What stops great amateurs making it as a solid tour pro?

After bumping into an old friend from Junior golf at the driving range last night iv been prompted to ask the question.... Why do so many great amateurs (+2 and better) fail to make it as a pro?

When i was 17/18 i got down to scratch (if only for about 2 months before i was back up to 1!!) and I was fortunate enough to play golf with some excellent players in many events. (County matches, junior opens, England u21 competitions, Prince of Wales trophy etc etc)
I must have played with 10-20 players who were very solid + figure handicappers. However... the only one who has "made it" is Tom Lewis.
Tom is about 5 years younger than me but i remember playing in a couple of junior opens with him when i was around 17/18 and he was about 13 or so. he was a 1or2 handicapper then but that owed mainly to the fact he was still 13 years old and didn't have the power to really kick on at that point... i know he got down to about+3 or+4 in the end and obviously has had a good start as a pro since winning the silver medal.
But there are at least 5 maybe 10 players of a similar age to me who were playing off +3ish at that time but yet now are scratching around on low tours (jamega/europro etc) or teaching pro's?

The lad i bumped into last night was off about +4 when he turned pro in 2005 and i remember playing in an open where he shot 64,63 to break the course record twice in a day and win by about 15 shots (i had 76,70 and played very well that day) he is struggling to make any money these days and i asked him what had changed in the last 5-10 years and why he hadn't kicked on to become a solid tour player...
He told me he didn't really know, that he had been a bit unlucky in a few events, but mainly that his swing wasn't really good enough!

I refuse to believe a player who shot almost nothing over about 72 (and usually nothing much over 70) for as long as i knew him, doesnt have a good enough swing to make a living as a tour pro.

But what do people think are the main reasons people don't make it? A +3/+4 handicapper is, on his day as good as almost any player in the world, yet i can name 5 guys off the top of my head who were that standard and are now selling mars bars in a pro shop.....

My thoughts are that there are 3 main reasons why.
1.) funding / sponsorship... having the ability to practise all day and not worry about finances (either at home or in relation to golf / entry's etc) must make a huge difference.
2.) Psychological issues... players who are used to turning up to amateur events knowing they are probably the best player there, no longer think that and their confidence (and in turn their game) suffers.
3.) short game... The guys i am referencing to all used to hit the ball a similarly long distance but it was always the one who holed putts and got up and down that would usually win a competition.

However, i don't believe that any of those factors should be a major reason why someone would not make it from a +4 top amateur into a steady tour pro! To get to that standard they have obviously got the game to shoot low numbers fairly regularly.

thoughts?

Seems to be a question of numbers. These days there is not really any such thing as a top amateur. They basically are full time golfers but there just isnt enough room in the pro game for them all. There are just as many top "amateur" footballers, tennis players etc that dont make the grade either. That is how professional sport works.

Time to practise and more importantly to practise "well" for them. ie identify what works for them and structure a programme that can be kept to whilst providing effective practise. VJ's hit 300 balls a day regime wouldn't work for me, I'd be bored after about 50!

Support (mainly financial) must be absolutely critical to all but the very, very best (who could probably pick up some kind of sponsorship after a couple of outings). Dedication to getting out there and contacting/pestering/cajoling potential sponsors and giving them something to get them on board.

Breaks (lucky or statistically improbable!?!) such as getting/wangling invites to decent events would kick start some to a good audience (sponsors and the like)

Mental aptitude to forget about consequences of play and focus solely on the competition play itself. (There's a Bob Rotella book where top US college players play with Tom Kite and play within a shot or two of him in a practise lap but Kite's view of their play was that the difference was they would put pressure on themselves and their recovery when they got out of position in a tournament while he just takes it as it comes and focuses on the next shot rather than "needing to get up and down").

Mental aptitude to continue to want it rather than think that they're good enough to deserve it.

Ability to score when off the boil.

Dedication to the trapsing around tournaments week after week and living out of a camper van and the like.

Game plans. Know what to do where in advance and go do it.

Two GB&I Walker Cup players of years gone by are playing the PGA Tour's web.com Stage 1 Q-School this week and have got off to rotten starts.
Matthew Richardson and Rhys Davies - both have enjoyed their moments as pros, especially Davies, but are now mini-Tour / Challenge Tour material respectively.
Would be interesting to know what's gone wrong.

Interesting piece in November's Golf Digest about American Will Wilcox who made it to the web.com circuit for 2013. He played well, finishing 7th on the money list, including shooting a 59, and earned his PGA Tour card. But mysteriously took a sabbatical instead of contesting the web.com Finals and has a terrible priority ranking. Something's gone wrong and he's quoted as follows:
"I go from having 50 friends on the mini-tours to having, like, two, and you quickly realise how much everyone wants to beat each other. On the smaller tours (and presumably amateur golf?), everyone is patting each other on the back."
The article goes on:
'Wilcox started running with a crowd that partied. He now tee-totals on the road and works out daily to ensure a good sleep.'
He reflects:
"I've got better at being a professional. Not getting emotional and just accepting that you're always under the microscope."

But he's disappeared at least until January, apparently, and is in danger of dissipating the status he'd achieved, not to mention his talent.

In short, a lot of " great amateurs" have to grow up. Some will never have the discipline to do that and gradually the talent wanes.

But no idea where Messrs Richardson and Davies fit in that scheme of things.

oneorthree wrote:
My thoughts are that there are 3 main reasons why.
1.) funding / sponsorship... having the ability to practise all day and not worry about finances (either at home or in relation to golf / entry's etc) must make a huge difference.
2.) Psychological issues... players who are used to turning up to amateur events knowing they are probably the best player there, no longer think that and their confidence (and in turn their game) suffers.
3.) short game... The guys i am referencing to all used to hit the ball a similarly long distance but it was always the one who holed putts and got up and down that would usually win a competition.

I don't know enough about this subject, but from an uninformed view I would say that if you got Number 1.) above sorted then you would relax; Number 2.) would disappear because you are relaxed, and you would have enough time to work on Number 3.)
My two pennies of amateur psychology.

Good thread guys.Ive always thought there is a big difference between crashing round courses that you know well and have played many times(ie establishing a low handicap) and then moving to new courses probably 500 yards longer when every shot matters you don't know the greens and pressure is on.
Play a fair bit with county pros and only the odd one has been stand out.But still a decent living to be made if they go about it the right way.

i think its been pretty nailed on here. Alot of the guys that have always been the best throughout their careers no longer are the best on the range. this causes confidence issues for some (those that fail) while it drives others on to improve (poulter, harrington etc.)

I think before reading this thread I would have said the difference would be all about head problems. Kwini mentioned Rhys Davies who I thought was going to be a star after watching him monster his way around Wentworth in the BMW a couple of years ago. How wrong was I. Also mentioned by onethree is a great observation about the great young kids smashing the ball a mile (Except for Lewis) I really think herein lies some of the problems. These kids have loved the adulation of their elders because at a young age they can spank it a mile, and they will love the testosorone fueled game at club and county level etc. Going pro and 'knowing' you are going to be a wealthy young man until realisation kicks in that in fact almost everyone you play with can hit the ball as long, can putt great, have a fantastic short game etc, etc, etc. From being a gifted 'special' kid into huge shark infested pool where a massive production line of clones hits you in the face. You need to be better than them all to stand a chance of breaking through.

2 good comparison players would be Luke Donald - fantastic kid with oodles of potential gets a scholarship to a US college. Ian Poulter a high handicap am player turns pro and its his determination, self belief, fighting spirit, never say die attitude that makes the difference. These special, kids would need bits of both players nowadays.

Not sure if Mary still posts on here but her son is on one of the junior tours, so she knows a thing or two about how these kids work etc

Has anyone read the book "Bring Me The Head of Sergio Garcia"?

It's about a guy who was a really decent junior player and gave it up at the age of 20. Turning 30 and playing off 4 (i think) he falls in love with the game again and decides to give it one last try to make it on tour and qualify for the Open. Obviously he fails but he plays in various events, gets battered in most of them, and it is essentially a book about the difference between the likes of Lee Westwood and him.
Life on the EuroPro Tour really does sound like a lonely monotonous cut-throat affair. Apparently gatherings at a lot of these things really are not friendly and, as in anything, a lot of these guys are d*cks.
I would imagine the big difference in the guys that make it and those that don't is desire. If you don't get off to a flyer i would imagine a few months of that life is enough for a great many to just jack it in.

It's an excellent (and funny) read and if you haven't heard of it you should have a look. You can get it for £6 on Amazon

I would think it's like being the absolute pinnacle of anything, hard work, talent, and (even though it doesn't exist, ahem) a huge amount of luck. Ask a top surgeon, mathematician, racing driver, antiques dealer, garden designer etc. Trouble is with golf it looks like an easy way of making a living to a lot of teenagers, until they reach 30 and are selling pencils and bottles of coke in a shop somewhere for 80 quid a week

We have had a real glut of excellent juniors at our club, who are now beginning to make their separate ways , ages between 17 and 20. One has just gone to college in US, two more are studying "golf" at universities here and working in various pro-shops, one is at a golf school, and one has jus left school and is going out and playing as many events as he can. Another has turned pro and is playing on the jamega. it will be very interesting to see who does best !

oneorthree wrote:

The lad i bumped into last night was off about +4 when he turned pro in 2005 and i remember playing in an open where he shot 64,63 to break the course record twice in a day and win by about 15 shots (i had 76,70 and played very well that day) he is struggling to make any money these days and i asked him what had changed in the last 5-10 years and why he hadn't kicked on to become a solid tour player...
He told me he didn't really know, that he had been a bit unlucky in a few events, but mainly that his swing wasn't really good enough!

thoughts?

In the case of your old mate, in my very humble opinion, the reason he didn't make it highlighted in bold.....Yes financial help to take the pressure off and allow you to keep trying at tour school every year whilst you gain experience is important but getting the opportunities HAS to be backed up by a rock solid self belief. If you don't believe your swing is good enough then it isn't (whether it is or not)

It was before my time at my home club but according to the longer standing members, when David Howell was coming through, he wasn't even the best golfer in his peer group at the Club. That was another guy who gained England international honours called Gary Harris. Ask anyone (Doon...where are you??) at the club in the early 90's who was going to make it and most of them would have said Gary. Pretty awesome peer group as the 3rd member of the group is now on Francesco Molinari's bag. So from that perspective I suppose David never had it easy...even at Club level. So maybe the circumstances of how you develop is a factor too.

If you can play off +4 regularly as an amateur I'd say the fundamentals are there. At the top level, it's a head game, pure and simple. Whether that's being able to cope with the realisation that pretty much all of your competitors are now as good as you or whether it is simply being intelligent enough to work out how to make a score when your living rests on it. I'd think that a thick skin and an "I'll show the b'stards!" attitude probably helps a lot too.

an interesting question and something I have wondered about before. Your friend says he was unlucky but you can't rely on luck to make it as a pro. I would imagine elements of these players' games which are sufficient at the amateur level get found out in the professional ranks- be it bottle,swing flaws, desire or whatever.

I would guess that the main one is in the head and consistently scoring.

Also the difference between being at the top and the bottom as a pro is pretty small. If you look on the European Tour the scoring average of Sterne who is at No.4 in the Race to Dubai and is the highest ranked who plays most of his golf on the ET is 69.91. When you go to Quiros at No.100 his is 71.55 and then Floren at No.150 is 72.88.

Quiros should keep his card/living but Floren probably won't and is not much more than a shot a round different.

I think looking at the hc the amateurs play off and saying that they are consistently 4 under doesn't take into account that the courses that they play are set up for more for club golfers but if you've played a course where they even have just had or are about to have a Euro tournament you realise that the rough is much longer and fairways narrower so a -4 is much harder.

Handicap of say plus 1 does not mean four rounds of one under.It probably means one really good round and one rubbish plus another two just in a buffer zone which is pushed upwards by the cat 1/handicap system maybe 10/12 over for four rounds in truth which will not make any money.Friends son is just on that level at present wants to earn money at the game and I know their focus is on consistent scoring very interested to see where he ends up.Dad has spent a small fortune already!

MustPuttBetter wrote:Has anyone read the book "Bring Me The Head of Sergio Garcia"?

It's an excellent (and funny) read and if you haven't heard of it you should have a look. You can get it for £6 on Amazon

Yes. I would also recommend it to the golfers on this forum. It was amusing at first but after a while I got a bit bored with the way he exaggerated his apathy to the game to increase the context of the story. The author appeared to have no interest in his gear, his clothes, practicing or any of the other elements that you would expect a wannabe pro golfer to be interested in, such as improving his golf.

When you look at scores from the top amateur events there are hardly any guys who put 4 good rounds together consistently.
The field might contain 100 players of plus 4 or better but handicap is irrelevant if tou can't actually do it week in week in week out.

Agreed super handicaps are very flattering in straight stroke play scoring terms.
With all due respect.Im off 14 now

My feeling is that another problem is that you don't just need to be as good as those currently on tour you need to be better than them. Reason being they already have the card and the opportunities week in week out. In order to progress through the ranks you need to be better than nearly everyone around you and when you actually get a rare chance on tour you need to be better on that one off occasion to get another chance and so on and so forth.

Even if you win a card via tour school (again by being better than nearly everyone around you) your starts are still limited as compared to the previous years top 115.

Golf is maybe a different game to others in that there is a barometer to measure yourself by and therefore some sort of expectation where you should be able to get to, however it doesn't work that way when you look at the likes of Lawrie and Poulter who turned pro off (comparitively) very high handicaps (4 i think) and compare to all the hundreds of so called "next rising star" who has stunk the place out on +5.

Handicap effectively means very little to how far you will actually get, and perhaps lots of golfers delude themselves into believing that having that handicap owes them a living on the tour.