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

[Nosevi]

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.

And I'm aiming a lot (lot!) lower than Dan. I doubt I'll do it but I'll give it a go merely for the challenge and fun of it. I've got a few years where it suits my family me being a 'stay at home' dad and it sure beats doing the housework

Love the New Zealand interview, Randy. Come on, you gotta smile at that.

"At what point does this get absurd?" 

Lol

Edited October 21, 2015 by Nosevi

[Pretzel]

Dan can hold his own in tournaments, as long as by that you mean placing 45th out of 67 and trailing the leader by 24 strokes in his most recent effort at the Oregon Mid-Am in 2014.

[Lihu]

Dan can hold his own in tournaments, as long as by that you mean placing 45th out of 67 and trailing the leader by 24 strokes in his most recent effort at the Oregon Mid-Am in 2014.

I was kind of wondering what "holding my own" actually means and looked it up. His use of the phrase certainly didn't comply with any definition I found.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hold+one's+own

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hold-your-own

[RandallT]

And I'm aiming a lot (lot!) lower than Dan. I doubt I'll do it but I'll give it a go merely for the challenge and fun of it. I've got a few years where it suits my family me being a 'stay at home' dad and it sure beats doing the housework

Love the New Zealand interview, Randy. Come on, you gotta smile at that.

"At what point does this get absurd?" 

Lol

Hahaha. Did you listen to the full 21 minute interview, by any chance?  Doubtful, I know, because you're busy, but I was hoping maybe some kind person here would take the plunge for us and give us a summarized transcript, in case there's any new info there. 

For any takers: http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201762337

Like I said, I'll take a break from reading much more on The Dan Plan until I hear any huge change happens-- except what I catch here! It's hard to look away when I see an update to the thread. 

[mchepp]

Love the New Zealand interview, Randy. Come on, you gotta smile at that.

"At what point does this get absurd?" 

Lol

I predict never. Look how many CEO's come out saying that their company is doing great, even when their not. They must keep up the illusion that the light is just at the end of the tunnel. It has happened for CEO's, politicians, army general's, everywhere. He is not doing anything different than them. He must keep a positive attitude if he is going to have any chance at succeeding.

[Shorty]

I predict never. Look how many CEO's come out saying that their company is doing great, even when their not. They must keep up the illusion that the light is just at the end of the tunnel. It has happened for CEO's, politicians, army general's, everywhere. He is not doing anything different than them. He must keep a positive attitude if he is going to have any chance at succeeding.

This is why I detest him. He is a liar and a fraud. "Holding his own" - what is that? Coming 12th in a field of 30 in a club competition or something.

Whenever he is interviewed - and it is always by someone who knows noting about golf -  he obscures the truth and gives the answers that support what he is doing in the hope that he'll receive respect.

Once again - he is completely clueless. He says he's no Jordan Speith, but almost feels the need to qualify that statement. Unbelievable

Then, what is almost worse, some moronic academic will cotton on and report that "there is this guy" who is proving something and should be supported/recognised.

 

Edited October 21, 2015 by Shorty

[Nosevi]

This is why I detest him. He is a liar and a fraud. "Holding his own" - what is that? Coming 12th in a field of 30 in a club competition or something.

Whenever he is interviewed - and it is always by someone who knows noting about golf -  he obscures the truth and gives the answers that support what he is doing in the hope that he'll receive respect.

Once again - he is completely clueless. He says he's no Jordan Speith, but almost feels the need to qualify that statement. Unbelievable

Then, what is almost worse, some moronic academic will cotton on and report that "there is this guy" who is proving something and should be supported/recognised.

 

Please tell me you listened to the whole interview and liked the bit where he gave Tiger some advice about how to get back to winning ways. Was my favourite part  

(And yes, I am being serious)

Still don't know why it upsets you so much. You've told me why, obviously, but still don't see why he gets under your skin. Anyone who takes 5 minutes to look at his blog or read up on it can see he's a little behind where he implies he is (possibly an understatement?). 

Edited October 21, 2015 by Nosevi

[Shorty]

Please tell me you listened to the whole interview and liked the bit where he gave Tiger some advice about how to get back to winning ways. Was my favourite part  

(And yes, I am being serious)

Still don't know why it upsets you so much. You've told me why, obviously, but still don't see why he gets under your skin. Anyone who takes 5 minutes to look at his blog or read up on it can see he's a little behind where he implies he is (possibly an understatement?). 

I have not listened to it. It would make me sick.

I'm relying on members here to report on it

I dislike him intensely because, as I have said several times, he insults every golfer every time he opens his mouth. The fact that he really doesn't see much difference between himself and and player you care to name says a lot about him.

But basically it's the lack of honesty and any  true introspection. He's a narcissist of the worst kind. Fans will just say he's super positive. I say he is a deluded, dishonest fool.

 

Edited October 21, 2015 by Shorty

[Lihu]

I have not listened to it. It would make me sick.

I'm relying on members here to report on it

I dislike him intensely because, as I have said several times, he insults every golfer every time he opens his mouth. The fact that he really doesn't see much difference between himself and and player you care to name says a lot about him.

But basically it's the lack of honesty and any  true introspection. He's a narcissist of the worst kind. Fans will just say he's super positive. I say he is a deluded, dishonest fool.

 

I spent my lunch on it. Nothing really to report. He's saying pretty much the same thing he always does.

That statement regarding Jordan Speith almost made me choke on my lunch. It was too funny.

So, it's funny that when I started golf a bit before the time I started posting in this thread, I would have thought he was not that far off base. At that time I thought that scratch players were not all that much better than me as a 28HC, just learn to swing a bit more efficiently and I could start making pars and birdies. Easy, right? So, I simply figured that he was actually a pretty decent player and got there through hard work and proper practice just like I could if I really put my mind to it.

Obviously, I don't think this way any more and I can see that Dan's still a golf moron, just like I was when I started. I'm a golf idiot now, so I like to think I've progressed a little bit.

We can think that he is clueless or deceptive. Given that he's in his own little world, I'm guessing just totally clueless. To be dishonest, you really need to understand what is the truth. I sincerely doubt that he has any clue what he is talking about.

[Shorty]

I sincerely doubt that he has any clue what he is talking about.

The evidence would certainly point in that direction.

But wouldn't you love to have an interviewer immediately ask for examples of "holding his own in minor/lesser tournaments". 

Imagine if they had said "What's your best result this year?" "Where was that?" "What was the winning score?"  

I want him to be interviewed by someone who has done his research and knows the game, not a sycophant who thinks they're dealing with an amazing person who's proving something.

[Nosevi]

The evidence would certainly point in that direction.

But wouldn't you love to have an interviewer immediately ask for examples of "holding his own in minor/lesser tournaments". 

Imagine if they had said "What's your best result this year?" "Where was that?" "What was the winning score?"  

I want him to be interviewed by someone who has done his research and knows the game, not a sycophant who thinks they're dealing with an amazing person who's proving something.

But that's not how 'human interest' stories work, Shorty. If it was about the golf it would do but it's not. They want to portray the plucky individual out to beat the odds, that's the headline and that's how they'll try to spin it. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant, they just want to portray that image.

To be fair, in this interview the interviewer almost kicks off with saying to Dan that it's a nice idea but you're going to fail, aren't you? And at several points does say things along the lines of "Yes, but you aren't going to actually make it, are you?" Dan doesn't blink but you can tell the interviewer (who says he knows nothing about golf) is less than convinced.

But if Dan wanted to put out data and examples he could have done it in his blog but he hasn't done. Some clever bloke told me that's all the evidence I should need  

[Lihu]

The evidence would certainly point in that direction.

But wouldn't you love to have an interviewer immediately ask for examples of "holding his own in minor/lesser tournaments". 

Imagine if they had said "What's your best result this year?" "Where was that?" "What was the winning score?"  

I want him to be interviewed by someone who has done his research and knows the game, not a sycophant who thinks they're dealing with an amazing person who's proving something.

To be fair, the sycophant*** that interviews him invited him onto the show. They are more likely interested in his proving the "working hard and get what you want theory" rather than his actual golfing skills. To be honest, all those people probably think people like us are "splitting hairs" over "details". This is what Dan is probably relying upon with what little he does understand of golf aptitude.

 

***Just so you know, I had to look up two words this one and "obsequiously". My language skills have improved quite a bit since I started thanks to all this "looking up" of stuff. 

[natureboy]

 

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? 

No kidding.

If height were not an advantage, the graphs would not have distinct peaks. The PGA distribution would also be as broad and flat as the U.S. population curve. The smooth curve is not really a great fit (graph is probably more appropriately displayed as a histogram) and I think the data bin points are more reflective of the true peaks. So those are 2 inches apart - about 1 standard deviation with the PGA peak at 72" or 6'. If the PGA height distribution is log-normal rather than normal the mean could be taller than the mode. I would call that statistically significant.

Does it mean it's everything...no. Clearly other skills and abilities can compensate in scoring performance, but my view of it is that added leverage is clearly a help. I think the full range of golfing skills, abilities, including the abilities that allow one to keep learning / improving are all relevant. That's why I mention Zach Johnson a lot in this thread.

Is Dan that tall? I thought he was more like 5'6" or 5'7" from the pics. But he is definitely leaner than even the 'typical' lean type PGA build.

Interesting athletic background. Discus, javelin, & hammer throw all have some kinematic sequence parallels to golf at least in some of the muscles worked.

I think this article (Golf Analytics - driving distance aging curve) captures why high level golf with a late age start is difficult. Note that it does not make claims for individual decline - just that long game decline with age is 'typical'. I've seen some studies that indicate muscle performance tends to decline a bit in the mid 30's which would be a biological basis for the trend on the tour discussed.

[Lihu]

Interesting athletic background. Discus, javelin, & hammer throw all have some kinematic sequence parallels to golf at least in some of the muscles worked..

Dan could not have competed varsity discus and especially not hammer throw. Possibly JV javelin? More likely just playing around in PE class?

[nevets88]

He retweeted this so maybe he's doing it?

https://twitter.com/thedanplan/with_replies

 

Edited October 22, 2015 by nevets88

[iacas]

If height were not an advantage, the graphs would not have distinct peaks. The PGA distribution would also be as broad and flat as the U.S. population curve.

I agree that height is an advantage, particularly in the modern game… but stats can skew that way too.

Just the way some show that kids born in certain months are better at soccer, kids who are tall early on might have an advantage (distance) that other kids don't have (yet?), so they might get extra coaching or encouragement and stick with golf longer. They might even be more likely to get college scholarships… not because of their eventual skill level, per se, but because they're good at age 10, or 12, or 15.

Some of those stats can skew based on participation at the junior levels, just like the soccer stat (I forget what month it was, but basically when age cut-offs are in a certain month, people born just after that month are "old" 12 year olds and thus play better than those who just turned 12. So they get more attention, encouragement, playing time, etc.

[Lihu]

I agree that height is an advantage, particularly in the modern game… but stats can skew that way too.

Just the way some show that kids born in certain months are better at soccer, kids who are tall early on might have an advantage (distance) that other kids don't have (yet?), so they might get extra coaching or encouragement and stick with golf longer. They might even be more likely to get college scholarships… not because of their eventual skill level, per se, but because they're good at age 10, or 12, or 15.

Some of those stats can skew based on participation at the junior levels, just like the soccer stat (I forget what month it was, but basically when age cut-offs are in a certain month, people born just after that month are "old" 12 year olds and thus play better than those who just turned 12. So they get more attention, encouragement, playing time, etc.

This is true.

I wonder if "height advantaged" sports could also be missing some potential talent from early recruiting?

[natureboy]

I agree that height is an advantage, particularly in the modern game… but stats can skew that way too.

Just the way some show that kids born in certain months are better at soccer, kids who are tall early on might have an advantage (distance) that other kids don't have (yet?), so they might get extra coaching or encouragement and stick with golf longer. They might even be more likely to get college scholarships… not because of their eventual skill level, per se, but because they're good at age 10, or 12, or 15.

Some of those stats can skew based on participation at the junior levels, just like the soccer stat (I forget what month it was, but basically when age cut-offs are in a certain month, people born just after that month are "old" 12 year olds and thus play better than those who just turned 12. So they get more attention, encouragement, playing time, etc.

That's a good point - echoed in Malcolm Gladwell's book about hockey players.