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

[ev780]

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

Talent is grown not born. The talent code by daniel coyle

Its been shown again and again, that with quality practice you can become an expert or in this case even a PGA tour caliber player.

I would change around a few things for him, but overall you cant beat practice and time as golf as any requries time to master the shotmaking skill.

10.000hours been shown in a particular context that is the time people normally spend to gather the needed expertise or experience and variation from chess to golf. Can you do it faster or slower? yea. If you know the common position sin chess and memorize those which takes around 50 hours, you be playing pretty good chess.

Having a good learning strategy is highly recomended if one tries that.

I agree.  To paraphrase Thomas Edison.  Talent is where inspiration meets perspiration.

When I was a kid I had talent for baseball.  Good hand-eye coordination, good head for the game, could hit well.  A little bit late blooming and most importantly, I didn't have the heart to dedicate the time.  If you want to be world class it is all consuming.  In my career I do have the heart and dedication.  Committed the time, the study, made it all consuming and I think I have been pretty successful.

This is a great discussion

[newtogolf]

I know in this time of political correctness it's not appropriate to tell someone they lack the genetics to be whatever they want to be.  IMO you need both the genetics and the work ethic to achieve the levels of a top pro athlete.  Yes, practice and a strong work ethic can get you pretty far, maybe to even the Nationwide Tour, but at that level everyone practices and works hard, so the discriminator is genetics.

At 6'1 215 lbs I doubt I could be a world class gymnast or NBA center no matter how hard I work at it.  In terms of golf, genetics may appear to play a lesser role because height, weight and body type don't really factor in.  Even average looking guys like Daly and Phil have something special within their genetics that allow them to achieve at the performance levels they do.

[Golfingdad]

As to the differences between the genetic makeup required for golf vs. other sports, I would also add the in-game mental aspect of it.  All of the other sports and endeavors we are talking about require tons of thinking ahead of time but during the actual performance, you are just reacting.  They all move too fast.  In golf, everything is slow enough that you have plenty of time to worry about the consequences of each shot as you are walking up to it and even as you are playing it.  It is a talent in itself to be able to block out all extraneous thoughts while playing that 5 footer that you know is the difference between making the tour or not, or winning a championship or not.

[x129]

It is definitely a talent but it exists in other sports also. Think about a baseball pitcher. They are a lot like a golfer. You don't have to look like an athlete. You just need to be able to throw a ball 90mph (or have incredible junk) and hit a small target repeatedly. Just like a golfer who needs to swing a club 110 mph and hit a small target (or have an insane short game) repeatly. And the pitcher gets to stand on the mound for 30 seconds in between each pitch and think about what they are doing and how they messed up. And for added fun having 60k+ people yelling at them.  The difference in golf compared to most sports is that their is not a guy actively working against you.

Quote:

As to the differences between the genetic makeup required for golf vs. other sports, I would also add the in-game mental aspect of it.  All of the other sports and endeavors we are talking about require tons of thinking ahead of time but during the actual performance, you are just reacting.  They all move too fast.  In golf, everything is slow enough that you have plenty of time to worry about the consequences of each shot as you are walking up to it and even as you are playing it.  It is a talent in itself to be able to block out all extraneous thoughts while playing that 5 footer that you know is the difference between making the tour or not, or winning a championship or not.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by x129

It is definitely a talent but it exists in other sports also. Think about a baseball pitcher. They are a lot like a golfer. You don't have to look like an athlete. You just need to be able to throw a ball 90mph (or have incredible junk) and hit a small target repeatedly. Just like a golfer who needs to swing a club 110 mph and hit a small target (or have an insane short game) repeatly. And the pitcher gets to stand on the mound for 30 seconds in between each pitch and think about what they are doing and how they messed up. And for added fun having 60k+ people yelling at them.  The difference in golf compared to most sports is that their is not a guy actively working against you.

That's true.  I was thinking of a hitter or fielder who really doesn't have any time to think when the balls coming at him, he just reacts.  Same with all football and basketball players.  But you're right, a baseball pitcher is probably the closest to a golfer of those major sports.  There's plenty of time - even during his windup - to let those negative thoughts overrun you ... "Don't throw it down the middle, don't throw it down the middle!"

The bottom line is, in addition to Dan's 10k hours of practice, he is going to need to have some talent (physical and mental) locked up inside if he's gonna pull this off.  I'm rooting for him!

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by x129

It is definitely a talent but it exists in other sports also. Think about a baseball pitcher. They are a lot like a golfer. You don't have to look like an athlete. You just need to be able to throw a ball 90mph (or have incredible junk) and hit a small target repeatedly. Just like a golfer who needs to swing a club 110 mph and hit a small target (or have an insane short game) repeatly. And the pitcher gets to stand on the mound for 30 seconds in between each pitch and think about what they are doing and how they messed up. And for added fun having 60k+ people yelling at them.  The difference in golf compared to most sports is that their is not a guy actively working against you.

That's true.  I was thinking of a hitter or fielder who really doesn't have any time to think when the balls coming at him, he just reacts.  Same with all football and basketball players.  But you're right, a baseball pitcher is probably the closest to a golfer of those major sports.  There's plenty of time - even during his windup - to let those negative thoughts overrun you ... "Don't throw it down the middle, don't throw it down the middle!"

The bottom line is, in addition to Dan's 10k hours of practice, he is going to need to have some talent (physical and mental) locked up inside if he's gonna pull this off.  I'm rooting for him!

Golf would be like pitching if someone was waiting 60 feet awaty to hammer the ball back at your head. There's plenty of reaction required to be a pitcher.

If Dan the Plan doesn't reach low single digits by the end of this year, now that he's hitting full shots, then he'll have plateaued and wasted everyone's time. Well, mostly his own, but you know what I mean.

[joekelly]

If this ;danplan' guy hopes to  play competitive and remunerative golf, as a touring pro for example, he should certainly start before age 12. The oldest golf  'great' i ever heard of  was Greg Norman   who was a very skilled athlete at age 15 then took up golf and went from HI 36  to zero in 2 years. The danplan guy certainly may become a good golfer but highly improbable he will ever compete for money. Could you , at age 40, take up a musical instrument for 10000 hours and hope to get employment?  I recently read of Webb Simpson whose dad took him to Augusta when Webb was 12 years old and  Webb shot 80.   So we can see that although Webb had a great early start he still lingers along on the Tour with no particular merit.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by joekelly

Could you , at age 40, take up a musical instrument for 10000 hours and hope to get employment?

Absolutely, assuming you had some talent to go along with those 10k hours of practice.  And I would also argue that a kid who starts at 12 and puts in his 10k hours would be no better than a 30 year who puts in his 10k hours, assuming they both had equal innate talent to start with.  Factor in the mental maturity of said 30 year old and he'd probably be better.  Obviously the younger one would have a longer career, but that's about it.

[newtogolf]

I'd argue that the 12 year old would develop physically into an adult with a physique that would be more conducive to posting low scores than a 30 year old that never played.  There's a lot to be said for flexibility and core strength that becomes harder to develop after 30.  I agree a 30 year old would be more mature and mentally prepared but if I had to pick I'd rather start at 12.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Absolutely, assuming you had some talent to go along with those 10k hours of practice.  And I would also argue that a kid who starts at 12 and puts in his 10k hours would be no better than a 30 year who puts in his 10k hours, assuming they both had equal innate talent to start with.  Factor in the mental maturity of said 30 year old and he'd probably be better.  Obviously the younger one would have a longer career, but that's about it.

[soon_tourpro]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'd argue that the 12 year old would develop physically into an adult with a physique that would be more conducive to posting low scores than a 30 year old that never played.  There's a lot to be said for flexibility and core strength that becomes harder to develop after 30.  I agree a 30 year old would be more mature and mentally prepared but if I had to pick I'd rather start at 12.

Hum, not harder to develop the strength or flexibility as you grow older.

That is so wrong.

The only difference is that kids dosnt have the changes made to their hormones yet and muscles.

Start at 12, make tour at 20-22.

8-10 years of practice or more.

start at 30, 10 years of practice.

No difference.

Talent is grown you can develop what people call talent and master things like pressure and actually have fun playing golf even in majors.

Lot of prejudice going around to what people can or cannot do.

[ScT1]

I think it'll be interesting to see how he does. It's far too early for us to say with any certainty on whether or not he will succeed in becoming good enough to earn a living as a touring professional, but it's an interesting experiment. Even if he doesn't becoming a good enough plus handicap to do it, there are likely things that perhaps all of us can learn with his attempt.

I, for one, reading about how he started out with the short putts and being working his way out from there, that gave me the little kick in the arse to tell myself that it's time I put some more serious work in on putting and short game. Over the past year I know I've been leaving strokes out on the course because of it, because of short putts I miss, putts that scratch or better players make nearly all the time.

Good luck to him. Who knows what exactly we might learn from what he ends up doing. I think it'll be interesting to see.

[jamo]

Seems like this is delving into another argument about what talent is, which all of these types of threads end up becoming. Talent is, of course, not quantifiable, so arguing over whether or not you believe it is grown or given is pretty much pointless. It's an opinion on either side, and each side it trying to get the other person to their side with their equally unproven opinion. I, FWIW, chose to define "talent" as being inborn, because we already have words like "skill" and "ability" for things that you can improve thorough hard work.

[RichWW2]

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

Talent is grown you can develop what people call talent and master things like pressure and actually have fun playing golf even in majors.

Lot of prejudice going around to what people can or cannot do.

Do some people on here seriously believe they are just 10k hours of practice away from being a professional golfer?  Seriously?  Being a professional athlete is different than just choosing what you want to be when you get to college.  Hard work and practice can only get you so far.  Not to say anyone on here can't get pretty good at golf with lots and lots and lots of practice.  Maybe you can even become a scratch golfer. Scratch golfers are the top 1% of golfers.  99% of us already will never be this good.  Not because of not practicing, but because you simply aren't able to be that good.  Only .001% (guesstimate?) of scratch golfers have the ability to become Pro's.  99.999% of scratch golfers will never become a PGA Pro.  It's not that these guys don't work hard, because everyone does at that level because golf is still a tough game. It's just those guys are just naturally better.  Call it what you want, talent or otherwise, but 99.99999% of us normal people are simply not good enough to be pro golfers.  No amount of practice can change that.

Sorry to sound like debbie downer over here, but c'mon folks, use some common sense.  Not everyone can just practice your way to becoming the best of the best of the best of the best of the golf world.  Sure everyone that is on that level has to practice like a madman and work hard, but it's just not that simple.

[joekelly]

Well, Golfingdad, why don't you tell us which musical instrument you will take up. Let me recommend the cello, or the clarinet or the piano. After 100 hours of practice play a nice tune on YouTube for everyone to enjoy.  If you could play Twinkle Twinkle without fail and with gusto i will surely commend you. Consider today  poor Ernie Els, desperate to sink a ten foot putt and this after 50000 or maybe 500000 hours of practice. When i took up whitewater kayaking with my son at his age 13 we both started from zero. I soon found out about the mental balance beam, as i called it.  You know the river rapids are horribly powerful and sometimes very dangerous. But i could see that the mental balance beam between me and my son was tilted opposite. On his side was 'fun' but on my side was 'fear'. So the balance of fun and fear changes over the years. And although there is no danger in golf there is mental fear. My son will never need to see the river through my eyes because he never had the fear. Why are the best golfers those that start so young? There must be a reason.

[x129]

I have no doubt that if every golfer spent 10k hours practicing that most of them (well the 15-40 year old range. I don't want to deal with physical decline) would be low single digit handicappers.  Very few of them would be +5 guys looking to play on the PGA tour.

The best golfer tend to be the ones that start young (Larry Nelson, YE Yang and a couple of other have done well after picking the game up in their late teens early twenties) because they have the time. If your 14 spending 8 hours on the golf course every day over the summer is practical. Very few 30 year olds have that opportunity. There is no need to complicate it any more than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

Hum, not harder to develop the strength or flexibility as you grow older.

That is so wrong.

The only difference is that kids dosnt have the changes made to their hormones yet and muscles.

Start at 12, make tour at 20-22.

8-10 years of practice or more.

start at 30, 10 years of practice.

No difference.

Talent is grown you can develop what people call talent and master things like pressure and actually have fun playing golf even in majors.

Lot of prejudice going around to what people can or cannot do.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by joekelly

Well, Golfingdad, why don't you tell us which musical instrument you will take up. Let me recommend the cello, or the clarinet or the piano. After 100 hours of practice play a nice tune on YouTube for everyone to enjoy.  If you could play Twinkle Twinkle without fail and with gusto i will surely commend you. Consider today  poor Ernie Els, desperate to sink a ten foot putt and this after 50000 or maybe 500000 hours of practice. When i took up whitewater kayaking with my son at his age 13 we both started from zero. I soon found out about the mental balance beam, as i called it.  You know the river rapids are horribly powerful and sometimes very dangerous. But i could see that the mental balance beam between me and my son was tilted opposite. On his side was 'fun' but on my side was 'fear'. So the balance of fun and fear changes over the years. And although there is no danger in golf there is mental fear. My son will never need to see the river through my eyes because he never had the fear. Why are the best golfers those that start so young? There must be a reason.

There's no need to get snarky.  All I said was that somebody with musical talent who practices for 10,000 hours could play professionally.  You disagree with that?  The study that Dan's whole idea was born out of happened to be a study on musicians.  Their conclusion was that without at least 10k hours of practice, they weren't good enough.  But they all started with talent (enough to be accepted into an elite music school)

And I'm not really sure what your Ernie Els comment means.  He probably is close to 50k hours at this point in his career (he started playing when he was 8, so that would average to roughly 4 hours a day, EVERY DAY, over that span) but the theory doesn't say that 20k is better than 10k, or 50k is better than 20k.

And the answer to your last question is what x129 said above: "The best golfer tend to be the ones that start young because they have the time. If your 14 spending 8 hours on the golf course every day over the summer is practical. Very few 30 year olds have that opportunity."

P.S.  I have tons of musical talent ... but only while driving in the car.

[johnclayton1982]

Two points to throw into the mix:

1.  At what point does it actually become 10,000 hours?  What I mean is, does 10,000 hours of hitting on the range get you good at golf or good at hitting on the range?  Thats my worry with Dan.  I played in my first tournament a month ago and, as I posted, I somehow carded a 9 on a par 4 before I knew what happened.  I think this will be his biggest hurdle.  If I was him, I would have started playing in tournaments immediately.  Its not like in tennis - I've found nothing like the mental challenge of golf.  In tennis, if your game is off, you can run hard, be a backboard, make your 2nd serves first, and eke out wins.  Theres nothing like that in golf.  I think he is underestimating how much development of the mental game matters.  it seems like he thinks he can play 10,000 hours on a casio keyboard in his kitchen and then play a concert on a grand piano in boston symphony hall.  Its the same motions but - is it really the same?  Is it *really* 10,000 hours?

2.  I disagree with what almost everyone has posted about talent.  Talent cannot be defined, cannot be measured, and has no way to correlate to success.  Physical limits exist (i.e. you will never be a basketball center at 6'1"), but I honestly don't think talent limits exist.  My parents are not athletic, both overweight, never played sports.  Both my sister and my brother are not athletic.  Yet, I came very close to attempting professional tennis and started for a top 25 D1 program.  Did I have "talent" ?  No, but I had a tennis court at my house and played every day from age 7 to college.  Now, you could say I didn't make it because I didn't have "talent" and Roddick does, but I think that is crap.  I think Roddick practiced either longer or better.  I've gone to single digit in roughly 20 months of playing golf, 14 of them very seriously into golf.  I could not have done that if i had never played tennis, but it isn't "talent" - its hand-eye coordination and athletic ability developed over time and applied to golf.  I don't buy that some are "born with it" and some arn't.

Talent is overrated.  Practice, work ethic, perseverance, tenacity and getting used to tournament pressure are really underrated.  Just IMO.

"life is not a game of perfect" is a great book that discusses these issues.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

Two points to throw into the mix:

1.  At what point does it actually become 10,000 hours?  What I mean is, does 10,000 hours of hitting on the range get you good at golf or good at hitting on the range?  Thats my worry with Dan.  I played in my first tournament a month ago and, as I posted, I somehow carded a 9 on a par 4 before I knew what happened.  I think this will be his biggest hurdle.  If I was him, I would have started playing in tournaments immediately.  Its not like in tennis - I've found nothing like the mental challenge of golf.  In tennis, if your game is off, you can run hard, be a backboard, make your 2nd serves first, and eke out wins.  Theres nothing like that in golf.  I think he is underestimating how much development of the mental game matters.  it seems like he thinks he can play 10,000 hours on a casio keyboard in his kitchen and then play a concert on a grand piano in boston symphony hall.  Its the same motions but - is it really the same?  Is it *really* 10,000 hours?

2.  I disagree with what almost everyone has posted about talent.  Talent cannot be defined, cannot be measured, and has no way to correlate to success.  Physical limits exist (i.e. you will never be a basketball center at 6'1"), but I honestly don't think talent limits exist.  My parents are not athletic, both overweight, never played sports.  Both my sister and my brother are not athletic.  Yet, I came very close to attempting professional tennis and started for a top 25 D1 program.  Did I have "talent" ?  No, but I had a tennis court at my house and played every day from age 7 to college.  Now, you could say I didn't make it because I didn't have "talent" and Roddick does, but I think that is crap.  I think Roddick practiced either longer or better.  I've gone to single digit in roughly 20 months of playing golf, 14 of them very seriously into golf.  I could not have done that if i had never played tennis, but it isn't "talent" - its hand-eye coordination and athletic ability developed over time and applied to golf.  I don't buy that some are "born with it" and some arn't.

Talent is overrated.  Practice, work ethic, perseverance, tenacity and getting used to tournament pressure are really underrated.  Just IMO.

"life is not a game of perfect" is a great book that discusses these issues.

1. Obviously, just banging away at the range for 10,000 hours is not the same as having a good teacher and a good plan of what to do with your 10,000 hours.  In this thread there has been some good discussion about his plan of starting with short putts and gradually making his way to the driver.  Is that a good plan?  I don't know.  Seems unorthodox to me, and your idea of getting into tournaments and actually playing sooner is probably the way I'd go about it if it was me.  But I am certainly not going to say his plan is wrong, I just don't know.  And I totally agree about the mental game; your comparison to tennis is basically what I was saying earlier when comparing it to football, baseball, basketball and how in those sports DURING the competition its all about reaction and there isn't time for you to screw up by thinking.

2.  That's the main problem with this whole discussion; how do you define talent?  The only way to do so, seemingly, (as others have already said) is to look at somebody who is already good at something and just say they have talent.  Well that doesn't help much.  And I would correlate the comparison of you to Andy Roddick to the original study, with Roddick being one of the "world class" violinists, and you being in one of the other groups.  Meaning the difference is likely the amount of practice time you each put in ... just curious, can you estimate how many hours you practiced over that time?

I have only read "Golf Is Not A Game Of Perfect" and it is my favorite golf related book (along with harvey Penick's books), so I will definitely check out the one you mentioned.  Thanks.