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

[Williamevanl]

Originally Posted by wadesworld

So anyone who fails at professional golf simply doesn't have the right physical makeup?

How about the scores of guys who have made it there before but then can't get back?  Did their physical makeup suddenly change and make them unable to make it?

Were Craig Stadler, Lee Trevino, Jim Furyk, or Emerson Darcy overflowing with those magical physical attributes?

Yes, I'd say they are. They aren't quite as tangible as other physical attributes like strength and speed but they certainly exist. I'd image pro golfers would also be measurably better at horse shoes, darts, free throws, basically anything that requires you to repeat the same movement with x amount of precision.

To your second point, I'd also posit that performing at such a high level of skill likely requires everything coming together and is a very 'sensitive' state. I'm not at all surprised that people can fall out of it and not be able to get back.

And finally it's not to say anybody that fails at pro golf doesn't have the right physical make up, there are lots of reasons why someone would fail but clearly there are some things that you need to be exceptional at. I'd say there are some optimal characteristics that lend themselves to golf, interesting example of that, I was prescribed beta blockers for something and found that it drastically helped my golf game, I was steadier over all shots, calmer and was just able to make smoother movement. It just made everything easier. These are of course banned on the PGA (for this reason) but people clearly have varying degrees of natural steadiness so there's a clear advantage there.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by wadesworld

Were Craig Stadler, Lee Trevino, Jim Furyk, or Emerson Darcy overflowing with those magical physical attributes?

Uh, yes.

And it's Eamonn Darcy.

I think swinging something 100 MPH and controlling the clubhead in 3D space (both up-down/side-to-side AND the path) to hit the ball consistently every time is an incredibly physical skill.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by wadesworld

So anyone who fails at professional golf simply doesn't have the right physical makeup?

How about the scores of guys who have made it there before but then can't get back?  Did their physical makeup suddenly change and make them unable to make it?

Were Craig Stadler, Lee Trevino, Jim Furyk, or Emerson Darcy overflowing with those magical physical attributes?

No, I think you have it backwards.  Anyone who succeeds at golf has the right physical makeup.  Those that "fail", in your words, may indeed have the physical makeup but lack something else.  This could be mental toughness, a positive outlook when things go bad, an ability to identify the true cause of bad swings and to correct it quickly, whatever.

Indeed, many players who "lose" their game do so because of injury.  They can no longer utilize their physical abilities the way they used to. Or they attempt to modify their swing to alleviate pain.

It's nice to think that all one needs to be a touring pro is a good swing coach and time to practice. But it just ain't so.

[wadesworld]

Quote:

No, I think you have it backwards.  Anyone who succeeds at golf has the right physical makeup.  Those that "fail", in your words, may indeed have the physical makeup but lack something else.  This could be mental toughness, a positive outlook when things go bad, an ability to identify the true cause of bad swings and to correct it quickly, whatever.

That's what I said.  It takes a myriad of skills.

Quote:

Indeed, many players who "lose" their game do so because of injury.  They can no longer utilize their physical abilities the way they used to. Or they attempt to modify their swing to alleviate pain.

They do, but just as many, if not more have no physical ailments.

Quote:

It's nice to think that all one needs to be a touring pro is a good swing coach and time to practice. But it just ain't so.

That's not what I said.  I said you need off-the-charts determination and the right coaches.  The inferred point about the right coaches is they will help you develop yourself to the highest level in the myriad of areas necessary.

In the determination aspect alone, I'm not saying that anyone can easily develop that level of determination.  As I said, it's often why most of use never even got close to finding out whether we had what it takes to be a pro - we gave up before we ever got within a million miles.

I think it highly unlikely that every touring pro posses the same magical physical makeup.  I also think it highly unlikely that given the right "other" factors, someone is going to fail simply because he doesn't have the prototypical physical makeup.  PGA tour history is littered with examples of people that were sure to fail because of something "wrong" about their physical makeup or their swing, but they achieved some level of success regardless.

[onesome]

Not wanting to nitpick but small muscles have very little to do with the golf swing,a person wants core strength with good flexibility. The biggest problem most people have trying to fix a swing problem is they don't return to basics but instead want to fiddle with their grip or some other minor thing. The more I pay more attention to this topic the more I realize Dan is not going to make his goal and by a long ways at that.The notion that he is putting in more time than other aspiring golfers that are probably way further along is simply not true, heck hes not even treating this like a full time job cause he would be at 10,000 after only 5 years versus 6.

[soon_tourpro]

Originally Posted by onesome

Not wanting to nitpick but small muscles have very little to do with the golf swing,a person wants core strength with good flexibility. The biggest problem most people have trying to fix a swing problem is they don't return to basics but instead want to fiddle with their grip or some other minor thing. The more I pay more attention to this topic the more I realize Dan is not going to make his goal and by a long ways at that.The notion that he is putting in more time than other aspiring golfers that are probably way further along is simply not true, heck hes not even treating this like a full time job cause he would be at 10,000 after only 5 years versus 6.

Normally, a kid taking up golf, building enough variation in the game of golf takes around 10 years.
so if starting at age 9 at age 19 they should be able to play high level golf unless ruined by a golf instructor.

so 10 years or 10k hours is about right as any kid going for tour do practice a lot also in similiar levels as Dan does.

Talent is grown and your not born to be a golfer.

People overestimate the timeframe needed, the feedback required and also how much perceptions runs the golf swing.

Now, you can make the travel faster than 10k hours or 10 years if the practice is built to provide a skill increase in the different segments of the game.

2k+ hours and 6 handicap or so is not shabby at his age.

to be 10 shots better from where he is now is the real challenge.

[x129]

I think you will find that the small muscles contribute a lot to the golf swing in a supporting role. I have no clue if they contribute more to th eproprioception system than the large ones but in pretty much any brain activity some people do better than others.

I don't know what dan counts as hours. Does an hour in the gym count? What about 30 mins stretching at night? When you play a 5 hour round do you count that as 5 hours or 30 mins since the other 4:30 is spent walking or standing around. I am not sure if you can really put in 2000 hours of real golf practice in a year (~6 hours a day) and be effective.  Sure in theory you can swing the driver 500+ times in a day but if you swinging on tired muscles, it might be counter productive. But at the end of the day, your right. Dan isn't outworking anyone. Everyone at Q school has been putting in 3+ hours a day for the past 10 years. Maybe Dan is working smarter....

Originally Posted by onesome

Not wanting to nitpick but small muscles have very little to do with the golf swing,a person wants core strength with good flexibility. The biggest problem most people have trying to fix a swing problem is they don't return to basics but instead want to fiddle with their grip or some other minor thing. The more I pay more attention to this topic the more I realize Dan is not going to make his goal and by a long ways at that.The notion that he is putting in more time than other aspiring golfers that are probably way further along is simply not true, heck hes not even treating this like a full time job cause he would be at 10,000 after only 5 years versus 6.

[SweDeuS]

I think it's brilliant!

Why wouldn't you dedicate your life to something you really love? I'd do it if I hade the guts to quit my job and face my girlfriend and family with the decision...

[the chopper]

There are pro's and then there are touring pro's, i believe Ian Poulter turned pro off a 4 handicap and made it, Rory was +6 or more. I do not think Dan' plan is going to find him playing in the tour but he sure has a chance to go pro status, HCP 4 and a degree course with a club willing to make you the assistant pro(UK). Best of luck to the man but i do question some of the methods he employs?? big time.

[the chopper]

Originally Posted by onesome

Not wanting to nitpick but small muscles have very little to do with the golf swing,a person wants core strength with good flexibility. The biggest problem most people have trying to fix a swing problem is they don't return to basics but instead want to fiddle with their grip or some other minor thing. The more I pay more attention to this topic the more I realize Dan is not going to make his goal and by a long ways at that.The notion that he is putting in more time than other aspiring golfers that are probably way further along is simply not true, heck hes not even treating this like a full time job cause he would be at 10,000 after only 5 years versus 6.

I too am not nitpicking but i am a wee bit shocked by you indicating the grip is a "minor thing" ?, i agree people maybe fiddle with their grip too much from time to time but it is the only connection we have to the golf club. What do you consider to be "the basics" then. My mentor drilled the fundamentals home to me over the years and GRIP was at the top of his list. Maybe It's just the way you have written it without realizing the implication of what you typed in which case fair enough. I am interested! what do you mean?. regards the chopper

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Williamevanl

Yes, I'd say they are. They aren't quite as tangible as other physical attributes like strength and speed but they certainly exist. I'd image pro golfers would also be measurably better at horse shoes, darts, free throws, basically anything that requires you to repeat the same movement with x amount of precision.

To further your point, I offer you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Ray_Williams%2C_Jr .

The greatest professional bowler of all time is also a 9-time horseshoe pitching world champion (I know nothing about horseshoes so I haven't a clue where this ranks historically, but I imagine pretty high) and to top it all off, he is a 3-handicap golfer.

If he also took up darts or free throws, I would not bet against him.

[onesome]

I guess calling it a minor thing was not the best descrirtion, but what I was referring is I see most people think changing their grip on the club is all the sdjustments needed to straighten out their swing. I have been playing over 25 years and have changed my grip a total of 2 times, I just think you need to pick one and stick with it. Basic fundamentals aim,stance posture, GRIP,start,backswing,downswing, club selection etc. Grrip is a fundamental in the sense you want it the same everytime not something you can adjust daily.How did I forget hips?

[Williamevanl]

The Birdie

I realized in another thread that there was a better way to explain why Dan has almost no chance of ever reaching scratch let alone professional golf. Here's the problem with golf, you don't realize how far you are at any time and here's why: Consider a graph that plots the difficulty of each score for a given ability (amount of skill).

Dan's handicap is roughly a 6 but consider what that means in terms of skill. The problem as you reach scratch is that you can get to a pretty low handicap without possessing the skill necessary to offset you mistakes by making birdies. A good portion of your attempts result in par as par is a huge catch all department that can be reached via several routes. Birdie on the other hand is more indicative of skill as it shows an un-broken chain of highly skilled ability.

Imagine someone who consistently shoots scratch, they are just as likely to make a birdie as they are a bogey, or two birdies as they are a double. Now look at Dan's numbers. On any given hole he has a 48% chance of making par, 39% chance of making bogie, 8% chance of making double and a measly 4% chance of making a birdie. (less than one a round) A 6 handicap sounds nice but it is masked by that catch-all par monster. It hides that fact that Dan is nowhere near scratch. Currently on any given hole he has a 47% chance of bogie or worse and only a 4% chance of a birdie. There is a huge difference between a bogie and a birdie. There isn't going to be a rapid conversion of bogies to birdies and the reason is that huge amount of skill required to span that bogey to birdie stretch.

[Beachcomber]

Making Par you can indeed have a shot or two that is offline and or off target.  Making birdie is unlikely if you have one miss hit on that given hole.  Thus why Birdies are harder to obtain (duh).   So I agree that it is harder to obtain birdies.

The key to reaching scratch is two things IMO...

1.) Increasing your GIR%

2.) Hitting tighter dispersion with your longer clubs in the bag (Fairways, Hybrids, 3i/4i/5i)... The reason is that if you can hit your longer clubs straighter and longer - you are going to have more Eagle and Birdie putts on Par 5's.

This is the biggest area where the average amateur fails to make up strokes where the players who are scratch or better - are scoring.  I've heard it on this site, and seen it on TV when watching professionals.  They attack Par 5's and make birdies/eagles.  Whereas guys like me are still making Pars on Par 5's regularly - or sometimes worse.

Originally Posted by Williamevanl

The Birdie

I realized in another thread that there was a better way to explain why Dan has almost no chance of ever reaching scratch let alone professional golf. Here's the problem with golf, you don't realize how far you are at any time and here's why: Consider a graph that plots the difficulty of each score for a given ability (amount of skill).

Dan's handicap is roughly a 6 but consider what that means in terms of skill. The problem as you reach scratch is that you can get to a pretty low handicap without possessing the skill necessary to offset you mistakes by making birdies. A good portion of your attempts result in par as par is a huge catch all department that can be reached via several routes. Birdie on the other hand is more indicative of skill as it shows an un-broken chain of highly skilled ability.

Imagine someone who consistently shoots scratch, they are just as likely to make a birdie as they are a bogey, or two birdies as they are a double. Now look at Dan's numbers. On any given hole he has a 48% chance of making par, 39% chance of making bogie, 8% chance of making double and a measly 4% chance of making a birdie. (less than one a round) A 6 handicap sounds nice but it is masked by that catch-all par monster. It hides that fact that Dan is nowhere near scratch. Currently on any given hole he has a 47% chance of bogie or worse and only a 4% chance of a birdie. There is a huge difference between a bogie and a birdie. There isn't going to be a rapid conversion of bogies to birdies and the reason is that huge amount of skill required to span that bogey to birdie stretch.

[x129]

Dan doesn't need to turn bogies into birdies to become scratch. He needs to turn bogies into pars.  And get rid of those doubles (well cut them in half). The birdies will come as a side effect (more GIR , closer approach shots due to better drives,...) of this.

Quote:

The Birdie

I realized in another thread that there was a better way to explain why Dan has almost no chance of ever reaching scratch let alone professional golf. Here's the problem with golf, you don't realize how far you are at any time and here's why: Consider a graph that plots the difficulty of each score for a given ability (amount of skill).

Dan's handicap is roughly a 6 but consider what that means in terms of skill. The problem as you reach scratch is that you can get to a pretty low handicap without possessing the skill necessary to offset you mistakes by making birdies. A good portion of your attempts result in par as par is a huge catch all department that can be reached via several routes. Birdie on the other hand is more indicative of skill as it shows an un-broken chain of highly skilled ability.

Imagine someone who consistently shoots scratch, they are just as likely to make a birdie as they are a bogey, or two birdies as they are a double. Now look at Dan's numbers. On any given hole he has a 48% chance of making par, 39% chance of making bogie, 8% chance of making double and a measly 4% chance of making a birdie. (less than one a round) A 6 handicap sounds nice but it is masked by that catch-all par monster. It hides that fact that Dan is nowhere near scratch. Currently on any given hole he has a 47% chance of bogie or worse and only a 4% chance of a birdie. There is a huge difference between a bogie and a birdie. There isn't going to be a rapid conversion of bogies to birdies and the reason is that huge amount of skill required to span that bogey to birdie stretch.

[mchepp]

I for one am quite interested in his trackman numbers. I have held the contention that his main issue currently is clubhead speed. In my opinion, to be a tour player he is going to need 110mph driver speed and having seen him in person I think he is more in the 100mph range. Very few tour players at 100mph.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by mchepp

I for one am quite interested in his trackman numbers. I have held the contention that his main issue currently is clubhead speed. In my opinion, to be a tour player he is going to need 110mph driver speed and having seen him in person I think he is more in the 100mph range. Very few tour players at 100mph.

I'd be interested in seeing his numbers too.  I just had a lesson with Dana last week and he mentioned there is a guy on tour who has a 104mph swing, but his numbers are all optimized and he is regularly carrying the driver 280 (I can't remember his name - maybe Mvmac knows who Dana was talking about??).  Anyway, 280 carry is plenty of length off the tee (carry) to be effective on tour.  The problem though as you stated... Is clubhead speed for the majority of golfers.  Most guys don't have optimal numbers.  So they have to make up for those inefficiencies by swinging the club faster to get similar launch/carry/spin numbers.

[Williamevanl]

Originally Posted by x129

Dan doesn't need to turn bogies into birdies to become scratch. He needs to turn bogies into pars.  And get rid of those doubles (well cut them in half). The birdies will come as a side effect (more GIR , closer approach shots due to better drives,...) of this.

Quote:

Nope, and I think you missing the point I'm trying to make. (to be fair, I'm probably not describing it very well). Dan requires the skill to make birdies but is nowhere near having it. It is telling that he is basically unable to make them. The slam your head against the wall frustration of golf exists because you can make so many pars without possessing the skills necessary to make birdies.  (maybe think of it as good pars vs bad pars)

Basically there's a tipping point in golf where you possess such a high amount of skill that you can occasionally cross that par/birdie threshold and it means two things, one even when you are making pars that are end of the  scale pars where you have tight shot dispersion and you are two putting from 12-15 feet and two you are able to offset the (now unusual) bogie.  I'm basically saying that the scoring is set up in such a way that you can't see the enormous gap between 6 over with 6 singles and even with three birdies and three bogeys.

In summary trying to turn bogies into pars is off the mark. If you are in the arena of making bogies and trying to push them in the par zone then you are simple nowhere near shooting even par. You aren't event playing the same game. You are in the red zone and worlds away from where you need to be to have a chance at scratch.

This is also to blame for that period where you get better and better at golf but you score doesn't really change how can it, you aren't near the tipping point. A lot of the pars you do make aren't very good pars and your MO is really not making bogies. Birdies are not a side affect of anything other than a high level of skill/talent, an amount of skill that is miles away from a 6 handicap.