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

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

This project was doomed from the start, because he did not choose something he was enjoying already.

I disagree with this part because, as I understand it, he chose something he'd never done before ... at all.  He didn't pick a task that he disliked, he picked one he knew NOTHING about.  So he wouldn't know if it was something he was going to enjoy or not.

I do agree, though, that maybe since he is such a little guy, maybe it would have been wiser for him to try a task that required less physical attributes.  Maybe bowling, or playing the piano, or cooking, or archery, etc, etc.

The other major flaw in his experiment is that he's ignoring that when the guy came up with the theory, he was working backwards from 'talented'** people.  Meaning, he took a bunch of people who were already all really, really good violinists who studied at an elite music school, separated them into 3 categories of success, then tried to determine any commonalities amongst them.  He did.  The top 1/3 of that group all practiced more than 10k hours, and the others did not.  These weren't random people handed violins, they were all really good violinists to begin with.

**Don't want to open up the whole "talent" can of worms, but I simply mean that these kids were good enough at the violin to be accepted to an elite school to begin with.

to the highlighted portion.

But, as to the rest of what you wrote, I agree. This is why I said that he did not choose something he was already enjoying doing. If a single digit golfer decided to to the same thing, that golfer would stand a much better chance of success.

[bplewis24]

that theory is bs though. if everyone spend 10,000 at the gym could we all be professional bodybuilders?

With enough steroids...

I disagree with this part because, as I understand it, he chose something he'd never done before ... at all.  He didn't pick a task that he disliked, he picked one he knew NOTHING about.  So he wouldn't know if it was something he was going to enjoy or not.

I do agree, though, that maybe since he is such a little guy, maybe it would have been wiser for him to try a task that required less physical attributes.  Maybe bowling, or playing the piano, or cooking, or archery, etc, etc.

The other major flaw in his experiment is that he's ignoring that when the guy came up with the theory, he was working backwards from 'talented'** people.

Well, I'll present the other side of this:

1) By choosing a skill/sport he knew nothing about, it makes for a more scientifically sound experiment (in theory), since it removes a variable (a person already knowing a ton about the sport, giving a head start).

2) Similar concept here: removing a variable (that a person was already physically pre-disposed in excelling in a particular sport) makes the experiment more valid.  Also, I'm not sure how big/small he is, but I'm sure there are guys on tour with his proportions, proving it is at least possible.

3) Lastly, the experiment is more valid if you remove talent from the equation.  maybe the original writer/creator of the theory was using talent as a pre-requisite, but this is a good experiment to illustrate that pre-requisite for those that weren't aware of it or wondered if it was.

[Golfingdad]

to the highlighted portion.

But, as to the rest of what you wrote, I agree. This is why I said that he did not choose something he was already enjoying doing. If a single digit golfer decided to to the same thing, that golfer would stand a much better chance of success.

Not sure why you stuck your tongue out at my bowling and archery comment?? ;)  One of the best bowlers of all time is Norm Duke, who is like 5'-4" tall and weighs 130 pounds.  Women (including - shameless name drop alert - one I've taken lessons from, Missy Parkin) have competed very well with the men lately, and one (Kelly Kulick) has even won a major.  Bowling is definitely a sport where you don't need strength or stature to succeed.  (Missy is about 5-2, 120)

I pulled archery out of a hat though ... don't really know anything about it.  Other than crossbows are a really good way to kill zombies. ;)  (So long as you have a mysteriously endless supply of arrows)

The rest of what you wrote is just a matter of timing.  Did all professional golfers wait until AFTER they were single digit players to decide to dedicate enough energy to it to become successful?  Heck, Tiger Woods kind of had it decided for him before he was even talking, didn't he? ;)

If you are suggesting that he actually doesn't like golf, and therefore, isn't capable of putting in the right amount of energy and dedication, then I agree with you.  He should have nipped it in the bud and switched over to something else.  But just because he didn't know if he liked it or not prior to the beginning of the experiment doesn't have any bearing on whether or not he would grow to like it.

[sacm3bill]

This has been sated before in other ways, but I think the value of Dan's experiment boils down to whether we're saying 10,000 hours is sufficient , or necessary . I think the original theory is saying that 10,000 hours is necessary, in that top performers have put in that amount of time. But it's not necessarily sufficient, especially if you don't have the natural ability also required.

[Lihu]

to the highlighted portion.

But, as to the rest of what you wrote, I agree. This is why I said that he did not choose something he was already enjoying doing. If a single digit golfer decided to to the same thing, that golfer would stand a much better chance of success.

Not sure why you stuck your tongue out at my bowling and archery comment?? ;)  One of the best bowlers of all time is Norm Duke, who is like 5'-4" tall and weighs 130 pounds.  Women (including - shameless name drop alert - one I've taken lessons from, Missy Parkin) have competed very well with the men lately, and one (Kelly Kulick) has even won a major.  Bowling is definitely a sport where you don't need strength or stature to succeed.  (Missy is about 5-2, 120)

I pulled archery out of a hat though ... don't really know anything about it.  Other than crossbows are a really good way to kill zombies. ;)  (So long as you have a mysteriously endless supply of arrows)

The rest of what you wrote is just a matter of timing.  Did all professional golfers wait until AFTER they were single digit players to decide to dedicate enough energy to it to become successful?  Heck, Tiger Woods kind of had it decided for him before he was even talking, didn't he? ;)

If you are suggesting that he actually doesn't like golf, and therefore, isn't capable of putting in the right amount of energy and dedication, then I agree with you.  He should have nipped it in the bud and switched over to something else.  But just because he didn't know if he liked it or not prior to the beginning of the experiment doesn't have any bearing on whether or not he would grow to like it.

At least in the first tee program, it becomes very clear within 200 hours of playing which kids will play well and which ones won't. By the time they get a handicap, many of the kids are already playing in the single digits. The ones who don't make it that far usually have quit the program for various reasons.

[Kelzzy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

But, as to the rest of what you wrote, I agree. This is why I said that he did not choose something he was already enjoying doing. If a single digit golfer decided to to the same thing, that golfer would stand a much better chance of success.

Not sure why you stuck your tongue out at my bowling and archery comment?? ;)  One of the best bowlers of all time is Norm Duke, who is like 5'-4" tall and weighs 130 pounds.  Women (including - shameless name drop alert - one I've taken lessons from, Missy Parkin) have competed very well with the men lately, and one (Kelly Kulick) has even won a major.  Bowling is definitely a sport where you don't need strength or stature to succeed.  (Missy is about 5-2, 120)

I pulled archery out of a hat though ... don't really know anything about it.  Other than crossbows are a really good way to kill zombies. ;)  (So long as you have a mysteriously endless supply of arrows)

The rest of what you wrote is just a matter of timing.  Did all professional golfers wait until AFTER they were single digit players to decide to dedicate enough energy to it to become successful?  Heck, Tiger Woods kind of had it decided for him before he was even talking, didn't he? ;)

If you are suggesting that he actually doesn't like golf, and therefore, isn't capable of putting in the right amount of energy and dedication, then I agree with you.  He should have nipped it in the bud and switched over to something else.  But just because he didn't know if he liked it or not prior to the beginning of the experiment doesn't have any bearing on whether or not he would grow to like it.

At least in the first tee program, it becomes very clear within 200 hours of playing which kids will play well and which ones won't. By the time they get a handicap, many of the kids are already playing in the single digits. The ones who don't make it that far usually have quit the program for various reasons.

200 hours? Jesus, how long are they in the program for? They'd have a full grown beard by then! Or did you mean 20?

[randomzero]

200 hours isn't all that much time. Two hours a day, it would be less than 1/3 of a year. It's probably not every day, though, but still less than a year.

[Kelzzy]

200 hours isn't all that much time. Two hours a day, it would be less than 1/3 of a year. It's probably not every day, though, but still less than a year.

Edit: Oh shat, I was looking at the stats wrong. But anyway, it takes maybe that, but talent sprinkled on top as well.

[MS256]

If anyone is looking at The Dan Plan as an experiment to tell whether anyone can be a professional after 10,000 hours the experiment can show absolutely nothing unless it fails (which it will).

In the case that it fails it proves that not EVERYONE can do it. Nothing more and nothing less. In the unlikely case that it succeeded it would only prove that ONE PERSON succeeded. If it succeeded it would no more prove that everybody would succeed than failing would prove that everybody would fail.

The problem with a study of one person is that it's a study of one person. A result is just as likely to be from another cause as the cause being studied.

[bplewis24]

If anyone is looking at The Dan Plan as an experiment to tell whether anyone can be a professional after 10,000 hours the experiment can show absolutely nothing unless it fails (which it will).

In the case that it fails it proves that not EVERYONE can do it. Nothing more and nothing less. In the unlikely case that it succeeded it would only prove that ONE PERSON succeeded. If it succeeded it would no more prove that everybody would succeed than failing would prove that everybody would fail.

The problem with a study of one person is that it's a study of one person. A result is just as likely to be from another cause as the cause being studied.

That's true of every experiment, which is why it's important to understand the variables in play.

And it is very important that this experiment fail, because there are people out there who interpreted the "10,000" hour thing to mean that if you put that much time into something, you will be highly successful.  I agree it is more meaningful if it fails, because of that.  But I disagree that it would prove "absolutely nothing" unless it failed.

[Golfingdad]

If anyone is looking at The Dan Plan as an experiment to tell whether anyone can be a professional after 10,000 hours the experiment can show absolutely nothing unless it fails (which it will).

In the case that it fails it proves that not EVERYONE can do it. Nothing more and nothing less. In the unlikely case that it succeeded it would only prove that ONE PERSON succeeded. If it succeeded it would no more prove that everybody would succeed than failing would prove that everybody would fail.

The problem with a study of one person is that it's a study of one person. A result is just as likely to be from another cause as the cause being studied.

That's true of every experiment, which is why it's important to understand the variables in play.

And it is very important that this experiment fail, because there are people out there who interpreted the "10,000" hour thing to mean that if you put that much time into something, you will be highly successful.  I agree it is more meaningful if it fails, because of that.  But I disagree that it would prove "absolutely nothing" unless it failed.

I actually think that it proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING regardless of whether or not it succeed or fails.  I've probably said this a few times before, but who knows which page its on at this point.  If it succeeds, it can't be proven that Dan didn't already have the talent.  Just because he had never tried golf before doesn't mean that he didn't have it in him.  And if it fails, it can't be proven that he went about it the right way.  Was his practice "proper?"  Him failing doesn't prove that he can't do it, it could just be that he was going about it wrong.

This isn't even really an experiment.  It's a lark.

[Kelzzy]

Wait wait wait.. you said 200 hours.. you do know there's only 8,000 hours in a year? Like what?

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomzero

200 hours isn't all that much time. Two hours a day, it would be less than 1/3 of a year. It's probably not every day, though, but still less than a year.

Edit: Oh shat, I was looking at the stats wrong. But anyway, it takes maybe that, but talent sprinkled on top as well.

Yes, the talent part is what shows up when the kids are 5 or 6 years old. You can't say they practiced since inside the womb LOL.

In general, the kids that can play well stick with the program. Kids that don't play as well usually quit for other endeavors.

An exception is my son's friend who quickly showed talent at a young age and by 10 years old was out playing the 15 and 16 year olds. He was too young to play in the Eagle class so he did personal coaching and lots of local tournaments. Two other exceptions are two 7 to 8 year old kids that also play really well, but also went to private coaching. One because he acts like, well, a 7 year old. The other one has a grandfather who is pruning him to be a champion and can't be held up by the masses, so to speak. Both of these kids would play scratch if they could even drive 220 yards.

The first Tee generates some pretty sound golfing out of any of the kids that stay on. Most of them are low single digits or scratch by the time they are 16 or 17. I think they can stay on till 18 years old or even 20, but most of them are playing college golf by then. We had a few ex-First Tee players coach the younger kids at a golf clinic. These kids play for USC and UCLA.

[MS256]

That's true of every experiment, which is why it's important to understand the variables in play.

And it is very important that this experiment fail, because there are people out there who interpreted the "10,000" hour thing to mean that if you put that much time into something, you will be highly successful.  I agree it is more meaningful if it fails, because of that.  But I disagree that it would prove "absolutely nothing" unless it failed.

Then what do you think it would prove if he succeeded? (God forbid. There are way too many nutty parents out there as it is.)

Every player on the PGA Tour has already participated in "The Dan Plan" and succeeded. It would only prove he was one of them.

That doesn't mean any of us would do the same and I am very confident that more than most of us would not.

[flopster]

200 hours isn't all that much time. Two hours a day, it would be less than 1/3 of a year. It's probably not every day, though, but still less than a year.

It would be way less than that, 4 hours a week at 52 weeks in a year is 208 hours.

[randomzero]

Then what do you think it would prove if he succeeded? (God forbid. There are way too many nutty parents out there as it is.)

Every player on the PGA Tour has already participated in "The Dan Plan" and succeeded. It would only prove he was one of them.

That doesn't mean any of us would do the same and I am very confident that more than most of us would not.

If you don't work for 6 years, and delegate your time to a single task, then you can become fairly proficient at said task.. or end up in a homeless shelter.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24

That's true of every experiment, which is why it's important to understand the variables in play.

And it is very important that this experiment fail, because there are people out there who interpreted the "10,000" hour thing to mean that if you put that much time into something, you will be highly successful.  I agree it is more meaningful if it fails, because of that.  But I disagree that it would prove "absolutely nothing" unless it failed.

Then what do you think it would prove if he succeeded? (God forbid. There are way too many nutty parents out there as it is.)

Every player on the PGA Tour has already participated in "The Dan Plan" and succeeded. It would only prove he was one of them.

That doesn't mean any of us would do the same and I am very confident that more than most of us would not.

I think the Dan plan is flawed, but the basic premise that you need to practice for 10,000 hours is good. It applies to those who have a talent for the task at hand.

If a child displays extraordinary talent in a particular skill, the parents should know that that kid needs to practice that skill for at least 10,000 hours to get "competitive".

Yes, there are lots of nutty parents out there, and I see it all the time. Even if a kid shows a modicum of talent in something it triggers the parents go all out. We should qualify the meaning of extraordinary before the parents get excited about the kids' skills.

For golf, that would be something like a 6 year old going to the local par 3 course and getting pars on all 18 holes after playing 5 times, then, one year later, outplaying all the 16 year old kids on the same course. Multiple birdies at a par 3 course is really really good. So, this kid is now being coached privately because he was too "immature" for the first Tee program? I feel a wrong has been done here, but that's another issue. IMHO, this kid needs 10,000 hours, and would benefit from it. Anyone else is going to have a hard time with his/her life if they spend the same amount of time on the same thing without his natural talent. Plus this kid lives and breathes golf. He has learned just about every rule. Chips and putts in his bedroom for hours.

Now, whenever I go to the course where he started, I see lots of other parents out their claiming their children have talent in golf so the course would coach their children. Nutty, is all I can say.

So, parents should be aware of the level of talent their child needs to make something like this worthwhile. The child should have a say in it as well.

Did I mention that my son is really talented in engineering? LOL, I hope he doesn't read these blogs.

[randomzero]

It would be way less than that, 4 hours a week at 52 weeks in a year is 208 hours.

Yeah, I imagine it would be way less, as well. That was kind of the point of what I said. Someone who knows the program well would have to say what sort of schedule the First Tee has for us to know how long it would take.

Note: I tried to edit my previous post and add this, but when I tried to submit, it said I didn't have permission to edit my post.