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

[x129]

1) Dan does plan on playing tournaments and the like but yeah how can we tell if the right mix is 3k range, 3k putting, 3k chipping, 1k playing or some other mixture. Or maybe it picked the wrong swing pattern for him or any of a dozen other tweaks. If he fails it doesn't prove anything (should have trained differently) and if succeeds it really doesn't prove much either (hey he was a latent golf talent).

2) why do you say your family doesn't have athletic talent? The fact that someone is fat and didn't play sports doesn't mean they didn't have athletic talent. It means they didn't have an interest. If your brother played golf seriously for 5 years as is shooting 120s then yeah you could say he doesn't have talent.  Rodderick may have practiced better or harder than you. It is equally likely he was born with a body (either mechnically or by having by having muscles that contract faster) that allowed him to serve 20 mph faster. If you don't believe that feel free to google about genetics and athletic performance. You will find study after study demonstrating that everyone has different potentials for different sports.   You can read studies where they give a a couple dozen people the same extract training for 24 weeks and at the end of some have 50% increases in vo2max while others have less than10%.  Or after a strength program one guy gained 20lbs of muscle and the other gained zero.  Pick some sport that emphasis genetic talent (any endurance one or a pure speed one like sprinting) and you will come to this conclusion in a hurry.

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.

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

just curious, can you estimate how many hours you practiced over that time?

I couldn't.  It was a whole lot.  I attend Bolletieri (tennis academy in Flordia where you play at least 5-6 hours per day).  I would say it was probably in excess of 10,000, but most of the early time (until probably in HS) was not all that "serious".  Had I started playing like I wanted to be a pro 4-5 years earlier, who knows where I'd be now (and if I hadn't had a car accident that blew out my shoulder).

The gap between professional players and non-pros is enourmous.  People have no idea.  I was the best player in HS senior both singles and doubles State championships in a State that takes tennis pretty seriously.  I was the best player at my tennis club for a long stretch, and I was good enough to play for a top 25 school.  I tried a few ATP Tour Satilliete qualifiers (roughly similar to Monday qualifiers in golf).  I played nine matches.  I won eleven games.  Not sets, games.  I was absolutely destroyed.  But I don't think it was because i didn't have "talent".  The skill level on pro tours is just insane.  Think of the best player you know, then multiply by four or five to get a journeyman pro.

Quote:

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.

Another really good one is "Putting out of your mind".

Greg Norman being scratch in a year is often thrown around as an example of "talent", but I'd be willing to bet from other sports / activities he had some huge leg up on everyone in hand-eye cordination or mental toughness.  My short game is the best part of my game, and I don't pretend its me - the tennis slice stroke and the golf short game stroke are very similar - you have to accelerate and hit it hard, even if you want it to go short.  Short backswing long followthrough is gospel in tennis, and same in golf.  But it isn't "talent".  "Talent" is an excuse for people who don't practice enough or in the right way, IMO.

Quote:

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.

Agreed.  I thought since I had played in a million tennis events, golf tourneys would be no sweat.  It was completely different.  Not even close.

[RichWW2]

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

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.

You can't tell me that if every one of us here on TST all quit our jobs and practiced golf all the time that we would all be PGA tour players.  That is simply outrageous.  You assume that practice time and hard work automatically equals a professional level player. That is not the case. A talent limit absolutely exists.  What else is there that separates the very very very good golfers from the great golfers?  Every pro level golfer works hard, takes lessons, practices every day, etc. What is the difference then? If not "talent" then what?

How is it that Rory Mcilroy at 23 is better than golfers who have been golfing longer than he has been alive? There's no possible way he's practiced more.  He is just better.  Like I said above, call it what you want, talent or otherwise, but some people will always be better at things than others.  Practice has nothing to do with it.  How would you explain child prodigies?  Not just in sports, but in music, and academics.  Some people just "get it" more than others.  How is Mozart at the age of 5 able to compose amazing symphonies?  I could study music for 20 years and never be able to that.

Think of it as a talent glass ceiling.  Hard work and practice can only get you so far.  Talent, hard work and practice can get you farther.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

"Talent" is an excuse for people who don't practice enough or in the right way, IMO.

People who say they didn't get the opportunity to practice enough, or in the right way, are making excuses for a lack of talent. IMO.

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

You can't tell me that if every one of us here on TST all quit our jobs and practiced golf all the time that we would all be PGA tour players.  That is simply outrageous.  You assume that practice time and hard work automatically equals a professional level player.

Nowhere do I say that.  In fact, I say repeatedly that manner and method of practice is more important than number of hours.  To restate it, I do assume that the right number of hours spent the right way can make anyone that is physically able to a PGA Tour player. Correct.  Now, figuring out what that number / process is is pretty hard - but that doesn't make it impossible.  Go watch Corey Pavin or Tom kite play and tell me they are natural phenoms.  Go watch Martina Hingis in her prime play tennis - she wasn't all that good, just insanely steady and consistent.

Quote:

How is it that Rory Mcilroy at 23 is better than golfers who have been golfing longer than he has been alive? There's no possible way he's practiced more.  He is just better.

No, he has practiced better.  For whatever reason, he has selected his manner and mode of practice very well.  You have made no case that it is some inherent natural ability.  You just can't explain it.  Those arn't the same thing.  Your ignorance does not equal an unexplainable cause.

Quote:

A talent limit absolutely exists.  What else is there that separates the very very very good golfers from the great golfers?  Every pro level golfer works hard, takes lessons, practices every day, etc. What is the difference then? If not "talent" then what?

See, this is always the argument for talent.  You put two people up who both work hard and then say "see, must be talent".  No, it isn't talent - we don't have the data to say what it is, but I don't think you make a compelling case for talent.  In order to prove a circumstantial case (that is, to prove X by proving that all other reasonable hypothesis are untrue) you have to show that there can be no other cause.  There are a million other causes - number of hours, instructor, method of practice, time spent course versus range, etc...

Could natural talent be a factor?  Maybe.  But it isn't in the top 10.  Study after study shows this (again, read "Life is not a game of perfect").

I'm not convinced that it is as simple as "here is player X.  He has played 100 hours of golf.  Here is player Y.  He has played 100 hours of golf.  Player X is better than player Y, but time is equal.  Therefore, player X must be more naturally talented than player Y".  That is silly.  Now, just replace "10,000" (or 30,000) for "100", "Phil Mickelson" for Player X and "Jerry Kelly" for player Y.  Presto!  Your argument.  Doesn't that sound silly?  Arn't there maybe some factors you haven't researched fully to reach the "obvious" conclusion its natural talent and not a million other things?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

No, he has practiced better.  For whatever reason, he has selected his manner and mode of practice very well.  You have made no case that it is some inherent natural ability.  You just can't explain it.  Those arn't the same thing.  Your ignorance does not equal an unexplainable cause.

Agreed.  I was talking about this discussion with a couple of co-workers and we were trying to come up with some examples.  (They don't know golf, so we went the basketball route).  Kwame Brown and Kevin Garnett have very similar builds and resumes coming into the NBA, Brown 1st overall and Garnett 5th overall.  Brown has been, at worst, a complete bust, and at best, a mediocre backup.  Garnett is one of the all time greats.  Its also well documented that Garnett was/is one of the hardest working players in the league, and conversely, Brown is not.  That is the difference right there.

Another example could be Kobe Bryant vs. Lorenzen Wright, Kerry Kittles or Todd Fuller.  They are 3 of the 12 players drafted ahead of Kobe in 1996, so you could say that they had similar talents.  Again, its well documented that Kobe Bryant is one of the (actually, probably THE) hardest worker in the NBA.  There's the difference (an actual quantifiable one) there as well.

[x129]

You say we are giving "talent" too much credit with no proof. The same thing could be  said about your  assertions about practice.  Where it the evidence that John Daly worked better/smarter than some minitour guy? It obviously isn't as easy as just counting hours as well all come into different activites with different skill sets. But research has routinely shown that we all respond to training stimulus different. You happened to respond well so you think it is all hardwork. The guy that has been playing hard for 5 years and struggles to break 100 thinks the game is all about being talented. Neither one of you is right. It isn't as easy as saying you didn't make the pros because you didn't practice right or didn't have enough talent. Depending on the individual it could be either or both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

Nowhere do I say that.  In fact, I say repeatedly that manner and method of practice is more important than number of hours.  To restate it, I do assume that the right number of hours spent the right way can make anyone that is physically able to a PGA Tour player. Correct.  Now, figuring out what that number / process is is pretty hard - but that doesn't make it impossible.  Go watch Corey Pavin or Tom kite play and tell me they are natural phenoms.  Go watch Martina Hingis in her prime play tennis - she wasn't all that good, just insanely steady and consistent.

No, he has practiced better.  For whatever reason, he has selected his manner and mode of practice very well.  You have made no case that it is some inherent natural ability.  You just can't explain it.  Those arn't the same thing.  Your ignorance does not equal an unexplainable cause.

See, this is always the argument for talent.  You put two people up who both work hard and then say "see, must be talent".  No, it isn't talent - we don't have the data to say what it is, but I don't think you make a compelling case for talent.  In order to prove a circumstantial case (that is, to prove X by proving that all other reasonable hypothesis are untrue) you have to show that there can be no other cause.  There are a million other causes - number of hours, instructor, method of practice, time spent course versus range, etc...

Could natural talent be a factor?  Maybe.  But it isn't in the top 10.  Study after study shows this (again, read "Life is not a game of perfect").

I'm not convinced that it is as simple as "here is player X.  He has played 100 hours of golf.  Here is player Y.  He has played 100 hours of golf.  Player X is better than player Y, but time is equal.  Therefore, player X must be more naturally talented than player Y".  That is silly.  Now, just replace "10,000" (or 30,000) for "100", "Phil Mickelson" for Player X and "Jerry Kelly" for player Y.  Presto!  Your argument.  Doesn't that sound silly?  Arn't there maybe some factors you haven't researched fully to reach the "obvious" conclusion its natural talent and not a million other things?

[RichWW2]

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

Nowhere do I say that.  In fact, I say repeatedly that manner and method of practice is more important than number of hours.  To restate it, I do assume that the right number of hours spent the right way can make anyone that is physically able to a PGA Tour player. Correct.  Now, figuring out what that number / process is is pretty hard - but that doesn't make it impossible.  Go watch Corey Pavin or Tom kite play and tell me they are natural phenoms.  Go watch Martina Hingis in her prime play tennis - she wasn't all that good, just insanely steady and consistent.

No, he has practiced better.  For whatever reason, he has selected his manner and mode of practice very well.  You have made no case that it is some inherent natural ability.  You just can't explain it.  Those arn't the same thing.  Your ignorance does not equal an unexplainable cause.

See, this is always the argument for talent.  You put two people up who both work hard and then say "see, must be talent".  No, it isn't talent - we don't have the data to say what it is, but I don't think you make a compelling case for talent.  In order to prove a circumstantial case (that is, to prove X by proving that all other reasonable hypothesis are untrue) you have to show that there can be no other cause.  There are a million other causes - number of hours, instructor, method of practice, time spent course versus range, etc...

Could natural talent be a factor?  Maybe.  But it isn't in the top 10.  Study after study shows this (again, read "Life is not a game of perfect").

I'm not convinced that it is as simple as "here is player X.  He has played 100 hours of golf.  Here is player Y.  He has played 100 hours of golf.  Player X is better than player Y, but time is equal.  Therefore, player X must be more naturally talented than player Y".  That is silly.  Now, just replace "10,000" (or 30,000) for "100", "Phil Mickelson" for Player X and "Jerry Kelly" for player Y.  Presto!  Your argument.  Doesn't that sound silly?  Arn't there maybe some factors you haven't researched fully to reach the "obvious" conclusion its natural talent and not a million other things?

My argument is terrible. I'll concede that I don't know anything at all about everything.  Still doesn't change the fact that not everyone could just be a professional athlete because they decide they want to one day.  Not just talking about golf, but any sport.  To be the top .001% (guesstimate?) of all athletes in a particular sport requires something more than just trying hard and practicing a lot.  Sure trying hard and practicing a lot are required to get that far, but that is because everyone is just as good as you are.  Believe what you will, but not everyone can be a professional athlete. Just not possible.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by RichWW2

...Still doesn't change the fact that anyone could just be a professional athlete because they decide they want to one day....

I think you meant to say *not* anyone could just be a professional athlete because they decide they want to one day.

[RichWW2]

You are correct sir. Fixed.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

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 disagree. Your ballstriking can be off one day and you can make up for it in other ways.

Small point, but one I wanted to make.

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

I disagree. Your ballstriking can be off one day and you can make up for it in other ways.

Small point, but one I wanted to make.

Oh, totally.  I didn't mean that.  What I meant was in golf you can't "work harder" and produce results when you are off, like you can in basketball by playing hard defense or in tennis by being a backboard and running everything down.  In golf, its just you hitting shots.  Extra effort is usually ineffective.

[TyWebbb]

The easy way to justify why one isn't great at something he/she wishes they could be is to say the top performers of that particular activity are born with more "talent".  I can't speak for everyone on this site but I'd say the majority at one time or another in their golf life fantasized about getting paid to play golf for a living.  Some had the dream at a young age, pursued it and fell short somewhere along the way.  Some developed the dream later in life after they broke 80 for the first time and told themselves that "with a little practice......."

The reality is that PGA Tour athletes play the game for a living.  Their work week is spent on the range, putting green, and golf course.  The rest of us can't afford to put in nearly that much time due to the fact we have to eat.  Golf is a game that highly rewards consistency.  Consistency in a golf swing cannot be built by going to the range for a few buckets whenever you get a chance and playing a bi-weekly nassau at the club with Bud, Ray, and Gary.

Regardless a lot of us secretly wish we could be out there on Sunday instead of sitting on the couch watching.  Not many can afford to give it a shot though so it's a lot easier on the psyche to just chalk it up to "Juvic Pagunsan and Russell Knox are just that much more talented at golf than I am".  This way you convince yourself that no matter how much time you put in, there is NO WAY you could ever be that good.  No way you can get better than that 4.3 or 1.8 handicap.  Now you don't have to challenge yourself.  Now you can remain safely on the couch and drool over how good those guys are.

I've had this discussion plenty with various golf buddies of mine.  Golf is not like basketball, football or baseball.  Time and cash can't buy you the ability to dunk on a 10' high basketball goal, or the reflexes to snag a ground ball coming at you at over 100 mph.  I honestly think that someone with relatively decent hand eye coordination can excel in his/her ability to strike a golf ball given the proper instruction and enough TIME and repetition.  I also believe that same person, if they have the desire to, can develop great feel around the greens if given the TIME.  That person could also learn to execute a consistent putt stroke.  That stroke can be grooved....again, over TIME.  Now let's send this person to an Aimpoint clinic.  Taking the TIME to perfect the Aimpoint process will make this person an excellent reader of any green.  Once all of this has been ingrained we'll have this player hit the course several times with an established master professional that will show him/her how to get around a golf course.

Now when I say time, I essentially mean $$$$.  In order to have the time this man/woman wouldn't be able to have a full-time job of course.  The game of golf and all it's aspects would be their job.  IMO, this person could get to a + handicap in a shorter period of time than most would think.

This is where my argument stops.  I believe that golf is such a head trip.  Just because someone has all the skills I mentioned above and the physical ability to go low every time doesn't mean for a second that he/she will have it upstairs to do it when it counts.

Will the Dan Plan be a success?  I do think that he will get to better than scratch.  I can't speculate anything past that.  I don't know him.  I am glad that he is doing what he is doing though.  Finally I will be justified in what I've been saying for years.  This guy didn't even know if he swung a golf club left or right-handed two years ago at age 30 and he's already an 8 handicap.  He's barely over 1/4 of the way to the end of the project.  That gives him roughly 3.5 to 4 years from now to get to positives.  He is shooting for the Tour which is fine but my argument is that getting to + numbers is far from unattainable for someone that can afford the time and proper instruction .  You really think Keegan Bradley was born a naturally great golfer.  I don't buy it.  I think that he grew up in a very nice country club and worked to develop his skill.

[soon_tourpro]

Originally Posted by TyWebbb

The easy way to justify why one isn't great at something he/she wishes they could be is to say the top performers of that particular activity are born with more "talent".  I can't speak for everyone on this site but I'd say the majority at one time or another in their golf life fantasized about getting paid to play golf for a living.  Some had the dream at a young age, pursued it and fell short somewhere along the way.  Some developed the dream later in life after they broke 80 for the first time and told themselves that "with a little practice......."

The reality is that PGA Tour athletes play the game for a living.  Their work week is spent on the range, putting green, and golf course.  The rest of us can't afford to put in nearly that much time due to the fact we have to eat.  Golf is a game that highly rewards consistency.  Consistency in a golf swing cannot be built by going to the range for a few buckets whenever you get a chance and playing a bi-weekly nassau at the club with Bud, Ray, and Gary.

Regardless a lot of us secretly wish we could be out there on Sunday instead of sitting on the couch watching.  Not many can afford to give it a shot though so it's a lot easier on the psyche to just chalk it up to "Juvic Pagunsan and Russell Knox are just that much more talented at golf than I am".  This way you convince yourself that no matter how much time you put in, there is NO WAY you could ever be that good.  No way you can get better than that 4.3 or 1.8 handicap.  Now you don't have to challenge yourself.  Now you can remain safely on the couch and drool over how good those guys are.

I've had this discussion plenty with various golf buddies of mine.  Golf is not like basketball, football or baseball.  Time and cash can't buy you the ability to dunk on a 10' high basketball goal, or the reflexes to snag a ground ball coming at you at over 100 mph.  I honestly think that someone with relatively decent hand eye coordination can excel in his/her ability to strike a golf ball given the proper instruction and enough TIME and repetition.  I also believe that same person, if they have the desire to, can develop great feel around the greens if given the TIME.  That person could also learn to execute a consistent putt stroke.  That stroke can be grooved....again, over TIME.  Now let's send this person to an Aimpoint clinic.  Taking the TIME to perfect the Aimpoint process will make this person an excellent reader of any green.  Once all of this has been ingrained we'll have this player hit the course several times with an established master professional that will show him/her how to get around a golf course.

Now when I say time, I essentially mean $$$$.  In order to have the time this man/woman wouldn't be able to have a full-time job of course.  The game of golf and all it's aspects would be their job.  IMO, this person could get to a + handicap in a shorter period of time than most would think.

This is where my argument stops.  I believe that golf is such a head trip.  Just because someone has all the skills I mentioned above and the physical ability to go low every time doesn't mean for a second that he/she will have it upstairs to do it when it counts.

Will the Dan Plan be a success?  I do think that he will get to better than scratch.  I can't speculate anything past that.  I don't know him.  I am glad that he is doing what he is doing though.  Finally I will be justified in what I've been saying for years.  This guy didn't even know if he swung a golf club left or right-handed two years ago at age 30 and he's already an 8 handicap.  He's barely over 1/4 of the way to the end of the project.  That gives him roughly 3.5 to 4 years from now to get to positives.  He is shooting for the Tour which is fine but my argument is that getting to + numbers is far from unattainable for someone that can afford the time and proper instruction.  You really think Keegan Bradley was born a naturally great golfer.  I don't buy it.  I think that he grew up in a very nice country club and worked to develop his skill.

You need time and more time for practice. Talent is a grown ability and you dont get good by watching TV, reading a magazine and thinking about it.

Short high intensity practice with proper management as shown in Russia where basically every russian top 10 on the tennis tour comes from one school the same place in Russia.
In golf on the LPGA tour the southkorean influence is big.

Most would never think about going scratch, or going tour, due to either they dont have the talent or the resources or some other excuse.

Dan can succeed.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

You need time and more time for practice. Talent is a grown ability and you dont get good by watching TV, reading a magazine and thinking about it.

Short high intensity practice with proper management as shown in Russia where basically every russian top 10 on the tennis tour comes from one school the same place in Russia.

In golf on the LPGA tour the southkorean influence is big.

Most would never think about going scratch, or going tour, due to either they dont have the talent or the resources or some other excuse.

Dan can succeed.

But he probably won't due to a lack of natural talent. He wasn't recruited for this path, unlike the tennis and golf prodigies you're referring to.

[Harmonious]

Each person is inherently blessed, or cursed, with their own natural physical abilities.  These can no doubt be improved through correct instruction and training.  At some point, they will reach the limit of those abilities, and no amount of additional training, instruction or practice will result in improvement.  That's just the way it is for all of us.

Similarly, no amount of education can turn someone into a rocket scientist if they don't have the mental capabilities. Sure, maybe they can be taught to learn algebra, then physics, then differential equations, and maybe even calculus, but to take it beyond those rudimentary basics to become an Einstein requires an Einstein brain.  And, guess what?  There was only one Einstein.

Dan can improve up to a point.  If it has taken him two years (with unlimited instruction, training and practice) to get to an 8, he clearly doesn't have the physical capabilities to make on a pro tour.

[soon_tourpro]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

But he probably won't due to a lack of natural talent. He wasn't recruited for this path, unlike the tennis and golf prodigies you're referring to.

define Natural talent please.

[RichWW2]

100% agree with Harmonious.  Now sit back and wait for the "with hard work and practice you can be whatever you want to.  Don't tell me I can't do something." crowd to comment.  I still find it amazing to think that some people on here think they are just X number of hours of practice away from being on the PGA Tour.  It's just not that easy to be a pro level athlete.