Pacific Northwest

Back in Portland. Flew cross country last Wednesday for a meeting with Nike and an all-day interview with Alan Bastable of Golf Magazine.

The week before heading here I was hitting the ball well and had high hopes for shooting some good scores back on my old Portland haunts. As I’ve come to realize way too many times, (define insanity: doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result) when I have high expectations for my game the floor is about to drop and I can expect to back pedal for a while. Having not realized that quite yet, I went out and played a jet-lagged round with Alan at Columbia Edgewater Thursday morning and shot a very disappointing 90. Then, went to Rose City on Sunday morning thinking I could destroy that course and came away with a bogey-riddled 89. Both rounds were demoralizing and were good reasons to step back for a second and analyze what went wrong.

First off, expectations are killers in this game. You must have confidence and faith in your shots, but cannot afford to enter a round expecting a certain result, especially if it’s a better result than you have ever gotten on that course. I would have been much better off approaching these rounds like I had been approaching rounds in Georgia: preparing for battle and only thinking about the shot directly in front of me. I had been on a good streak because my mental game was there and my assumptions were not overcoming my abilities.

Second: Adjust for putting. I majorly complicated the putting game by switching putters for the trip. For the past 5 weeks I have been putting with a mallet putter and have slowly gotten used to the roll of the ball from this style putter. I decided to leave that putter in Atlanta and to use my old Anser style putter while in Portland. What I didn’t do was practice with it before either round. I took a few warm-up putts and then went off to play the round and that was a horrible idea. Not only are the greens here extremely different in speed than the one’s that I’ve been putting on in Georgia, but mallet putters and blade (or Anser style) putters have different masses to them so the same stroke applies a different amount of force. F=MA for the physics peeps. I left EVERY putt short, it was almost comical in that “haha, you three-putted again” way. No matter how hard I tried to hit the ball it kept coming up short.

Third: Adjust for style of fairways. The fairways here are wet and muddy. The grass comes up in huge divots and it’s easy to have a club pull off an inch of sod with it. In Georgia, the fairways were firm and the ball would compress off of the ground when you struck it. Here in Portland you have to clean pick your shots or the ball will just sink in mud. I didn’t realize it while playing in Georgia, but my swing has actually changed in how/where it impacts the ball. I’ve started coming down more on the ball to pinch it against the ground, but out here that just results in muddy shots coming up a hair short. Mix this with the fact that the temps here are about 20 degrees cooler and the same sticks produce different distances. It took me a bit (36 holes) to figure out, but my shots are about 8 yards shorter out here due to the different conditions both in the air and on the fairways.

None of these reasons are excuses for the two bad rounds, but they are things that I need to be aware of and make mental notes moving forward. It’s golf everywhere and everywhere it’s golf, but it’s never the exact same game. This is one of the best things about this game. No matter where you go people are playing and taking on the challenges of their local courses/climates, but those challenges differ all over the world. This is another reason why the greats are so great; they can change and adapt their games to whatever conditions they currently find themselves in. Golf is not played in a bubble, so you have to be able to play well no matter what is thrown at you. I learned that the hard way by expecting to play well without respecting the change in elements and style of course play. Lesson learned. I can guarantee you that I’ll be paying attention during practice rounds..

Despite the scores, it’s good to be back in Oregon and it feels wonderful to get back to my home course. Early Thursday morning I noticed the crispness of the air and how green everything was out at Columbia. It’s a sharp contrast to the dormant Bermuda in the south and I was happy to hit balls on the range in the morning fog as I’ve done almost every day for the past 20 months. I’m never a fan of poor performance, but if I had to shoot a disappointing round I couldn’t imagine a better place to be.

The Nike meeting went pretty well too.

14 Responses to "Pacific Northwest"

Tony Lawrence says:

February 13, 2012 at 12:12 am

Too right, Dan! For those of us who live in small countries (Britain), where the weather is pretty much the same right across the territory, there’s summer golf and winter golf. Completely different animals. And then, of course, you get links golf – which, again, seems to turn the game on its head. As you say, it’s what makes the game so wonderful… and sorts the really good from the lesser good (I remain firmly in the ‘lesser good’ camp – put me on a windy links course and I get shredded!) Keep it up!
Simon says:

February 13, 2012 at 7:14 am

*pat* *thumbs up* *wink* 8)
Williamevanl says:

February 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm

You probably know this but one of golf’s major myths is that the ball ‘pinches’ off the ground. That obviously doesn’t happen (would make hitting off a tee impossible )

Wet fairways do certainly punish fat shorts more then dry hard ones, a couple cm fat and your club slides into the turf like butter resulting in a solid layer of mud between the clubface and your ball as well as contact high on the face.

Anyway, question for you Dan, do you suppose if we had grabbed 500 kids in 9th grade and had them practice as much as you have, do you suppose some would be not as good some, way better or do you think they would all be around 11 handicaps give or take a few strokes?
dan says:

February 13, 2012 at 9:52 pm

Tony,

Links golf is completely different! A good windy links course is like playing on the moon. It’s awesome and completely different.

Thanks for the comment and for reading the blog!

Dan
dan says:

February 13, 2012 at 10:02 pm

WIlliam,

I’ve thought about that a good bit. I think that if you had 500 kids who all were eager about learning the game and they spent the same amount of time practicing as I have I think that they would be anywhere from about a 8-12 handicap. There are so many variables in the human condition, but if all 500 had a passion for learning and had the same amount of time and same coaching then I would imagine that the learning curve would be similar. I think that the largest variable in the equation would be coaching. Having a good coach can be a complete game changer.

What do you think?
Rob says:

February 14, 2012 at 5:05 pm

Hey there Dan.
I’m in Brunei Darussalam on the island of Borneo. I saw this (different conditions scenario) 1st hand recently. My father-in-law arrived from sth France in fine form at around 15 handicap. Here in the tropics he constantly struggled with distances and putting. He was reduced to a handicap of around 22+ for three weeks. He then flew out to Australia and promptly started playing to a much better handicap (12-13). France was cold and dry semi firm fairways, Brunei Hot and humid and wet and muddy fairways, Australia hot and dry and firm bouncy fairways! I think the old horses for courses principle applies here! You planning on doing some international golf any time soon? Surely your new multi million dollar Nike deal should cover expenses!! LOL!

Cheers

Rob
Williamevanl says:

February 14, 2012 at 6:03 pm

I would expect what you generally see whenever you graph any natural process (in this case kids of varying degrees of innate ability combined with practice) so:

So something like 68% would be between 8 and 12, 13% would likely be from 12-16, another 13% between 4-8, 2% from 16-20, another 2% between 0 and 4. If the sample size was large enough I’d expect the upper and lower reaches to be even farther reaching.

If you had 100,000 people put that much practice in I’d expect several plus handicaps to come out of that and if your sample size was several million I’d expect some tour level ability in there.
Williamevanl says:

February 14, 2012 at 6:06 pm

^ of course the image didn’t pop up:
Link

[img] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/325px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png [/img]
dan says:

February 14, 2012 at 10:34 pm

Hi Rob,

Wow, a reader in Borneo. That’s cool! Good to know others go through the same predicaments when changing climates. It’s a tough switch!

Big Nike deal, haha, yeah. If there was a budget of any kind I would love to play in different countries. Australia, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Dubai…. Lots to learn in these places!

Cheers,

Dan
dan says:

February 14, 2012 at 10:40 pm

Hi William,

In your opinion, why would the results be this way if you had a sample of 500 kids who were equally excited about training and who had the same coach and put in the same amount of quality time? Seems like most of the studies that I’ve read the main difference between eventual results was in number of hours put in as well as passion for the activity. There is going to be a debate on “talent” this weekend on http://www.creativitypost.com/ Not sure of the exact time or date yet, but will let you know.

Thanks for the comments!

Dan
Charlie says:

February 15, 2012 at 4:40 pm

If I may pipe up here… In my opinion the 10,000 hours debate hinges on whether 10,000 hours is a necessary or a sufficient condition for attaining mastery of a particular discipline. From what little I know from cursory readings of the popular literature, it appears that it is a necessary condition, in that most people who’ve achieved greatness (in sports, dance, music, chess, certain academic fields…) have invested an extraordinary amount of time, verging on the “magic” 10,000 mark. (100 hours a month for 8-10 years.)

Now, thanks to Dan, we are engaged in a great, civil experiment, testing whether 10,000 hours of deliberate practice will be sufficient to ensure “distinction” or “mastery” of one measurable skill for one particular individual. The weakness of the experiment, of course, is that even if Dan succeeds, we don’t know for sure whether he possesses some extraordinary innate gift for golf. If he succeeds, though, I think many people will be persuaded of the power of the 10,000-hours-as-sufficient argument. If he doesn’t succeed, many people will conclude that this counterexample disproves the entire theory. Perhaps, after all, there’s such a thing as an inborn gift for golf greatness (not Jones/Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods greatness, just top-200 in the world greatness) and that no amount of practice can elevate to that level a person who lacks the gift.

I apologize for being so long-winded here, but as Dan knows, in my twenties I invested a lot time and energy testing the theory in my own way. Since then, as a high school coach for a couple of decades, I’ve thought about it more. On the one hand, I’ve seen kids with average “talent” become, through hard work, top-of-the-league good at distance running, defeating far more naturally “talented” runners in the process. On the other hand, most of the top marathoners in the world — who’ve trained very hard indeed, for 10-15 years — seem to possess raw speed that made them exceptionally good high school runners at the beginning of their careers. Could they have become NBA players if they’d played basketball instead of running? Could Charles Barkley have become a sub-2:20 marathoner if he’d run instead of playing hoops?

In golf there are thousands of scratch players, many of whom haven’t practiced for 10,000 hours. The question is, are there (m)any golfers who HAVE practiced (deliberately) for more than a decade without being good enough to make a living on the mini-tour circuit, let alone the PGA Tour? I think there are, but who knows?

Thank you, Dan, for being willing to invest 6-7 years of your life to provide the world with a fascinating story and one small but priceless point of reference.
dan says:

February 17, 2012 at 9:25 am

Hi Charlie,

Thank you for piping up on this! I tend to agree with you, especially about the unfortunate situation of having an experiment with an N of 1. If only there were funds to have 10,000 people do this for 10,000 hours, that would tell a great story, but would also break many a bank. You have a very unique situation in that you had a serious pursuit of your own and then have been coaching for years since then. I appreciate your insight and am glad to have you in my corner as this pushes forward.

Thanks again and talk with you soon!

Dan
Sima says:

February 18, 2012 at 5:01 am

Charlie,

I’d be very interested to hear more of your reflections on both your own experience as a young athlete and about particularly your early days of coaching.

I went to see my old primary school teacher a few days ago – she was an excellent teacher and taught for about 40 years – and I asked her about talent. Did she believe some kids were just talented? She was certain that some kids just “have it”.

I played a pretty good level of amateur sport for many years and had the opportunity to play with and against some very good players. I knew I didn’t have the natural ability to go and make a career of it, but I saw some who did. I think it took me most of my playing career before I clearly recognised that some people were really doing very well with apparently very limited talent. Perhaps they were “dumb enough” to keep plugging away, even though they didn’t have that magic. There were also a good number of players who seemed to “over-perform” – they had a level of “confidence” beyond that which their level of ability warranted, yet this confidence (if that’s what it was) seemed to carry them to achievement. Of course, I also saw a few people who seemed almost supremely gifted, yet wasted it. I would sometimes hear people say, “Oh, if I had half his talent, I’d be a world-beater.” I just admired such people, as much for their inconsistency as for their occasional brilliance. Finally, watching players at the highest level, there were one or two people who played extremely well *and* made it look extremely easy. When things went badly for them (as it must for everyone at some point) they would be criticised for “not trying”. Yet I would occasionally hear mutterings that, “They only make it look easy, because they work so hard.” Obviously, I found that very hard to swallow!

I eventually decided that to some extent, one needed to be “dumb enough” (to keep plugging away) and have a certain faith or confidence (that results will eventually follow).

But then, as a coach, I was presented again with one or two exceptional people who just seemed to “get it” right away. When taught a new technique, they would just be able to do it (pretty much) right off. Others would take hours of coaching to get close to what those “talented ones” achieved in a few minutes. Despite everything I’ve learnt in the past few years, it’s very easy to believe my primary school teacher is right. Some people just “have it”.

I’d love to know how your view of talent (Charlie, or anyone else) has changed with your experience. Were you told that you were “talented”? Did you believe you were? Did you see others who seemed to be more talented than you? Did you believe you could surpass those more talented that yourself, if only you put in enough work? Have your ideas about talent changed significantly over your years of coaching?
Juan says:

February 19, 2012 at 9:54 am

ALL my life, I have seen others more talented than me. In sports, in certain business related skills,etc. BUT, I would never let them outwork me. Could I be as good as them… I found out NO, but I could be a LOT better than I was.

My perspective regarding talent has not really changed. My believe that people can maximize THEIR performance given their talent level has also not changed.

From my personal experience, I believe that certain physical and mental characteristics are critical as baselines in sports.

For example, there are no 4 feet tall NBA basketball players, Spud Webb at 5’2″ was the was smallest in modern history. In the NFL few quarterbacks make it successfully who do not have average or above average IQs.

Given you are “in the range” I believe that focused, deliberate practice can allow you to maximize your performance based on your potential. Can we all achieve NBA, NFL, PGA, tennis championship status,… I dont’ think so. What I do know is that if you are not in the range and you do not invest SIGNIFICANTLY in practice and have a great coach, you will probably not make it.

So practice, coaching, “being in the range”, are all neccessity but maybe not sufficient to real world class. BUT the journey is a tremendous learning experience that can positively shape your life.

No matter what Dan achieves, I am his fan and I know that he will be a better person AND more successful as a result of this fantastic journey.

Cheering him on from Tampa.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply