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

[nevets88]

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

No doubt. I didn't think he'd get the attention he does now.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

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.

You're not being cynical, and I think this project and its supporters do have some other agenda.

Also, I think any talented kid needs deep practice.

They might be naturally talented, but if they only practice something once a week they can't get good.

What I get behind the data from Coyle's book is not that any average kid can get as good as a gifted kid with 10,000 hours of practice.

An example from the book covers "Footbol de Sala", the example exactly follows my hypothesis above. We need to assume that we find the most talented kids who play football in any group. We take a group who play and succeed in Footbol de Sala and compare them to the ones who play standard football (soccer). The reason these kids are so good is because they have much more contact with the ball and more close up work, and practice many more hours with ball handling. In both cases, all the non-talented kids are out of the picture, because they don't play well enough to stay in the game.

The main idea I get is that a talented kid who practices for 10,000 focused hours, will succeed over even a slightly more talented kid who does not practice as much. Not that any average kid can succeed.

I agree that there is not even a remote chance of success for a non-talented person even with 20,000 hours of focused training.

The agenda that is being pushed seems to be rooted upon our education system that we are all equal. Yes, we should all be given the same opportunities for education, but there is no point for someone to try to do something that is impossible.

However, this is his goal:

"It’s a project in transformation. An experiment in potential and possibilities. Through 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice,” Dan, who currently has minimal golf experience, plans on becoming a professional golfer . But the plan isn’t really about golf: through this process, Dan hopes to prove to himself and others that it’s never too late to start a new pursuit in life.  For a detailed description of the project, please read this blog post: http://thedanplan.com/blog/?p=1090 "

Definition of professional golfer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_golfer

He could still teach, in which case he has some chance of success.

[krupa]

Few observations:

1)  He lives in Portland.  While it's possible to play golf year-round, there are definitely going to be more bad weather days than Florida.  It also isn't nearly as golf-centric as Florida is.  Throw a rock in Florida and it lands on a golf course.  Throw a rock in Portland and you hit someone with multiple tattoos drinking coffee.  If I was going to drop everything and devote my life to golf, I would not do it in Portland (and I love Portland.)

2)  He doesn't work with a coach on a regular basis.  6 weeks between sessions?

3)  It appears his deliberate practice has trailed off a little.  If you read his entries (http://thedanplan.com/countdown/) from the end of February until now, he keeps talking about missing make-able putts but he isn't going back and practicing putts.  He's practicing irons and chipping and putting.  It seems to me that a "deliberate practitioner" would be skipping the casual 9-holes with buddies and spending that time on the putting green instead (weather permitting of course. )

[joekelly]

Update on the basic argument, as outlined below.

Underlying arguments over whether winners are made or born, or over nature versus nurture, the disagreement points to deep uncertainty about who should receive expert instruction and how best to teach people to excel.

"No one disputes that practice is important," says psychologist David Zachary Hambrick of Michigan State University in East Lansing. "Through practice, people get better. The question is whether that is all there is to it."

But more to read here

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140310-gladwell-expertise-practice-debate-intelligence/?google_editors_picks=true

[David in FL]

However, this is his goal:

"It’s a project in transformation. An experiment in potential and possibilities. Through 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice,” Dan, who currently has minimal golf experience, plans on becoming a professional golfer. But the plan isn’t really about golf: through this process, Dan hopes to prove to himself and others that it’s never too late to start a new pursuit in life.  For a detailed description of the project, please read this blog post: http://thedanplan.com/blog/?p=1090"

Definition of professional golfer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_golfer

He could still teach, in which case he has some chance of success.

Further down the same page.....

Logging in 30-plus hours a week he will hit the 10,000 hour milestone by December 2016. During this time, Dan plans to develop his skills through deliberate practice, eventually winning amateur events and obtaining his PGA Tour card through a successful appearance in the PGA Tour’s Qualifying School, or “Q-School”.

It's worth noting that "winning amateur events" encompasses a broad spectrum, including winning the "C" flight in his club championship, or the Hogan flight of a local GC AmTour event to the USGA Championships.  Heck, if he can even advance to match play at the U.S. Amateur or make a top-10 at his State Am or the U.S. Mid-Am, I'll be impressed.   Obtaining a PGA Tour card is pretty specific though.....

What does NOT impress me (in this unique circumstance) is a handicap index, until we see some consistent, verifiable tournament results.

[krupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joekelly

Update on the basic argument, as outlined below.

Underlying arguments over whether winners are made or born, or over nature versus nurture, the disagreement points to deep uncertainty about who should receive expert instruction and how best to teach people to excel.

"No one disputes that practice is important," says psychologist David Zachary Hambrick of Michigan State University in East Lansing. "Through practice, people get better. The question is whether that is all there is to it."

But more to read here

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140310-gladwell-expertise-practice-debate-intelligence/?google_editors_picks=true

Very happy to see someone point out the weak point in the work:

Quote:

Hambrick counters that Ericsson's reliance on only a few supreme performers for his studies of expertise turns the studies into anecdotes. "If we don't have enough data points in the study to say anything statistically, then it isn't science."

[nevets88]

What kills me is this is gonna happen. Despite whatever Dan does, there are people out there who will misinterpret his experience and earnestly start to put in 10K hours with outsized expectations.

The Talent Code should be renamed something like - What you can learn from top level experts to improve your practice techniques and possibly take your endeavors to the next level. Ha ha, that's not gonna sell books though.

Yada yada yada - CODE

That sells books.

[newtogolf]

What kills me is this is gonna happen. Despite whatever Dan does, there are people out there who will misinterpret his experience and earnestly start to put in 10K hours with outsized expectations.

The Talent Code should be renamed something like - What you can learn from top level experts to improve your practice techniques and possibly take your endeavors to the next level. Ha ha, that's not gonna sell books though.

Yada yada yada - CODE

That sells books.

Actually people on both sides will misinterpret the data because the entire experiment was flawed.  Dan hasn't demonstrated his practice time was used in the manner the Talent Code suggests.  He appears to spend a good part of the time hacking around.  Based on his recent posts it seems to me he's facing the real possibility he isn't going to achieve the goal and is now getting bored with the whole process.

Those who want to believe that 10,000 hours is all you need will point to the success Dan has had and use the excuse that his 10,000 weren't used properly.   Those that believe talent is in the DNA will cite that he failed to make it through Q School and that you can't practice you way onto the PGA Tour.

In the end it will have hopefully been a fun time for Dan, but in terms of proving or disproving the Talent Code question, the experiment is likely a failure.

[iacas]

The Talent Code should be renamed something like - What you can learn from top level experts to improve your practice techniques and possibly take your endeavors to the next level. Ha ha, that's not gonna sell books though.

I tell people that the main message in the book is "practice at the edge of your ability." The sub-message would be that you can also train specific small skills as part of a larger skill. Maybe that means practicing your footwork as a tennis player (without a racket, a ball, or even a net or court). It's not the stroke itself, but it's important to playing tennis.

But mostly "practice at the edge of your ability." Hence the thread about practicing: .

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

However, this is his goal:

"It’s a project in transformation. An experiment in potential and possibilities. Through 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice,” Dan, who currently has minimal golf experience, plans on becoming a professional golfer. But the plan isn’t really about golf: through this process, Dan hopes to prove to himself and others that it’s never too late to start a new pursuit in life.  For a detailed description of the project, please read this blog post: http://thedanplan.com/blog/?p=1090"

Definition of professional golfer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_golfer

He could still teach, in which case he has some chance of success.

Further down the same page.....

Logging in 30-plus hours a week he will hit the 10,000 hour milestone by December 2016. During this time, Dan plans to develop his skills through deliberate practice, eventually winning amateur events and obtaining his PGA Tour card through a successful appearance in the PGA Tour’s Qualifying School, or “Q-School”.

It's worth noting that "winning amateur events" encompasses a broad spectrum, including winning the "C" flight in his club championship, or the Hogan flight of a local GC AmTour event to the USGA Championships.  Heck, if he can even advance to match play at the U.S. Amateur or make a top-10 at his State Am or the U.S. Mid-Am, I'll be impressed.   Obtaining a PGA Tour card is pretty specific though.....

What does NOT impress me (in this unique circumstance) is a handicap index, until we see some consistent, verifiable tournament results.

Yes, the PGA Tour Card is pretty specific. Not possible for him even with 20,000 hours or even two lifetimes. That was born completely from ignorance of golf, and I'm surprised he didn't amend it the first time he went to a driving range. Even my first trip to the driving ranges (any of them in my area), there were people hitting balls with a lot of power. You could hear the poof sound as the ball screams off the face with a hiss. There are so many more qualified golfers that don't even pretend to think that they could do this. Oh, that's right , he didn't even go to the driving range until something like 6 months into his "training", so he couldn't amend this claim this far into the project.

Agreed that his handicap is somewhat questionable, but I think it is at least "possible" if those are his real Trakman numbers.

[ztexz]

I'm willing to accept his handicap at face value. By way of reference, Phil Mickelson is a +5.  So if Dan wants to have even a prayer of making it to the big time, he needs to shave a further 7 or 8 shots off his handicap.  And he has to do it in 2.5 years.

To say that's a Herculian feat is understatement.  Not to mention that last July homeboy shot a 98 in his club championship.  A club championship.  I mean, that's just several universes away from the type of conditions and pressure he would face on a micro-tour, not to mention the Web.com or, God help him, the PGA Tour.

[Lihu]

I'm willing to accept his handicap at face value. By way of reference, Phil Mickelson is a +5.  So if Dan wants to have even a prayer of making it to the big time, he needs to shave a further 7 or 8 shots off his handicap.  And he has to do it in 2.5 years.

To say that's a Herculian feat is understatement.  Not to mention that last July homeboy shot a 98 in his club championship.  A club championship.  I mean, that's just several universes away from the type of conditions and pressure he would face on a micro-tour, not to mention the Web.com or, God help him, the PGA Tour.

I think he needs to shave off more strokes than that in less than 2.5 years, unless he plans on the Champions tour. I think he's 37 years old already. Even on the Champions Tour he needs to compete with many great ex-PGA tour pros, let's give him another 10,000 hours and another 13 years and I still think he has less than 1% chance of making it on the Champions Tour.

To give this some perspective, there are two ex-players coaching my kids' first tee classes. One was on mini-tours and the other did Canadian tour. They are both still in their mid 20's and consider themselves to be done with pro golf aspirations.One has a bad back (80% usage of his lower disk?). The one with a bad back said he can "only" carry a drive about 280, but at least they're on the fairway. He does not play with any regularity. The other one is still a high + handicap and had a shoulder injury (not golf related) and needed to recover for 1 year. When he got well he couldn't get any sponsors, so he had to quit. He considers it a really "bad" day to only make par on any course. I recall him saying that he scores in the low 60's on the typical courses we play.

Here's an endorsement article for the + handicap one: http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=292438

Both of them still look really strong, really strong.

[ztexz]

Even on the Champions Tour he needs to compete with many great ex-PGA tour pros

No kidding.  Here's the Top 10 from the last Champions Tour event in February.

Kirk Tripplett

Olin Browne

Bernhard Langer

Duffy Waldorf

Jay Haas

Michael Allen

Colin Montgomerie

Mark Calcavecchia

Mike Goodes

Billy Andrade

In between all of those guys, there are 39 PGA Tour wins, 74 European Tour wins, and 2 majors.

This notion that you can just practice really hard and be competitive against talent like that is, simply, insane.

[David in FL]

I think he needs to shave off more strokes than that in less than 2.5 years, unless he plans on the Champions tour. I think he's 37 years old already. Even on the Champions Tour he needs to compete with many great ex-PGA tour pros, let's give him another 10,000 hours and another 13 years and I still think he has less than 1% chance of making it on the Champions Tour.

All he's gotta do is be able to compete with Ben Curtis, Paul Casey, Geoff Ogilvy, and Jason Dufner.......all of whom turn 50 the same year he does.

But of course, he'll be practicing to get ready for that, so it should be a piece of cake.

[nevets88]

I think the more interesting question is let's say you transplant Dan to an all year golf playing climate. Start him off with deliberate/deep practice done right, re: short, simple, specific. He has access to all the 5SK instructors :-) or proven instructors (know ball flight laws, high fps video, dplane, Trackman inside out, tons of experience, smart, great golf instinct, all that stuff) who with regularity, take people who've never touched a club who have the potential to do so, to breaking 80 or better in a year or less. Add in Aimpoint, Sam putting lab, all that stuff. How far could he get with 10k hours? If you look at his swing video, he's got hand-eye coordination. Scratch? Good enough to get into a Division III program? D II? D I?

[ztexz]

I think the more interesting question is lets say you transplant Dan to an all year golf playing climate. Start him off with deliberate/deep practice done right, re: short, simple, specific. He has access to a all the 5SK instructors :-) or proven instructors who with regularity, take people who've never touched a club who have the potential to do so, to breaking 80 or better in a year or less. Add in Aimpoint, Sam putting lab, all that stuff. How far could he get with 10k hours? If you look at his swing video, he's got hand-eye coordination. Scratch? Good enough to get into a Division III program? D II? D I?

That is an interesting question.  He could certainly make D2 or D3.  D1? I'd give him a coin flip.  If I had been a bit more serious an athlete, I probably could have made it at my alma matter (D1, decent golf team, but nothing special -- certainly not a Wake Forest/Auburn/etc.), and that was as a 3 handicap.  That's not out of the question if you basically turn your life over to becoming a 3 handicap and have the necessary basic athleticism.

But here's the other thing that's missing from this: the mental toughness to play competitive golf.  Plenty of people have the physical skill to play at a high level -- I'm one of them -- but most of those people don't have the mental toughness to perform under pressure -- again, I'm one of them.

The guy just shot a 98 in his club championship.  I think that right there shows he does have "it"

[nevets88]

That is an interesting question.  He could certainly make D2 or D3.  D1? I'd give him a coin flip.  If I had been a bit more serious an athlete, I probably could have made it at my alma matter (D1, decent golf team, but nothing special -- certainly not a Wake Forest/Auburn/etc.), and that was as a 3 handicap.  That's not out of the question if you basically turn your life over to becoming a 3 handicap and have the necessary basic athleticism.

But here's the other thing that's missing from this: the mental toughness to play competitive golf.  Plenty of people have the physical skill to play at a high level -- I'm one of them -- but most of those people don't have the mental toughness to perform under pressure -- again, I'm one of them.

The guy just shot a 98 in his club championship.  I think that right there shows he does have "it"

That's true. I'm trying to analyze this from as a non-mental and physical viewpoint as much as possible. If a person can attain the physical skills. Whether he/she can not toss his/her cookies on the first tee or a putt that really counts, motivation, etc... that's something else.

A corollary to this is lets say you do this for 100 men and women of average athletic ability and do the above for a year, 2 years. If 80% of them get to a 0-5 index, I wonder what that says about the golf teaching industry as whole. The whole focus has been on Dan, the individual and I understand that, but not much has been said about the theory tested. There's lots of bits dedicated to can the guy do it, but imho, more bits should be dedicated to how he's doing this.

[sopel10]

Does he post all his rounds?  Found him on goflshot, just wondering.