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

[newtogolf]

 

30 minutes ago, collapse said:

My interest is his task,not what your speculative views are.No one has authoritatively challenged his HC thus far.I have not seen any evidence that he has done anything wrong during this golf experiment.

So is it your contention that every recorded handicap is accurate and that their aren't any vanity cappers or sandbaggers?  Just because no one cares enough to challenge Dan's handicap doesn't mean the handicap is accurate.

[Lihu]

4 minutes ago, collapse said:

It may come as a surprise to you but many people enter tournaments with less than accurate HC***.Actually,many people in golf world lie about their handicaps-yes! As for Dan,you need to be much more specific than what you have written.

That's. . .really. . .not. . .good***. . .

Dan entered the OR Amateur as a 2 HC, and he was clearly not at that level of play for any length of time. I think most people that play are in a club and have an established handicap for some period of time. It's not entirely honest, and not really dishonest either. Not very ethical though.

 

 

***OTOH, I play skins games, and am starting to get better at it. Need to take advantage of this situation.

 

[collapse]

Just now, newtogolf said:

 

So is it your contention that every recorded handicap is accurate and that their aren't any vanity cappers or sandbaggers?  Just because no one cares enough to challenge Dan's handicap doesn't mean the handicap is accurate.

I fully appreciate that many HC are lied about.His HC hasn't been proven any less valid than any of the other 23 million out there.

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

That's. . .really. . .not. . .good***. . .

Dan entered the OR Amateur as a 2 HC, and he was clearly not at that level of play for any length of time. I think most people that play are in a club and have an established handicap for some period of time. It's not entirely honest, and not really dishonest either. Not very ethical though.

 

 

***OTOH, I play skins games, and am starting to get better at it. Need to take advantage of this situation.

 

Sorry, but I think you are being a bit naive.

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, collapse said:

I fully appreciate that many HC are lied about.His HC hasn't been proven any less valid than any of the other 23 million out there.

True, but 23 million people are not claiming to become a PGA Tour pro with 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.

[boogielicious]

2 minutes ago, collapse said:

I fully appreciate that many HC are lied about.His HC hasn't been proven any less valid than any of the other 23 million out there.

Sorry, but I think you are being a bit naive.

@collapse,

I recommend you read the thread before you accuse any poster of anything. You are incorrect in your assumptions about Pretzel, etc. 

[collapse]

Just now, Lihu said:

True, but 23 million people are not claiming to become a PGA Tour pro with 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.

Jeez ....so what?....is it a crime?

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, collapse said:

Jeez ....so what?....is it a crime?

---

• Banned Members collapse

Again, read the thread. You are WAY, WAY behind on what you are commenting on.

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, collapse said:

Jeez ....so what?....is it a crime?

Well, it could be if he is asking for money to achieve this goal, and falsifying his progress to draw more interest as @Pretzel mentioned. . .

[collapse]

1 minute ago, boogielicious said:

@collapse,

I recommend you read the thread before you accuse any poster of anything. You are incorrect in your assumptions about Pretzel, etc. 

If Pretzel has some proof of Dan's wrongdoing,the onus is on him to provide it,not for me to dig around .

[boogielicious]

Just now, collapse said:

If Pretzel has some proof of Dan's wrongdoing,the onus is on him to provide it,not for me to dig around .

---

• Banned Members collapse

It is not. You are now the accuser. Knock it off.

[collapse]

Just now, boogielicious said:

It is not. You are now the accuser. Knock it off.

Cheers,boogie.

[RandallT]

Trip down memory lane. I had to dig up an old spreadsheet. I've redone the trend lines. Every round score and handicap in his narrative was entered, along with his goal for those dates.

Each BLUE dot is a 10-day average (not an individual score). Raw score- 18hole rounds only. 

Each GREEN dot is his goal for scoring average that was provided by his Goal Guru, Stuart, and Dan himself approved and published. He wisely built in a leveling off of the scores. He knew it got harder to improve as time went on. I chop the graph off at the last round played, but it continues to his 0 hour (and I think it stopped at 68). You are all correct- he's at 6000 now (4000 left).

Each GOLD dot is his handicap (official). It uses a different axis, but I aligned it with a 0 HCP equaling 72.

Each RED line is an average of Dan's best 10 of 20 scores, multiplied by a fudge factor to make it about the same "height" as the GOLD line. It is an average of raw scores- not any differentials accounted for at all. It plots close to the GOLD, and is just for information only. It doesn't mean a whole lot.

It is interesting that the RED was above the GOLD near the end. Generally, they were similar throughout. If RED goes above GOLD, it COULD be evidence that he was selectively providing scores to his GHIN handicap. Perhaps by cherry-picking what he submitted, he would hold off the rise in HCP. For example, the RED line gets above 5.0 by January 2015, but the official handicap didn't get above 5.0 until April 2015.  Remember, the RED line is essentially the same formula as the official HCP, albeit just an approximation since differentials are ignored.

Anyway the PURPLE line is just something I threw in to match what I see when I squint at the trends. You could argue it's more curved than two straight lines. But there's definitely a plateau in there early 2013ish. He did well up until the start of 2013. Things were tracking downward. Confidence high.

Then it started slipping away. But it takes time to notice. Time to admit to yourself. Time to adjust.  He was likely thinking he was only 2 or 3 strokes off his goal. That's doable- hey, just a couple good shots here and there. Then 4 off the goal... ok, still I can fix this. Then by the end of 2014, he was well over 5 strokes off his goal, and it must've been tough to admit you were going backwards.

Pressure must've been high to perform. Perhaps pressure to do lots of practice rounds to work on things where you might mention a score in your narrative, but not post to GHIN because you were working through kinks. But his blog didn't really track his goal, and from our observations, he didn't really make any big correction in how he was practicing. He seemed mostly to just join up with friends and play a lot. That was my impression. 

 

[natureboy]

6 hours ago, nevets88 said:

I believe he's honest about his HC. But imho he could have improved even more, more quickly w/better instruction, practice, planning.

I agree with this, but I think he would have likely ended up fairly close to where he is due to his IMO fairly average physical talent for the game.

 

5 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Under those conditions he has never broken 80.

In other words, he had every reason to fabricate his handicap and I don't see any evidence to support him actually playing at a 2 or 3 handicap level. His course management and consistency (in tournaments, when he recorded his rounds in detail for us) is piss-poor compared to any 2-3 handicapper I have ever met (with his course management being worse than many high handicappers on this site) and he had significant motivation to fabricate his handicap when on his own to keep the donations flowing.

Not breaking 80 in tournaments could well be related to a difficult course rating / tough setup and poor play under pressure versus breaking par on a familiar easy track where the course rating is well below par. Should he have challenged himself to do more of them to get better at it? Yes I agree with you - given his goal.

I can believe that he avoided more tournaments until he felt his game was more 'ready' for the pressure or course difficulty, but that doesn't make him a cheater or fabricator IMO. Maybe a bit cagey - or maybe actively self-deluded - there's that human thing about avoiding cognitive dissonance

 

5 hours ago, Pretzel said:

I myself have gotten to the point I'm at from a 24 handicap, in approximately 3000 hours or so) who have a much better chance of hitting scratch or going pro anytime in the future than Dan does.

Dan wanted to turn pro in 10,000 hours to compete on the PGA tour. It's rather entertaining to watch him crash as burn as his dishonesty begins to catch up with him, whereas he could have just admitted golf is hard and avoided lying to everyone.

That's roughly 100% more hours than you originally estimated, and 50% more than I had 'overallowed' for in doing the first progress curve on your HCP vs. play & practice. I have little doubt of your tournament scores, but a big revision in how much work it took to that scoring ability makes a significant difference in assessing potential. The new hours would imply you reach 0 HCP around 5,000 hrs, ~ +2 around 10,000 hours and then you maybe squeak out another point drop in another 20,000 hours after that at which point you would be nearly 'flatline' on progress. So that would likely make the PGA a big longshot, but you would have gotten much closer than Dan. I would wager you are far more athletic in build and background to begin with than he is so that makes intuitive sense.

Dan has fairly dutifully tracked HCP versus his play and practice time. I have little reason to doubt it, because it hews to the expected pattern of variability around a long-term trend of diminshing returns and it actually indicates he won't reach his stated goal. What kind of cheater / fabricator does that?

Is he not addressing the elephant in the room about his goal? IMO, yes, but I allow for personal breakthroughs in skill progression so he may be holding out a slim hope until he sees the attempt through. With the new HCP rules there should be ample opportunity for the local committee to send markers out with Dan to attest his scores. If under this system if he never gets back onto his progress track as would be expected in the remaining 4k hours then I would give your POV about his HCP credence.

 

5 hours ago, Lihu said:

He quit his job and told the world that he's going to become one of the best golfers in the world by putting in 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. I don't see how @Pretzel is over stating anything?

He had a very unrealistic and poorly researched goal. He bought into the 10,000 hours idea without looking at the caveats or critiques of the concept. While he may display ignorance or naivete - especially at the start - it does not follow that he cheats / bends / ignores the rules of golf (I found nothing in your link about playing 'casual golf') or fabricates scores.

I think one critic stated it well when they said about complex skill development / high achievement and personal potential that the 10,000 hours were "a necessary, but not a sufficient condition"...in other words a lot of total work is required to realize personal potential in a logarithmic skill domain, but talent still matters as to where that work ultimately gets you. That's why it's important to enjoy the journey.

4 hours ago, Pretzel said:

I've pointed out earlier that, as a result of his monetized blog, he should have forfeited his amateur status long ago yet he continues to play in amateur tournaments. The only reason I find that remotely okay is because he's so far out of contention that it isn't harming any players who are contending for titles.

That may be a valid point, but how about donations for tournament fees and training costs made by non-family relatives and friends to amateur hopefuls to cover expenses? I think that would fall under the same restriction, yes?

 

4 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Off the top of my head, one of the easiest things to say that he did wrong during the golf experiment is that he denied @iacas's offer of free golf instruction for an entire summer, potentially even going so far as snubbing him entirely (I don't remember reading whether or not Dan ever actually replied to the offer). He claims to be struggling financially, and yet turns down an offer of free instruction for an entire summer.

That was an easy choice, because if he had any sense it was clear the desire of the bulk of posters on this thread and Erik and Phil don't like him and want him to fail. Would you undertake a lengthy process of instruction with a teacher you were not convinced was solidly in your corner let alone possibly rooting for you to fail?

 

<BTW - thank you whoever merged these to this thread>.

Edited December 14, 2015 by natureboy

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, RandallT said:

 

This is a good chart, but is the x-axis by hours logged per score or HCP or only vs. calendar dates. I think he was fairly steady by calendar on hours, but it still makes a difference, because time invested is more significant than time passing for the progress / learning curve.

I think you may be cherry-picking to single out the 'gap' at the end. Notice that the red both rises above and dips below the gold along the whole chart. Remember that the official HCP takes the best 10 of your last 20 so there is a built-in time lag between change in average score and HCP. Notice at the end that gold has risen to meet the red as red is trending down again. The gap is a bit more extended in time than the others, but that could be because the variability around an average score was a bit tighter than some of the previous swings.

As far as your purple lines, I'm disappointed. You know full well two straight lines are not an accurate depiction of a progress curve. You more accurately depicted the relationship when you first posted the chart. As far as the score guru his targets were way off the expected relationship and the targets are way too flat. The curve should be dipping down much more strongly on the left side and getting much flatter toward the right side so that guy didn't wisely do anything except help identify a target handicap or score per the course rating, which Dan should have been able to do for himself.

Edited December 14, 2015 by natureboy

[Pretzel]

18 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That's roughly 100% more hours than you originally estimated

Looking back, my original estimate was the number of hours to a 6.5 handicap, which was where I determined my halfway point to be. That's why I estimated twice the number of hours for me at my current point of progress, to account for the fact that I was only halfway there at the originally stated number of hours. 

 

20 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That may be a valid point, but how about donations for tournament fees and training costs made by non-family relatives and friends to amateur hopefuls to cover expenses? I think that would fall under the same restriction, yes?

From the rules of amateur status, specifically rules 6-2 and 6-4

Quote

6-2. Promotion, Advertising and Sales

An amateur golfer of golf skill or reputation must not use that skill or reputation to obtain payment, compensation, personal benefit or any financial gain, directly or indirectly, for (i) promoting, advertising or selling anything, or (ii) allowing his name or likeness to be used by a third party for the promotion, advertisement or sale of anything.

Exception: An amateur golfer of golf skill or reputation may allow his name or likeness to be used to promote:

(a)

his national, regional, state or county golf union or association; or

 

(b)

a recognized charity (or similar good cause); or

 

(c)

subject to the permission of his national golf union or association, any golf competition or other event that is considered to be in the best interests of, or would contribute to the development of, the game.

 

The amateur golfer must not obtain any payment, compensation or financial gain, directly or indirectly, for allowing his name or likeness to be used in these ways.

Note 1: An amateur golfer of golf skill or reputation may accept golf equipment from anyone dealing in such equipment provided no advertising is involved.

Note 2: Limited name and logo recognition is allowed on golf equipment and clothing. Further information relating to this Note and its proper interpretation is provided in "Decisions on the Rules of Amateur Status."

Dan has received several large equipment donations from Titleist while mentioning multiple times in his blog an obligation to promote their product with quotes such as " As you can see, I’m decked out in my Titleist, Vokey and FJ gear.  Like the world’s cheapest billboard " ("Sweden and Switzerland part 2" on his blog). This appears to be a violation but could potentially be nothing, because we don't know the exact nature of their agreement. The bigger thing comes from section 6-4 of the rules of amateur status

Quote

6-4. Broadcasting and Writing

An amateur golfer of golf skill or reputation may receive payment, compensation, personal benefit or financial gain from broadcasting or writing provided:

(a)

the broadcasting or writing is part of his primary occupation or career and golf instruction is not included (Rule 5); or

 

(b)

if the broadcasting or writing is on a part-time basis, the player is actually the author of the commentary, articles or books and golf instruction is not included.

 

Note: An amateur golfer of golf skill or reputation must not promote or advertise anything within the commentary, article or books (see Rule 6-2).

The big caveat here is the bottom piece. Dan has promoted a number of different things, such as Vision54, Titleist, and the BTB Foundation, among other things. He could technically be not in breach of the rules, but he's treading a very fine line that I would suspect he has crossed, while others may think he is in the clear.

35 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That was an easy choice, because if he had any sense it was clear the desire of the bulk of posters on this thread and Erik and Phil don't like him and want him to fail. Would you undertake a lengthy process of instruction with a teacher you were not convinced was solidly in your corner let alone possibly rooting for you to fail?

No, it was not an easy choice and I've heard nothing from @iacas about him wanting Dan to fail. @iacas made a fantastic offer to Dan, with free golf instruction included during a time in which he stated he was struggling with finances and the golf game, and Dan (from what I heard) didn't even bother to discuss it with him. Not only is that rude, but it's flat out ignorant for someone who's supposed to be testing a theory. As far as we know he hasn't received any instruction at all as of late.

[natureboy]

14 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

From the rules of amateur status, specifically rules 6-2 and 6-4

Dan has received several large equipment donations from Titleist while mentioning multiple times in his blog an obligation to promote their product with quotes such as " As you can see, I’m decked out in my Titleist, Vokey and FJ gear.  Like the world’s cheapest billboard " ("Sweden and Switzerland part 2" on his blog). This appears to be a violation but could potentially be nothing, because we don't know the exact nature of their agreement. The bigger thing comes from section 6-4 of the rules of amateur status

The big caveat here is the bottom piece. Dan has promoted a number of different things, such as Vision54, Titleist, and the BTB Foundation, among other things. He could technically be not in breach of the rules, but he's treading a very fine line that I would suspect he has crossed, while others may think he is in the clear.

Your hours revision actually makes a bit more sense statistically, but notice I'm not accusing you of intentionally misleading TST because of an apparent discrepancy. 

That's a fair point. Probably he never worried about amateur status with his eyes on the PGA. Another area where he was myopic in his research and planning.

Re. the instruction offer - the whole tenor of the site is negative toward him. Implications of cheating / lying etc. I'm a fairly lone dissenter to cutting him some benefit of the doubt on his intentions if not his preparations. Erik may not have posted anything specific, but Phil and some other of the insider site 'gang' are pretty vocal about it. I think it was a savvy decision. If Erik wanted him to succeed, he could have just passed along his key suggestions or steered him toward a really well-respected local instructor.  I do agree, though, that getting some better instruction and educating himself to be able to tell the difference is something he should have done / should still do..

Edited December 14, 2015 by natureboy

[RandallT]

10 minutes ago, natureboy said:

This is a good chart, but is the x-axis by hours logged per score or HCP or only vs. calendar dates. I think he was fairly steady by calendar on hours, but it still makes a difference, because time invested is more significant than time passing for the progress / learning curve.

I did this when I was learning the Apple spreadsheet, and I created a chart where the blue dots are equidistant! The dates are not evenly spread out at all on the x-axis. But as you said, he's playing somewhat steadily, so it's close. I'm just too lazy to fix it. There was a trick I learned later to make the x-axis be actually spread out equally by date. My bad. If I get the energy, I'll see if it looks much different sometime. Some parts may be slightly expanded or compressed, but the overall rise/fall of the curve will be the same.

10 minutes ago, natureboy said:

As far as your purple lines, I'm disappointed. You know full well two straight lines are not an accurate depiction of a progress curve. You more accurately depicted the relationship when you first posted the chart. As far as the score guru his targets were way off the expected relationship and the targets are way too flat. The curve should be dipping down much more strongly on the left side and getting much flatter toward the right side so that guy didn't wisely do anything except help identify a target handicap or score per the course rating, which Dan should have been able to do for himself.

Guilty. The purple was just to show from 2013 (where I thought he plateau'd) to the end. Total fudge line. In reality he was on a curve that ended going back up!

Agreed re: goal guru. In order to make the PGA, you'd have to be quite low, quite early in the 10,000 journey. THEN, you'd have to prove yourself in tournaments to work your way up. It's not like the PGA Tour instantly identifies players who are at PGA caliber. It must be demonstrated over a long period of time at multiple levels, well before even possibly getting a shot. So just getting to his average of 67 would've allowed him to START making strides in working his way up.  

Here's the post (I was wrong, Stuart had Dan achieve 67, not 68, by the 10000-hr mark):

http://thedanplan.com/concerning-the-goals/

Quote

 

 

[newtogolf]

22 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Your hours revision actually makes a bit more sense statistically, but notice I'm not accusing you of intentionally misleading TST because of an apparent discrepancy. 

That's a fair point. Probably he never worried about amateur status with his eyes on the PGA. Another area where he was myopic in his research and planning.

Re. the instruction offer - the whole tenor of the site is negative toward him. Implications of cheating / lying etc. I'm a fairly lone dissenter to cutting him some benefit of the doubt on his intentions if not his preparations. Erik may not have posted anything specific, but Phil and some other of the insider site 'gang' are pretty vocal about it. I think it was a savvy decision. If Erik wanted him to succeed, he could have just passed along his key suggestions or steered him toward a really well-respected local instructor.  I do agree, though, that getting some better instruction and educating himself to be able to tell the difference is something he should have done / should still do..

What better way to quiet your critics than to step up and accept Erik's offer to help?   I'm sure once Erik started working with him the overall demeanor of the posts here would go from skeptical to supportive as Erik would provide objective updates of his progress.

Except of course if Dan has something to hide and wouldn't want Erik to out him.