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

[Pretzel]

This is more like it. Also bonuses like a free BT speaker, lesson, etc...

http://www.prouknow.com/campaigns/mike-drake-2015

This guy is someone who might actually have a chance at it, and the reward program similar to something on indiegogo or kickstarter is nice.

[GHIN0011458]

This guy is someone who might actually have a chance at it, and the reward program similar to something on indiegogo or kickstarter is nice.

I actually played golf this year in a tournament with the owner of ProUKnow before it was launched. Good to see it is getting some ground.

[MrFlipper]

As a comparison to our friend Dan, my old neighbor in Arizona is a club pro at a nice snowbird club in Phoenix metro area. He goes out to play once with me at my course (72 ish, 130 ish), doesn't know the course but shoots 68 (-4) and didn't really make a putt. I'm really impressed! He's not. I ask him if he plays many local tournaments, he says no, doesn't have the time, only plays maybe once a month, and isn't that good anyway even if he played a lot. "Those guys who play in tournaments are good!"

I'd bet this isn't that atypical for a club pro. Even moreso, I'd bet a club pro breaks par on his home course a bunch of the time. And Dan has a home course, he doesn't do very well on it, not even close.

And Dan is going to be miles better than those local tournament pro guys from where he is now? It's a huge joke!

He has better odds to hit a number 15 times in a row at roulette or something. It ain't gonna happen for him. No possible way.

I am amazed that folks even think he ever had a chance.

[Shorty]

I am amazed that folks even think he ever had a chance.

I don't think any golfers actually did, except those with something to gain by endorsing his nonsensical quest.

[Dedicated2Journ]

I don't think any golfers actually did, except those with something to gain by endorsing his nonsensical quest.

I have to disagree here. The mind is an amazing tool if properly focused. My problem with the Dan Plan is that his "Plan" is too generic and ambiguous. He won't make it until he becomes far more structured. The data he tracks is minimal and will never provide the necessary feedback required to become an elite golfer.

I'm an aspiring pro, I take 90-120 minutes after every round to categorize "why" I failed to execute the necessary shot during a round of golf. That includes mental game, club selection, putts ( reads and speed) , drives, chips and approach shots. Dan is using an app in hopes that they will eventually endorse him (my assumption here) that gives him little insight to "why" he isn't getting better. If he wants to make it... he needs to really step up his focus and dedication to improving.

Where are his practice plans? Where is his post round analysis? etc.?

[Shorty]

I have to disagree here. The mind is an amazing tool if properly focused. My problem with the Dan Plan is that his "Plan" is too generic and ambiguous. He won't make it until he becomes far more structured. The data he tracks is minimal and will never provide the necessary feedback required to become an elite golfer.

I'm an aspiring pro, I take 90-120 minutes after every round to categorize "why" I failed to execute the necessary shot during a round of golf. That includes mental game, club selection, putts ( reads and speed) , drives, chips and approach shots. Dan is using an app in hopes that they will eventually endorse him (my assumption here) that gives him little insight to "why" he isn't getting better. If he wants to make it... he needs to really step up his focus and dedication to improving.

Where are his practice plans? Where is his post round analysis? etc.?

You think he has a chance?

Wanna bet?

[RFKFREAK]

You think he has a chance? Wanna bet?

Gamboooooool!

[HanNL]

This guy is someone who might actually have a chance at it, and the reward program similar to something on indiegogo or kickstarter is nice.

Not really useful comparing Mike to Dan to be honest: Mike started when he was 10. Has a 20 years head start in golf. Maybe Mike already has 20k hours under his belt (no clue, he probably never counted). That's the difference also: Dan is basically doing a practical/ empirical research into the hypothesis that spending a lot of time (10k hours in this case) on a certain subject with deliberate practice will get him to where he is among the top people in the world. Whether he makes it, remains to be seen. The whole point is that nobody before him has tried this and measured along the way at the same time. There might be an aspect of talent/ genetics/ nurture involved too, if we find that 10k hours alone is not enough. (genetics influencing the body being able to move in a certain way and maybe the mental aspect, nurture influencing the way someone approaches problems or difficult situations, etc).

Slightly off topic: I don't think the concept of crowd sourcing your way into Web.com qualifiers and PGA Tour will really take off: it is very different from sponsoring a product (that usually does not exist yet) you like and want (and that will get if funding succeeds). I mean in this case you get like a free lesson for 200, a bluetooth speaker (??), or play golf with him once for 1000. If I would give money, it would be for the fun of it (which not many people will structurally do imo).

[mailman]

I think Dans biggest problem is a lack of athleticism. What would be interesting is finding out if he is good at anything outside of golf? Stay with me here lads :) when you watch shows like X Factor or America Has Talent you can always tell people who are going to be good singers etc by whether they excel at stuff other than what they are on the show for. Same for sports, the truly talented sportsmen and women are "generally" very good at other sports as well (for example many international rugby players are also very good golfers...most likely much better than Dan will ever be). With Dan I just don't see that in him and I doubt he would be any better at anything else he does as well Regards Mailman

[Dedicated2Journ]

You think he has a chance?

Wanna bet?

Gamboooooool!

Yes I think he has the potential to play professional golf for money and potentially win some. However, I don't think he has a chance until he steps up his practice and tournament planning. Truth is, he's not competing enough...that alone is his biggest hurdle. Once he starts putting money on the line, he'll get real disciplined and you'll see progress. How his mind holds up is unknown...

[Dedicated2Journ]

Not really useful comparing Mike to Dan to be honest: Mike started when he was 10. Has a 20 years head start in golf. Maybe Mike already has 20k hours under his belt (no clue, he probably never counted). That's the difference also: Dan is basically doing a practical/ empirical research into the hypothesis that spending a lot of time (10k hours in this case) on a certain subject with deliberate practice will get him to where he is among the top people in the world. Whether he makes it, remains to be seen. The whole point is that nobody before him has tried this and measured along the way at the same time. There might be an aspect of talent/ genetics/ nurture involved too, if we find that 10k hours alone is not enough. (genetics influencing the body being able to move in a certain way and maybe the mental aspect, nurture influencing the way someone approaches problems or difficult situations, etc).

Slightly off topic: I don't think the concept of crowd sourcing your way into Web.com qualifiers and PGA Tour will really take off: it is very different from sponsoring a product (that usually does not exist yet) you like and want (and that will get if funding succeeds). I mean in this case you get like a free lesson for 200, a bluetooth speaker (??), or play golf with him once for 1000. If I would give money, it would be for the fun of it (which not many people will structurally do imo).

Remember it's not just 10K hours of hacking at golf balls. IT MUST BE DELIBERATE. The mind must be engaged and growing...focused.

According to research conducted by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University, “Elite performers engage in ‘deliberate practice’–an effortful activity designed to improve target performance.” Dr. Ericsson’s studies, made popular through Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers and Geoff Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, have found that in order to excel in a field, roughly 10,000 hours of “stretching yourself beyond what you can currently do” is required. “I think you’re the right astronaut for this mission,” Dr. Ericsson said about The Dan Plan.

[HanNL]

Not really useful comparing Mike to Dan to be honest: Mike started when he was 10. Has a 20 years head start in golf. Maybe Mike already has 20k hours under his belt (no clue, he probably never counted). That's the difference also: Dan is basically doing a practical/ empirical research into the hypothesis that spending a lot of time (10k hours in this case) on a certain subject with deliberate practice will get him to where he is among the top people in the world. Whether he makes it, remains to be seen. The whole point is that nobody before him has tried this and measured along the way at the same time. There might be an aspect of talent/ genetics/ nurture involved too, if we find that 10k hours alone is not enough. (genetics influencing the body being able to move in a certain way and maybe the mental aspect, nurture influencing the way someone approaches problems or difficult situations, etc).

Remember it's not just 10K hours of hacking at golf balls. IT MUST BE DELIBERATE. The mind must be engaged and growing...focused.

Didn't I say that?

[nevets88]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretzel

This guy is someone who might actually have a chance at it, and the reward program similar to something on indiegogo or kickstarter is nice.

Not really useful comparing Mike to Dan to be honest: Mike started when he was 10. Has a 20 years head start in golf. Maybe Mike already has 20k hours under his belt (no clue, he probably never counted). That's the difference also: Dan is basically doing a practical/ empirical research into the hypothesis that spending a lot of time (10k hours in this case) on a certain subject with deliberate practice will get him to where he is among the top people in the world. Whether he makes it, remains to be seen. The whole point is that nobody before him has tried this and measured along the way at the same time. There might be an aspect of talent/ genetics/ nurture involved too, if we find that 10k hours alone is not enough. (genetics influencing the body being able to move in a certain way and maybe the mental aspect, nurture influencing the way someone approaches problems or difficult situations, etc).

Slightly off topic: I don't think the concept of crowd sourcing your way into Web.com qualifiers and PGA Tour will really take off: it is very different from sponsoring a product (that usually does not exist yet) you like and want (and that will get if funding succeeds). I mean in this case you get like a free lesson for 200, a bluetooth speaker (??), or play golf with him once for 1000. If I would give money, it would be for the fun of it (which not many people will structurally do imo).

Quote:

Originally Posted by HanNL

Not really useful comparing Mike to Dan to be honest: Mike started when he was 10. Has a 20 years head start in golf. Maybe Mike already has 20k hours under his belt (no clue, he probably never counted). That's the difference also: Dan is basically doing a practical/ empirical research into the hypothesis that spending a lot of time (10k hours in this case) on a certain subject with deliberate practice will get him to where he is among the top people in the world. Whether he makes it, remains to be seen. The whole point is that nobody before him has tried this and measured along the way at the same time. There might be an aspect of talent/ genetics/ nurture involved too, if we find that 10k hours alone is not enough. (genetics influencing the body being able to move in a certain way and maybe the mental aspect, nurture influencing the way someone approaches problems or difficult situations, etc).

Slightly off topic: I don't think the concept of crowd sourcing your way into Web.com qualifiers and PGA Tour will really take off: it is very different from sponsoring a product (that usually does not exist yet) you like and want (and that will get if funding succeeds). I mean in this case you get like a free lesson for 200, a bluetooth speaker (??), or play golf with him once for 1000. If I would give money, it would be for the fun of it (which not many people will structurally do imo).

Remember it's not just 10K hours of hacking at golf balls. IT MUST BE DELIBERATE. The mind must be engaged and growing...focused.

According to research conducted by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University, “Elite performers engage in ‘deliberate practice’–an effortful activity designed to improve target performance.” Dr. Ericsson’s studies, made popular through Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers and Geoff Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, have found that in order to excel in a field, roughly 10,000 hours of “stretching yourself beyond what you can currently do” is required. “I think you’re the right astronaut for this mission,” Dr. Ericsson said about The Dan Plan.

I'm wary as to how deliberate The Dan Plan's practice is. The thing TDP did putting and chipping only for the first year sounds deliberate and "scientific", but turned out to be a bad idea. There are no or too few videos of him doing slow swings, mirror work, people ask him on the blog and social media to write in detail about what in particular he does to work on his swing, I barely see any side by side photos or videos with a swing analyzer. I don't know whether he counts a round as 5 hours or 10 minutes of DP. I'd even argue that Mike Drake practiced more deliberately than Dan whether Drake knew it or not. Only in a recent post did TDP write feel ain't real basically, a discovery that should have been made known to him outright. Forget whether he makes it or not - we're not getting a good enough glimpse of the journey. Some people have strong opinions on his chances of success. Not me, my criticism is the lack of a record of how he does or doesn't get to his goal.

[Lihu]

I think Dans biggest problem is a lack of athleticism. . .

This is what I see as Dan's main block. He lacks athletic talent. Everything I state below is described by your one sentence. . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shorty

You think he has a chance?

Wanna bet?

Yes I think he has the potential to play professional golf for money and potentially win some. However, I don't think he has a chance until he steps up his practice and tournament planning. Truth is, he's not competing enough...that alone is his biggest hurdle. Once he starts putting money on the line, he'll get real disciplined and you'll see progress. How his mind holds up is unknown...

I doubt this. The main block is lack of athletic ability. . .

I'm the father of two kids who play golf, and have had the opportunity see many other children develop over the past 5 to 6 years. I watched a wide range of kids 8 years to 17 develop their skills,  anyone from a rank beginner up to scratch. At first, I was convinced that any of the children who really put their full attention into this sport could become scratch. As time went on, I could see that some kids struggled for one reason or another. Some kids showed a lot of potential as their short game talent developed early on at 8 years old or so. Others couldn't hit the ball, but you could tell they had a lot of power if only they had the hand-eye coordination.

As time went on, the kids who had the power and the hand-eye coordination were the ones who continued to play more seriously. Most of the other kids gave up and found other things to do.

I see Dan in the same category as one of the 8 year old kids I've seen who plays the short game really well, but he lacks the power to get the distances he needs, play from deep rough, hit a 170 yard bunker shot or any variety of shots where he needs physical strength with coordination.

I would bet on one of the kids I've known who can knock balls over the fence the extremely few times he made halfway decent contact with the ball to make the PGA tour over Dan simply because he has PGA tour strength.

Remember it's not just 10K hours of hacking at golf balls. IT MUST BE DELIBERATE. The mind must be engaged and growing...focused.

According to research conducted by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University, “Elite performers engage in ‘deliberate practice’–an effortful activity designed to improve target performance.” Dr. Ericsson’s studies, made popular through Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers and Geoff Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, have found that in order to excel in a field, roughly 10,000 hours of “stretching yourself beyond what you can currently do” is required. “I think you’re the right astronaut for this mission,” Dr. Ericsson said about The Dan Plan.

The issue is that Dan lacks the talent to know what he needs to work on, and will never know. He lacks the natural ability for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesthetic_learning, and lacks enough fast twitch muscle for the power he needs.

He has a pro caliper short game (29-30 putts), but just can't get to the green in as few strokes as scratch players. Look at his distance and dispersion after 6000 hours of learning. Not very impressive.

I'm wary as to how deliberate The Dan Plan's practice is. The thing TDP did putting and chipping only for the first year sounds deliberate and "scientific", but turned out to be a bad idea. There are no or too few videos of him doing slow swings, mirror work, people ask him on the blog and social media to write in detail about what in particular he does to work on his swing, I barely see any side by side photos or videos with a swing analyzer. I don't know whether he counts a round as 5 hours or 10 minutes of DP. I'd even argue that Mike Drake practiced more deliberately than Dan whether he knew it or not. Only in a recent post did TDP write feel ain't real basically, a discovery that should have been made known to him outright. Forget whether he makes it or not - we're not getting a good enough glimpse of the journey.

He's really good at putting and chipping. The issues with Dan are lack of talent to get to a PGA tour pro level. I agree with you now that he might be able to get to a 5 handicap, but mainly because of his killer short game.

[bkuehn1952]

I'm wary as to how deliberate The Dan Plan's practice is.

I was a bit surprised when Dan mentioned that he had played 18 and his "hours of practice" changed by 4 hours.  I don't care how intense someone may be, there is little chance someone can stay engaged in the process of golf for an entire round.  Most of us have to disengage our minds between shots or our heads will explode.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nevets88

I'm wary as to how deliberate The Dan Plan's practice is.

I was a bit surprised when Dan mentioned that he had played 18 and his "hours of practice" changed by 4 hours.  I don't care how intense someone may be, there is little chance someone can stay engaged in the process of golf for an entire round.  Most of us have to disengage our minds between shots or our heads will explode.

This is best way I can do my deliberate practice. The only way I can make a good shot is if I think about it and practice right before my shot.

I do have a net in my back yard and do mirror work, which is more deliberate, but I work a lot out the motions on the course.

[Shorty]

ower he needs.

He has a pro caliper short game (29-30 putts), but just can't get to the green in as few strokes as scratch players. Look at his distance and dispersion after 6000 hours of learning. Not very impressive.

Pro caliber?

29-30 putts?

It may well indicate that he is a very poor putter.

There is no correlation between this number of putts and how good a putter he is.

There have been dozens of threads about this. In most cases, 29 putts doesn't mean good putting. It means approach shots missing the green.

He is relying on 1 putts for many of his pars. That doesn't mean he has a good short game.

[Pretzel]

There is no correlation between this number of putts and how good a putter he is.

There have been dozens of threads about this. In most cases, 29 putts doesn't mean good putting. It means approach shots missing the green.

He is relying on 1 putts for many of his pars. That doesn't mean he has a good short game.

He most recent statistics show GIR at just barely under 50%, so 29 putts would be about average I would assume for a PGA player who hits so few greens in a round.

9 GIR x2 puts each + 18 putts

9 missed greens x 1 putt each (also highly dependent upon scrambling ability) +18 putts + 27 putts.

That said, something doesn't quite add up for me here. How does he hit 9 greens with an average of 1.9 putts per GIR (17 putts there) then turn around and have a scrambling percentage of 40% (meaning he gets up and down 3.6 times out of 9, so a generous 14 putts there assuming he is up and down 4 times out of the 9) and still come out with an average of 28.8 putts per round (his putts per hole he listed times 18 holes)?

If you take his GIR % and scrambling percentage and add the two up for putts you get 31 putts per round, but the other way he somehow magically loses 2 putts per round. This can only mean that he is missing on the green on some of his chips and pitches entirely, at an average rate of around 1-2 chips per round in order to have the lower putts per hole but also lower scrambling percentage. I don't know about you, but that makes it seems as though his short game isn't quite phenomenal to me (agreeing with Shorty here).