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

[Nosevi]

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.

It's the format I played for my club in competitions against other clubs last summer for exactly that reason - to play under a bit of pressure. Downside is matchplay rounds also don't count under our system (due to 'gimmee's etc) so my handicap didn't change regardless of scores shot. Maybe something Dan could look at in the spring to help him up his performance under pressure.

It's also by far and away my favourite format. My understanding is it's actually how the game was originally played long before the advent of the concept of 'par'.

[Lihu]

It's the format I played for my club in competitions against other clubs last summer for exactly that reason - to play under a bit of pressure. Downside is matchplay rounds also don't count under our system (due to 'gimmee's etc) so my handicap didn't change regardless of scores shot.

Maybe something Dan could look at in the spring to help him up his performance under pressure.

It's also by far and away my favourite format. My understanding is it's actually how the game was originally played long before the advent of the concept of 'par'.

I agree, they're more fun to play. Interesting tidbit of information regarding the original game format.

Dan just needs to get a more confident swing to help him perform under pressure.

[natureboy]

 

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.

I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation. The course rating (in agreement with the strokes gained approach) is largely based on total distance from the tees you play. So your 92 on the longer course (higher course rating) was a superior round vs. the shorter course, because you hit equally good shots from cumulatively further away from the pin.

 

@Nosevi, I agree leverage can be overcome by poor technique, but it's a very significant foundation for putting the ball out there with less impact-precision reducing muscular effort. If you had Rory's technique, I would bet you'd be outdriving him.

 

Edited October 20, 2015 by natureboy

[Lihu]

I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation. The course rating (in agreement with the strokes gained approach) is largely based on total distance from the tees you play. So your 92 on the longer course (higher course rating) was a superior round vs. the shorter course, because you hit equally good shots from cumulatively further away from the pin.

@Nosevi, I agree leverage can be overcome by poor technique, but it's a very significant foundation for putting the ball out there with less impact-precision reducing muscular effort. If you had Rory's technique, I would bet you'd be outdriving him.

Yes, but just as there are very few 6' gymnasts, it would be difficult to get that kind of speed and coordination in a larger frame.

[Pretzel]

Yes, but just as there are very few 6' gymnasts, it would be difficult to get that kind of speed and coordination in a larger frame.

Dustin Johnson says hi! 

Though I would say that larger golfers with great accuracy seem to be less common. A lot of Zach Johnson and Rory McIlroy's out there, in the under 6' camp. Even Tiger is only 6'1" according to Google, though I know Google can exaggerate heights at times.

[natureboy]

Yes, but just as there are very few 6' gymnasts, it would be difficult to get that kind of speed and coordination in a larger frame.

Different sport, different requirements. Golfer's don't have to hold up their own body weight or launch it into the air. That said, I think extreme height can be a disadvantage - or at least if you have extreme height with good coordination you are probably going to make more money per year as a basketball player.

[Lihu]

Different sport, different requirements. Golfer's don't have to hold up their own body weight or launch it into the air. That said, I think extreme height can be a disadvantage - or at least if you have extreme height with good coordination you are probably going to make more money per year as a basketball player.

So, it's very rare to have a 6'10" person with really good hand to eye coordination and a gymnasts strength and flexibility, and so you don't have too many Michael Jordan types.

In many sports, it helps to be bigger and taller, and golf might be one of them only to a point (1/2" to an 1" taller?). There are those who say Bubba Watson will be able to swing like he does well into his 50s and the same people say that Rory can only swing that way into his early 30s. One is favored at 6'4" versus the other one at 5'9"? IDK, if I can state with such certainty one way or another, but it seems like PGA height is fractionally higher than the average male height. That says something about the relative importance of height. I'm right in the middle of the pack and have playing partners that range from 5'4" (male, or shorter) to 6'10" (or more as he slumps). To be perfectly honest, it's not like the taller players are automatically stronger or anything. The bone structure/cartilage can only take so much force, and unless you are proportionally (or disproportionately) bigger and taller than Rory it's unlikely you would have a proportionally faster swing?

 

Dustin Johnson says hi! 

Though I would say that larger golfers with great accuracy seem to be less common. A lot of Zach Johnson and Rory McIlroy's out there, in the under 6' camp. Even Tiger is only 6'1" according to Google, though I know Google can exaggerate heights at times.

Hello Dustin! 

[natureboy]

In many sports, it helps to be bigger and taller, and golf might be one of them only to a point (1/2" to an 1" taller?). There are those who say Bubba Watson will be able to swing like he does well into his 50s and the same people say that Rory can only swing that way into his early 30s. One is favored at 6'4" versus the other one at 5'9"? IDK, if I can state with such certainty one way or another, but it seems like PGA height is fractionally higher than the average male height. That says something about the relative importance of height. I'm right in the middle of the pack and have playing partners that range from 5'4" (male, or shorter) to 6'10" (or more as he slumps). To be perfectly honest, it's not like the taller players are automatically stronger or anything. The bone structure/cartilage can only take so much force, and unless you are proportionally (or disproportionately) bigger and taller than Rory it's unlikely you would have a proportionally faster swing?

 Don't know if Rory's swing is harder on his body than Bubba. Did you look at the chart I posted on PGA vs. U.S. height distribution? The PGA curve mean is 2" or one std deviation above the U.S. mean.

Relevant to the thread, I think Dan is probably ~ 2 std deviations below PGA mean. Doesn't automatically disqualify, but relative lack of leverage is one factor that makes it more difficult for him requiring better technique, or other compensating skills or abilities. If you look at the 'typical' tour build you won't see many 'gymnast' type physiques. Long and lean like swimmers seems to be the most common that I see. One of the more impressive players I saw on the Symetra Tour was like 5'2" and ~ 120 pounds, but had an average driving distance of 256 with 59% accuracy. She is working up a steep hill with many girls on her tour nearly a foot taller. She definitely has good technique.

[Lihu]

It looked more like only 1.5" taller than average make height based upon the fit. The data point is clearly 6'. Pro football, hockey and basketball are all much taller because weight and height are an advantage. Swinging a club fast does not appear to be something that required that much more height as indicated by that small of a height difference to the male average height. I walked around Gary Woodland for half a round (whom I really enjoy watching play, BTW), and he was not noticeably taller or bigger than me yet he's listed at 6'1" while I'm only 5"10.5" barefoot and normally slouchy except that day  

Hanging out with football or hockey players? I feel like a midget.

Maybe they include shoes in the height? So, I do agree that while Dan might be on the shorter end he might 5'9" with shoes?

That in and of itself is not a big deal. The issues are that he lacks: native talent; is older; not much dedicated practice and lack of strength. These are all stacked against him. Height is kind of secondary.

Greg Norman is quoted to have been one of the late starters in this game at 15.

Age is a real blocker. Dan is currently injured because he's getting older. Pro sports are always laden with injuries which old people can't afford.

[nevets88]

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. 

I should've read the piece more carefully, I thought the funding was more bare bones. Yeah, I wouldn't contribute, but I'd be rooting for him. Holding down a job, although it's not mentioned exactly what he does and winning a USGA championship is still pretty impressive. 

[newtogolf]

I should've read the piece more carefully, I thought the funding was more bare bones. Yeah, I wouldn't contribute, but I'd be rooting for him. Holding down a job, although it's not mentioned exactly what he does and winning a USGA championship is still pretty impressive.

 

I think what he's accomplished is great and as I said I wish him the best.  I also don't fault his wife for trying to raise money for him, it's just not something that I would contribute to.   

I'm a bit surprised Golf Digest ran the story as I think it has the potential to leave some people with a bad opinion of golf given the $30,000 they are trying to raise to participate in one golf tournament is more than many families have to live on for an entire year. 

[Nosevi]

 

@Nosevi, I agree leverage can be overcome by poor technique, but it's a very significant foundation for putting the ball out there with less impact-precision reducing muscular effort. If you had Rory's technique, I would bet you'd be outdriving him.

 

 

If I had Rory's technique I wouldn't be on an internet forum talking about it  

I'm not sure if the graph backs up what you say about size being important or what I was saying about it not being so important. A small factor but not all that significant. The top of your two curves are an inch and a half apart which would indicate it's not necessary to be much over average height to play golf at the top level. Can't remember how tall Dan is, is it 5'9"? If so the graph would indicate he's as tall or taller than about 20% of PGA Tour players.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think athletic ability and natural strength is way more important than height and the fact I used to competitatively throw discus and javlin and spent most of my life playing back row forward in Rugby (Kind of like a Tight End) at a reasonable level probably has more to do with an ability to get the ball out there than my height. Of course the flip side is you don't get that many tiny javlin throwers or Tight Ends do you so maybe that argument has the odd hole in it

What I find more interesting is the age argument. Is it that people think you can't learn a new skill like golf in your mid 30s to mid 40s or that you can't play the game to a high level in your mid 30s to mid 40s? Average age on the PGA tour is normally reported to be about 35 indicating there are a fair few players in that mid 30s to mid 40s range so guessing it's just that people believe you can't learn it later in life? 

[DrvFrShow]

The later you learn something the more difficult it is.

[Nosevi]

The later you learn something the more difficult it is.

I would say that is the case to a degree but as an adult you can use experience and knowledge to offset that somewhat. Also, some people get better at learning as they get older so that blanket statement is only sometimes the case.

As a young kid I was quite literally bottom of my class, in fact I failed the entrance exam to my school and only got in after my father had a long chat with the headmaster (he's never told me what he said). At 19 I went to Oxford University where I got a degree with honours. Later as an Air Traffic Controller I had to learn literally books and books of rules and be able to recite regulations word perfect that sometimes ran to over a page long and there were a lot of them! In fact I was an air traffic examiner and we had to learn more than the guys we were examining. Absolutely no way on earth could I have learned all of what I had to learn in my 20s and 30s when I had been a kid, just couldn't retain that amount of focus on one subject or retain information in that way.

Some people become better 'learners' as they get older. Admittedly not everyone but some people do. 

[nevets88]

Yes, there are ways to harness human potential better, but we need to be objective about it.

 

But, while we find ourselves crediting companies with these endeavors, it is really individual people who are redefining the "possible." Nowhere is this more evident than the endeavor of one Dan McLaughlin, a photographer who put his career aside to start The Dan Plan.

In the spirit of Ericsson's 10,000-hour rule (vaunted by Malcolm Gladwell), McLaughlin decided to see if he could become a golf expert in 10,000 hours, with the goal of playing in the PGA. His blogtracks the many ups and downs of the endeavor, which is a journey on which any one of us could see ourselves.

Despite setbacks, and despite a study showing recent caveats to the 10,000-hour rule, Dan continues to see just how far he can go. He is a shining example of the grit[1] that is necessary to pursue the horizon, and represents exactly the sort of character that we are trying to inculcate in both children and employees alike.
 

Surprisingly, however, Dan is still lacking in sponsorship. People all over the world are watching his endeavor, cheering him on, and hoping that he will prove that anyone can become competent if they apply passion[2] and perseverance (even if they weren't born to it[3]), and yet few have given a funding nod in McLaughlin's direction. Considering how many people dream of having a "Dan Plan" in their own lives, I think companies are leaving money on the table by not endorsing McLaughlin's efforts!

Similarly, companies need to start wondering how many Dans there are in their own firms. How many people are willing to dedicate themselves to a plan that both fits a company's value proposition and might raise the bar on the human condition?  As with The Dan Plan, whether they succeed fully is immaterial, because these people will still remap the realm of the "possible."

http://frontendofinnovationblog.iirusa.com/2014/11/funding-innovation-human-endeavor.html

Edited October 21, 2015 by nevets88

[Nosevi]

I get the idea of being objective about the possibility and to an extent I'm being devil's advocate.

Do I think Dan will make it? Nope. Do I think anyone currently trying to do anything remotely similar will make it? Highly unlikely tbh. Do I think it's possible for someone in their mid 30s to build the skill set and have the athletic ability to play golf at that sort of level? Yes I do. There's no individual skill in golf that someone of 14,16, 18 or 20 can learn that someone in their late 30s can't. If you think there is - name it (question is for anyone not nevets)

But what are the odds of finding someone of that sort of age who can build a skill set to compete at this sort of level in all areas of the game? Very, very small indeed.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Nosevi

[RandallT]

Yes, there are ways to harness human potential better, but we need to be objective about it.

http://frontendofinnovationblog.iirusa.com/2014/11/funding-innovation-human-endeavor.html

Wow! That person actually wrote: "I think companies are leaving money on the table by not endorsing McLaughlin's efforts!"

Amazing.

 

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. 

I can't argue with that. I have not been interested too much in whether or not Dan personally fails or succeeds. I think it's likely he's having a very good experience- meeting new friends, refreshing his life with a new endeavors. I agree he will easily spin this into a positive thing, and he'll come through it all just fine on a personal level. Good for him. Those that take risks earn what they get, if they can spin it right. He went big, that's for certain.

I'm more interested in analyzing the plan itself and what we learn from it (or don't learn from it). At this point, I think there is more to say in criticism of it than there is to say positive about the effort. The plan had such potential to be of great interest, but it has fallen short of its own expectations in terms of execution (how it was done, in addition to the actual results).

And lastly, I don't measure Dan in this by how he scores in golf. The plan could be of value even if he plays poorly. The key is whether or not the words about the project match the results that are seen. I see such a big disconnect right now. 

He could still impress me, even if he never masters the driver. I would judge the plan and him by how he conducts himself, how well he documents it all, how he handles the pressure with grace, how he communicates effectively with his audience, and how intelligent his commentary and conclusions are.  Thus far, I give low marks for that (totally independent of his play). But there's still time to salvage it all.

 

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/201762337/10,000-hours-dan-mclaughlin

“I’ve gotten really good. I’d say I’m no Jordan Spieth, who is on fire right now, but I can hold my own on some smaller tournaments.” says McLaughlin.

“My goal is to play in a PGA tournament and make the cut. That’s what I’m shooting for. I don’t have grand expectations of being number one in the world, but if I can play in a tournament and make the cut to me that is beyond success” McLaughlin says. Six thousand hours in, the goal seems attainable.

“Before I got injured, when I hit my stride my best handicap was 2.7. There are 26 million registered golfers in America. 2.7 would put me in the top 5%  That was at the end of last summer. So going from never touching a golf club to the top 5% in 4 1/2 years, I think that kind of proves the point.” McLaughlin says. 

Things like this link above do not help. Seriously? He holds his own in smaller tournaments? Was there one I missed?

6,000 hours in and the goal seems attainable???? WTF???

So am I right in seeing that Dan says that his project goal has already proven the original hypothesis? As our discussion indicates, we all seem to have our own measure of success, so this is understandable. As my daughter in high school works on science projects, they teach that a hypothesis must be a clear statement of "if this happens, then this will be the result."  The Dan Plan never got to that level of specificity, so everyone will be left to interpret their own way. I happen to include making the PGA Tour and one cut as part of the success criteria, but I understand if others perceive that as too harsh.  Dan seems to consider his 2.7 handicap in 2014 already proving the whole point.

 

http://blog.arccosgolf.com/2015/04/29/arccos-qa-dan-mclaughlin-of-the-dan-plan/

Dan set out to prove that theory. In 2010, he hadn’t played 18 holes of golf in his life. Practicing 30-plus hours a week since then, he’s well on his way to a target 10K milestone at the end of next year. He hopes to eventually win at the amateur level before heading to Web.com Q-school.

Arccos: So, what’s next for The Dan Plan?

DM: I’m almost exactly at 6,000 hours. It’s been a little over five years. I definitely think if I stick to it and keep chugging forward and have the fortitude to push myself, I don’t see why achieving my goal wouldn’t be possible.

 Again, Dan sees no reason his goal isn't possible. I'm not sure what planet he is on. At what point does this get absurd? What person knowledgable about golf thinks that someone at Dan's level could make a cut on tour with just another 4000 hours of deliberate practice? Remember he plateaued over a year ago, even backtracked, plus gotten a back injury that has not been chalked up yet to any official diagnosis that we are aware of.  The plan is in great danger of even continuing, let alone attaining the goal.

I might be done for a while even caring. After diving back in for the past few days, researching in more depth, it all seems to be more and more and more of a fantasy.

I even added a couple of his representative Game Golf rounds to a strokes gained spreadsheet I have prototyped with some fellow forum members here. He shot 78/79 for the two rounds, and that equates to about 10 strokes lost to professionals on those course setups. The breakdown was interesting: -4.5 driving, -3.0 approaches, -2.0 around the green, -0.2 putting. So in a couple sample rounds, he's decent inside 60yds or so (only a couple strokes from a pro), but he's got 7 or 8 strokes PER ROUND to catch up in his full swing.  

That's a LONG LONG way to go. But he never seems to acknowledge this. I would be more impressed with the project if he were more clear about where he stood and what the challenges ahead were. 

[Lihu]

I would say that is the case to a degree but as an adult you can use experience and knowledge to offset that somewhat. Also, some people get better at learning as they get older so that blanket statement is only sometimes the case.

As a young kid I was quite literally bottom of my class, in fact I failed the entrance exam to my school and only got in after my father had a long chat with the headmaster (he's never told me what he said). At 19 I went to Oxford University where I got a degree with honours. Later as an Air Traffic Controller I had to learn literally books and books of rules and be able to recite regulations word perfect that sometimes ran to over a page long and there were a lot of them! In fact I was an air traffic examiner and we had to learn more than the guys we were examining. Absolutely no way on earth could I have learned all of what I had to learn in my 20s and 30s when I had been a kid, just couldn't retain that amount of focus on one subject or retain information in that way.

Some people become better 'learners' as they get older. Admittedly not everyone but some people do. 

Once again, I think you are in a much better position than Dan. You already drive as far as PGA players with a normal swing. Injury is less likely for you.

The entire premise of learning something new at an advanced age being too hard is based upon injury first then natural talent.

You have at least the physical hurdle passed. The thing that Natureboy brought up about years of exposure is possibly going to be a disadvantage. I suppose if you immerse yourself like you've been doing it's always possible you can somewhat catch up?

Not impossible, but it would be a first, I think.