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

[Lihu]

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. 

Dan never did anything other than cross country, most non-athletic types have no idea what it takes to become a pro.

So, no. I don't take anything for granted. . .

[newtogolf]

Dan never did anything other than cross country, most non-athletic types have no idea what it takes to become a pro.

So, no. I don't take anything for granted. . .

I don't think  you quit your job and take on a 10,000 hour challenge with a specific goal and not have some understanding about what is involved.  The whole point of the plan was to prove that a guy with limited athletic ability could dedicate 10,000 hours to learning golf and play on the tour.  He was supposed to have a plan, but you actually believe in creating the plan that no one he discussed this with mentioned to him how tough making it into a PGA Tour event would be? 

[natureboy]

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. 

I would think empirically (standard deviations above the mean) those categories are 'elite', just not top of the pyramid. Why else would some people be calling for those athletes (D1 football & basketball) to be paid.

[natureboy]

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.

 

Starting from a strong multi-sport base, Faldo took lessons at 13 (in '71) 'got hooked' and at 14 played his first full round of golf. I'll give him an average of two rounds on weekends plus 3 days a week after school (during term) plus long daily practice in the summer easily averaging 19 hours a week (~1,000 hrs per year) for his first two years. In his own words: "I loved school, until golf came along. Then the only thing I was interested in was getting out of the gates as quick as possible and going to the golf course." At 16 it was full-time golf (dropped out of school) where he 'played every day for two years' (~ 4,500 hours). So roughly 5,500 - 6,500 hours to his English Amateur win in '75. Plus another two years (~ 3,500 hours) to his first win on European Tour.

This is a fast, impressive progress track. Much less than Dan for sure, but he is an example of the very top of the golf talent pyramid as a multiple major winner / HOF player. With his swing re-build under Leadbetter, he hit 1,500 balls a day to further push himself into major-winning form. I offer the details, because the impression one could take from what you wrote is that he (and others) got there in a few years of casual effort owing to multiple powers of 10 innate talent difference, while I think the talent gap is significant, but considerably smaller than that.

It's kind if interesting that possibly due to this super fast start, many thought he 'under-achieved' his potential as a pro - at least until his breakthrough major wins, while the slow and steady progress ('I got better every year') of Zach Johnson is probably seen as 'over-achieving' relative to his perceived potential early on. I expect Zach would have been far behind Faldo on the skill level to hours progress path at 6,000 and 10,000 hours of practice.

[Nosevi]

Starting from a strong multi-sport base, Faldo took lessons at 13 (in '71) 'got hooked' and at 14 played his first full round of golf. I'll give him an average of two rounds on weekends plus 3 days a week after school (during term) plus long daily practice in the summer easily averaging 19 hours a week (~1,000 hrs per year) for his first two years. In his own words: "I loved school, until golf came along. Then the only thing I was interested in was getting out of the gates as quick as possible and going to the golf course." At 16 it was full-time golf (dropped out of school) where he 'played every day for two years' (~ 4,500 hours). So roughly 5,500 - 6,500 hours to his English Amateur win in '75. Plus another two years (~ 3,500 hours) to his first win on European Tour.

This is a fast, impressive progress track. Much less than Dan for sure, but he is an example of the very top of the golf talent pyramid as a multiple major winner / HOF player. With his swing re-build under Leadbetter, he hit 1,500 balls a day to further push himself into major-winning form. I offer the details, because the impression one could take from what you wrote is that he (and others) got there in a few years of casual effort owing to multiple powers of 10 innate talent difference, while I think the talent gap is significant, but considerably smaller than that.

It's kind if interesting that possibly due to this super fast start, many thought he 'under-achieved' his potential as a pro - at least until his breakthrough major wins, while the slow and steady progress ('I got better every year') of Zach Johnson is probably seen as 'over-achieving' relative to his perceived potential early on. I expect Zach would have been far behind Faldo on the skill level to hours progress path at 6,000 and 10,000 hours of practice.

Interesting stuff and yes - the hours you've estimated for Faldo (and it is an estimation, neither of us actually know how many hours he practiced prior to winning the English amateur) is more than I estimated.

But while we're debating how much time one or other golfer took to get to a given level you're still talking about talent. Surely the whole point of the Dan Plan is to prove talent is not required. In order to reach mastery in a given field a person doesn't require talent, they just need to put in (on average) 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. Talent is at best over-rated at worst totally unrequired. That's the premise of the 10,000 hours rule and what the Dan Plan is trying to prove. The moment you start talking about talent you're saying the Plan (not Dan, the Plan itself) has failed to prove it.

My take on it - talent is in fact required to reach mastery in a given field. 

[iacas]

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

It would not have, not by a long shot, no.

For two reasons:

1. Sample size (of one?!?!).
2. Maybe he was just good.

Greg Norman getting to scratch in a year or whatever it took him doesn't prove that any human who follows his schedule will do what he did.

You're moving the goalposts, @Lihu.

[Lihu]

It would not have, not by a long shot, no.

For two reasons:

1. Sample size (of one?!?!).
2. Maybe he was just good.

Greg Norman getting to scratch in a year or whatever it took him doesn't prove that any human who follows his schedule will do what he did.

You're moving the goalposts, @Lihu.

I agree that in general a sample size of one is ridiculous, but my thinking is that in Dan's particular case it would pretty much prove the theory. He seems to be a reverse Greg Norman outlier. I could be totally wrong, of course.

[iacas]

I agree that in general a sample size of one is ridiculous, but my thinking is that in Dan's particular case it would pretty much prove the theory. He seems to be a reverse Greg Norman outlier. I could be totally wrong, of course.

You are wrong, and as a scientist yourself, you shouldn't need to have this explained to you. A sample size of one will almost never "prove" a theory correct.

Plus, Dan's stated goal was to get on the PGA Tour level. We can change the definition of "elite" but something a few hundred thousand people in the world can do (when not everyone even tries to do it) probably isn't what I would call "elite."

[natureboy]

Interesting stuff and yes - the hours you've estimated for Faldo (and it is an estimation, neither of us actually know how many hours he practiced prior to winning the English amateur) is more than I estimated.

But while we're debating how much time one or other golfer took to get to a given level you're still talking about talent. Surely the whole point of the Dan Plan is to prove talent is not required. In order to reach mastery in a given field a person doesn't require talent, they just need to put in (on average) 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. Talent is at best over-rated at worst totally unrequired. That's the premise of the 10,000 hours rule and what the Dan Plan is trying to prove. The moment you start talking about talent you're saying the Plan (not Dan, the Plan itself) has failed to prove it.

My take on it - talent is in fact required to reach mastery in a given field. 

Yes, unknown for certain, but it could even have been more. Faldo had a reputation for 'driven' grinding practice and this may have reflected his early approach.

That may have been Dan's intent, but if so, I'm not sure he understood Malcolm Gladwell's and Ericsson's points. Gladwell in 'Outliers' seems to extrapolate a bit from his own example of building up a professional skill set and expertise that translated into 'success' as a writer. Was he an 'elite' pulitzer or nobel prize winner, no. Did he achieve big things, yes. Did he have innate talent - probably though hard to define what blend of elements were determinant (curiosity, research ability, storytelling, etc.). I get the sense from the summary of his book that he (and others) didn't view him as 'talented' at a younger age and part of the book is looking at 'how did I get here'? Gladwell also emphasized the role of opportunity and chance for high achievement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book).

The 10,000 hours study has been replicated and found a bit lacking. These links reference some critiques as well as some misconceptions about the follow-up study that actually reinforces elements of the original 10,000 hours thesis (read the comments at the bottom of the web page). The type of pursuit matters in how much contribution practice makes. Does golf have a low 'intellectual demand'? Maybe in IQ requirement (some might even view us like the mountain climbers who 'rope together to keep the smart ones from going home' ), but not for spatial awareness or proprioception ability.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/10000-hour-rule-not-real-180952410/?no-ist

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/e633262013-474

Personally, I am more interested in the how much and why for talent / work out of Dan's journey rather than a simplistic 'talent is meaningless' test, which I discounted outright immediately. Yet I still have an interest in it. Some view 'nature' vs. 'nurture' as a Manichean dualism, when I think it is more like two overlapping bell curves. I'm interested in how much they overlap. Perhaps others of his followers share some of that outlook?

We can change the definition of "elite" but something a few hundred thousand people in the world can do (when not everyone even tries to do it) probably isn't what I would call "elite."

That seems like a huge number (300 K), but it's .5% of the world golfing population of about 60 M. That's roughly 2.5 standard deviations above the mean on a normal curve. Do you think 'elite' starts at 3-sigma (.1%) or 6-sigma (.0000001%)? I would personally doubt that 6-sigma is the level of the tour 'field'. Maybe Tiger or Jack in their prime, but I'd be open to data that says otherwise.

Opinions and definitions about 'mastery' and 'elite' vary. Like professional musician - soloist - 'genius' soloist - or Bach. Depends a bit on the population you are comparing to, yes? You may have been a 'long way' from the tour yourself, but maybe don't give yourself enough credit for where you got to relative to 'golfers' (including dubs) as a whole.

Edited October 19, 2015 by natureboy

[iacas]

That seems like a huge number (300 K), but it's .5% of the world golfing population of about 60 M. That's roughly 2.5 standard deviations above the mean on a normal curve. Do you think 'elite' starts at 3-sigma (.1%) or 6-sigma (.0000001%)? I would personally doubt that 6-sigma is the level of the tour 'field'. Maybe Tiger or Jack in their prime, but I'd be open to data that says otherwise.

Opinions and definitions about 'mastery' and 'elite' vary. Like professional musician - soloist - 'genius' soloist - or Bach. Depends a bit on the population you are comparing to, yes? You may have been a 'long way' from the tour yourself, but maybe don't give yourself enough credit for where you got to relative to 'golfers' (including dubs) as a whole.

I'm not going to pretend that my choice of the use of the word "few" implied anything more than about 100k people. I could have said "a couple" and it would have been 200k or so, but said "few" as the more ambiguous. 300k would be about the cap, given more thought.

Even if it's 100k people out of the 60M golfers in the world, I don't consider 100k elite.

Without much thought, "elite" would be Web.com, European Tour, or PGA Tour level. I don't know where that'd rank on Std. Devs but again, spitballing, 0.001% seems okay.

[Pretzel]

Yes, unknown for certain, but it could even have been more. Faldo had a reputation for 'driven' grinding practice and this may have reflected his early approach.

That may have been Dan's intent, but if so, I'm not sure he understood Malcolm Gladwell's and Ericsson's points. Gladwell in 'Outliers' seems to extrapolate a bit from his own example of building up a professional skill set and expertise that translated into 'success' as a writer. Was he an 'elite' pulitzer or nobel prize winner, no. Did he achieve big things, yes. Did he have innate talent - probably though hard to define what blend of elements were determinant (curiosity, research ability, storytelling, etc.). I get the sense from the summary of his book that he (and others) didn't view him as 'talented' at a younger age and part of the book is looking at 'how did I get here'? Gladwell also emphasized the role of opportunity and chance for high achievement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book).

The 10,000 hours study has been replicated and found a bit lacking. These links reference some critiques as well as some misconceptions about the follow-up study that actually reinforces elements of the original 10,000 hours thesis (read the comments at the bottom of the web page). The type of pursuit matters in how much contribution practice makes. Does golf have a low 'intellectual demand'? Maybe in IQ requirement (some might even view us like the mountain climbers who 'rope together to keep the smart ones from going home' ), but not for spatial awareness or proprioception ability.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/10000-hour-rule-not-real-180952410/?no-ist

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/e633262013-474

Personally, I am more interested in the how much and why for talent / work out of Dan's journey rather than a simplistic 'talent is meaningless' test, which I discounted outright immediately. Yet I still have an interest in it. Some view 'nature' vs. 'nurture' as a Manichean dualism, when I think it is more like two overlapping bell curves. I'm interested in how much they overlap. Perhaps others of his followers share some of that outlook?

That seems like a huge number (300 K), but it's .5% of the world golfing population of about 60 M. That's roughly 2.5 standard deviations above the mean on a normal curve. Do you think 'elite' starts at 3-sigma (.1%) or 6-sigma (.0000001%)? I would personally doubt that 6-sigma is the level of the tour 'field'. Maybe Tiger or Jack in their prime, but I'd be open to data that says otherwise.

Opinions and definitions about 'mastery' and 'elite' vary. Like professional musician - soloist - 'genius' soloist - or Bach. Depends a bit on the population you are comparing to, yes? You may have been a 'long way' from the tour yourself, but maybe don't give yourself enough credit for where you got to relative to 'golfers' (including dubs) as a whole.

For you to truly becomeone of the elite, I should hope you're testing with an alpha level of at least 99.9%, if not 99.99%. Elite means the people who truly are the best at it, bar none. The people on tour are elite. As the population size goes up, the alpha level must also correspondingly go up to account for the fact that the number of the elite is still exceedingly small while the population grows. 

[Lihu]

You are wrong, and as a scientist yourself, you shouldn't need to have this explained to you. A sample size of one will almost never "prove" a theory correct.

Plus, Dan's stated goal was to get on the PGA Tour level. We can change the definition of "elite" but something a few hundred thousand people in the world can do (when not everyone even tries to do it) probably isn't what I would call "elite."

Yeah, I that's very true.

Often times we do experiments with something called "corner conditions" in an attempt to avoid long and costly regressive testing. So, I was just thinking that Dan is one of those corner conditions on then opposite end of the spectrum as someone like Greg Norman. So, it would take a minor miracle for him to make scratch, and implied is that he play to that level under any circumstances.

Obviously, the situation is pretty uncertain, because we have no real measurements from his actual capabilities. His anecdotes and recorded history are too vague.

I'll agree that making scratch is not good enough in the context of this project, and it is only a first step.

[newtogolf]

For you to truly becomeone of the elite, I should hope you're testing with an alpha level of at least 99.9%, if not 99.99%. Elite means the people who truly are the best at it, bar none. The people on tour are elite. As the population size goes up, the alpha level must also correspondingly go up to account for the fact that the number of the elite is still exceedingly small while the population grows. 

II believe @‌lihu was qualifying his use of elite to apply to non-pro golfers, which is why I compared them to division 1 athletes versus semi-pro and pro athletes.   

[Nosevi]

Yeah, I that's very true.

Often times we do experiments with something called "corner conditions" in an attempt to avoid long and costly regressive testing. So, I was just thinking that Dan is one of those corner conditions on then opposite end of the spectrum as someone like Greg Norman. So, it would take a minor miracle for him to make scratch, and implied is that he play to that level under any circumstances.

Obviously, the situation is pretty uncertain, because we have no real measurements from his actual capabilities. His anecdotes and recorded history are too vague.

I'll agree that making scratch is not good enough in the context of this project, and it is only a first step.

This is one area where I think the Plan (or at least the record of it) has fallen short. Truth is we have no real data about Dan's skill set at all other than a handicap (which some believe while others don't). We've got a few Gamegolf rounds from a year ago from when his handicap was at it's lowest, a bit of Trackman data from a bit ago and.......... well that's about it. 

Personally, the reason why I don't join with those doubting Dan is that there is literally nothing to go on so I give him the benefit of the doubt. But I must confess that with a Flightscope at his disposal I don't get why there is no data, no screenshots, no skills tests. And then no videos of shortgame either. There's just nothing concrete at all. I don't know why.

I guess the blog is fine for people who want to follow the 'story' of Dan but for anyone actually interested in the golf it's pretty empty and that's a shame.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Nosevi

[Pretzel]

II believe @‌lihu was qualifying his use of elite to apply to non-pro golfers, which is why I compared them to division 1 athletes versus semi-pro and pro athletes.   

That's a decent comparison. I am nearly a scratch golfer and I compete in many tournaments over the summer. I placed in the top 5 4 times this last summer, with scores in the low 70's and high 60's, after placing 11th in the state last year, and I only ever got offers from Division II and III schools. I don't blame them though. The difference between me and the high level golfers in DI is that those golfer expect to shoot in the 60's and hope to go low. I expect to shoot mid-low 70's and hope to reach the 60's.

[Nosevi]

That's a decent comparison. I am nearly a scratch golfer and I compete in many tournaments over the summer. I placed in the top 5 4 times this last summer, with scores in the low 70's and high 60's, after placing 11th in the state last year, and I only ever got offers from Division II and III schools. I don't blame them though. The difference between me and the high level golfers in DI is that those golfer expect to shoot in the 60's and hope to go low. I expect to shoot mid-low 70's and hope to reach the 60's.

Sounds like a good year - nice one.

[Shorty]

Personally, the reason why I don't join with those doubting Dan is that there is literally nothing to go on so I give him the benefit of the doubt.

The real information is what he doesn't say, so you can safely join the doubters.

The fact that there is no data to prove an awesome driving game and incredible short game can make you assume they don't exist.

[mchepp]

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").

I stated long ago in this thread that stating a goal of hitting scratch golf would be a complete and utter waste. Like a why the heck quit your job, start a blog, all in effort to do something hundreds of thousands of people could do. 

This is all about marketing 101. Make the goal splashy. It has to be an attention grabber. He stated many times he wanted sponsors, why the heck would Titleist, TaylorMade or any golf company, heck even a guy who wanted to donate to the cause bother to give him anything if all he was going to do was be a scratch golfer. He needed to make everyone invested in a greater purpose. He was marketing. 

I don't blame him for that. I have worked at start ups and we made splashy headlines. It helped get our 20 person outfit in the New York Times. Marketing does work. He had to make the goal to be a PGA Tour golfer or no one would have paid attention. 

My opinion is that you guys thinks he cares if he fails. I disagree. He loses nothing if he fails. All he did was prove some bogus theory wrong. Maybe he wasted a few years, but it doesn't seem as though he is worried about his career. I sense he knows the day he wants to go back he can. He is a talented photographer, he can probably do weddings until he wants to retire. Really good wedding photographers do pretty well. And if he doesn't make it to the PGA Tour so what, he is just like hundreds of thousands of college golfers, college football players, college soccer players, that had ambitions of playing professionally but didn't make it. So what. If I were him I could easily spin the story that I didn't fail at anything.