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

[Beachcomber]

I remember when one of the networks did a small segment on the Dan plan.  It is pretty interesting what he is doing.  But I agree x129's comment that starting out only putting and chipping could have slowed his progression.

[ev780]

Originally Posted by RichWW2

Seems interesting. I might start following him now that I've seen this.  But I doubt he will make it as a pro.  To be a pro athlete in any sport requires something else than just hard work and practice.  You have to be born with "it".  To be the Top 0.5% of all the golfers requires you to be born with the talent to be that good.  Some people are and some are not.  Now that doesn't mean he will be a bad golfer, he will probably make scratch or close to it, but I don't think he will ever be a pro.  You just can't decide to be a pro, you actually have to have skill to go along with it.  But best of luck to him.

I love these kinds of statements.  If he makes it he was "born with it" and if he doesn't then it is "see he wasn't born with it."  The trick is making that call BEFORE he succeeds or fails.  As stated earlier Gladwell found no examples one way or the other.    The retrospect-o-scope is perfect and even the best in the world don't have a clue.  Tom Brady 6th round pick and Ryan Leaf 1st overall.  Which would you rather have?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by x129

He is getting lessons from a somewhat respected instructor (lets not argue that he should be using swing pattern xx). The reality is that he has no chance. Let say the theory is correct and say that the amount of practice is the biggest factor in having a pro level golf game. Guess what when he shows up at Q school most of those guys are going to have a lot more hours of practice than he does. How many hours of practice do you think a 27 year old minitour pro who picked the game up at 14 and played through HS and college before turning pro has?  Its a lot more than 10k for most of them.

I think you are underestimating 10,000 hours somewhat.  Assuming in high school he practices, on average, 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, age 14 through 17, thats 2,080 hours.  Assuming 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, (average) for the next 4 years, that's 3,120.  From age 22 through 26, if he practiced 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, that would be another 5,200 hours.  He would have just exceeded 10,000 (10,400 to be exact by my assumptions) by his 27th birthday.

And the 10,000 hour theory doesn't discount ability, it just says that to reach the maximum you need 10,000 hours of practice.  I can't play basketball as good as Michael Jordan just by practicing 10,000 hours, but Michael Jordan couldn't unlock his full potential until he reached 10,000 hours.

To flat out say he has no chance based on the amount of hours is wrong, according to the study.  But, if he follows the plan and reaches the 10,000 hours and doesn't succeed, it's because he didn't have the ability.

EDIT:  I just went back and noticed on Dan's main web page he does suggest that the theory states "Talent has little to do with success."  I think he mis-states it, but anyways ...

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by ev780

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichWW2

Seems interesting. I might start following him now that I've seen this.  But I doubt he will make it as a pro.  To be a pro athlete in any sport requires something else than just hard work and practice.  You have to be born with "it".  To be the Top 0.5% of all the golfers requires you to be born with the talent to be that good.  Some people are and some are not.  Now that doesn't mean he will be a bad golfer, he will probably make scratch or close to it, but I don't think he will ever be a pro.  You just can't decide to be a pro, you actually have to have skill to go along with it.  But best of luck to him.

I love these kinds of statements.  If he makes it he was "born with it" and if he doesn't then it is "see he wasn't born with it."  The trick is making that call BEFORE he succeeds or fails.  As stated earlier Gladwell found no examples one way or the other.    The retrospect-o-scope is perfect and even the best in the world don't have a clue.  Tom Brady 6th round pick and Ryan Leaf 1st overall.  Which would you rather have?

Peyton Manning?

[dsc123]

What's he going to do now that Q-School is out of the mix?

[x129]

I think your numbers (both days of week and hours per day) are low from my experience of talking with a couple minitour guys.  They talk about playing sunup to sundown over the summer as kids when not in school and from the time school was out every day of the week. Now you can start debating if that was deliberate practice or not and who knows how many days they skipped but they don't recall. Some of this also comes down to what you count as practice time. Is playing 36 holes practice? Sure it helps your golf game but it is different than spending 6 hours on the putting green.

The whole objection to the theory is that 10k hours will make your world class. If you said 10k hours will make you the best you could be, no one would object. Most of us that have done competitive sports as a kid realize how much talent matters. In a sport like golf hard work can take you a long way. But eventually you will find someone who works just as hard but is more talented.

Quote:

I think you are underestimating 10,000 hours somewhat.  Assuming in high school he practices, on average, 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, age 14 through 17, thats 2,080 hours.  Assuming 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, (average) for the next 4 years, that's 3,120.  From age 22 through 26, if he practiced 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, that would be another 5,200 hours.  He would have just exceeded 10,000 (10,400 to be exact by my assumptions) by his 27th birthday.

And the 10,000 hour theory doesn't discount ability, it just says that to reach the maximum you need 10,000 hours of practice.  I can't play basketball as good as Michael Jordan just by practicing 10,000 hours, but Michael Jordan couldn't unlock his full potential until he reached 10,000 hours.

To flat out say he has no chance based on the amount of hours is wrong, according to the study.  But, if he follows the plan and reaches the 10,000 hours and doesn't succeed, it's because he didn't have the ability.

EDIT:  I just went back and noticed on Dan's main web page he does suggest that the theory states "Talent has little to do with success."  I think he mis-states it, but anyways ...

[RichWW2]

Originally Posted by evo780

"I love these kinds of statements.  If he makes it he was "born with it" and if he doesn't then it is "see he wasn't born with it."  The trick is making that call BEFORE he succeeds or fails.  As stated earlier Gladwell found no examples one way or the other.    The retrospect-o-scope is perfect and even the best in the world don't have a clue.  Tom Brady 6th round pick and Ryan Leaf 1st overall.  Which would you rather have?"

Not saying he wasn't born with it. That's not the point.  My point was saying that to be a top athlete in any sport, let's say the Top 0.5% just for giggles (the true professional level), you have to possess the natural talent and ability to be able to succeed like those players do.  Say 10% of people are born with this ability.  Not even all those people will become professionals in that sport due to life, injuries, etc.  You brought up football, one example I will give you is Tim Tebow.  Word on the street is the kid works harder than anyone else in the locker room to be a successful, accurate, precise QB.  He is still not that great of a passer even though he probably works harder than anyone else out there to become so.  If I worked every day my whole life, I could still never become a professional football or basketball player or professional golfer. Why? Because I'm not that talented and I know it.  It's not wait and see if he actually makes it or not, the odds are telling me he isn't going to make it.  Why? Not everyone was born with the talent required to be a pro golfer, and you can't simply turn that on because you want it to happen.

XYZ said it perfectly:
"The whole objection to the theory is that 10k hours will make your world class. If you said 10k hours will make you the best you could be, no one would object. Most of us that have done competitive sports as a kid realize how much talent matters. In a sport like golf hard work can take you a long way. But eventually you will find someone who works just as hard but is more talented."

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by x129

I think your numbers (both days of week and hours per day) are low from my experience of talking with a couple minitour guys.  They talk about playing sunup to sundown over the summer as kids when not in school and from the time school was out every day of the week. Now you can start debating if that was deliberate practice or not and who knows how many days they skipped but they don't recall. Some of this also comes down to what you count as practice time. Is playing 36 holes practice? Sure it helps your golf game but it is different than spending 6 hours on the putting green.

The whole objection to the theory is that 10k hours will make your world class. If you said 10k hours will make you the best you could be, no one would object. Most of us that have done competitive sports as a kid realize how much talent matters. In a sport like golf hard work can take you a long way. But eventually you will find someone who works just as hard but is more talented.

Yes, my numbers are quite possibly wrong.  I was just making assumptions.  Regardless, I agree with your objection about 10k automatically making you world class. The theory is based on a study done of young violinists at an elite music school in Berlin.  They studied 3 separate groups; One group was the students with "the potential to become world class," one group judged to be "merely good," and one group who were "unlikely to ever play professionally and who intended to be music teachers in public schools."  The findings were ... "by the age of 20, the elite performers had each totaled 10k hours of practice, the good ones 8k, and the future music teachers 4k."

The important factor to remember here:  All of the violinists in the study were already talented enough to get accepted into an elite music school in Berlin.  Talent definitely matters!

But, then I ask, if a guy has never picked up a golf club, then how could we possibly know if he has the talent or not?

[saevel25]

Is there a genetic gift for a sub 4.40 in football, yes. The fastest will be faster, you can train speed only so much. You can improve youre relfexes, giving you a bit of a better chance off the snap. There's also hand eye coordination for football QB's. QB's really don't deviate in there passing ability, there pretty much set at a limit to there completion percentage. So there is something to being able to visualize were you want the ball to go and get it there.

Golf is different, there might be some golfers who have great hand eye coordination, who can save a shot. Like they might know they were hanging back so they can time there wrist to turna bit more to get the club around. But really, golf i think sits outside other sports because its not really that athletically required. Its not like basketball were you need genetics for height, good hand eye coordination. You can improve on that with practice, but really there is a genetic baseline in everyone of what there physically capable of doing. Probably the biggest thing you see that in is driver distance. I think that is totally genetic. There are some people who just can beat the living hell out of a ball. Look at Bubba Watson, doesn't look athletic, but he has it when it comes to distance.

I just think that the required athletic talent that makes the elite in other sports is more restrictive than golf. It might give you an advantage in golf, but it wont hinder your access to becoming a pro, in some cases.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by RichWW2

Not saying he wasn't born with it. That's not the point.  My point was saying that to be a top athlete in any sport, let's say the Top 0.5% just for giggles (the true professional level), you have to possess the natural talent and ability to be able to succeed like those players do.  Say 10% of people are born with this ability.  Not even all those people will become professionals in that sport due to life, injuries, etc.  You brought up football, one example I will give you is Tim Tebow.  Word on the street is the kid works harder than anyone else in the locker room to be a successful, accurate, precise QB.  He is still not that great of a passer even though he probably works harder than anyone else out there to become so.  If I worked every day my whole life, I could still never become a professional football or basketball player or professional golfer. Why? Because I'm not that talented and I know it.  It's not wait and see if he actually makes it or not, the odds are telling me he isn't going to make it.  Why? Not everyone was born with the talent required to be a pro golfer, and you can't simply turn that on because you want it to happen.

XYZ said it perfectly:

"The whole objection to the theory is that 10k hours will make your world class. If you said 10k hours will make you the best you could be, no one would object. Most of us that have done competitive sports as a kid realize how much talent matters. In a sport like golf hard work can take you a long way. But eventually you will find someone who works just as hard but is more talented."

Don't forget though, that his goal is simply to "make the PGA Tour through a successful appearance in Q-School."  (Since the plan was started before yesterday, lets ignore the fact that he can't do that anymore, and go on the assumption that the rules didn't change.)  He isn't trying to win any majors, or beat Tiger Woods, just qualify through Q-School.  I think there are several golfers every year who qualify through Q-school and don't make enough cuts to survive and they have to start over again, right?  Continuing the football comparison, that would be roughly the equivalent of somebody drafted in the lower rounds (or high round "busts") or a free agent who busts his butt but can't make it past a season or 2.  Certainly Tim Tebow is better than that?  And if you were implying that Tim Tebow is not talented (or Ryan Leaf for that matter) then you are making an argument in favor of Dan's theory because they both "succeeded" through practice despite not having any talent.

[newtogolf]

I'd agree that golf compared to some other sports isn't as dependant on genetics from a physical standpoint but you're also forgetting the mental aspect.  Charles Barkley had the genetics to play as a top NBA pro for many years but the guy can't play golf no matter how hard he tries.  Golf doesn't require you be 7' tall or 8% bodyfat, but to become a pro you have to have pretty good genetics and a strong mind.

Originally Posted by saevel25

Is there a genetic gift for a sub 4.40 in football, yes. The fastest will be faster, you can train speed only so much. You can improve youre relfexes, giving you a bit of a better chance off the snap. There's also hand eye coordination for football QB's. QB's really don't deviate in there passing ability, there pretty much set at a limit to there completion percentage. So there is something to being able to visualize were you want the ball to go and get it there.

Golf is different, there might be some golfers who have great hand eye coordination, who can save a shot. Like they might know they were hanging back so they can time there wrist to turna bit more to get the club around. But really, golf i think sits outside other sports because its not really that athletically required. Its not like basketball were you need genetics for height, good hand eye coordination. You can improve on that with practice, but really there is a genetic baseline in everyone of what there physically capable of doing. Probably the biggest thing you see that in is driver distance. I think that is totally genetic. There are some people who just can beat the living hell out of a ball. Look at Bubba Watson, doesn't look athletic, but he has it when it comes to distance.

I just think that the required athletic talent that makes the elite in other sports is more restrictive than golf. It might give you an advantage in golf, but it wont hinder your access to becoming a pro, in some cases.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Don't forget though, that his goal is simply to "make the PGA Tour through a successful appearance in Q-School."  (Since the plan was started before yesterday, lets ignore the fact that he can't do that anymore, and go on the assumption that the rules didn't change.)  He isn't trying to win any majors, or beat Tiger Woods, just qualify through Q-School.

But the reality is that you can see that this guy doesn't have the natural ability to eleveate himself to a point where he could contend for a club championship at a provincial course. No matter how many hours he puts into it. IN fact, I doubt that he could attain a legitimate single figure handicap if he had 10 years to do it. Have a look at his videos. He is particularly unathletic and ucoordinated. Well below the average male in those areas I would say.  I would bet that there are 100 members on this site who have been playing a few times a month for two years and never had a lesson who would beat him by 20 shots.
The "plan" is ludicrous, but I just can't believe that so many here seem to think that all it takes is time to reach a goal.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Shorty

But the reality is that you can see that this guy doesn't have the natural ability to eleveate himself to a point where he could contend for a club championship at a provincial course. No matter how many hours he puts into it. IN fact, I doubt that he could attain a legitimate single figure handicap if he had 10 years to do it. Have a look at his videos. He is particularly unathletic and ucoordinated. Well below the average male in those areas I would say.  I would bet that there are 100 members on this site who have been playing a few times a month for two years and never had a lesson who would beat him by 20 shots.

The "plan" is ludicrous, but I just can't believe that so many here seem to think that all it takes is time to reach a goal.

That's all a bunch of nonsense.  He says he's at 8.6 right now.  And if you look at his most recent video, there is nothing there that would lead me to believe that he isn't telling the truth.  He has a nice swing.

And I don't think any one of us here are claiming that "all it takes is time."

I certainly am not saying I think he'll do it - if I had to bet on it, I would bet against him.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

That's all a bunch of nonsense.  He says he's at 8.6 right now.  And if you look at his most recent video, there is nothing there that would lead me to believe that he isn't telling the truth.  He has a nice swing.

And I don't think any one of us here are claiming that "all it takes is time."

While I certainly am not saying I think he'll do it - if I had to bet on it, I would bet against him.

I disagree entirely.You like his swing? Really? And I said "legitimate handicap".

The whole premise of the experiment is arse up.

World class athletes may in most cases have spent 10,000 hours to get where they are.

That doesn't mean that it takes 10,000 to do it and that almost anyone can do it.

Did you mean to say you "wouldn't bet against him" or what you wrote.

Because if you want to bet he'll do it I'd love to meet you.

In his experiment he is going to maximise his potential. That's great for him.

Go and have a look at some of the best 15 year olds in your district and ask yourself who you'd put money on to make it.

[RichWW2]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Don't forget though, that his goal is simply to "make the PGA Tour through a successful appearance in Q-School."  (Since the plan was started before yesterday, lets ignore the fact that he can't do that anymore, and go on the assumption that the rules didn't change.)  He isn't trying to win any majors, or beat Tiger Woods, just qualify through Q-School.  I think there are several golfers every year who qualify through Q-school and don't make enough cuts to survive and they have to start over again, right?  Continuing the football comparison, that would be roughly the equivalent of somebody drafted in the lower rounds (or high round "busts") or a free agent who busts his butt but can't make it past a season or 2.  Certainly Tim Tebow is better than that?  And if you were implying that Tim Tebow is not talented (or Ryan Leaf for that matter) then you are making an argument in favor of Dan's theory because they both "succeeded" through practice despite not having any talent.

So the football example wasn't the best example.  I'm really just saying that there are lots of golfers that play their whole lives, in high school, and college and can't make it to Q-school or the nationwide tour. After the Tiger Woods golf boom in the late 90's when every father wanted their son to be the next Tiger, I'm sure there were more golfers than ever before trying to be great.  But there is a reason almost every one of them aren't pro golfers now. They simply aren't good enough.  Many could be better than you and me and most of the people on here, but they still aren't good enough to even make the nationwide tour.  Dan *could* become a very good golfer, but to even make the Nationwide Tour is a long shot because you have to be one of the best lets say 1000 players in the world at golf to even be able to compete at that level.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by RichWW2

So the football example wasn't the best example.  I'm really just saying that there are lots of golfers that play their whole lives, in high school, and college and can't make it to Q-school or the nationwide tour. After the Tiger Woods golf boom in the late 90's when every father wanted their son to be the next Tiger, I'm sure there were more golfers than ever before trying to be great.  But there is a reason almost every one of them aren't pro golfers now. They simply aren't good enough.  Many could be better than you and me and most of the people on here, but they still aren't good enough to even make the nationwide tour.  Dan *could* become a very good golfer, but to even make the Nationwide Tour is a long shot because you have to be one of the best lets say 1000 players in the world at golf to even be able to compete at that level.

I totally agree with everything you said.  It's absolutely a longshot, but I certainly am not going to jump from longshot directly to "100% absolutely cannot be done."  I think those here that are doing so are either basing it on the fact that he never played golf before, or that he's only at an 8.6 after 2,600 hours.  I've never played cricket, jai alai, or squash before, but I might be good at them.  Until I attempt it, how would I know?  And regarding the 8.6 HDCP, do we know what all pros were after they practiced 2,600 hours?  Based on my lame assumptions earlier - assuming starting to take it seriously at age 14 - , that would basically be somewhere around the time they graduated high school.  Certainly, most pros were probably much closer to scratch by that time, so this argument might have some merit.  Then again, who knows, there could easily be some guys who started slower, no?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Shorty

I disagree entirely.You like his swing? Really? And I said "legitimate handicap".

The whole premise of the experiment is arse up.

World class athletes may in most cases have spent 10,000 hours to get where they are.

That doesn't mean that it takes 10,000 to do it and that almost anyone can do it.

Did you mean to say you "wouldn't bet against him" or what you wrote.

Because if you want to bet he'll do it I'd love to meet you.

In his experiment he is going to maximise his potential. That's great for him.

Go and have a look at some of the best 15 year olds in your district and ask yourself who you'd put money on to make it.

Yes, I think he has a nice swing.  (It looks better than mine, and I am a 9.7 right now, so I see no reason to question the 8.6)  And, yes, mine is "legitimate."

I agree, the study was totally backwards ... they only looked at people already proven to have talent, and learned that without the 10,000 hrs of practice to go along with it, they weren't world class.

And I will say it again ... nobody is saying "almost anybody can do it."  Quite the contrary.  I have said several times in this thread that it definitely takes talent.

And I wrote that sentence thinking of something else coming afterwards, and I meant what I said, it just looked goofy.  If I was betting, I would definitely bet that he won't do it.  Who here wouldn't?  The odds are miniscule (almost zero, BUT NOT ZERO) that he could do it.

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

But the reality is that you can see that this guy doesn't have the natural ability to eleveate himself to a point where he could contend for a club championship at a provincial course. No matter how many hours he puts into it.

I totally disagree.  I wouldn't call my club "provincial", Southern New Orleans, but the winner shot 70-74 this year (we do 18-18-top 8 matchplay).  That isn't impossible to beat.  In fact, I've only been playing about 2 years and it is one of my goals to make the top 8 in the next two years, and I sure as heck don't practice six hours a day.  I work really hard on my short game and putting, and make consistent contact.  That can keep you in a whole lot of golf tournaments, and doesn't require any particular athleticism.  I applaud what Dan is doing, it sure is ballsy, and if I didn't have to support a family I would love to do something like that.  I think he has a chance at making it.  He will have to try 7 or 8 times probably, but I could see him geting through 2nd stage after 6-8 years of this.  I think the liklihood of him making it directly to PGA Tour is zero, but I could see him getting on the Nike or Hooters in year 7-8 and making it in years 9 or 10.

Whats the difference between a guy who picks it up at 8 and makes it at 20 (a ton of tour pros, i bet) and a guy picking it up at 30 and making it at 42?  Probably not all that much, and certainly not so much as to make it "impossible".  Age hurts a little, but not that bad.

I am not being condescending, or a smart alack, or anything but reading your posts I think you should give "life is not a game of perfect" by bob rotella a read.  He discusses a lot of actual studies involving the link between natural ability and success in pro sports.  I think you would be very surprised.