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

[Nosevi]

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.

That could well be true, maybe I'm merely putting it out there.

But there again, when I posted video of me hitting controlled drives, swinging well within myself, to about 300 yards and showing it wasn't all that difficult to carry the ball 290 if you put some (a lot) effort in in the gym and work on your technique (a lot), those who mocked when I claimed I could drive it as far as some on tour didn't exactly rush forward to appologise

I'm kidding, clearly. I don't have an answer for why there is zero actual concrete evidence in Dan's Plan. I have suspicions but there is just nothing in there that says how good or bad he is at golf.

[Shorty]

That could well be true, maybe I'm merely putting it out there.

But there again, when I posted video of me hitting controlled drives, swinging well within myself, to about 300 yards and showing it wasn't all that difficult to carry the ball 290 if you put some (a lot) effort in in the gym and work on your technique (a lot), those who mocked when I claimed I could drive it as far as some on tour didn't exactly rush forward to appologise

I'm kidding, clearly. I don't have an answer for why there is zero actual concrete evidence in Dan's Plan. I have suspicions but there is just nothing in there that says how good or bad he is at golf.

The difference between you and him is that you have basic fundamentals and a reasonable move.

You will possibly be able to maintain a handicap of 2 or 3 until you are in your late 50s. But like Dan, if it was going to happen, it would have happened a decade ago.

Look at any of Dan's videos. Compare him with the +4 and +5 guys you play with who are unknowns. Is he in the same ballpark in any facet of the game? He never shows you so, assume no.

The fact that he still doesn't acknowledge that he has "less than a snowball's chance in hell" (Feherty) shows how clueless he is. What's even worse is that he doesn't even acknowledge how good the pros are.

Look at that idiot football player Rice who obviously really believed his handicap was 1 or scratch or whatever. He was given a start by promoters who obviously believed his BS. Problem was he'd probably never putted anything over 3 feet and had something like 16 over the par 5s in two days. He was probably a 10 handicap. 

Dan had 83 at pebble and was super thrilled with his effort. Can't say I've ever met a 3 marker who is happy shooting 11 over par, or thinks it is a fair reflection of handicap.

Let's see some video of him hitting full shots, not publicity photos of him gazing into the distance wistfully.

I want it to be about his golf, not him.

For me, he seems to fall into the category of guys whose low handicap is accounted for by slope. "Oh, I've never broken 80 but my handicap is 4. It's because of course ratings."  If that were true, the pros would be happy to be shooting mid 70s any time they encountered a tough course. Scratch golfers in your country are aiming par, not shooting 79 and walking off happy.

Slope is part of the handicap calculation, but scratch is maintained by 75s being cancelled out by 68 s and 69s. and lots of them. 

Edited October 19, 2015 by Shorty

[natureboy]

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.

Top 100,000 is ~ .17% or slightly below 3-sigma. How about being on the 1,710 player long OWGR? Out of the world pop of golfers, that's .00285% while 4-sigma is .00315%. 5-sigma seems too high a bar as it gives a result of 17 individuals out of 60 M world golfers. Though top-20 is certainly an extreme 'elite' measure.

 

For you to truly become one 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. 

99.9% confidence interval would be .05% or ~ 30,000 golfers out of world golfers. 99.99% confidence would be .005% or ~ 3,000 golfers...somewhere between 3 and 4 sigma.

 

But there again, when I posted video of me hitting controlled drives, swinging well within myself, to about 300 yards and showing it wasn't all that difficult to carry the ball 290 if you put some (a lot) effort in in the gym and work on your technique (a lot),

I know you've worked at technique a lot and your driving is enviable. How tall are you again?

[Nosevi]

The difference between you and him is that you have basic fundamentals and a reasonable move.

You will possibly be able to maintain a handicap of 2 or 3 until you are in your late 50s. But like Dan, if it was going to happen, it would have happened a decade ago.

Look at any of Dan's videos. Compare him with the +4 and +5 guys you play with who are unknowns. Is he in the same ballpark in any facet of the game? He never shows you so, assume no.

The fact that he still doesn't acknowledge that he has "less than a snowball's chance in hell" (Feherty) shows how clueless he is. What's even worse is that he doesn't even acknowledge how good the pros are.

Look at that idiot football player Rice who obviously really believed his handicap was 1 or scratch or whatever. He was given a start by promoters who obviously believed his BS. Problem was he'd probably never putted anything over 3 feet and had something like 16 over the par 5s in two days. He was probably a 10 handicap. 

Dan had 83 at pebble and was super thrilled with his effort. Can't say I've ever met a 3 marker who is happy shooting 11 over par, or thinks it is a fair reflection of handicap.

Let's see some video of him hitting full shots, not publicity photos of him gazing into the distance wistfully.

I want it to be about his golf, not him.

For me, he seems to fall into the category of guys whose low handicap is accounted for by slope. "Oh, I've never broken 80 but my handicap is 4. It's because of course ratings."  If that were true, the pros would be happy to be shooting mid 70s any time they encountered a tough course. Scratch golfers in your country are aiming par, not shooting 79 and walking off happy.

Slope is part of the handicap calculation, but scratch is maintained by 75s being cancelled out by 68 s and 69s. and lots of them. 

Simple answer to the first bit in bold is no. But there is just so little to go on. I too would like to see more data and videos etc. I would like to see how the Plan is going, how it's transformed his game. Maybe we'll get more of that when the Plan starts up again in the spring? Kind of hope so.

I know you've worked at technique a lot and your driving is enviable. How tall are you again?

Lol  

OK, fair point, but it's not all about size, although I guess it helps. It's about technique backed up by physical conditioning rather than the other way round IMO. All the power in the world won't result in long drives if your technique is dreadful. 

It's just that I've seen good results through understanding the science (of both the physics of ball flight and when it comes to building strength), working hard on technique and putting in productive hours in the gym. Dan could do the same and see good results. That's why I keep saying that I think he could go further than he is but it'll require a change in the way he does things. I really do believe that. But he needs a good coach, a proper golf-specific pysical profiling to help determin what he needs to work on in the gym to build power and speed, hours spent working on technique, some balance work thrown in, some.......... It's not going to just happen.

[Nosevi]

But like Dan, if it was going to happen, it would have happened a decade ago.

 

Just noticed this bit and you know what, you're probably right, Shorty. In fact almost definitely right. But a decade ago I didn't play golf, I was having way too much 'fun' in hot and sandy places bikering with various Arab nations and when I was back here I was playing and training for Rugby, Golf didn't feature.

In the World cup the England team fielded Nick Easter at number 8 who's 36 so I think older than Dan. Now while you could quip "And how did that go?"  Please don't tell me the power and athleticm required for a golf swing is greater than that required to play back row forward at international level. People age at different rates and while I was hopeless at sport at school I represented my College in Oxford in Rugby, rowing, football and cricket. The coordination thing just clicked a tad late with me.

Like I said, you're probably right but I'm aiming at a lot lower than PGA Tour, I think my target is possible however unlikely. I've proved age isn't necessarily a barrier to learning to hit the ball well and with sufficient force to mix it with the youngsters if you put in the work. And besides, I have the time and it's fun trying to stretch yourself in this sport so what's the harm in giving it a bash?

But when I fail at QSchool for the Europro (2 steps down from European Tour) I will have failed. Had a blast trying but failed  

[DrvFrShow]

<snip>

For me, he seems to fall into the category of guys whose low handicap is accounted for by slope. "Oh, I've never broken 80 but my handicap is 4. It's because of course ratings."  If that were true, the pros would be happy to be shooting mid 70s any time they encountered a tough course. Scratch golfers in your country are aiming par, not shooting 79 and walking off happy.

Slope is part of the handicap calculation. <snip>

I've said this before, Shorty. If I want my HC to go up there are these short low slope, low rated courses I can go to and shoot say a 92. Then I can go shoot that same 92 on a course rated three to four strokes higher and with a 15 point slope difference and my HC will go down. Am I playing better golf? No. It's the course ratings. Or I can play from one of  the longer tees and suffer the  same fate on the shorter course. While this looks good on paper, when I play in a tournament which always plays from the shorter tees where I'd get the higher HC, by playing the longer course it kills me going in because instead of playing with a 25 HC I'm playing with a 20 right now.

So Dan may be playing with a 4 on his course but doesn't break 80 very often because of the ratings. It's very possible. It's the way the system works here.

[boogielicious]

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. 

Great post Michael.

[nevets88]

Now this is something inspiring and I can get behind.

You have just won the U.S. Mid-Amateur title (with an albatross in the final, no less). You have earned an exemption into the 2016 Masters, which means you can play and practice at Augusta National as often as you like this winter. But you are also a working stiff in the healthcare industry with two young daughters, who also happens to live in a part of the country where winter practice often involves a snow shovel.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/us-mid-am-champ-sammy-schmitz-looks-to-fund-his-masters-preparation-through-public-donations?mbid=social_reddit

 

Edited October 20, 2015 by nevets88

[newtogolf]

Now this is something inspiring and I can get behind.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/us-mid-am-champ-sammy-schmitz-looks-to-fund-his-masters-preparation-through-public-donations?mbid=social_reddit

 

I'm not a big fan of these type of gofundme campaigns.  I wish him the best but if you want people to fund your golf career, create a prospectus and allow people to make an investment that yields them an ROI. 

Charity should be reserved for people who really need it imo. 

[Lihu]

Charity should be reserved for people who really need it imo. 

Like Jason Day when he was a kid? I completely agree.

[Pretzel]

 

So Dan may be playing with a 4 on his course but doesn't break 80 very often because of the ratings. It's very possible. It's the way the system works here.

Except Dan wasn't playing a difficult course. His home course has a rating of 73 from the tips. That means his best 10 rounds should average 77-78 to have a 4 handicap, meaning he would break 80 nearly 50% off the time.

 

It's just handicap manipulation that is bringing Dan's handicap down. Nothing more, nothing less. 

[Nosevi]

Except Dan wasn't playing a difficult course. His home course has a rating of 73 from the tips. That means his best 10 rounds should average 77-78 to have a 4 handicap, meaning he would break 80 nearly 50% off the time.

 

It's just handicap manipulation that is bringing Dan's handicap down. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Sorry for my ignorance of exactly how your system works re slope so not sure if this changes anything - he's not playing it from the tips according to his GHIN. Could that explain it?

 

[DrvFrShow]

Basically the course rating of 71.6 does one thing and the slope rating of 130 does another in the calculation of the handicap giving him a differential. It takes only the 10 best scores out of your past 20 rounds or something like that. So on a course like Dan's it is pretty easy to log a lower handicap because of the slope rating.

So he goes to Pebble Beach which has a higher par rating and slope rating and is thrilled to shoot an 83 because the course is a lot tougher than the one he usually plays.

In reality he's a 5 or 6 handicapper shooting 8 - 10 over par every round because of the slope rating.

[Lihu]

Sorry for my ignorance of exactly how your system works re slope so not sure if this changes anything - he's not playing it from the tips according to his GHIN. Could that explain it?

 

Admittedly, aside from the 74 those look only slightly better than my combined scores from 68.9/124 and 72.9/131 courses, but of course he's better than me by 5 strokes. . .So, you really need to look at the entire package and the handicap scores are normalized to the "standard" course rating.

Based upon the scores he's most likely a 5.4 handicap. Within the CONGU system maybe similar?

[Nosevi]

Admittedly, aside from the 74 those look only slightly better than my combined scores from 68.9/124 and 72.9/131 courses, but of course he's better than me by 5 strokes. . .So, you really need to look at the entire package and the handicap scores are normalized to the "standard" course rating.

Based upon the scores he's most likely a 5.4 handicap. Within the CONGU system maybe similar?

Under Congu we'd only use his tournament scores so if those are representative of his normal tournament scores he'd have a handicap of about 8 or 9 here I'm afraid. Think he may need to practice playing under pressure a little prior to QSchool  

[Lihu]

Under Congu we'd only use his tournament scores so if those are representative of his normal tournament scores he'd have a handicap of about 8 or 9 here I'm afraid. Think he may need to practice playing under pressure a little prior to QSchool  

Tournament or not, most people are pretty competitive even with themselves. As long as ROG are followed, I don't really see a difference. I doubt very much that there is a 3 to 4 stroke difference especially at that low a handicap between the two systems. The serious players with USGA handicaps are probably as good handicap to handicap as those under Congu.

As far as Dan is concerned, if he is only playing that one course with the ample number of doglegs then he might have trouble on the longer courses. The ample number of doglegs at least explain why his handicap is as low as it is for his driving distance? So, his handicap could be 8 or 9, which is kind of reflected in his tournament scores?

[Nosevi]

Tournament or not, most people are pretty competitive even with themselves. As long as ROG are followed, I don't really see a difference. I doubt very much that there is a 3 to 4 stroke difference especially at that low a handicap between the two systems. The serious players with USGA handicaps are probably as good handicap to handicap as those under Congu.

As far as Dan is concerned, if he is only playing that one course with the ample number of doglegs then he might have trouble on the longer courses. The ample number of doglegs at least explain why his handicap is as low as it is for his driving distance? So, his handicap could be 8 or 9, which is kind of reflected in his tournament scores?

Yep, absolutely. I wasn't saying all handicaps would be significantly higher under our system merely that his would be. Some people play better under pressure than others. If you don't score as well in tournaments as you do in social rounds your handicap would be higher over here. If you rise to the challenge and are not adversely affected by the fact you're in a tournament there would be little difference.

It wasn't a comment about the 2 systems, merely that one individual would have a higher handicap here. That's an unavoidable fact - he hasn't played well at the only times our system uses to determine handicap. 

[Lihu]

Yep, absolutely. I wasn't saying all handicaps would be significantly higher under our system merely that his would be. Some people play better under pressure than others. If you don't score as well in tournaments as you do in social rounds your handicap would be higher over here. If you rise to the challenge and are not adversely affected by the fact you're in a tournament there would be little difference.

It wasn't a comment about the 2 systems, merely that one individual would have a higher handicap here. That's an unavoidable fact - he hasn't played well at the only times our system uses to determine handicap. 

Yeah, I kind of thought that's what you meant, but wanted to clarify a bit.

Match play is actually much more pressure than tournaments. When you watch your opponent make a great shot to 5 feet of the pin starting from 20 yards behind you, that puts some pressure on your shot. I know someone that used to play $100 a hole, and just thought "wow". That's serious pressure on every single stroke including the putts. I like this format though, pressure helps me putt a lot better.