Biggest gap between professional & enthusiast?
Discussion
superkartracer said:
TheFungle said:
What sport would you guys say has the biggest difference between professional and enthusiastic amateur?
My personal vote goes for top level cycling.
As aforementioned enthusiastic amateur it astounds me just how much speed those guys can carry day in, day out, not to mention their bike handling skills.
Maybe you're just a poor amateur ?, how fast are you? what are your watts etc etcMy personal vote goes for top level cycling.
As aforementioned enthusiastic amateur it astounds me just how much speed those guys can carry day in, day out, not to mention their bike handling skills.
Enthusiastic amateur? what does this mean, fat bloke or top club cyclist and Domestic pro.
I know that as a cyclist no matter how hard I train, my body will never be able to produce the figures required to be successful, that's not to say I don't want to make the best of a bad lot!
Pete102 said:
I dabbled in UK pro ice hockey after playing amateur for many years, there is a fair old gap between playing amateur and training every day (some times twice) hitting the gym and playing with the intensity and skill required at the top level.
Agree with this, I'd leave on a stretcher if I tried to play at pro level 
Unlike other sports, you need the ability to skate to start with, and then the ability to handle the puck, and then to be able to put the two together. I started a few years back thinking I was a good enough skater to play and it was a huge learning curve! The agility of some of the recreational players is unbelievable, but even the better ones look like bambi on ice compared to the pro-level TheFungle said:
Bing o said:
TheFungle said:
no idea
The point I was trying to make was that as an absolute beginner I could thrash my way round the course and still not be a million miles away from being close to a good score.
BullsThe point I was trying to make was that as an absolute beginner I could thrash my way round the course and still not be a million miles away from being close to a good score.
tI'd say that for a given round of golf an amateur could score the same as a pro, could he do it over and over? Highly unlikely.
kiest bks in fluent bkonese.Your ignorance is so damning and complete that it makes we wonder whether you are being serious or 11 years old.
johnfm said:
TheFungle said:
Bing o said:
TheFungle said:
no idea
The point I was trying to make was that as an absolute beginner I could thrash my way round the course and still not be a million miles away from being close to a good score.
BullsThe point I was trying to make was that as an absolute beginner I could thrash my way round the course and still not be a million miles away from being close to a good score.
tI'd say that for a given round of golf an amateur could score the same as a pro, could he do it over and over? Highly unlikely.
kiest bks in fluent bkonese.Your ignorance is so damning and complete that it makes we wonder whether you are being serious or 11 years old.
Based on my personal experience of playing golf I found it possible to fluke my way round, two good shots, on the green and in, this shows to me that on the right day, with the right lucky charm, the sun shining and the biggest slice of luck ever seen the plucky amateur could come close, would you say that's an impossibility?
From speaking with my very, very enthusiastic Uncle who plays several times a week he would say the one thing which defines the good from bad is the ability to play well everytime, something which in his many years of playing he has yet to master but makes those 'special' days all the sweeter.
Yiliterate said:
In respect of F1, I think this is probably a pretty fair reflection of how the average 'enthusiasic amateur' would get on (from about 5 mins onwards)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo
Plenty of enthusiasts have driven F1 cars without the problems of Hammond in BOSS and EUROBOSS through the years. Most of Top Gear is fake...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo
Plus Hammond is not a racing enthusiast, i would class an enthusiast as someone who takes part in club racing with some regularity. Otherwise the question being asked would be the gap between professional and total novice.
I'm not saying there would not be a huge gap between Enthusiast and Pro (im sure there would be), but to say most club racers who have decent experience to not be able to get around the track is unrealistic.
TheFungle said:
johnfm said:
TheFungle said:
Bing o said:
TheFungle said:
no idea
The point I was trying to make was that as an absolute beginner I could thrash my way round the course and still not be a million miles away from being close to a good score.
BullsThe point I was trying to make was that as an absolute beginner I could thrash my way round the course and still not be a million miles away from being close to a good score.
tI'd say that for a given round of golf an amateur could score the same as a pro, could he do it over and over? Highly unlikely.
kiest bks in fluent bkonese.Your ignorance is so damning and complete that it makes we wonder whether you are being serious or 11 years old.
Based on my personal experience of playing golf I found it possible to fluke my way round, two good shots, on the green and in, this shows to me that on the right day, with the right lucky charm, the sun shining and the biggest slice of luck ever seen the plucky amateur could come close, would you say that's an impossibility?
From speaking with my very, very enthusiastic Uncle who plays several times a week he would say the one thing which defines the good from bad is the ability to play well everytime, something which in his many years of playing he has yet to master but makes those 'special' days all the sweeter.
A few of them have been around the local in par or 1 or 2 over par. My best round was a 74.
On the same courses, the club pro (note, not a tour pro) would knock it round in 68-70 all day long.
A tour pro is playing a completely different sport - levels and levels above.
Happy82 said:
Agree with this, I'd leave on a stretcher if I tried to play at pro level Unlike other sports, you need the ability to skate to start with, and then the ability to handle the puck, and then to be able to put the two together. I started a few years back thinking I was a good enough skater to play and it was a huge learning curve! The agility of some of the recreational players is unbelievable, but even the better ones look like bambi on ice compared to the pro-level
Glad you agree Happy, I started out very young (10 or 11 IIRC) plied my trade at junior level, played conference (midlands) and had the obligatory GB trials etc. It wasn't until last year when I had a 2 week trial with Hull Stingrays and played a couple of Elite league pre-season friendlies that I got a taste for it - big big step up, but a brilliant experience playing in front of a few thousand. Unlike other sports, you need the ability to skate to start with, and then the ability to handle the puck, and then to be able to put the two together. I started a few years back thinking I was a good enough skater to play and it was a huge learning curve! The agility of some of the recreational players is unbelievable, but even the better ones look like bambi on ice compared to the pro-level I've had to stop playing as quite frankly my day job pays considerably more and I'm half way through a degree, however, I am tempted to go back and play recreational hockey for a giggle and no stress - although I do like to drop the mitts every now and again!
I think you can translate this to any sport but my example, Stage Rallying.
A recentish example, 2009 Wales rally GB. The leading amateur - my definition is no career plan, serious but only for enjoyment - finished 24 minutes behind the leader. Bit of clumsy translation to a Grand Prix scenario and he would have been lapped about 12 times! The leader amateur is an excellent multi championship winning National standard driver and has proven this many times. Miles off the professional though.
A recentish example, 2009 Wales rally GB. The leading amateur - my definition is no career plan, serious but only for enjoyment - finished 24 minutes behind the leader. Bit of clumsy translation to a Grand Prix scenario and he would have been lapped about 12 times! The leader amateur is an excellent multi championship winning National standard driver and has proven this many times. Miles off the professional though.
Amateurish said:
I'm not sure I agree. I reckon that having a Sunday League player in a League 2 Side would be like playing with 10 men, or worse.
eta
Does anyone remember Ali Dia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Dia_(footballer)
To be fair, though, he was barely good enough to play in the Conference North - so it's no surprise he looked so out of place in a pro. match.eta
Does anyone remember Ali Dia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Dia_(footballer)
There are many good Sunday pub players who could play semi-pro (eg. Conference North) football, but don't have the time to do it.
TheFungle said:
johnfm said:
TheFungle said:
Bing o said:
TheFungle said:
no idea
The point I was trying to make was that as an absolute beginner I could thrash my way round the course and still not be a million miles away from being close to a good score.
BullsThe point I was trying to make was that as an absolute beginner I could thrash my way round the course and still not be a million miles away from being close to a good score.
tI'd say that for a given round of golf an amateur could score the same as a pro, could he do it over and over? Highly unlikely.
kiest bks in fluent bkonese.Your ignorance is so damning and complete that it makes we wonder whether you are being serious or 11 years old.
Based on my personal experience of playing golf I found it possible to fluke my way round, two good shots, on the green and in, this shows to me that on the right day, with the right lucky charm, the sun shining and the biggest slice of luck ever seen the plucky amateur could come close, would you say that's an impossibility?
From speaking with my very, very enthusiastic Uncle who plays several times a week he would say the one thing which defines the good from bad is the ability to play well everytime, something which in his many years of playing he has yet to master but makes those 'special' days all the sweeter.
On a round off the yellows at a 'normal' course, a top tour pro will be looking at something in the mid 60's or even lower.
But if you think there's not much difference between the mid 60s and the mid 70's (a good round for a very good amateur), you're mad. The majority of golfers never beat 90.
ExChrispy Porker said:
At least an amateur golfer can play on the same course, at the same time as a top pro! ( even if he is not providing much competition) Not the same for lots of other sports.
No, but for lots of sports that isn't important. Only a game where you're actually playing directly against an opponent and his strategy affects yours like tennis, football or snooker would that be relevant.Golf, athletics, gymnastics, darts, swimming, rallying etc etc etc where you're both playing against a course, task, target or obstacle, you could directly and fairly compare your performance to theirs (ie, have a match) without ever even meeting them.
In a golf tournament you might be playing against 144 players, but only meet one or two of them. You could play a darts match perfectly well against someone on the other side of the world. In fact, you could play on different days and send the results by post, and still call it a fair match.
It's not golf. It's possible for an amatuer to hit shots that are as good as a pro....hole a chip, sink a 30 foot putt or smoke a drive 300 years down the fairway. Or in other terms say a pro plays to plus 5 and an enthusiast plays to a handicap of 10 in percentage terms over 70 holes that isn't that big a difference. The nature of the game limits how much better a pro can be.
With ball sports the difference is much,much greater....you put the footballing/cricketing equivalent of an 18 handicap golfer (so someone that plays friendlies on a Sunday) and the difference would be just absolutely staggering. The cricketing equivalent of an 18 handicap golfer wouldn't be able to even see a cricket ball bowled by a professional fast bowler and could probably bowl all day and not get the sniff of a wicket.
Same with football....I remember reading that the main difference with the pro's is the accuracy of the passing but I don't think people have got any comprehension about the speed of the game or even how hard they kick the ball. I was lucky enough to spend a day at Arsenal's training ground a few years ago....stood right behind the net with Seaman between the sticks.....the power of the shots was ridiculous and the ability to save/parry them was pretty incredible too.
You could say the same about tennis too I suppose....enthusiast literally couldn't take a point off a top pro.
I do think professional cycling or say marathon running is a good one I would say the pro's do it in half to two thirds the time on an enthusiast.
With ball sports the difference is much,much greater....you put the footballing/cricketing equivalent of an 18 handicap golfer (so someone that plays friendlies on a Sunday) and the difference would be just absolutely staggering. The cricketing equivalent of an 18 handicap golfer wouldn't be able to even see a cricket ball bowled by a professional fast bowler and could probably bowl all day and not get the sniff of a wicket.
Same with football....I remember reading that the main difference with the pro's is the accuracy of the passing but I don't think people have got any comprehension about the speed of the game or even how hard they kick the ball. I was lucky enough to spend a day at Arsenal's training ground a few years ago....stood right behind the net with Seaman between the sticks.....the power of the shots was ridiculous and the ability to save/parry them was pretty incredible too.
You could say the same about tennis too I suppose....enthusiast literally couldn't take a point off a top pro.
I do think professional cycling or say marathon running is a good one I would say the pro's do it in half to two thirds the time on an enthusiast.
golf and snooker - no question in terms of control and co-ordination..when you play these games you realise how good these guys really are.
as for more physical sports...Rowing isn;t a fair comparison imho as good rowers are all long levered, i'm short so my best 2k was 6:56 on the C2.
cycilng - the tour pros are superhuman as are the srpint cyclists...but I think any pro sport should set themselves apart from the hackers and rabbits otherwise it wouldn't be special or inspirational...
I'm not sure I beilieve in natural talent - in the hunter gatherer sense of the word...tkae snooker for example, how can you be "naturally" talented at usung a stick to hit a ceramic sphere into one or more other ceramic spheres with the aim of placing said second ceramic shpere into a bag on a bed of slate?
not very useful for hunting bison that one, I mean you'd need the extended spider for starters....
as for more physical sports...Rowing isn;t a fair comparison imho as good rowers are all long levered, i'm short so my best 2k was 6:56 on the C2.
cycilng - the tour pros are superhuman as are the srpint cyclists...but I think any pro sport should set themselves apart from the hackers and rabbits otherwise it wouldn't be special or inspirational...
I'm not sure I beilieve in natural talent - in the hunter gatherer sense of the word...tkae snooker for example, how can you be "naturally" talented at usung a stick to hit a ceramic sphere into one or more other ceramic spheres with the aim of placing said second ceramic shpere into a bag on a bed of slate?
not very useful for hunting bison that one, I mean you'd need the extended spider for starters....
Nom de ploom said:
golf and snooker - no question in terms of control and co-ordination..when you play these games you realise how good these guys really are.
as for more physical sports...Rowing isn;t a fair comparison imho as good rowers are all long levered, i'm short so my best 2k was 6:56 on the C2.
cycilng - the tour pros are superhuman as are the srpint cyclists...but I think any pro sport should set themselves apart from the hackers and rabbits otherwise it wouldn't be special or inspirational...
I'm not sure I beilieve in natural talent - in the hunter gatherer sense of the word...tkae snooker for example, how can you be "naturally" talented at usung a stick to hit a ceramic sphere into one or more other ceramic spheres with the aim of placing said second ceramic shpere into a bag on a bed of slate?
not very useful for hunting bison that one, I mean you'd need the extended spider for starters....
Hand-eye coordination is absolutely vital for good hunter-gathering, and certainly at least partly an inherited trait. as for more physical sports...Rowing isn;t a fair comparison imho as good rowers are all long levered, i'm short so my best 2k was 6:56 on the C2.
cycilng - the tour pros are superhuman as are the srpint cyclists...but I think any pro sport should set themselves apart from the hackers and rabbits otherwise it wouldn't be special or inspirational...
I'm not sure I beilieve in natural talent - in the hunter gatherer sense of the word...tkae snooker for example, how can you be "naturally" talented at usung a stick to hit a ceramic sphere into one or more other ceramic spheres with the aim of placing said second ceramic shpere into a bag on a bed of slate?
not very useful for hunting bison that one, I mean you'd need the extended spider for starters....
Snooker's just an application of that general talent, as is spear-lobbing (darts).
BarnatosGhost said:
Amateurish said:
BarnatosGhost said:
Depends on the sport, a team sport would be easier to 'hide' an amateur. A good sunday league player, assuming they're fit, could play in a League 2 football team and as long as they were well-supported by the rest of the team, might not look too out of place over 90 minutes. Over the season they'd be recognised as not good enough, but they might manage a game, if they're keeping it simple.
A solo sport like tennis, golf or snooker, the amateur would quickly stand out like a sore thumb.
I'm not sure I agree. I reckon that having a Sunday League player in a League 2 Side would be like playing with 10 men, or worse. A solo sport like tennis, golf or snooker, the amateur would quickly stand out like a sore thumb.
They'd still be the weakest player on the pitch, but it wouldn't be a total non-spectacle like a best of 33 frame match between me and Ronnie O'Sullivan (which would absolutely certainly finish 17-0, less than 30 points scored by me in total).
we had been training for 2 weeks it was their 2nd day back. we were no mugs (perhaps I was lucky to be playing that level) and the reason we were playing them was that we had a couple of ex-pros playing for us who had mates there. the ex-pros by the way even being 10 years my senior were a different class.
yes you have to have the ability, but drop a league lower player into a league 2 team and watch him flounder.
jesta1865 said:
BarnatosGhost said:
Amateurish said:
BarnatosGhost said:
Depends on the sport, a team sport would be easier to 'hide' an amateur. A good sunday league player, assuming they're fit, could play in a League 2 football team and as long as they were well-supported by the rest of the team, might not look too out of place over 90 minutes. Over the season they'd be recognised as not good enough, but they might manage a game, if they're keeping it simple.
A solo sport like tennis, golf or snooker, the amateur would quickly stand out like a sore thumb.
I'm not sure I agree. I reckon that having a Sunday League player in a League 2 Side would be like playing with 10 men, or worse. A solo sport like tennis, golf or snooker, the amateur would quickly stand out like a sore thumb.
They'd still be the weakest player on the pitch, but it wouldn't be a total non-spectacle like a best of 33 frame match between me and Ronnie O'Sullivan (which would absolutely certainly finish 17-0, less than 30 points scored by me in total).
we had been training for 2 weeks it was their 2nd day back. we were no mugs (perhaps I was lucky to be playing that level) and the reason we were playing them was that we had a couple of ex-pros playing for us who had mates there. the ex-pros by the way even being 10 years my senior were a different class.
yes you have to have the ability, but drop a league lower player into a league 2 team and watch him flounder.
But if less than 10% of the team is a competent amateur, and the the rest pros? Not so clear cut at all. 10 pros often beat 11 pros.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff