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

[natureboy]

24 minutes ago, RandallT said:

I created a chart where the blue dots are equidistant! The dates are not evenly spread out at all on the x-axis. but the overall rise/fall of the curve will be the same.

This is an important caveat. I understand your reluctance to go back and overhaul it. Do this instead, take maybe 25 to 30 handicap postings (including some early ones) and chart them versus hours logged. It's a much better approach. Your focus on the short-term ebbs and flows is misplaced. Like I said you had it more correct in your much earlier posting of the chart. What shape curve does declining progress rate with doubling time invested yield?

 

Quote

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!

You know the long-term progress curve does not do that - go back and look at your earlier post - the progress rate may flatten out, but it very rarely rises back up in the long-term if continued practice / effort is made (you usually at least maintain most of your gains with further time invested).

20 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

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.

Why didn't Tiger Woods seek out Phil Mickelson for advice when he was having trouble with his short game? Phil's an acknowledged master of chipping and pitching, yes?

4 hours ago, Lihu said:

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. . .

As important as the rules of golf appear to be to you - including amateur status - they do not constitute an actual code of moral or civil law. Asking for donations to support a personal cause is entirely legal. I think truth in advertising statutes pertain more to products and services that claim to provide a benefit to the buyer...100 proof snake oil and the like.

Edited December 15, 2015 by natureboy

[Lihu]

25 minutes ago, natureboy said:

As important as the rules of golf appear to be to you - including amateur status - they do not constitute an actual code of moral or civil law. Asking for donations to support a personal cause is entirely legal. I think truth in advertising statutes pertain more to products and services that claim to provide a benefit to the buyer...100 proof snake oil and the like.

Legally, yes. Morally is questionable.

[RandallT]

29 minutes ago, natureboy said:

This is an important caveat. I understand your reluctance to go back and overhaul it. Do this instead, take maybe 25 to 30 handicap postings (including some early ones) and chart them versus hours logged. It's a much better approach. Your focus on the short-term ebbs and flows is misplaced. Like I said you had it more correct in your much earlier posting of the chart. What shape curve does declining progress rate with doubling time invested yield?

The Dan Plan thread is on fire again. Good times. 

I put little hash tags on the bottom from Stuart's posting on goals at each 1000hr increment. Like we said, Dan played very consistently, so I think this is close enough. He never took long breaks during his journey, so whether you plot by hours or by rounds played or by date, it's all pretty much the same.  He played slightly more rounds between 5K and 6K, as you see visually, but not by much. So it might get horizontally altered depending on what goes on the x-axis, but not by much.

His first official HCP was 8.7 in May 2012, shown above. 

It's all very approximate, and you know me from other threads- that's close enough. Drives you nuts, I know.  I can get the big picture from what's here on this one. And I'm lazy!

Do you not want to show ebbs and flows?  I'm not really "focusing" on ebbs and flows. I'm just plotting real data. Not sure what that comment meant.

 

[Pretzel]

47 minutes ago, natureboy said:

As important as the rules of golf appear to be to you - including amateur status - they do not constitute an actual code of moral or civil law. Asking for donations to support a personal cause is entirely legal. I think truth in advertising statutes pertain more to products and services that claim to provide a benefit to the buyer...100 proof snake oil and the like.

The thing is, those rules of golf are "legally binding" in the sense that he can be banned from future USGA-sanctioned competitions if it comes to light he partook in amateur tournaments while he was a professional golfer. That would certainly throw quite a wrench in your plans.

Don't you think he should have looked up the rules before embarking upon his plan, as well as doing research? How he jumped in is analogous to a wannabe engineer jumping straight into Solidworks (but only drawing 2d sketches for the first 6 months, to make sure he mastered the basics first of course!) without understanding any of the background information that is required to make something that works and is economical.

[natureboy]

25 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

The thing is, those rules of golf are "legally binding" in the sense that he can be banned from future USGA-sanctioned competitions if it comes to light he partook in amateur tournaments while he was a professional golfer. That would certainly throw quite a wrench in your plans.

Don't you think he should have looked up the rules before embarking upon his plan, as well as doing research? How he jumped in is analogous to a wannabe engineer jumping straight into Solidworks (but only drawing 2d sketches for the first 6 months, to make sure he mastered the basics first of course!) without understanding any of the background information that is required to make something that works and is economical.

USGA is a club / organization with by-laws and for adopting rules of competition. Given his goal, yes he should have done more research. But saying violating amateur status rules is illegal is like calling Satchel Paige's barnstorming 'illegal' because it wasn't part of sanctioned MLB or Negro League baseball competition.

Violating the rules of golf shows disrespect to the game and the spirit of fair competition and flawed character (depending on the breach and context). Still not illegal.

44 minutes ago, RandallT said:

The Dan Plan thread is on fire again. Good times. 

I put little hash tags on the bottom from Stuart's posting on goals at each 1000hr increment. Like we said, Dan played very consistently, so I think this is close enough. He never took long breaks during his journey, so whether you plot by hours or by rounds played or by date, it's all pretty much the same.  He played slightly more rounds between 5K and 6K, as you see visually, but not by much. So it might get horizontally altered depending on what goes on the x-axis, but not by much.

His first official HCP was 8.7 in May 2012, shown above. 

It's all very approximate, and you know me from other threads- that's close enough. Drives you nuts, I know.  I can get the big picture from what's here on this one. And I'm lazy!

Do you not want to show ebbs and flows?  I'm not really "focusing" on ebbs and flows. I'm just plotting real data. Not sure what that comment meant.

 

The far right period looks considerably wider than the others and the second somewhat compressed. Given the nature of the relationship of progress to time invested in a learning curve, the x-axis here is important. Agreed that it won't hugely change the basic shape, but a few points is significant to the discussion. Have you also charted his ~ zero hour startng point? His first official HCP came a really long way into the hours progress. Also, does your red line reflect course ratings or not - may make a difference of several strokes per data point.

Big picture I agree with you - he's off track for his goal. But his progress relative to it should be shown accurately to be fair.

My ebbs and flows reference was that moving average projection may be useful for charting markets, but not for learning curves. The more important trend is the general progress over big chunks of time, not the seasonal peaks and valleys. The time you posted this chart long ago you had it more correct. Do you have it or want me to try to dig it up?

49 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Legally, yes. Morally is questionable.

I've heard that golf is kind of like a religion for some. 

Edited December 15, 2015 by natureboy

[Lihu]

15 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I've heard that golf is kind of like a religion for some. 

At least I didn't say reprehensible. . . because that was my original term. . .

[Pretzel]

14 minutes ago, natureboy said:

USGA is a club / organization with by-laws and for adopting rules of competition. Given his goal, yes he should have done more research. But saying violating amateur status rules is illegal is like calling Satchel Paige's barnstorming 'illegal' because it wasn't part of sanctioned MLB or Negro League baseball competition.

I never once stated it was illegal, just that he can be barred from all USGA competition should it come to light that he competed in amateur events as a professional. Nowhere did I refer to such an activity as illegal, just against the rules of golf.

The "legally binding" part (which was also in quotations) was my way of comparing the USGA's jurisdiction over USGA sanctioned events to a governmental agency's jurisdiction over their areas of influence. 

I dunno why you're arguing this point. It's simple really: He has potentially violated the USGA rules of golf, and can be banned from tournaments that they sanction if it is determined he did, indeed, violate the rules.

[natureboy]

8 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

I never once stated it was illegal, just that he can be barred from all USGA competition should it come to light that he competed in amateur events as a professional. Nowhere did I refer to such an activity as illegal, just against the rules of golf.

The "legally binding" part (which was also in quotations) was my way of comparing the USGA's jurisdiction over USGA sanctioned events to a governmental agency's jurisdiction over their areas of influence. 

I dunno why you're arguing this point. It's simple really: He has potentially violated the USGA rules of golf, and can be banned from tournaments that they sanction if it is determined he did, indeed, violate the rules.

I'm not arguing your point as potentially applying to him - I already agreed you had a potentially valid point.

You responded to my post which was a response to Lihu's statement that his amateur rules violation was illegal.

My point to Lihu and you is let's not casually throw around a term like illegal when you're already accusing some guy you don't know of cheating. Violating the offical rules of golf would be accurate. Legal / illegal has to do with common and statutory law and (along with actual religious moral codes) IMO is a far more significant ball of wax and serious accusation than violating the official rules of the game of golf as adopted by the USGA and R&A.

Edited December 15, 2015 by natureboy

[Lihu]

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I'm not arguing your point as potentially applying to him - I already agreed you had a potentially valid point. You responded to my post which was a response to Lihu's statement that his amateur rules violation was illegal. My point to Lihu and you is let's not casually throw around a term like illegal when you're already accusing some guy you don't know of cheating. Violating the offical rules of golf would be accurate. Legal / illegal has to do with common and statutory law and (along with actual religious moral codes) IMO is a far more significant ball of wax and serious accusation than violating the official rules of the game of golf as adopted by the USGA and R&A.

I still give Dan the benefit of the doubt and still think there is no ill intent on his part for deception, but simply think that he's not as good as he thinks and states to the public.

[natureboy]

12 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I still give Dan the benefit of the doubt and still think there is no ill intent on his part for deception, but simply think that he's not as good as he thinks and states to the public.

Now that's another potentially valuable distinction. Is he being cagey about how good he thinks he can get / whether he can reach his goal / overemphasizing his best progress...possibly. That is a different thing entirely from fabricating golf scores. Playing your cards close to your vest in a business endeavor is normal. It's called putting your best foot forward. But like Lihu emphasized earlier there is at least some merit to proof is in the pudding and not assuming anything along a complex journey. But I wouldn't bet on him to succeed unless he radically revamped his approach to date.

Do you think BP or Volkswagen will put out advertisements in the next year reminding us about their worst misdeeds of the past few years? Not illegal. Not even expected by the general public. Should the press give them a free pass in future because the ads contain rainbows and puppies, no. Dan is inconsequential to real things that matter to the press so he is just a feel-good human interest story with a 'proven' audience. Like it or lump it, that attracts media attention...deserved or not.

I think the word you are looking for is 'disingenuous'.

Edited December 15, 2015 by natureboy

[Lihu]

28 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Now that's another potentially valuable distinction. Is he being cagey about how good he thinks he can get / whether he can reach his goal / overemphasizing his best progress...possibly. That is a different thing entirely from fabricating golf scores. Playing your cards close to your vest in a business endeavor is normal. It's called putting your best foot forward. But like Lihu emphasized earlier there is at least some merit to proof is in the pudding and not assuming anything along a complex journey. But I wouldn't bet on him to succeed unless he radically revamped his approach to date.

Do you think BP or Volkswagen will put out advertisements in the next year reminding us about their worst misdeeds of the past few years? Not illegal. Not even expected by the general public. Should the press give them a free pass in future because the ads contain rainbows and puppies, no. Dan is inconsequential to real things that matter to the press so he is just a feel-good human interest story with a 'proven' audience. Like it or lump it, that attracts media attention...deserved or not.

Right, but I do think that there are situations where he might take a favorable drop not actually knowing that it is strictly within the ROG. I seriously doubt he could learn all the ROG within the 3 year period that he started actually playing on the course. Not even all the single digit posters here know every single situation exactly. Without a supervising body to watch all hit shots, he might have made incorrect drops.

For example, I was playing a practice round today, and my ball rolled up next to a small tree with a little white flag next to it (presume GUR). Just then one of the ambassadors came by and noted that I should not play the ball as it lies, but was himself not aware that the white flag represented GUR. Now, I normally ignore GUR if it looks playable and usually play as it lies, pulling up and replacing any removable man made obstacles. So, I dropped about a club and a half that was radially equivalent distance to the pin, even though I didn't exactly know if it was compliant with the local rule. If I was actually playing for score, I would have played the ball where it lay by knocking it gently away from the tree. The caveat is if I knew for sure it was compliant with the local rules, then a drop is more prudent to the preservation of the course and playing within the ROG in regard to trying to obtain the lowest score possible. In one case where Dan documented a similar situation, he took a drop without verifying that it was compliant to a local rule. His first reaction was to move the ball!

Second case today, I landed on a tree root on my second shot on a par 5 today. the ball was lodged against the root of the tree. I played it as it lay with the expected results. The ball sailed pin high far left of the green. Chip and 2 putt later I was in the hole for a bogey. In one of Dan's blogs that he wrote about a tournament, he was in a similar situation as I was today but was questioning if he should play the ball as it lay. He remembered that a friend of his hurt his wrists playing from a root. He was questioning if he should play by the ROG or not!

These are the reasons I think he did not adhere to the ROG when playing his personal rounds, while during a tournament he was forced to play by ROG. It seems like that's a potential difference between his tournament versus personal rounds of 10-12 strokes.

That's a lot of strokes, and it adds up quickly.

[natureboy]

9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Without a supervising body to watch all hit shots, he might have made incorrect drops.

Is this possibly projection. An unintentional cry for help? You seem to be implying that your HCP is not legitimate. 

9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

In one case where Dan documented a similar situation, he took a drop without verifying that it was compliant to a local rule. His first reaction was to move the ball!

Link please.

9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

he was in a similar situation as I was today but was questioning if he should play the ball as it lay. He remembered that a friend of his hurt his wrists playing from a root. He was questioning if he should play by the ROG or not!

Again possible projection. Did it not occur to you that the Occam's Razor explanation to this 'situation' is that he was contemplating taking an unplayable?

9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

It seems like that's a potential difference between his tournament versus personal rounds of 10-12 strokes.

Maybe it's that high. Score relative to par is not the same thing on a an easy setup versus a tough setup. Can be 10+ strokes swing.

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, natureboy said:

Is this possibly projection. An unintentional cry for help? You seem to be implying that your HCP is not legitimate. 

You caught me!

 

1 minute ago, natureboy said:

Link please.

It's going to take a while to navigate through all his blogs. . .I'll dig around tonight. maybe. . .

 

1 minute ago, natureboy said:

Again possible projection. Did it not occur to you that the Occam's Razor explanation to this 'situation' is that he was contemplating taking an unplayable?

Getting used to taking unplayable is not likely going to keep the scores low. That's distance and stroke. . .over a 1/2" tree root? My root was 4" thick and basically short and merged into the trunk and my club bounced off of it. I kind of compressed the ball between the root and my club face to get it to shoot out kind of towards the hole. I expect that a person with a HC 8 strokes better than me to do better than me on that shot!?!

Also, I recall that he finally hit it and then on a subsequent shot hit a low hanging branch. Again, that's the type of thing I expect a dumb ass 10HC like me to do on my 3rd shot.

 

1 minute ago, natureboy said:

Maybe it's that high. Score relative to par is not the same thing on a an easy setup versus a tough setup. Can be 10+ strokes swing.

Golfers in the 2 HC range are more apt to be affected by CR rather than slope, so if he were an actual 2 HC I don't think setup would make all that much difference.

[natureboy]

21 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Getting used to taking unplayable is not likely going to keep the scores low. 

Sorry, do not understand this.

Quote

Also, I recall that he finally hit it and then on a subsequent shot hit a low hanging branch. Again, that's the type of thing I expect a dumb ass 10HC like me to do on my 3rd shot.

Did you see his lie? Did you see the course he played on? I suspect that southern CA is a bit less dense tree-wise than the Pacific NW. The point is his consideration of whether to play it as it lies was not vs. 'let me improve my lie'...a la Judge Smails, but whether to hit the shot from that location or take an unplayable (and the penalty) as provided for under the rules. It's obvious to me and I haven't even read the post.

It seems from this that you at least sometimes substituting what you want to see in his blogs for what is the obvious plain meaning. What bozo writes about contemplating cheating on a public blog and expects to retain donors / sponsors? Is that what Lance Armstrong did?

Quote

Golfers in the 2 HC range are more apt to be affected by CR rather than slope, so if he were an actual 2 HC I don't think setup would make all that much difference.

That should have read course. I meant he was likely playing a toughly rated course (~ 75 CR minus 67 CR = 8 strokes) with a tougher than normal tournament setup, which might add +1 to +2 to standard rating?

Edited December 15, 2015 by natureboy

[Lihu]

27 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Sorry, do not understand this.

What I meant is that it is very unlikely that a 2 HC would opt to take an unplayable with a ball resting against a 1/2" root.

 

27 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Did you see his lie? Did you see the course he played on? I suspect that southern CA is a bit less dense tree-wise than the Pacific NW. The point is his consideration of whether to play it as it lies was not vs. 'let me improve my lie'...a la Judge Smails, but whether to hit the shot from that location or take an unplayable (and the penalty) as provided for under the rules. It's obvious to me and I haven't even read the post.

Yes So. Cal. is less dense, but. . .I've played recently at TPC Tampa, Mangrove Bay, Billerica CC, George Wright as a 12HC-13HC and even Lotus Hill in Asia and shot to roughly my HC. Better in one case. Have also played in OR on a links course as a 15-16HC. No problems there either.

We do have pretty tight courses here as well. We also have desert courses where you just don't want to go into the wild areas because of rattlesnakes. OB is OB.

It's different than tree lined, but still narrow shots.

 

27 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That should have read course. I meant he was likely playing a toughly rated course (~ 75 CR minus 67 CR = 8 strokes) with a tougher than normal tournament setup, which might add +1 to +2 to standard rating?

The tournament yardage is roughly 6650 yards, it's not 75CR.

Here's Dan's course: http://www.riversidegcc.com/club/scripts/golf/view_course.asp?GRP=14295&NS=PG&APP=32

and I think he mentioned that he plays the tips.

[Pretzel]

His tournaments were played on easy courses under 7000 yards long. It's not that hard to figure out that, if he was playing the tips from his home course, that his scores should be lower by your argument in a tournament due to the CR.

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

What I meant is that it is very unlikely that a 2 HC would opt to take an unplayable with a ball resting against a 1/2" root.

So based on your personal experiences you know what Dan should do in a treed scenario that you haven't actually seen? The whole point of this one is that you assumed he was contemplating improving his lie when the simple explanation is that he was considering unplayable that he ended up not taking.

Quote

played in OR on a links course as a 15-16HC. No problems there either.

Great like with like comparison as links courses are known for their deep, gnarly woods.

Here's the Ghost Creek course blurb: "Lush stands of towering trees frame undulating fairways..."

Quote

The tournament yardage is roughly 6650 yards, it's not 75CR.

Here's Dan's course: http://www.riversidegcc.com/club/scripts/golf/view_course.asp?GRP=14295&NS=PG&APP=32

and I think he mentioned that he plays the tips.

Okay so  in his first tournament he was around a 7 HCP. He played a course rated 73.8. Expected average score (for multiple rounds) of a 7 on the course rating is about 82.5. Maybe figure +1 to rating for tournament setup (higher rough, tighter greens, tougher pins). He shot a single round 86, which is right in line with a single round score for his HCP - tournament nerves (especially with driver his weakest club) - and possibly a slightly tougher setup for the tournament.

It's disputed that he dropped to a 3 owing to tournament scores no lower than high 70's. Well on a course rating of 74 the average expected score (across multiple rounds) for a 3 is about 77.5. On a course rated 76 a 3 HCP's average score would be about 80. I see no dramatic evidence there that he is fabricating home course scores.with ignorance of the rules or otherwise.

Might he play better on his home courses - most definitely - especially when his scoring strength is putting and not long game and he knows the course well enough to maximize his driving! The simple explanation IMO is that he's not a stellar performer in tournaments (particularly due to his lack of confidence / skill with driver) so he scores on the slightly high side of his expected spread around his expected average. I bet there are lots of golfers who perform like that in tournaments. Doesn't mean they are cheating and lying about their HCPs.

It's pretty clear from my very cursory look at the actual 'evidence' on his blog that people who don't like what he is about or his 'cocky' (I see uneducated or deluded) attitude will see what they want to see in his posts, whether or not what dastardly deeds and bad intentions they ascribe to him defy logic. IMO a cheating con-man's progress line would show unbroken unwavering progress toward the goal and no accountability at all in official tournaments. Dan's shows neither. I do think he has been unrealistic about his ultimate goal and that part could be disingenuous or self-delusion. Don't know, don't care which. His race will be run in another 4,000 hours one way or the other.

Edited December 15, 2015 by natureboy

[Lihu]

Not sure the CR is going to be 73.8? ~72.2 seems more reasonable for 6650 yards. A 7 HC should shoot +9, but would not be allowed to compete. Maximum 2HC is permitted to participate. If he were a 7 and kept a genuine 2 from signing up, that would be pretty bad.