4 ms·

The thing about golf is that practicing six hours doesn't mean you got six hours of practice- you need to play rounds, which take several hours but are only rea

The thing about golf is that practicing six hours doesn't mean you got six hours of practice- you need to play rounds, which take several hours but are only really ~30 minutes of "golf practice" at most...golf is interesting because the athletic prerequisites are minimal compared to most other sports, but this doesn't mean that 10,000 hours is sufficient. I don't doubt that he'll be near-pro level after the 10,000 hours, but I do doubt that he will be good enough that it will be really worth the complete dedication of these six years. He'll be scratch+ for sure, but until you get close to that level, it isn't easy to predict who will have the ability to step up to the true professional level, and who will lose a ton of money traveling on minitours with little chance at ever reaching a PGA/Nationwide tour level (i.e. what most mean when they say "pro"). My perspective on this is based on my experience in playing tennis for 10,000+ hours (not apples-to-apples, obviously, but still relatively close) and becoming good enough to know that there would be absolutely no point in trying to play full-time professionally, because I was too slow to ever reach a level where I could make money while touring. There's a lot more money in golf, but it also is a lot more expensive (many golf mini-tours pay prize money out of the sizable entry fees they charge...$1k/tourney entry fee is common for small pro golf tourneys) and there's a lot more marginal pro-level players around for the golf tournaments since there aren't nearly as many physical factors in golf as there are in tennis.

tokenadult 16y ago
The claim of the mainstream scholarly development of expertise literature http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.ht... and especially the most classic paper in the literature http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti... is not that 10,000 hours is enough, but rather that deliberate practice is strictly necessary for expertise, and that 10,000 hours (in round figures) is also necessary to achieve what can properly be called expertise in any adult domain of performance. K. Anders Ericsson, the leading researcher in this field, distinguishes "playful engagement" from "deliberate practice" and distinguishes being at the journeyman level of performance from the rarer case of being at the expert level of performance. What needs more testing is whether 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is not only necessary but also sufficient. Many critiques of Ericsson's findings evoke an ill-defined latent quality labeled "talent" to make the claim that many members of the general public would fail to achieve expertise even if they engaged in 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. But such a showing would not be a direct refutation of Ericsson's claim. Rather, it would be necessary to show that someone who is properly called an expert lacked opportunity to engage in lengthy deliberate practice. Mozart didn't write any music composition that musicologists call a "masterpiece" until he had had ten years (and at least 10,000 hours) of intensive study of music guided by his father, who was an author of innovative books on music instruction and a continual guide to young Wolfgang's musical development.

tokenadult 16y ago

The claim of the mainstream scholarly development of expertise literature http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.ht... and especially the most classic paper in the literature http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti... is not that 10,000 hours is enough, but rather that deliberate practice is strictly necessary for expertise, and that 10,000 hours (in round figures) is also necessary to achieve what can properly be called expertise in any adult domain of performance. K. Anders Ericsson, the leading researcher in this field, distinguishes "playful engagement" from "deliberate practice" and distinguishes being at the journeyman level of performance from the rarer case of being at the expert level of performance. What needs more testing is whether 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is not only necessary but also sufficient. Many critiques of Ericsson's findings evoke an ill-defined latent quality labeled "talent" to make the claim that many members of the general public would fail to achieve expertise even if they engaged in 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. But such a showing would not be a direct refutation of Ericsson's claim. Rather, it would be necessary to show that someone who is properly called an expert lacked opportunity to engage in lengthy deliberate practice. Mozart didn't write any music composition that musicologists call a "masterpiece" until he had had ten years (and at least 10,000 hours) of intensive study of music guided by his father, who was an author of innovative books on music instruction and a continual guide to young Wolfgang's musical development.