or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Question for teachers: Why are Dan McLaughlin's (www.thedanplan.com) numbers so low
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question for teachers: Why are Dan McLaughlin's (www.thedanplan.com) numbers so low - Page 8

post #127 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687 View Post

 

Talent isn't a myth, natural talent is a myth.  The idea that someone was born with a natural aptitude to do something bizarrely specific like playing a board game with very unique rules (chess) or swing a metal thing to get a tiny ball in a tiny hole is a myth.  Talent is purely the product of practicing something enough that your body/mind becomes good at it.

 

 

Wait, so you are saying we mapped a golf gene?  And a basketball gene?  And a piano-playing gene?  You think it says stuff like that in the genetic map?  What about biology am I ignoring when I say that nowhere in our genome are their instructions to play golf?
 

 

Now you are getting silly.  No there is no golf gene.  But there is natural talent at physical elements whose presence enables someone to be very good at golf in a fairly short time and whose absence imposes a limit on how good someone can get at golf no matter hos much they practice.

 

As to the necessity of practice and training.  Did that happen in utero for Mozart, who started writing world-class music at age 5?

post #128 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post

If only it were so simple. The best athletes would then be those who could operate on the least amount of sleep. That way they could get more hours of practice in. Hmmm..maybe they would have to practice how to function while sleeping less???

On the other hand, we would not even need tournaments any more. We could just keep a running tally of who has the most practice hours in.


This is such an absurdist argument.  There is a biological explanation for the way skill is formed.  There are cells in the brain called oligodendrocytes that insulate nerve fibers with myelin.  This insulation allows for sequences of neurons to fire more rapidly and efficiently.  Oligodendrocytes, when targeting which pathways to insulate with myelin, choose the neurons that fire most often.  So any action you engage in--swinging a golf club, thinking about a chess position, chewing on your fingernails, eating because you are depressed, composing a poem, etc, causes a certain series of neurons to be engaged.  The more often these neurons are engaged, the more myelin they receive from the oligodendrocytes and the more quickly and efficiently your brain can send those same signals the next time.  So by practicing your golf swing or eating every time you are depressed, you become really good at whatever you repeat.

 

So will going out to the golf range and hitting balls every day make you good at golf?  No.  Will meticulously practicing, refining, practicing, refining, every aspect of the game of golf for thousands upon thousands of hours make you good?  Obviously.  Not everyone can be Tiger Woods.  He is unique.  But not because he was born good at the game of golf.  He is unique because he possessed an off the charts drive to succeed and the means to practice for his entire life.  Most people like to go play with their friends, go to school, deal with the everyday struggles of life.  For a kid to become Tiger Woods it would have to be his entire life.  And his parents entire life.  It would take money, expert coaching, the right facilities and equipment, and complete indifference to many aspects of a persons development and normal lifestyle choices.  Of course not everyone can be Tiger Woods, but notice how none of the things I said were necessary were a certain set of genes.

 

I don't find the biological aspect of talent acquisition to be all that exciting with all the empirical evidence out there that shows that all world class talents underwent thousands of hours of extremely high level practice (constant expert feedback and a motivation and drive to be the best, along with the financial and geographical means to achieve those desires).  The way many of the people are posting in this thread you are creating a strawman argument where by claiming that practice is the path to being world class that means "oh its so easy anyone can be Tiger Woods."  That is not the argument at all. 

 

I also frankly don't understand why people have resorted to sarcastic tones and needlessly hostile attacks against my opinion. 

post #129 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 

Now you are getting silly.  No there is no golf gene.  But there is natural talent at physical elements whose presence enables someone to be very good at golf in a fairly short time and whose absence imposes a limit on how good someone can get at golf no matter hos much they practice.

 

As to the necessity of practice and training.  Did that happen in utero for Mozart, who started writing world-class music at age 5?

 

 

Your comments regarding Mozart seem to be a common misconception.  Mozart was indeed composing at the age of 5, but it was far from world class music.  Mozart was an undeniably talented musician, but he was being tutored by his father from an extremely early age.  He is often cited as an example that natural talent exist.  However, the issue is most fail to correctly estimate how much musical exposure and practice Mozart had by the age of five thanks to having an extremely accomplished teacher and a household that revolved around music.  The second misconception is that he was world class at the age of 5.  He was certainly a proficient musician at 5, but not world class. 

post #130 of 189

We'll cut the crap here. Based on Dan's early scores success (years ago) I said that he would be lucky to be a 4 at 5000 hours and he wouldn't be better than a 2 and the end of this thing. I was the first to try to illustrate to people just how much time he is spending on this. I'm using my 'scientific' understanding of this entire thing to make predictions. You are late to the game but lets hear it, what are yours?

 

(I've also provided graphs, charts, quotes etc.. this entire time of exactly what would happen and haven't missed a thing so far.)

http://thesandtrap.com/t/45853/the-dan-plan-10-000-hours-to-become-a-*********er

**search it apparently the site stars this out for some reason**

 

 

Read the whole thing, also all along I've talked to his original coach the one that can shoot 64 in 45 minutes with 5 clubs. Dan will never beat that guy and that guy will never have a chance at professional golf. Why is that? (I just saw his original coach on tv the other day competing in the speed golf world championship)


Edited by Williamevanl - 8/4/13 at 4:28am
post #131 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687 View Post

 

 

Your comments regarding Mozart seem to be a common misconception.  Mozart was indeed composing at the age of 5, but it was far from world class music.  Mozart was an undeniably talented musician, but he was being tutored by his father from an extremely early age.  He is often cited as an example that natural talent exist.  However, the issue is most fail to correctly estimate how much musical exposure and practice Mozart had by the age of five thanks to having an extremely accomplished teacher and a household that revolved around music.  The second misconception is that he was world class at the age of 5.  He was certainly a proficient musician at 5, but not world class. 

 

So, your position is....

I am human.

Mozart was human.

Therefore I can be as good.

 

Tiger is human.

I am human.

I can be better if I put effort into it.

 

Greg Norman got to scratch in a year or so. Why can't I?

Because I'm not Greg Norman.

 

Seemds to me that you find it impossible to accept that some people  - regardless of advantage and exposure and nurture experience are just better at some things.

 

I can guarantee that virtually any Tour pro could pick up a ball and throw it and look athletic and comfortable doing so.

And sure, they probably all played cricket or baseball.

 

But....Dan is the type of player who couldn't even put a tee in the ground and make it look fluid and natural.

No amount of coaching or practice will give him hand speed and coordination.

 

Seerms to mne that tius thread is caught up with people who think either:

1 - "Wow..ilucky Dan.  If it was me, I'd be on tour" and

2. - "OMG - maybe even if I did practise 24/7 I'd still be crap". 

post #132 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetFan1983 View Post

 

Hehe, you may want to add a couple zeros to that number there, Brandon a3_biggrin.gif

 

I'm just not sure how many parents really try these sorts of things with their kids at incredibly young ages.  But you're probably right.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687 View Post

 

It isn't about age at all.  Its about the amount of time they spent practicing.  And choosing as your cut-off the best ~250 golfers amid hundreds of thousands that play the game and saying if you can't make it to the top 250 or whatever that proves that your weren't "born" talented because you spent 10k hours practicing but weren't good enough is absurd.  If you had someone spend 10k hours practicing golf and they weren't any good at all you might have an argument.  But spending 10k hours and being "only" the 500th best in the world and thus not making the PGA tour does little to support your view.

 

Actually, it does everything to support the viewpoint that less than 0.01% of the population has the chance to become Tiger Woods if they only had his drive, desire, tutelage, coaching, nurturing and environment.  I understand now why you are unable to see it that way, though.  At a young age, you practiced the art of psychologically deluding yourself.  You are naturally talented in that regard.  If only it were sport.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687 View Post


So by practicing your golf swing or eating every time you are depressed, you become really good at whatever you repeat.

 

So will going out to the golf range and hitting balls every day make you good at golf?  No.  Will meticulously practicing, refining, practicing, refining, every aspect of the game of golf for thousands upon thousands of hours make you good?  Obviously.  Not everyone can be Tiger Woods.  He is unique.  But not because he was born good at the game of golf.  He is unique because he possessed an off the charts drive to succeed and the means to practice for his entire life.  Most people like to go play with their friends, go to school, deal with the everyday struggles of life.  For a kid to become Tiger Woods it would have to be his entire life.  And his parents entire life.  It would take money, expert coaching, the right facilities and equipment, and complete indifference to many aspects of a persons development and normal lifestyle choices.  Of course not everyone can be Tiger Woods, but notice how none of the things I said were necessary were a certain set of genes.

 

I don't find the biological aspect of talent acquisition to be all that exciting with all the empirical evidence out there that shows that all world class talents underwent thousands of hours of extremely high level practice (constant expert feedback and a motivation and drive to be the best, along with the financial and geographical means to achieve those desires).  The way many of the people are posting in this thread you are creating a strawman argument where by claiming that practice is the path to being world class that means "oh its so easy anyone can be Tiger Woods."  That is not the argument at all. 

 

I also frankly don't understand why people have resorted to sarcastic tones and needlessly hostile attacks against my opinion. 

 

Because in the above post you have stated arguments that are completely undermined and refuted quite easily, yet you are unable to grasp the concept.  You somehow believe that empirical evidence that all world class talents have spent thousands of hours practicing at a high level means that anybody who spends thousands of hours practicing at an extremely high level can achieve the same thing, while completely ignoring the simple and logical counterpart to those talents: the people that did spend thousands of hours practicing at a high level that never magically became "talented."

 

You also acknowledge, somehow, some way, that if a person practices for 10,000 hours at an extremely high level that he may "only" become one of the top 1,000 players in the world, while not taking the time to consider why it is his ceiling is the top 1,000 as opposed to the top 50.  Your entire theory has bullet holes in it due to the simple fact that guys like Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods are hall of famers who have dominated the last 10-15 years of this sport.  At some point all the practice in the world has diminishing returns.  Why?  Have you ever thought about that?  Why is it that Spencer Levine can't go out and spend 4 hours less per day with his family or pursuing other hobbies, and instead practice 4 more hours per day more than Phil and Tiger and eventually surpass them in the ability to put the ball in the cup?

 

The answer to that question destroys your oversimplified theory about repetition, brain cells and myelin.

post #133 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687 View Post

 

You know Bruce Harmon is his swing coach, right?

Who's Bruce Harmon? 

post #134 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687 View Post

 

How much do you think being tall affects golf?  Like what specific genetic qualities do you think makes a world class golfer a world class golfer?  I am curious what about human evolution makes you think people who are good at golf would be selected through survival of the fittest.

 

 

What specific qualities help in golf?  Just off the top of my head, for starters highly precise muscle memory.  What is necessary for highly precise muscle memory?  Highly functioning neural connection from your brain to your muscles.  You do realize every person doesn't have equal muscular control?  Highly precise coordination.  A world class golfer must coordinate the large muscles of their body as well as the small muscles of their arms.  All of this must be synchronized and highly repeatable.  You do realize everyone doesn't have equivalent coordination right?

 

And your last sentence really is a gem.  What about human evolution would make good golfers selected?  Are you kidding?  Are you being intentionally obtuse now because you are being defensive as everyone points out the severe flaws in your argument?  For starters even if your last sentence made a lick of sense regarding golfers being selected through evolution how would we know if they were or were not?  What if Tiger Woods and his family tree does represent the apogee of golfing ability and was for some reason selected.  Or what if golfers weren't selected and had they been Tiger would be but a mere mortal compared to the greats.  Point, we wouldn't know, that is an absurd and inscrutable question.  But your last sentence doesn't make a lick of sense anyway.  Football players, basketball players, golfers, theoretical physicists nor polymaths are selected via evolution and natural selection.  Genetic qualities that exist within people that might be applicable to being highly successful in those endeavors are selected though. 

post #135 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687 View Post


This is such an absurdist argument.  There is a biological explanation for the way skill is formed.  There are cells in the brain called oligodendrocytes that insulate nerve fibers with myelin.  This insulation allows for sequences of neurons to fire more rapidly and efficiently. 

 

 

And you think every person has the exact number of oligodendrocytes that function equally efficiently?  Do you think the myelin sheath that is created is equivalent in every person?  What makes you think that every individual has equivalent brain efficiency and functionality?

 

 

He is unique because he possessed an off the charts drive to succeed and the means to practice for his entire life.

 

Lol...guess what...his "off the chart drive to succeed" is dictated by his DNA...

 

I don't find the biological aspect of talent acquisition to be all that exciting with all the empirical evidence out there that shows that all world class talents underwent thousands of hours of extremely high level practice (constant expert feedback and a motivation and drive to be the best, along with the financial and geographical means to achieve those desires). 

 

You keep claiming empirical evidence exists to support your claims but you provide none.  Probably because the evidence that might exist related to practice does not defend the position you are providing.  No crap practicing matters.  No one has said anything otherwise in regards to practice.  However, there is a ceiling to the potential and that ceiling is due to genetics.

 

post #136 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogeysaurus View Post

 

What specific qualities help in golf?  Just off the top of my head, for starters highly precise muscle memory.  What is necessary for highly precise muscle memory?  Highly functioning neural connection from your brain to your muscles.  You do realize every person doesn't have equal muscular control?  Highly precise coordination.  A world class golfer must coordinate the large muscles of their body as well as the small muscles of their arms.  All of this must be synchronized and highly repeatable.  You do realize everyone doesn't have equivalent coordination right?

 

And your last sentence really is a gem.  What about human evolution would make good golfers selected?  Are you kidding?  Are you being intentionally obtuse now because you are being defensive as everyone points out the severe flaws in your argument?  For starters even if your last sentence made a lick of sense regarding golfers being selected through evolution how would we know if they were or were not?  What if Tiger Woods and his family tree does represent the apogee of golfing ability and was for some reason selected.  Or what if golfers weren't selected and had they been Tiger would be but a mere mortal compared to the greats.  Point, we wouldn't know, that is an absurd and inscrutable question.  But your last sentence doesn't make a lick of sense anyway.  Football players, basketball players, golfers, theoretical physicists nor polymaths are selected via evolution and natural selection.  Genetic qualities that exist within people that might be applicable to being highly successful in those endeavors are selected though. 

Somehow birdman has missed out on all of the life experiences all of the rest of us have had. We all had that kid in our class in school that was just better than everybody else at everything they tried to do. If a PE teacher invented a new game where nobody had ever practiced it at all that kid would still win every time. The quarterback on my high school football team was that guy in our class. His parents wouldn't let him play football at all until he was a junior in high school (and the rest of us had been playing since elementary school). Sure enough he makes All-State his first year (as we all knew he would).

 

We've also seen brothers raised in the same families and all sent to the best sports clinics with the best coaches...And we've seen one of those brothers become one of the best players in the league and the others struggle to even make the team.

 

And we've seen that kid that had none of the advantages of parents that cared, clinics, coaching, and training that other kids had growing up but was the best player on the field as soon he got the chance to play. Usually after some coach noticed in the hallway that he just had "that look" and "that walk" that said I'm an athlete and talked him into coming out for the team.

post #137 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post

Somehow birdman has missed out on all of the life experiences all of the rest of us have had. We all had that kid in our class in school that was just better than everybody else at everything they tried to do. If a PE teacher invented a new game where nobody had ever practiced it at all that kid would still win every time. The quarterback on my high school football team was that guy in our class. His parents wouldn't let him play football at all until he was a junior in high school (and the rest of us had been playing since elementary school). Sure enough he makes All-State his first year (as we all knew he would).

We've also seen brothers raised in the same families and all sent to the best sports clinics with the best coaches...And we've seen one of those brothers become one of the best players in the league and the others struggle to even make the team.

And we've seen that kid that had none of the advantages of parents that cared, clinics, coaching, and training that other kids had growing up but was the best player on the field as soon he got the chance to play. Usually after some coach noticed in the hallway that he just had "that look" and "that walk" that said I'm an athlete and talked him into coming out for the team.

I think he has had these experiences. He has just told himself that life could not possibly be that unfair for so long, that he now believes it.
post #138 of 189

Wow, Mr Birdman, you really are something. Quit it with all your physiological BS, there is always someone who will know more than you.

 

Face facts, you can't just simply practice something alot, and become one of the best. Silly man.

post #139 of 189

Byron Nelson was often criticized by Hogan, who he competed against for almost his entire life. As kids, Hogan was extremely into golf and practiced hard from the beginning, but Nelson was already way better and was said to rarely practice. He was always the longest hitter among his peers as a kid, while Hogan struggled to stay out of last until he got older. Even on tour, Hogan said Nelson would be better if he practiced. Hogan was a smaller man while Nelson was a "natural" athlete with a "natural" swing and stood 5 inches taller than Hogan. I don't think you could say Hogan wasn't talented, but obviously he had less natural ability than Nelson.

 

Hogan ended up with the better career but Nelson wasn't too shabby either, with the longest consecutive winning streak ever, an 18 win season, and 5 majors. So all it takes to overcome someone with natural talent is to have a work ethic and determination and a swing like Hogan did. No sweat at all.

 

And don't forget all the times Nelson still beat Hogan's ass even though he practiced as hard as he did. He was better as a kid but didn't take up the game in utero, and hadn't already logged 10,000 hours of practice before he was out of diapers. He was just better then because he was more talented than Hogan. And they actually were both immortal legends of the game in the end. Sure Hogan had possibly the best swing ever but they don't call the machines "Iron Hogans".

 

Oh, look at that. Well I guess hard work can pay off but talent still exists too. You need both to have a realistic shot at being more than decent. You also need to put the focused time in on the range and not be a crap ballstriker who only practices putting. I have put in 1/10th of the time and nowhere near the money that he has, and I can beat him in driving accuracy, GIR, distance by a ridiculous amount, and any other ballstriking metric. I'm nowhere near an experienced golfer and never had a lesson in my life, but I'd think anyone thinking of making the investment in him would probably put their money on me getting to scratch over him, even though his handicap is lower now.

 

Maybe if Dan got hit by a bus or two like Hogan did he'd get to scratch. Someone with talent could be considered a diamond in the rough, that just needs polishing. Someone with the basic raw necessities to become a good golfer is like coal. I think developing a metaphorical lump of coal into a diamond is feasible given a lot of time and intense work. Dan's worse than coal though. He's still dinosaur crap that needs to be buried for 60 million more years to possibly become coal. If he was granted immortality maybe he'd get to scratch before the sun explodes. I doubt it though.


Edited by LuciusWooding - 8/4/13 at 9:38pm
post #140 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by garybbq View Post

 

You really think so? I mean 4000 hours is a seriously long time to spend on golf. I have seen quite a few high handicap golfers in reasonable shape carry past 250 and they certianly didnt spend 4000 hours with a coach.

Yes.  250 carry is a very long carry when you only swing the golf club 100MPH.  And don't have clean contact.

post #141 of 189
This guy dan is such a narcissistic chode. Anybody that honestly believes that being the "best" is simply a matter of time is quite simple a misguided moron that has never stepped foot outside of the rock they live under.

There's a reason guys like tiger, jack, arnold and lee are famous. Theres also a reason why thousands of scratch golfers never make the tour.
post #142 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker View Post

Wow, Mr Birdman, you really are something. Quit it with all your physiological BS, there is always someone who will know more than you.

 

Face facts, you can't just simply practice something alot, and become one of the best. Silly man.

I guess it depends on what one would be practicing. Practicing a different language, cooking, etc.

 

All the best at anything have practiced along on the way to becoming the bests at everything.

 

But, what separates golfer's games; like finger prints, everyone's are different. My brothers and I have Roughly the same finger lengths, shapes, bone structure, covered by the same shade of skin, yet hmmmmm

 

just because one can paint and replicate anything, doesnt mean one can paint and create like michelangelo. Dan just isnt an artist of golf, rather, just art in golf.

 

Perhaps dan is missing the head game, who knows. Whatever it is he is CURRENTLY missing something. maybe at hour 7945 it clicks for him - who knows. There are so many variables in becoming good at anything,

 

If people dont believe in genetics, um, whatever. Go ask all the african distance/marathon runners why they dominate. AND with everything, there are always exceptions to the rule. Tom Brady would make a bad 100m sprinter no matter how much he practiced. Sure, practice would improve his form and thus his time some with 10,000 hours of practice - he just has a ceiling at this particular event which measures a specific trait and no amount of practice will change him. Now if they started a 100m dash event while throwing footballs at moving targets, he may do some damage against Usain Bolt.

 

What are the traits of a great golfer and compare. its just not the swing, the size of the person, the mentality, the iq, the ability to feel the force etc etc.

 

if you give me 10,000 hours i'd make the champions tour if i can stay flexible and healthier than the rest.

post #143 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachcomber View Post

Yes.  250 carry is a very long carry when you only swing the golf club 100MPH.  And don't have clean contact.

 

 

I gave a thumbs up to the thumbs up w***e. b2_tongue.gif

post #144 of 189

Looks like Dan is figuring out a little more how to swing. As he writes today, his swing is now about 50/50 where he can really connect by using his body and not mainly his arms and hands. I can't wait to see his next TrackMan update to see if his numbers improve significantly.

 

Heck, I'd take a handicap update too.  He is nearing the halfway point of 5000 hours left, and it's obvious to me he's not going to get anywhere near close to his goal. But he still seems confident that he can jack up his club speed 10% (from 265yd carry to 290yd carry, he says). He plays with a +handicap regularly, so he knows that there are lots of people who already at that skill level. I wonder how he thinks he will distinguish himself from the many, many thousands of scratch golfers out there who can already pound it that far. 

 

Anyway, here's the latest, in case you're interested. Finally an upbeat note after some poor outings, but he doesn't mention any specific scores or good rounds.

http://thedanplan.com/finally-a-sign-of-the-positive-nature/

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Question for teachers: Why are Dan McLaughlin's (www.thedanplan.com) numbers so low