or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › The Dan Plan - 10,000 Hours to Become a Pro Golfer (Dan McLaughlin)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Dan Plan - 10,000 Hours to Become a Pro Golfer (Dan McLaughlin) - Page 39

post #685 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

I was just updating the hcp revisions for our happy little group down here, and thought I'd check in with Dan.

 

 

Update as of the 9-1 revision.  Nothing posted since mid-August and his last 6 differentials are all WELL into double digits.  Some of his better rounds are about to drop off too....

 

For someone with golf as his raison d'etre, he's either not playing very much, or isn't posting a lot of what he does play. 

 

 

An 89, huh? I shot an 87 the other day as a 15-17ish handicap. Although the slope where I played was only 127...not 128...so there's that...

 

VANITYCAPPPPPPPPPPP

post #686 of 2165

August 8: Met a blog reader at Heron Lakes and my Texas buddy from the day before.  Played 18 with them and then went to the range to lick some wounds, definitely not hitting it well right now as I can’t seem to find a square face. 5,596 remain. Random Stat: shot an 86 from the blues on the great blue course.

August 7:  A reader of the blog visited from Texas and we played 18 at Riverside.  Definitely a fun day and beforehand I went out there for a range hour.  5,600 remain.  Random Stat: Shot an 83 from the blues after a couple of esc holes.

 

Translated: A mysterious cowboy from TX called out Dan and looks like Dan answered by firing an 83 at one of his home courses.  Then played the next day with the Texan again (because the first day was surely a fluke) and sucked even worse to the point Dan went to "lick his wounds" LOL.  What was THAT score?  If the 83 was worth mentioning, what WASN'T mentioned?? Was it another 97?? Lol.  I gotta say this is great entertainment.  A delusional golfer/wannabe reality TV star who hasn't posted a score in a very long time.

post #687 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey View Post
 

There is no substitute for natural talent.

 

There is no such thing.  First you win the genetic lottery and then you practice your ass off.  That's it.

 

There are no midgets in professional sports and it certainly isn't due to a lack of "natural talent".

post #688 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strandly View Post
 

 

There is no such thing.  First you win the genetic lottery and then you practice your ass off.  That's it.

 

There are no midgets in professional sports and it certainly isn't due to a lack of "natural talent".

 

Wrong. Athleticism is talent, and it's also natural. You can hone it, but it's absolutely natural. There's a reason MJD is a great running back when he's essentially a midget by pro sports standards...he's an athletic freak.

 

Yes, you have to practice your ass off...but just because you grow to 6'4", doesn't mean you have the natural talent to be a pro QB or lineman, regardless of how much work you put in.

post #689 of 2165

MJD?  Like 8 of the top 10 RBs of all time were 5'10 or shorter.  Being small and strong are ideal for that position, just like being fast and tall is great for wideouts.  But I'm not talking about physical dimensions.  If you're stupid and/or can't think fast you're still going to fail at a game you're physically predisposed to excel at.  "Natural talent" is just some ambiguous term people throw out there as an excuse for losing to someone for a reason they can't measure.

post #690 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strandly View Post
 

"Natural talent" is just some ambiguous term people throw out there as an excuse for losing to someone for a reason they can't measure.

 

Aaaaaand wrong. You really think that with hard work, you'd be as good a wide receiver as Jerry Rice (Neglecting height)? Really?!

 

He's a natural athlete. Period. He worked his ass off, and that's why he became a great receiver...but he wouldn't have been what he was without his natural athleticism. 

 

I was better at sports when I was a kid than both my brothers....even though we played the same amount, because I was more athletically talented. Period.

 

Natural talent is real...if you don't believe that, I can only assume you haven't played a lot of sports.

post #691 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strandly View Post
 

MJD?  Like 8 of the top 10 RBs of all time were 5'10 or shorter.  Being small and strong are ideal for that position, just like being fast and tall is great for wideouts.  But I'm not talking about physical dimensions.  If you're stupid and/or can't think fast you're still going to fail at a game you're physically predisposed to excel at.  "Natural talent" is just some ambiguous term people throw out there as an excuse for losing to someone for a reason they can't measure.

 

I don't really get your argument.  Natural physical talent is real.  Some folks also have better natural cognitive abilities.  But there are definitely plenty of stupid people that were incredibly, physically talented and did not "fail."  Randy Moss would fall in to that category, IMO.  And while his innate stupidity (among other things he was lacking) probably kept him from being the best WR of all time (because he had the physical tools for it), I would not classify him as a failure.  His incredible natural ability will eventually get him as far as the Hall of Fame.

post #692 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strandly View Post
 

If you're stupid and/or can't think fast you're still going to fail at a game you're physically predisposed to excel at.

 

Frank Gore scored a 6 on the Wonderlic. An easy test that tests your level of stupidity.

 

He's stupid. He's excelled at a game he's physically predisposed to excel at.

post #693 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
 

 

Frank Gore scored a 6 on the Wonderlic. An easy test that tests your level of stupidity.

 

He's stupid. He's excelled at a game he's physically predisposed to excel at.

Greg McElroy had one of the highest scores ever on the Wonderlic and I think he just got cut by the Jets after being 3rd string for a few years. Hate to say it but if you can't play quarterback for the Jets you probably can't play for anybody.

 

Those guys that think there is no such thing as talent always leave me scratching my head. It's as if they have no life experiences. Have they never seen the guy that picked up the guitar for the first time and an hour later he sounds like he's been playing for years? Have they not known the guy that always won the games made up on the playground (that nobody had practiced or "worked" at)?

 

I'm as much a believer in hard work as anybody, and it's no accident that the very best in any sport are usually the hardest workers, but to say talent doesn't exist is ludicrous.

post #694 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
 

 

Frank Gore scored a 6 on the Wonderlic. An easy test that tests your level of stupidity.

 

He's stupid. He's excelled at a game he's physically predisposed to excel at.

 

There's not much to, Take ball, run towards daylight. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strandly View Post
 

MJD?  Like 8 of the top 10 RBs of all time were 5'10 or shorter.  Being small and strong are ideal for that position, just like being fast and tall is great for wideouts.  But I'm not talking about physical dimensions.  If you're stupid and/or can't think fast you're still going to fail at a game you're physically predisposed to excel at.  "Natural talent" is just some ambiguous term people throw out there as an excuse for losing to someone for a reason they can't measure.

 

Yep, the reason, LEVERAGE, pad level is lower, its harder to tackle. There's a reason why McFadden is injury prone, he runs to high. Reason why Emmit Smith could be the iron man, he's stocky and shorter. 

 

But Speed is also genetic, there's a reason why certain nations dominate the long distance running, and speed running. Reason why majority of Black people in sports are faster than white people. Reason why majority of Black people can jump higher than white people. Its genetic. There muscle make up, and proportions dictate they are going to be predisposed to be better. That makes them a natural talent. There's a reason why Notre Dame football recruits there players based on certain height and weight standards. They want certain body types that are predisposed for athletic success. 

post #695 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
 

 

Aaaaaand wrong. You really think that with hard work, you'd be as good a wide receiver as Jerry Rice (Neglecting height)? Really?!

 

He's a natural athlete. Period. He worked his ass off, and that's why he became a great receiver...but he wouldn't have been what he was without his natural athleticism.

 

I was better at sports when I was a kid than both my brothers....even though we played the same amount, because I was more athletically talented. Period.

 

Natural talent is real...if you don't believe that, I can only assume you haven't played a lot of sports.

 

I knew you were going to ignore my first post eventually.  Ha

 

But we better back up and make sure we're talking about the same thing here.  I take natural talent to mean some sort of special sauce, some magical immeasurable "thing" that allows someone to be better than someone else at a skill they appear to be equally predisposed to excel at.

 

I'm saying it doesn't exist.  If I hang a tire 30 yards down field and tell Manning and Brady to throw a ball through it and Manning pulls it off while Brady hits the tire it's because Manning either has an extra fiber in his arm that allowed him to make the throw or has put in more hours of practice and that's what allowed him to win the contest.  Period.

 

If you mean something else by natural talent then by all means explain.

post #696 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strandly View Post
 

 

I knew you were going to ignore my first post eventually.  Ha

 

But we better back up and make sure we're talking about the same thing here.  I take natural talent to mean some sort of special sauce, some magical immeasurable "thing" that allows someone to be better than someone else at a skill they appear to be equally predisposed to excel at.

 

I'm saying it doesn't exist.  If I hang a tire 30 yards down field and tell Manning and Brady to throw a ball through it and Manning pulls it off while Brady hits the tire it's because Manning either has an extra fiber in his arm that allowed him to make the throw or has put in more hours of practice and that's what allowed him to win the contest.  Period.

 

If you mean something else by natural talent then by all means explain.

 

I guess it all depends if you consider hand eye coordination and the ability to cut and run fast a talent. I do, a natural talent. I can practice 8 hours a day for years, and won't be able to run routes and catch a ball like Jerry Rice of Calvin Johnson. 

 

I suppose you could say it's just genetics, but that is what is responsible for an athlete's talent ceiling, right? So I guess we're arguing definitions more than anything...

post #697 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strandly View Post
 

 

I knew you were going to ignore my first post eventually.  Ha

 

But we better back up and make sure we're talking about the same thing here.  I take natural talent to mean some sort of special sauce, some magical immeasurable "thing" that allows someone to be better than someone else at a skill they appear to be equally predisposed to excel at.

 

I'm saying it doesn't exist.  If I hang a tire 30 yards down field and tell Manning and Brady to throw a ball through it and Manning pulls it off while Brady hits the tire it's because Manning either has an extra fiber in his arm that allowed him to make the throw or has put in more hours of practice and that's what allowed him to win the contest.  Period.

 

If you mean something else by natural talent then by all means explain.

Terrible analogy, bad sample size, it wouldn't prove jack.

 

Natural talent exists, you already mentioned the genetic lottery which falls into the same category. 

 

The most elite sportsmen were the ones who won the genetic lottery and then perfected the skills. There almost certainly is many more people who would have been genetically capable of doing what other elite sportsmen do, such as Woods, out there, but they didn't pick up the golf club. 

post #698 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strandly View Post
 

But we better back up and make sure we're talking about the same thing here.  I take natural talent to mean some sort of special sauce, some magical immeasurable "thing" that allows someone to be better than someone else at a skill they appear to be equally predisposed to excel at.

 

I'm saying it doesn't exist.  If I hang a tire 30 yards down field and tell Manning and Brady to throw a ball through it and Manning pulls it off while Brady hits the tire it's because Manning either has an extra fiber in his arm that allowed him to make the throw or has put in more hours of practice and that's what allowed him to win the contest.  Period.

 

If you mean something else by natural talent then by all means explain.

 

I have no idea what you said, here.  I still am not sure what your argument is.  

 

How do two people appear to be equally predisposed to excel at a particular skill?  How do you define, "appear," "equally predisposed," and "excel?"  Is your example of throwing a ball through a tire an illustration of what you're talking about?  Why would anybody think throwing 1 ball through 1 tire at an arbitrary distance is conclusive of any level of talent?

 

The most basic measures of physical talent would be things like running, jumping and lifting/moving physical objects.  Obviously, it gets more complicated than that as you get into more intricate body mechanics and skills, but surely you would agree that some people are simply born with a higher ceiling on their ability to jump, run and lift compared to others?

post #699 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post
 

 

I have no idea what you said, here.  I still am not sure what your argument is.

 

How do two people appear to be equally predisposed to excel at a particular skill?  How do you define, "appear," "equally predisposed," and "excel?"  Is your example of throwing a ball through a tire an illustration of what you're talking about?  Why would anybody think throwing 1 ball through 1 tire at an arbitrary distance is conclusive of any level of talent?

 

The most basic measures of physical talent would be things like running, jumping and lifting/moving physical objects.  Obviously, it gets more complicated than that as you get into more intricate body mechanics and skills, but surely you would agree that some people are simply born with a higher ceiling on their ability to jump, run and lift compared to others?

 

Let me put it another way.  Have you ever had someone tell you you'll never make it as an NBA player (or something else, doesn't matter what).. not because you aren't tall enough or fast enough or don't have the wingspan or lack any of the other million things that make the great players great but because of some lack of secret mojo that would prevent you from being great no matter how well your body fits the game, how long you practice, and how hard you try?  They're basically telling you that you lack some intangible thing that you have to be born with and if you don't have it, you're screwed.  This is the impression I get when people when people talk about natural talent or natural ability, or whatever you want to call it.  I think it's a load of bs, that's all I'm saying.  It's literally that simple.  If you can't comprehend what I'm getting at I simply don't know what to tell you.

post #700 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strandly View Post
 

 

Let me put it another way.  Have you ever had someone tell you you'll never make it as an NBA player (or something else, doesn't matter what).. not because you aren't tall enough or fast enough or don't have the wingspan or lack any of the other million things that make the great players great but because of some lack of secret mojo that would prevent you from being great no matter how well your body fits the game, how long you practice, and how hard you try?  They're basically telling you that you lack some intangible thing that you have to be born with and if you don't have it, you're screwed.  This is the impression I get when people when people talk about natural talent or natural ability, or whatever you want to call it.  I think it's a load of bs, that's all I'm saying.  It's literally that simple.  If you can't comprehend what I'm getting at I simply don't know what to tell you.

Yep, and yep....And they were right.

post #701 of 2165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strandly View Post

Let me put it another way.  Have you ever had someone tell you you'll never make it as an NBA player (or something else, doesn't matter what).. not because you aren't tall enough or fast enough or don't have the wingspan or lack any of the other million things that make the great players great but because of some lack of secret mojo that would prevent you from being great no matter how well your body fits the game, how long you practice, and how hard you try?  They're basically telling you that you lack some intangible thing that you have to be born with and if you don't have it, you're screwed.  This is the impression I get when people when people talk about natural talent or natural ability, or whatever you want to call it.  I think it's a load of bs, that's all I'm saying.  It's literally that simple.  If you can't comprehend what I'm getting at I simply don't know what to tell you.

Yes. Even though I'm extremely athletic, I suck at basketball. I'm better than a non ahletic person, but I lack he skills to play at a high level. Even with a lot of practice, I'm just not a good ball handler or passer. I don't see passing lanes well and I can't react to defenses well. And it's not a reaction or hand eye thing, I can hit a 90 mph fastball with no issues.
post #702 of 2165

Another up-tick.  Only one round even posted in the last month.  Only 3 rounds posted since mid-July.

 

Starting to lose credibiliy......

 

Interestingly, his anti-handicap index is a whopping 11.6.

 

 

 

Name: Dan McLaughlin
Club Handicap Index Effective Date Low H.I.
Columbia Edgewater CC
Oregon Golf Association
6.2 9/15/2013 5.4
Revision ScoresRecent ScoresH.I. HistoryC.H. Calculator
Used T Date Score CR/Slope Diff.
  AI 9/13 84 72.0/128 10.6
* AI 8/13 84 71.9/137 10.0
  AI 8/13 86 71.9/137 11.6
  AI 7/13 89 71.6/128 15.4
  AI 7/13 86 73.0/133 11.0
  TI 7/13 85 73.0/133 10.2
  TI 7/13 92 73.0/133 16.1
* TI 7/13 84 73.0/133 9.3
* AI 6/13 78 70.3/128 6.8
* AI 6/13 77 72.0/128 4.4
  CI 6/13 87 72.2/136 12.3
* A 6/13 78 71.9/137 5.0
* AI 6/13 79 72.0/128 6.2
* AI 6/13 81 71.9/137 7.5
  T 5/13 86 70.9/141 12.1
* H 5/13 79 73.2/137 4.8
  H 5/13 84 71.1/135 10.8
* H 5/13 79 73.2/137 4.8
  T 5/13 83 69.9/131 11.3
* A 5/13 81 73.0/133 6.8
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › The Dan Plan - 10,000 Hours to Become a Pro Golfer (Dan McLaughlin)