or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › The Dan Plan - 10,000 Hours to become a pro golfer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Dan Plan - 10,000 Hours to become a pro golfer - Page 84

post #1495 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

I was only disappointed that @Shorty
was not invited to talk. I would love to have seen him ask Dan more pertinent questions to golf.

Of course, I just extrapolated golf from the rest of the things.
You mean that want Shorty who told Dan he wouldn't be elite even if he spent 100,000 hours?

I liked some of that guy's segments about success in tennis. He pointed out that many young players excel later than the youngest prodigies because they learn from failure. As you age, you learn how to deal with setbacks and there is emerging research in that topic. Sounded interesting. But just covered superficially here like everything in the episode mostly.
post #1496 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandallT View Post


You mean that want Shorty who told Dan he wouldn't be elite even if he spent 100,000 hours?

I liked some of that guy's segments about success in tennis. He pointed out that many young players excel later than the youngest prodigies because they learn from failure. As you age, you learn how to deal with setbacks and there is emerging research in that topic. Sounded interesting. But just covered superficially here like everything in the episode mostly.


I would say that Andrew Bully was a realist.

 

It would have been nice to hear from professional golfers or people who have been intimately associated for many years with golf like @Shorty to discuss specific things that Dan might lack such that 100,000 hours would not be enough for his success.

 

To me, it was pretty conclusive that they were stating that Dan might not have a chance. Otherwise, they would not have had so many naturally talented people in the show to discuss their opinions. Even the guy who trained the cricket bowler acknowledged that the player did have the natural ability even though it was not immediately apparent as he never bowled before.

 

If they were discussing "The Dan Plan", then more golf would have been involved. However, the discussion was "Born or Made". I think it was clear that they felt Dan has a low chance of success, which is why they invited him on the show.

post #1497 of 1712

SBS program tl;dr

 

  • Dan: didn't play a complete round until 2 years into plan.
  • (To Dr. Ericsson) Do you think he'll make it? I think hat's the wrong question to ask. Question is will he find any attribute that helps him to achieve high levels (paraphrasing).
  • What's your handicap? Between 2.6 and 4.
  • ATP tennis coach - 100,000 hours, no way.
  • Dan: Talent is ability to stay engaged for a long time.
  • Considered architecture, music but chose golf.

 

I like this format. Most shows in the US only bring in a handful of experts. This show, everyone who comments, like dozens, is an expert in his field - prima ballerina, tennis, cricket, aerial skiing, music, running, academics, chess, etc...

 

BTW, perfect pitch, dunno if everyone can get it, but relative pitch, can be learned, and that's plenty. Perfect pitch is a bit overrated.

post #1498 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post

BTW, perfect pitch, dunno if everyone can get it, but relative pitch, can be learned, and that's plenty. Perfect pitch is a bit overrated.

Perfect pitch is insane, but I will agree that relative pitch is good enough for most musicians. I used to be friends with someone who had perfect pitch and it was kind of cool because you'd play any note, and he'd tell you exactly what note it was and if it was sharp or flat. You could take a tuner to it and he'd be right on the sharp or flat too.

post #1499 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzel View Post
 

Perfect pitch is insane, but I will agree that relative pitch is good enough for most musicians. I used to be friends with someone who had perfect pitch and it was kind of cool because you'd play any note, and he'd tell you exactly what note it was and if it was sharp or flat. You could take a tuner to it and he'd be right on the sharp or flat too.

 

:offtopic:

 

Sorry to go off topic, this is the last you'll hear from me about it, but it is somewhat related. Absolute pitch - just because you have it is no guarantee that you'll become a great musician. It is overrated. OVER friggin' RATED.

 

The fact that the media trot this out (absolute pitch) when talking about nature vs nurture, talent vs practice, makes the conversation seem more superficial. It's like they all drag out these cliches over and over again and don't bring up fresh ideas. It wows the audience, ooooh, he can stand in the next room and tell me what note I'm playing, just perpetuates a misnomer. And you know what. Ya get old. Ya lose it. Do you ask that grey haired concert pianist if he's got absolute pitch? :mad::mad::mad::mad: 

post #1500 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post
 

 

I like this format. Most shows in the US only bring in a handful of experts. This show, everyone who comments, like dozens, is an expert in his field - prima ballerina, tennis, cricket, aerial skiing, music, running, academics, chess, etc...

 

 

My wife and I were struck at how many experts kept popping up throughout the show. We wondered why some were in the audience, and some were on stage. At every turn, the moderator called on some other person who had excelled or had trained an expert. It was quite an impressive array of talent.  My overall impression looking back at the show is how small Dan looks on that stage. Those were people at the top of their various fields who spoke of the importance of natural talent or genetics.... and there was Dan, just some guy with an idea but not necessarily the natural talent. The moderator tried to talk up Dan's "talent" for being passionate, but that seemed forced to me. Almost like she was trying to be nice to him.  I also thought Dan's hair looked horrible :-)

 

Anyway, curious to know how you think Dan performed. I thought mediocre at best. 

post #1501 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandallT View Post
 

 

My wife and I were struck at how many experts kept popping up throughout the show. We wondered why some were in the audience, and some were on stage. At every turn, the moderator called on some other person who had excelled or had trained an expert. It was quite an impressive array of talent.  My overall impression looking back at the show is how small Dan looks on that stage. Those were people at the top of their various fields who spoke of the importance of natural talent or genetics.... and there was Dan, just some guy with an idea but not necessarily the natural talent. The moderator tried to talk up Dan's "talent" for being passionate, but that seemed forced to me. Almost like she was trying to be nice to him.  I also thought Dan's hair looked horrible :-)

 

Anyway, curious to know how you think Dan performed. I thought mediocre at best. 

 

Well, the aerial skier was 5' 2"? To a naysayer like me, he didn't change my opinion at all, but I see why he acquired and maintains his following now. He's done lots of media appearances I'm guessing, but this is the first I'm seeing of him in an interview. He touched on little bits deliberate practice, could have done more? That's the novelty of his endeavor, no? But telly is a terrible format to go into that nuance. Not enough time. Viewers don't have the attention span. But he did have a chance when the host asked him about himself. I think for his following, he did okay, but his appearance are not going to convince those on the other side of the fence, nowhere near it.

post #1502 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post
BTW, perfect pitch, dunno if everyone can get it, but relative pitch, can be learned, and that's plenty. Perfect pitch is a bit overrated.

 

Perfect pitch is a really interesting phenomenon. It's an acquired skill, but crucially it looks like it's impossible to acquiring once you're older than something like 5 or 6. It's one of those things that you can only do if you actually picked it up as a kid (like golf maybe...).

post #1503 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by golf-noob-bruce View Post

Perfect pitch is a really interesting phenomenon. It's an acquired skill, but crucially it looks like it's impossible to acquiring once you're older than something like 5 or 6. It's one of those things that you can only do if you actually picked it up as a kid (like golf maybe...).

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post

z8_offtopic.gif

Sorry to go off topic, this is the last you'll hear from me about it, but it is somewhat related. Absolute pitch - just because you have it is no guarantee that you'll become a great musician. It is overrated. OVER friggin' RATED.

The fact that the media trot this out (absolute pitch) when talking about nature vs nurture, talent vs practice, makes the conversation seem more superficial. It's like they all drag out these cliches over and over again and don't bring up fresh ideas. It wows the audience, ooooh, he can stand in the next room and tell me what note I'm playing, just perpetuates a misnomer. And you know what. Ya get old. Ya lose it. Do you ask that grey haired concert pianist if he's got absolute pitch? c4_mad.gifc4_mad.gifc4_mad.gifc4_mad.gif  

I used to play piano and actually bought a set of CDs to learn perfect pitch and relative pitch. I was ok at relative pitch but perfect pitch eluded me!! The guy teaching started with F# and E flat. Those notes definitely have a quality to then. E flat more sad, melancholy, F# more discordant or jarring to the ear. If you stuck with just those two, I could get it. But add more and I would lose my reference point. Frustrating!!!

Anyway here's the transcript for those who just wanna read the dialogue.
http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/transcript/636/Born-or-Made

I thought the 5'2" aerial skier, Alisa Camplin, was lovely. Ok, enough OT :)
post #1504 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandallT View Post



I used to play piano and actually bought a set of CDs to learn perfect pitch and relative pitch. I was ok at relative pitch but perfect pitch eluded me!! The guy teaching started with F# and E flat. Those notes definitely have a quality to then. E flat more sad, melancholy, F# more discordant or jarring to the ear. If you stuck with just those two, I could get it. But add more and I would lose my reference point. Frustrating!!!

Anyway here's the transcript for those who just wanna read the dialogue.
http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/transcript/636/Born-or-Made

I thought the 5'2" aerial skier, Alisa Camplin, was lovely. Ok, enough OT :)

 

Agreed. :whistle:

post #1505 of 1712

The thing I disliked most about the program was that it basically implied that Dan had achieved "expert" status and the only question was whether this had been achieved through dedicated practice or whether his talent was natural.

As has been seen in his website videos, he is a particularly unathletic looking specimen.

He was revelling in the attention and invariably rambled on beyond what was wanted from him.

As I suspected, the average non golf savvy viewers would think he has achieved a level of skill close to a PGA Tour player in a couple of years.

post #1506 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post
 

The thing I disliked most about the program was that it basically implied that Dan had achieved "expert" status and the only question was whether this had been achieved through dedicated practice or whether his talent was natural.

As has been seen in his website videos, he is a particularly unathletic looking specimen.

He was revelling in the attention and invariably rambled on beyond what was wanted from him.

As I suspected, the average non golf savvy viewers would think he has achieved a level of skill close to a PGA Tour player in a couple of years.

 

 

My takeaway was that he was there as an example of a person who put a very large amount of effort, and has not yet attained his goal of being a PGA pro. Then they had all kinds of experts and world class athletes/coaches saying what they did to achieve success. Many of them just said something like "It just happened." or "I always did it." The overwhelming evidence pointed towards "Born".

 

They did not want to say explicitly that Dan had no chance of success although Andrew Bully pretty much said it, and they repeated him saying it three times.

 

I wished someone like you were on the show as well. Both you and Andrew would have had quite a bit to say about his chances of success. :beer:

post #1507 of 1712
Nature vs nature has been argued over since forever and this is just a variant of the argument, born or made. While I liked the format of the show and learned a little, the one hour bit has been done before. I'm repeating myself but what was lost in this whole argument was how to practice better. Instead of focusing on how any schlub can practice his way to genius top 0.01% level, lost is the opportunity to talk about how better practice techniques can make the average better. Wouldn't raising the tide of an ocean an inkling be more helpful than the super complicated nuance of figuring out genius?

If The Dan Plan makes it to Charlie Rose in the long run, I'm gonna puke.
post #1508 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post

Nature vs nature has been argued over since forever and this is just a variant of the argument, born or made. While I liked the format of the show and learned a little, the one hour bit has been done before. I'm repeating myself but what was lost in this whole argument was how to practice better. Instead of focusing on how any schlub can practice his way to genius top 0.01% level, lost is the opportunity to talk about how better practice techniques can make the average better. Wouldn't raising the tide of an ocean an inkling be more helpful than the super complicated nuance of figuring out genius?

If The Dan Plan makes it to Charlie Rose in the long run, I'm gonna puke.

 

This is what I think will make a lot more sense for Dan and his future, but unfortunately he has not been keeping track of any of his progress in a meaningful way nor has he proceeded with a good method from the get go.

post #1509 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post

Nature vs nature has been argued over since forever and this is just a variant of the argument, born or made. 

Not as long as "Nature vs Nurture" :-)

post #1510 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post

Not as long as "Nature vs Nurture" a1_smile.gif

I blame autocorrect! a1_smile.gif
post #1511 of 1712
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

This is what I think will make a lot more sense for Dan and his future, but unfortunately he has not been keeping track of any of his progress in a meaningful way nor has he proceeded with a good method from the get go.

 

He has been more worried about the media/making money than playing golf.

 

I just saw he tweeted he needs an agent.

 

Pathetic. 

 

Self-indulgent fraud, but that is where the world is going.  God forbid he would try to get a real job.

post #1512 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerkeleyRehab View Post
 
 

He has been more worried about the media/making money than playing golf.

 

I just saw he tweeted he needs an agent.

 

Pathetic. 

 

Self-indulgent fraud, but that is where the world is going.  God forbid he would try to get a real job.

 

I looked at his FB/Twitter feeds, just looks like Australian channels trying to outdo each other. Whether this will die down and then crickets or more outlets pick up remains to be seen. It does take away from deliberate practice time - like I said, managing the media is time consuming, probably a 1/4 time job for DP.

 

Now as I think about the SBS episode in retrospect, the more empty it seems. 

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