What's going on at Columbia?

[Tugu]

1 hour ago, GranEnemigo said:

I was there as a graduate student and half-thought about trying out for the team, but only had 1 year of eligibility left (having wasted 4 years on cross-country in undergrad) and honestly wasn't good enough anyway. I practiced with them a few times (mostly to save money vs. the nice simulator rooms in NYC). This was a few years ago, and they all seemed like nice kids, but if you looked at their swings/TrackMan numbers, they didn't exactly scream elite D1. Honestly, they seemed focused on their studies and preparing for the next phase in their lives, whether it be graduate work or a business career. My guess is most of them were aiming to become management consultants, medical devices salesmen, or Wall Street brokers who could take some clients to the golf course and impress them with a low 70s/high 60s round from the member tees.

Instead of excusing them, why not just say their golf results reflects what they are focused in?

 

Why be in a competitive endeavor and accept the recognition of being amongst elite company if you aren't even working at the craft in any serious way? Reminds me of guys in school who would say "I'd have gotten an A if I studied." 

[GranEnemigo]

13 minutes ago, Tugu said:

Instead of excusing them, why not just say their golf results reflects what they are focused in?

 

Yeah, they aren't focused on golf. Honestly, I don't blame them. What person in their right mind would want to spend time locked in an ugly sim room beating balls into a net, when they have the academic resources of a tier one research university and live in one of the world's greatest cities? 

 

CU athletics are long-standing joke anyway. If you think the golf is bad, take a look at the football and basketball programs. I can assure you no one affiliated with the university cares as much you about the golf team.

[golfdad1]

5 hours ago, oks871 said:

That kid qualified for the US am last year. So did Nathan Han. If you "want to see his JGS ranking and junior tournament schedule, those are very easily google-able. 

 

You guys are being really brutal on these kids, and frankly it's messed up and unfair. They're playing a tournament in Mexico, in March, after spending the winter living in New York City and going to one of the hardest schools in the country. They are playing a very hard course in a very hard field, against schools that get to play and practice outdoors all year. Stop judging them and slandering their abilities. They're 18-22 year old kids and you guys are a bunch of full grown adults who would get slapped around by each of them on your home courses. 

This. And do you people have anything better to do than pick on these Ivy kids?  It seems to be a theme lately.

[Tugu]

5 hours ago, oks871 said:

That kid qualified for the US am last year. So did Nathan Han. If you "want to see his JGS ranking and junior tournament schedule, those are very easily google-able. 

Here is the +64 kids own college bio from 22/23. Are they cyberbullying him too? Or is a +3 / T12 as best result of the year disqualify him from very very very good status? This result should drop him from 1800+ ranking to near 2000.

 

If anyone cares enough, go see the junior golf bio. Not sure if I'm more shocked he was recruited, he's on the team or that someone left that bio up on the website. It's a accurate description of someone who is near the 2000th ranked golfer in college.

[Tugu]

10 minutes ago, golfdad1 said:

This. And do you people have anything better to do than pick on these Ivy kids?  It seems to be a theme lately.

I'll take the brunt of this. It started and continued when I noticed people suggesting that these guys are real golfers belonging on the same stage as others who are devoted to the craft of golf.

 

Be it weather, academic rigor, facilties or any one the myriad of excuses, there's always some reason that these guys are somehow equally skilled at golf. 

 

Seemingly golfers can't make the same claim academically and openly admit to not being focused on their studies. There's no show boating that they are on equal footing as the genuinely academically talented. They don't seek accolades for their average academic endeavors.

 

But there's an endless parade of suggestions that IVY kids are every bit as skilled in golf as those who focus on it. Ie. Brian Ma of Harvard is deserving of a spot on Stanford or the +64 kid is a very good golfer. The stats just don't support such suppositions and yet they persist.

Edited March 6 by Tugu

[LawGenius305]

2 hours ago, oks871 said:

Right, they're playing a competitive COLLEGE sport. They are amateurs, not professionals- they are not competing to entertain you, they aren't getting paid, they are there to get an education and compete at a high level against their peers. People are saying they aren't actual golfers; they must be legacy admission; Columbia is recruiting in the "clearance bin" when they are very, very, very good players. You cannot criticize them the same way you would professional athletes, because they are not. Professionals deal with the criticism because they are paid to do so. They're paid to train, compete, and interview with the media and answer for themselves. These kids are not compensated to do that. Hell, they're not compensated at all, because Ivy League schools do not give athletic scholarship.

 

Oh great, they're young adults, not kids. That gives you permission to cyberbully a college athlete behind his back because he had a bad week on the course? Give me a break. What were you doing at 20 years old? Were you a mature adult with full control of your emotions, mental wellbeing, and able to process external criticism after putting yourself on a stage for a bunch of people on the internet to tell you that you don't deserve to be where they are? These athletes deserve support and encouragement for putting going out there and seeing where they stack up against the best teams in the country, not be lambasted by random internet commenters.

 

The argument that everyone in here would lose to these kids highlights that you have no idea how hard it is to play at this level. Unless you played at this level, you have no idea what it takes to 1. get to and 2. compete at this level. In essence, it says you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to playing competitive division 1 college golf. These kids are all likely in the 95th percentile on their SAT and ACT test scores, and are likely in the 99.5th percentile in their golfing ability.

 

If your kid went out there and shot 90 3 times, would you say to him/her "oh wow you look like you've never played golf before!" If so, I really hope you don't have kids. If you do, think about a time where your kid gave it everything they had to come up short, and got back in the car crying. Did you laugh in their face? Tell them they clearly don't belong at the level they're at? Tell them that they should've just played better? Give these athletes (KIDS) some grace. Would you say the things that have been said in this thread to their face? Or to any 22 year old's face?

 

You can blame the scheduler for putting these kids in this situation, you can offer constructive criticism to the kids on what they can learn from this experience, but it's not right to sit here and criticize them without an inkling of an idea of what they're doing. And sure, I guess you can judge them if you want, but to sit on an internet forum and make jokes at their expense? I think that's quite inappropriate.

Cyber bully would be to send them messages and post on their social media pages. This is hardly cyber bullying. 

 

Anyway. Blocked. 

[oks871]

58 minutes ago, Tugu said:

Where to begin? Probably at the beginning.

 

Fact: Their continuous record says they are not even good players, much less than the triple emphasis you gave to the word very. If they are good, what does the world say of those who have actually dedicated their lives to perfecting their craft? That your dedication and devotion will not in fact be recognised. Those kids who study a ton will have their academics recognised one day, but your golf craft and theirs are both good.

 

If this were an academic forum, noone would be saying Nick Dunlap or Gordon Sargent is a very very very good student and that his test scores are equivalent to that of a Putnam maths winner and only lower due to him being so devoted to golf.

 

Payment to professionals.

 

Ask any pro if their remuneration linked to being critiqued. I belive most would suggest their payment is for performance.

 

Ivy scholarships or lack thereof.

 

You should do some research on how IVY get around this.

 

Cyberbully

I see some virtue signalling here. Why trot out an accusation when you can just show their superior records and say you got it wrong? Could it because they don't exist? You certainly can't show any wins. 

 

At 20

 

I played pennants on the same team as Steve Elkington's brother Rob in Oz. Had thoughts of turning pro before deciding I was crap when compared to older guys I had teed it up against, Stuart Appleby, Robert Allenby etc.

 

But the "you can't comment because you didn't do it" is probably weaker than the accusations of Cyberbullying. So now that I've put out my bonafides, is anything I say in golf more worthy than your words? So I won the pro am at the long island Lightpath classic and now coached a recruited golfer and a nationally ranked kid, shall I not dignify your opinion cause my kids and I have won stuff? Or should I actually take your points and examine the merit behind them?

 

Re my boy

 

Studies Comp sci and is on a D1 team. Got injured and sick early losing 40 pounds, struggles now to manage his game in the face of a busy academic schedule. Truth is his golf is terrible right now. But it ain't 60 over terrible. 

 

Little one doesn't know how to handle his day to day. Had to goto event on his own, got stuck at airport when flight cancelled. Missed practice round. Didn't sleep or eat overnight and shot it up. He sucked that time. But he's won his share in America and overseas (including a national title when he was younger). 

 

These guys have Columbia have NOT won. The +27 guy won not even once when he was IVY player of the year. That's not bullying, it's just fact.

 

Last thing I would say is its a competitive endeavor. If you are shooting North of 90 a day, don't hide behind "academic rigor" or "no scholarship" or "bad facility" or "winter break" or "new york City blues" to excuse your own ineptitude. My elder boys school doesn't have indoor facilties or hitting studios or artifical putting greens with slope adjustments or anything of the sort. Coach doesnt even hold practice! Should he start using that as a crutch for his lack of performance? Similarly his labs are not of the same league as Stanford, should he use that as a explanation for employers going forward?

 

"If they are good, what does the world say of those who have actually dedicated their lives to perfecting their craft? That your dedication and devotion will not in fact be recognised. Those kids who study a ton will have their academics recognised one day, but your golf craft and theirs are both good."

 

I don't really know what you're trying to say here, especially that last sentence. Are you saying these kids haven't worked hard to get where they are? That they haven't spent the last 20 years trying to be the best golfer they can be? Do you know any of them? Have you seen any of them play and practice? Do you think they were trotted out there as some sacrificial lamb? Do you think they're little Johnny from your local country club who plays 10 times a year and got on the team based on nepotism? It's disingenuous at best, at worst, it's ignorant and reductive.

 

They are incredibly good players. Two of them qualified for the US Am just last year. "Not even good" players don't qualify for the US Am. If Nick Dunlap or Gordon Sargent were competing in the International Math Olympiad but getting smoked, I would absolutely consider them very very very good students and mathematicians, on the merit of what it took to get there, and how hard high-level mathematics is. I would also consider their activities outside mathematics and say hey, it's very impressive that these kids are spending so much time on their golf while still having what it takes to compete at this high of an academic level- not tear them down because they came up short.

 

Facing the media is part of the job of a professional athletes. They are paid to play, yes, but they are also paid to face the media and take the criticism on behalf of themselves and their teams. Leagues have mandatory media appearances (Marshawn Lynch: "I'm just here so I don't get fined") because these players are paid to be the public image of the league; part of that includes facing the media. Further, they are paid by their sponsors to be the face of their brand, so yeah, they are paid to step up and be public-facing figures, and answer for their performance. College kids are not. You could argue that college kids are compensated with NIL and scholarship, but these kids from Columbia are not.

 

Ivy leagues: As someone mentioned in this thread, all ivy league tuition money is need-based. They do not give out merit based scholarships, even for academics. Further, Columbia is fairly notorious for having horrific institutional support for their athletic programs. Many in the student body and in the faculty believe they take away spots in the school from more deserving, academically inclined kids. What "research" do you suggest I do? Take the word of some guy on the internet with no evidence, just a "trust me bro?" On the whole, programs aren't "getting around it." I know several ivy league athletes; they (and their parents) paid sticker price, and a quick google search shows that yeah, these schools don't give tuition assistance unless you demonstrate need.

 

Cyberbullying: you might think it is virtue signaling, but I am "trotting out this accusation" to get it through your brains that this type of talk about KIDS isn't acceptable. What people are doing in this thread (you included) is cyberbullying. You are targeting amateur athletes, saying they are s*** players, not worthy to hold the title of division 1 golfers, because they had a bad showing. Using "facts" to lambast kids over the internet doesn't make it not bullying, especially when you're trying to use it as "evidence" that these kids don't deserve to be in the place that they are. Further, this Columbia team came runner up at Ivy's last year and won two tournaments this year! So your argument of "they haven't won anything" is just wrong. Individually, they have very strong junior golf records; go look at their player profiles.

 

Congratulations on your accomplishments at 20. Did you deserve to have strangers berating you for your performance when you played poorly on a difficult course? or when you were over your head when it came to the fields you were in?

 

You can't comment because you can't do it: the fact of the matter is you haven't played at this level, while simultaneously attending one of the most academically rigorous schools in America, dealing with social life, extracurriculars, and job/internship searching. You could say that these kids shouldn't have flown to Mexico and played, to which I would probably agree with you, but that isn't their fault. They don't set the schedule. The crux of my argument is that IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION you don't know what these kids are dealing with, so it's not your place to sit in some sort of ivory tower and tell them they're bad golfers because you saw results from one tournament, especially when it has little to zero impact on your day to day life. The fact of the matter is you didn't make any cogent points about the program, or offer any sort of "points." What did you say? You said that these kids are trash, that they don't deserve to play at the Division 1 level, that this "stud" doesn't even play golf, and that this program "can't be college golf." You logged on to this website, and decided your best course of action was to speak ill of these student athletes for no real gain to anyone involved.

 

Congratulations to your kids, I mean that earnestly. Playing well enough as a junior golfer to make it to Division 1 golf (which all of these Columbia players have, while also being incredible students) is extremely difficult. You say yourself your son isn't playing well right now. Would you tell him after a bad round that they should just "play better?" That they aren't real golfers because they shot 90 on a tournament condition course? That they don't belong at the D1 level should go play D3? Does it matter whether they shot +30, or +40, or +60? Or would you say you were proud of them for giving it their all, asking them what they think went wrong and discuss how they can address that in the future? In this situation, these kids deserve the same thing from you that your own kids do: grace, understanding, and if you have a strong rapport with the athlete, constructive criticism.

 

These kids aren't "shooting north of 90 a day," go look at their scoring averages. They shot north of 90 a couple times in one tournament. When Tiger Woods missed the cut at the Genesis, did you say that he was hiding behind his injuries? I'm sure you didn't, you gave him grace, were understanding of his situation, and did not take away from any of his past accomplishments. The situation is analogous. Your elder boy doesn't have access to the same practice facilities as the kids at Illinois or Arizona State do, and by extension, you don't expect them to show up and compete with them on a random week in Mexico after having zero access to outdoor facilities, outside of any sort of vacation or spring break trip.

 

Using academics, facilities, institutional support (or lack thereof), isn't hiding behind anything. It's a reason, it's creating understanding, and giving you the information you need to evaluate the situation holistically, instead of in a vacuum and then telling them they are bad players. Lack of access to high-level facilities (whether they be athletic or academic) can absolutely be a reason why one person does not perform at the level of someone with better access. Your son doesn't have access to the same compute power as kids at Stanford do, but employers can understand that and instead, evaluate his performance in the environment he was in. I hope they do just that, for your son's stake. That isn't making excuses, that's just taking each person as a sum of their experiences and evaluating them for what they've done, instead of pretending access to resources doesn't matter. Yes people go on to achieve great things with very little support all the time, however, these people are the exception and access to resources is what determines success for the lion's share of participants in all endeavors. Again, it's creating understanding of the situation these athletes are in.

[oks871]

35 minutes ago, LawGenius305 said:

Cyber bully would be to send them messages and post on their social media pages. This is hardly cyber bullying. 

 

Anyway. Blocked. 

Bullying includes making fun of people behind their backs. Cyberbullying is just bullying, over the internet.

[golferdad8]

Let’s table this Columbia golf team discussion for 8 months when Columbia seniors DJ Francey joins Wake Forrest & Nathan Han plays for Pepperdine. I’m a fan of these two guys & hope they’ll go & kick some butt.
 

Fwiw, this year Northwestern’s JD is doing an extra year at Arkansas & is doing great. With easier academics & warmer weather/facilities, my hope is all three will experience success. 

[Tugu]

10 hours ago, golferdad8 said:

Let’s table this Columbia golf team discussion for 8 months when Columbia seniors DJ Francey joins Wake Forrest & Nathan Han plays for Pepperdine. I’m a fan of these two guys & hope they’ll go & kick some butt.
 

Fwiw, this year Northwestern’s JD is doing an extra year at Arkansas & is doing great. With easier academics & warmer weather/facilities, my hope is all three will experience success. 

1 win during entire college career and the other with zero. All the while playing against weak fields filled with other disadvantaged golfers.

 

The one going to Stanford as a grad from Harvard at least had 2?

 

This is all as non newsworthy as when we used to hear about Dechambeau studying physics.