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 49

post #865 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

Agreed, my point was a +5 is tougher to achieve outside the US where scores must come from tournament play.  A +5 in US is a very good player but given how our handicap system works they might not be as tournament ready.

Right.  I am making the assumption that somebody at the level of +5 is playing seriously, competitively, and from the tips all of the time.  I can't see a recreational level player (somebody who plays the same course all of the time, or plays from white tees) ever getting that good.

 

It's possible though.  There was a guy in my bowling league last season who had a 235 average ... and he was content to just beat up on all of us on a house pattern twice a week, with no drive to play tournaments, or leagues with sport patterns or anything like that.

post #866 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

Agreed, my point was a +5 is tougher to achieve outside the US where scores must come from tournament play.  A +5 in US is a very good player but given how our handicap system works they might not be as tournament ready.

This is an Irish Guy off +5, his majority of golf is spent on his home course (not casual, his HC is based on his weekly club comps) 

http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/deegan-sights-set-on-adding-senior-title-to-his-allirelands-28812637.html

 

It's a pretty impressive HC all the same considering he was an elite athlete for most his life in a different sport, whilst also having a 9-5 job at the same time. 

(GAA football: our national game in Ireland if anyone is interested, the players at the highest level are professionals in everything bar receiving payment, the all have 9-5 jobs outside of the sport ) 

 

Anyway, his handicap, whilst extremely impressive is based on weekly competitions in his home club mainly. 

He struggles (and admits that) to compete in the Leading Amateur tournaments in Ireland, and guys 4 or 5 shots worse off will better him. 

I'm sure if he had the time to play more golf at away course that he could challenge. 

 

He has played with GMac before, and he said the difference between him and GMac was immense. Like a mid handicapper to a scratch golfer difference!!!!

 

He also co-hosts a weekly podcast over here if any of you fancy a listen to it. 

It's an extremely good podcast imo, covers the PGA and Euro tour and it's just basically 3 "average" (+5,14,15) golfers having a chat about the week in golf. 

There is an excellent interview with P Harrington on 8th Jan, Paddy talks about having the yips!!!!!!

 

https://itunes.apple.com/ie/podcast/golf-weekly/id493549478?mt=2

 

Sorry a bit off topic, but point was that even on this side of the pond, handicaps aren't always what they seem either (I would admit he is an exception though, most + guys are playing lots of tournaments outside of their home course) 

post #867 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

That's why it is only really feasible if you are a kid.

No adult can normally do this, unless they somehow convince other adults to contribute money for you to do it.

That's pretty much what sponsorship is. Happens a lot.

As for starting with only putting, I think that's got something to do with his association w/Dr. Ericsson.

IMHO, and it's obvious, to optimize success, this was gone about the wrong way. Done, "right", imho, Dan, or any average joe plucked off the street would be much farther than where he is now, but will eventually hit a wall, whether it be at scratch or a little better or worse.

I believe in deliberate practice, but this deliberate practice, was implemented badly. Especially with what we know about the importance of the long vs short game. He basically lost the first six months. And the regimental counting hours. What a killjoy that is.
post #868 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Right.  I am making the assumption that somebody at the level of +5 is playing seriously, competitively, and from the tips all of the time.  I can't see a recreational level player (somebody who plays the same course all of the time, or plays from white tees) ever getting that good.

 

It's possible though.  There was a guy in my bowling league last season who had a 235 average ... and he was content to just beat up on all of us on a house pattern twice a week, with no drive to play tournaments, or leagues with sport patterns or anything like that.

I think that's a valid assumption, a +5 would be an exceptional player and would likely look to do more with golf than just beat up the guys in the club.

 

I've become very skeptical of the US handicap implementation after my first year playing in a club last year.  We had a few scratch, +1's at my club who dominate the house tournaments but got wrecked in inter-club competitions when they are played at other locations.  Almost everyone in my old club had a vanity cap that was well below their skill level.  Three times last year it was insinuated that I was a sandbagger because I was getting a fair number of strokes in our club tournaments and in some cases was beating them straight up.  I joined a new club for this year so we'll see how it goes.

 

Getting this back to on topic, it appears Dan is like many of my old club members in that he's selective about what rounds he posts and he doesn't play close to his handicap in tournaments.

post #869 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

That's why it is only really feasible if you are a kid.

No adult can normally do this, unless they somehow convince other adults to contribute money for you to do it.

That's pretty much what sponsorship is. Happens a lot.

As for starting with only putting, I think that's got something to do with his association w/Dr. Ericsson.

IMHO, and it's obvious, to optimize success, this was gone about the wrong way. Done, "right", imho, Dan, or any average joe plucked off the street would be much farther than where he is now, but will eventually hit a wall, whether it be at scratch or a little better or worse.

I believe in deliberate practice, but this deliberate practice, was implemented badly. Especially with what we know about the importance of the long vs short game. He basically lost the first six months. And the regimental counting hours. What a killjoy that is.

My point was that there are better candidates. He is better at marketing himself than many more qualified 35 year olds who are far better than he is at golf.

IDK, but his swing looks really wimpy. Even my daughter controls the club with more power than him.

His training regimen should have started with his weakest link, which is a full swing. Obviously, his full swing given his capability for athleticism is his worst skill set. By starting off putting and chipping he only delays discovering this deficiency.

If I were to take a 35 year old retired football player, I would start him off with the finesse items like chipping and putting. I know is guy would be athletic enought to control the club with plenty of power, but I would question if he has the fine muscle control for chips and putts.

I agree that the training was misguided, and the entire program is misguided. The average person really underestimates the professional golfer, and his marketing machine just feeds on this ignorance.
post #870 of 1520

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless

 

Here's a link to a BBC podcast from 1 March 2014, with the latest episode called "10,000 Hours."  The podcast starts with Dan's story, and from there it broadens out to the various aspects of the "10,000 Hours" studies, papers, books, etc.  It touches on a lot of the caveats we've discussed here regarding the necessary talent and physical attributes, and it traces how people have run with the original concepts by K. Anders Ericsson in 1993 (based on a small group of violinists). A good background listen, if you are doing some mindless task and have 10 minutes.

 

Ericsson, by the way, is not pleased with how many have twisted his original ideas and has a published essay on his academic web page called "The Danger of Delegating Education to Journalists."  Here's a google cache of it:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O-kZdYZxJEoJ:www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/2012%2520Ericssons%2520reply%2520to%2520APS%2520Observer%2520article%2520Oct%252028%2520on%2520web.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

Here's the actual word doc at Florida State for those unafraid of viruses (my computer says the Word doc is virus free):

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/2012%20Ericssons%20reply%20to%20APS%20Observer%20article%20Oct%2028%20on%20web.doc

post #871 of 1520

I have no bloody clue how his story viralized, I would have thunk something like this would stay under the radar, but it did come around the time of Gladwell's Outliers hubbub. I'm guessing many who think if they just practiced a little more relative to the little that they currently do, they could be scratch, are putting their hopes in him. Or Dr Ericsson is giving it scientific weight and legitimacy.

 

Based on the video of his 7 iron above, I think he's got the physical ability to get to scratch or somewhere around it. I think he has a athletic talent deficit (sorry Dan, but this is something I'm familiar with) way more than a strength deficit.

post #872 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post
 

I have no bloody clue how his story viralized, I would have thunk something like this would stay under the radar, but it did come around the time of Gladwell's Outliers hubbub. I'm guessing many who think if they just practiced a little more relative to the little that they currently do, they could be scratch, are putting their hopes in him. Or Dr Ericsson is giving it scientific weight and legitimacy.

 

Based on the video of his 7 iron above, I think he's got the physical ability to get to scratch or somewhere around it. I think he has a athletic talent deficit (sorry Dan, but this is something I'm familiar with) way more than a strength deficit.

 

This is what I meant by my daughter having more power. A typical 12 year old girl (like my daughter) is definitely going to be smaller and weaker than any normal man, but the amount of power she can put into her swing seems much higher than him. She drives about 190 and hits her 8i about 130.

 

If Dan is a solid 4 handicap I would think that he could drive roughly 270 yards and hit his 8i 160 yards (both are carry). I admit that can't really see if he can do that with videos of his swing. So, I will retract the "wimpy" comment, for now, but it sure does not look like it.

post #873 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

This is what I meant by my daughter having more power. A typical 12 year old girl (like my daughter) is definitely going to be smaller and weaker than any normal man, but the amount of power she can put into her swing seems much higher than him. She drives about 190 and hits her 8i about 130.

8i - 130 yds - 12 yo girl = awesome
post #874 of 1520

IMHO, power is not his problem. He looks limber enough. His path is not that in to out and he can hit more up on the driver.

 

http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Dan-Plan-2013-01-25-Multi-Group-Report.pdf

post #875 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post
 

IMHO, power is not his problem. He looks limber enough. His path is not that in to out and he can hit more up on the driver.

 

http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Dan-Plan-2013-01-25-Multi-Group-Report.pdf

 

Okay, his carry distance is similar to me and my son. He has a fade/slice. I don't really see how he could be a legitimate 4 handicap. By the time I get to a solid 12 handicap, I am hoping to be able to drive 250 (carry) and have a slight push/draw on all my normal shots.

 

A little bit of perspective on a 4 handicap, is they're really good.

post #876 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu3baid View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

This is what I meant by my daughter having more power. A typical 12 year old girl (like my daughter) is definitely going to be smaller and weaker than any normal man, but the amount of power she can put into her swing seems much higher than him. She drives about 190 and hits her 8i about 130.

8i - 130 yds - 12 yo girl = awesome


Thanks, she has a John Daly take away from taking ballet from 3 to 8 years old.

 

But. . .there are two girls 14 and 16 who drive 220 to 240 and are about the same size as her. I guess they would be more comparable to Dan, except they can drive a bit further yet straighter. They pace off their chips and putts, and par Altadena golf course from the Blue tees.

 

I just don't understand what he's trying to prove? There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already.

post #877 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

 

I just don't understand what he's trying to prove? There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already.

 

In a nutshell generalization, that those w/o talent can achieve what those w/talent can. Maybe for certain domains. imho, not golf. Respectfully, I don't agree with the latter statement. I'll write more later.

 

THE THEORY

 

Talent has little to do with success. According to research conducted by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University, “Elite performers engage in ‘deliberate practice’–an effortful activity designed to improve target performance.” Dr. Ericsson’s studies, made popular through Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers and Geoff Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, have found that in order to excel in a field, roughly 10,000 hours of “stretching yourself beyond what you can currently do” is required. “I think you’re the right astronaut for this mission,” Dr. Ericsson said about The Dan Plan.

 

http://thedanplan.com/about/

 

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf

post #878 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

I just don't understand what he's trying to prove? There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already.

In a nutshell generalization, that those w/o talent can achieve what those w/talent can. Maybe for certain domains. imho, not golf. Respectfully, I don't agree with the latter statement. I'll write more later.

THE THEORY

Talent has little to do with success. According to research conducted by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University, “Elite performers engage in ‘deliberate practice’–an effortful activity designed to improve target performance.” Dr. Ericsson’s studies, made popular through Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers and Geoff Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, have found that in order to excel in a field, roughly 10,000 hours of “stretching yourself beyond what you can currently do” is required. “I think you’re the right astronaut for this mission,” Dr. Ericsson said about The Dan Plan.

http://thedanplan.com/about/






http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf

I just looked up Dan's more recent stat, posted 6 months after the ones you posted. It looks like he does drive 270, carrying 255, with a slight draw.

http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Dan-Plan-2013-06-21-Multi-Group-Report.pdf

Given this newer data, I would say he could be a 4.1 handicap. He did not post any newer stats.
post #879 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetroJFrancisco View Post
 

I'm probably not in the position to comment on US HCapping from over this end of the pond, but a solid +1 handicapper (consistently shoots -1 obviously) would qualify for the cut week in/week out on the lower tours regardless of event or course..

My best mate turned pro off +2 (was a shaky plus two at that! I've seen him shoot high 80s) and routinely makes cuts week after week..

The top 100 in the world really are a different breed.. But from what ive encountered over my few years of highly highly competitive golf: The pro's on TV really aren't what people make them out to be.

:hmm:

post #880 of 1520
Took a few days but finally read all 49 pages of this entire thread. Wish I were as dedicated to my golf game. g2_eek.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post


I just don't understand what he's trying to prove? There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already.

At this point, make back all the money he potentially lost since beginning this project and make lots more on the lecture circuit/book tours.
post #881 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already.

 

All these talented kids were probably talented to begin with, not through deep practice. Their parents saw when toddlers they could hit a ball well w/o any intervention and poured in their resources to develop something already there. I wonder how many of those 12 year olds had terrible coordination, couldn't even make contact with a ball even after trying for a month after they first touched a club.

 

I'm not discounting the techniques and ideas derived from observing expert level people practice, I subscribe to them, deeply (no pun intended), but I seriously have my doubts about one of the points the book is trying to make. imho, people can rise to higher levels of performance given these new techniques than not having known about them before, but to say that only deep practice is responsible for the hot spots Coyle visited, is oversimplified. It's complicated. And so many people have over simplified a hypothesis, maybe perhaps out of a hope that we all can be super high performers at whatever we choose. I'm not saying don't strive, but don't expect to become the next Mozart either just because you put in your 10K. While I'm not convinced of Coyle's main point - I got a lot out of the description of myelin and how our nervous system works and examples of deep and deliberate practice/techniques, etc...

 

Yes, I'm cynical, sometimes I wonder if this project has somewhat deeper political/academic motivations. It's most probable that Dan is not going to qualify for the PGA Tour even if he has 20K hours. Who is going to want to listen to him lecture after he completes his 5K more hours assuming he doesn't make the tour? People have already written books before about quitting their job and working on golf full-time. It's almost a cliche, like the mid-life red sports car or extra-marital affair with a younger woman.

post #882 of 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post


Yes, I'm cynical, sometimes I wonder if this project has somewhat deeper political/academic motivations. It's most probable that Dan is not going to qualify for the PGA Tour even if he has 20K hours. Who is going to want to listen to him lecture after he completes his 5K more hours assuming he doesn't make the tour? People have already written books before about quitting their job and working on golf full-time. It's almost a cliche, like the mid-life red sports car or extra-marital affair with a younger woman.

I think you're underestimating the market for this sort of thing.
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