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

[Nosevi]

Those are completely relevant points, but I think you should put it into context of the plan / 10,000 hours. I don't argue against talent, but I think time invested is very relevant.

How long have those kids been playing golf...and not just hitting full shots. I think all practice time is relevant (especially with putting) so a couple of hours every week since they were four or five can add up to skill development. Not saying they haven't still gotten there faster than Dan, but I expect the margin is smaller than what you wrote implies. I don't think they rolled out of bed after messing about casually with golf for a few years and could suddenly play to scratch. Even Greg Norman and Larry Nelson had to work at their games for a year or more and I think you'd have to put them up near the top of the 'outlier' pyramid on raw golf talent. Nelson seems the quickest - started late & breaking par in under a year, turning pro 2 years after taking up the game, & qualifying for the tour 6 years after starting (probably practicing nearly full-time for at least 4+ years (~ 8,000 hours) plus maybe 1,000 hours per year for his first 2 years.

Ok, but a couple of hours a week since they were 5 adds up to just over 1,000 hours vs Dan's 10,000 hours. That's arguably quite a big difference. I'm sure they practiced more than that but equally sure it wasn't 20 hours a week, every week since they were 5. 

Nick Faldo didn't play golf until he was 13, 4 years later he won the English Amateur Championship and British Youths and turned Pro the year after. Within 2 years of that he had won on the European Tour, played in the Ryder Cup and within 3 years he had finished 3rd in the European Tour order of merit. That was all within the timescale of the Dan Plan, mostly while he was still at School.

Point is what would getting to scratch actually prove? That putting in the amount of time that most people could dedicate in maybe 25 years or more it was possible to get to scratch? I already know that as pretty much every scratch player under the age of 35 on the planet already did it.

I'm not being awkward I just don't think it'd be ground breaking when it's been done thousands of times before. 

[DrvFrShow]

But if after all of this, he is able to play scratch, then the 10,000 hour theory is proven. Just not at the level he wanted to do it.

And then for the rest of us: visualize your contribution to society.... http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-10-15

 

[Lihu]

Ok, but a couple of hours a week since they were 5 adds up to just over 1,000 hours vs Dan's 10,000 hours. That's arguably quite a big difference. I'm sure they practiced more than that but equally sure it wasn't 20 hours a week, every week since they were 5.

As one of many parents of the kid's who play golf, I would like them to practice a lot more more than this. The fact is, they don't. They have so many schoolwork and many distractions. The reason they can get away with that? Kids who are interested in something simply learn it quicker than adults. I think the top 20%-30% of high school players are like my son. They're like a 3HC when practicing 3 hours per day on season and a 6HC when they're off season. The top 2% to 3% of high school varsity players are scratch or better.

http://golf.about.com/od/juniorgolf/a/jrcollegegolf.htm

What about scoring averages? For boys, a midlevel Division I college is looking for a scoring average of 75 or better. The Top 20 schools are looking for scoring averages around 72. For lower tier Division I schools, as well as Division II, coaches are looking for a tournament scoring average between 75-80. Division III schools will be interested in players with scoring averages from 75 to 85, depending on the program.

Kids who play at the top level are good, and even slightly better than mediocre varsity players are probably in the 3HC to 10HC range.

But if after all of this, he is able to play scratch, then the 10,000 hour theory is proven. Just not at the level he wanted to do it.

And then for the rest of us: visualize your contribution to society.... http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-10-15

I agree, and anything more is asking too much.

[Nosevi]

The whole thing is like those threads where a 39 year old thinks he's going to play on the Champions Tour when he hits 50.

When it is suggested that guys like (insert top twenty  40 year olds in the world ATM ) will be the competition they either ignore you, call you a hater or get all huffy.

When you then point out that there are only a handful of spots available through qualifying each year, and that's the route that the like of Peter Senior (multiple international wins and Major top 5s) had to follow they get all defensive.

Dan doesn't even get defensive. He ignores it and just chases the free trips and interviews, with links to these on his prom site.

Ok, I'll agree that Dan's apparent slant towards media exposure vs things that will actually help (like coaching) isn't going to do him any favours, and his goal is just a little far fetched, and maybe he's not the perfect subject for this 'experiment' but putting all that aside, why do you think he doesn't stand a chance?

Kidding of course but seriously, why do you care? 

But if after all of this, he is able to play scratch, then the 10,000 hour theory is proven. Just not at the level he wanted to do it.

But if getting to scratch 'proves' the 10,000 hours theory then it's been proven thousands and thousands of times before, begging the question - what does Dan doing it again prove that all those others doing it didn't?

[natureboy]

Ok, but a couple of hours a week since they were 5 adds up to just over 1,000 hours vs Dan's 10,000 hours. That's arguably quite a big difference. I'm sure they practiced more than that but equally sure it wasn't 20 hours a week, every week since they were 5. 

Nick Faldo didn't play golf until he was 13, 4 years later he won the English Amateur Championship and British Youths and turned Pro the year after. Within 2 years of that he had won on the European Tour, played in the Ryder Cup and within 3 years he had finished 3rd in the European Tour order of merit. That was all within the timescale of the Dan Plan, mostly while he was still at School.

Point is what would getting to scratch actually prove? That putting in the amount of time that most people could dedicate in maybe 25 years or more it was possible to get to scratch? I already know that as pretty much every scratch player under the age of 35 on the planet already did it.

I'm not being awkward I just don't think it'd be ground breaking when it's been done thousands of times before. 

I expect that they probably had more than a few hours (4) a week average by the time they got to scratch. Sparse at first and then accelerating as they caught the golf bug. Faldo probably played and practiced as much as he could with almost all his spare time like other kids with the bug and he is an example of the very largest outliers in golf talent with the speed he became a high-level golfer and his HOF achievements. I don't think he is a 'just barely qualifying for his card' example.

Why not ask these kids you used as examples just how much they practiced to get to where they are. I would bet it's much closer to the 10,000 mark than you estimate. If they did it in 5,000 hours I would expect them to be playing to a +8 when they finally hit the 10,000 hours mark and to around a + 20 if scratch in 2,000 hours. If one of those kids did the latter, drop your own plan and invest your savings to back a share of their future.

My point is only that the talent margin, while real is tighter than some of your anecdotes imply.

Edited October 17, 2015 by natureboy

[natureboy]

I expect that they probably had more than a few hours (4) a week average by the time they got to scratch. Sparse at first and then accelerating as they caught the golf bug. Faldo probably played and practiced as much as he could with almost all his spare time like other kids with the bug and he is an example of the very largest outliers in golf talent with the speed he became a high-level golfer and his HOF achievements. I don't think he is a 'just barely qualifying for his card' example.

Why not ask these kids you used as examples just how much they practiced to get to where they are. I would bet it's much closer to the 10,000 mark than you estimate. If they did it in 5,000 hours I would expect them to be playing to a +8 when they finally hit the 10,000 hours mark and to around a + 20 if scratch in 2,000 hours. If one of those kids did the latter, drop your own plan and invest your savings to back a share of their future.

My point is only that the talent margin, while real is tighter than some of your anecdotes imply.

Correction @Nosevi. I think better est. would be someone getting to scratch at 5,000 hours would probably play to ~ +4 and if in 2,000 hours would probably play to ~ +10 by 10,000 hours.

So if those kids you referenced are shoo-in tour qualifiers or close, your example is on point.

Edited October 18, 2015 by natureboy

[Lihu]

But if getting to scratch 'proves' the 10,000 hours theory then it's been proven thousands and thousands of times before, begging the question - what does Dan doing it again prove that all those others doing it didn't?

Most scratch golfers started when they were young. Very few became scratch after starting the game at 30. I don't actually know any who did. They're like 2-3. Scratch are +1 to some fraction of 1.

Scratch expects a couple birdies every round to offset the bogeys he will get.

Scratch is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. . .if Dan makes it to true scratch, I'd be satisfied.

[DrvFrShow]

 

But if getting to scratch 'proves' the 10,000 hours theory then it's been proven thousands and thousands of times before, begging the question - what does Dan doing it again prove that all those others doing it didn't?

You're not getting it. The author of the book will claim victory in this case. He never promised Dan would be able to be a successful touring pro.

Dan is pursuing a dream, and while he may have had a very slim shot at playing in a professional tournament and making the cut, that window is slipping away fast. With this back injury, not have been at that level prior to the injury is going to make this nearly impossible, depending upon what the injury is. Then there's his financial situation. This is the main issue right now. Golf is not cheap.

[RandallT]

Dan set his goal high: make a cut in PGA Tour event. He said he'd be diligently focused on deliberate practice. He promised us a strict physical regimen. Yet...

From what he has written, he hasn't shown he can possibly come anywhere near his goal. He stalled out far before his injury. He didn't even track his own scoring rounds vs. his own published goals- provided by his ow goal guru. Not in any tournament has he even sniffed a respectable showing near the top of a leaderboard of a local tournament that I can recall. He hasn't provided much insight into deliberate practice, nor has he much to show in his physique for his physical exercise routines that he documented early on.

The pattern we see is that he fails to document on his blog the things that we want to know: a summary of scores and trends in scoring, deliberate practice, exercise routines, injury details, workarounds during times of setbacks. Dan's last blog post was quite a rambling account of where he stands, and @newtogolf hit the nail on the head in a post above. In fact, that last blog post was the perfect summary of his entire "plan." The title was "So much and so little." So much teeth-gnashing and trying to buck himself up, but so little concrete detail about what he sees ahead as challenges, other than his back injury (hint: his back is not even the largest of his worries).  

I've followed Dan from the start, and I was intrigued to see what a person could do if he dedicated full time to our sport, putting aside the things that most of us need to do in life: support family, etc. He started out with a rosy disposition when things were "easy." The optimism showed through, and he was getting tons of kudos for taking on such an ambitious challenge. When it became evident that he was in over his head, he failed to recognize that. He failed to alter course. He failed to address the widening disparity between his performance and the track he needed to be on. @Shorty is right in his criticism of that. Dan stays silent when he should make some concession to indicate some humility or that a goal adjustment is needed.

Dan had simply mapped out an impossible task for his innate talent level. @Nosevi suggests he might've set his goals a tad lower (Canadian Tour or something). Fair enough- that would've been less ridiculous, given where he started.  But if his goal were scratch- yawn. I'd have tuned out.

We all enthusiastically tune in and support each other's stories for golf improvement here on TST, but that's a different thing. Those don't merit getting Anders Ericsson involved, and a world-tour of speaking engagements promoting our plans. Just us humble people doing the best we can. The Dan Plan was different, and our analysis of success/failure for his plan should be different too. 

Dan had to have a high goal of reaching the PGA to gain a following and gain some funding. So we must measure him against that goal- not any lower goal like Canadian Tour or scratch or a My Swing thread. Those more reasonable goals never existed, even if we agree that they'd have been impressive from where he started.

As it stands, the thought that anyone would gather inspiration from falling so far short of a goal is a mystery to me. Those folks who commented on his last blog post look to me as fools. Thus far, it's all positive stuff like "stick to it!" and "you're such an inspiration!" and "you'll bounce back after the break- don't lose faith."  To me, that is mush-brain thinking from people who are not thinking very critically.

Those commenters on his recent blog post still think Dan has a chance, and that he is oh so close. They think he was scoring just a stroke or two from scratch. Therefore, we can all do it- gosh, if only his back hadn't given out!

I seem to recall predictions from some here on TST that this was how it would all end ("near scratch" cough-cough, injury, accolades, book/speaking tour). And the end is nigh. 

Despite all this, I wish Dan well. I hope he finds success in some other endeavor, and we can write this off as a cautionary tale. The worst outcome would be to celebrate this as some success. Think of all the poor carnage in the lives of inspired folks who might come afterward, disillusioned by the falsehoods of this "success story." Better to just be honest than to push forward a myth that 10,000 hours can make you professionally successful at golf. 

 

[Shorty]

why do you think he doesn't stand a chance?

Kidding of course but seriously, why do you care? 

 

He never stood a chance because he does not have 1 percent of the basic coordination or athleticism to make him a decent regional player, let a lone a PGATour player. For the millionth time, if he was in the top 400,000 players on the planet he would be an awesome player. But if he was outsiode the top 1000, he's not getting a hundred miles from the carpark at a PGATour event.

 Case in point. Michael Sim was in the top 50 in the world in 2009. One of the prettiest swings on tour. He is now outside the top 1200. He is playing for a few thousand dollars in pro ams and minor tour events. He is most probably never playing PGATour events again. Do you think he wouldn't have Dan by 15 shots half the time playing blindfolded? Dan doesn't stand a chance because he was never going to be any good. Not at the level he aspired to. He isn't in the top 100 in his state. Perhaps not even his city.

Why do I care? Because he doesn't respect those who can play. He think he is as good but needs time and money. He lies about his progress. He lets deluded interviewers continue on a false path and bathes in admiration that is undeserved.

It's like saying "Oh yeah, Eric Clapton is a good guitar player. I can be as good, but I need to be healthy and get free guitars". He is a grade A jerk

Edited October 18, 2015 by Shorty

[Nosevi]

Fair enough Shorty  

The first part was everso slightly tongue in cheek, the second part - I just wanted to know how a guy on a different continent who you don't really have anything to do with and isn't really hurting anyone could get under your skin like that. Like I said with me, his Plan he can do as he likes as far as I'm concerned. If interviewers don't bother to do a bit of research prior to interviewing him, so be it, I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it.

Regarding "not getting it" DrvFrShow, or in some way thinking that getting to scratch isn't good as someone else said - totally wrong. It's just that I happen to agree with Randy. I thought the whole pretense of the 10,000 hours rule is that talent is not required, it's over-rated, it's all about applying oneself through deliberate practice. Surely that's what the whole project is about. If you say it looks like his talent ceiling is scratch and that's where he gets to so declare success what does that prove? Someone else's talent ceiling may be single figures, another guy it may be plus 1, another it may be..... 

I'm looking at the project not at Dan himself. If he gets to scratch good on him, pat on the back, I think he will have done well. But the project itself has failed to prove the 10,000 hours rule, it's just shown that one guy reached his own personal potential. If you spend long enough at something you'll reach your own potential is hardly ground breaking news, we all pretty much know that already don't we?

Again, I'm not in any way belittling getting to scratch or saying Dan won't have done well if he does. I'm just saying that you can't declare success of the project when your end point isn't close to your goal and only goes to show that the pretense upon which the project is based is flawed. Dan will have done well. The project will have failed to prove the 10,000 hours rule.

All IMO. You're obviously welcome to all disagree with me.  

[Lihu]

We are taking this way too literally from something Dan wrote when he had no idea what is an expert golfer. 

The fact is, the theory would be proven if he makes scratch.

It's not so ho hum to make a legitimate scratch starting golf after 30. I doubt there are that many people who did it, and of hundreds of golfers I know, there aren't any. This is why I am suspecting some people don't know what it takes to actually play at that level. It's not a 2 or a 3, you don't get to bogey something without a birdie or two to recover from it. All the scratch players I know are used to getting birdies. They seem to get a lot of them playing standard courses with  eagle chances fairly often. Let me re-iterate, scratch is between +1 and some fraction of 1. The math tells me that's hard, the people I know who play at that level are gifted individuals.

I don't reallly care if it is a DIY handicap or "casual" rounds, as long as he follows the ROG and can really post par breaking rounds on any 72 par and rated course, that's scratch. I will also contend that if he makes scratch under the USGA system, that can compete head to head with scratch in any other system. Makes no difference where he gets to scratch.

There is no such theory that states anyone can compete in the Olympics with 10,000 hours of training!

If he makes scratch, that's pretty elite.

[Nosevi]

We are taking this way too literally from something Dan wrote when he had no idea what is an expert golfer. 

The fact is, the theory would be proven if he makes scratch.

It's not so ho hum to make a legitimate scratch starting golf after 30. I doubt there are that many people who did it, and of hundreds of golfers I know, there aren't any. This is why I am suspecting some people don't know what it takes to actually play at that level. It's not a 2 or a 3, you don't get to bogey something without a birdie or two to recover from it. All the scratch players I know are used to getting birdies. They seem to get a lot of them playing standard courses with  eagle chances fairly often. Let me re-iterate, scratch is between +1 and some fraction of 1. The math tells me that's hard, the people I know who play at that level are gifted individuals.

I don't reallly care if it is a DIY handicap or "casual" rounds, as long as he follows the ROG and can really post par breaking rounds on any 72 par and rated course, that's scratch. I will also contend that if he makes scratch under the USGA system, that can compete head to head with scratch in any other system. Makes no difference where he gets to scratch.

There is no such theory that states anyone can compete in the Olympics with 10,000 hours of training!

If he makes scratch, that's pretty elite.

I'm sorry but that's not a fact, that's an opinion. Let's not fall out over it, we just slightly disagree what constitutes 'mastery' (which is what the 10,000 hours theory is about) in golf. I practice with 3 guys playing off between plus 4 and plus 5 (two are tour pros) and a lass off plus 2 before she turned pro a year ago, it's likely effected my judgement. No snags, it's just a difference of opinion so like I said, let's not fall out over it  

One thing I think is a fact though is that if the target was the PGA Tour, remains the PGA Tour and he makes scratch he has not succeeded in his goal. We can go backwards and forwards about how well he's done but he has not succeeded in his goal. Done well IMO, maybe even very well, perhaps incrediably well......... but he has not succeeded in his stated goal of getting to the PGA Tour.

In no way does any of this put down his efforts. Dan and I get on fine as it happens. I'm one of the few that think he can go further than he is now, we'll see if I'm right. Good to see him talking about getting good coaching in his blog entry. It's just, IMO, when you set targets and make them you succeed, set them and don't and you fail. No stigma attached with setting a high target and failing to hit it but you don't 'succeed' in an endeavour if you don't hit the target you set. Just how I see it.

[RandallT]

We are taking this way too literally from something Dan wrote when he had no idea what is an expert golfer. 

The fact is, the theory would be proven if he makes scratch.

It's not so ho hum to make a legitimate scratch starting golf after 30. I doubt there are that many people who did it, and of hundreds of golfers I know, there aren't any. This is why I am suspecting some people don't know what it takes to actually play at that level. It's not a 2 or a 3, you don't get to bogey something without a birdie or two to recover from it. All the scratch players I know are used to getting birdies. They seem to get a lot of them playing standard courses with  eagle chances fairly often. Let me re-iterate, scratch is between +1 and some fraction of 1. The math tells me that's hard, the people I know who play at that level are gifted individuals.

I don't reallly care if it is a DIY handicap or "casual" rounds, as long as he follows the ROG and can really post par breaking rounds on any 72 par and rated course, that's scratch. I will also contend that if he makes scratch under the USGA system, that can compete head to head with scratch in any other system. Makes no difference where he gets to scratch.

There is no such theory that states anyone can compete in the Olympics with 10,000 hours of training!

If he makes scratch, that's pretty elite.

I'm with @Nosevi that we don't need to fall out over how we'd define "elite," but I'll agree with him that scratch is not good enough for this project. Would it be a great achievement for Dan to make? Yes. But for this project, only getting to scratch would be a failure to meet the goal, which was and continues to be very specific, from everything I've seen. The PGA Tour goal was THE reason I was interested, frankly. I was skeptical he could reach that goal, but I also wanted to see if Dan would adjust the goal as he went along. He didn't.

In the video above, Dan says very clearly in July 2014 (over 4 years after he started) that his goal is to "reach the highest level...essentially reach PGA Tour golf level." Anders Ericsson was there and sidestepped whether or not he "makes it" is significant. Anders doesn't say what would or would not prove his theory, but only ponders if Dan can find some attribute that he cannot conquer with the right kind of training. Not sure I understand what he's saying with that, honestly, and it struck me as an odd thing to say.

Is 4 years not enough time to correct his goal? How about 5?

In fact, in April 2015, Dan was even asked by @mchepp here--> http://thesandtrap.com/b/throwing_darts/an_interview_with_the_dan_plan

TST: The goal you set for yourself, playing on the PGA Tour, is lofty. Why not set something easier to accomplish like winning a U.S. Amateur or your club championship? Couldn't you define "scratch" as being an expert?

Dan: Well, that was my goal starting out and I feel that you need to set your standards high. My goal has been to play in a PGA Tour event and make the cut. I am not going to assume that I am going to be one of the top 125 players in the world, but if I can get my skill set to plus two or three and then get a sponsor's exemption and then play well on Thursday and Friday and then play on the weekend I think that would kind of prove the whole point.

Dan does not back off from his goal at all. He does not warn us that we are taking him too literally.

If Dan says in the future (and gets agreement from folks like you) that nevermind, the idea of expert never meant PGA at all. Elite level just meant scratch.  Well, there will be a hearty belly laugh here. I'd even suggest that for a significant portion of the people following, we would find this whole thing was an utter joke. I'd respect him far more, if he just admits that he failed to achieve his goal and says how difficult it all is, but that we still learned a lot- -mainly that talent plays a large role in getting to the "highest levels" of golf. Dan's premise has mostly been that hard work trumps talent. 

Anyway, his goal is his goal. Hard to weasel out of it. One shouldn't be able to market themselves for years and promote a plan to achieve something, stick with that for years, and then later move the goalposts in the final year or two. Yes, scratch is great. But that's what I'm discussing here. It's whether or not the Dan Plan met its goal. 

 

[natureboy]

 

 

TST: The goal you set for yourself, playing on the PGA Tour, is lofty. Why not set something easier to accomplish like winning a U.S. Amateur or your club championship? Couldn't you define "scratch" as being an expert?

Dan: Well, that was my goal starting out and I feel that you need to set your standards high. My goal has been to play in a PGA Tour event and make the cut. I am not going to assume that I am going to be one of the top 125 players in the world, but if I can get my skill set to plus two or three and then get a sponsor's exemption and then play well on Thursday and Friday and then play on the weekend I think that would kind of prove the whole point.

Though I hate to fuel the Dan-bashing, I think that is actually a back off of his original goal which was slightly vague / shifting but included PGA card holder at one point.

[RandallT]

Though I hate to fuel the Dan-bashing, I think that is actually a back off of his original goal which was slightly vague / shifting but included PGA card holder at one point.

Fair point . I believe I was incorrect saying that he does not back off his goal. Originally, he was earning a PGA Tour card via Q-school, which soon thereafter was no longer the process to do it. It morphed to just one event (with a made cut). Still quite lofty.

None of what I'm holding him to is stuff that he hasn't said he wants to do. For example, there are lots of interviews where he talks about the importance of setting goals- daily, weekly, etc. So I hold him to that. Ditto with the rest of what I've written in this thread. My expectations are simply what he has said at some point. Anyway, I think you'll find that consistent in my comments (which I prefer not to think of as "bashing").

[Lihu]

No one is really bashing Dan, I was simply pointing out that he still has no idea how hard it is to attain scratch much less play professionally and even how much harder to make the PGA.

He has no idea. . .

[newtogolf]

We are taking this way too literally from something Dan wrote when he had no idea what is an expert golfer.

The fact is, the theory would be proven if he makes scratch.

It's not so ho hum to make a legitimate scratch starting golf after 30. I doubt there are that many people who did it, and of hundreds of golfers I know, there aren't any. This is why I am suspecting some people don't know what it takes to actually play at that level. It's not a 2 or a 3, you don't get to bogey something without a birdie or two to recover from it. All the scratch players I know are used to getting birdies. They seem to get a lot of them playing standard courses with  eagle chances fairly often. Let me re-iterate, scratch is between +1 and some fraction of 1. The math tells me that's hard, the people I know who play at that level are gifted individuals.

I don't reallly care if it is a DIY handicap or "casual" rounds, as long as he follows the ROG and can really post par breaking rounds on any 72 par and rated course, that's scratch. I will also contend that if he makes scratch under the USGA system, that can compete head to head with scratch in any other system. Makes no difference where he gets to scratch.

There is no such theory that states anyone can compete in the Olympics with 10,000 hours of training!

If he makes scratch, that's pretty elite.

C'mon, we all know what it takes to be a pro athlete, regardless of the sport.  I'm not sure why you feel the need to make excuses for Dan.  The reality is, if Dan started this "Plan" stating he was just going to become a scratch golfer no one would have cared.  He strived for PGA Tour because that was the only thing that would get sponsors interested in putting money in his pockets. 

I doubt he'll ever get to scratch, just as I doubt he's ever had a real handicap lower than 8.  I consider scratch to be at the same level as playing Division 1 college football or basketball, I'm not quite sure I'd consider it elite.