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

[mchepp]

Empirical testing is not science, is that your view?

What is exactly your complaint about the scientificness of Dan Plan?

From wikipedia "Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience."

Clearly dan the plan, is an empirical experiment testing the waters of that 10 000 hours theory.

For the record, I have a hunch that Dan will not exactly be the shining start on the PGA tour. I think he needs way more clubhead speed than he currently has to be competitive at that kind of level.

I do think that he could get to scratch level though...

I do agree with you on that he should post more detailed analysis of his own golf game, so everyone could see what he's up to. See the data so to speak.

If he had done empirical research of golf and specifically golf instruction before embarking on the 10,000 theory then I would agreed he started in the correct fashion. Instead he spent an ungodly amount of hours making 1 foot putts telling everyone he was going to make the PGA Tour when he had no idea what separated him from a PGA Tour player. Basically after 3 minutes of hitting 1 foot putts he had accumulated the same skill as a PGA Tour player hitting a 1 foot putt. Yet he was no closer to being a PGA Tour player after those 3 minutes or 30 hours he spent hitting 1 foot putts.

[late347]

New theories can be formulated without using an entire body of pre-existing sources to arrive to the conclusion.

You can simply test out a situation, doing an experiment. You test a hypothesis. Hypothesis turns out to be true or not.

Dan is the experiment himself. He is the volunteering test subject.

There is no requirement to use pre-existing sources of golf instruction.

Here's an example of the above point...

Trackman radar uses scientific principles built into the machine itself. Trackman doesn't care if pga instructors used to think in previous times that club path was the main contributor to slices for example. Trackman simply observes reality through radio waves and records data.

Trackman data and analysis of said data, has shown that face-to-path relationship is the truth of the matter to a slicer's problems.

But I still agree that the way he started with putting only was quite silly. He's not preparing for mini-golf after all...

He's gotta have good ballstriking ability to play  good golf.

[Jeff Hopkins]

Well looks like he is living his dream.

Good luck to him, wish I had the time & the money to follow mine.

[MS256]

New theories can be formulated without using an entire body of pre-existing sources to arrive to the conclusion.

You can simply test out a situation, doing an experiment. You test a hypothesis. Hypothesis turns out to be true or not.

Dan is the experiment himself. He is the volunteering test subject.

There is no requirement to use pre-existing sources of golf instruction.

Here's an example of the above point...

Trackman radar uses scientific principles built into the machine itself. Trackman doesn't care if pga instructors used to think in previous times that club path was the main contributor to slices for example. Trackman simply observes reality through radio waves and records data.

Trackman data and analysis of said data, has shown that face-to-path relationship is the truth of the matter to a slicer's problems.

But I still agree that the way he started with putting only was quite silly. He's not preparing for mini-golf after all...

He's gotta have good ballstriking ability to play  good golf.

An experiment using one subject would fit my definition of junk science and for me common sense and life experiences trump junk science.

One person in an experiment proves nothing on one side and very little on the other. If he made it to the PGA Tour it would mean he (one individual) had the talent to make it with training. If he didn't make it to the PGA Tour it proves he (one individual) didn't have the talent to make it with training.

I know many people that put 10,000 hours (and more) into a sport and never made it to the highest level.

[Lihu]

I think we've all seen people who put lots of effort and see very little results. That's what mid-life crisis is for. ;-)

[hallryu]

Now I've seen more of his videos and read some more blogs I'm beginning to see where some of the folks are coming from here. I would also like to see more real ball data!

[nevets88]

Dan Plan's instructor on dynamic loft. Looks like new practice routine will involve some mental portion according to latest blog post. [video]http://youtu.be/RujVIXmheCw[/video]

[iacas]

Dan Plan's instructor on dynamic loft. Looks like new practice routine will involve some mental portion according to latest blog post.

Yes, ever since he went to the Vision54 thing… which won't lower his handicap much if at all.

[nevets88]

Yes, ever since he went to the Vision54 thing… which won't lower his handicap much if at all.

When I saw the photo of the oath he took at the vision seminar, I immediately thought of corporate morale boosting team building events. A top notch instructor, no offense to his current pro, would help more imho.

[damntree]

Dan has came a long way I hope he succeeds he is such a nice guy. And id watch the movie.

[Big C]

Yes, ever since he went to the Vision54 thing… which won't lower his handicap much if at all.

It won't lower his handicap in a meaningful way, I agree. But if it allows him to replicate his handicap (assuming his 3 index is legit) in a tournament setting, then I think this type of mental coaching could be very valuable. At this point, just posting a tournament score that begins with a "7" would be a colossal leap forward.

[Harp stein]

I agree, it seems like the next big step for him is to figure out how to post "typical" rounds under tournament pressure. Hopefully this stuff he's doing helps.

I don't get why all the vitriol for Dan on here. Dude's been golfing for 4 years (early parts of which were putting which isn't really golfing) and based on his handicap he's probably in the 95th percentile of players (or higher). What natural "talent" does a golfer need? Flexibility and strength can be built, I'm not really aware of any other physical trait that's necessary to be a good golfer. You swing a stick on a plane, then walk to where your ball goes. There's no speed, size, special genetic trait, or athletic ability required that I can think of. I mean they have a Senior's tour for goodness sake, where you have to be over 50 just to participate! Show me another major sport where even a small % of competitors are over 40 years old!

I think it's really cool, he had a dream (or at least a half-baked idea) and is pursuing it. Who cares if the 10k hours thing is bunk, isn't it fun to just see how good he can get?

[nevets88]

I think it's really cool, he had a dream (or at least a half-baked idea) and is pursuing it. Who cares if the 10k hours thing is bunk, isn't it fun to just see how good he can get?

I wrote it before, I'll cut and paste here:

• By saying he just needs 10K hours of deliberate practice (see next point) to get on tour trivializes those who sacrificed much more and have more talent who never made it or are continuing to try and those already on it.
• By making deliberate practice as part of his mission statement and not carrying it out that well is disappointing.
• By going along with the press agreeing that he's a 4 handicap while he's shooting mid to high 80s in his most recent tournaments is disingenuous.
• Granted, some here have more golf experience and knowledge than The Dan Plan, but I'm guessing the some here seeing him carry out his learning endeavor in a not so optimal way, it pains them. To me, it's the HOW he gets good not HOW good he can get.

If he cuts out the deliberate practice angle from his mission statement I'd be way less critical.

[Lihu]

I agree, it seems like the next big step for him is to figure out how to post "typical" rounds under tournament pressure. Hopefully this stuff he's doing helps. I don't get why all the vitriol for Dan on here. Dude's been golfing for 4 years (early parts of which were putting which isn't really golfing) and based on his handicap he's probably in the 95th percentile of players (or higher). What natural "talent" does a golfer need? Flexibility and strength can be built, I'm not really aware of any other physical trait that's necessary to be a good golfer. You swing a stick on a plane, then walk to where your ball goes. There's no speed, size, special genetic trait, or athletic ability required that I can think of. I mean they have a Senior's tour for goodness sake, where you have to be over 50 just to participate! Show me another major sport where even a small % of competitors are over 40 years old! I think it's really cool, he had a dream (or at least a half-baked idea) and is pursuing it. Who cares if the 10k hours thing is bunk, isn't it fun to just see how good he can get?

Socceris just kicking a ball into another goal, football is just carrying a ball across a 100 yard field, . . . Rock climbing is just climbing up a rock, skiing is just slipping down a snowy hill. I just don't get why anyone couldn't be an Olympian with 10,000 hours either. Sorry, I'm in BC. I've become Canadified. . . :-D

[nevets88]

What natural "talent" does a golfer need?

To be a pro, and those better qualified to say so please correct me, a massive amount of coordination. I was thinking this a while back during one of his interviews when The Dan Plan mentioned that a golfer doesn't have any one particular needed trait. Hand / eye / hip / shoulder / torso coordination. I dunno how you quantify this and it's a fuzzy concept, but you know it when you see it.

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

What natural "talent" does a golfer need?

I think the actual, honest answer to this question is "nobody has any idea at all".

Generally, I think you need to be really, really good at something with a significant separation value.  The lower the separation value, the better you need to be relative to the field.  This could be because when you were 3 you played some game over and over and developed incredible hand eye co-ordination.  Or not.

I think the people who say "you need a ton of natural talent but I can't quatify it or explain it" really mean "I have no idea".  And I think the people who say natrual talent is a myth, and you can get there with a ton of standard practice really mean "I have no idea".

Note that this is contradictory to what I've posted previously in this thread.  After reading the whole thread, following the Dan Plan and improving my own game, my conclusion is nobody knows and nobody can predict it.  Which would imply its mental, but I'm not sure about that either.

I have Furyk's last two rounds at the last tournament he was in (the one where TIm Clark lapped him) with "save until I delete" status on my Tivo.  He was hitting his hybrid from 200 yards out (did it twice).  He was getting up and down cosntantly.  His swing is weird.  Nobody could predict he is awesome, but he is.  He hit a 6 iron from maybe 155 at one point.  Hes not long.  He has a good short game, but not incredible.  Yet he is awesome.  Why?  Who knows.

I am convinced there is no metric you can use to predict professional sports success, let alone a game as fickle as golf.

[Harp stein]

I think there are genetic traits that might act as natural talent, but I just don't see how those would come into play in golf. It's not a very physical sport, compared with other major sports. Its much easier to be great at basketball if your 7' tall for example. All the great baseball hitters seem to have incredible eyesight, as another example. Maybe there is a coordination gene or some combination of genes that produce someone pre-disposed to being better at golf? That's certainly possible, we're just starting to understand the human genome. But because we don't know, Dan is an interesting test subject! What happens if he does make the Web.com tour in 3-4 years? Or he tops out as a scratch golfer and never gets over that hump? Either way it's another data point, and he's not hurting anyone by trying so I say sit back and enjoy the show!

[Lihu]

At a "fun" level, you're right, but what you say applies to any sport. Top level sprinters run 100m in a little less than 10 seconds. Many high school sprinters run in a little over 10 seconds. This is not much difference. You might drive a ball 220 yards, a pro 280. Not a huge difference, but the net result is something like 25 strokes per round. A little over 1 per hole, if you are a 20 HI. This is a difference between a million dollar game and a casual weekend round. It doesn't seem like a lot, but it is very significant.