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

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

No freaking clue.  If I was the one doing this I'd probably count a round as one or two hours towards my total, I guess.  Certainly not 4.

Yeah- I am trying to estimate how many hours I put in this year. I mean you hit the ball very little during a round of golf- he counts it as 4, I would say maybe an hour although there are other things that are learned on the course I guess? I will put an hour I guess. I don't know why you would make it 4 if you are playing on your own as a 3 handicap you should be able to get done in 2 hr 45

I'm not really sure I'd count it as any. I practice my skills off the course, I apply them on the course. The premise is that through 10,000 hours of deliberate practice you can become expert at a given activity. I'm not sure you can class a round of golf as deliberate practice of a skill, surely it's more applying and assessing that skill?

[Golfingdad]

I'm not really sure I'd count it as any. I practice my skills off the course, I apply them on the course. The premise is that through 10,000 hours of deliberate practice you can become expert at a given activity. I'm not sure you can class a round of golf as deliberate practice of a skill, surely it's more applying and assessing that skill?

Consider if you had never picked up the game and never played it once, and you practiced for 10,000 ONLY hitting balls at a range.  (and short game areas and putting green, of course, but never actually played a round.)

Now consider a guy who's done all of the exact same stuff that the guy above has done but only for 6000 hours, but has also played 1000 18 hole rounds of golf.

Do you think that there is really any realistic chance of the first guy ever being able to hold his own against the second guy in a match?

To compare it to the original violinist study, it would be like suggesting that performing with a symphony, where you might only actually be playing 10-20% of the notes doesn't count towards practice.  But a guy who spends 10k hours in his basement is never going to be able to play a concert expertly without playing a lot of concerts.

It definitely counts for something.

[acerimusdux]

Quick side question- may have already been answered in the 158 pages but how many hours should a round of golf count for?

Technically, I would say none, based on my understanding of the actual research I've read.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't play some rounds, but that this is something EVERYONE does, and whether you play 1 round a week or 5 isn't actually a big seperator on who improves.

What should count as "deliberate practice" is 2-4 hours a day, every day, of intense drills. Basically excersises that are challenging, and goal focused, with immediate feedback. Designed to build on or improve existing skills. According to the research, doing more than 4 hours of this doesn't seem productive, and only 2 is actually enough to see significant steady progress.

I'm sure you still need to actually play some in order for that to translate to success on the course, but it's possible you might only need to play even a few full rounds a month to do that if you are seriously doing those every day drills. This may be assuming though that what applies to other things, like musical training, applies as well to golf.

[GHIN0011458]

I'm not really sure I'd count it as any. I practice my skills off the course, I apply them on the course. The premise is that through 10,000 hours of deliberate practice you can become expert at a given activity. I'm not sure you can class a round of golf as deliberate practice of a skill, surely it's more applying and assessing that skill?

That would be crazy to not count any lessons learned towards your golf. You have to realize that the rounds are "practice" rounds. You may be applying what you are working on but I am deliberately trying to get the ball in the hole so I would count it at least an hours worth.

[iacas]

120 yard 8i stuck close to the pin???

How the heck can he manage that? 45 degree open face and a half swing???

I think you figured it out by now, but he laid up to 120 yards WITH his 8-iron, @Lihu .

More here: https://twitter.com/thedanplan/status/575331849976705025

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHIN0011458

Quick side question- may have already been answered in the 158 pages but how many hours should a round of golf count for?

Technically, I would say none, based on my understanding of the actual research I've read.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't play some rounds, but that this is something EVERYONE does, and whether you play 1 round a week or 5 isn't actually a big seperator on who improves.

What should count as "deliberate practice" is 2-4 hours a day, every day, of intense drills. Basically excersises that are challenging, and goal focused, with immediate feedback. Designed to build on or improve existing skills. According to the research, doing more than 4 hours of this doesn't seem productive, and only 2 is actually enough to see significant steady progress.

I'm sure you still need to actually play some in order for that to translate to success on the course, but it's possible you might only need to play even a few full rounds a month to do that if you are seriously doing those every day drills. This may be assuming though that what applies to other things, like musical training, applies as well to golf.

Not sure everyone agrees with this. I think you need to play way more than "some" to become an expert.

I do agree that deliberate practice is important, and if you follow the methodology in LSW it does not have to be 4 hours a day either. Smart practice by doing stuff that addresses your current and specific issues will improve your skill set very effectively. In fact, I doubt that most people can spend much more than an hour or two with effective practice. I would think the effectiveness would deteriorate in 3 hours or less.

Aside from improving the individual skills like the swing, pitching, chipping and putting , the course management skills are better exercised on the course. Playing on the course with basic and fundamental skills will improve your game a lot. The only way to really improve your game management skills is to practice them. This takes some time, and I agree that equating a single round of playing as equivalent deliberate practice time of 1 hour is fair.

What I am stating about the amount of time we can deliberately practice will limit the age that someone can be to attain excellence in something as well. Figure in 3 hours a day maximum, and playing 2 rounds a day. That's about 11 hours, or equal to about 4-5 hours of "deliberate practice"? This implies that 2200 days or a minimum of about 6 years is needed at a minimum to become an expert at something? Now this is only to reach "expert status" at golf and not the PGA tour.

Based upon this estimate, Dan is too old to start at 30. @iacas mentioned that someone around 20 would be a more effective subject for this experiment, and now it makes some sense to me at least. However, I think 20 is also too old unless the subject is really talented, but that's another discussion based upon the talent I see at even the high school level.

So, Dan needs to spend 11 hours a day while clocking something like 4-5 hours to "deliberate practice"? I certainly believe that anyone can get pretty good playing 11 hours a day 365 days a year for 6 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

120 yard 8i stuck close to the pin???

How the heck can he manage that? 45 degree open face and a half swing???

I think you figured it out by now, but he laid up to 120 yards WITH his 8-iron, @Lihu.

No, I didn't "figure it out", it was hammered into my brain by two single digit players. . .

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

I'm not really sure I'd count it as any. I practice my skills off the course, I apply them on the course. The premise is that through 10,000 hours of deliberate practice you can become expert at a given activity. I'm not sure you can class a round of golf as deliberate practice of a skill, surely it's more applying and assessing that skill?

Consider if you had never picked up the game and never played it once, and you practiced for 10,000 ONLY hitting balls at a range.  (and short game areas and putting green, of course, but never actually played a round.)

Now consider a guy who's done all of the exact same stuff that the guy above has done but only for 6000 hours, but has also played 1000 18 hole rounds of golf.

Do you think that there is really any realistic chance of the first guy ever being able to hold his own against the second guy in a match?

To compare it to the original violinist study, it would be like suggesting that performing with a symphony, where you might only actually be playing 10-20% of the notes doesn't count towards practice.  But a guy who spends 10k hours in his basement is never going to be able to play a concert expertly without playing a lot of concerts.

It definitely counts for something.

Yes it counts for something but the 'theory Dan is testing is that through 10,000 hours of deliberate practice you can become an expert at something. Paraphrasing but that's basically it. Is a round of golf 'deliberate practice'  as defined by the studies he's trying to prove or disprove? I'd say not. It's essential in a golfer's development but it isn't deliberate practice....... IMO

Technically, I would say none, based on my understanding of the actual research I've read.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't play some rounds, but that this is something EVERYONE does, and whether you play 1 round a week or 5 isn't actually a big seperator on who improves.

What should count as "deliberate practice" is 2-4 hours a day, every day, of intense drills. Basically excersises that are challenging, and goal focused, with immediate feedback. Designed to build on or improve existing skills. According to the research, doing more than 4 hours of this doesn't seem productive, and only 2 is actually enough to see significant steady progress.

I'm sure you still need to actually play some in order for that to translate to success on the course, but it's possible you might only need to play even a few full rounds a month to do that if you are seriously doing those every day drills. This may be assuming though that what applies to other things, like musical training, applies as well to golf.

This

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

I'm not really sure I'd count it as any. I practice my skills off the course, I apply them on the course. The premise is that through 10,000 hours of deliberate practice you can become expert at a given activity. I'm not sure you can class a round of golf as deliberate practice of a skill, surely it's more applying and assessing that skill?

That would be crazy to not count any lessons learned towards your golf. You have to realize that the rounds are "practice" rounds. You may be applying what you are working on but I am deliberately trying to get the ball in the hole so I would count it at least an hours worth.

But it doesn't really fit under the heading of deliberate practice as defined by the studies Dan's trying to prove. Is physical fitness to a certain level essential? Is a certain mental toughness to a certain level essential? I just don't think a round of golf fits into the term 'deliberate practice'.

[Nosevi]

Not sure everyone agrees with this. I think you need to play way more than "some" to become an expert.

I do agree that deliberate practice is important, and if you follow the methodology in LSW it does not have to be 4 hours a day either. Smart practice by doing stuff that addresses your current and specific issues will improve your skill set very effectively. In fact, I doubt that most people can spend much more than an hour or two with effective practice. I would think the effectiveness would deteriorate in 3 hours or less.

Aside from improving the individual skills like the swing, pitching, chipping and putting , the course management skills are better exercised on the course. Playing on the course with basic and fundamental skills will improve your game a lot. The only way to really improve your game management skills is to practice them. This takes some time, and I agree that equating a single round of playing as equivalent deliberate practice time of 1 hour is fair.

What I am stating about the amount of time we can deliberately practice will limit the age that someone can be to attain excellence in something as well. Figure in 3 hours a day maximum, and playing 2 rounds a day. That's about 11 hours, or equal to about 4-5 hours of "deliberate practice"? This implies that 2500 days or a minimum of about 6 years is needed at a minimum to become an expert at something? Now this is only to reach "expert status" at golf and not the PGA tour.

Based upon this estimate, Dan is too old to start at 30. @iacas mentioned that someone around 20 would be a more effective subject for this experiment, and now it makes some sense to me at least. I think 20 is also too old unless the subject is really talented, but that's another discussion.

So, Dan needs to spend 11 hours a day while clocking something like 4-5 hours to "deliberate practice"? I certainly believe that anyone can get pretty good playing 11 hours a day 365 days a year for 6 years.

It depends what is meant by 'expert' but I know of a guy who went from a 7 handicap having played the game for 10 years to about a +3 or +4 in 2 years, I've chatted to him via email about how he did it. He was a 7 handicapper and 2 years later was playing on a 3rd tier tour over here below the European tour and Challenge Tour. I think the whole premise of the experiment is slightly floored in that number of hours has very little to do with it as it'll be different for everyone, it's all about talent and how you go about it.

[Golfingdad]

Technically, I would say none, based on my understanding of the actual research I've read.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't play some rounds, but that this is something EVERYONE does, and whether you play 1 round a week or 5 isn't actually a big seperator on who improves.

What should count as "deliberate practice" is 2-4 hours a day, every day, of intense drills. Basically excersises that are challenging, and goal focused, with immediate feedback. Designed to build on or improve existing skills. According to the research, doing more than 4 hours of this doesn't seem productive, and only 2 is actually enough to see significant steady progress.

I'm sure you still need to actually play some in order for that to translate to success on the course, but it's possible you might only need to play even a few full rounds a month to do that if you are seriously doing those every day drills. This may be assuming though that what applies to other things, like musical training, applies as well to golf.

Yes it counts for something but the 'theory Dan is testing is that through 10,000 hours of deliberate practice you can become an expert at something. Paraphrasing but that's basically it. Is a round of golf 'deliberate practice'  as defined by the studies he's trying to prove or disprove? I'd say not. It's essential in a golfer's development but it isn't deliberate practice....... IMO

This

But it doesn't really fit under the heading of deliberate practice as defined by the studies Dan's trying to prove. Is physical fitness to a certain level essential? Is a certain mental toughness to a certain level essential? I just don't think a round of golf fits into the term 'deliberate practice'.

Oh, OK, I get what you guys are saying.  Not that he shouldn't be playing and learning a ton from it, just that all of that playing and learning should be IN ADDITION TO the 10k hours of deliberate practice.  Makes sense.

[Nosevi]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Oh, OK, I get what you guys are saying.  Not that he shouldn't be playing and learning a ton from it, just that all of that playing and learning should be IN ADDITION TO the 10k hours of deliberate practice.  Makes sense.

Yep, it's not that you don't need to get out on the course, just that it's not really what the studies Dan's trying to prove would call that deliberate practice. That said, as I said above, I'm not sure 10,000 hours is really that relevant - in fact even the guy who wrote that said Dan was slightly missing the point as it's just a rough average not a given that everyone would achieve 'mastery' in this time scale.

[Golfingdad]

..., it's all about talent and how you go about it.

But this is what I've been saying since the beginning of this thread.  That "how you go about it" is the 10,000 hours, but it's applied only to a select few.  Those violinists were all already really, really, really good violinists so everybody the study was performed on had "talent."

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Not sure everyone agrees with this. I think you need to play way more than "some" to become an expert.

I do agree that deliberate practice is important, and if you follow the methodology in LSW it does not have to be 4 hours a day either. Smart practice by doing stuff that addresses your current and specific issues will improve your skill set very effectively. In fact, I doubt that most people can spend much more than an hour or two with effective practice. I would think the effectiveness would deteriorate in 3 hours or less.

Aside from improving the individual skills like the swing, pitching, chipping and putting , the course management skills are better exercised on the course. Playing on the course with basic and fundamental skills will improve your game a lot. The only way to really improve your game management skills is to practice them. This takes some time, and I agree that equating a single round of playing as equivalent deliberate practice time of 1 hour is fair.

What I am stating about the amount of time we can deliberately practice will limit the age that someone can be to attain excellence in something as well. Figure in 3 hours a day maximum, and playing 2 rounds a day. That's about 11 hours, or equal to about 4-5 hours of "deliberate practice"? This implies that 2500 days or a minimum of about 6 years is needed at a minimum to become an expert at something? Now this is only to reach "expert status" at golf and not the PGA tour.

Based upon this estimate, Dan is too old to start at 30. @iacas mentioned that someone around 20 would be a more effective subject for this experiment, and now it makes some sense to me at least. I think 20 is also too old unless the subject is really talented, but that's another discussion.

So, Dan needs to spend 11 hours a day while clocking something like 4-5 hours to "deliberate practice"? I certainly believe that anyone can get pretty good playing 11 hours a day 365 days a year for 6 years.

It depends what is meant by 'expert' but I know of a guy who went from a 7 handicap having played the game for 10 years to about a +3 or +4 in 2 years, I've chatted to him via email about how he did it. He was a 7 handicapper and 2 years later was playing on a 3rd tier tour over here below the European tour and Challenge Tour. I think the whole premise of the experiment is slightly floored in that number of hours has very little to do with it as it'll be different for everyone, it's all about talent and how you go about it.

Right, so that's the other debate.

You're right, expert is a relative term.

At least in skiing:

Expert Skiing

Expert skiing means being adept at handling varied terrain and different snow conditions on marked trails. The terrain may include steeps, trees, and moguls, or a combination of the three on black or double-black runs. Snow conditions might include hard pack, ice, crud, or powder, as well as groomed or un-groomed snow.

Expert skiing requires that you make quick adjustments to your speed, turn radius, and balance to maintain control at all times. The challenge for the expert skier is to ski all the terrain in the descent of the mountain.

The essence of expert skiing is to be able to comfortably handle a run with a 40-degree pitch containing dense trees or tight moguls on un-groomed snow when there is no way out on either side.

I would equate this term to a golfer who can shoot to an actual low single digit handicap or close to the CR on any course? Maybe?

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

..., it's all about talent and how you go about it.

But this is what I've been saying since the beginning of this thread.  That "how you go about it" is the 10,000 hours, but it's applied only to a select few.  Those violinists were all already really, really, really good violinists so everybody the study was performed on had "talent."

And I agree. Anyone who was truly useless quit a long time before 10,000 hours. It was just that those that had talent seemed to have been at it for about that length of time on average by the time they became true experts. That's a far cry from saying anyone who had stuck at it would become expert in that time.

[Golfingdad]

Right, so that's the other debate.

You're right,expert is a relative term.

At least in skiing:

I would equate this term to a golfer who can shoot to an actual low single digit handicap or close to the CR on any course? Maybe?

Yeah, it's definitely relative.  But, IIRC, the original study used the term "World Class."  And if they also said "expert," I believe that they used the terms interchangeably.

[DeadMan]

Right, so that's the other debate.

You're right,expert is a relative term.

At least in skiing:

I would equate this term to a golfer who can shoot to an actual low single digit handicap or close to the CR on any course? Maybe?

And here's the big problem for Dan - the gap between being an expert and a PGA tour pro is huge.

Since you brought up skiing, I'll use that as a comparison. I am an expert skier (by that definition for sure), been skiing since I was 2, can ski anything, etc. Probably the equivalent of a scratch or +1 handicap in golf. But the gap between me, and say, olympic skiers, is ridiculously large. I have skied what they used for professional ski races in Colorado, and I can't ski it anywhere close to how the pros ski it. Or the mogul races ... nope. Not even close. I can do them, without falling, and do it better than 99% of people out there. But I am not close to the professionals.

That is what I would imagine the gap between a scratch golfer and a PGA professional is like. I'm sure lower handicaps on here would agree with this. I don't think Dan grasps this at all. The gap between a 0 or +1 golfer and a PGA tour professional is almost definitely bigger (by an order of magnitude!) than the gap between a 15 and 0 handicap, for example. I'm guessing you don't fully grasp that gap until you get into the "expert" range.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Right, so that's the other debate.

You're right,expert is a relative term.

At least in skiing:

I would equate this term to a golfer who can shoot to an actual low single digit handicap or close to the CR on any course? Maybe?

And here's the big problem for Dan - the gap between being an expert and a PGA tour pro is huge.

Since you brought up skiing, I'll use that as a comparison. I am an expert skier (by that definition for sure), been skiing since I was 2, can ski anything, etc. Probably the equivalent of a scratch or +1 handicap in golf. But the gap between me, and say, olympic skiers, is ridiculously large. I have skied what they used for professional ski races in Colorado, and I can't ski it anywhere close to how the pros ski it. Or the mogul races ... nope. Not even close. I can do them, without falling, and do it better than 99% of people out there. But I am not close to the professionals.

That is what I would imagine the gap between a scratch golfer and a PGA professional is like. I'm sure lower handicaps on here would agree with this. I don't think Dan grasps this at all. The gap between a 0 or +1 golfer and a PGA tour professional is almost definitely bigger (by an order of magnitude!) than the gap between a 15 and 0 handicap, for example. I'm guessing you don't fully grasp that gap until you get into the "expert" range.

I think you are correct about Dan. He can probably become an expert once he fixes his swing, but PGA is pretty much impossible.

Let's just way that within the time he started this journey, my son is becoming a reasonable golfer. He definitely hits his irons farther than Dan. My son's childhood friend is now a 2.6HC (was 1.7 over the summer, but now has a full high school load of classes). They were both 10-11 years old when Dan started his journey, and are now 15 and 16. These are just two examples of kid's I happen to know, and there are probably a lot more kids like them. Add to this the number of juniors and seniors and all the college level players who all shoot low singles to scratch level, there are probably 100,000 young golfers who can score better than Dan and will continue to get better than he.

Maybe, Dan needs to play one of these 16 year old kids to realize his quest is pretty hopeless. . .

BTW, I only brought up expert skier because it is relatively well defined.

Yeah, at one time I was an "expert" skier, but not nearly as good as you I'm sure maybe a "mid single digit?". Plus, as I have not been on a ski in almost 5 years who knows? My fastest run ever was coming down Cornice (Mammoth Mountain) down to the lodge in under 4 minutes, but that was a long time ago when I was in my late 20s.

As far as skiing like an Olympic downhill racer, now or ever, they race down intermediate/single black slopes except at the top to gain some speed. They don't turn all that much except to change direction. They are extremely fit and strong. Like you I can ski the slopes, but it takes a lot longer than the Olympic athletes and I would need to make extra turns to keep my speeds down to around 40mph or less. I might possibly be able to out ski the 5 year old kids but even that would be dicey. If I get on one of those mogul race slopes, I would take over 4 times the time and probably have a heart attack on the way down if my legs don't crumple under the pressure.

Maybe we could ski together sometime. I really want to plan a trip to CO as we have lousy skiing conditions in CA.

[natureboy]

Yes it counts for something but the 'theory Dan is testing is that through 10,000 hours of deliberate practice you can become an expert at something. Paraphrasing but that's basically it. Is a round of golf 'deliberate practice'  as defined by the studies he's trying to prove or disprove? I'd say not. It's essential in a golfer's development but it isn't deliberate practice....... IMO

This

But it doesn't really fit under the heading of deliberate practice as defined by the studies Dan's trying to prove. Is physical fitness to a certain level essential? Is a certain mental toughness to a certain level essential? I just don't think a round of golf fits into the term 'deliberate practice'.

I agree this is a big shortcoming of his approach. I think top musicians and athletes do a lot of technique drills in their learning years and even beyond.

[DrvFrShow]

Dan set an impossible goal. Hitting 1000 balls a day doing disciplined drill after drill cannot be fun. I think it requires a certain level of obsessive compulsiveness to do it. I became an accomplished musician. I hated technical work with a passion. You can reach a goal, but you have to know your limits.