, would you rather be a grinder by category or a natural talent by category?

 

 

Here is the direct quote:

”Which category would you rather fall into if you played, someone who just plugs away and has to work a bit harder and grind more to succeed.”

If you played.... Played on Tour is my assumption, since he referenced commentary on TV and the mention of two Tour Pros... Grind like Furyk, or natural talent like Mickelson.

You have to BE a natural talent to even get on Tour first, so.... I’d rather BE a natural talent.

 

[Ferguson]

2 minutes ago, Pmookie said:

Sure. Someone MAY be able to do it, but there isn’t a guy on Tour that was a 15 handicap that just put his time in and became a Tour Pro. They have to have natural talent, even enough to play in college, at minimum. There’s a guy here at our local CC who played in college, won tournaments, but wasn’t the best in his conference. He had the minimum natural talent needed to even think about being a Pro and he put the time in and did it. He won once on Tour, and he then he lost his card. He was a grinder. Spent hour after hour. His parents were wealthy so he had the means. But, he had some natural talent first...

If I’m on Tour, I want the natural talent first. Grinders just have to do so much more to just get even with a natural talent. A natural talent falls out of bed and shoots 70. A grinder can’t...

 

Lastly, if anyone on here thinks that someone EVER is just going to “agree”, they need their head examined. Someone can make a firm point, knowing there will ALWAYS be dissent. It’s what these boards are for...

 

 

 

Read some history on Matt Kuchar.   Can't stand the guy (or his dad), but he built a pro career on hard work and grinding. 

 

 

 

[extrastiff]

2 minutes ago, Pmookie said:

Sure. Someone MAY be able to do it, but there isn’t a guy on Tour that was a 15 handicap that just put his time in and became a Tour Pro. They have to have natural talent, even enough to play in college, at minimum. There’s a guy here at our local CC who played in college, won tournaments, but wasn’t the best in his conference. He had the minimum natural talent needed to even think about being a Pro and he put the time in and did it. He won once on Tour, and he then he lost his card. He was a grinder. Spent hour after hour. His parents were wealthy so he had the means. But, he had some natural talent first...

If I’m on Tour, I want the natural talent first. Grinders just have to do so much more to just get even with a natural talent. A natural talent falls out of bed and shoots 70. A grinder can’t...

 

Lastly, if anyone on here thinks that someone EVER is just going to “agree”, they need their head examined. Someone can make a firm point, knowing there will ALWAYS be dissent. It’s what these boards are for...

 

U said “let’s just agree,” not me...

 

Your anecdotal example is not enough proof for me. 
 

everyone started as a high cap. no one was born into shooting in the 70s lol
 

I believe Some guys on tour didn’t start golf till their late teens, I’m too lazy to research all that tho.