grinder vs naturally talented

[Pmookie]

Just now, extrastiff said:

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. 

Late teens? Perfect! Makes my point even further! Started later, had more natural talent to go with. Was easier.

Didn’t need to grind for years. They were born with it.

Again. Talent would be my choice.

[Pmookie]

3 minutes ago, extrastiff said:

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. 

And, to my point, that’s what boards are for. Discuss. I’m not easily swayed by one “anecdotal” example either. The value in my example is it was a real-life person. Brian Bateman. He has a history, won on Tour. Yep. One example. But, it’s a specific example. A real person and I know his history. Better to give concrete examples than talk with none...

[Pmookie]

8 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

I’ll get right on that!!! Thanks!

[extrastiff]

36 minutes ago, Pmookie said:

Late teens? Perfect! Makes my point even further! Started later, had more natural talent to go with. Was easier.

Didn’t need to grind for years. They were born with it.

Again. Talent would be my choice.

What lol? Ok... the majority started when they were young. So makes my point even further! Started earlier, has more nurture to go with. Was easier. 
they were in the grind for years.

again. Nurture would be my choice. 
 

32 minutes ago, Pmookie said:

And, to my point, that’s what boards are for. Discuss. I’m not easily swayed by one “anecdotal” example either. The value in my example is it was a real-life person. Brian Bateman. He has a history, won on Tour. Yep. One example. But, it’s a specific example. A real person and I know his history. Better to give concrete examples than talk with none...

well we disagree again.. giving concrete anecdotes and thinking it justifies general blanket statements is not “better” than presenting points without using anecdotal evidence. 
 

better is a vague term though 

Edited February 26, 2021 by extrastiff

[phizzy30]

1 hour ago, golfortennis said:

 

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.

Dustin Pedroia anyone?  Dude was a grinder and had heart.  He wasn't even a top prospect.  I played baseball in hs as a 2B and follow baseball. 

[extrastiff]

1 hour ago, golfortennis said:

 

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 extrastiff

[golfortennis]

11 minutes ago, extrastiff said:

So it’s 24-36.  So u are probably right, those last two inches probably will take him the rest of his life and he will never reach it... 🤔

 

another one just for fun. Only 9 inches in 30 days...

 

so yea you are right it must be literally physically impossible to do 14 inches over a lifetime

 

 

Ok, so the first guy had his growth while he was growing.  Started when he was 15. Of course a growing kid will see gains.  Let's see a 25 year old do that.

 

As to the second guy, well if what is basically an infomercial for a guy's "program."  If you want to believe it, feel free.   Better yet, what is your SVJ currently?  And let us know the number after the 30 days of the program.

 

I bought one of those "increase 6 inches in 6 weeks" programs once. In high school.  Followed it to the letter.  I'll be generous and say it got me 2.  The central nervous system can only do what it can do.  You have it or you don't. 

 

For those who will want to be pedantic, I am talking about Standing Vertical Jump.  These guys are running.  Mark Rippetoe has said plenty on this. Here is one thread:

 

 https://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/mark-rippetoe-q-and-a/54106-svj.html

 

 

[golfortennis]

30 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

Dustin Pedroia anyone?  Dude was a grinder and had heart.  He wasn't even a top prospect.  I played baseball in hs as a 2B and follow baseball. 

 

I played baseball growing up as well.  Pitched and played 3rd.  My dad ran into one of my teammates, whose dad was our coach, years after we stopped playing.  He told my dad that his dad always told him that if he worked as hard as I did, he would have been a helluva player.  I do know that I loved nothing more than spending hours out there swinging the bat, or fielding grounders, or working on pitching.  Yet I never got a sniff of playing any kind of high level.

 

Meanwhile, I have three nephews who work as hard as I did, and one was drafted by the Mets, another is likely to be drafted this year, and the third pitched in college.  The difference?  Talent.  

 

Dustin Pedroia has more talent in his his pinky finger than 99.5% of all baseball players on the planet.  He was MVP of his high school conference.  Career batting average of .384 at Arizona State.  He was a second round pick.  He was such a not top prospect the Red Sox gave his $575k signing bonus.  

 

Pedroia's "grinding" separated him from other equally talented players, but as I said, he was the best player until he got to the pros.  

[MUNIGRIT]

Natural Talent all day every day. Furyk was a natural talent too. I think when you say Grinder you are either talking about the website 🤪 or a guy like Ted Potter Jr.

Edited February 26, 2021 by MUNIGRIT

[Frankensteins Monster]

11 hours ago, MPAndreassi said:

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. 

Not necessarily. He could be someone who, if he worked on his game more, his game would suffer. He could get too technical and lose all his touch.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Frankensteins Monster

[Ironman_32]

When they said "grinder" or "bulldog" on TV I think its the same exaggeration when they "Tiger looks like a linebacker"...meaning, all these guys are grinding, the line between making it and not is so thin they need to. That term got thrown around a lot with Chris DiMarco and I guess Kisner now, but it's not like Tiger/Adam Scott wants it less then them. Its really just perception, we see a guy like Adam Scott, tall, long, picture perfect swing, we "expect" him to win, even though  you had guys like Trevino who are sniper status with there clubs, but their swing isn't as beautiful.  

 

Maybe some practice more than others,  like Bryson or VJ hitting balls, but it isn't Furyk is practicing 10 hours a day and Phil just shows up. I think they said grinder/bulldog, its a shorter hitter who doesn't look like they should compete. However, some guys need to hit a lot of balls to stay sharp, others dont, doesn't make them grinder or not. 

 

Would John Daly been better if he'd been more dedicated, maybe?, but maybe if he focused too long on practicing he would burn out. So maybe two majors was the best he could do. 

 

 

[PJE]

Grinder versus talented is just something TV personalities say because they need to fill airtime.  Anyone who stays on Tour is immensely talented and at some point has practiced hard. 

"Grinder" is a euphemism for someone who doesn't particularly excel in any area or who succeeds despite limited gifts but is still accomplished, e.g ,Furyk is not long but he's straight and he's been around a long time. 

"Talented" is a euphemism for someone who can hit spectacular shots with dramatically good or bad results.  Phil is called talented because he was long off the tee, had an unworldly short game, and was prone to highs, e.g, shot through the trees at the Masters, and lows, e.g, disaster at the 72nd hole of the US Open at Winged Foot. 

You need natural talent to get to the PGA Tour. Otherwise, all Golf WRX members, would be there, or at least on  the Korn Ferry Tour.  There's been stories of guys who said, "I will practice 10,000 hours and I will get to the Tour". Well that doesn't happen. 

Lots of professional athletes, including baseball players-another ball and stick sport-suck at golf as far as being Tour quality. Michael Jordan and Tim Tebow couldn't make it in professional baseball when they tried to switch sports. Bo Jackson, arguably the greatest athlete of all time, cannot play golf anywhere near Tour standards.

Some people can barely do arithmetic and others are theoretical mathematicians.   Bobby Fischer was a childhood chess prodigy whose skills only grew stronger with time.

Most golfers can practice all they want and they might become a pretty good club golfer but if you are going to make it to the top 125 on the Tour and stay there, you've got natural talent or a natural affinity for golf. 

 

[3whacker]

even TW has/had to grind at times  to make a cut line, whereas some guys just throw in the towel and are already thinking about catching the next flight out of town..the guys that are willing to grind also hate to lose or miss cuts, those are the guys I like to watch

[phizzy30]

1 hour ago, golfortennis said:

 

I played baseball growing up as well.  Pitched and played 3rd.  My dad ran into one of my teammates, whose dad was our coach, years after we stopped playing.  He told my dad that his dad always told him that if he worked as hard as I did, he would have been a helluva player.  I do know that I loved nothing more than spending hours out there swinging the bat, or fielding grounders, or working on pitching.  Yet I never got a sniff of playing any kind of high level.

 

Meanwhile, I have three nephews who work as hard as I did, and one was drafted by the Mets, another is likely to be drafted this year, and the third pitched in college.  The difference?  Talent.  

 

Dustin Pedroia has more talent in his his pinky finger than 99.5% of all baseball players on the planet.  He was MVP of his high school conference.  Career batting average of .384 at Arizona State.  He was a second round pick.  He was such a not top prospect the Red Sox gave his $575k signing bonus.  

 

Pedroia's "grinding" separated him from other equally talented players, but as I said, he was the best player until he got to the pros.  

Like you said bro, second round pick, not first.  Of course he had talent, agree with you there.  But let's face it, he ain't no Bryce Harper who went number one overall in the draft. 

[bscinstnct]

It’s awesome seeing pure talent in early stage.

 

This one kid in a neighboring town had D1 football written all over him.

 

One time, after his teams back fumbled, a guy on our D picked up the ball in stride and took off down the field.

 

This kid was an RB and from a standstill, he tore down the field and caught our guy who was like 30 yards downfield already. The rate at which he closed the distance was unreal. 
 

And this kid was 6’1, 200 pounds as a HS senior, not small. But, he went down the wrong road and never went anywhere with football.

 

The guys you see on tour are all a combination of huge talent and work in varying degrees.

 

Ideally, the pure talent finds passion and dedication to spend the thousands of hours required to compete at elite level no matter how talented you are. 

 

 

[extrastiff]

1 hour ago, golfortennis said:

 

Ok, so the first guy had his growth while he was growing.  Started when he was 15. Of course a growing kid will see gains.  Let's see a 25 year old do that.

 

As to the second guy, well if what is basically an infomercial for a guy's "program."  If you want to believe it, feel free.   Better yet, what is your SVJ currently?  And let us know the number after the 30 days of the program.

 

I bought one of those "increase 6 inches in 6 weeks" programs once. In high school.  Followed it to the letter.  I'll be generous and say it got me 2.  The central nervous system can only do what it can do.  You have it or you don't. 

 

For those who will want to be pedantic, I am talking about Standing Vertical Jump.  These guys are running.  Mark Rippetoe has said plenty on this. Here is one thread:

 

 https://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/mark-rippetoe-q-and-a/54106-svj.html

 

 

I was just messing with you. 
 

but I still doubt there is evidence that a physically able person could not become a professional athlete with the worlds best physical and mental training regiment, coupled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in top notch medical attention. 

 

Any quotes from respected scientists on the human limits that show this would not be possible?
 

it’s a hypothetical, and my money is on most humans have almost infinite potential, but accessing this potential probably takes self-actualizing mastery, environmental support, and luck I guess. 
 

 

 

[golfortennis]

15 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

Like you said bro, second round pick, not first.  Of course he had talent, agree with you there.  But let's face it, he ain't no Bryce Harper who went number one overall in the draft. 

 

Shawn Abner went first in the draft.  David Clyde went first in the draft.  

[golfortennis]

1 minute ago, extrastiff said:

I was just messing with you. 
 

but I still doubt there is evidence that a physically able person could not become a professional athlete with the worlds best physical and mental training regiment, coupled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in top notch medical attention. 

 

Any quotes from respected scientists on the human limits that show this would not be possible?
 

it’s a hypothetical, and my money is on most humans have almost infinite potential, but accessing this potential probably takes self-actualizing mastery, environmental support, and luck I guess. 
 

 

 

 

Ok, sorry, winter coop-up has me quick-trigger.

 

I think you would have to define "physically able."  Mentally I think your infinite potential has a bit more legs, although it has its limits as well, but physically, well, it's called the genetic lottery for a reason.  

[m d g]

Natural talent with discipline. I have natural talent at anything hand-eye related, but I just don't like to practice golf...I'd much rather play.

 

So I grind along as a 7 or 8 handicap, having taken one lesson in my life. 

 

I always complain that I'm not better, or wonder how good I could be at my age, but it's my own fault because I never practice.

[extrastiff]

2 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

Ok, sorry, winter coop-up has me quick-trigger.

 

I think you would have to define "physically able."  Mentally I think your infinite potential has a bit more legs, although it has its limits as well, but physically, well, it's called the genetic lottery for a reason.  

I think we have/had enough examples of pro golfers that did not win the “genetic lottery.”  Actually, more to my original point, I have no idea if they won the genetic lottery or not, because not everyone was/is working with top-notch medical teams and coaching staffs, and grinding like crazy on their physical fitness. Even tigers team probably should have tried a bit harder to cut down on the military boot jogging routine 🙂
 

Physically capable means not impaired in a way that makes repeating the golf swing more difficult, in my opinion. 

[Ferguson]

2 hours ago, Pmookie said:

I’ll get right on that!!! Thanks!

 

Also, you should check out Dan Coyle's book about talent (around 2009, i think?) and BF Skinner's work regarding operant conditioning. 

 

 

 

[golfortennis]

31 minutes ago, extrastiff said:

I think we have/had enough examples of pro golfers that did not win the “genetic lottery.”  Actually, more to my original point, I have no idea if they won the genetic lottery or not, because not everyone was/is working with top-notch medical teams and coaching staffs, and grinding like crazy on their physical fitness. Even tigers team probably should have tried a bit harder to cut down on the military boot jogging routine 🙂
 

Physically capable means not impaired in a way that makes repeating the golf swing more difficult, in my opinion. 

 

I like what Tom Kite had to say in "Golf is not a game of perfect."  He brought up Tom Weiskopf, and said because he was tall, had the long, smooth swing, everyone thought he had great talent.  Kite, on the other hand, was short, pasty-faced, his swing was not like Weiskopf's.  But overall, they both probably actually got what their talent allowed them to get.  

 

Like I said before, we all have a situation where we've worked hard at a sport for years, and a guy walks in having never touch the equipment, and comes in and beats us.  It's the genetic lottery.  It can't be trained.  The top notch medical, etc, you refer to, has to have a starting point.  I think endurance sports are a good example.  Pretty much the best way to reach your potential is to do more of it.  Well guess what?   Those who don't come on top don't work any less than those who do.  Some people are wired better. Vo2Max is another thing that can't really be trained to any significant degree.  

 

The old saying of "hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard" overlooks the fact that the hard work guy needs talent as well.   

[caniac6]

I would want to be the natural that grinds. I think Phil may have taken his ability for granted for awhile when he came out on tour, but you don't win that many tournaments or majors unless you put in the work.

[phizzy30]

3 hours ago, extrastiff said:

I was just messing with you. 
 

but I still doubt there is evidence that a physically able person could not become a professional athlete with the worlds best physical and mental training regiment, coupled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in top notch medical attention. 

 

Any quotes from respected scientists on the human limits that show this would not be possible?
 

it’s a hypothetical, and my money is on most humans have almost infinite potential, but accessing this potential probably takes self-actualizing mastery, environmental support, and luck I guess. 
 

 

 

I think you're correct in saying that most humans have infinite potential.  However, the biggest limiting factor is genetics.  For me, I'm 5'7 with short arms, however I'm still pretty strong in the gym in terms of compound lifts and I dedicate myself to plyometrics and other exercises as well.  Also, the amount of fast twitch fibers you are born with plays a huge role as well.  I'm actually impressed at how hard you swing, bro.  I have no doubt you work hard at what you do.  At the same time, you are taller than me with longer arms and I suspect you may have more fast twitch as well.  Don't get me wrong, I can get it out there too, but you're on another levels in terms of distance.  Physical attributes aside, I whole heartedly believe that people can maximize their talents/potential with what they are given at birth. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by phizzy30

[dbelles1]

I’d rather be a natural talent. There’s only so much that you can do to get better by grinding. You’ve all heard the phrase “hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard.” But if talent works hard then you have no shot at beating the naturally talented golfer/athlete when you hard your a** off all day. There’s so much more potential when your naturally talented. 

[bscinstnct]

One other thing to keep in mind is something Feinstein said in and interview for Tales From Q School. 

“Exactly. If you walk down the range at the first stage - there are 14 first stage sites of Q School every year - and just watch the guys swing a golf club, you couldn't tell the difference between them and the guys on the tour. They can all hit it 300 yards, they all have beautiful swings. The difference is that the guys at the top level can play under the most pressure. That's where you separate the men from the boys, the women from the girls in professional golf. It's your ability to repeat your swing under pressure and to make putts under pressure. “
 

So, there’s that extra dimension in addition to talent and grinding required for success at the highest level. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by bscinstnct

[swagee]

18 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?

As a grinder, I wish I’m a bit more talented. Grinding can only get u so far. 
I’ll chose to be like Phil every single day.

[Loki]

I'll take natural talent, because then you can do something with it if you are so inclined. All the GOAT'S are overachievers, grinders. Just ask Tiger, Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps, LeBron James, Tom Brady, Jack Nicklaus, Serena Williams. They all worked HARD to be No. 1.

[tannyhoban]

If I could pick I'd be like Bruce Lietzke was. Win 13 times taking significant time off. He was supremely talented.

[Soloman1]

A fade masquerades as natural talent.