The Dan Plan - 10,000 Hours to become a pro golfer - Page 18

I'm less interested in his raw score and more interested in how he plays the aspects with which he's had the most practice. Is he putting well? How are his approach shots? (I'm not sure if he offers this kind of detail of his games).

 

We tend to forget the fact that he just started swinging a driver a few months ago and focus more on his score. Not too many here had an artful mastery of the driver in just 6-8 months. And looking at his reports, it seems like most of his problems are off the tee.

I think these are lousy excuses, Dan has been hitting the driver for almost a year now (~10 months) and the likely means he has already hit more balls with a driver than the majority of people reading this. (you guys do recall that he practices golf as a full time job right? )

 

Dan:

"November 14 was good and ready for the driver, the final piece of our building equation."

 

Say he's been at this ~28 months, hit 350,000 balls so ~12,000 balls a month, hit about 120,000 shots in the last 10 months. If he practices driver even 10% of the time that's 12000 shots with the driver. That's the equivalent of hitting a bucket every week all year long for 3 years with just your driver.

Edited by Williamevanl - 8/6/12 at 12:17pm

Yeah but we aren't talking about beating the driver around a 20 handicap either. We are talking about the type of skill and familiarity required to compete on the highest level.

I don't think there's one person on this site that doesn't wish Dan well, so it's not hate, it's reality.  The politically correct have convinced people that you can do anything you set your mind to with some hard work (10,000 hours), there are no losers only winners and all that sort of stuff.

 

Reality is, as Dan's experiment has shown to date, it takes a combination of natural skill / talent and hard work to get to the top in anything you want to do.   Some of us have experienced this first hand so we are the skeptics, others who haven't, translate the skepticism into hating. 

 

What Dan is struggling with is trying to overcome what appears to be a lack of natural skill and talent.   A guy who's worked as hard as he has to date on his golf swing shouldn't need more than 6-8 months to be able to put a tee shot with his driver into play. 

 

Didn't Phil only hit 4 fairways Friday at Firestone?

I said "into play", not fairways, there's a difference.  Phil also didn't score an 88.  Nice try

I understand your point but people have continued to say this sort of thing since the beginning, such as: "well he's only been at it 2 years, so that's pretty good for someone who has only been golfing 2 years" This whole thing was only supposed to last 6 years or so (originally) so at the end of this you could just as easily say, "well he's only been playing 6 years"

 

It seems to me when people are trying to give Dan some slack they talk in general terms about how (well now 3100 hours) 2.5 years isn't that long but if you sit down and consider how much time that really is, it's a TON of practice!

 

A lot of practice to me would be reserving an hour of practice after work Monday, Wednesday and Friday, all year (minus winter) and that would be only 96 hours of practice a year. It would take me 32 YEARS to catch Dan where he currently is.

Not sure who we as relative hackers are to question him until he starts nearing the finish line. I could drive the ball pretty well after my second season (Canadian golf season is pretty short) and look at me now - a nobody who can hit a long ball then 3-putt. Yay me.

 

I'm the least politically correct person on this forum, and I'm absolutely fascinated by this project. We aren't talking about that kids soccer crap where nobody keeps score, and everyone gets a trophy. We're talking about someone's score being under a constant microscope.

 

There's three basic camps as far as I can tell:

 

1.) Those who are jacked up about the project for various reasons - they want to see someone make it, they're fascinated by his willingness to prove the theory, they find inspiration in the human spirit, etc.

 

2.) Those who are most realistic about his chances, wish him well, but don't expect him to ever set foot on a pro tour.

 

3.) And those (mostly better golfers) who come at him with bile, hatred, and belittling. These are the guys who are offended at the very notion that someone who'd never picked up a club before age 30 and doesn't possess any real discernable athletic gift, could EVER be in the club of great golf. It's a sense of entitled snobbery that just annoys me to no end. These are the guys who want to feel special. Like the golf gods smiled on them, granted them this great ability, and it is what separates them from the unwashed masses. And if it isn't some gracious gift from the golf gods, it is some rightful spot they earned by virtue of starting golf at the age of 2 while all the other losers were playing with over-sized legos.

 

Don't get me wrong - natural physical ability closes a gap, quickly. But from what I can tell, work ethic and mental game outweigh natural ability (in most cases). Where it might actually take him 15,000 hours to get to a +3 or 4, it could take someone with a natural talent half that.

 

The biggest irony in all of this is that the very same people saying him making it doesn't prove a thing (due to sample size) are the ones saying that his likely failure proves that the theory he's testing is flat wrong.

 

I hope he makes it, if for no other reason than to prove the most hateful of his doubters wrong.

I'm firmly in the 2nd camp. 

Ditto.

 

Some would argue that muscle memory is based on rest as well as repetition. Or, to put it another way, he may be doing 1000 reps a day of something, that the learning benefit peaked out for him at 200, for example. When someone is new to golf, and they practice chipping for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, will they be better than the same person who practices chipping 3 hours a day, 5 days a week? I say "no."

Where's the hate?

There are only two things wrong with the plan - and one of them is the title of this thread because people focus on the "pro" bit. But that's his fault.

The other is his stated plan about becoming a professional golfer which he probably didn't even write in the "details" part of his site:

 

 

During this time, Dan plans to develop his skills through deliberate practice, eventually winning amateur events and obtaining his PGA Tour card through a successful appearance in the PGA Tour’s Qualifying School, or “Q-School”.

 

If he'd said his plan is to test a theory and see how good he can become after 10,000 hours noone would have a problem.

The fact that he isn't already dead of boredom is an achievement in itself.

He's actually doing pretty well and it may well be that he eventually has a low single digit handicap under the U.S. handicap system.

Under this system a player can, from what I see, have  a "scratch handicap" but the average in their 10 of 20 handicap scores are in the mid or late 70s. And that's not playing Bethpage Black every week.

He certainly seems like  a really nice bloke and who can knock his determination? Nobody.

The fact remains that what will ultimately stop him is exactly what stops 99.9999999% of all other golfers. 1 or 2 or 3 poor shots a round which lead to one or two double bogeys or triple bogey so that the 71 becomes a 75 or the 75 becomes a 79. Or whatever. This is why rules have to be religiously followed if your handicap is genuine and you need to hit off the mens tees. Not the coloured ones that are really the ladies tees but are there so because some players feel that they should have a chance of hitting every green in regulation no matter how short they are off the tee.

The issue I see, generally here, is that people think that scratch means pro, when the scratch they are talking about breaks 80 half the time.

I wish him well. He is not going to become a Tour Pro and that should never have been in the brief  - but maybe we wouldn't be writing about him if he hadn't.

He may well eventually be good enough to become a teaching pro. In fact I am pretty sure he will. But that's not  a Tour Pro.

The owner of this site is a teaching pro. And I don't think he would want to be confused with a Tour Pro. 

First, the notion that anyone should shoot their handicap under tournament conditions is silly (more on HCs below). You posted on his blog, and there is also a post from the guy that won the tournament above your post. According to the winner of the event, the course was setup tough and the wind was blowing. Shooting 81 on the first day and 40 on the back the second day (or whatever it was) indicates to me that Dan's handicap of 6 is not a vanity HC. Feel free to disagree - it's just an opinion. To say Dan was 'not even close' to shooting his index is disingenuous.

You keep making the handicap point as if it's an expectation. Not only are indexed players only supposed to shoot their HC 20% of the time, but two consecutive, non-tournament rounds at one's HC are VERY unlikely. A player's handicap is supposed to be an indicator of potential - it's not even an average of anything. It's an average of the ten best scores out of the last twenty rounds multiplied by a factor (.96 or something like that). Any player that heads into a round expecting to shoot their index is going to be disappointed far more times than not, especially under tournament conditions. Dan wasn't even close to shooting 'over the max'.

Back to your question for me: Do I think I'd be disappointed at being a 5.9 if I'd put in the same amount of time and effort?

Yes. I had my index well below that after less time (well, within two years of playing/practicing 5x/week, whatever that is). But I'm not Dan, and what other people have accomplished doesn't matter with regard to his project. He's not even a third of the way through, so where he hits the wall, how he deals with it, etc. are things that are yet to be determined. The project isn't 'How fast can I become a 6?' or, 'Where will I be after 3000 hours?', it's 'Where will 10,000 hours of dedicated, deliberate practice take me?' Hell, he could be a 2 after 8000 hours and it still wouldn't matter. 10,000 hours is the number, and that's really all that can be said about it.

As far as I'm concerned, any speculation about Dan's potential for success or failure is premature by years. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course, and I've certainly weighed in on where I think he'll be at the end of the project, but people progress at different paces and can make leaps over goals where others stall, so I try not to read too much into where he is now.

What he DID write was this: 'From the beginning, the goal after 10,000 hours has been to enter into a PGA event and make the cut'.

IMO, dude WILL tee it up in a PGA event. I think he'll get to +2 or so and cop a sponsor's exemption based on his media exposure. Shoot, it wouldn't surprise me if he gets to play in several PGA events on SEs. Can he make a cut? I think the stars would have to line up in a very special way for that to happen.

Near my house there is an awesome practice facility for about $1000/ year (if you sign a 3 year deal) you get unlimited balls, indoor hitting bays and greens, outdoor putting greens and chipping zones, and 4 practice holes.  The golf range cost of the Dan play in my world is closer to 3k dollars than 47k.   There are other places that will give you unlimited range balls for 600/yr. Or you could join the 6k/yr country club (no init, just dues) and walk as many holes as you want in addition to the practice facility. Obviously this changes a lot depending on where you live but 47k is not any more (or less) accurate than 3k.

 

The time factor is another issue. You will not really get better at any sport if you do it once a week over a long period of time. But this is true in any sport.  If your go out an shoot a 100, you can have fun on the golf course. If you expect to be shooting in the 70s in 3 years practicing 1 hour a week with a coach, your are bound for disappointment.

 

Quote:

The one hour a week for 3 years was to illustrate the amount of practice Dan has had with just the driver, I had said 4500 buckets (at 80 balls a bucket) 5 times a week for 17 years to shoot in the 70's. Perhaps there are too many numbers in this thread. Also the amount spend on range balls doesn't actually have anything to do with what Dan or what anyone has paid. Someone gave their local driving range costs and I said that was a good way to illustrate how many balls Dan has actually hit and gave the amount that person would have to pay to hit the the number of balls that Dan has.

(I also have a range membership so it cost me nothing, it's just an illustration)

I think what is the biggest obstacle for Dan is not just a lack of natural athletic talent but enough actual time for 10,000 hours of practice to be put to it's optimal use.I think there is just too much force feeding with ridiculous amounts of practice for a total beginner only 2 years ago. I don't doubt Dan has probably put in 10 times the amount of practice I have in my entire lifetime already but has achieved far less progress. Perhaps if the timeline was increased to 10 years the goal may be achievable with a more athletic individual though.