Talent

I've heard quite a few European players say Rory is more talented than Woods with Luke Donald lending his weight to the assertion recently.

Now, being a casual fan of golf, I hold no pretensions to being well schooled in its nuances and intricacies but I was just curious as to how it's quantified.

Golf is a game of great skill with a pretty deep skill-set testing an eclectic range of qualities but I suspect a lot of people lend probably too much credence to swing technique alone as indicative of talent.

Anyway, how would you define and measure talent in golf and do you think Rory is more talented than Tiger?

good question.

I reckon, like other sports such as snooker, it comes down to consistency and the ability to hit the shots under pressure.

Shot selection, swing, technique, power and being able to read greens etc is obviously very important but all pros have that ability. Not all have the moxy to do it every shot though.

Like most skill based sports, its about the bottle and application of technique under pressure.

thierry,
I think you have quoted Luke Donald from Iain Carter's BBC article which does not include the full assessment by Lukey.

The account I read included the "in terms of talent, I think Rory has more" . . . . than Tiger.
"Tiger's mindset is what separated himself when he was at the top of the game."

Not sure about Rory's talent level, haven't seen enough of him yet. But one could certainly make a case for others being at Tiger's talent level, or above. Fred Couples and Phil Mickelson to name but two from recent generations. But neither had Tiger's focus when in contention, the ability to seemingly will the ball into the hole at the crucial moment. He can still play the most brilliant shots, but his ability to follow up the exquisite other-worldly shot with the putting coup de grace is what's been missing from his game.

Nicklaus could do it, Ray Floyd and Faldo at a slightly lower level. But Tiger almost always could do it. Fred, Phil, Rory? No, or at least not yet in Rory's case.

I tend to think when people say "talent", they really mean the pure, innate, natural ability that you are somehow born with. You can either work with it and to some extent play above your talent level - arguably for example Harrington, or you can waste it and play below your talent level - again arguably for example Daly.

In terms of that definition of the raw talent of various players, then Rory is definitely up there, but to say he's better than Tiger would be a very very subjective statement. You'd probably get less argument in ranking him above Luke.

However, if you take raw ability and combine it with determination, work ethic, consistency, heart and all that, and then call that "talent", then that's probably what the OWGRs set out to measure and bar the odd debate about how many points various tournaments should get, the number 1 at any given time has the most talent at that time. IMHO I prefer the first definition.

From my limited observation of Rory, I think he may be the best driver of golf ball in today's game. He finishes on balance off the tee box just about all the time. Mechanically, he seems to be a freak.

But then there's the intangible "get it done when it absolutely needs to get done". Tiger did a bit of it this past weekend, going birdie, birdie. He sure did it at Torrey Pines, the time he won a major. I think Rory will become this sort of golfer, too.

So what separates these guy? I would expand on what Adam states -- "application of technique and results under pressure".

This is always tough to answer as I find it hard to argue against the OWGR’s being the measure of current talent.

I guess the college or amateur rankings could be a indicator of feature potential talent.

I do not like the argument that says the likes of Fred Couples has more talent than Jim Furyk just because one has a swing that looks better. Does it really matter how or what factors contributed to player’s ability to score, as scoring ability is the ultimate test of talent. Looking at scoring longer term the world rankings seem a decent account of who is currently the most talented or looking at historic rankings who was talented at any point in time.

Natural talent may help a player lower their handicap more in the beginning but it is application that matters long term.

What set Woods apart in my opinion was his putting when he was at his peak, he was the best putter I ever saw. Rory has a way to go to better him in that department.

Surely the only measure of talent on a golf course is how many shots it takes to get your ball into the hole measured over a number of years ?
The talent to practise hard is often underrated, possibly Luke was having a go at Rorys work ethic, using a bit of kidology.
Id certainly also say there is no way Rory has anyway more natural ability than Woods either on the greens or around the greens. And they are pretty important areas.

Not sure talent is the right word here, lots of players look more "Natural" swinging a club than what Woods does., e.g McIlroy, Donald etc.

Now even though I hate his guts, I don't deny that he was once the most talented golfer around. Not sure he is anymore as I can't think of one element of the game at which he is currently the most talented.

What set Tiger apart in my opinion was his scrambling. So many times you would see him in a horrible position for his 2nd/3rd shots and he would still be in for Par.

I'm in no way a Tiger fan, but I cannot think of anyone who could come close to him in that area of the game. Mickelson on occassions perhaps. Conversely, he's never been a very consistant driver of the ball (I'm not talking throughout a tournament, but throughout the course of a season).

Very difficult to measure talent IMO for any of the top touring PROs, perhaps MAC is correct in the thought that OWGR are a primary indicator? Darren Clarke did advise Rory as an amateur/teen that he had no need to go to College to hone his skills as he believed he already had it all, I believe Nick Faldo also advised him this.

I'd say Seve was pretty much the embodiment of the naturally talented golfer. I think Nick Price said most guys out on tour had 30 was of shooting 65, but Seve seemed to have thousands. That was all natural ability in my opinion to see a shot that no one else can and then pull it off under the most intense pressure.

Between Rory and Tiger - would probably go with Tiger having seen so many classic shots he has hit under pressure. Rory has time to do the same in the future though.

Both Rory and Woods were coached intensively (Woods proably more so at the hands of his dictatorial father) from a very early age - around 4 - so who are we to suggest either has actual "natural talent"? I'm sure I read somewhere that Seve, on the other hand, taught himself golf on the beach with a stick and a stone and then someone gave him a 3-iron and he learned how to play a variety of shots with it. That's what I call natural talent.

LadyPutt wrote:Both Rory and Woods were coached intensively (Woods proably more so at the hands of his dictatorial father) from a very early age - around 4 - so who are we to suggest either has actual "natural talent"? I'm sure I read somewhere that Seve, on the other hand, taught himself golf on the beach with a stick and a stone and then someone gave him a 3-iron and he learned how to play a variety of shots with it. That's what I call natural talent.

Ive heard the Seve story loads, not sure how much I believe it to be honest. He was the youngest of 5 boys who all became pro golfers and his uncle was Spanish champion. Are you telling me that household didnt live and breathe golf and werent all playing as much as they could ?
Now if nobody in his family had picked up a club in their lifes Id maybe be a bit more inclined to believe that Seve was completely self taught and played on ability alone.

Strange word Talent, often overused and abused.
I think we have to look at what are the constituents of the term before deciding who has more.
I mean they describe X Factor as being a "talent" show, but there's precious little on view there. Should be renamed, Ordinary Factor.
or not as bad as the last bloke factor.

Every pro (even Poulter, Diggers are immensely talented sportsmen, whether we consider imagination/guts/nerve/compusure/determination or whatever other attributes they have to be part of this term "talent" and how we use them to separate the good pro's from the truly outstanding is something which is up for debate.

Cant argue with any of that Super, well apart from the X Factor part which has a lot of talneted people taking part. The fact you dont think much of the talent is a bit irrelevant really (though you must watch an awful lot of it to have such an expert opinion on the show), Im sure plenty of people think hitting a small ball with a stick isnt much of a talent to be blessed with.

Seve came from a poor family. His father was a gardener at a golf club. He used to practise with just a four iron on the beach in Cantabria instead of going to school.

To me talent is nothing without practise. If talent were truly inherent in a player then they wouldn´t have to practise. It would come naturally. But that´s not the case and certainly not with golf.

I think you need to start when you´re really young so your so-called talent looks natural. But to me that´s only because you´ve spent so many hours devoted to crafting that talent already.

These people so talented that they disappear without trace after 6 months.
I'll agree that they are talented to a degree, what I don't agree with is that their talent is unique. Too many looka-soundalikes produced, although that's probably down to the cynical nature of the show - To make as much money as possible.

I still cant see a better measure of talent other than score, and we have a ranking system that measures score over the long term; OWGR.

Surely all the components of talent are implied by your OWGR?

In terms of golf. IMHO to get to even scratch you are talented. I always thinks these sorts of comments mean this guy sometimes makes it look really easy and should be winning more than he does, ala Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Put simply Rory looks good doing it, Tiger (until 2 years ago) wins a lot more.

They are also so talented they can get to the final few of a show that auditions tens of thousands of people. How many people do that in a lifetime ?
How many people have a unique talent in the world, not many really.

Tens of thousands of pipe dreaming no hopers with no grasp of reality, which is the primary entertainment value of the show.
If the program was really about talent, they could whittle it down to a couple of weeks with a dozen people, but they stretch it out as some morbid torture programme.
Nobody on that show has ever done anything of any worth or credibility (please don't say Leona Lewis). A sportsman succeeds because he has talent the other players can't match. An X Factor person wins because they are told what to do and how to do it, to fit in with a marketing ploy, or are carried along by some sad media orchestrated saga.

Diggers do you never query the fact the judges only see a tiny amount of the people queing on these shows? Their lucky to see a few dozen of the 'talent' over the filming process. I also hate the fact the 'live' auditions are re-shot and acts are given make up, backing music and rehearsals and the poor stooges, often a bit mentally challenged, are set up to make a fool of themselves having been previously told they're 'through'. Awful and cynical. God, they can't even write a song for the winner.

What is worse is that those who are judging the "talent" are responsible for some ghastly embarassing assaults mascerading as "music".
Cowell and Walsh know nothing about music as an entity, but everything about how to make money out of it. They are in marketing, not music, but to give them their dues, talented at hoodwinking the public into supporting their jaunty, throwaway garbage.
Aren't two of the judges Danni Minogue and someone from some no mark beat combo called N'Dubs? Says it all surely.
Imagine you're told you have no talent by Danni Minogue. The irony.

Anyone can knock the shows format or intent, hello, as if most TV shows made arent made to make money.
The point Im making is that some of the people who are on the show have amazing voices and have made some fantastic performances on the show.
You can write everyone who enters as a thick, fame hungry loser if you like but to me thats not remotely fair.
And Super, throughout the decades people with amazing voices have had songs written for them, some of motowns most famous artists never wrote a decent song. And since when did you become the arbitor of what is worthy or credible anyway. You are no different to anyone else, you have music you like and music you dont.

Thats it though, the judges have no say. Producers are controlling everything put in front of them, they're even told what acts they get, they tend to put the real haddies on to Walsh as he can't say no for fear of no job.

Spaceman, the ultimate judges are the public when it gets to the live shows. The judges are there primarily to provide additional entertainment and drama to the show.

Digs,
Good to see you.

Cheers Kwini, bit of a fraught day yesterday so probably a bit of an over reaction on my part. Mind you the only thing I was fussed about was the "super user" group idea and I think thats unlikely to happen again in the future looking at some of the posts that have been going on.

Digs, good you are back.
Of course I'm no arbiter of what represents talent. However, you'd have to be fairly short sighted to say that its a music show. It's purely about the theatre of winning and losing, is producing music about winning and losing or is that more like a game show?
As for them having 'amazing' voices, well I've never heard any product of the show who didn't sound just like any other castrato boy band reject or r n b beyonce wannabe, but if that's what passes for amazing in the diggers household then fair enough. It's all opinion in the end.
What I will ask though is why all these 'amazing' voices have such short careers. If they were so special wouldnt they have greater longevity, surely once they get over that tricky hurdle of getting recognised and exposed to the nation the sheer magnitude of their 'talent' would keep them where they 'deserve' to be?

Rory is a steaky putter when he is on he is very good.... Tiger at his peak was a streaky putter too... he always made them when it counted

If stockton can turn Rory into a good and consistant putter ths kid will be unstopable.... Rory had been making a habbit of contending all the time but missing out on the win... I know it is silly season but in the last month he has 2 wins to his credit.... next season could be interesting!

Off the top of my head , Will Young, Leona Lewis, Kelly Clarkson, Girls Aloud. Biggest boy band at the moment One Direction.
You may not like any of it but plenty of these people are making careers from the show.

Also Jennifer Hudson.

Talent? For me that means natural ability at something. Woods has a lot but I'd say Seve, Couples, Mickleson, Garcia, maybe McIlroy have possibly more natural ability. Possibly. Woods' swing as an amateur looked pretty natural and his amateur record was pretty decent! His swing as a pro (for most of his career) has looked more 'manufactured' but I think that's often what happens as people iron out excess movement etc in a swing so, arguably, it's better under pressure.

I think you have to have course management, ability to apply your talent under pressure etc in there as well though when talking about golf. In which case Woods has to be at, or very near, the top of the pile. Too early to say for Rory.

Shotrock wrote:From my limited observation of Rory, I think he may be the best driver of golf ball in today's game. He finishes on balance off the tee box just about all the time. Mechanically, he seems to be a freak.

Maybe. He's certainly wonderfully balanced most(!) of the time but why is it he's not as accurate as others with the big stick? Of the current bunch, give me Westwood's driving any day - distance and accuracy.

This allegedly from Luke Donald's Twitterage:
"A few people aren't understanding what I meant. The word talent and Rory to me means a free-flowing swing who makes everything look so easy. TW has always been the best at getting the ball in the hole when it mattered most. That's not just talent, that's something else too. Talent can only take you so far, you need the right attitude "mindset" application to perform at the highest level."

Quite.

OK, fair enough - but making something look easy does not necessarily equate to talent in my view (but nevertheless I do think that Mr McIlroy is hugely talented, as he actually seems to find golf easy as well as making it look so).

I will probably struggle to articulate what I think, but I basically agree with those who say talent is innate ability. I tend to "measure" it in a soft way by considering how much time/effort it takes a novice to reach and/or maintain a reasonable standard at something. Or maybe an expert's ability to do extraordinary feats within their field that few others can.

It can apply to most areas I reckon - adademic subjects, creative arts, sports etc.

I suppose another way of expresing what I'm thinking is that talent can give someone a headstart over others, but is definitely not a substitute for hard work.

Diggers wrote:Off the top of my head , Will Young, Leona Lewis, Kelly Clarkson, Girls Aloud. Biggest boy band at the moment One Direction.
You may not like any of it but plenty of these people are making careers from the show.

Ha ha, seriously, doesn't make them talented, just means the fit the marketing plan of cowell evil.empire.
Not a single one of them has a voice of any note.

Girls aloud, ha ha. I knew you had a sense of humour diggers, we just had to dig deep for it.

So you ask who has made a career and I give you a list of names , but that's not good enough as you don't like what they do. Not worthy enough for you obviously. Are you denying they have had successful careers ?
One question though, as far as I know you are single so have no other half making you watch the show. So how do you know the sort of songs they sing and who is any good. Either you don't know and are making assumptions or for some bizarre reason you watch a show you profess to despise.

No, I asked why their careers are so short. Whatever happened to that fat slob of a Jock or that Old Steve bloke, or that other Manc bloke? I'm sure they could probably sing, but not very marketable hence dropped like a stone. Were they successful careers?
Swap the girls in Girls Aloud with Fishwives from Arbroath and do you think people would think they had talent or credibility?

Did Wagner have talent?

X Factor isn't really about talent or music, it's about projecting an image on which those responsible can cash in on, Cowell is a master of this. How else could four empty headed "Oirish" leprechauns on stools make a career out of singing bad covers?

Talent rises to the top of its own accord, it doesn't need to be voted for.

So Will Young hasn't had a long career for a pop star? You basically just move the goal posts to suit. And no answer to how you know so much about a program you don't watch.
You can call me miserable as much as you like Super, but a sneer is not an attractive feature on anybody.

A sneer Diggers? At least it's not a scowl or a Victor Meldrew upside down smile

You simply cannot help hearing about the bloody programme, I seem to hear about it everywhere I go, at work, golf, pub, on the radio.

Has Will Young had a long career? He's probably still got a career of sorts, but I imagine its only ever going to be on a downward spiral.
If he's been "successful" in wetting a few OAP's knickers then I'll let you have that one, but as far as I can see the programme and its derivatives are excellent at "discovering" and briefly promoting "here today gone tomorrow no marks. "

If you don't have talent in sport, you disappear and are overtaken by those who are, whereas it doesn't really matter in X Factor whether you have talent or not, if Cowell no longer wants to market you or your face doesn't fit, then you're out, finished, dead.

I wonder what X Factor would be like on the Radio? Might get some interesting results.

So basically ... you don't watch it. Pretty much says it all really.

I really like Little Mix, but I doubt they're as good ball strikers as Rory or Tiger.

But your point is rubbish SR. Talent is only a small factor for success in the music business. You say there's this rubbish that is voted for, but surely there's a whole load more rubbish that didn't go through a show like this and had a successful career.

Think you're getting X-Factor mixed up with the music business in general. If your record label doesn't want you, you're finished whether you've been part of a talent show or not. It's just another way for aspiring entertainers to get noticed.

As for Will Young, he released an album this year and it went to number one in the album charts. (his third number one album, along with two at number 2). That's a good career for me.

Looking at some of the older guys, Lee Trevino comes to mind as having had the talent with the sticks as well as the talent and chutzpah to entertain the crowds while keeping his opponents a bit unnerved. Would love to see more character with the talented guys now playing the tours.

And the vast quantities of talent I see on these boards is the ability of the golf forum to persistently break the "House Rules" despite the constant chastisement heard from the bully pulpit. I don't know what the phrase is in the UK for being in the permanent dog house but we seem to have taken up permanent residence in it though I still can't figure out what the big deal is about. Thought I left boarding school a long time ago.

It's hard to see how golf can be compared to the X Factor.

Music has forever been about people who sell records and not about "talent". Frank Sinatra (one of the most recorded artists in history) couldn't hold a tune in a bucket. A third rate crooner at best, yet look what he achieved!

The X factor factor is nothing new. Bros made millions in the 80s - Bay City Rollers made millions in the 70s and no more of a scrap of "talent" than Sinatra. Even Elvis had little "talent" - just charisma by the bucketload.

Golfers have talent (some more than others). Singers generally are in the right place at the right time

The ability to entertain people is a massive talent.

I disagree Diggers. Entertaining people is no talent - it's all about being in the right place, at the right time, with the right backing. Timmy Mallet entertained lots of people - was he talented?

Simple answer yes. Not everyone can do what he does even though they think they can. And that talent entertains some people. So he has the talent to invent an act, a persona and therefore to entertain. I could try and do the same and it wouldn't work.
You could say golfers have an athletic ability, is that really talent ? I think it is but pigeon holing talent is not a good idea IMO.

McIlroy is talented but nowehere near as talented as Woods IMO. Woods ability was/is able to get him round in sub par scores and dominate tournaments regularly even when not playing well, he could hole putts without even thinking about it. He could turn the screw to close out on a bad day. Rory may well be more free flowing and natural on the eye but his putting is pretty average

Aslo 3 consecitive US junior ams then 3 US ams then his early out the blocks start to his pro career show he had more than rory about him at that age.

IMO talent can only take you so far, mental attitude, dedication, desire and graft on top of that talent will take you further and that's why Woods has all those trophies, I think if anyone can even try to emulate that they need have a) the talent to start with then b) need to follow Woods blueprint to success.

John Daly had bags of talent but wasted it! Faldo had natural talent but it wasn't until he really knickled down and near on perfected everything and worked hard at it did he then achieve what is the greatest in modern history of English golfers.

Talent cannot be measured but the successes it brings can!

Talking of X factor I'll have Amelia Lily please

Talent - now how do you define that?

Best swing - Luke Donald
Best at scoring - Tiger (he was but no more)
Best Putter - Luke Donald (was Tiger)
Best Putter ...Under pressure - Like Donald (was undobtably Tiger but he has lost it now)
Best Matchplayer - Ian Poulter (Like a close Second - Tiger no-where) in the past Gary Player without a doubt
Best Driver - Rory (unquestionably)

Best under pressure - Jack Nicklaus (was Tiger for a while but now lost it)