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

[nevets88]

His goal is to get on the PGA Tour via Q School. Isn't Q School gone, for now?

His end date goal is Oct 2016, he started two years ago. There's alot of time between now and then, but after two years of full time preparation, I would expect him to be breaking 80 regularly and to shoot 75ish on that course if he is on pace to get close to his goal.

His site says he has a fitness trainer but I don't feel like looking up his workout regimen.

His instructor works at Pumpkin Ridge, but his website doesn't say anything specific about how he teaches.

Personally, I think he'd get better faster if he did 5SK or went to Plummer & Bennett. :-)

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by jamo

. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there's no way he reaches his goal. I might even be surprised if he gets to 10,000 hours without hating golf out of frustration.

I wonder if he would count weightlifting as part of the 10,000 hours, because he needs it badly.

Hardly going out on a limb, Jamo. It was obvious on the start. But that's not to knock his dedication or work ethic. Good luck to him.

I will say again that I would not expect him to EVER reach a legitimate single figure handicap. I'm not talking about a fantasy handicap of 8.6 on a course with 270 yard par 4s and 400 yard par 5s.

The thing that almost everyone seems to ignore/not understand/not believe is that he lacks power. You can see from his swings on the website that there is no way that he is ever going to habe power and he will not ever break 80 on a course which is of serious length. Put him on a championship course and he there would probably be no more than two or three par 4s he could reach in two.

A lot of members here seem to play on courses where you have a choice of tee where you end up with a short iron on par 4s. From the back tees these par 4s are unreachable.

I truly do not believe that  he is seriously hoping to become a professional. If he is is, then he is seriously deluded.

And to those who think I'm a "hater" - a person who shoots 86 on a very short course but says he's an 8 handicapper is not "stoked" with his performance. His "current handciap is an invention and I doubt that he could drive the ball 240 yards.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by jamo

He's played more rounds of golf than I have in my entire life, over a shorter time (which means fewer long breaks, less mechanical deterioration, etc.), and I would be extremely frustrated with an 86 on that sort of course. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there's no way he reaches his goal. I might even be surprised if he gets to 10,000 hours without hating golf out of frustration.

I wonder if he would count weightlifting as part of the 10,000 hours, because he needs it badly.

That's not a limb at all ... that is the easy, obvious place to put your money.  However, the comment about him even reaching the 10,000 hours is legit.  As he gets further into actually playing and competing a lot (since it sounds like up to now he's actually played very few rounds) and doesn't see the progress he's hoping for, he will have to have a lot of dedication to see it through to the end.

And a comment to his being "stoked" after his 86 on an easy course ... that seems like a reasonable response to your first competitive round.  I get nervous as all hell everytime I try something new for the first time, so his being stoked is probably a combination of having "survived" his first competition without embarrassing himself and getting the first one out of the way so he can be more comfortable next time.

[nevets88]

A lesson from his teacher. What do you think of the lesson?

He lunges and his arms are very cramped pre and post impact. Granted, this was 4 months ago. 4 months is alot of time to make major improvements.

Many of the things his instructor says in terms of his positions relative to the pros make sense to me, but I'm dubious about his fixes. Feeling the positions indoors, not sure how that's going to work, but I'm biased, I would guess the instructors I've worked with would get his turn centered, namely the turn toward the target, straighten those arms, tuck the buck, extend the back?

The premise of his plan is optimal practice and learning- is this optimal?

Another thing. There's lots of naysayers. Let's say he is successful. What does that prove though? It's only a sample space of one. You need talent and practice, practice alone won't do it. The amount of talent, that's another can of worms to open.

[Golfingdad]

That video is proof of the talent level of all of those PGA pros ... they're all ambidextrous!

[Beachcomber]

The video instruction was interesting.  Thanks for sharing.

[TyWebbb]

Another thing. There's lots of naysayers. Let's say he is successful. What does that prove though? It's only a sample space of one. You need talent and practice, practice alone won't do it. The amount of talent, that's another can of worms to open.

IF he is successful........

Since he clearly had ZERO talent for golf or experience before the experiment it will prove that the average joe can be great at the sport of golf.  It'll prove that natural talent in golf is overrated.  If a guy with ZERO talent and experience can do it, then essentially anyone with enough time and cash would have a legitimate chance at doing the same.

[nevets88]

Originally Posted by TyWebbb

IF he is successful........

Since he clearly had ZERO talent for golf or experience before the experiment it will prove that the average joe can be great at the sport of golf.  It'll prove that natural talent in golf is overrated.  If a guy with ZERO talent and experience can do it, then essentially anyone with enough time and cash would have a legitimate chance at doing the same.

How do you know he has no talent?

Clearly he had no experience and not much of a sports background before he started IIRC.

He might have more talent than your typical hacker, your 10 handicap, but you just don't know, there's no objective way of measuring this kind of thing other than having an idea of how athletic he was before he started.

No one asked him to run, jump, throw a ball as far as he can, catch and other athletic motions to get a gauge on how coordinated he is.

While the hypothesis is grounded in scientific theory, that practice trumps talent, it's one person, how much can one data point prove?

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by nevets88

...it's one person, how much can one data point prove?

Exactly.  It would not prove anything, other than this one guy did it...  This in no way proves "anyone can do it".  And this is all IF he mkes it...

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by nevets88

Let's say he is successful. What does that prove though?

That he was born with talent.

[M2R]

On a cursory examination of the idea and after watching some of the videos on Dan's website it seems wildly unlikely (IMO) that he could achieve expert status in the time frame outlined.  The guy doesn't look like a golfer and doesn't talk like a golfer and it is hard to imagine him becoming a golfer at some point.

However, after reading through (attempting to several times anyway) " The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance " linked in the OP (quoted below) and reading the things Dan posts on his forum and blog, I'm quite a bit more optimistic for his chances.  I feel like Dan is saying the correct things and basically understands the correct things to where he has some actual chance of success.

But I still have several reservations:

Quote:

In most domains of expertise, individuals begin in their childhood a regimen of effortful activities (deliberate practice) designed to optimize improvement. Individual differences, even among elite performers, are closely related to assessed amounts of deliberate practice. Many characteristics once believed to reflect innate talent are actually the result of intense practice extended for a minimum of 10 years.

Suggesting that most "elite performers" begin deliberate practice in their childhood and at some point transition into a minimum of 10 years intense practice.  How does that tie into Dan's plan?  Worrisome to me but that doesn't mean that Dan doesn't already know this and has an answer (I actually suspect he does).   BUT his "answer" is very likely a hypothesis based on some other data, research, paper, or book and that is where the Dan plan experiment could go off track (IMO).

Quote:

A number of training studies in real life have compared the efficiency of practice durations ranging from 1 -8 hr per day. These studies show essentially no benefit from durations exceeding 4 hr per day and reduced benefits from practice exceeding 2 hr (Welford, 1968; Woodworth & Schlosberg, 1954).

Related to the point above, Dan's plan is 10,000 hours, or more hours per day over less years where the research suggests less hours per day of intense practice over more years (10 minimum to 22+ in some cases).  And again maybe Dan has a "plan" but I'm worried by this point.

Quote:

The inability of some subjects to discover new methods has sometimes been interpreted as evidence for basic cognitive or perceptual deficits, especially for performance of seemingly simple tasks. However, specific instruction or the generation of new methods can eventually enhance improvement temporarily arrested at suboptimal levels. As the complexity of a desired skill increases beyond the simple structure of most laboratory tasks, the logically possible methods to correctly and incorrectly perform the task by subjects increase as well. To assure effective learning, subjects ideally should be given explicit instructions about the best method and be supervised by a teacher to allow individualized diagnosis of errors, informative feedback, and remedial part training. The instructor has to organize the sequence of appropriate training tasks and monitor improvement to decide when transitions to more complex and challenging tasks are appropriate.

This is the one several others have posted about already.  Without proper instruction Dan is ... well screwed really.  Golf is complex and likely not the best object for such an experiment as Dan had undertaken.  A much simpler task/instruction set would be desirable.  But it is Dan's responsibility to chose and instructor, which he has done.  Dan looking forward and mostly ignorant about golf has made what he feels is the best choice for instruction.   Some of you having already achieved a rather high level of competence looking back can (probably quite correctly) predict that he may/will need alterations to his instruction framework to have a chance for success.  I am rather of that same opinion but I also know that sometimes if you just hang in there the people you need to meet show up at the exact time that you need them ... and sometimes not.

[x129]

The studies posted are very old. Doesn't mean they are wrong but it is something to think about. I agree with the general idea of 4 hours a day for 8 years is better for developing a skill than 8 hours a day for 4 years (we could debate the exact number). This is a major reason why I question the idea of spending the first 1000 hours working on putting and chipping.  One  question is can you break the golf into multiple chunks that you can do in the same day. For example if 4 hours of swing practice is optimal (more or less results in worse results) could you also spend 4 hours putting , 2 hours chipping and 1 hour in the gym and get better golf results. Hard to say as it isn't clear if the limiting factor is physical or mental. It is also possible that trying to learn 2 skills at once slows you down. I am not aware of a ton of studies suggesting the optimal way to learn a motor skill. If anyone has some, I would love to read them.

At end of the day even if talent doesn't matter and golf is all about hard work (and I don't believe this), I wouldn't like Dan's chances. Everyone at Q school will have put in 10k hours so the only reason he should qualify when they fail (I don't know the numbers but I am guessing less than 20% of the finals get cards) is because he was more efficient (better teacher, did the right things at the right time). That seems like a crap shoot. There are pretty much zero teachers that take juniors and turn them into PGA players except for the ones that cherry pick talent. Even guys like the Leadbetter academy don't have a ton of pga pros. A good junior teacher on the other hand will have a bunch of DI type golfers (i.e. a talent leve that is possible for probably like 100x more players).

Originally Posted by M2R

Related to the point above, Dan's plan is 10,000 hours, or more hours per day over less years where the research suggests less hours per day of intense practice over more years (10 minimum to 22+ in some cases).  And again maybe Dan has a "plan" but I'm worried by this point.

[M2R]

x129, nice post, good points, more to think about ... ugh!!!

[TyWebbb]

Originally Posted by nevets88

How do you know he has no talent?

Because its taken him over two years and 2,700 hours of deliberate practice to break 80.......on a 6,000 yard course.  Also, have you seen his swing?  He's done a great job of documenting his quest with written word and video.  Do you see anything in his videos from day one to now that looks anything close to "natural talent"?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by TyWebbb

Because its taken him over two years and 2,700 hours of deliberate practice to break 80.......on a 6,000 yard course.  Also, have you seen his swing?  He's done a great job of documenting his quest with written word and video.  Do you see anything in his videos from day one to now that looks anything close to "natural talent"?

Don't waste your breath - I mean typing fingers.

This thread gives you an interesting insight into what some of this site's members actually know about golf.

The evidence is there on video, but some don't see it.

The guy has the must ungainly, hideous, weak swing you'll ever see. There is nothing that he does that looks remotely athletic.

How someone could think that he "might make it" is beyond me.

I'll say it again. HE will not EVER reach a LEGITIMATE handicap of less than 10. Not possible.

The average reasonably athletic young man would be better than he is now after two years playing once a week.

[Shorty]

9000 guys trying to qualify for U.S. Open this year. Maximum handicap 1.4.

Does anyone seriously think that in a couple of years Dan would be within 15 shots of any of those 9000? NINE THOUSAND!!!!

And  that's guys going for a few spots at the Open. Nearly 9000 will fail (not that that's an appropriate term) - but still, there are folk here who wouldn't bet against him "making it".

[pumaAttack]

Originally Posted by Shorty

9000 guys trying to qualify for U.S. Open this year. Maximum handicap 1.4.

Does anyone seriously think that in a couple of years Dan would be within 15 shots of any of those 9000? NINE THOUSAND!!!!

And  that's guys going for a few spots at the Open. Nearly 9000 will fail (not that that's an appropriate term) - but still, there are folk here who wouldn't bet against him "making it".

We all know its a long shot, no denying that.  But I think you are failing to see how much more time that really is.  Thousands of hours is a LONG time to practice and work on one thing.

[M2R]

Originally Posted by TyWebbb

Because its taken him over two years and 2,700 hours of deliberate practice to break 80.......

Again that is the weird thing he "talks" about deliberate practice but I only see on video what looks more like structured practice.  But I think that goes back to x129s point about for golf how do you split up and/or organise practice to achieve optimal results?  One concrete example I can think of that might be similar to the "deliberate practice" idea is the P90X program where the claim is "Muscle confusion supposedly prevents the body from adapting to exercises over time, resulting in continual improvement without plateaus.".  For something as simple as getting in shape OK but for something as complex as golf how do you go about training so as to ensure "continual improvement without plateaus"?  Add another big question mark to my list I guess.

Originally Posted by Shorty

... HE will not EVER reach a LEGITIMATE handicap of less than 10. Not possible.

...

This was my exact reaction regarding myself after reading x129s post.  Will I ever be a legitimate single handicap? If not what is limiting me?

On the one hand there is this nice research that I respond to on some rational level and on the other hand is the every day tangible reality of my true golf game.

What are the specific and measurable steps I personally need to take beginning today to move toward a legitimate single handicap?  And then I wrote ugh!!!