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

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrvFrShow

Maybe Dan's 2 HC is because he's playing mostly on a course that has a high slope rating, but is suited to his style of game. So when he plays out like this his weak spots show up because he's out of his comfort zone.

Exactly, we all are more comfortable on a course we play more often, being from Oregon I'm sure the conditions are a much slower course since it's going to be more wet and lush than other places, the slope part depends on how accurately it got rated, a lot of my rounds are on 135 slope and higher but when I do play something in the lower 120's I usually score within range, and when players come from other easier courses they shoot higher on average.

At my home courses, the CR and the slopes seem to be purely dictated by distance, and I remember someone mentioning this in some thread on this site.

As my swing got more solid, what I've observed is that distance and green speeds are the only real factors, the rest are mainly the mental effect of hazards and forced carries. There are tight holes on all courses, so maybe we get used to them on our home courses and need to think about them on unfamiliar ones thus making them seem more difficult?

So, I would think that a 2 HC could surmount any difficulties if he has some idea of the course layout, like having Kota and Andrew "Mirror" as guides.

[DrvFrShow]

Golfingdad has my meaning. I have a course in this area that's a long course with a high slope rating that I can score very well on because the fairways are wide and there is little water and no trees tightly bordering the fairway that they've let the branches grow out over the fairway to cut down approaches... unlike my home course that is a shorter course with a lower slope rating - my home course has a lot of water. Many times where I've hit my ball on my home course will end up in the water, but on this other course the ball would be playable. If I took my scores on this other course over the summer only I'd have a 19 handicap instead of a 24.7. It's an easier course for me because I'm a longer hitter.

[flopster]

Golfingdad has my meaning. I have a course in this area that's a long course with a high slope rating that I can score very well on because the fairways are wide and there is little water and no trees tightly bordering the fairway that they've let the branches grow out over the fairway to cut down approaches... unlike my home course that is a shorter course with a lower slope rating - my home course has a lot of water. Many times where I've hit my ball on my home course will end up in the water, but on this other course the ball would be playable. If I took my scores on this other course over the summer only I'd have a 19 handicap instead of a 24.7. It's an easier course for me because I'm a longer hitter.

That sounds odd, this is my home course, now for women the forward tees are 120 rate 71.7 but the next ones back slope 129 rate 75.4, odd mens slope rating is higher on the second set at 131 but rate is 70.4 obviously mens and womens ratings are done with different formulas. The thing is this course hardly has any level lies ( it's in the hills) and in the summer it dries out and the greens are very hard to hold and putt at a high stimp. I see guys who can shoot mid 80's pretty regularly at most other municipals struggle breaking 90 here. I'm not trying to toot my horn saying my course is tough but you can check out the reviews on yelp and come to your own conclusions, not all these higher slope courses are pushovers if I have a good day and break 80 then yeah I'll be posting 3.7 or whatever but I can remember shooting lower at places with slopes right at 125 or lower.

http://www.roddyranch.com/

http://www.yelp.com/biz/golf-club-at-roddy-ranch-antioch

[flopster]

Maybe Dan's 2 HC is because he's playing mostly on a course that has a high slope rating, but is suited to his style of game. So when he plays out like this his weak spots show up because he's out of his comfort zone.

Dan is most likely a vanity capper evidenced by his scores at tournaments when someone else writes down your own scores and makes you play strictly by the rules. One thing I see Dan does and it is such a rookie move is tossing the ball in the air after he picks it out of the cup, I guarantee no touring pro present or past has ever done anything so careless over and over, I have seen pros make small mistakes that cost them big but they are very isolated fluke incidents that caught them unexpectedly. All it will take is one time he happens to not get his hand just under that ball and it bounces off him into a playing partners ball and then watch the penalty strokes pile up. Also Dan doesn't have a single post on anything above 133 slope, when he plays courses that are anywhere near 140 slope he struggles.

[Golfingdad]

Golfingdad has my meaning. I have a course in this area that's a long course with a high slope rating that I can score very well on because the fairways are wide and there is little water and no trees tightly bordering the fairway that they've let the branches grow out over the fairway to cut down approaches... unlike my home course that is a shorter course with a lower slope rating - my home course has a lot of water. Many times where I've hit my ball on my home course will end up in the water, but on this other course the ball would be playable. If I took my scores on this other course over the summer only I'd have a 19 handicap instead of a 24.7. It's an easier course for me because I'm a longer hitter.

Same here.  Last 9 rounds on my "good" course, I've averaged 79.4.  It's 6800+ yards/72.2/125.  That is an average differential of about 6.2.  The course I play most frequently is super short (old folks community course) and rated easy 6000/68-ish/119.  My average score there is 79.5 for a rough average differential of 10.9.

If I played all of my rounds at the first course, my handicap would be somewhere around 4, whereas if I played all of my rounds at the second course, my handicap would be somewhere in the 8's, most likely.

So, changing nothing about my game, I could be giving 2 extra strokes or taking 2 extra strokes when I play in tournaments ... thus risking a label of "vanity capper" or, worse yet, of "sandbagger" from presumptuous people.

The fact is, nothing would have changes except circumstances.  Now, I'm not saying that Dan isn't a vanity capper because I just don't know.  But I am saying that there are other ways to have trouble reaching your "potential" in tournament settings than only being a vanity capper.

[DrvFrShow]

They rate women's based on length. Example is that a 400 yd hole is a par 5 for women from reds. A 230 yd hole is a par 4 for women. The average female player has a driver SS of 63 mph so the average drive is 160 yds. The white tees on my home course are 6260 and rate 74.8 and slope 122. Men's rating is 69.1, 113.

[Lihu]

They rate women's based on length. Example is that a 400 yd hole is a par 5 for women from reds. A 230 yd hole is a par 4 for women. The average female player has a driver SS of 63 mph so the average drive is 160 yds. The white tees on my home course are 6260 and rate 74.8 and slope 122. Men's rating is 69.1, 113.

These sound like they are also based upon length. Guessing the greens are also not that hard based upon the 113 rating?

[Golfingdad]

These sound like they are also based upon length.

Lihu, you've been here long enough that you should have read multiple times that ratings are always HEAVILY weighted towards length.

Come on.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

These sound like they are also based upon length.

Lihu, you've been here long enough that you should have read multiple times that ratings are always HEAVILY weighted towards length.

Come on.

Right, I just wanted to point out that it's not only women's tees that are based upon length, hence I added the word "also". . .

[DrvFrShow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

These sound like they are also based upon length. Guessing the greens are also not that hard based upon the 113 rating?

Heavily weighted to length. We have a saying about my home course. It giveth and it taketh away. There are 7 greens that are killers. There are 5 greens that are easy peasy. The remaining 6 are very average.

[Lihu]

Another course in the area where they removed the red tees has split pars. 390 yd par 4/5. 238 yd 3/4 (they didn't even bother with a fairway for the par 4 - you'd better be good pitching out of the second cut). 410 yd par 4/5. The course is a par 74 for me, and a par 71 for men. With a tail wind I can drive the 238 yd. Unfortunately the prevailing wind is always a head wind and usually about 15 mph. Slope is 116 for women. I guess since they removed the red tees the message is "women not welcome."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

These sound like they are also based upon length. Guessing the greens are also not that hard based upon the 113 rating?

Heavily weighted to length. We have a saying about my home course. It giveth and it taketh away. There are 7 greens that are killers. There are 5 greens that are easy peasy. The remaining 6 are very average.

It might be that the senior tees and the ladies tees have been merged as well. I talked a bit with some of the lady golfers, and they noted that there are a couple courses in our area where the senior tee ratings are the same as the ladies tee ratings. Plus, there are lots of conversion tables available on line for handicap purposes?

[Pretzel]

Even though ratings are heavily weighted to length, courses can be difficult without it. There's a nine hole course in my town that has a slope of 128 with a yardage of only about 6000. The course is crazy tight (think 15 yard fairways) with these huge old trees bordering all the holes. The greens are interesting too, as they're all kind of tiny and very firm. It plays like a links course a lot of the time in that the best play is to usually run the ball up and onto the greens rather than try to hit it high and stick it. It's a course with a lot of personality and makes for the hardest par 3 course you'll ever play if you drop a ball at 200 yards on each hole.

[Dave2512]

Even though ratings are heavily weighted to length, courses can be difficult without it.

There's a nine hole course in my town that has a slope of 128 with a yardage of only about 6000. The course is crazy tight (think 15 yard fairways) with these huge old trees bordering all the holes. The greens are interesting too, as they're all kind of tiny and very firm. It plays like a links course a lot of the time in that the best play is to usually run the ball up and onto the greens rather than try to hit it high and stick it. It's a course with a lot of personality and makes for the hardest par 3 course you'll ever play if you drop a ball at 200 yards on each hole.

BR is very funky and plays longer IMO due to the layout. There are two par 4's there I hit 7i from the tee to avoid trouble (2 and 8). Par 3's play long too, 1 over the crud to blind green and 6 is uphill. I am going to talk to Pete about better bunker upkeep in 2015, footprint beach. I've shot -3 and +10 there, very odd course.

[Pretzel]

BR is very funky and plays longer IMO due to the layout. There are two par 4's there I hit 7i from the tee to avoid trouble (2 and 8). Par 3's play long too, 1 over the crud to blind green and 6 is uphill. I am going to talk to Pete about better bunker upkeep in 2015, footprint beach. I've shot -3 and +10 there, very odd course.

I was referring to Sunset in Longmont, but Bella Rosa is a curious course too. Interesting pond placement and that tree in the middle of the fifth fairway make you hit shorter clubs off the tee to increase its effective length. Some if the par fours are interesting because they almost appear drivable, but attempting to do so and missing is usually very bad for your score. Off topic, but I was actually the last person to play that course back when it was called The Missing Links right before they bulldozed it to build BR. I went on my fourth birthday the week before demolition and someone happened to be cleaning out the clubhouse and let me play.

[RandallT]

Why are we talking about courses and ratings again? Interesting, but

At the risk of being called obsessed with TDP,  I've found on "goals" below in his blog over the past couple years. There were others, but they seemed even more haphazard than these below. Take a look, and I've got a few comments below after the last quote.

Quote: January 2013

(http://thedanplan.com/concerning-the-goals/)

Hours	Stroke Average
3000	82
4000	77
5000	74
6000 (	72
7000	70.5
8000	69
9000	68
10000	67

Quote: December 2013

(http://thedanplan.com/looking-back-at-2013-the-golfing-highs-and-lows/)

My goals are simple:  Don’t lose momentum, find new vigor and new energy and apply it daily.  Don’t allow frustration to set in.  Stay positive, learn, grow, improve, make every minute of the day quality time whether it’s on the course or at home.  Remind myself that there cannot be any regrets and live each day accordingly.  Break par, get to scratch, win an event.  Concrete that swing change, become more consistent, get faster and improve balance.  Understand my mind and body and how they are connected.  Sleep more soundly and wake with more energy.

That’s it.  Simple, straightforward goals that are mostly written out in order for me to remember to continue to push forward.

Quote: April 2014

(http://thedanplan.com/5000-of-10000-practice-hours-completed-half-way/)

To me that means my goal is to be playing in the Masters on the 10k finishing day which should be early April 2018.  Now that’s a target I can shoot for.

Quote: May 2014

(http://thedanplan.com/updated-stats-handicap-press-and-travel-plans/)

I spoke with Dr. K Anders Ericsson yesterday and he reminded me just how important keeping track of performance is.  In particular, he wanted me to find a new way to measure my current driver ability so that I can be certain that I am moving in the right direction.  He said that just noting how often I miss left, right or hit the fairway is not enough and that I need to figure out a system that measures my current level (base level as of today) and allows for regular updates as I progress.  Having the ability to measure progress is a huge part of deliberate practice.  I just need to figure out what that looks like when working with the driver in particular.....

.....

.....My current goal is to dramatically improve my tee shot game while getting my putting back.  Everything between the driver and the putter is also in for some major practice time.

Quote: January 2015

(http://thedanplan.com/a-fresh-start-to-2015/)

One outcome that I would like to hit this year is to place top 5 in a tournament.  Instead of focussing on that outcome, I will choose to work on improving my driving and putting as if I can transition from 30 percent of fairways hit to at least 50 percent by improving my driving accuracy that will translate to more fairways and more greens and if I work on getting the ball started on my line and improving my 7-15 foot putts it will lead to less putts per round and lower scores.  those are my main goals right now.

My take on all that above is that he's good at talking about goals in the abstract. He's good at talking about the importance of goals. He's good at wanting to track goals and says the right things. But in the end, it seems like the goals are just momentary flashes in his head, never to be followed up on, and never to be measured against.

He was even given specific advice by Dr Ericsson to come up with specific goals on the driver. He agreed. But nothing was ever posted that I could find.

To my knowledge, he has not ever once revisited the first quoted goal above, which was from his very own "goal guru," Stuart.  His stroke average when he gets to 4000 hours left (at the "6000" mark on the chart above) must be 72.

To me, if you are AVERAGING 72 , your handicap is now a "plus" value, right?!?! Throw out your 10 worst, and your top 10 scores for the handicap calculation are likely going to be mostly better than 72 (taking into account the difference between average and median, of course).  Dan has shot par only once so far, I believe. If I were him, I suppose I'd not want to revisit that goal from his guru, because it would indicate how far off from his own goals he really is.

[nevets88]

[RFKFREAK]

Sick!

[Lihu]

I like this, but. . .

My issue with Dan is that he didn't really learn enough about golf prior for his stated goal be realistic. By declaring that he is going to play the PGA Tour in 10,000 hours of training he is scoffing at all the people who've spent years teaching and learning this sport. The scoffing is how I would interpret it if I were struggling with this sport for decades like many of the players on this site, and some person stated that he knows a way to progress from a rank beginner to a professional athlete without any prior knowledge or known talent for the sport.

Imagine if I went up to Dan and stated that, "Hey, I'm going to do the Lihu Plan to be able to qualify to play the PGA Tour. The difference is that I'll meet my goals and I don't need to learn anything from you to do it, because I'm way smarter than you and can figure everything out that you've been doing for the past 4 years."

So, without any realistic expectation for success, I don't even see how he can even have a map to the finish.