Question For All The Other Single Digit Handicappers on Here

[Sean124]

Is the goal to be a single digit?

 

I was an inconsistent 2-5 for years without any lessons. Mostly an ice hockey background. Then I found a coach and actually got good. 

[MonteScheinblum]

1 hour ago, Sean124 said:

Is the goal to be a single digit?

 

I was an inconsistent 2-5 for years without any lessons. Mostly an ice hockey background. Then I found a coach and actually got good. 

Can you drop out of high school and became a millionaire without a financial advisor?  Happens all the time.  

 

Can a bad financial advisor make you go broke?  Yes

 

 Is it easier to get an education and financial advice to get there?  Most wouldn’t argue it is.

[TheDeanAbides]

5 hours ago, DShepley said:

The question in the original post is about how you got into single digits.  Did you get there by focused lessons or mainly on your own?  I have a theory that there are more single digit handicap players who dug it out on their own than those who used focused lessons to get there.

Your theory is completely unprovable, so this 'debate' cannot be settled. no amount of anecdotal 'evidence' will change that.

[GoGoErky]

7 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

There is no debate.

 

1.  Can you get to any level without lessons?  Yes

2.  Will you be hindered by 🐶💩 lessons? Yes

3.  Will you improve faster with proper instruction?  Yes

4.  After you have played for more than 3 or so years, can you improve without proper instruction and/or increased time at the course?  No

5.  Will you achieve your ceiling without proper instruction?  Extremely unlikely.

6.  Is using 1 and 2 as a platform to negate the effectiveness of proper instruction a strawman? Most definitely.

/thread

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, TheDeanAbides said:

Your theory is completely unprovable, so this 'debate' cannot be settled. no amount of anecdotal 'evidence' will change that.

He loves the anecdotal evidence when it his anecdotes. 

Edited June 17 by GoGoErky

[Hawkeye77]

Lessons - not “intensive”, not sure why that is presumed. 

[DShepley]

5 hours ago, Sean124 said:

Is the goal to be a single digit?

 

I was an inconsistent 2-5 for years without any lessons. Mostly an ice hockey background. Then I found a coach and actually got good. 

You got to 2-5 without instruction. You call that not being 'actually good'. Most golfers would love to be your bad. I think more people get to single digits through a combination of time, desire, and by having athletic attributes that allow it rather than by lessons alone. How important are lessons to getting to a single digit handicap versus the other factors. You got there without them and that's what I asked.

[DShepley]

2 hours ago, TheDeanAbides said:

Your theory is completely unprovable, so this 'debate' cannot be settled. no amount of anecdotal 'evidence' will change that.

This board has a number of single digit handicaps. If more say that they got to single digit on their own without lessons then...? Most golfers don't take lessons and that's a fact. Given that fact, it's reasonable that many single digit handicap players didn't take lessons. How many of them are here?

[getitdaily]

I play with 5 guys who are 3 or lower.

 

I know for a fact that 1 of them had extensive lessons growing up. 

 

I know for a fact that 2 of them had zero lessons growing up.

 

Not sure about the other 2.

 

4 of the 5 break par consistently. And those 4 have all shot 65 or lower before.

[TheDeanAbides]

17 minutes ago, DShepley said:

This board has a number of single digit handicaps. If more say that they got to single digit on their own without lessons then...? Most golfers don't take lessons and that's a fact. Given that fact, it's reasonable that many single digit handicap players didn't take lessons. How many of them are here?

Again, if every single single figure player on this forum voted then it still would not settle the debate because it's not a statistically significant sample size. 

 

I still don't really understand the point of your thread. That players don't need lessons? 

[Hawkeye77]

22 minutes ago, DShepley said:

This board has a number of single digit handicaps. If more say that they got to single digit on their own without lessons then...? Most golfers don't take lessons and that's a fact. Given that fact, it's reasonable that many single digit handicap players didn't take lessons. How many of them are here?

 

I've already answered.

 

Now you've revealed your conclusion . . . isn't the fact that single digits are a relatively low % of all golfers that maintain handicaps and an even lower % of all golfers in total the answer to your question?  Given most folks aren't out there taking lessons, or don't persist in them if they do, we'd have a lot higher % of golfers as single digits just by accident if people could simply figure it out, IMO, let alone try to get better.

Edited June 17 by Hawkeye77

[GoGoErky]

7 minutes ago, TheDeanAbides said:

Again, if every single single figure player on this forum voted then it still would not settle the debate because it's not a statistically significant sample size. 

 

I still don't really understand the point of your thread. That players don't need lessons? 

It’s a carry over from a back and forth in another thread. It’s purely a strawman argument for something nobody said.

he’s looking to go see I told you so 

 

Edited June 17 by GoGoErky

[TheDeanAbides]

Just now, GoGoErky said:

It’s a carry over from a back and forth in another thread. It’s purely a strawman argument for something nobody said.

 

 

Ah yeah, I remember the thread now.  

[getitdaily]

10 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

I've already answered.

 

Now you've revealed your conclusion . . . isn't the fact that single digits are a relatively low % of all golfers that maintain handicaps and an even lower % of all golfers in total the answer to your question?  Given most folks aren't out there taking lessons, or don't persist in them if they do, we'd have a lot higher % of golfers as single digits just by accident if people could simply figure it out, IMO, let alone try to get better.

I dont think you can draw your conclusions...

 

I practice at a place that gets a TON of golfers. It's a very awesome practice facility with a 9 hole exec course. I see the entire range of ability there. 

 

The large majority of lesson takers are 

 

1. Older

2. Low skill

 

I get lessons at another facility. The large majority of folks getting lessons are folks with low skill.

 

You can't really draw any conclusions from just the stats on playing ability. 

[Hawkeye77]

3 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

I dont think you can draw your conclusions...

 

I practice at a place that gets a TON of golfers. It's a very awesome practice facility with a 9 hole exec course. I see the entire range of ability there. 

 

The large majority of lesson takers are 

 

1. Older

2. Low skill

 

I get lessons at another facility. The large majority of folks getting lessons are folks with low skill.

 

You can't really draw any conclusions from just the stats on playing ability. 

 

Yes, you can.  Single digits are a small % of all golfers - if it was relatively easy to be a single digit golfer there would be more of them.

 

Not complicated.

[Ty_Webb]

58 minutes ago, DShepley said:

Most golfers don't take lessons and that's a fact.

 

Most golfers also suck...

 

In the land of anecdotes, my club back home has two kids who play there. One boy, one girl. Both are about 17 I think. Both are +5. The boy made the cut in a PGA Tour event at 16. The girl has represented the country several times. Both are clearly very good. They have one thing in common (that I know of anyway). Both have fathers who are pros. Must be genetic right?

[buckrogers71]

Started as a junior in high school. Had a bit of a layoff in college (booze and chicks), started playing again, was at about 3 or 4. Had kids, got up to about a 10, now that the kids are grown back a 6 with little to no practice. In 37 years, I've taken 2 lessons, that was to cure an over the top hook swing. Most is self learned and trying different things

[dsmil]

I did some group lessons/camps when I was very young and grew up playing for fun with my dad. I was shooting in the low 90's in high school but had a uncontrollable slice with the driver. 

 

I figured out the slice at the range and played a ton of golf during one summer in college. I think half of my rounds were in the 70's that summer, so I was probably in the single digits then.

 

I hovered around a 10-11 from my low 20's to low 30's and have now been in 5-9 range in my mid to upper 30's. I don't take lessons or play a ton, but I've figured out how to hit driver, which has helped a ton.

 

 

 

[iacas]

8 hours ago, DShepley said:

I have a theory that there are more single digit handicap players who dug it out on their own than those who used focused lessons to get there.

 

If we stipulated that 95% of five handicap or better golfers got there without lessons, what does that show? That it's possible? Nobody's ever said otherwise.

 

The math doesn't say what you think it says let alone "prove you right."

 

8 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

6.  Is using 1 and 2 as a platform to negate the effectiveness of proper instruction a strawman? Most definitely.

 

Yep.

 

 

8 hours ago, DShepley said:

To get to the ceiling, or into plus territory, more focused lessons are absolutely helpful...no question.  To get to a 3-5....I think if you are fairly athletic with good hand eye coordination, then time in the saddle goes a long way to getting you there.  Personally, I know a lot of good single digit players who have never stepped on a formal lesson tee...more than have.

 

As I've said before, a bunch of those players getting to 3-5 on their own are putting a lot of bricks in the lowered ceiling. Bricks that will make it tougher to get to a +1 to 1.

 

8 hours ago, DShepley said:

Lessons with a good professional who resonates with you are the quickest path to improvement.

 

So what's your point here, and what's the "debate" you think is happening?

 

8 hours ago, CTgamer said:

Honestly curious, what are you trying to prove or get at? The whole premise (what you call a debate?) seems like a leading question. Like, did you have a bad instructor? Did your buddy ask you why he’s a 25 and you’re a single digit? What’s the story here?

 

He's trying (unsuccessfully) to troll some people. But they're smart enough to realize he's just straw manning his way through it.

 

7 hours ago, DShepley said:

We are often sold a story that if we don't take lessons we won't get there but that isn't always the case.

 

There's your straw man right there @CTgamer.

 

22 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

It’s a carry over from a back and forth in another thread. It’s purely a strawman argument for something nobody said.

he’s looking to go see I told you so 

 

Pretty much.

[SNIPERBBB]

Technically ive only had one in-person lesson,  a short game lesson. I've only only read 2 books on the golf swing. Shawn Clement's The Impact Zone and the infamous Slicefixer's Encyclopedia Texarkana. 

 

Bought monte's drive for show, use the bounce, efficient swing and broom force videos. also bought the aimpoint express video. My dad bought Eddie Merrins video set, watched that but it wasnt worth much to me...

 

so i didnt quite do it on my own but i have a good idea whats goin on with my swing.

 

my current ghin is 2.2, my short game and putting been terrible this year, just no feel for how the ball is reacting on the greens. firm greens that are slow are wrecking havoc. though putting has came around the last two rounds. finally broke par for 18 yesterday in our moneygame. took 6 birdies to do it though <_<

[TheDeanAbides]

Sigh. Another one for the list.

[parbung]

im a covid golfer 😅 ::ducks:: 

 

no lessons. built my swing using ben hogan's 5 fundamentals and watching golf swings on youtube. 

 

Contrary to popular belief, my range sessions have been way more beneficial to my game vs playing actual golf. Learned the importance of having a repeatable swing and knowing your tendencies. 

 

If i didn't incorporate range sessions, i'd probably still struggle to break 95

 

also, A LOT of putting and practice around the green. 

 

im currently at a 7, down from 10 last year. 

Edited June 17 by parbung

[JustineThomas]

this entire thread makes absolutely no logical sense whatsover

[TheDeanAbides]

3 minutes ago, JustineThomas said:

this entire thread makes absolutely no logical sense whatsover

Yup. Welcome to Golfwrx!

[parbung]

2 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Yes, you can.  Single digits are a small % of all golfers - if it was relatively easy to be a single digit golfer there would be more of them.

 

Not complicated.

it is easy tho if people actually took the time to grind it out and figure out their game. 

 

most people are simply too lazy to practice.

 

People always say, "oh I don't have the time."

 

No, if you actually wanted to get better, you would've carved out the time to work on some part of your game, whether that's chipping, putting, or getting stronger/flexible. 

 

Most people that I know who took lessons don't ever practice outside of their once-a-week round of 18 and wonder why they still can't break 90 after playing the game for over 10 years.  

 

You don't have to be good at golf to be single digits. just gotta be somewhat competent. 

Edited June 17 by parbung

[Multipass613]

Grew up playing hockey first and golf second, never had formal lessons, was a range rat and didn't play a lot. Had a low hc father with lots of advice.

 

Started taking golf seriously in my 30's, play twice a week, reading and learning everything I can. Mostly just letting go of my ego, 7.3 hc today.

[airjammer]

5 minutes ago, JustineThomas said:

this entire thread makes absolutely no logical sense whatsover

It makes perfect sense. Basically, if you played a bunch of sports as a kid especially stick sports like hockey and baseball and were better than average,  you probably could get to low handicap without lessons.
 

Could you have gotten better or there faster with lessons from a good instructor right from the beginning most likely yes.
 

However, the bell curve applies to instructors like every other profession so it’s also possible to get screwed up by an instructor as well and would have been better served digging it out of the dirt. 

 

What’s interesting is that we have more information than ever and more people taking lessons than ever and yet people don’t seem to be much better at golf judging from the players I get paired with and the ball striking abilities I’ve witnessed every week on the range. 
 

I got to single digit with 3 years without instruction and then plateaued. Got one lesson from an instructor who in my opinion is horrible with new golfers but he absolutely helped me. Then over the next 20 years I’ve had 10-15 lessons from good instructors. Some have helped and some did absolutely nothing. Some of that is all on me as some of the changes were a swing overhaul that I wasn’t willing to do and some of the instruction was a band aid that didn’t fix the root of the problem. 

[JustineThomas]

this is liking asking "for those who scored 1500 on their SAT, did you study on your own or did you get a tutor?" which of course is a pointless and futile question because everyone's brain and learning capacities are completely different and not comparable from person to person.

[DShepley]

1 minute ago, JustineThomas said:

this is liking asking "for those who scored 1500 on their SAT, did you study on your own or did you get a tutor?" which of course is a pointless and futile question because everyone's brain and learning capacities are completely different and not comparable from person to person.

Are you a single digit handicap?  Was it lessons that got you there or did you figure it out on your own?  If you think the thread is pointless, you are free to scroll past it.

[Petethreeput]

I believe the premise posed is a good one, though I do disagree with the idea of the sales pitch in regard to lessons.  In any human endeavor there are three basic steps; exposure, aptitude, then participation.  I think it is the rare mathematician who struggled in math class, or the rare golfer who got on the range the first time and connected with 20% of their swings.  Generally speaking, and it's human nature, people pursue those things at which they feel successful early on, so I suspect many of the low singles didn't take lessons to get there.

 

But, they had to play fairly regularly to get there, I think that is a fair statement as well.  One thing I think gets overlooked in the nature vs nurture debate, which essentially is this thread and the is golf hard thread, is in order to maintain a low cap takes work at some point.  Monte pointed it out as well, but look at #1 below.

2 hours ago, getitdaily said:

The large majority of lesson takers are 

 

1. Older

2. Low skill

In most cases, at some point, even the low capper (unless they are happy with their handicap) has to take lessons to break the incorrect pattern the young body could overcome.  Then it is incumbent on that player to practice the new pattern.

 

As it pertains to the second category, because of aptitude (or desire) there is little to no chance they will get to a low digit handicap.  And I say this even though in the "4 things" thread I am not even sure you need to be able to do two of them.  If you can hit a baseball off a tee to the outfield there is no reason why they couldn't be a single digit cap with some fine tuning.