Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

A response to Jessica Korda’s criticism of the U.S. junior development system

Published

on

Last week, professional golfer Jessica Korda made headlines with her comments about a lack of developmental pathways in the U.S. and how this was leading to an LPGA Tour dominated by Asian players.

After reviewing the story, I wanted to respond to her comments based on my own background which includes coaching women’s college golf, studying long term player development, and working closely with many national teams around the world.

Development models

When speaking about this issue, it is important to remember that only one country in the world has a written policy on long term development in golf: Canada. This document titled “The Long-Term Player Development Guide” outlines the basics on players entry into golf through eight phases, ending in what is termed ‘compete to win’. While the guide is an outstanding document, little of the document is based on golf-specific research. Instead, the document synthesizes work within other sport domains, along with the expertise of Canadian golf experts like Henry Brunton.

It is also important to remember that golf-specific research on development is very limited. At this time, I am involved in a project with Dr. Joe Baker and Master’s candidate Aaron Koenigsberg which seeks to validate much of the information in the plan, as well as explore other aspects of development including a better examination of practice allocation, access and quality of facilities and environmental factors like home environment and coaching.

The Korean Way

The root of the growing talent disparity between Asian and Western countries in women’s golf may boil down to a couple of fundamental philosophical differences. Let’s take South Korea (the current undisputed golf hotbed in Asia) as a prime example. It goes without saying that family support and expectations in Korea have been noted to drastically contrast those displayed in current Western cultures (generally speaking). For example, women in Korea are expected to adopt their parent’s expectations and internalize them. As well, Korean culture seems to elicit an “all-in” mentality, where both parents and children committed to being successful in a domain of choice, dive in head first without considering other options or potential negative consequences.

It therefore comes as no surprise that among Korean LPGA professionals, overall work ethic (including but not limited to; commitment to long hours of high quality/deep practice, exercise, and proper nutrition), family support, and personal motivation/goal setting have been rated as the top factors that contribute to their professional success (regardless of the support given by Korean sporting officials. In one study investigating Korean LPGA players’ success factors, government support ranked eighth out of a possible nine factors).

Now that the broad cultural motivations for success among Koreans have been defined, where does this desire to succeed in golf stem from? Many pinpoint the start of the Korean golf craze to 1998 when Se Ri Pak became the first South Korean LPGA player to win an LPGA major championship. With the help of intense Korean media coverage, Pak became an icon, while also allowing thousands of young South Korean girls’ and their parents alike to be inspired and motivated to achieve the same success for themselves and their daughters.

Once the motivation is in place, the desire and “all-in” mentality of both the family and athlete to succeed take over. Parental support in all aspects allows the athlete to focus solely on golf from a very young age. Parents will invest all their available resources (time and monetary) into their child, often putting intense pressure on the adolescence to succeed in the short-term. As well Korean parents are more than willing to pull their child out of school with no signs of a normal childhood, to fully pursue this early specialization pathway and train as rigorously as possible, while many parents in the U.S. are not willing to take this route.

However, research has shown that early specialization can be potentially harmful to the positive long-term development of athletes. As early specialization reduces the opportunity for growth in other areas of life, this developmental pathway has been shown to lead to potential physical/mental burnout, and non-desirable social and psychological outcomes. On the other hand, participating in other sports and leisure activities (diversification) has been shown to foster more positive long-term outcomes for athletes.

Essentially there are three stages in the diversification pathway. During the sampling years (6-12) the main emphasis should be on enjoyment and developing overall motor skills throughout a variety of sport. The specializing years (13-15) mark a period where athletes gradually decrease their involvement in other sports. While the investment years (16+) are when an athlete commits fully to their main sport and starts to incrementally increase overall practice time.

However, more research does need to be carried out, as these guidelines are not sport specific. Certain sports may require different guidelines both for the ages of specialization and the type of other sports that in the future could potentially transfer best to an athlete’s main sport (for example baseball a rotational sport may transfer better to golf skills, then cross-country an endurance sport). While one can appreciate that the combination of a genuine love for golf and the Korean mentality may be a major key to success, one also must question if it is the right way to properly develop an athlete and most importantly the person who that athlete will become.

The U.S. System

Although the U.S. system does not have an official national team, I would argue that it offers better access to the components necessary for success than any other country. This includes unmatched coaching (including both technical instruction and fitness), weekly competition and feedback, merit-based entry and cheap golf memberships. There is also a lot of pretty good weather in different regions including areas like the South East, South West and West Coast. Together these components likely make up much of what is important in a person’s development and right now are being offered to anyone who wishes to pursue golf.

The system has worked perfectly for men for decades and has done well with women, what needs to change? Consider over the history of the PGA Tour, eight of every ten players who play over 200 events have been born American. Seven of the last 30 LPGA major championships have been won by U.S. players.

The U.S. system also played some part in the development of four other major participants: Pernille Lindberg and Anne Nordquist–who both played college golf in the U.S.–and Brooke Henderson and Ariya Jutanugarn–who both played at least 2 years of junior golf in the US prior to turning professional.

When examining the last nine U.S.-born major champions, it has taken them an average of 7.1 years from the time they got their tour card to the time they won. Of these, only two players: Lexi Thompson and Stacey Lewis have done it in less than five years. It took nine or more years for Michelle Wie, Mo Martin, Christie Kerr, and Brittany Lang. While this might seem slow, it seems that between four and six years is in line with other players like Annika Sorenstam and Ariya Jutanuagrn.

On a junior level, the U.S. continues to produce several players with significant promise including 75 current junior golfers which according to Junior Golf Scoreboard have scoring differentials (essentially handicaps) of -3 or better. Of these, approximately 35 have scoring differentials of -5 or better. This is extremely impressive and certainly demonstrates they have the scoring potential to make an impact in women’s professional golf, if they want to.

The Path Forward

It has been about two decades since the arrival of the first wave of Korean born players, and the steady stream has continued. Today seven of the top ten players in the world are Asian. Does this mean it is time to panic? No. It does however mean that women golfers who wish to pursue a professional career should take notice; being good enough is no longer the only prerequisite to playing women’s professional golf.

Players from outside Asia must really examine how they are going to prepare for the LPGA while remembering that there is no magic recipe for success. Instead, each player must look towards a process they can trust and continue to have the grit and determination to chase their dream of being an LPGA Tour player.

B.M. Ryan, an entrepreneur and scientist, is a passionate golfer who loves his local muni. Armed with a keen interest in the game, a large network of friends in the industry, Brendan works to find and produce unique content for GolfWRX.

12 Comments

12 Comments

  1. Paul

    Aug 8, 2018 at 1:36 pm

    The “prime” for the best female golfers is now 15-27 years old. Morgan Pressel peaked at 17-20. Paul Creamer won 9 of her ten events between 17 and 24. A female player seeking to be a top 25 player in the world must be on a path to be their best by their 16th birthday; not to begin the “investment” stage on their 16th birthday.

  2. Scooter

    Aug 8, 2018 at 12:09 pm

    I found the part of the article talking about the “specializing years” being 13-15 and the “investment years” being 16+to be interesting and odd at the same time. Those seem way late for developing top-tier athletes in a given sport. We’ve all seen the tapes of Tiger Woods, Rory McIlroy, and Justin Thomas with golf clubs in their hands at a very young age and with parental support very early. I grew up with my Dad giving me a baseball mitt at a very early age, and that was my best/favorite sport. My home course has a First Tee program and it’s great to see young golfers … I think the earlier the child is introduced to a sport, has support to play that sport, and grows to love the sport, the better (no research required).

  3. Scott Pogue

    Aug 8, 2018 at 10:30 am

    There are cultural differences which have nothing to do with racism. This is a discussion about providing realistic development opportunities, not a “win-at-all-costs”, success-based performance model. I choose balance, not zeal for winning.

  4. The Infidel

    Aug 8, 2018 at 4:25 am

    Proper nutrition – lol

  5. Mat

    Aug 7, 2018 at 6:22 pm

    That’s a lot of ink to spill on casual racism.

    • ridiculous

      Aug 8, 2018 at 7:42 am

      Explaining cultural norms is now racism? Oh yeah, I forgot, everything is racism now.

  6. Ronald Montesano

    Aug 7, 2018 at 6:05 pm

    Brittany or Brooke?

  7. Francis

    Aug 7, 2018 at 5:00 pm

    “Parents will invest all their available resources (time and monetary) into their child, often putting intense pressure on the adolescence to succeed in the short-term. As well Korean parents are more than willing to pull their child out of school with no signs of a normal childhood”

    Um… that’s a pretty broad generalization. Where did you even pull this from?

    • NTL

      Aug 7, 2018 at 9:13 pm

      There was a documentary on this. I wish I could remember the name. I don’t think it racism to say that Korean parental involvement is different in the lives of their children than most American parents. It is what it is.

    • Brian K

      Aug 8, 2018 at 8:31 pm

      I am Korean-Canadian. Most of any sports elite athletes in Korea have same problems.This is article is just the fact.

  8. millennial82

    Aug 7, 2018 at 4:18 pm

    Good Article. Show’s we are the type of people who blame everything on the government, while others are working hard as if their lives depended on winning.

  9. alexdub

    Aug 7, 2018 at 3:46 pm

    A line-item attack on Korda’s off-the-cuff comments seems to be a little unfair. She was fulfilling her press duties, asked a random question, and responded with a general synopsis on the development system of US juniors. She wasn’t condemning the entire system; only stating that Korean players have pre-LPGA Tour professional experience, and that USTA has a good camp system for juniors—and that if those could be adopted in the US, it might not be a bad thing.

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!

Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.

Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.

One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?

Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.

Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.

Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”

For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…

Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…

That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.

@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”

Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.

That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.

As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.

I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.

One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.

The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.

If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.

Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.

As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.

It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.

David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.

In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:

“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”

Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”

Eventually, though, something shifts.

We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.

Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.

Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.

Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.

So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.

I see someone evolving.

He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.

It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending