See, the only thing I might disagree with here is that it was even a true test of the 10,000 hour theory since a majority of people with knowledge of golf could have told Dan he wasn't taking a very good path. It was an underfunded, unscientific study that appeared to also be testing the advising professionals pet theory about the best way to learn the golf game at the same time as the 10,000 hour thing, which then introduces even more variables into an already variable-laden type of test.
The 10,000 hour theory I know is hotly contested by another study that actually claims to have found the percentage difference in performance that deliberate practice makes, but Dan doesn't seem like he actually did much testing on the 10,000 hour theory. He had pretty clear goals from the onset, but I don't believe he ever actually defined "expert" as it would relate to golfing. If it meant getting to the top 5% of all golfers in the world then he would have achieved the goal by getting down to about a 2.7. If it meant that he had to be in the top 1% it would mean he'd have to be better than a +1. It's all very dependent on how you define "expert", which is what makes it so difficult.
I don't necessarily keep track of the number of good shots, but I do consider it.
I am not (nor will ever be) good enough to really shoot a good score. On occasion though, I can hit a pretty decent shot. This is probably (more than anything else) keeps me coming back.
I would think offering players the option to play 1 hole on each 9 from where the pro's play might alleviate some of the problem. Not allowing the players to pick the holes but having one hole on each nine setup with an extra set of tees.