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

[Lihu]

Apparently Dan did not read the fine print.  Gladwell's own quote, "There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers. It doesn't apply to sports."

source:  http://www.businessinsider.com/malcolm-gladwell-explains-the-10000-hour-rule-2014-6

I take Dan's effort as nothing more than his own publicity building.  Good for him if he can build his publicity but bad if he actually believes he can become an "expert" or "pro" in golf.  Also let's now lower the standard of expert.  Scratch is definitely not an expert in golf as Gladwell's examples focus on really really exceptional larger-than life human beings.  Expert in golf in Gladwell's example would be Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus, not a scratch golfer.

This is one bad case of gross oversimplification of success IMO.  It's like almost saying pure ball striking will make one to become a tour pro.  Yes, it is a prerequisite but the entirety of becoming one.

Wow, yes, I'm glad it was clarified. He acknowledges that you need talent for certain activities.

"There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers. It doesn't apply to sports. And practice isn't a SUFFICIENT condition for success. I could play chess for 100 years and I'll never be a grandmaster. The point is simply that natural ability requires a huge investment of time in order to be made manifest. Unfortunately, sometimes complex ideas get oversimplified in translation."

Time for Dan to go back to Photography and golf as a fun activity.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther

I'm pulling for the guy, I just think he set his sights too high. If I remember correctly, Gladwell says that 10,000 hours makes one an expert. A touring pro is top .01% of golfers, far more than expert. I'd say under 3 cap with 4000 hours left is proving out the theory.

He will probably get to scratch which I believe one could reasonably say is expert status. But, he has no chance to become a touring pro.

Apparently Dan did not read the fine print.  Gladwell's own quote, "There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers. It doesn't apply to sports."

Good find. And the other thing a lot of people get wrong (including probably Dan himself) is that Gladwell's contention is not "If you put 10,000 hours in, you will be an expert".  He's actually saying "All of the experts have 10,000 hours in." Or in logician's terms, 10,000 hours is a necessary but not sufficient condition to being an expert.

Many people are under the impression that if Dan does not reach expert level after 10,000 hours, he will have disproven the theory. In actuality, he'll only disprove it if he *does* become an expert *without* putting 10,000 hours in.  (But of course it's moot anyway since Gladwell wasn't talking about sports.)

[newtogolf]

Poor Dan, 5000+ hours of practice and now he finds out that Outliers didn't apply to sports.

[Gunther]

Wow, yes, I'm glad it was clarified. He acknowledges that you need talent for certain activities. "There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers. It doesn't apply to sports. And practice isn't a SUFFICIENT condition for success. I could play chess for 100 years and I'll never be a grandmaster. The point is simply that natural ability requires a huge investment of time in order to be made manifest. Unfortunately, sometimes complex ideas get oversimplified in translation." Time for Dan to go back to Photography and golf as a fun activity.

Interesting article but now I'm more confused than ever on the 10,000 rule. So, if you start on your hours young, then you'll become elite? How about people who have spent 10,000 hours coding or accounting or plumbing? Not all can be top .01%. Understand how in some cases it can't translate to sports given physical requirements etc. I guess the only thing I've spent 10,000 hours in my life doing is watching TV and I must say, I've gotten pretty damn good at it.

[Gunther]

10,000 hours is a necessary but not sufficient condition to being an expert.

This cleared it up for me, thanks. This wasn't my initial impression, of course, I haven't read the book. Got it 2nd hand from my son. Need to read it, my kid's been after me for a few years to do it.

[jsp9999]

Interesting article but now I'm more confused than ever on the 10,000 rule.

So, if you start on your hours young, then you'll become elite? How about people who have spent 10,000 hours coding or accounting or plumbing? Not all can be top .01%.

Understand how in some cases it can't translate to sports given physical requirements etc.

I guess the only thing I've spent 10,000 hours in my life doing is watching TV and I must say, I've gotten pretty damn good at it.

Outlier is not even talking about 0.01%.  He is talking about Bill Gates', Michael Jordan's, Tiger Woods' of the world in their own field.

Also, Gladwell took a lot of the stories from researches all over the places.  He is a good story aggregator and teller so it's good read but the concept isn't new nor a de-facto rule.  Him saying it doesn't apply sports further confirms there is no such 10K "rule"  What he did is look at a few exceptional human beings and found a common ground which happened to be they worked on something for long time.  Is this something new?  We all know even from this forum that it takes long time to even become a decent golfer.  And again it doesn't even apply sports. LOL

[nevets88]

Apparently Dan did not read the fine print.  Gladwell's own quote, "There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers. It doesn't apply to sports."

source:  http://www.businessinsider.com/malcolm-gladwell-explains-the-10000-hour-rule-2014-6

I take Dan's effort as nothing more than his own publicity building.  Good for him if he can build his publicity but bad if he actually believes he can become an "expert" or "pro" in golf.  Also let's not lower the standard of expert.  Scratch is definitely not an expert in golf as Gladwell's examples focus on really really exceptional larger-than life human beings.  Expert in golf in Gladwell's example would be Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus, not a scratch golfer.

This is one bad case of gross oversimplification of success IMO.  It's like almost saying pure ball striking will make one to become a tour pro.  Yes, it is a prerequisite but the entirety of becoming one.

I posted about this back in March: http://thesandtrap.com/t/45853/the-dan-plan-10-000-hours-to-become-a-pro-golfer/900#post_962392

So this is what bugs me. The Dan Plan will get people to go negative on anything related to the 10K hypothesis, but lost in the hubbub are all the ideas and techniques to practice better - which I think Dan did a terrible job in utilizing based on what I've read.

No, you won't become the elite - THAT'S WHY THE ELITE ARE THE FRAKKING ELITE - but you can utilize your time better and attain a level closer to your top potential. These techniques will be poo-poo'd because of the misrepresentation. Bah.

[Moppy]

I read an article once where they tracked people who bet on horses. Basically they said that if you spent ten thousand hours doing it, immersed in it, you would make money at it, irrespective of IQ (which they measured as a proxy for talent). They said that in that case, it was the hours that made you an expert.

I think the PGA tour is different in that they draw people who lucked out twice. Once to be born with the talent, as they say in the NFL, size is a talent too, and the second to have the opportunity to develop that talent at a young age with high level instruction and time. They are more than experts.

[krupa]

Apparently Dan did not read the fine print.  Gladwell's own quote, "There is a lot of confusion about the 10,000 rule that I talk about in Outliers. It doesn't apply to sports."

source:  http://www.businessinsider.com/malcolm-gladwell-explains-the-10000-hour-rule-2014-6

I take Dan's effort as nothing more than his own publicity building.  Good for him if he can build his publicity but bad if he actually believes he can become an "expert" or "pro" in golf.  Also let's not lower the standard of expert.  Scratch is definitely not an expert in golf as Gladwell's examples focus on really really exceptional larger-than life human beings.  Expert in golf in Gladwell's example would be Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus, not a scratch golfer.

This is one bad case of gross oversimplification of success IMO.  It's like almost saying pure ball striking will make one to become a tour pro.  Yes, it is a prerequisite but the entirety of becoming one.

And yet one of the authors of the original deliberate practice/10,000 hours research papers, K Anders Ericsson endorsed Dan: " I think you’re the right astronaut for this mission,” Dr. Ericsson said about The Dan Plan." There was also a recent article where Ericsson was saying... not negative things... but that Gladwell got the idea wrong.

I also think Dan's plan has completely misrepresented the ideas of deliberate practice.  I haven't done it for golf, but I have seen marked improvement in my pool game when I took the time for intense, deliberate practice.

[nevets88]

Dan's idea of deliberate practice - starting with short putts then going longer not touching a wedge until two months imho was misguided. I saw nothing in his blog where he used techniques say mentioned in this site - changing the picture, mirror work, etc... If I were an equipment salesman this is great. Look at that guy, he had all the time in the world and he didn't get all that much better. Now try thi$ new driver!

[Lihu]

I read an article once where they tracked people who bet on horses. Basically they said that if you spent ten thousand hours doing it, immersed in it, you would make money at it, irrespective of IQ (which they measured as a proxy for talent). They said that in that case, it was the hours that made you an expert. I think the PGA tour is different in that they draw people who lucked out twice. Once to be born with the talent, as they say in the NFL, size is a talent too, and the second to have the opportunity to develop that talent at a young age with high level instruction and time. They are more than experts.

This is exactly how I see it, and spent many earlier posts trying to explain. You need talent and hard work. It's not that kids are exposed to something and get good, it's that you filter through hundreds of children and find one with scratch talent. Of these scratch kids less than 1% have a chance at the pros. Dan came in with an armchair hypothesis stating something like "I could spend 10,000 hours and be good at ski. . .no. . .uhmm. . .golf, yes golf. That's what I will chose to become a pro". It was too random. He might as well have wished to be 6'5" 260 pounds of "strong for your size" muscle. Not going to happen with 10,000 hours of anything.

[flopster]

Poor Dan, 5000+ hours of practice and now he finds out that Outliers didn't apply to sports.

Actually he probably doesn't, should you tell him or I that he's just wasted the past 4 years on a flawed theory, or at least when sports are the task.

[flopster]

In his blog he cites financial concerns as a reason for not playing more tournaments, but that's pure bull. He could play club tournaments and any number of lower level amateur tournaments for not much more than the cost of the golf itself. A quick look on-line shows that the Oregon Golf Association runs an amatuer tour with tournaments every couple of weeks. Entry fees, including the golf run around $75.

Has anyone pointed this out to him publicly?

I would think he should know this as part of the whole preparation aspect of the plan because lets be honest PGA golf is strictly "tournament golf" period and one would think playing in regular tournaments every couple weeks will give him some mental conditioning of what it's like to be a touring pro, I think maybe like earlier brought up he doesn't like his game on display in this setting because he can't handle the pressure yet. I think he has to play these tournaments in order to address a major weakness in his game which is an inability to shoot a competitive round that reasonably represents your current index, He appears more like an 8 or 9 marker under tournament conditions, needless to say a major setback for the project and no real surprise for many here.

[David in FL]

Has anyone pointed this out to him publicly?

Has anyone pointed this out to him publicly?

I would think he should know this as part of the whole preparation aspect of the plan because lets be honest PGA golf is strictly "tournament golf" period and one would think playing in regular tournaments every couple weeks will give him some mental conditioning of what it's like to be a touring pro, I think maybe like earlier brought up he doesn't like his game on display in this setting because he can't handle the pressure yet. I think he has to play these tournaments in order to address a major weakness in his game which is an inability to shoot a competitive round that reasonably represents your current index, He appears more like an 8 or 9 marker under tournament conditions, needless to say a major setback for the project and no real surprise for many here.

I don't know.  I certainly haven't, but it would be hard to believe he doesn't know.

[Lihu]

I would think he should know this as part of the whole preparation aspect of the plan because lets be honest PGA golf is strictly "tournament golf" period and one would think playing in regular tournaments every couple weeks will give him some mental conditioning of what it's like to be a touring pro, I think maybe like earlier brought up he doesn't like his game on display in this setting because he can't handle the pressure yet. I think he has to play these tournaments in order to address a major weakness in his game which is an inability to shoot a competitive round that reasonably represents your current index, He appears more like an 8 or 9 marker under tournament conditions, needless to say a major setback for the project and no real surprise for many here.

I'm trying to think if there is a difference. I don't understand why additional pressure would make you shoot worse?

Just this last weekend my son and I played two rounds. In the relaxed round (although frustrated with some "equipment" failures), I shot 98 (71.7/126). Conversely, under higher pressure trying to impress some people I had a very high chance to have shot under 90 (72.9/130) on a more difficult course. Pressure makes me concentrate. My son needs pressure to play his best, without it he flops around in a happy go lucky way where he could easily shoot over 100. With pressure, he plays in the low 80s.

The additional pressure forces us to focus. When playing for stakes (match play), we both play better than just a casual round. In Texas, I didn't start playing well until my team needed to win some holes. My son played better when his team needed to win a few strokes.

I am not implying that we could shoot better than Dan, but only that we start to function better with pressure. My impression is that most real tournament golfers have a lot more of this than we do.

So, it still baffles me why one would expect to shoot worse with more pressure? And I also think that Dan is really an 8 handicap despite the scores he got to get his current handicap.

Note: So, I played badly at many of out So. Cal. outings, but I think that was more of a lack of skills and not being used to the courses we played. Now that I am used to them, I see no reason why I can't play to my handicap. The most recent one I shot something like a 95 (69.8/124) at Goose Creek, and felt I had given up a few of strokes from making ignorant (stupid) decisions. Not from pressure, as there was none.

[nevets88]

I'm trying to think if there is a difference. I don't understand why additional pressure would make you shoot worse? Just this last weekend my son and I played two rounds. In the relaxed round (although frustrated with some "equipment" failures), I shot 98 (71.7/126). Conversely, under higher pressure trying to impress some people I had a very high chance to have shot under 90 (72.9/130) on a more difficult course. Pressure makes me concentrate. My son needs pressure to play his best, without it he flops around in a happy go lucky way where he could easily shoot over 100. With pressure, he plays in the low 80s. The additional pressure forces us to focus. When playing for stakes (match play), we both play better than just a casual round. In Texas, I didn't start playing well until my team needed to win some holes. My son played better when his team needed to win a few strokes. I am not implying that we could shoot better than Dan, but only that we start to function better with pressure. My impression is that most real tournament golfers have a lot more of this than we do. So, it still baffles me why one would expect to shoot worse with more pressure? And I also think that Dan is really an 8 handicap despite the scores he got to get his current handicap. Note: So, I played badly at many of out So. Cal. outings, but I think that was more of a lack of skills and not being used to the courses we played. Now that I am used to them, I see no reason why I can't play to my handicap. The most recent one I shot something like a 95 (69.8/124) at Goose Creek, and felt I had given up a few of strokes from making ignorant (stupid) decisions. Not from pressure, as there was none.

He's not employed and I'm guessing needs to monetize the experience somehow into income unless he's got strong contacts and a network to start with freelance jobs immediately when this is over. If he fails miserably, what does he have to write about? Who's gonna want to read this is how I failed at this endeavor? Plus he's in the public on this and has associations with academics, researchers, etc. He played a round with the Freakonmics guy and has been written up in the NYT and other major publications I think. Failing in the public is not a fun thing to experience. I already want to read about former oil driller guy instead.

[flopster]

I'm trying to think if there is a difference. I don't understand why additional pressure would make you shoot worse?

Just this last weekend my son and I played two rounds. In the relaxed round (although frustrated with some "equipment" failures), I shot 98 (71.7/126). Conversely, under higher pressure trying to impress some people I had a very high chance to have shot under 90 (72.9/130) on a more difficult course. Pressure makes me concentrate. My son needs pressure to play his best, without it he flops around in a happy go lucky way where he could easily shoot over 100. With pressure, he plays in the low 80s.

The additional pressure forces us to focus. When playing for stakes (match play), we both play better than just a casual round. In Texas, I didn't start playing well until my team needed to win some holes. My son played better when his team needed to win a few strokes.

So, I played badly at many of out So. Cal. outings, but I think that was more of a lack of skills and not being used to the courses we played. Now that I am used to them, I see no reason why I can't play to my handicap. The most recent one I shot something like a 95 (69.8/124) at Goose Creek, and felt I had given up a few of strokes from making ignorant (stupid) decisions. Not from pressure, as there was none.

I am not implying that we could shoot better than Dan, but only that we start to function better with pressure. My impression is that most real tournament golfers have a lot more of this

than we do.

So, it still baffles me why one would expect to shoot worse with more pressure? And I also think that Dan is really an 8 handicap despite the scores he got to get his current handicap.

I think what this has to do with is Dan has not played golf for very long, sure he has done a lot of hours of it in a very short time but has he had any periods of not touching a club for 2 months or longer?  I think one issue with him is he is still very much a novice in a lot of areas in this game and even though he may put in hours on top of hours of practice in, his retention physically is going to only be so much, honestly I think less would be more for him at this stage. Most of us have been playing this game for a lot longer than Dan, been watching it played on TV probably way more and very likely talked about it a lot more, at this stage I think he needs to be playing golf almost exclusively for this season with as many tournaments as possible, playing at least 25 rounds a month should be the goal along with 12 tournaments for the next 6 months, I think after that there is a chance he could play close to his index.

[Lihu]

I think what this has to do with is Dan has not played golf for very long, sure he has done a lot of hours of it in a very short time but has he had any periods of not touching a club for 2 months or longer?  I think one issue with him is he is still very much a novice in a lot of areas in this game and even though he may put in hours on top of hours of practice in, his retention physically is going to only be so much, honestly I think less would be more for him at this stage. Most of us have been playing this game for a lot longer than Dan, been watching it played on TV probably way more and very likely talked about it a lot more, at this stage I think he needs to be playing golf almost exclusively for this season with as many tournaments as possible, playing at least 25 rounds a month should be the goal along with 12 tournaments for the next 6 months, I think after that there is a chance he could play close to his index.

That's a lot of rounds.

I'm with @nevets88 , I vote for the "Oil Driller Guy" to become a pro before Dan finished his hours.

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/golf/Ryan+Cook+incredible+story+fallback+plan/9890210/story.html