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

[Pretzel]

On 5/24/2016 at 7:19 AM, RandallT said:

If he doesn't wrap up his experience at his site, I suppose we should wrap up this thread here. Who is good at eulogies? This has been too much fun for too long. 

There once was a man named Dan

He thought that he had a grand plan

He drummed up some money

Though most thought it funny

That he spoke like a confidence man

 

Dan thought that he ought to go pro

Better than others he thought he might know

"Aptitude shm-aptitude"

With these words he wooed

The people who handed him dough

 

It came as a suprise to only Dan

For it had turned out that his plan

Had but one glaring flaw

Despite Dan's chutzpah

Golf could only make him a poor man

[RandallT]

I'd give multiple thumbs up, if I could @Pretzel. A fitting limerick eulogy- genius. 

[RandallT]

In Ted Talks, it came as a bombshell:
The 10,000 Hour Theory’s death knell.
But The SandTrap found hysterics in
Mocking the erudition of Ericsson
And the pomposity of Malcolm Gladwell.
 

Too harsh? I actually enjoyed Outliers and I like Anders Ericsson in the interviews I've seen him in, although I find him often distancing himself from any practical application of his work and often warning of misunderstanding what he's trying to say (and I'm still unsure what exactly he truly meant). And like you, @nevets88, I think differently of Outliers after the years have passed, as it seems thinner and thinner of substance. 

[mchepp]

1 hour ago, RandallT said:

Too harsh? I actually enjoyed Outliers and I like Anders Ericsson in the interviews I've seen him in, although I find him often distancing himself from any practical application of his work and often warning of misunderstanding what he's trying to say (and I'm still unsure what exactly he truly meant). And like you, @nevets88, I think differently of Outliers after the years have passed, as it seems thinner and thinner of substance. 

I have Ericsson in a few interviews and I feel he is a bit wishy-washy. When asked how should someone go about doing the training you recommend he starts to say "well contact me and I'll will try to connect you" blah blah. 

Also he sounds a little angry with Gladwell for taking his theory on the 10,000 hours, but without it very few people would know about his theory. 

Now he is saying 10,000 under the watchful eye of a someone who knows how to teach the activity/sport/whatever. Oh, and it helps if your young. And also athletic if you are doing something athletic. Fine, but I feel that is not a theory, that is a really sound way to get good at something. It sounds to me that he is telling me something really obvious. 

I haven't read his book yet, but I will. I hope it is more in-depth than his interviews.

[Pretzel]

 

4 hours ago, RandallT said:

In Ted Talks, it came as a bombshell:
The 10,000 Hour Theory’s death knell.
But The SandTrap found hysterics in
Mocking the erudition of Ericsson
And the pomposity of Malcolm Gladwell.

See, the only thing I might disagree with here is that it was even a true test of the 10,000 hour theory since a majority of people with knowledge of golf could have told Dan he wasn't taking a very good path. It was an underfunded, unscientific study that appeared to also be testing the advising professionals pet theory about the best way to learn the golf game at the same time as the 10,000 hour thing, which then introduces even more variables into an already variable-laden type of test.

The 10,000 hour theory I know is hotly contested by another study that actually claims to have found the percentage difference in performance that deliberate practice makes, but Dan doesn't seem like he actually did much testing on the 10,000 hour theory. He had pretty clear goals from the onset, but I don't believe he ever actually defined "expert" as it would relate to golfing. If it meant getting to the top 5% of all golfers in the world then he would have achieved the goal by getting down to about a 2.7. If it meant that he had to be in the top 1% it would mean he'd have to be better than a +1. It's all very dependent on how you define "expert", which is what makes it so difficult. 

[RandallT]

5 hours ago, Pretzel said:

 

See, the only thing I might disagree with here is that it was even a true test of the 10,000 hour theory since a majority of people with knowledge of golf could have told Dan he wasn't taking a very good path. It was an underfunded, unscientific study that appeared to also be testing the advising professionals pet theory about the best way to learn the golf game at the same time as the 10,000 hour thing, which then introduces even more variables into an already variable-laden type of test.

The 10,000 hour theory I know is hotly contested by another study that actually claims to have found the percentage difference in performance that deliberate practice makes, but Dan doesn't seem like he actually did much testing on the 10,000 hour theory. He had pretty clear goals from the onset, but I don't believe he ever actually defined "expert" as it would relate to golfing. If it meant getting to the top 5% of all golfers in the world then he would have achieved the goal by getting down to about a 2.7. If it meant that he had to be in the top 1% it would mean he'd have to be better than a +1. It's all very dependent on how you define "expert", which is what makes it so difficult. 

Yah but that didn't rhyme . In all seriousness, I think I wrote a similar post pages ago on this thread. My little rhyme was a bit unfair, but when I thought of a combo of words to go with Ericsson, I just had to flush it out.

In what might be my final words on the whole thing (assuming the project is not resurrected!):

Ericsson:

Kinda like @mchepp, I find the whole thing vague about what he was asserting. That's much my fault, but partly his inability to communicate clearly. I doubt it was: "if you dedicate 10,000 hours, then you can be in the top of your field without any prior natural talent." That would certainly be preposterous.

But he strikes me as basically a decent person and an academic type who can't organize a desk. I'm sure the media garbled the meaning of his work in various ways, because we wanted to turn it into a feel-good inspirational thing. Ericsson didn't help his cause by not being particularly clear in his media appearances (my opinion, of course). 

That's why the line about him being erudite. He seems so academic and unable to explain himself in the real world.

Gladwell:

Great storyteller who took the general gist of Ericsson (and never even spoke to him, as we later learned) and weaved some great tales around it in Outliers. Beatles and Bill Gates come to mind, off the top of my head. They spent 10,000 hours on stuff (Hamburg bars and computer geek stuff) and THEN when the universe aligned and their skills suddenly were in demand, they were positioned to succeed. I thought that was a clever thesis, and he was a great writer. It was the stuff of cocktail parties for quite a while.

But that's how I remember the thesis years later anyway, and the part about the world suddenly finding the skills to be in demand wouldn't have applied to Dan today with golf. We have enough golfers. But the world was looking for rock n roll (Beatles) and it was looking for computer expertise (Gates), so the 10,000 hours were part of their success since they were well-positioned.

As the years have gone by since Outliers, Gladwell has generated quite of bit of criticism for his pomposity (easily searchable), so that was a fun line to stick in there. While I'm generally skeptical of a lot of Gladwell's theses, he is very thought-provoking which I enjoy (I do think he nailed the criticism of social media encouraging a lazy sort of activism-- but that's OT).

Dan:

What I think is "dead" is the idea that you can take the two people's writings above, and then turn that into your own little inspirational project to reinvent your life. So, yes, it's too harsh to say that the "10,000 Hour Theory" is dead (since I admitted I don't even know what precisely Ericsson meant).

But I do hope the cottage industry of reinventing your life because of the academic paper on 10,000 hours has run its course.

Reinvent your life, absolutely! Take risks. Be bold and passionate. Sure, go for it. But don't pretend you are a scientific experiment. That's the part, I think, should die a quick death.

So while I agree with what you write in your post above, @Pretzel, there's my defense of the limerick.

 

[iacas]

@mchepp has a Thrash Talk coming up tomorrow morning.

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, RandallT said:

So while I agree with what you write in your post above, @Pretzel, there's my defense of the limerick.

Ha ha, the limerick was just fine, I liked it (sorry if it came across as me attacking your poetic verse). 

[boogielicious]

6 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Ha ha, the limerick was just fine, I liked it (sorry if it came across as me attacking your poetic verse). 

Once you set the bar high, your fans will be disappointed with anything less!

I am fascinated by this thread and the attention Dan got from TST members. We've seen a number of people like Dan on this forum. His path was a bit more specific, but the amount of attention is mind boggling to me.

[newtogolf]

52 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Once you set the bar high, your fans will be disappointed with anything less!

I am fascinated by this thread and the attention Dan got from TST members. We've seen a number of people like Dan on this forum. His path was a bit more specific, but the amount of attention is mind boggling to me.

Dan is the first to my knowledge to formally challenge the Talent Code, a non gifted individual who would commit to 10,000 hours of practice with the established goal of being a PGA Tour player.  

Many members here that claim they want to be a pro golfer are younger kids who show some potential in the sport and are deluded or convinced into believing they have the raw talent required to become a professional.  I don't think we've had someone actually document their journey with the level of transparency Dan provided in the beginning of his "plan".  

I started following him later in his plan and while I was initially rooting for him I eventually started to question his approach and commitment, as well as his transparency in his progress.  

[jamo]

20 hours ago, RandallT said:

Too harsh? I actually enjoyed Outliers and I like Anders Ericsson in the interviews I've seen him in, although I find him often distancing himself from any practical application of his work and often warning of misunderstanding what he's trying to say (and I'm still unsure what exactly he truly meant). And like you, @nevets88, I think differently of Outliers after the years have passed, as it seems thinner and thinner of substance. 

There was a Freakonomics podcast episode about that pretty recently, in which they interviewed Ericsson.

[krupa]

From The Sports Gene:

Quote

On a panel at the 2012 America College of Sports Medicine conference, Ericsson noted that the now world-famous data were collected in a small number of subjects and are not entirely reliable in terms of counting practice hours.  "Obviously, we were only collecting data on ten individuals," Ericsson said.  "And [the violinists did] some of the retrospective estimates several times, and there was no perfect agreement."  That is, the violinists were inconsistent in multiple accounts of how much they had practiced.  Even so, Ericsson said, the variation among just the ten most elite violinists - the 10,000 hours group- was still "certainly more than 500 hours."  (Ericsson himself, it should be noted, never used the term "10,000-hours rule."  In a 2012 paper in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, he ascribed the phrase's popularity to a chapter title in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, which, he wrote, "miscontrued" the conclusions of the violin study.)

The author then asks Dan if he worried that he'd be a 20,000 hour guy instead of a 10,000 hour guy.  Dan's response was that the journey itself would be a victory.  So give the man a Tour card!

[Lihu]

The issue with the theory that Dan invented is that he lacks talent.

Even these Dude Perfect guys can't even touch the talent the pros have and yet, they do possess some talent. . .

When you meet someone who has talent, it shows. Their shots are really accurate. You might even think they are lucky until they reproduce the same shot multiple times. It's also perspective. It's also possible that a high handicap might not truly appreciate the accuracy and precision of a pro as much as a low handicap?

Talent is distance with accuracy in golf, and for some reason many of us keep forgetting or underestimating that when discussing the Dan plan and his potential.

[iacas]

https://thesandtrap.com/b/thrash_talk/post_mortem_on_the_dan_plan

[Dresilved]

There are too many pages on this thread to read, so apologizes if someone has already brought it up

"There is a book called "The Sports Gene" and the DanPlan is one example of 100s of experiments that are discussed in the book, across all sports and including other disciplines such as chess, and playing a musical instrument. 10,000 hours however is only 1 of the elements required to be considered expert/top of the field. Physiology/genetics is another and mental approach in relation to your chosen field.

Physiology/Genetics plays a bigger role in most cases than the time commitment, for example

Specifically, why Kenyas win so many marathons is based in part because of genetics. All of the previous winners can be traced genetically to a tribe indigenous to some area of Kenya at altitude. Because of this their pulmonary and lung capacity is genetically predisposed to pump a higher volume of oxygen through the blood. They are also pre-deposed to having very thin lower legs, ankles and small feet - the region of the body that uses up the most energy in marathon running. So basically, as long as they put in the time and training required for long distance running, Kenyans are basically unbeatable.

Olympic winning high jumpers, have 2 things in common, (a) being above a certain height and (b) having an ankle tendon that measures over a certain length, that allows for the biggest down-force and release, its that that allows them to jump so high, again 10k hours required by genetics is what puts them ahead

Germany scientists, in the early 80s I think, measured every part of the body that could possible be measured, internal/external of 100s of aspiring tennis players. They then made a prediction on which boy and which girl would be the best tennis players, having not once seen any of them play. Based purely scientific reasoning, the names of the 2 kids were Stefi Graph and Boris Becker.

A good example of mental approach, among many other examples, violinists who occupy the first position in a major orchestra spent more time practicing alone, and starting from a younger age. There is also a brilliant example of why grand master chess players become what they are, its all about their mental approach and memory, as well as 10k+ hours, too long to go into in detail, fascinating stuff though.  

The point is, most of the experiments were conducted under rigorous scientific methods. The Dan Plan wasn't, his experiment does not count, the theory is still solid, but you cant ignore the other 2 elements which dan did.       

[Lihu]

33 minutes ago, Dresilved said:

There are too many pages on this thread to read, so apologizes if someone has already brought it up

"There is a book called "The Sports Gene" and the DanPlan is one example of 100s of experiments that are discussed in the book, across all sports and including other disciplines such as chess, and playing a musical instrument. 10,000 hours however is only 1 of the elements required to be considered expert/top of the field. Physiology/genetics is another and mental approach in relation to your chosen field.

 

Quote

Physiology/Genetics plays a bigger role in most cases than the time commitment, for example

It does, just as intelligence and other inherent traits in people do as well.

However, it is not always by race or ethnicity.

 

Quote

Specifically, why Kenyas win so many marathons is based in part because of genetics. All of the previous winners can be traced genetically to a tribe indigenous to some area of Kenya at altitude. Because of this their pulmonary and lung capacity is genetically predisposed to pump a higher volume of oxygen through the blood. They are also pre-deposed to having very thin lower legs, ankles and small feet - the region of the body that uses up the most energy in marathon running. So basically, as long as they put in the time and training required for long distance running, Kenyans are basically unbeatable.\

Christopher Chataway, Dieter Baumann, Alberto Salazar, Salvatore Antibo. . .these don't really sound very Kenyan to me. . .

 

Here's Chinese runners training in Kenya under the leadership of an Italian Coach.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/roads/2014/05/china_s_runners_in_kenya_chinese_marathoners_are_learning_kenyan_techniques.html

 

Quote

Olympic winning high jumpers, have 2 things in common, (a) being above a certain height and (b) having an ankle tendon that measures over a certain length, that allows for the biggest down-force and release, its that that allows them to jump so high, again 10k hours required by genetics is what puts them ahead

Germany scientists, in the early 80s I think, measured every part of the body that could possible be measured, internal/external of 100s of aspiring tennis players. They then made a prediction on which boy and which girl would be the best tennis players, having not once seen any of them play. Based purely scientific reasoning, the names of the 2 kids were Stefi Graph and Boris Becker.

Statistically their brothers and sisters would have also been good, right? But they're not. 2 out of a nation of millions is no more statistically compelling than random selection from the seeding process that naturally occurs in tennis competitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steffi_Graf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Becker

Totally different physiology. Other than possibly height, the two men and two women have totally different builds. Those measurements taken by scientists are pretty much irrelevant.

It's genetic, but not necessarily by race or ethnicity.

 

Quote

A good example of mental approach, among many other examples, violinists who occupy the first position in a major orchestra spent more time practicing alone, and tarting from a younger age. There is also a brilliant example of why grand master chess players become what they are, its all about their mental approach and memory, as well as 10k+ hours, too long to go into in detail, fascinating stuff though.  

The difference is that musicians really practice for 10,000 hours. They don't usually just play the entire piece they are working on over and over again. They play parts of it over and over and practice them different ways. Both my kids played Piano, Harp, Trumpet, Trombone and Guitar, and they practiced a lot more than they played. This might be one reason they are far better golfers than me with a lot less time invested in practice, they are used to more efficient practice versus play.

 

Quote

The point is, most of the experiments were conducted under rigorous scientific methods. The Dan Plan wasn't, his experiment does not count, the theory is still solid, but you cant ignore the other 2 elements which dan did.       

It's difficult to say if those studies were any more valid. In the end, Dan was a sample of one. That is the more likely cause of failure.

[natureboy]

On 5/26/2016 at 1:52 AM, Pretzel said:

That he spoke like a confidence man

To you maybe. Most is questionable.

 A confidence man wouldn't have slogged it out in crappy Portland weather or worked on his putter for 6 months straight or whatever it was.

I don't see him as any worse than loads of vloggers or video content producers out there asking for support. Certainly far better than most reality show drivel (but Amazing Race was good).

Actually, to think of it, I do consider him better than My Swing Evolution's, Cristo who originally had some entertainment value, but has now become a late night infomercial type shill and is offering instructional 'academies' of extremely dubious quality. All Dan did was share his story and ask for some support.

The goal may have been folly, but Don Quixote is still a classic.

On 5/26/2016 at 0:49 PM, mchepp said:

Now he is saying 10,000 under the watchful eye of a someone who knows how to teach the activity/sport/whatever. Oh, and it helps if your young. And also athletic if you are doing something athletic. Fine, but I feel that is not a theory, that is a really sound way to get good at something. It sounds to me that he is telling me something really obvious. 

Maybe Ericsson Gladwell initiated a a study sold a book idea about  a 'secret' to learning difficult tasks and came back with the punch line to "how do I get to Carnegie Hall", but he had to package that less than breakthrough insight with a marketing angle, "10,000 hours [magic]" (give or take a few K, your results may vary, advise your doctor before taking 10,000 hours).

Edited May 27, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

7 hours ago, Lihu said:

Statistically their brothers and sisters would have also been good, right? But they're not. 2 out of a nation of millions is no more statistically compelling than random selection from the seeding process that naturally occurs in tennis competitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steffi_Graf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic versus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Becker

Totally different physiology. Other than possibly height, the two men and two women have totally different builds. Those measurements taken by scientists are pretty much irrelevant.

Good description of 'regression to the mean'. Same reason two genetically deaf parents can have a child who is able to hear.

I kind of thought that German study sounded fishy. Besides you can predict averages for body physiology from a younger age, but you can't know for certain how one person's hormones are going to act during the growth spurt. If that study was actually done, it's possible it was an effect similar to the age of hockey players in Canada that Gladwell mentioned (see one conceptual error doesn't make his narrative completely worthless or less intriguing). They study, by attracting the attention and investment of coaches to focus on the expected 'star' among the already highly talented for their age players it became a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.