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

[Williamevanl]

Lovinitall, again I think you provide great posts but here's my reasoning. (It's late but I'll do my best :) ))  BTW I wanted say some stuff about course ratings and being way over that for a given handicap but let's skip it.

I think the learning curve of golf is obviously asymptotic, ( I suspect most would agree with that to varying degrees) You can imagine it looks something like this:

This learning curve will be different for all people, a professional golfer might have had a learning curve that looked more like:

The point is that we don't have to 'wait for the finish line' to gauge the progress in anything that becomes increasingly difficult as this is not linear. It becomes exponentially more difficult as you approach scratch (hence asymptotic curve) so this doesn't have to be guess work. If we had 1000 people we could eventually get to a place where we could gauge (roughly) where each person would be after so many hours given this asymptotic regression.

When I took a crack at estimating Dan's progress at 3000 hours as being a 6.0, I just started plugging his scores into Excel to see where we were headed. That curve, however, doesn't put him anywhere near a plus handicap at the end of this thing (relative, 2-3 is what I expect).

[bamagrad03]

I think you offer a good illustration of the obvious law of diminishing returns in terms of practice vs handicap. However, I'd argue that a number of people start really focusing on reducing their handicap after years of hacking around. That's not directed practice, but it does breed familiarity with the game. A luxury he hadn't been afforded.

I think it will truly be telling over the next 6-12 months. Personally, I think he's hit a wall. I've been looking at his scores and progression, and since he's gotten his new sticks, he seems to have taken a step backward. If he's not scratch in the next 10 months or so, I doubt he's going to get to that +2, +3 or more where he'd need to be.

My bigger concern than the possibility of him going out and shooting a random 69 (because I think he will), is that he seems really inconsistent.

[LovinItAll]

Lovinitall, again I think you provide great posts but here's my reasoning. (It's late but I'll do my best :) ))  BTW I wanted say some stuff about course ratings and being way over that for a given handicap but let's skip it. I think the learning curve of golf is obviously asymptotic, ( I suspect most would agree with that to varying degrees) You can imagine it looks something like this: [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/57842/] [/URL] This learning curve will be different for all people, a professional golfer might have had a learning curve that looked more like: [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/57843/] [/URL] The point is that we don't have to 'wait for the finish line' to gauge the progress in anything that becomes increasingly difficult as this is not linear. It becomes exponentially more difficult as you approach scratch (hence asymptotic curve) so this doesn't have to be guess work. If we had 1000 people we could eventually get to a place where we could gauge (roughly) where each person would be after so many hours given this asymptotic regression. When I took a crack at estimating Dan's progress at 3000 hours as being a 6.0, I just started plugging his scores into Excel to see where we were headed. That curve, however, doesn't put him anywhere near a plus handicap at the end of this thing (relative, 2-3 is what I expect).

I don't disagree with any of the above other than, with regard to this 'project', I don't think the progression curve will flatten out the way you think it will. You may be right , I may be right, we won't know for awhile. Anyone at a 6 HC still has a massive amount of room for improvement. After all, it's a golfer that's still regularly shooting 80+. Also, there's something about the amount of real time (days/months) playing real golf that, regardless of hours practiced, plays into this somehow. He's only been actually playing for about a year. From the time he first putted until now, and from the time I started playing, I was further along than Dan, but I had 5x (maybe more) the number of rounds in that he has. That has to matter, right? If I'd taken his approach, I don't know that I'd be any better than he his. I'm not sure if you've seen range rats that beat an unbelievable number of balls on the range, but they still can't play very well. Our club had them. I'd think, 'Man, if I practiced that much....', but really, I don't know. Something about actually getting out there and getting the ball in the hole makes a difference, and Dan doesn't have much of that yet. If Dan's routine wasn't documented the way it is and someone said, 'Hey, this guy is a 6 HC and he played the first round of golf in his life 12 months ago.', I'd think that was pretty good. If he's not at least a 3 in the next 12 months (given that he actually plays golf 4x or more per week), I'll be far more willing to concede that he's beating a dead horse re: his stated goals. That will be two solid years of playing golf, and it's where I'd expect a very avid golfer that played or practiced everyday to be after two years. The whole 'putting for six months' is not how most (any) of us approach the game. We'll see. Would I like to see him reach his goal? Of course I would. That would mean my mother was right when she said, 'You can be anything you want to be.' ;-)

[newtogolf]

Dan doesn't always play for his handicap so no real way of knowing how many rounds he's played for practice.

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

I don't disagree with any of the above other than, with regard to this 'project', I don't think the progression curve will flatten out the way you think it will. You may be right , I may be right, we won't know for awhile.

Anyone at a 6 HC still has a massive amount of room for improvement. After all, it's a golfer that's still regularly shooting 80+. Also, there's something about the amount of real time (days/months) playing real golf that, regardless of hours practiced, plays into this somehow. He's only been actually playing for about a year. From the time he first putted until now, and from the time I started playing, I was further along than Dan, but I had 5x (maybe more) the number of rounds in that he has. That has to matter, right? If I'd taken his approach, I don't know that I'd be any better than he his.

I'm not sure if you've seen range rats that beat an unbelievable number of balls on the range, but they still can't play very well. Our club had them. I'd think, 'Man, if I practiced that much....', but really, I don't know. Something about actually getting out there and getting the ball in the hole makes a difference, and Dan doesn't have much of that yet.

If Dan's routine wasn't documented the way it is and someone said, 'Hey, this guy is a 6 HC and he played the first round of golf in his life 12 months ago.', I'd think that was pretty good. If he's not at least a 3 in the next 12 months (given that he actually plays golf 4x or more per week), I'll be far more willing to concede that he's beating a dead horse re: his stated goals. That will be two solid years of playing golf, and it's where I'd expect a very avid golfer that played or practiced everyday to be after two years. The whole 'putting for six months' is not how most (any) of us approach the game.

We'll see. Would I like to see him reach his goal? Of course I would. That would mean my mother was right when she said, 'You can be anything you want to be.'

[LovinItAll]

Dan doesn't always play for his handicap so no real way of knowing how many rounds he's played for practice.

We do know, though, that he never played a round of golf until over a year after he started his thing. We also know that, based on his tournament scores, he really is a 6 HC. Based on the comments of the winner of his last tournament, Dan's first round 81 is about what one would expect from a 6, and though he blew up on the front nine of his second round, he shot 40 coming in, still a good indicator that his HC is legit. I know a lot of people are hung up on Dan playing 'practice' rounds, but he's playing so much golf right now that unless he was ONLY entering his very best scores, he could play a practice round every other day and it wouldn't change his index much. The guy is playing 20 rounds per month, maybe more. I think the idea that he turns 'bad rounds' into practice rounds isn't right, but that's just my opinion.....I'm not there.

[Chris Stewart]

The guy is playing 20 rounds per month, maybe more.

And I couldn't be more jealous...

[Apotheosis]

Originally Posted by Chris Stewart

And I couldn't be more jealous...

I second that!

Whats everyones opinion of his instructor?  His swing doesn't seem to be what is preached around here, loaded rear leg, excessive early wrist hinge etc.  Do you guys think his instructor is doing an acceptable  job with Dan? What would you like to see him improve on/change in his swing?

[dsc123]

The problem is, as others have said, one guy doing this, success or failure, proves nothing.

What we need is for each of the golf evolution guys to take a sand trapper, give them 10 years of free lessons (we can't all take 5 years off), and see how far we get.

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by dsc123

The problem is, as others have said, one guy doing this, success or failure, proves nothing.

What we need is for each of the golf evolution guys to take a sand trapper, give them 10 years of free lessons (we can't all take 5 years off), and see how far we get.

I think I could get on board with that action...

[x129]

Nah you need multiple coaches. What if the GE guys are wrong about what is a good swing. Take leadbetter, Haney, a GE, Hardy, slicefixer, and Andy+Plummer. They each get 3 students  and 12 months. Then their is one big tournament with some huge ass prize pool. Obviously still wouldn't prove anything but it would be entertaining as hell. Maybe have a warm up tournament to help us set the odds for some properly gambling.

More seriously pretty much no teacher has been good as taking junior players and turning them into pros. There are teachers that get a good chunk of guys into college golfers but that is the limit. You hit the talent and desire (it is easy to say you want to be a pga pro. it is a lot harder to practice 5 hours a day for 10 years with no guarentee of a pay off) limits more than a technique one.

Originally Posted by dsc123

The problem is, as others have said, one guy doing this, success or failure, proves nothing.

What we need is for each of the golf evolution guys to take a sand trapper, give them 10 years of free lessons (we can't all take 5 years off), and see how far we get.

[LovinItAll]

The problem is, as others have said, one guy doing this, success or failure, proves nothing.

According to the theory Dan is trying to prove, whether he succeeds or not is the only sample one needs. The theory is that there are no 'narurals', including Mozart and other highly accomplished people. Their 'secret' was/is 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. The only things remaining for Dan and his project are [b]how you define 'expert'.[/b] The theory is: With no exceptions, anyone who puts in the time will become an expert in whatever field of endeavor they pursue. If one wants to become 'good', that requires 8,000 hours (according to the theory). P.S. Don't hate on me...I didn't come up with the theory. Here's a quote: "They found no "naturals" who rose to the top of their profession with less practice and no "grinders" who logged 10,000 hours but didn't rise to the professional ranks. Their conclusion: "The thing that distinguishes onr performer from another is how hard he or she works. That's it. And what's more, the people at the very top don't work just harder or even much harder than everyone else. They work much, much harder."

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

According to the theory Dan is trying to prove, whether he succeeds or not is the only sample one needs. The theory is that there are no 'narurals', including Mozart and other highly accomplished people. Their 'secret' was/is 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. The only things remaining for Dan and his project are how you define 'expert'.

The theory is:

With no exceptions, anyone who puts in the time will become an expert in whatever field of endeavor they pursue.

If one wants to become 'good', that requires 8,000 hours (according to the theory).

P.S. Don't hate on me...I didn't come up with the theory.

Here's a quote:

"They found no "naturals" who rose to the top of their profession with less practice and no "grinders" who logged 10,000 hours but didn't rise to the professional ranks. Their conclusion: "The thing that distinguishes onr performer from another is how hard he or she works. That's it. And what's more, the people at the very top don't work just harder or even much harder than everyone else. They work much, much harder."

Don't forget who the study was performed on though ... Violinists from a Juilliard type music school.  Every last one of those kids had something (talent?) that got them accepted to that school in the first place.

So saying "With no exceptions, anyone ..." is incorrect.  There are quite a few exceptions ... every single person who doesn't know how to play the violin.

This is why he can't prove anything.  If he succeeds, those who say it takes talent will argue that he had it all along, he just hadn't discovered it yet.  If he fails, those who think it doesn't take talent can say his "practice wasn't perfect."

Ultimately, it's just a fun little experiment that we are all envious he is able (so far) to attempt, and it will interesting to see how it plays out.

[LovinItAll]

Don't forget who the study was performed on though ... Violinists from a Juilliard type music school.  Every last one of those kids had something (talent?) that got them accepted to that school in the first place.

Here's a link to one of Ericsson's papers: http://141.14.165.6/users/cokely/Ericsson_Preitula_&_Cokely_2007_HBR.pdf

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Don't forget who the study was performed on though ... Violinists from a Juilliard type music school.  Every last one of those kids had something (talent?) that got them accepted to that school in the first place.

So saying "With no exceptions, anyone ..." is incorrect.  There are quite a few exceptions ... every single person who doesn't know how to play the violin.

This is why he can't prove anything.  If he succeeds, those who say it takes talent will argue that he had it all along, he just hadn't discovered it yet.  If he fails, those who think it doesn't take talent can say his "practice wasn't perfect."

Ultimately, it's just a fun little experiment that we are all envious he is able (so far) to attempt, and it will interesting to see how it plays out.

So you're telling me I should stop 'fiddling' around as I'll never become a professional?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

So you're telling me I should stop 'fiddling' around as I'll never become a professional?

No!  I've seen you play ... and you've got 'talent' buddy!

(And at the rate you've been practicing, you'll be hitting that 10k hour mark in no time!)

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

No!  I've seen you play ... and you've got 'talent' buddy!

(And at the rate you've been practicing, you'll be hitting that 10k hour mark in no time!)

I'm talking about playing the violin!! :D

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

I'm talking about playing the violin!! :D

Crap ... I get it now.  "fiddling" around ... very clever.  (I'm slow.)

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

Here's a link to one of Ericsson's papers:

http://141.14.165.6/users/cokely/Ericsson_Preitula_&_Cokely_2007_HBR.pdf

Ah.  The Ericsson study that Malcolm Gladwell references in "Outliers" is the one I was referring to ... it seems that isn't the only one.  I stand corrected.