% Able to Get to Scratch?

[slytown]

1 minute ago, Socrates said:

The bar is pretty high and it gets higher the better your hcp gets.  Night and day difference between scratch and say +2.  Just as there is between a 3 and a scratch.  It's like a quantum leap in skill.

 

I think people look at scratch as someone who hits 18 greens and 14 fairways every round. That's just not how it works. Sick of seeing people hit the range with 2 large buckets of balls and hope those buckets will make them scratch. There's so many other facets to a having a good round. For ball striking practice, I would rather ams hit 10 balls on the range and spend more time doing drills. Even then, it should only be 20% of your practice, not 100%. How many drivers do people hit in a round? 12? How many chip and pitch shots? Probably at least 20. I hit pretty well and still only hit maybe 9 greens a round.

[naval2006]

The % of golfers that can reach legit scratch in that context is almost zero.  A bunch can become low single digit, a whole lot can become mid/high single digit, but real scratch players are first naturally gifted for golf and that's when the % gets deeply down. 

 

All the scratch players I've known started playing as kids.  The best player I came across who took up the game as an adult was a guy in his mid 40's who won his Club Championship in the early 90's.  You saw it in his swing.  But his short game and putting were deadly.  He played to a legit 3/4 hdc back then which would have been scratch with the modern system.

[svlido]

If you take 10 guys that fit the criteria and just let them practice maybe one or two will get to scratch.  If you take 10 guys that fit that criteria plus show them how to organize their practice and their game the number is probably much higher.  If you do that plus give them lessons with a good instructor, the number is probably 6-8 out of 10.

 

  

[iacas]

First, let me point out that:

• This whole topic is all opinion, by everyone, so there is no "right" or "wrong." There's only "yeah, that makes sense, I agree" or "nah, I don't think that makes sense, I don't agree." There may be some supporting facts, but the end answer… nobody can really know, because it's not a known fact.
• I may be slightly more informed on this than others, as an instructor, but I don't lean on that much at all because y'all probably play a LOT more golf than I do, and with more "normal" people than those I see for lessons. So maybe you're more well informed on this topic than someone like @MonteScheinblum or me.
• I think a lot depends on how you take the word "could." Do you take it as "given absolutely perfect conditions"? Or do you take it as "if they had the idea to try to do it, given the real world"? I took as more of the latter, as "perfect conditions" don't exist, and the hypothetical is already stretched thin enough without adding fantasy.

All of that said… I voted ≤ 25%. And I'm not sure it's even close to that.

 

Let's consider human potential. Let's say that you believe the average male 20-40 has the physical attributes (hand-eye coordination, speed, body awareness/control, balance, adaptability, energy levels) to do what is physically required and the mental attributes (desire, aptitude, imagination, determination, willingness, etc.) to stick with it long enough to get to a +0.5 handicap.

 

If you believe that… then even you probably have to vote ≤ 25% because:

• If the average person can get to +0.5, roughly half of the people are worse than that ("roughly" because average ≠ median). They're just not getting there.
• The vast majority of the other half would require near perfect sequence of events to get there, including:
  • The right information…
  • …at right time…
  • …with the right practice and application…
  • … and no wasted time due to injuries, a misunderstanding, dip in desire, etc.
  • etc.

If you think human beings are physically capable, on average, of getting to +0.5, then that's not nearly enough to vote 50%+. Nor, I'd think, not enough to vote 25%+.

 

To vote for 50% let alone 75%, I think you have to be willing to say that the average male 20-40 can get to +4 or +5… which still leaves only a little margin of error in both of the things above:

• If the average is +4, there's still going to be some % of players two or three standard deviations worse who would come up shy of 0.0.
• Nobody's going to have a perfect pathway through their golf journey, so even the % that could get to +2 physically/mentally will be unlikely to get to 0.0. There will be diversions, setbacks, etc. Players who reach the PGA Tour could look back and change up several aspects of their journey, and they're several standard deviations to the good side.

I just can't get there at all. I don't think the average 20-40 year old can get to +4. That's some rarefied air.

 

As an instructor, I see a lot of players who take lessons, and these are players who are self selecting to not only play golf, but to take lessons. Nothing I've seen in those lessons dissuades me from voting ≤ 25%.

 

My Twitter poll is over, and it ended up here:

 

 

That's pretty similar to the current results here (with here being more "pessimistic" than Twitter):

 

 

So… for now, those are my thoughts.

[MelloYello]

🤦‍♂️

 

Explaining that it's hard or unlikely is kind of moot if the question is about whether or not something is possible.

 

 

Here's a tip from someone who's actually scratch....don't aim for a handicap index. I never did. I just got more involved with golf as time allowed. I spent more money, joined a club, made friends and committed more time. I adopted the golf lifestyle. That's what it takes. The more you do it, the better you'll get. 

 

Aim to get better. Let the index take care of itself. Analyze your game, decide where you need improvement, aim to reduce your costliest mistakes and celebrate anything that reduces stress. Commit as much time & energy as you can, be on the course at least as much as you practice and play competitively with money on the line so that every shot counts. Make as many golf friends as possible. Do golf stuff as often as you can manage (preferably everyday!) and let the chips fall where they may. 

 

"Chasing scratch" is one of the silliest things in the game. We all want to be good and there's certainly something "cool" about saying your scratch but the #1 thing is being good enough to have the most fun you can...and being that version of your "best self" is up to you. Aim to be that. Aim to get the most out of what you can commit. 

 

If your best effort takes you to a 2 or a 10 or a +4 that's all fine. There's no universal path to "scratch" other than spending a sh~t ton of time doing golf...which most adults simply can't. 

 

The thing standing in your way is probably your wife, your kids, your job...important things that take priority. So just spend the time you can and do as best as you can and aim to enjoy golf as the best player you can be, but don't get obsessed with handicap...there are a million things influencing that which are all different for everybody.

 

If you have 10 hours per week to spend on golf, great! Maybe that's not enough for you to get to scratch but you can be doing something productive with those 10 hours. There's a maximum gain and your job is simply to get as close to that as possible. 

.

Edited August 8, 2024 by MelloYello

[hanginnwangin]

17 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

🤦‍♂️

 

Explaining that it's hard or unlikely is kind of moot if the question is about whether or not something is possible.

 

 

Here's a tip from someone who's actually scratch....don't aim for a handicap index. I never did. I just got more involved with golf as time allowed. I spent more money, joined a club, made friends and committed more time. I adopted the golf lifestyle. That's what it takes. The more you do it, the better you'll get. 

 

Aim to get better. Let the index take care of itself. Analyze your game, decide where you need improvement, aim to reduce your costliest mistakes and celebrate anything that reduces stress, commit as much time/energy as you can, be on the course at least as much as you practice, make as many golf friends as possible, do golf as often as you can manage and let the chips fall where they may. 

 

"Chasing scratch" is one of the silliest things in the game. We all want to be good and there's certainly something "cool" about saying your scratch but the #1 thing is being your best...whatever that means. Aim to be that. 

 

If your best effort takes you to a 2 or a 10 or a +4 that's all fine. There's no universal path to "scratch" other than spending a sh~t ton of time doing golf...which most adults simply can't. 

 

The thing standing in your way is probably your wife, your kids, your job...important things that take priority. So just spend the time you can and do as best as you can and aim to enjoy golf as the best player you can be, but don't get obsessed with handicap...there are a million things influencing that which are all different for everybody.

 

.

This is really good stuff and I agree. 

[johnrobison]

44 minutes ago, iacas said:

First, let me point out that:

• This whole topic is all opinion, by everyone, so there is no "right" or "wrong." There's only "yeah, that makes sense, I agree" or "nah, I don't think that makes sense, I don't agree." There may be some supporting facts, but the end answer… nobody can really know, because it's not a known fact.
• I may be slightly more informed on this than others, as an instructor, but I don't lean on that much at all because y'all probably play a LOT more golf than I do, and with more "normal" people than those I see for lessons. So maybe you're more well informed on this topic than someone like @MonteScheinblum or me.
• I think a lot depends on how you take the word "could." Do you take it as "given absolutely perfect conditions"? Or do you take it as "if they had the idea to try to do it, given the real world"? I took as more of the latter, as "perfect conditions" don't exist, and the hypothetical is already stretched thin enough without adding fantasy.

All of that said… I voted ≤ 25%. And I'm not sure it's even close to that.

 

Let's consider human potential. Let's say that you believe the average male 20-40 has the physical attributes (hand-eye coordination, speed, body awareness/control, balance, adaptability, energy levels) to do what is physically required and the mental attributes (desire, aptitude, imagination, determination, willingness, etc.) to stick with it long enough to get to a +0.5 handicap.

 

If you believe that… then even you probably have to vote ≤ 25% because:

• If the average person can get to +0.5, roughly half of the people are worse than that ("roughly" because average ≠ median). They're just not getting there.
• The vast majority of the other half would require near perfect sequence of events to get there, including:
  • The right information…
  • …at right time…
  • …with the right practice and application…
  • … and no wasted time due to injuries, a misunderstanding, dip in desire, etc.
  • etc.

If you think human beings are physically capable, on average, of getting to +0.5, then that's not nearly enough to vote 50%+. Nor, I'd think, not enough to vote 25%+.

 

To vote for 50% let alone 75%, I think you have to be willing to say that the average male 20-40 can get to +4 or +5… which still leaves only a little margin of error in both of the things above:

• If the average is +4, there's still going to be some % of players two or three standard deviations worse who would come up shy of 0.0.
• Nobody's going to have a perfect pathway through their golf journey, so even the % that could get to +2 physically/mentally will be unlikely to get to 0.0. There will be diversions, setbacks, etc. Players who reach the PGA Tour could look back and change up several aspects of their journey, and they're several standard deviations to the good side.

I just can't get there at all. I don't think the average 20-40 year old can get to +4. That's some rarefied air.

 

As an instructor, I see a lot of players who take lessons, and these are players who are self selecting to not only play golf, but to take lessons. Nothing I've seen in those lessons dissuades me from voting ≤ 25%.

 

My Twitter poll is over, and it ended up here:

 

 

That's pretty similar to the current results here (with here being more "pessimistic" than Twitter):

 

 

So… for now, those are my thoughts.

≤25% was a no-brainer and I wonder what the results would have been if you lowered it to 10% or fewer? I think the number is even MUCH smaller than that. Based on everything I've seen from people who really do try over the years I would have voted for ≤2%, but I wonder how many would have gone down that low.

[nvr3putt]

2 hours ago, naval2006 said:

The % of golfers that can reach legit scratch in that context is almost zero.  A bunch can become low single digit, a whole lot can become mid/high single digit, but real scratch players are first naturally gifted for golf and that's when the % gets deeply down. 

 

All the scratch players I've known started playing as kids.  The best player I came across who took up the game as an adult was a guy in his mid 40's who won his Club Championship in the early 90's.  You saw it in his swing.  But his short game and putting were deadly.  He played to a legit 3/4 hdc back then which would have been scratch with the modern system.

All things being equal, the age at which you learn golf makes a huge difference.

I'll even venture to say that Tiger would barely be a scratch player if he started playing golf as an adult with a full-time job. 

[kiawah]

The hardest thing about getting to scratch is practicing in a way that will make you better. It is really hard to find measurable ways to improve and address areas of weakness once you are close to but not at scratch (say, low single digits). The concept I think most people fail to grasp is that it really takes a little bit every day or as many days as humanly possible of working on the stuff you have to work on. Working really hard on your game for hours once every couple weeks probably won't cut it. It is likely too boring and simple for most people to figure out.

 

90+% of the crowd would spend their time beating balls and trying a different swing thought on every shot until one of them works, get really high expectations while hitting it good off a driving range lie for an hour, go play the next day, lose the feel altogether, get angry/disappointed, and do the same thing over again. I think if more people figured out how to make practice more fun, they would be better at golf faster, but for most people, they feel that they have to be X number of shots better since they worked on their swing for X hours which just ain't how it works.  

 

To answer the OP's question, I'd wager that 10% could get to scratch and less than 5% actually will. 

[johnrobison]

6 minutes ago, nvr3putt said:

All things being equal, the age at which you learn golf makes a huge difference.

I'll even venture to say that Tiger would barely be a scratch player if he started playing golf as an adult with a full-time job. 

I think that, and all other factors, are what have to be taken into consideration in the premise of the question. Right? Knowing that so few started as a kid, knowing how few people were particularly good athletes at any sport, knowing all the many things that go into becoming a scratch player, how many do you think could get there. That's how I approached it, anyway.

[Petethreeput]

Dang, I guess I have more faith in humans.  I can't see any reason a person with 20 hours per week, with time, money, and the proper instruction and commitment to practice couldn't get there.

 

Having said all of this, the average golfer has no chance and it is measured out, 1% get to scratch, but I see people on the range sweating after beating a large bucket of drivers and they play a lot.  

[msg]

I have a buddy who started golf in 2019. He turned 30 this year. He got to scratch a few months ago. He is pretty fit as he was and still is gym buff. I live in Canada and our golf season is mid April to early October. We have a very small window to really get better.

 

He got a membership in year two of playing. He got fitted in year three. He got regular lessons from their club pro. He plays everyday as much as he can. Sometimes 36 holes on weekends. No kids yet, wife who allows him to do this. What he did was really amazing. His swing is nothing to be in awe, just a compact simple swing. He really went all in, money, time, effort. He really love the game. 

 

I've been playing on and off since 1996 and the lowest I got was 5 and that was with a membership and a very low golf IQ. lol I wonder if I should get a membership again now that I sorted my brains out. 

 

Then I have some friends who also have memberships and plays minimum of 4 rounds a week. No practice in between or lessons. And they never got close to scratch and this year, even became worse. lol 

 

I think it is doable with the correct planning. Lessons, structured practice, patience, playing time. 

Edited August 8, 2024 by msg

[Boricua Golf]

I've been playing this crazy game for over 30 years, currently is the best I have played in a while, granted I was in the military when I started and deployments took a bunch of time away from the game, now that I am retired with a regular job, I can practice and play more, that said, I am down to 2.3 hcp from 3.7 last September, I made it a goal to lower my hcp at least half a stroke in one year, I did get re-fitted and got a new bag of clubs, since then, I have been playing constantly in the low to mid 70s with an odd round of 69 every so often...my hcp went down 1.4 stroke in almost a year, that said, I have a routine and "kind of a coach", he is the head pro at my home course and when he has time he checks my swing, alignment, etc...is it possible to get to scratch?, sure, will I make it?, probably not, life does happen, so I am enjoying the good golf for now, my new goal is to be a 1 hcp by next year, this will be tough, the little things make the biggest difference, enjoying the game is my priority, I am too old to worry about others, I can only concentrate on me and helping to grow the game, this is why WRX is the best, please all take care and God Bless, remember golf is a game and a journey, it's been over 30 years for me, love every single moment...

[Long_Left]

It's less than 10% just based on my experience with humanity. We are very stubborn creatures and the type of work required and the decisions to be made on and off course to get to that level are beyond a large portion of the population's willingness.

 

I'm 4 years into this journey personally, and have gotten as low as 2.9, sitting mid 3s right now, average scoring for the last 2 years in the 70s over 25+ courses played all over the country.

 

Lessons, lots and lots of actual practice (Adam Young's "The Practice Manual"), skill work, block work, strategy work, speed training, and a respectable amount of time on course. I have no major physical limitations beyond having the body of a 50 year old, not a gym rat but far from out of shape. I still believe I can get there, the last few months I've hit the ball better than I ever have in my 30 years playing, short game work is paying dividends, but the putter has gone stone cold...

 

Having access to everything I wanted/needed and an actual 20 hours/week dedicated to the effort? All I can say is maybe I'd be there, maybe not. But I'm pretty determined, and I feel like I've approached it properly. Maybe I'm just annoyed that it hasn't happened yet, but I think I'm a fair test for comparison at least. A large part of me wants to say that if I can't do it than most can't either, but I know that isn't really true. 

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, slytown said:

 

I think people look at scratch as someone who hits 18 greens and 14 fairways every round. That's just not how it works. Sick of seeing people hit the range with 2 large buckets of balls and hope those buckets will make them scratch. There's so many other facets to a having a good round. For ball striking practice, I would rather ams hit 10 balls on the range and spend more time doing drills. Even then, it should only be 20% of your practice, not 100%. How many drivers do people hit in a round? 12? How many chip and pitch shots? Probably at least 20. I hit pretty well and still only hit maybe 9 greens a round.

20 chip and pitch shots in a round?  18 holes?  For the life of me I can’t figure out how that would ever work out to more than 1 per hole.  And shouldn’t be that many.  Even if some of your GIR are hit with “pitch” shots how do you get to 20?

[jcook10]

I find this topic extremely interesting. As some have mentioned the handicap number game can be a bit misleading. The look at the obvious number of handicap of "scratch" versus being "good at golf" at a scratch level is something I am perplexed by. I play well enough to be a +0.8 handicap because I can go low sometimes (I haven't taken lessons and just loved the game in high school when it wasn't cool". However the other scratch to + caps at my Club are all wayyyyyy more consistent than me. The debate will rage forever of handicaps vs. vanity. The answer to how many people can get to scratch vs play at a scratch level is truly unanswerable IMO!

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, hanginnwangin said:

This is really good stuff and I agree. 

 

Could you please explain it to me then ?

 

Especially the "facepalm" at the start of his post.

 

TIA 👍

[hanginnwangin]

2 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Could you please explain it to me then ?

 

Especially the "facepalm" at the start of his post.

 

TIA 👍

Not sure what the facepalm thing meant but that isn't the part of the post I liked.

 

I liked how he said you just invest your time and give it your all and hang around good role models for the game and let things take care of themself rather than putting so much pressure on every little thing.

 

That's mainly what I got from the post. 

Edited August 8, 2024 by hanginnwangin

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, johnrobison said:

≤25% was a no-brainer and I wonder what the results would have been if you lowered it to 10% or fewer? I think the number is even MUCH smaller than that. Based on everything I've seen from people who really do try over the years I would have voted for ≤2%, but I wonder how many would have gone down that low.

 

Agree.

 

Don't want to speak for the OP but I think he wanted to keep the gaps even.

 

If he'd added, e.g. <10, <5, <2 it'd have given away his answer, which I'm fairly sure he did intentionally. 

[Socrates]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

.....

Let's consider human potential. Let's say that you believe the average male 20-40 has the physical attributes (hand-eye coordination, speed, body awareness/control, balance, adaptability, energy levels) to do what is physically required and the mental attributes (desire, aptitude, imagination, determination, willingness, etc.) to stick with it long enough to get to a +0.5 handicap.

...

Having watched 1000's of people take lessons over the years (I can see the lesson tee clearly from the proshop window), I can safely say that the average adult male is horribly uncoordinated when it comes to something like golf.  I have great respect for all those that teach for a living as so many have nearly zero athletic capability and somehow the instructor manages to get some advancement in skill with them (most of the time).

 

Hence my belief that the number that can get to scratch is really low.

[nsxguy]

6 minutes ago, hanginnwangin said:

Not sure what the facepalm thing meant but that isn't the part of the post I liked.

 

I liked how he said you just invest your time and give it your all and hang around good role models for the game and let things take care of themself rather than putting so much pressure on every little thing.

 

That's mainly what I got from the post. 

 

OK, no worries.

 

A facepalm ("are you kidding me ?"), without quoting anybody is typically aimed at the previous post, which, in this case was by the OP, who happens to be a pro and an instructor.

 

And before Mello's documentary on getting there, which was well written and certainly worthy, he said "Explaining that it's hard or unlikely is kind of moot if the question is about whether or not something is possible."

Explaining how hard it is is hardly moot. In fact, that is the point in why so few are able to reach scratch.

 

That is why I gave him a "confused" reaction. And asked you. Thanks.

[nikos74]

Have to find the right instructor that matches the needs of the golfer.  Have enough money to spend.  Have enough time available.  Have enough talent for it.  Pick the right clubs and balls.

 

When you start combining these factors, of which none is a given and some are on the rare side, you arrive at the 1% to 2% that is often mentioned.

 

But 20 hours a week seems like overkill and burn-out fatigue.  You either have enough talent or you don't.

 

Being a single digit 6 to 9 is much more realistic playing much less over a 3 to 5 year period.

 

I am talking about starting from a beginner and it's all just my opinion.

Edited August 8, 2024 by nikos74

[TheDeanAbides]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

First, let me point out that:

• This whole topic is all opinion, by everyone, so there is no "right" or "wrong." There's only "yeah, that makes sense, I agree" or "nah, I don't think that makes sense, I don't agree." There may be some supporting facts, but the end answer… nobody can really know, because it's not a known fact.
• I may be slightly more informed on this than others, as an instructor, but I don't lean on that much at all because y'all probably play a LOT more golf than I do, and with more "normal" people than those I see for lessons. So maybe you're more well informed on this topic than someone like @MonteScheinblum or me.
• I think a lot depends on how you take the word "could." Do you take it as "given absolutely perfect conditions"? Or do you take it as "if they had the idea to try to do it, given the real world"? I took as more of the latter, as "perfect conditions" don't exist, and the hypothetical is already stretched thin enough without adding fantasy.

All of that said… I voted ≤ 25%. And I'm not sure it's even close to that.

 

Let's consider human potential. Let's say that you believe the average male 20-40 has the physical attributes (hand-eye coordination, speed, body awareness/control, balance, adaptability, energy levels) to do what is physically required and the mental attributes (desire, aptitude, imagination, determination, willingness, etc.) to stick with it long enough to get to a +0.5 handicap.

 

If you believe that… then even you probably have to vote ≤ 25% because:

• If the average person can get to +0.5, roughly half of the people are worse than that ("roughly" because average ≠ median). They're just not getting there.
• The vast majority of the other half would require near perfect sequence of events to get there, including:
  • The right information…
  • …at right time…
  • …with the right practice and application…
  • … and no wasted time due to injuries, a misunderstanding, dip in desire, etc.
  • etc.

If you think human beings are physically capable, on average, of getting to +0.5, then that's not nearly enough to vote 50%+. Nor, I'd think, not enough to vote 25%+.

 

To vote for 50% let alone 75%, I think you have to be willing to say that the average male 20-40 can get to +4 or +5… which still leaves only a little margin of error in both of the things above:

• If the average is +4, there's still going to be some % of players two or three standard deviations worse who would come up shy of 0.0.
• Nobody's going to have a perfect pathway through their golf journey, so even the % that could get to +2 physically/mentally will be unlikely to get to 0.0. There will be diversions, setbacks, etc. Players who reach the PGA Tour could look back and change up several aspects of their journey, and they're several standard deviations to the good side.

I just can't get there at all. I don't think the average 20-40 year old can get to +4. That's some rarefied air.

 

As an instructor, I see a lot of players who take lessons, and these are players who are self selecting to not only play golf, but to take lessons. Nothing I've seen in those lessons dissuades me from voting ≤ 25%.

 

My Twitter poll is over, and it ended up here:

 

 

That's pretty similar to the current results here (with here being more "pessimistic" than Twitter):

 

 

So… for now, those are my thoughts.

Good stuff, and based on the conditions you’ve added I agree. My answer was based on my interpretation of the “could” and perfect conditions including perfect health. 

[Ty_Webb]

One thing to add - when you see a scratch golfer who plays irregularly, but holds a scratch handicap, they have, I suspect without exception, put in the time at some point.

 

By way of example, I'm +0.3 at the moment and I play maybe 20 times a year and rarely get to the range. I spend a little time each day in my back yard working on my chipping when the weather allows, but that's about it. But when I was a kid, I played and practised a LOT. Substantially more than 20 hours a week for a lot of the time. I started playing when I was 14. Played at school and college and took a year between the two to play golf. I probably was pushing 25-50 hours a week for 6-7 years. Doing that it took me 8 years to reach scratch (never got there while playing that much - I got down after I started working). I had played tennis, cricket, football (soccer), rugby while I was younger too. So I had grounding in other sports, was younger than our "normal" person, spent more time than in the example and it took me longer to get there. 

 

I know a couple of other guys who are scratch or better and have been for 30 odd years. They don't play all that often either, but they also spent their formative years playing an enormous amount. I don't think there are many people who get that good who haven't spent a huge amount of time on the game. The ones who do have likely put in the time in other ways - playing different sports that can carry over to a high level for example. I don't think those people are "normal" though.

 

I don't think 20 hours a week for 5 years, even with good guidance and commitment is enough time. You have to put in the time.

[golferdude54]

Among master sitar players, there is this ritual called chilla katna; it's basically 40 days of complete solitude doing nothing but playing the sitar all day everyday outside of obvious self-sustenance activities (eat, sleep, go to bathroom, etc.) This is how Ravi Shankar became Ravi Shankar.

 

If you had a golf super-lab akin to Drago's training environment in Rocky 4 and all the tools and feedback you could ever need (TrackMan/GC Quad, G.E.A.R.S., SAM PuttLab, club fitting cart and workshop, etc.) and you left a dedicated golfer in there for 40 days, they'd definitely get to scratch by the end.

[TothB]

I see a lot of people saying that people don't practice properly or maybe they could. What is that "proper" way of practicing? I know not going out and beating balls is it, but honestly asking what is the proper way of practicing to reach that level? Having a certain plan, working only on weaknesses, etc?

[TroyB123]

6 hours ago, Socrates said:

The bar is pretty high and it gets higher the better your hcp gets.  Night and day difference between scratch and say +2.  Just as there is between a 3 and a scratch.  It's like a quantum leap in skill.

Watching a fair number of tournaments, I don't think there is any relation at all to whether the 0,+1,+2,+3 golfer is the better golfer.   It's just not a good way to differentiate good amateur golfers.   Also, the handicap system gets wonky with the slope rating and negative differentials.

 

If you put a +3 guy who has 95% of his scores from his country club against a +0.5 who has mostly tournament scores from 10 different courses on his handicap, then I'm betting on the +0.5 every time, and probably would bet on him at the country club guy's home course in a legit tournament.

[kwcsports]

8 hours ago, Socrates said:

All things being taken in (ability, time, very good instruction, mental toughness), I would disagree.  I'm a random 5-6 hcp and I know I'm in the 95 percentile range.  Can't believe the percentile number for a true scratch is more than a fraction of 1% (>99%). 

 

The IT factor is important.  I was good at math, but no amount of studying was going to make me an Einstein.  Golf is the same way, IMO.  

Well said, agree 100%^^^^^

[naval2006]

3 hours ago, msg said:

 

 

I've been playing on and off since 1996 and the lowest I got was 5 and that was with a membership and a very low golf IQ. lol I wonder if I should get a membership again now that I sorted my brains out. 

 

 

 

 

Probably what you call low golf IQ is our average golf IQ lol. 

 

2 hours ago, jcook10 said:

The answer to how many people can get to scratch vs play at a scratch level is truly unanswerable IMO!

Legit scratch is a league of its own and very few amateurs belong in there. 

 

1 hour ago, nikos74 said:

 

 

But 20 hours a week seems like overkill and burn-out fatigue.  You either have enough talent or you don't.

 

Being a single digit 6 to 9 is much more realistic playing much less over a 3 to 5 year period.

 

 

This is a valid point. Getting your golf out of proportion to reach scratch is unrealistic. People have a life to live and most golfers want to play as well as they can but as amateur players. You dedicate your life to golf if you’re a teenager with no worries or if you’re a pro golfer. 

 

4 hours ago, MelloYello said:

 

 

"Chasing scratch" is one of the silliest things in the game. We all want to be good and there's certainly something "cool" about saying your scratch but the #1 thing is being good enough to have the most fun you can...and being that version of your "best self" is up to you. Aim to be that. Aim to get the most out of what you can commit. 

 

Chasing scratch is like a myth created by grownup golfers. I often play with two kids who are 15 and they are scratch and +1. They play at national level and they don’t care about their hdc at all. No real scratch player has 0 as a goal per se. 

[Jtgavigan]

8 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

That’s fine. We can agree to disagree. I’m thinking “What if Monte or Erik had full control of their game for five years and they actually did exactly what they said?” I have faith that they could shoot regularly in the low 70s. 

I have seen some people that NO ONE could get to scratch in 20 years. They simply don't have the coordination for it. Monte or Erik would be in a straight jacket somewhere.

 

I think a lot more people *COULD* get there than are there now, but I still think the percentage is less than 20%.