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

[Golfingdad]

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.

Good point, however id contend that the pros would still average well under an eagle per round.

[Lihu]

Good point, however id contend that the pros would still average well under an eagle per round.

No arguments there. :-D

[MS256]

Good point, however id contend that the pros would still average well under an eagle per round.

You probably play tougher courses than most of the ones I usually play but there are typically 3 or 4 par 5s in the 490 to 510 yard range and I figure they would likely eagle at least two of them (which is basically the same as making birdies on a many of the par 4s they play).

There are also typically at least two par 4s that are "drivable" for me (and many of them could probably get there with a 3W). I would be surprised if they didn't eagle at least one of those every other round.

So, my total guess is...Most of the guys on the PGA Tour would average 2 1/2 eagles a round on the courses I play.

(Could be totally wrong).

Of course I do occasionally play longer courses from the tips and they probably wouldn't have any more eagles on those than they do on Tour. Basically same length holes and not as perfect course conditions.

BTW. Eagles come in bunches for me. I might have 3 or 4 in a couple of days and then not have another one for a month (or two...or three).

Haven't even had one this year but I did miss an eagle putt of less than 2 feet last week.

My last eagles were on back to back holes last fall. A hole out on an 80 yard second shot and a 30 ft. putt on the next hole.

I also used to have many more eagles than I do now, and shot substantially higher and more inconsistent scores...But gambled a whole lot more.

[Golfingdad]

You probably play tougher courses than most of the ones I usually play but there are typically 3 or 4 par 5s in the 490 to 510 yard range and I figure they would likely eagle at least two of them (which is basically the same as making birdies on a many of the par 4s they play).

There are also typically at least two par 4s that are "drivable" for me (and many of them could probably get there with a 3W). I would be surprised if they didn't eagle at least one of those every other round.

So, my total guess is...Most of the guys on the PGA Tour would average 2 1/2 eagles a round on the courses I play.

(Could be totally wrong).

I think you guys are giving those pros way too much credit.

You say that you have 4 Par 5's around 500 yards and 2 Par 4's that are driveable.  And you think the pros would eagle 50% of the par 5's and 25% of the Par 4's.  Look at it another way.  Call those Par 5's par 4's, and call the par 4's par 3's.

The 4 500 yard par 4's are now equal to the longest par 4's they play on tour.  Now consider that the leader this season in "par 4 birdie or better percentage," which includes all of the par 4's, not just the longest, is at 22%.  So all Par 4's combined, of which I imagine that 500 yarders make up a miniscule percentage, the pros don't birdie them even half as often as you suspect they'd eagle your par 5's.

Same idea with your new "par 3's," which I imagine are 280-320 or something?  Of course, that is considerably longer than pretty much every single Par 3 on the PGA tour, save for maybe one at the US Open or something, and still the leader in this category on tour is birdieing his Par 3's under 20% of the time.

And throw in the fact that the average on the PGA tour is going to be considerably lower than the best in the category.

[MS256]

I think you guys are giving those pros way too much credit.

You say that you have 4 Par 5's around 500 yards and 2 Par 4's that are driveable.  And you think the pros would eagle 50% of the par 5's and 25% of the Par 4's.  Look at it another way.  Call those Par 5's par 4's, and call the par 4's par 3's.

The 4 500 yard par 4's are now equal to the longest par 4's they play on tour.  Now consider that the leader this season in "par 4 birdie or better percentage," which includes all of the par 4's, not just the longest, is at 22%.  So all Par 4's combined, of which I imagine that 500 yarders make up a miniscule percentage, the pros don't birdie them even half as often as you suspect they'd eagle your par 5's.

Same idea with your new "par 3's," which I imagine are 280-320 or something?  Of course, that is considerably longer than pretty much every single Par 3 on the PGA tour, save for maybe one at the US Open or something, and still the leader in this category on tour is birdieing his Par 3's under 20% of the time.

And throw in the fact that the average on the PGA tour is going to be considerably lower than the best in the category.

You might be right but the stats from the courses they play don't necessarily tell the whole story even if the hole distance is the same.

They are playing on narrow fairways, firm greens, and very often more obstacles to scoring like bunkers and holes wrapping around water so they have to think twice about always bombing away. Most of our "eagle holes" only have the woods (which are more penal than their "woods") to worry about.

A problem for me but it's usually wide enough between the woods that it shouldn't be much problem for them (except for a few of those giant "blocks" that Tiger hits).

Our greens are typically very receptive and if you can hit the target you can score.

Would be interesting to find out what they would do but I would expect a boat load eagles.

[Lihu]

You might be right but the stats from the courses they play don't necessarily tell the whole story even if the hole distance is the same.

They are playing on narrow fairways, firm greens, and very often more obstacles to scoring like bunkers and holes wrapping around water so they have to think twice about always bombing away. Most of our "eagle holes" only have the woods (which are more penal than their "woods") to worry about.

A problem for me but it's usually wide enough between the woods that it shouldn't be much problem for them (except for a few of those giant "blocks" that Tiger hits).

Our greens are typically very receptive and if you can hit the target you can score.

Would be interesting to find out what they would do but I would expect a boat load eagles.

Ditto here, I think they could play the course once first then the second time score some eagles. The drivable par 4 are like their longer par 3 and the shorter par 5 are like their par 4 only easier.

The only issue is that many of the easier courses around here do not allow caddies.

[Golfingdad]

be interesting to find out what they would do but I would expect a boat load eagles.

Ditto here, I think they could play the course once first then the second time score some eagles.

Fair enough.  I think you guys are nuts though.

It's just as likely I am, but hopefully this text is small enough that you can't read it.

[Lihu]

Fair enough.  I think you guys are nuts though.

It's just as likely I am, but hopefully this text is small enough that you can't read it.

Nah, even though I am getting older, I can still read it.

It's like that phrase in the FedEx commercial "I can still hear you. . ."

[MS256]

Fair enough.  I think you guys are nuts though.

It's just as likely I am, but hopefully this text is small enough that you can't read it.

My wife tells me that all the time. If I listened I would probably have an inferiority complex by now.

And the one (and only) benefit to being nearsighted is that even at 58 years old I can see better up close than most 20 year olds.

[David in FL]

Fair enough.  I think you guys are nuts though.

It's just as likely I am, but hopefully this text is small enough that you can't read it.

Gotta agree with you.

Let's assume a 300-325 yard drive on each 500 yard par-5.  In looking at the 2013 PGA Tour stats, I find that the leader in proximity to the hole from 175-200 yards was Ryan Palmer at 26' 4".  Out of 174 attempts, he played those holes at a combined 17 under par.  In other words, he only birdied them one out of every 10 times.  Tiger, was a net +1 to par in 108 attempts from that range!

Not a birdie (or eagle) fest by any stretch, no matter whether it's called a par-4 for the big boys or a par-5 for the rest of us.....

[Golfingdad]

My wife tells me that all the time. If I listened I would probably have an inferiority complex by now.

And the one (and only) benefit to being nearsighted is that even at 58 years old I can see better up close than most 20 year olds.

Dang.  So I should have gone the other way??

@MS256 is nuts!

Gotta agree with you.

Let's assume a 300-325 yard drive on each 500 yard par-5.  In looking at the 2013 PGA Tour stats, I find that the leader in proximity to the hole from 175-200 yards was Ryan Palmer at 26' 4".  Out of 174 attempts, he played those holes at a combined 17 under par.  In other words, he only birdied them one out of every 10 times.  Tiger, was a net +1 to par in 108 attempts from that range!

Not a birdie (or eagle) fest by any stretch, no matter whether it's called a par-4 for the big boys or a par-5 for the rest of us.....

Exactly.  That's all I was getting at.  If the leader is well into the 20's, then the average is probably in the 30's, and the PGA tour make percentage from that distance is not very high.

[Abu3baid]

I think you guys are having a great conversation and it is very interesting to read but something inside me tells me that all of this is OFF TOPIC but then again I'm no mod so continue as is :)

[Lihu]

I think you guys are having a great conversation and it is very interesting to read but something inside me tells me that all of this is OFF TOPIC but then again I'm no mod so continue as is :)

It's very pertinent to the topic.

My assertion is that without at least one eagle per roughly 4-8 rounds and  2-3 birdies per round on the courses we play, there is no way he can even touch scratch much less get to pro.

You need the distance and deadly accurate skills under 150 yards to get birdies and eagles. You pretty much need to be much better than just a par machine to get to scratch and pro.

[k14]

It's very pertinent to the topic.

My assertion is that without at least one eagle per roughly 4-8 rounds and  2-3 birdies per round on the courses we play, there is no way he can even touch scratch much less get to pro.

You need the distance and deadly accurate skills under 150 yards to get birdies and eagles. You pretty much need to be much better than just a par machine to get to scratch and pro.

No it is completely off topic. Other members have been spouting stats left right and centre that refute your claims but you still are harping on about eagles. I play off 10 and in 8 years of golf I have had 1 eagle and only been on a par 5 in two shots about 10 times ever and driven a par 4 once. I have a mate who plays off a 2 handicap who with I play regularly and he might have one eagle every 15-20 rounds. It all depends on what course you play on. My home course has a shortest par 5 at about 510 yards, but the green is tricky to hold with a 3w or hybrid. From what I can tell Dan is playing all his golf off the tips so the fact he hasn't had an eagle is irrelevant and not unexpected.

The discussion of his anti-cap is certainly relevant. I would class myself as pretty erratic (93 to 78 in 2 weeks hehe) but even my anticap is 16.5 vs 10 which is certainly at the upper end but still plausible. The fact his is higher is quite startling. I do however see how it is possible. He has a pretty solid short game from what I can tell so the difference between a 75 and a 85 for him could be not much (one or two more GIR's and a few up/downs vs none). I have had rounds like that. Only hitting 6 or 7 GIR but get up and down from everywhere, you should have had a 82-83 but shot 75. In the long run it is unsustainable but can pull your handicap down in the short term, it also tends to fall apart in a pressure situation (tournament) when you are relying on one putts to make par.

I was quite intrigued by his journey a few years ago when I first heard of it. But now I think he is majorly wasting his time. He might get down to a genuine 2 or 3 but I doubt much lower.

[Golfingdad]

The discussion of his anti-cap is certainly relevant. I would class myself as pretty erratic (93 to 78 in 2 weeks hehe) but even my anticap is 16.5 vs 10 which is certainly at the upper end but still plausible. The fact his is higher is quite startling. I do however see how it is possible. He has a pretty solid short game from what I can tell so the difference between a 75 and a 85 for him could be not much (one or two more GIR's and a few up/downs vs none). I have had rounds like that. Only hitting 6 or 7 GIR but get up and down from everywhere, you should have had a 82-83 but shot 75. In the long run it is unsustainable but can pull your handicap down in the short term, it also tends to fall apart in a pressure situation (tournament) when you are relying on one putts to make par.

I agree, but I also just thought of something.  (Hey, sometimes I'm slow, what can I say? ;))

And I'm just going off of numbers here, not really talking about Dan ... somebody who is improving rapidly, or perhaps just fixed something major in their game and made a jump, is going to have a higher differential between their cap and anti-cap than somebody who's handicap has been stagnant.  Thinking of myself, for example, if I were to have a "light bulb" moment with my driver at the range this week and then go off and shoot a couple of 75's because of it this weekend, than my handicap would go down quite a bit (quick, rough calculation would have it drop from 7.9 to about 6.5), yet my anti-cap would stay almost exactly the same.

So, in a bit of a "defense" of Dan, I'd say that maybe we're focusing too much on his anti-handicap.  You keep getting better and the scores on the front end of your 20 are always going to be better than the ones on your back end.  Unfortunately, in his case, that theory is blown COMPLETELY out of the water when you consider that two of his worst scores contributing to that anti-cap are 2 of his most recent**

**Just checked his blog and noticed that, FWIW, those two 90's were on back to back days, in Atlanta, one on East Lake (site of Tour Championship) from the Black tees, and the other at Peachtree Golf Club.

---

Regardless, he's gone from not a golfer to a 3.3 (however suspect) over the course of 1/2 of his project.  Only 1/2!!  He has a loooooooooot of time left to keep improving.  I'm still skeptical, but I'm still intrigued as well.

[Lihu]

No it is completely off topic. Other members have been spouting stats left right and centre that refute your claims but you still are harping on about eagles. I play off 10 and in 8 years of golf I have had 1 eagle and only been on a par 5 in two shots about 10 times ever and driven a par 4 once. I have a mate who plays off a 2 handicap who with I play regularly and he might have one eagle every 15-20 rounds. It all depends on what course you play on. My home course has a shortest par 5 at about 510 yards, but the green is tricky to hold with a 3w or hybrid. From what I can tell Dan is playing all his golf off the tips so the fact he hasn't had an eagle is irrelevant and not unexpected.

The discussion of his anti-cap is certainly relevant. I would class myself as pretty erratic (93 to 78 in 2 weeks hehe) but even my anticap is 16.5 vs 10 which is certainly at the upper end but still plausible. The fact his is higher is quite startling. I do however see how it is possible. He has a pretty solid short game from what I can tell so the difference between a 75 and a 85 for him could be not much (one or two more GIR's and a few up/downs vs none). I have had rounds like that. Only hitting 6 or 7 GIR but get up and down from everywhere, you should have had a 82-83 but shot 75. In the long run it is unsustainable but can pull your handicap down in the short term, it also tends to fall apart in a pressure situation (tournament) when you are relying on one putts to make par.

I was quite intrigued by his journey a few years ago when I first heard of it. But now I think he is majorly wasting his time. He might get down to a genuine 2 or 3 but I doubt much lower.

True. I suppose my expectations for a scratch and a pro golfer are higher than need be.

I most likely play from shorter tees than you do, so I have had many opportunities to get pin high on many of my par 5. The longest par 5 on one of the local 9 hole courses I frequent is only 509 yards. I have never gotten pin high in 2 on that one, but I have partnered with people who did. They might have chances of an eagle, and they play off 5 to 8. I didn't think to ask if they ever got an eagle because I assumed it was fairly common on these shorter courses.

Just curious why you think Dan can get to a legitimate 2 or 3?

So, in a bit of a "defense" of Dan, I'd say that maybe we're focusing too much on his anti-handicap.  You keep getting better and the scores on the front end of your 20 are always going to be better than the ones on your back end.  Unfortunately, in his case, that theory is blown COMPLETELY out of the water when you consider that two of his worst scores contributing to that anti-cap are 2 of his most recent**

**Just checked his blog and noticed that, FWIW, those two 90's were on back to back days, in Atlanta, one on East Lake (site of Tour Championship) from the Black tees, and the other at Peachtree Golf Club.

Regardless, he's gone from not a golfer to a 3.3 (however suspect) over the course of 1/2 of his project.  Only 1/2!!  He has a loooooooooot of time left to keep improving.  I'm still skeptical, but I'm still intrigued as well.

So, this same defense could be used for a certain person with an "Opera" thread., but I am doubtful in both cases.

[k14]

Just curious why you think Dan can get to a legitimate 2 or 3?

I think that he still has a lot going on in his head at the moment and once he gets his swing a little more reliable and can trust it he will be a pretty solid golfer. He has already posted a sub par round so that speaks of his potential. Anyone that can do that is certainly on the right track. I don't however see him being able to consistently post sub par rounds. I think he will still throw in the odd 80+ round but I think this summer we will see him post a couple of mid 70 rounds in tournaments which to me is what a genuine 2 or 3 player would be capable of doing.

The one thing that just really frustrates me is his seeming stubborness at hitting driver on pretty much every par 4 and 5. If he put it away and gave up 20-30 yards on a lot of the holes he would score better and not be that much disadvantaged.

[flopster]

Well Dan just reached 2.8 on the revision this past 15th, I don't know what to think other than he's starting to put it together or he's setting himself up for a big time fail when he blows it at tournaments which by he way he seems to avoid, however he is supposed to play in the Oregon am qualifier in a few days, funny thing though is he said he played the course for practice only back on the 15th this should tell us a lot.