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

[Lihu]

Is this correct???

Dan wrote this in his blog about the trip.

"To get sidetracked for a second, another interesting aspect of Australian golf is that the only rounds you post for your handicap are “comp” (competition) rounds.  They separate comps and social rounds by making specific days and tee times for comps.  They have 3-4 comp days a week so it’s easy to get in your rounds for the handicap, but you have to pay to enter them, even at a private club.  You can play a social round for free at your home course, but a comp is $10-$15 for the scorecard.  I played along with a couple people playing in comp rounds and in all honesty it’s no different than a typical men’s club day or even social round in the states.  They are even allowed to pick up after a double as the comps are typically stableford in structure and a double or more gives you zero points so it doesn’t matter after that.  Also, another slight difference I noticed is how the handicaps are calculated. In Oz they take the best 8 of your last 20 rounds then multiply that by .93.  In the states it is the best 10 of the last 20 multiplied by .97. Interesting that it is different and there must be a reason for this.  They also round their course handicap to a full number.  The course will be rated “handicap 72” whereas in the states it’s often 72.1 or 71.9.   At the end of the day it’s golf and the same rules apply across the world."

I've been using 0.96 for my multiplier.

http://golf.about.com/cs/handicapping/a/howcalculated.htm

Also, is this also how they calculate HI in Australia?

http://www.golf.org.au/howtocalculateahandicap

[RFKFREAK]

Is this correct???

Dan wrote this in his blog about the trip.

"To get sidetracked for a second, another interesting aspect of Australian golf is that the only rounds you post for your handicap are “comp” (competition) rounds.  They separate comps and social rounds by making specific days and tee times for comps.  They have 3-4 comp days a week so it’s easy to get in your rounds for the handicap, but you have to pay to enter them, even at a private club.  You can play a social round for free at your home course, but a comp is $10-$15 for the scorecard.  I played along with a couple people playing in comp rounds and in all honesty it’s no different than a typical men’s club day or even social round in the states.  They are even allowed to pick up after a double as the comps are typically stableford in structure and a double or more gives you zero points so it doesn’t matter after that.  Also, another slight difference I noticed is how the handicaps are calculated.  In Oz they take the best 8 of your last 20 rounds then multiply that by .93.  In the states it is the best 10 of the last 20 multiplied by .97.  Interesting that it is different and there must be a reason for this.  They also round their course handicap to a full number.  The course will be rated “handicap 72” whereas in the states it’s often 72.1 or 71.9.   At the end of the day it’s golf and the same rules apply across the world."

I've been using 0.96 for my multiplier.

http://golf.about.com/cs/handicapping/a/howcalculated.htm

Also, is this also how they calculate HI in Australia?

http://www.golf.org.au/howtocalculateahandicap

@Shorty - can you confirm?

[Shorty]

@Shorty - can you confirm?

Correct about the handicapping  - best 8 of last 20 x .93

But  Dan hasn't really painted the picture about the way we play correctly. He's right to a point, though.

The thing that he doesn't seem to get is that people who have handicaps here pretty much exclusively play competition rounds. I, for example haven't played what we call a "social" round more than two or three times in the last 5 years. That's not to say that comp rounds aren't social, because they are. But no gimmes and played strictly by the rules. You swap cards and sign them at the end. You usually check totals after 9. After you putt out you'll say "5 a 2" or "4 a 3" etc.

This is why I am so often confused by people who say they play with so and so and he says 5 when he had 8. Why not say - "Ahh.... I have to sign a correct card later . Are you sure?" or "Aren't you counting the third and fourth shots in that bunker?"

He seems to think that you have rounds for handicap and other rounds. And that you get your comp/ handicap rounds "out of the way" in comps.

Funny thing is that he has a handicap based on social/casual rounds he hand picks and not from competition/tournament play. Arse up, no? ;-)

The average club here has men's comps on Saturday and Wednesday and also on Sunday.

Most competitions are stableford rounds and you have a monthly medal on the first Saturday of each month.

In stableford you do pick up after you can't get any points (2 over your hcp that hole).

I have had stableford scores of 36 which would have been nett 76 in stroke. Two 3 pointers cancel out one wipe.

Now - the nett stroke score is your comp round, but for handicapping purposes it is converted to stableford.

Previously ( about a year ago) if you had a good round going and you had 10 on the last, that's that. Now, that score means 3 over your handicap that hole, so you can have a huge blowout but not have it impact too much on your handicapping score.

Clear as mud? Sorry!

[Pretzel]

Correct about the handicapping  - best 8 of last 20 x .93

But  Dan hasn't really painted the picture about the way we play correctly. He's right to a point, though.

The thing that he doesn't seem to get is that people who have handicaps here pretty much exclusively play competition rounds. I, for example haven't played what we call a "social" round more than two or three times in the last 5 years. That's not to say that comp rounds aren't social, because they are. But no gimmes and played strictly by the rules. You swap cards and sign them at the end. You usually check totals after 9. After you putt out you'll say "5 a 2" or "4 a 3" etc.

This is why I am so often confused by people who say they play with so and so and he says 5 when he had 8. Why not say - "Ahh.... I have to sign a correct card later . Are you sure?" or "Aren't you counting the third and fourth shots in that bunker?"

He seems to think that you have rounds for handicap and other rounds. And that you get your comp/ handicap rounds "out of the way" in comps.

Funny thing is that he has a handicap based on social/casual rounds he hand picks and not from competition/tournament play. Arse up, no? ;-)

The average club here has men's comps on Saturday and Wednesday and also on Sunday.

Most competitions are stableford rounds and you have a monthly medal on the first Saturday of each month.

In stableford you do pick up after you can't get any points (2 over your hcp that hole).

I have had stableford scores of 36 which would have been nett 76 in stroke. Two 3 pointers cancel out one wipe.

Now - the nett stroke score is your comp round, but for handicapping purposes it is converted to stableford.

Previously ( about a year ago) if you had a good round going and you had 10 on the last, that's that. Now, that score means 3 over your handicap that hole, so you can have a huge blowout but not have it impact too much on your handicapping score.

Clear as mud? Sorry!

So, in other words, you don't score handicap rounds using a stroke play format but a stableford one instead? That makes sense to me, since it rewards you for doing well while not overly penalizing you should you do very poorly. The USGA actually had to implement a system of Equitable Stroke Control (ESC for short) that basically says only a net double bogey or better on each hole should be counted in handicap rounds. It sounds like that achieves a similar effect as using a stableford scoring system to handicap, but it also is more complicated than just using stableford since you have to alter your final score.

[Shorty]

So, in other words, you don't score handicap rounds using a stroke play format but a stableford one instead? That makes sense to me, since it rewards you for doing well while not overly penalizing you should you do very poorly. The USGA actually had to implement a system of Equitable Stroke Control (ESC for short) that basically says only a net double bogey or better on each hole should be counted in handicap rounds. It sounds like that achieves a similar effect as using a stableford scoring system to handicap, but it also is more complicated than just using stableford since you have to alter your final score.

Right. Its a better way. Having a 9 on the 18th after being a couple under your hcp was a great way to ruin your week. At least a wipe limits the damage. But it is all done via computer. At the end of thr round you enter your scores into the software in the clubhouse. All the adjustments are done for you Under the old system, an inconsistent player might regularly have 32-36 points in stableford but would never get within 10 of nett par in stroke. This is what makes pro scores so impressive. 6 birdies but two doubles and youve missed the cut. No hiding behind ESC or its cousins. " I had two over for 16 holes" Wow, how did you finish? 8 over. So you didn't even break 80? But i played great! But you shot 80! This is what Dan doesnt get. (typing on phone)

[nevets88]

I get what @Shorty is saying and agree 100%. But... But the press doesn't wanna hear this. They want ratings/eyeballs so they're gonna prop him up. I noticed more than a few articles noting his handicap but that's it. They don't expand on the details behind it. And people aren't gonna take the time to figure out the gritty details that go into calculating the handicap. Sure, you can say tl;dr he fudged his number. But people wanna believe what they believe and that's the simple message that hey if you put in enough hours you can be Albert Mozart von daVinci. I don't have 10k hours so I can't be a genius but it's in there. Media exaggerates, public believes, it's a vicious self perpetuating cycle.

[flopster]

I like the Australian method better also since it seems to help the better player more and if I did it right I would be a 4.9 right now . My lowest would probably have been about 3.5. I wish we here in the states would do that and get rid of all the damn sandbagging going on, I had to email our handicap chairperson about a guy who is using 3 year old revision scores when he was supposed to be a 13 he was playing more like a 7 in a recent tournament he won.

[flopster]

Right. Its a better way. Having a 9 on the 18th after being a couple under your hcp was a great way to ruin your week. At least a wipe limits the damage.

But it is all done via computer. At the end of thr round you enter your scores into the software in the clubhouse. All the adjustments are done for you

Under the old system, an inconsistent player might regularly have 32-36 points in stableford but would never get within 10 of nett par in stroke.

This is what makes pro scores so impressive. 6 birdies but two doubles and youve missed the cut. No hiding behind ESC or its cousins.

" I had two over for 16 holes" Wow, how did you finish?

8 over. So you didn't even break 80?

But i played great!

But you shot 80!

This is what Dan doesnt get.

(typing on phone)

I remember seeing that many times in his countdown blog, "was 3 over through 14"  or "minus 1 in a 7 hole stretch".

[iacas]

I've been using 0.96 for my multiplier.

http://golf.about.com/cs/handicapping/a/howcalculated.htm

Correctly so, yes.

Dan's wrong about 0.97.

[nevets88]

Ch 7 Sydney(?) interview:

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/24555513/born-or-made/

[flopster]

Ch 7 Sydney(?) interview:

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/24555513/born-or-made/

Dan said the 10,000 hour theory wasn't the initial test? He comes across as more of a dreamer than someone testing a theory and having a real plan, it has been brought up before and the fact he didn't do any real documentation of correlation of practice/results it takes on the appearance of shooting in the dark versus a thought out process.

[nevets88]

Dan said the 10,000 hour theory wasn't the initial test? He comes across as more of a dreamer than someone testing a theory and having a real plan, it has been brought up before and the fact he didn't do any real documentation of correlation of practice/results it takes on the appearance of shooting in the dark versus a thought out process.

Or like someone who had a quarter life/career crisis, threw something on the wall, and it stuck enough to be somewhat interesting and sustaining. All the positivity on his media platforms, and it's fine if you're contributing, we're all free to do whatever we want with our money, but it's just a major turnoff to me. Just throw out the deliberate practice angle, which the morning show hostess misnamed as dedicated practice, remove it because I don't see much of it and just call it what it is, a very unscientific, flakey wishy washy attempt at making people feel good and be entertained. Bread and circuses. No I don't want a Dan Plan hat or towel. http://thedanplan.com/dan-plan-store-2/

[Lihu]

Dan said the 10,000 hour theory wasn't the initial test? He comes across as more of a dreamer than someone testing a theory and having a real plan, it has been brought up before and the fact he didn't do any real documentation of correlation of practice/results it takes on the appearance of shooting in the dark versus a thought out process.

He said that "When you take something as complex as golf where there aren't necessarily any genetic traits that would help you succeed". He also said that "By the time I finish my 10,000 hours, I'll be younger than Tiger is now. . ."

The interviewers didn't sound all that convinced that he could succeed. The beginning comments and the ending comments stated that it's not possible at least for the two interviewers. Also, the constant giggles from the lady were a dead giveaway for me. She did at least mention that he is in the top 4% of all golfers in the world, which I think is a reference to his vanity cap of 2-3.

While I admit that his swing looks pretty good, it still looks really wimpy. So, how do you take a wimpy swing like that and convince people that this swing will take him into the PGA Tour? The only thing I can think of is really good marketing.

As long as he doesn't sound like a total fool to the general public he still has a bright future in marketing.

[golf-noob-bruce]

While I admit that his swing looks pretty good, it still looks really wimpy.

I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean by "wimpy". He hasn't posted any recent videos on his blog that I can find, but the videos that there are of his driver swing looks better than most of the guys I see at the range (and I go a fair bit) and certainly not wimpy in comparison. Sure, he's not a big dude, but he seems to use what he's got fairly well.

[MS256]

I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean by "wimpy". He hasn't posted any recent videos on his blog that I can find, but the videos that there are of his driver swing looks better than most of the guys I see at the range (and I go a fair bit) and certainly not wimpy in comparison. Sure, he's not a big dude, but he seems to use what he's got fairly well.

But do "most of the guys I see at the range" think they are going to be Tour players?

I think Dan's swing looks fine for somebody playing in our Saturday game but pretty sure he wouldn't crack the top 5 in distance even in that game...and nobody in that game has any aspirations to do anything other than have a little fun on the weekends.

[Lihu]

I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean by "wimpy". He hasn't posted any recent videos on his blog that I can find, but the videos that there are of his driver swing looks better than most of the guys I see at the range (and I go a fair bit) and certainly not wimpy in comparison. Sure, he's not a big dude, but he seems to use what he's got fairly well.

For a 2-3 handicap that he claims to be, his swing looks wimpy.

But do "most of the guys I see at the range" think they are going to be Tour players?

I think Dan's swing looks fine for somebody playing in our Saturday game but pretty sure he wouldn't crack the top 5 in distance even in that game...and nobody in that game has any aspirations to do anything other than have a little fun on the weekends.

Right, for the average player his swing looks pretty good.

[whatwoodtigerdo]

For a 2-3 handicap that he claims to be, his swing looks wimpy.

Right, for the average player his swing looks pretty good.

How exactly does a swing look wimpy? Please let me know because I am going to work on this at the range today.

[golf-noob-bruce]

For a 2-3 handicap that he claims to be, his swing looks wimpy.

Ooooh, now that you put it *that* way I totally get it!

But do "most of the guys I see at the range" think they are going to be Tour players?

You're right, he's light-years away from looking like a tour pro.

But then I can't think of anyone I've seen at the range I'd label as having a wimpy swing. Maybe uncoordinated. But wimpy? No.