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

[mchepp]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Do you think you can get another interview with him to ask? The fact that he is an expert in something reinforces my current feeling that he has very likely accomplished everything he stated in golf.

I can try. I am not sure it makes sense to ask him only a single question. Not sure he wants more publicity. If he comes back and starts up again I'll ask him for another interview. This will be my first question.

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Really nice photograph that definitely takes some talent to produce, even though I think puttersexual behavior is definitely sinful behavior.

Yes, he is a good photographer. At least a scratch golfer level IMO. I am a bogey golfer photography wise and I am not sure how many hours of practice I would need to get the skills to get to his level. 

[natureboy]

On 5/12/2016 at 11:40 PM, natureboy said:

It's interesting to me that his variability seemed to increase relative to the prior period in early 2013 when he states he made a major swing change because he was too 'out to in' and shifted to an 'in to out' pattern. This might not have been a good change for him, or he may not have understood enough about D-plane and the swing to make other adjustments to work with this more inside approach to get the relatively consistent scoring he seemed to have prior.

Here's an interesting perspective on why an inside-out path change might possibly not have not helped Dan if he had the wrong conceptualization of it.

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/craig-harmon-preventing-inside-out-swings/?cid=golfchannel_block_instruction_position_5_video_content_type_headline

Edited May 16, 2016 by natureboy

[Lihu]

44 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Here's an interesting perspective on why an inside-out path change might possibly not have not helped Dan if he had the wrong conceptualization of it.

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/craig-harmon-preventing-inside-out-swings/?cid=golfchannel_block_instruction_position_5_video_content_type_headline

In the video, I don't get how missing his hand 4 to 5 feet off the ground with the inside out swing has to do with good contact on the ball?

Dan was a sub-5 handicap who played every day. He should understand when he is making a gross error in his swing. Going to an inside out should not mess up someone with that skill level.

[nevets88]

9 hours ago, Lihu said:

In the video, I don't get how missing his hand 4 to 5 feet off the ground with the inside out swing has to do with good contact on the ball?

Dan was a sub-5 handicap who played every day. He should understand when he is making a gross error in his swing. Going to an inside out should not mess up someone with that skill level.

He's showing an exaggerated in-out plane. When your path is +12, you're going to need the face to be +6 to hit target. If that face is +2, hook city. And an extreme in to out plane involves compensations. A lot of good players make it work, but what if you're not athletically gifted?

Two points here. First, camera angles. I think the left is a little better, it looks like it's pointing-ish at the hands, but he doesn't move the camera for the iron and it's pointing straight at his body. I think this shows he doesn't understand camera angles. He's a photographer, this ought to be something he'd think about. I always move the camera switching to driver.

Second, his driver looks steep, I guess he's shallowing at the last second, need high speed for a better assessment.

This is his max hip turn, what is that, 15 degrees? 25 max? I'm sure an instructor here has mentioned it before. It looks like he's so intent and getting the lower body going first, he's not turning the hips back enough. He's also doing a lower body EE on the way down. Imho, this might be as important as swing plane. Yes, the Master's champ doesn't turn his hip back that much, but I'm sure we can all agree Willett is vastly more talented and probably passed 10K hours before graduating high school (remember, his dad helped him cut classes to practice.)

[Lihu]

What I asked was how does missing something in the follow through mean you would miss the ball at impact? The plane moves with an inside out swing so of course I expect it to miss a hand placed in the same spot as a steep swing on the follow through. Where the ball impacts is about where the pivot point of the inside out or outside in paths to meet, so the only real difference would be the path at impact. It's not perfectly absolute, but this my initial take.

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, Lihu said:

What I asked was how does missing something in the follow through mean you would miss the ball at impact? The plane moves with an inside out swing so of course I expect it to miss a hand placed in the same spot as a steep swing on the follow through. Where the ball impacts is about where the pivot point of the inside out or outside in paths to meet, so the only real difference would be the path at impact. It's not perfectly absolute, but this my initial take.

The idea discussed in the video just a possible (& exaggerated) example why the wrong concept of inside path could throw Dan off with driver even if it's a subtle effect. I don't think the video is saying anything about missing the ball. It's about getting the hand path more in sync with face and path relationship. If he's swinging his hands from in-to-out a bit (exaggerating the in-to-out path) versus in-out-in / along an arc and he squares the clubface to the path he gets a push or if he squares the face to the target, a likely overdraw...and possibly a cyclical pattern of fighting compensations.

[Lihu]

8 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The idea discussed in the video just a possible (& exaggerated) example why the wrong concept of inside path could throw Dan off with driver even if it's a subtle effect. I don't think the video is saying anything about missing the ball. It's about getting the hand path more in sync with face and path relationship. If he's swinging his hands from in-to-out a bit (exaggerating the in-to-out path) versus in-out-in / along an arc and he squares the clubface to the path he gets a push or if he squares the face to the target, a likely overdraw...and possibly a cyclical pattern of fighting compensations.

 

I doubt Dan can make that much hip turn to get an inside out swing that exaggerated?

@nevets88 posted Dan's lack of hip turn above, and I'm not sure if it's flexibility limitation or perhaps his back hurts or whatnot? The issue is he can't make too severe an in to out swing that could cause a hook. My son can and needs to shift his weight to his lead foot more to avoid hooking, but he's a lot more flexible being younger, stronger, etc. . .

[nevets88]

McLean carrying out his hands to miss the hands of the other pro speaks to what manipulations one must go through to hit the hands of the other pro with the same plane.   

There are threads that go in detail on how to get more hip rotation without having to be a yogi master in the instruction section. More hip rotation I mentioned it imho means a better overall swing, not in to out or out to in, you can be a good player doing either see Mark Crossfield's 5 reasons video people in love with the draw.  

IIRC there's a Titleiest TPI report in his blog somewhere and there was nothing striking about it. I'd guess he is capable of  making a fuller hip turn. That lack of hip turn was always there. 

[natureboy]

29 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I doubt Dan can make that much hip turn to get an inside out swing that exaggerated?

That video is about potential errors in hand path from overthinking in-to-out leading to errors in clubhead path through impact. I'm not quite sure what your point about the hips would have to do with it?

[Lihu]

17 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That video is about potential errors in hand path from overthinking in-to-out leading to errors in clubhead path through impact. I'm not quite sure what your point about the hips would have to do with it?

I'm just stating that with Dan's single digit skill level, it is very unlikely that a swing change is going to change his game to the extent that he shoots from 70s to high 80s. Guessing he's making an excuse for something else or some other potential limitation or lack of experience. I'm thinking it's just a lack of experience.

His bad tournament performance is probably due to having not played many courses and been in unusual circumstances that makes golf fun for many mid or low handicaps.

For instance, I kind of look forward to hitting a tree sometimes, especially when I have to wait for parties in front of me. It allows me to think about the shot every now and then and have to decide what club I'm going to abuse to get me out of the situation. I also like watching my son play a shot over a stand of trees landing the green from 250 yards away for a bogey. That's what makes golf fun, and from Dan's weird descriptions in his blogs about the tournaments, I feel like he's so used to hitting fairways and greens all the time so much so that he hasn't had the opportunities to play real golf.

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, Lihu said:

I'm just stating that with Dan's single digit skill level, it is very unlikely that a swing change is going to change his game to the extent that he shoots from 70s to high 80s. Guessing he's making an excuse for something else or some other potential limitation or lack of experience. I'm thinking it's just a lack of experience.

Did Tiger win as much / score as well when he was in the middle of working on a swing change, before he had perfected the new pattern? I think he had (and expected) a performance dip. And he was a far, far superior golfer to Dan both in terms of having a well-grooved swing and understanding his golf swing.

Plus there are all the other explanations earlier that I posted about why Dan's average score may vary (including different course difficulty) on top of any swing change effect. I thought you had read those, but you seem to be coming full circle on your changed perspective?

IMO the variability of his scores seems to have gone up post early 2013 prior to before. That was also one of his largest setbacks in GHIN. That could also be due to participating in more tournaments after that date, or a little of both. I look to his approach to driver, because that is a big part of scoring variability and it was the last club he added to his training. His longest trained skills, and likely the strength of his game is short game and short irons. That's why I find the timing of his new approach to driver in 2013 very curious relative to his wider scoring swings.

As far as experience I would agree that he doesn't seem to vary his play on different tough courses enough to prepare himself for tournament level challenge.

[Lihu]

54 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Did Tiger win as much / score as well when he was in the middle of working on a swing change, before he had perfected the new pattern? I think he had (and expected) a performance dip. And he was a far, far superior golfer to Dan both in terms of having a well-grooved swing and understanding his golf swing.

Plus there are all the other explanations earlier that I posted about why Dan's average score may vary (including different course difficulty) on top of any swing change effect. I thought you had read those, but you seem to be coming full circle on your changed perspective?

IMO the variability of his scores seems to have gone up post early 2013 prior to before. That was also one of his largest setbacks in GHIN. That could also be due to participating in more tournaments after that date, or a little of both. I look to his approach to driver, because that is a big part of scoring variability and it was the last club he added to his training. His longest trained skills, and likely the strength of his game is short game and short irons. That's why I find the timing of his new approach to driver in 2013 very curious relative to his wider scoring swings.

As far as experience I would agree that he doesn't seem to vary his play on different tough courses enough to prepare himself for tournament level challenge.

There's no real comparison between Tiger and Dan situations. Dan's scores were pretty abysmal for his handicap. Tiger was as it turns out waning in his skills and more or less going into retirement. In addition to this, Dan is playing basically the same courses many of us already play while Tiger is playing difficult courses against a field that is very strong. On his worst day Tiger can still handily beat a scratch player. Dan's worst day he could barely beat 30% of us amateurs.

Right, the change in my perspective is that while some people are claiming that he's actually an 8 or higher handicap, I now think he was really a 3 at one point. Unfortunate that it was by playing parkland style courses. I somewhat agree that he's not really a 3 or 5 given this situation, but at the same time he's legit. Like I stated before, he's the goofiest 3 I know of.

[DrvFrShow]

At this point, does this really matter?

The Dan Plan: Or if you want to be a pro golfer you should start when you're a kid.

by Dan

My journey and trials during my attempt at becoming a professional golfer at the age of 30. 

$19.99 Hardback; Kindle download $14.99

[Lihu]

9 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

My journey and trials during my attempt at becoming a professional golfer at the age of 30. 
 

Well, we can't say he's doing false advertising here. . .

I'll just write another book about attempting to become a professional golfer as well, except that I'm lying because I have no such aspirations.

I'd need a ghost writer though, because my writing skills suck.

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

There's no real comparison between Tiger and Dan situations. Dan's scores were pretty abysmal for his handicap.

I agree Tiger and Dan are miles apart. Better golfers are on average more consistent, yet even Tiger (in his multiple early swing changes) had average scoring setbacks. There was a period of readjustment. That last statement boggles my mind for someone as knowledgeable and into golf as you. Dan's scores were his GHIN. Different players have different anti-caps, and they may chance at different times in the development of their games, particularly if they may be trying new stuff or injured. That second sentence only makes sense if you still think Dan was manipulating his HCP, which earlier you said you no longer did. 

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Tiger was as it turns out waning in his skills and more or less going into retirement. In addition to this, Dan is playing basically the same courses many of us already play while Tiger is playing difficult courses against a field that is very strong. On his worst day Tiger can still handily beat a scratch player. Dan's worst day he could barely beat 30% of us amateurs.

I was not making this kind of comparison. I was stating how even one of the greatest, most consistently excellent golfers OF ALL TIME (in his swing changes before 2014) has a dropoff when he first starts trying to tweak things in his swing. With Dan a much poorer player, you'd expect the impact on already more variable scores to be much larger owing to the huge gap in swing skill, experience, and knowledge.

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Right, the change in my perspective is that while some people are claiming that he's actually an 8 or higher handicap, I now think he was really a 3 at one point. Unfortunate that it was by playing parkland style courses. I somewhat agree that he's not really a 3 or 5 given this situation, but at the same time he's legit. Like I stated before, he's the goofiest 3 I know of.

Why was 'this situation' of parkland style courses unfortunate? Do you think tree-lined courses are easier to play? You seem to have an intuitive aptitude for embracing 'both/and' paradoxes? Personally, until he has more time below 3 GHIN than above, I'd consider him more of a solid 4.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

I agree Tiger and Dan are miles apart. Better golfers are on average more consistent, yet even Tiger (in his multiple early swing changes) had average scoring setbacks. There was a period of readjustment. That last statement boggles my mind for someone as knowledgeable and into golf as you. Dan's scores were his GHIN. Different players have different anti-caps, and they may chance at different times in the development of their games, particularly if they may be trying new stuff or injured. That second sentence only makes sense if you still think Dan was manipulating his HCP, which earlier you said you no longer did. 

Sure, I don't think he's as much of a vanity handicapper as many thought, and probably not manipulating his handicap. Especially given that @pullfade already confirmed that Dan plays to a 4 or 5. My perspective has changed since I've gotten to the point where some people thought he played. I play terrible, and have a few good moments on the course and that's about it. Having just reviewed some of the videos of him playing those rounds with the pros in AU he seems to be a better player than me. Not sure I would have gotten that ball wet at 185 yards if I played it now, but generally, he played pretty well. Not as good as a scratch, but certainly could be a mid single digit player. Erik has criticized his swing and I'll stick with his assessment that he's not going to reach scratch with a swing like that, and I believe he knows what he is saying.

[natureboy]

41 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Erik has criticized his swing and I'll stick with his assessment that he's not going to reach scratch with a swing like that, and I believe he knows what he is saying.

Given his driver issues quite possibly. But even with setbacks, his overall GHIN progress track was trending down, possibly reaching near zero HCP around the summer of 2017 if he had stayed with the hours schedule. And it turns out the Goal Gurus targets were actually decent, trending toward a +4 at around the same time. But it's only an approximate projection and assumes a relatively similar rate of declining returns on time invested.

(note that in the chart the HCP values are represented as HCP +10)

[Lihu]

Charts make it look so possible to make +4. However, I'm sure some pretty radical things have to happen to continue to improve if a person is not talent limited. I have no idea what things, but it seems like a very non linear set of improvements.