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

[garybbq]

This is the main takeaway for me, and I'll add that according to his stats he's actually better than +1 inside 60 yards.

What does this even mean?

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

This is the main takeaway for me, and I'll add that according to his stats he's actually better than +1 inside 60 yards.

What does this even mean?

His putting average is 29 and his Trakman combine score inside 60 yards is 80+. These are pro level abilities. I am reasoning that this is why he plays so well.

[newtogolf]

For those interested, a recent interview with Dan (he had been injured for 3 weeks at the point of this phone call):

https://www.spreaker.com/user/golficity/the-dan-plan-with-dan-mclaughlin

Moderator intro (paraphrased as I'm listening):

"It's inspiring!"

"The story itself is compelling"

"No matter whether he meets his goal or not, it is the journey that is important."

"Very interesting story- very daring."

"What's great is that he holds himself very accountable. His stats, his progress, injuries, it's all on his blog."

Dan (paraphrased):

At 8:00, Dan is still touting the idea of starting close to the hole, and that it was "paramount to me having an accelerated first few years." The moderators were like, "yah, that's great."

"It's critical to have great instruction. Find one person you trust and pay attention to just that one source."

"5 years and 6000 hours in , and I'm still kinda working on different things."

"Close to the hole, I'm equivalent to a scratch or +1 handicap, but I'm struggling with the long game."

Short-term/long-term goals:

"5to 6mph more on my swing. That's mainly core workout and new exercise routine. I want to get to 113/114mph on my driver swing."

"Outside of that, working on consistency. You can make up for a lot of mistakes with short game around the greens."

(I'll point out that nowhere on his site does he quantify those goals of driver swing speed or consistency that I have seen- could be wrong)

"If you just go out and play all the time, you never really know where you are." (many here criticize him for just playing all the time)

"Lately I've been using that ARCCOS thing. They break it down by areas of your game. Real statistics can help a ton."

Injury prevention:

"I was pretty lucky for the first 5 years, but lately I've had a nagging issue for about 3 weeks. My sister had a bunch of stress fractures during her career, so I've basically just been resting my back. Other than that, I stretch, I foam roll, I work out."

Moderators after:

"You know I just learned a lot from Dan there. Most guys will just go out to the range and hit driver, but I thought it was interesting to hear what he's done."

"This has really opened up a lot of interesting doors for him, as he has travelled around the world and played with various professionals."

"It was interesting what he said about statistics: Find the areas of weakness and get to work on them." (what a concept! had the moderators really not thought of that?)

Unrelated, but I ran across this recently. The idea of "deliberate play" is new to me. A quote below from a page dedicated to debunking the myth of applying 10,000 hours theory of deliberate practice to athletic endeavors.

http://changingthegameproject.com/the-10000-hour-myth/ :

Was the moderator a family member or friend because it sounds like they kept lobbing him meatballs to hit and then gushed over his answers.  I guess Game Golf turned him down for a sponsorship so he's taking a shot with ARCCOS.

[garybbq]

His putting average is 29 and his Trakman combine score inside 60 yards is 80+. These are pro level abilities. I am reasoning that this is why he plays so well.

That seems like a strange way of looking at it, a trackman score in one area and being a good putter has nothing to do with being a plus golfer.

I play with guys who hit it a long way, are they plus off the T ?

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

His putting average is 29 and his Trakman combine score inside 60 yards is 80+. These are pro level abilities. I am reasoning that this is why he plays so well.

That seems like a strange way of looking at it, a trackman score in one area and being a good putter has nothing to do with being a plus golfer.

I play with guys who hit it a long way, are they plus off the T ?

If the guys you know could consistently hit fairways from 300 yards, then I would probably say they are "plus" off the tee.

However, you're right, I was only extending his original statement, and not doing a great job of it.

[garybbq]

If the guys you know could consistently hit fairways from 300 yards, then I would probably say they are "plus" off the tee.

However, you're right, I was only extending his original statement, and not doing a great job of it.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just find that a very a weird thing for Dan to say. I mean having a good short game has nothing to do with being a + player, I guess that just shows how delusional Dan really is.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

If the guys you know could consistently hit fairways from 300 yards, then I would probably say they are "plus" off the tee.

However, you're right, I was only extending his original statement, and not doing a great job of it.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just find that a very a weird thing for Dan to say. I mean having a good short game has nothing to do with being a + player, I guess that just shows how delusional Dan really is.

Or that's his " marketing way" of demonstrating his achievement of some of these goals to becoming a pro?

I feel like he was trivializing the "long game" a bit, as if it were just one of the things he needs to work on. . .

[natureboy]

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just find that a very a weird thing for Dan to say. I mean having a good short game has nothing to do with being a + player, I guess that just shows how delusional Dan really is.

I agree on relative importance of long game, but I think that's an overstatement. Pros are better in all aspects of game than higher handicaps and pro-level short game is one part he'd have to have to get there, but I think he's been myopically focused on it for too long since it's quite the harder skill to develop. Seems to be trying to make up for long game oversight now.

[garybbq]

Or that's his " marketing way" of demonstrating his achievement of some of these goals to becoming a pro? I feel like he was trivializing the "long game" a bit, as if it were just one of the things he needs to work on. . .

I never really thought of that, but I think your right. Trying to show some kind of progress.

[garybbq]

I agree on relative importance of long game, but I think that's an overstatement. Pros are better in all aspects of game than higher handicaps and pro-level short game is one part he'd have to have to get there, but I think he's been myopically focused on it for too long since it's quite the harder skill to develop. Seems to be trying to make up for long game oversight now.

I don't think you understand how good a + player actually is or what kind of shots they are able to play. Dan simply cannot hit a high towering 4 iron fading or drawing.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by natureboy

I agree on relative importance of long game, but I think that's an overstatement. Pros are better in all aspects of game than higher handicaps and pro-level short game is one part he'd have to have to get there, but I think he's been myopically focused on it for too long since it's quite the harder skill to develop. Seems to be trying to make up for long game oversight now.

I don't think you understand how good a + player actually is or what kind of shots they are able to play. Dan simply cannot hit a high towering 4 iron fading or drawing.

Or even just the high towering 4i part. 210+ yards "that high" just takes serious oomph!

[Pretzel]

His putting average is 29 and his Trakman combine score inside 60 yards is 80+. These are pro level abilities. I am reasoning that this is why he plays so well.

This could also mean that he misses a lot of greens. Missing a lot of greens gives him plenty of practice for those inside 60 yard shots, and also contributes pretty well to fewer putts (I had a 22 putt round before when I hit 3 greens all day and got lucky scrambling with a lot of putts from the fringe or easy chip shots). I wouldn't necessarily say that this is why he scores well though, mainly because I don't believe he does score very well at all.

I don't think you understand how good a + player actually is or what kind of shots they are able to play. Dan simply cannot hit a high towering 4 iron fading or drawing.

To be fair, that shot is one that's not often necessary and is a bit of a misleading statement. Plus handicap players are good, and they often can hit the high towering irons you mention, but they're not quite as fantastic as a lot of people make them out to be. The #1 player on my school golf team was a legitimate +1.9 (he set a course record in one tournament with a 63), but he couldn't draw the ball well or consistently and he didn't hit those high "towering" iron shots you describe (though his driver flew like a bird).

The one thing I would say all plus handicap players have in common is that they know the strengths and weaknesses of their individual games, and how to play to their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. I would also hazard a guess that many plus handicap players are decent drivers of the golf ball, just because that makes it much easier to hit the green and be closer to the pin for birdies, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a requirement.

Dan, from what I can see, lacks both of these skills that are (in my opinion) entirely beneficial in playing scratch or better golf. He lacks control and distance with the driver and, at least to an outside observer, seems to prefer to state that he's not good at something and point out what he believes to be the cause (oftentimes the clubs, such as when he switched irons and wedges) rather than figure out how he can use the things he IS good at (the aforementioned putting and <60 yard shots) and minimize the impact of his weaknesses. I could be entirely wrong on the second point, but I know that for the first point he can help himself gain both distance and control with a targeted exercise regimen. There's a reason college golfers are required to work out as part of being on the team and many PGA golfers choose to do the same.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

His putting average is 29 and his Trakman combine score inside 60 yards is 80+. These are pro level abilities. I am reasoning that this is why he plays so well.

This could also mean that he misses a lot of greens. Missing a lot of greens gives him plenty of practice for those inside 60 yard shots, and also contributes pretty well to fewer putts (I had a 22 putt round before when I hit 3 greens all day and got lucky scrambling with a lot of putts from the fringe or easy chip shots). I wouldn't necessarily say that this is why he scores well though, mainly because I don't believe he does score very well at all.

I agree that his 60 yard skills are most likely from missed greens, but at least in his lowest round he had 13 greens and 29 putts. I have to assume that his bogeys are approach related, but normally is in a 2 putt position?

[garybbq]

This could also mean that he misses a lot of greens. Missing a lot of greens gives him plenty of practice for those inside 60 yard shots, and also contributes pretty well to fewer putts (I had a 22 putt round before when I hit 3 greens all day and got lucky scrambling with a lot of putts from the fringe or easy chip shots). I wouldn't necessarily say that this is why he scores well though, mainly because I don't believe he does score very well at all.

To be fair, that shot is one that's not often necessary and is a bit of a misleading statement. Plus handicap players are good, and they often can hit the high towering irons you mention, but they're not quite as fantastic as a lot of people make them out to be. The #1 player on my school golf team was a legitimate +1.9 (he set a course record in one tournament with a 63), but he couldn't draw the ball well or consistently and he didn't hit those high "towering" iron shots you describe (though his driver flew like a bird).

The one thing I would say all plus handicap players have in common is that they know the strengths and weaknesses of their individual games, and how to play to their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. I would also hazard a guess that many plus handicap players are decent drivers of the golf ball, just because that makes it much easier to hit the green and be closer to the pin for birdies, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a requirement.

Dan, from what I can see, lacks both of these skills that are (in my opinion) entirely beneficial in playing scratch or better golf. He lacks control and distance with the driver and, at least to an outside observer, seems to prefer to state that he's not good at something and point out what he believes to be the cause (oftentimes the clubs, such as when he switched irons and wedges) rather than figure out how he can use the things he IS good at (the aforementioned putting and <60 yard shots) and minimize the impact of his weaknesses. I could be entirely wrong on the second point, but I know that for the first point he can help himself gain both distance and control with a targeted exercise regimen. There's a reason college golfers are required to work out as part of being on the team and many PGA golfers choose to do the same.

So just to confirm, your friend who is a +1.9 and shot a tournament 63 cannot hit a high towering long iron?

I guess the point I am trying to make is a + player IMO is at an entirely different level then Dan is when it comes to the golf swing. The reason Dan cannot hit long irons and struggles off the T is because he cannot hide his swing faults with those clubs.

[Lihu]

So just to confirm, your friend who is a +1.9 and shot a tournament 63 cannot hit a high towering long iron?

I guess the point I am trying to make is a + player IMO is at an entirely different level then Dan is when it comes to the golf swing. The reason Dan cannot hit long irons and struggles off the T is because he cannot hide his swing faults with those clubs.

Lack of oomph.

[Pretzel]

So just to confirm, your friend who is a +1.9 and shot a tournament 63 cannot hit a high towering long iron?

He can hit them decently high, but not towering. I can hit mine much higher than he can. Hitting high towering long irons is meaningless alone, it takes a complete golf game.

I completely agree with you about Dan though, we're on the same page there.

[pullfade]

Wow. +.6 to +4.7 change was mostly due to the playing that course? I've always heard how hard it is to get those last few strokes of improvement as your index gets better.  That's a big change from mostly playing Heron Lakes/Greenback. That drastic change in your handicap made me want to take a glance at the course.

http://www.heronlakesgolf.com/-greenback-course

Here's  a "birdseye" video on the course, all 18 holes. After watching a couple holes, I think I see what you mean about the big fairways and greens, although I'd have to be there myself to really know for sure. Amazing that it seems to be rated so far off from its true difficulty, based on your experience.

The greens are flat too.

My +.6 at the time was from playing a short tight course (6,000 yards) where the rating was like 68. It's tough to be a deep + player when your playing a course where the rating is that low and par is 72. A negative differential meant I had to shoot 5 under. At heron lakes it was pretty simple. The course is rated 72, par is 72, there's 4 par 5s, you can hit it anywhere off the tee and not only are the greens huge but they're flat as well. Sure its longer but every par 4 is driver, 9 iron or shorter. All in all I think that length can play too big of a role when it comes to rating courses, assuming you can hit the ball 270+.

[natureboy]

This could also mean that he misses a lot of greens. Missing a lot of greens gives him plenty of practice for those inside 60 yard shots, and also contributes pretty well to fewer putts (I had a 22 putt round before when I hit 3 greens all day and got lucky scrambling with a lot of putts from the fringe or easy chip shots). I wouldn't necessarily say that this is why he scores well though, mainly because I don't believe he does score very well at all.

To be fair, that shot is one that's not often necessary and is a bit of a misleading statement. Plus handicap players are good, and they often can hit the high towering irons you mention, but they're not quite as fantastic as a lot of people make them out to be. The #1 player on my school golf team was a legitimate +1.9 (he set a course record in one tournament with a 63), but he couldn't draw the ball well or consistently and he didn't hit those high "towering" iron shots you describe (though his driver flew like a bird).

The one thing I would say all plus handicap players have in common is that they know the strengths and weaknesses of their individual games, and how to play to their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. I would also hazard a guess that many plus handicap players are decent drivers of the golf ball, just because that makes it much easier to hit the green and be closer to the pin for birdies, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a requirement.

Dan, from what I can see, lacks both of these skills that are (in my opinion) entirely beneficial in playing scratch or better golf. He lacks control and distance with the driver and, at least to an outside observer, seems to prefer to state that he's not good at something and point out what he believes to be the cause (oftentimes the clubs, such as when he switched irons and wedges) rather than figure out how he can use the things he IS good at (the aforementioned putting and <60 yard shots) and minimize the impact of his weaknesses. I could be entirely wrong on the second point, but I know that for the first point he can help himself gain both distance and control with a targeted exercise regimen. There's a reason college golfers are required to work out as part of being on the team and many PGA golfers choose to do the same.

His putting average could be from missing greens and hitting good short shots, but I expect it's a combination of putting skill and short game touch. 29 is a very respectable long-term average. Remember the time he worked to acquire touch putting and with chips and pitches. That counts for something (in the words of Paul Runyan, "touch has to be acquired"). I think that time spent plus his practice on the course is why his combine numbers are very strong inside ~ 75-100 yards.

I agree that he should be thinking it's the Indian not the arrow as far as game issues. I understand from some posts that he is working on an exercise / strength building routine.