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

[LovinItAll]

And this from the WSJ that I don't disagree with: [b]"The ideal experiment to address this question would have thousands of volunteers each spend 10,000 hours practicing a randomly assigned skill to see if they indeed become experts afterward."[/b] [i]"That’s quite the logistical challenge (though Chabris does suggest that smaller-scale studies involving talents in which skill is objectively measurable, such as chess, might make some headway on the question). But imagine volunteering for such a study and getting assigned figure skating, whittling, or the tuba, only to discover, a decade later, that talent matters, after all."[/i]

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

And this from the WSJ that I don't disagree with:

"The ideal experiment to address this question would have thousands of volunteers each spend 10,000 hours practicing a randomly assigned skill to see if they indeed become experts afterward."

"That’s quite the logistical challenge (though Chabris does suggest that smaller-scale studies involving talents in which skill is objectively measurable, such as chess, might make some headway on the question).

But imagine volunteering for such a study and getting assigned figure skating, whittling, or the tuba, only to discover, a decade later, that talent matters, after all."

Doesn't the Chinese do this?

[utztech]

I really think this whole thing is some sort of gimmic.  Maybe Dan was hoping to get a reality show, or maybe he is planning on writing a book about his experience?  More power to him.

But this "experiment" has already been done thousands of times.  There are literally thousands of golfers that have been golfing from a young age, played high school golf, played college golf, played mini tours, and tried to make it.  Over the course of a decade or two they have put in at least 10000 hours.  They did not make it, and most of them probably had more talent than Dan.

If Dan was going to make it he would have been scratch within the first 2000 hours.  Most pro golfers have been scratch since they were either around 12 years old, or within a couple of years of picking up the game if they started later in life.

I believe any reasonably intelligent person can become a surgeon with 10000 hours of training.  But there are 10's of thousands of surgeons in the world.  To become one of the best 150 golfers in the world takes 10000 hours and a lot of talent.

[LovinItAll]

I really think this whole thing is some sort of gimmic.  Maybe Dan was hoping to get a reality show, or maybe he is planning on writing a book about his experience?  More power to him. But this "experiment" has already been done thousands of times.  There are literally thousands of golfers that have been golfing from a young age, played high school golf, played college golf, played mini tours, and tried to make it.  Over the course of a decade or two they have put in at least 10000 hours.  They did not make it, and most of them probably had more talent than Dan. If Dan was going to make it he would have been scratch within the first 2000 hours.  Most pro golfers have been scratch since they were either around 12 years old, or within a couple of years of picking up the game if they started later in life. I believe any reasonably intelligent person can become a surgeon with 10000 hours of training.  But there are 10's of thousands of surgeons in the world.  To become one of the best 150 golfers in the world takes 10000 hours and a lot of talent.

Yes and no. Many people have probably played 10,000 hours worth of golf and not made it, but that's not (I hope, anyway), exactly what Dan is doing. A part of the 10,000 hour theory is that much of the deliberate practice must be done on things that one doesn't do well, not doing the things they already know how to do over and over. This is a key point in Ericsson's theory. As I quoted (I think) in an earlier post, there should be a significant improvement between hours 8000 & 10,000 because of the amount of practice spent on things that the player doesn't do well. 8000 hours = 'good' 10,000 hours = 'expert' (according to the theory)

[newtogolf]

Overall Dan should be pleased with his progress, if he truly has only put in 3000 hours and is it at a 6.x handicap.

I did some basic math, and given I average about 2 hours of golf per day (session), some weeks more, some less but with course time and range time that's close to what it works out to.  In a given year I might have 250 sessions at 2 hour average which would mean that to match his progress I'd have to be at a 6.x handicap in 1500 sessions or at my current pace, 6 years.  I'm 2 years into it, equivilent to 1000 Dan hours, and just at a 20 handicap, not even close to 6.x.

So while I don't think Dan will make the PGA Tour or qualify for a tournament without a sponsor exemption I'll be pretty happy if I'm at a 6.x in 4 more years.

[x129]

I don't follow why you think there should be significant improvement between hours 8k and 10k If the previous 8k hours doing things he doesn't do well hasn't fixed the problem, what is another 2k hours going to do? Between 8k and 10k, I expect dan to do something like raise his putting % from 20 ft from 15 to 20% and things like miss one less fairway per round. Minor things that will add up to a stroke or two a round.

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

Yes and no.

Many people have probably played 10,000 hours worth of golf and not made it, but that's not (I hope, anyway), exactly what Dan is doing. A part of the 10,000 hour theory is that much of the deliberate practice must be done on things that one doesn't do well, not doing the things they already know how to do over and over.

This is a key point in Ericsson's theory. As I quoted (I think) in an earlier post, there should be a significant improvement between hours 8000 & 10,000 because of the amount of practice spent on things that the player doesn't do well.

8000 hours = 'good'

10,000 hours = 'expert' (according to the theory)

[LovinItAll]

I don't follow why you think there should be significant improvement between hours 8k and 10k If the previous 8k hours doing things he doesn't do well hasn't fixed the problem, what is another 2k hours going to do? Between 8k and 10k, I expect dan to do something like raise his putting % from 20 ft from 15 to 20% and things like miss one less fairway per round. Minor things that will add up to a stroke or two a round.

It isn't me that thinks anything. it's Ericsson's theory, not mine. According to his theory, 8000 hours of deliberate practice will produce someone who's performance is 'good', 10,000 hours to produce an expert. The entire time isn't spent practicing things that one does poorly, but that must be a focus of practice. For example, it was determined that a musician over 60 playing a stringed instrument can be as dexterous/fast as a 20 something if they practice speed exercises 2 hours /day for a year (or two...don't remember). The same musician isn't going to 'get fast' playing the same songs he's been playing for twenty years, though. That's what a lot of golfers do: play/practice the same thing for twenty years without devoting significant time to the weakest portions of their games. How did Tiger become a wizard with a lob wedge? Back in the day, a part of his warmup was hitting 100 flop shots to start the day. Wizard with a putter? He'd roll ten footers until there was a groove in the green, then move to a different spot. When was the last time you rolled so many putts on the same line, day after day, that you wore grooves in the practice green? That's what it takes to be one of the best putters in the world. Tiger wasn't born with anything special. He's out-worked - and lapped - everyone in the field. He said it takes him hundreds of thousands of practice balls before he has a new swing down. That's a ton of hours practicing something [i]new[/i].

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

It isn't me that thinks anything. it's Ericsson's theory, not mine. According to his theory, 8000 hours of deliberate practice will produce someone who's performance is 'good', 10,000 hours to produce an expert.

The entire time isn't spent practicing things that one does poorly, but that must be a focus of practice. For example, it was determined that a musician over 60 playing a stringed instrument can be as dexterous/fast as a 20 something if they practice speed exercises 2 hours /day for a year (or two...don't remember). The same musician isn't going to 'get fast' playing the same songs he's been playing for twenty years, though. That's what a lot of golfers do: play/practice the same thing for twenty years without devoting significant time to the weakest portions of their games.

How did Tiger become a wizard with a lob wedge? Back in the day, a part of his warmup was hitting 100 flop shots to start the day. Wizard with a putter? He'd roll ten footers until there was a groove in the green, then move to a different spot. When was the last time you rolled so many putts on the same line, day after day, that you wore grooves in the practice green? That's what it takes to be one of the best putters in the world.

Tiger wasn't born with anything special. He's out-worked - and lapped - everyone in the field. He said it takes him hundreds of thousands of practice balls before he has a new swing down. That's a ton of hours practicing something new.

Totally agree with everything you said (considering most of it isn't really an opinion, just facts, that's not surprising) however, you are going to have a hard time convincing a lot of people of the bold part.  It's impossible to prove or disprove so it's kind of silly to make an adamant statement like that.

EDIT:  And when I consider the videos of him as a 2 year old vs. what my 3 year old looks like trying to swing a golf club, I would tend to think the opposite to be true.

[LovinItAll]

Totally agree with everything you said (considering most of it isn't really an opinion, just facts, that's not surprising) however, you are going to have a hard time convincing a lot of people of the bold part.  It's impossible to prove or disprove so it's kind of silly to make an adamant statement like that. EDIT:  And when I consider the videos of him as a 2 year old vs. what my 3 year old looks like trying to swing a golf club, I would tend to think the opposite to be true.

I think I'd add this quote from something I once read: "Tiger's father trained him with the manner of a drill seargant.", and he was doing that from when Tiger was aged 2 (or younger). I doubt you'd do that to your son (I know I didn't do that to my kids in the different sports and activities they participated in as young children). The stories of how hard Tiger's dad drove him have been around since Tiger was an amateur. Tiger had his 10,000 hours in probably before he was teenager. Who knows how many hundreds of hours he had in before the Mike Douglas show. You're right, though - it's just speculation whether Tiger is a natural or whether he's simply had more training - quality training - than anyone else.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

I think I'd add this quote from something I once read: "Tiger's father trained him with the manner of a drill seargant.", and he was doing that from when Tiger was aged 2 (or younger). I doubt you'd do that to your son (I know I didn't do that to my kids in the different sports and activities they participated in as young children).

The stories of how hard Tiger's dad drove him have been around since Tiger was an amateur. Tiger had his 10,000 hours in probably before he was teenager. Who knows how many hundreds of hours he had in before the Mike Douglas show.

You're right, though - it's just speculation whether Tiger is a natural or whether he's simply had more training - quality training - than anyone else.

No doubt his dad was nuts and was on his ass from the get-go.  And my comparison to my son was more anecdotal than anything, but I am mainly thinking of the idea that his swing looks like this at 2 years old (drill sargeant or not)

[bunkerputt]

My approach has been, rather than beat balls all day, research, experiment, and settle on certain mechanical goals that I want to accomplish in my golf swing.  Once I am absolutely convinced of something I should be doing, I attack it hard for 3 months and go on to the next thing.  I'm < 5 hcp in 6 years and go ahead and throw in full time work, a graduate degree and 3 kids in there too.  Much much much more effective use of time that way, plus you get to actually have a life.

[Williamevanl]

Dan participated his first tournament with a cut (Pacific NW Men's mid-am), here are the results:

Hopefully he can turn it around tomorrow.

[David in FL]

Dan participated his first tournament with a cut (Pacific NW Men's mid-am), here are the results: [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/59964/] [/URL] Hopefully he can turn it around tomorrow.

Well, all he has to do is keep those pesky 10's off the card and he's there! :~(

[mchepp]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Well, all he has to do is keep those pesky 10's off the card and he's there!

The 7 on 11 was not that great as well. Both 11 and 14 are fairly easy holes, there is water on 14 and some OB, so one could get into decent trouble there, but not much trouble on 11.

[newtogolf]

I'm sure the course is set up tougher than the ones I play, but +20 is closer to the scores I make, not a scratch golfer.

[meta87]

Ouch tough scores. Do you think he maybe should hold off from competing in tournaments yet? Or is it best to just get the experience in? I wonder. Seems like a nice enough guy, wish him the best of luck. Having been putting in serious hours into golf myself this summer, I'm starting to realize just how hard what he's trying to do is. He's probably just realizing now too.

[x129]

He needs to get the experience in. It is a bit tough as the peanut gallery is going to tear into him (see the big breakers with US open qualifing or minitour results) on any bad result. I agree with his idea of taking some time off. Doing it the week before a tournament is a wretched idea though. From reading his description it sounds like his driving was pretty horrible which either means he is a really poor driver (possible) or his timing was off(could be the break, could be nerves). I sort of wonder if he lost focus during the round also.  The first 5 holes were decent and then wheels fell off. I know I run into concentration issues when a round falls apart.

Originally Posted by meta87

Ouch tough scores. Do you think he maybe should hold off from competing in tournaments yet? Or is it best to just get the experience in? I wonder. Seems like a nice enough guy, wish him the best of luck. Having been putting in serious hours into golf myself this summer, I'm starting to realize just how hard what he's trying to do is. He's probably just realizing now too.

[newtogolf]

I don't want to be too hard on the guy, but if he can't maintain concentration past five holes he's never going to reach his goal.  He could have had a bad day, so no sense reading too much into one tournament result, but it's definitely something to watch as he goes forward.

Originally Posted by x129

He needs to get the experience in. It is a bit tough as the peanut gallery is going to tear into him (see the big breakers with US open qualifing or minitour results) on any bad result. I agree with his idea of taking some time off. Doing it the week before a tournament is a wretched idea though. From reading his description it sounds like his driving was pretty horrible which either means he is a really poor driver (possible) or his timing was off(could be the break, could be nerves). I sort of wonder if he lost focus during the round also.  The first 5 holes were decent and then wheels fell off. I know I run into concentration issues when a round falls apart.