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

[Golfingdad]

This made me curious so I calculated my ant-hdcp. I'm a 2.6 and my anti is 6.6. I feel that I am fairly consistent but I know of some great golfers that would have less than stellar anti-hdcps just because their bad days are bad. For a 3.3 to have an anti of over 11 seems pretty high though.

I mentioned up above that mine is 12.2 for a difference of 4.3, and just for kicks, I also calculated I few others.

A guy I know that is a 0.4 cap has an anti-cap of 3.8.

My brother, who is a 17.8 has an anti-cap of 23.9 ... a high handicapper who is as up-and-down as anybody I know, and the difference is still 1.7 less than Dan's.

The F-I-L actually manages to have a higher differential than Dans (26.6 to 36.6), but that is the level of player where that kind of discrepancy is a little more believable.

[dzclarkcpa]

Fascinating discussion on the anti-cap....and probably very off-topic, but I consider myself to be the worst 9.4 in the world as I am all over the place with my scores. I am also one that scores much better on courses I know, so I was shocked to find that my anti-cap was only 14.7, so maybe I am not the most inconsistent golfer alive with a difference of 5.3.

[Lihu]

I mentioned up above that mine is 12.2 for a difference of 4.3, and just for kicks, I also calculated I few others.

A guy I know that is a 0.4 cap has an anti-cap of 3.8.

My brother, who is a 17.8 has an anti-cap of 23.9 ... a high handicapper who is as up-and-down as anybody I know, and the difference is still 1.7 less than Dan's.

The F-I-L actually manages to have a higher differential than Dans (26.6 to 36.6), but that is the level of player where that kind of discrepancy is a little more believable.

I agree, your brother's anti-handicap is high for a "17", and still almost 2 strokes below Dan. Is your point about Dan might be that he is not a real 3.3 and might be actually a lot higher? If so, to what value would we be able to estimate it?

Fascinating discussion on the anti-cap....and probably very off-topic, but I consider myself to be the worst 9.4 in the world as I am all over the place with my scores. I am also one that scores much better on courses I know, so I was shocked to find that my anti-cap was only 14.7, so maybe I am not the most inconsistent golfer alive with a difference of 5.3.

5 seems normal.

I tried to find a chart that generalizes handicap with anti-handicap, but only found some more generalized ones. Like this one: http://home.roadrunner.com/~donbender/golf2/golfstatistics2.html

If you look carefully at the distributions of Figure 5 the approximately 1 sigma cutoff is right about 2.5 for a "consistent 15" handicap or about 5 strokes from -1 sigma to +1 sigma.

The distribution also grows with higher handicaps.

I wish there was a specific chart detailing it with other statistics as well like GIR variation, FIR variation, etc.

What absolutely amazes me is that everyone I try to fit into these golf statistics does fit, pretty well!

[Maddog10]

I mentioned up above that mine is 12.2 for a difference of 4.3, and just for kicks, I also calculated I few others.

A guy I know that is a 0.4 cap has an anti-cap of 3.8.

My brother, who is a 17.8 has an anti-cap of 23.9 ... a high handicapper who is as up-and-down as anybody I know, and the difference is still 1.7 less than Dan's.

The F-I-L actually manages to have a higher differential than Dans (26.6 to 36.6), but that is the level of player where that kind of discrepancy is a little more believable.

I agree. I'm sure this isn't always the case, but I would expect that it's reasonable to say the lower the handicap, the lower the differential to their anti-hdcp, generally speaking of course. Just as you pointed out, your friend that is a 0.4 only has a relatively small differential whereas your FIL has a large differential. For a 3.3 to have that big of a differential makes me think that he has a few very good days that are really bringing his cap down, but that he doesn't play to that level often. Either that or he doesn't have 20 eligible rounds posted and his handicap is calculated off of less than 10 rounds so that each score carries a greater weighted percentage.

[Shorty]

I mentioned up above that mine is 12.2 for a difference of 4.3, and just for kicks, I also calculated I few others.

A guy I know that is a 0.4 cap has an anti-cap of 3.8.

My brother, who is a 17.8 has an anti-cap of 23.9 ... a high handicapper who is as up-and-down as anybody I know, and the difference is still 1.7 less than Dan's.

The F-I-L actually manages to have a higher differential than Dans (26.6 to 36.6), but that is the level of player where that kind of discrepancy is a little more believable.

I think the thing is that a decent player who frequently scores 85 will certainly have 95 fairly often,but would probably be 90 or 91 a lot of the time.

A 3 marker will NOT have 85 very often. Dan is not a genuine 3.

I  know a lot of plyers with handicaps less than 5 and they may be have a few rounds in the low 80s, but guys off 3 are not shooting in the 80s except in horrendous conditions or on tough courses on a bad day.

And they post every score. Dan just posts the odd one that suits his vanity project.

[pholmes]

When I read his round summaries he seems to be scrambling all the time. He makes a lot of putts for par and has to get up and down from pretty far away too much to be super consistent. He seems to hit too few fairways to be that consistent to me.

[Lihu]

I think the thing is that a decent player who frequently scores 85 will certainly have 95 fairly often,but would probably be 90 or 91 a lot of te time.

A 3 marker will NOT have 85 very often. Dan is not a genuine 3.

I  know a lot of plyers with handicaps less than 5 and they may be have a few rounds in the low 80s, but guys off 3 are not shooting in the 80s except in horrendous conditions or on tough courses on a bad day.

I was hoping you would chime in, and even by USGA standards it's pretty much statistically "impossible".

To be a 3.3 he most likely would need to score par a number of times, and have an anti-handicap of 5.61 based upon Don Bender's profile of player B in Figure 5 assuming that the distributions scale with handicap.

[Golfingdad]

I think the thing is that a decent player who frequently scores 85 will certainly have 95 fairly often,but would probably be 90 or 91 a lot of the time.

A 3 marker will NOT have 85 very often. Dan is not a genuine 3.

I  know a lot of plyers with handicaps less than 5 and they may be have a few rounds in the low 80s, but guys off 3 are not shooting in the 80s except in horrendous conditions or on tough courses on a bad day.

Yeah, and in his last 20 he has an 86, two 90's and a 96.  Seems pretty hard to believe.

And they post every score. Dan just posts the odd one that suits his vanity project.

On the other hand ... it seems to me that a vanity capper - who was actually choosing to not post certain scores - would absolutely "forget" to post those four scores.  Especially when you consider that his next worst score is an 82.

If we could ignore just those 4 scores (which I think a true vanity capper would do gleefully) then his remaining 16 look pretty typical.  11 in the 70's, 2 80's, 2 81's and an 82.

I don't know what to think.

Here's an idea:  In a year or two, when his project ultimately fails, he should be invited to be a contestant on the Big Break.  That would be entertaining.

[Lihu]

Yeah, and in his last 20 he has an 86, two 90's and a 96.  Seems pretty hard to believe.

On the other hand ... it seems to me that a vanity capper - who was actually choosing to not post certain scores - would absolutely "forget" to post those four scores.  Especially when you consider that his next worst score is an 82.

If we could ignore just those 4 scores (which I think a true vanity capper would do gleefully) then his remaining 16 look pretty typical.  11 in the 70's, 2 80's, 2 81's and an 82.

I don't know what to think.

Here's an idea:  In a year or two, when his project ultimately fails, he should be invited to be a contestant on the Big Break.  That would be entertaining.

Very briefly.

[Golfingdad]

Very briefly.

I don't know.  There have been some pretty shitty golfers on the Big Break lately ... he may do OK.

[Lihu]

I am looking at Dan's statistics page.

http://thedanplan.com/statistics-2/

I noticed that he gets about 8% birdies, 60% pars, 29% bogies and 3% double bogies. This seems like a lot of bogies and doubles. Birdies seem okay, and he putts and chips pretty well at 1.8 per GIR and 1.6 per hole. I think his short game is pretty good.

The only thing that sticks out to me are the 29% bogey and 3% double bogey. This just seems like a lot.

What are the statistics of a typical 3.3 handicap?

[Golfingdad]

I am looking at Dan's statistics page.

http://thedanplan.com/statistics-2/

I noticed that he gets about 8% birdies, 60% pars, 29% bogies and 3% double bogies. This seems like a lot of bogies and doubles. Birdies seem okay, and he putts and chips pretty well at 1.8 per GIR and 1.6 per hole. I think his short game is pretty good.

The only thing that sticks out to me are the 29% bogey and 3% double bogey. This just seems like a lot.

What are the statistics of a typical 3.3 handicap?

Well, 8% birdies is about 1 1/2 per round, 29% bogies is 5 1/4 and 3% doubles is 1/2 per.  Unless I'm missing something, that averages out to 4.25 over par per round.  Seems about right if you assume an average course with a rating in the vicinity of 72 and the fact that the mean is always going to be higher than the handicap.

[Lihu]

Well, 8% birdies is about 1 1/2 per round, 29% bogies is 5 1/4 and 3% doubles is 1/2 per.  Unless I'm missing something, that averages out to 4.25 over par per round.  Seems about right if you assume an average course with a rating in the vicinity of 72 and the fact that the mean is always going to be higher than the handicap.

It just seems a little heavy on the bogey and doubles and not enough birdies to make up for it, but I guess you're right.

It is odd that he has has 0 eagles. Even as a "17" I was staring one actual eagle chance (12 foot putt) and quite a few where it was possible to chip in. If I took my handicap and divided it by 5, I would think I would have many more eagle opportunities and thus get at least a small percentage of them.

The number of birdies is low, my son is roughly a 10-12 handicap and gets at least 1 birdie per round even if he also gets a double on occasion. Again, divide the handicap by 3 and I would expect 3 to 4 birdies per round.

My kid's high school coach is approximately a "2" and expects an eagle and a few birdies per round on a <=71.5 rated course. He only struggles getting birdies on something like a 75 rated course. The best score Dan got was on a 6600 yard course, which is probably rated something like 71.5 or less.

He's not a very solid 3.3, if at all, in my mind.

[Golfingdad]

It just seems a little heavy on the bogey and doubles and not enough birdies to make up for it, but I guess you're right.

Not to me.  It's an average score of 76.25 on a par 72.  That seems right on par with a 3.3 handicap.

It is odd that he has has 0 eagles. Even as a "17" I was staring one actual eagle chance (12 foot putt) and quite a few where it was possible to chip in. If I took my handicap and divided it by 5, I would think I would have many more eagle opportunities and thus get at least a small percentage of them.

I don't think it's that odd.  He's only been playing for a couple of years now and he's not a long hitter.  In my life, I've got something like 7 or 8 eagles and all but two of them are by virtue of reaching a par 5 in two or a short par 4 in one.

The number of birdies is low, my son is roughly a 10-12 handicap and gets at least 1 birdie per round even if he also gets a double on occasion. Again, divide the handicap by 3 and I would expect 3 to 4 birdies per round.

Your expectations are too high.  Divide your handicap by 3 and it's just a pinch lower than mine, and then consider this:  3 birdies in one round is something I've only done a handful of times ... ever.  And I have NEVER gotten more than 3 birdies in one round.  Not once.

My kid's high school coach is approximately a "2" and expects an eagle and a few birdies per round on a <=71.5 rated course.

I think his expectations are quite a bit too high as well.  Eagles are pretty rare for even the best players.

The best score Dan got was on a 6600 yard course, which is probably rated something like 71.5 or less.

It's a 72.0/128.  It was a -1.8 differential.  The distance of the course is not relevant in that case.  It's accounted for by the fact that he got a negative differential.  (Allegedly ;))

He's not a very solid 3.3, if at all, in my mind.

Ha.  On this, we agree.  But it's the fluxuations in the scores that lead me to that conclusion, not so much the stats.  If he had one round in the 90's, or perhaps even two, we could write it off (I shot a 101 in a tourney last year so I know how that can happen**), but the fact that he has 4 rounds that bad is what makes his 3.3 look weak to me.

**I think it was a 94 with ESC.

[newtogolf]

Yeah, and in his last 20 he has an 86, two 90's and a 96.  Seems pretty hard to believe.

On the other hand ... it seems to me that a vanity capper - who was actually choosing to not post certain scores - would absolutely "forget" to post those four scores.  Especially when you consider that his next worst score is an 82.

If we could ignore just those 4 scores (which I think a true vanity capper would do gleefully) then his remaining 16 look pretty typical.  11 in the 70's, 2 80's, 2 81's and an 82.

I don't know what to think.

Here's an idea:  In a year or two, when his project ultimately fails, he should be invited to be a contestant on the Big Break.  That would be entertaining.

I don't think Dan is a vanity capper, I'd guess he plays his home course well because he's familiar with it and struggles at courses that he isn't.  We have a few guys in our club that know exactly how to play our course to shoot the lowest scores.  When their swing is cooperating they shoot low.  When they represent our club in inter-club competitions they get killed either because they can't play to their handicap at other courses or they can't handle the pressure of competition or combo of both.

[Lihu]

Not to me.  It's an average score of 76.25 on a par 72.  That seems right on par with a 3.3 handicap.

I don't think it's that odd.  He's only been playing for a couple of years now and he's not a long hitter.  In my life, I've got something like 7 or 8 eagles and all but two of them are by virtue of reaching a par 5 in two or a short par 4 in one.

Your expectations are too high.  Divide your handicap by 3 and it's just a pinch lower than mine, and then consider this:  3 birdies in one round is something I've only done a handful of times ... ever.  And I have NEVER gotten more than 3 birdies in one round.  Not once.

I think his expectations are quite a bit too high as well.  Eagles are pretty rare for even the best players.

It's a 72.0/128.  It was a -1.8 differential.  The distance of the course is not relevant in that case.  It's accounted for by the fact that he got a negative differential.  (Allegedly ;))

Ha.  On this, we agree.  But it's the fluxuations in the scores that lead me to that conclusion, not so much the stats.  If he had one round in the 90's, or perhaps even two, we could write it off (I shot a 101 in a tourney last year so I know how that can happen**), but the fact that he has 4 rounds that bad is what makes his 3.3 look weak to me.

**I think it was a 94 with ESC.

I meant a +2 not a 2**, sorry, but I get your point. Maybe he just says that to get the kids to have higher expectations of themselves, as he got one during one of the tournament days while following the team.

**My son corrected me on the handicap. So, invalidates my assertion anyway.

[Golfingdad]

I don't think Dan is a vanity capper, I'd guess he plays his home course well because he's familiar with it and struggles at courses that he isn't.  We have a few guys in our club that know exactly how to play our course to shoot the lowest scores.  When their swing is cooperating they shoot low.  When they represent our club in inter-club competitions they get killed either because they can't play to their handicap at other courses or they can't handle the pressure of competition or combo of both.

Yeah, you're probably right, but it's hard to tell.  There isn't one rating/slope that stands out on his handicap card as being a lot more common than the others.  Of course, he could be playing the same course several times from different tees too, but who knows.

I meant a +2 not a 2, sorry, but I get your point. Maybe he just says that to get the kids to have higher expectations of themselves, as he got one during one of the tournaments while following the team.

Yeah, a +2 is considerably better than a 2 ... but you are probably right that its more of a motivational thing with the kids.

Eagles are rare for everybody, including pros.  As an example, JB Holmes has played 46 rounds on the PGA tour this year, and just won last week so he's not playing poorly ... and he has 1 eagle all year.  Same with Matt Kuchar and Sergio Garcia.  And Rory McIlroy, in 26 rounds on the PGA tour, has ....... ZERO eagles this season.

The leader is Will Mackenzie with 12 in 54 rounds, and the tour as a whole in God only knows how many rounds**, has only 108.

There has been 25 tournaments so far this year with Fedex Cup points, so I assume those are the ones that count towards the stats.  If you figure 144 players for 2 rounds each tournament and 70 for 2 rounds each tournament, then that is 428 rounds per tournament, and 10,700 rounds total.  So that is exactly a 1% eagle average at the tour pro level.  They are very rare. ;)

[Lihu]

Yeah, a +2 is considerably better than a 2 ... but you are probably right that its more of a motivational thing with the kids.

Eagles are rare for everybody, including pros.  As an example, JB Holmes has played 46 rounds on the PGA tour this year, and just won last week so he's not playing poorly ... and he has 1 eagle all year.  Same with Matt Kuchar and Sergio Garcia.  And Rory McIlroy, in 26 rounds on the PGA tour, has ....... ZERO eagles this season.

The leader is Will Mackenzie with 12 in 54 rounds, and the tour as a whole in God only knows how many rounds**, has only 108.

There has been 25 tournaments so far this year with Fedex Cup points, so I assume those are the ones that count towards the stats.  If you figure 144 players for 2 rounds each tournament and 70 for 2 rounds each tournament, then that is 428 rounds per tournament, and 10,700 rounds total.  So that is exactly a 1% eagle average at the tour pro level.  They are very rare. ;)

Ah, but my assertion was that if the pros played the courses we play, like a 72CR/128, they would probably get a heck of a lot of eagles. Your observation that eagles comes with distance is very well founded. We have a couple short par 5s (only a little over a year ago were really hard for me), which even I can make in two with a driver-hybrid or a couple times with 7i (465-470 yards with tiny uphill grades).

I assume that his coach does not even get many birdies on the pro courses, maybe even struggle for par.