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

[Pretzel]

37 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

 

I believe the correct way of saying it would be, "I am the least qualified person to be here, because I have a habit of ignoring sane advice and I gave up for nearly 6 months before this because I wasn't progressing how I wanted to and it was becoming obvious."

[RFKFREAK]

7 hours ago, nevets88 said:

 

"I'm the most differently qualified person to be here?"

I don't think he could be more of an asshat.

[nevets88]

Anyone here understand Finnish?

I ran the paragraph below through GT, it did an ok job, but I wonder what exactly the bit about 5 coaches is about.

Oppimisen ytimessä: Dan McLaughlin ja Jean Côté

At the heart of learning: Dan McLaughlin and Jean Côté

Quote

- Yritin oppia yhtä swingin vaihetta viisi kuukautta erään valmentajan kanssa. Sitten kävin tapaamassa toista valmentajaa, joka katsoi lyöntejäni pitkään sanomatta sanaakaan. Viimein hän käski muuttaa yhtä pientä osaa asennossani ja näytti kädellään kuinka se tehdään. Oivalsin saman tien mistä oli kysymys. Kyse ei olut siitä että yksi koutsi olisi ollut toista parempi, mutta toisen kanssa kommunikoimme samalla kielellä.

- I tried to learn as the swing phase of five months with a coach. Then I went to meet another coach, who took shots for a long time without saying a word. Finally he told me to change one small part of asennossani and showed with his hand how it's done. I realized right away what was going on. It is the beer that one of the coach would have been better than the other, but with the other we communicate in the same language.

http://www.sport.fi/uutiset/uutinen/oppimisen-ytimessa-dan-mclaughlin-ja-jean-cote

[B-F-G]

2 hours ago, nevets88 said:

Anyone here understand Finnish?

I ran the paragraph below through GT, it did an ok job, but I wonder what exactly the bit about 5 coaches is about.

 

He's saying that retrospectively thinking he would learn much more if he had 5 coaches and he could take the best of their advice and sort of blend it to his game and progress.

[nevets88]

1 hour ago, B-F-G said:

He's saying that retrospectively thinking he would learn much more if he had 5 coaches and he could take the best of their advice and sort of blend it to his game and progress.

Thanks. That sounds dangerous. Maybe it'll work if you take lessons from 5 instructors who teach "similarly", "in the same ballpark", yes, we know how much there is disagreement among instructors, but 5 who have similar backgrounds might be trying to fix the same piece in different ways. But you can get  conflicting information from 5 different guys. Dan Plan has hit on a perennial problem. How do you find a good pro? A question better suited for others with more experience and knowledge to answer.

If you get one guy telling you to only putt for 1/2 year and another guy saying that's poppycock, what do you do?

[RFKFREAK]

The only way I can see having five coaches being helpful is to have some setup like a:

• Full Swing Coach
• Short Game Coach
• Putting Coach
• Strength and Fitness Coach
• Mental Coach

 

[Lihu]

http://thedanplan.com/thoughts-from-helsinki-nonlinear-pedagogy/

[mchepp]

20 hours ago, nevets88 said:

Thanks. That sounds dangerous. Maybe it'll work if you take lessons from 5 instructors who teach "similarly", "in the same ballpark", yes, we know how much there is disagreement among instructors, but 5 who have similar backgrounds might be trying to fix the same piece in different ways. But you can get  conflicting information from 5 different guys. Dan Plan has hit on a perennial problem. How do you find a good pro? A question better suited for others with more experience and knowledge to answer.

If you get one guy telling you to only putt for 1/2 year and another guy saying that's poppycock, what do you do?

I guess I read it a different way. I read it like he should have gone out and found different opinions and decided on his own what was the best way to proceed. I think this is a better route than he took. Because he may within those 5 people found someone smart to listen to, which could have changed his trajectory completely. The route he took was find a professional with a nice resume and do what he said unquestionably. 

[RandallT]

Not sure this has been posted yet:

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/golfcom-podcast-dan-mclaughlin-dan-plan-and-10000-hours-golf

(a followup from a previous interview)

Quote

"I think getting down to like a 6 or 7 was, I’d say, relatively easy," Dan says. "It’s not easy, but when you’re doing it kinda full-time it’s not as difficult as you would imagine. But then going from that 6 to scratch probably takes about four times as much time as going from a 15 to a 6. And from a scratch on…every stroke can be very difficult to chip off."

Can be difficult? You think? Careful out on that limb. An interesting comment:

[RFKFREAK]

On 11/26/2015, 1:03:59, RandallT said:

Not sure this has been posted yet:

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/golfcom-podcast-dan-mclaughlin-dan-plan-and-10000-hours-golf

(a followup from a previous interview)

Can be difficult? You think? Careful out on that limb. An interesting comment:

Haha, fess up, which one of you guys is Da'Neil Olsen. 

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, RFKFREAK said:

Haha, fess up, which one of you guys is Da'Neil Olsen. 

Probably Shorty! 

[Lihu]

14 minutes ago, collapse said:

Lihu...........handicaps are generally not based on tournament play....Tiger Woods shot 84....Michelle Wie was on her way to an 88 before dropping out a few years ago.

He shot a few scores in the mid to high 80s. Every one of them a tournament score. He has never shot below mid-80s in a tournament.

The OP already appears to be roughly the same handicap as Dan by some estimations on this site based upon Dan's poor performance when known to be playing by the ROG.

[collapse]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

He shot a few scores in the mid to high 80s. Every one of them a tournament score. He has never shot below mid-80s in a tournament.

The OP already appears to be roughly the same handicap as Dan by some estimations on this site based upon Dan's poor performance when known to be playing by the ROG.

His handicap was apparently 2 or 3 ....if there is proof otherwise,then we would like to see it.Unless you are challenging the HC system and how millions of golfers record theirs,I can only think Dan's was as legitimate as anyone else's.

[Lihu]

Just now, collapse said:

His handicap was apparently 2 or 3 ....if there is proof otherwise,then we would like to see it.Unless you are challenging the HC system and how millions of golfers record theirs,I can only think Dan's was as legitimate as anyone else's.

Just go and read his tournament blogs, no point arguing with me. . .

[collapse]

Just now, Lihu said:

Just go and read his tournament blogs, no point arguing with me. . .

Please post the quote where it is said his HC was falsely recorded....thanks

[nevets88]

48 minutes ago, collapse said:

It's always best if you have proof that Dan is not being honest.

Not saying dishonest, but results on home course and tournament are different.

https://twitter.com/thedanplan/status/458011317509431297

http://www.ghintpp.com/OregonGA/TPPOnlineScoring/ResultsStroke.aspx?ID=372

http://www.ghintpp.com/OregonGA/TPPOnlineScoring/StrokeCard.aspx?id=356&pid=21723

[natureboy]

8 hours ago, Lihu said:

A specific golfer's development is too chaotic to predict with any certainty. There are even cases of people who played for years, then suddenly they started to improve rapidly when they finally got it.

It's variable, but by and large within a limited range unless there's a major injury or something. I agree breakthroughs happen, but usually what that does is just put the player back on / re-establish an earlier rapid progress part of their own learning curve when it's more typical that at long hours invested the learning curve tends to flatten with the doubling time.. It's on the scale of thousands of hours invested in learning where the progress curve really shows itself and those variable wobbles actually get fairly well in line with the long-term track. On that scale, recovery from 'forgetting' setbacks tend to return to the original progress track.

 

Quote

Your calculations probably work very well when you take data from 1000 golfers and average their development graphs.

That would only be instructive if they had achieved the same benchmarks in the same time. Or it would only be showing the 'typical' time for average golfers to reach a certain HCP level, which more talented golfers will almost definitely beat. The individual slope - time to a level is very significant. I suspect part of Zach Johnson's long-term success story is that he was a relatively late starter to the game and/or had invested much less total time developing his game than his college peers at that stage in their lives, but as he invested more time and kept improving, many of them stood relatively 'still' in progress and so he eventually surpassed them. That said, I believe individual's can definitely have big breakthroughs and big setbacks that establish new curves, I just don't think the new slope will be hugely different from their established long-term progress.

 

Quote

 

 

1 hour ago, Pretzel said:

If you believe what he tells us you're rather gullible, but it's an off topic point.

OT, but actually the same relationship that indicates you have plus potential tracks even better with Dan's HCP vs hours progress. His progress track is quite believable and follows the expected relationship quite well across multiple years.

I have no reason to doubt you, but your progress in the past year is pretty steep given your accumulated hours - though still plausible. You might have the potential to be +3 at 10,000 hours and +4 at 20,000 hours, though such players are rare. The next few years will be telling if you slow down more rapidly than expected or not.

I do agree with you, though, that Dan did not educate himself as he should have for his attempt.

 

1 hour ago, collapse said:

It's always best if you have proof that Dan is not being honest.

OT, but I agree. I expect Dan has been honest about his scores.

 

59 minutes ago, Lihu said:

his tournament scores were in the mid to high 80s. What this states is than when he is under a more controlled rule playing condition he shoots 15 stokes higher. No one who can break par by the rules and normally shoot 3 over would shoot high 80s in a tournament.

OT, but the course rating for the tournament setup matters a great deal. Score to par varies for the same golfer by upwards of 10 shots for an 'easy' course vs. a 'brutal' course. For a high course rating like 76, a 3 HCP would average ~ 80, a 5 HCP would average ~ 82, and a 7 HCP would average ~ 85.

I would expect Dan's low rounds relative to par happened on easier courses. Plus he may play poorly under pressure and significantly better on very familiar courses where he knows the subtleties. If he was lying, why would he fabricate a personal progress track that indicates he won't reach his goal? I personally see no reason to accuse him of cheating.

Edited December 14, 2015 by natureboy

[collapse]

5 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Not saying dishonest, but results on home course and tournament are different.

https://twitter.com/thedanplan/status/458011317509431297

http://www.ghintpp.com/OregonGA/TPPOnlineScoring/ResultsStroke.aspx?ID=372

http://www.ghintpp.com/OregonGA/TPPOnlineScoring/StrokeCard.aspx?id=356&pid=21723

You need to separate HC from tournament play.....the Dan plan was focused on HC....I see nothing that says he didn't follow the HC system of tabulating his ,making him a 2 or 3.