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

[Lihu]

Does Dan have to get a tour card in order to "win"?  That seems like an unrealistic goal.  But if he gets to scratch or to the point that he's playing competitively in high level amateur tournaments, doesn't that validate the 10,000 hour rule, at least somewhat?

As a 4HC, he's in the top 2.5% of all gofers who keep handicaps.  Scratch would be the top 1%.  It doesn't make much sense to say that he only "wins" if he makes the tour or something like that.  Especially since those guys have all probably put in more than 10,000 hours and probably started with more talent. The guy doesn't seem to have any natural talent for the game, and is better than 97.5% of other golfers.

That's a very compelling argument.

His original goal of becoming a pro golfer might have been misguided by his inexperience with the game. Even scratch is pretty hard without talent. So, If he had a goal of reaching something reasonable, like 4 handicap, with 10,000 hours, that makes a lot more sense.

He's halfway there time-wise, and if he can get to a solid 2 to 4 handicap, I would agree that he succeeded.

On the other hand, if this is his main point, then it has already been proven by my son's classmates and the thousands of other 14-18 year old golfers playing high school golf.

[flopster]

That's a very compelling argument.

His original goal of becoming a pro golfer might have been misguided by his inexperience with the game. Even scratch is pretty hard without talent. So, If he had a goal of reaching something reasonable, like 4 handicap, with 10,000 hours, that makes a lot more sense.

He's halfway there time-wise, and if he can get to a solid 2 to 4 handicap, I would agree that he succeeded.

On the other hand, if this is his main point, then it has already been proven by my son's classmates and the thousands of other 14-18 year old golfers playing high school golf.

His inexperience may be showing up again with his questionable index,  unless he really is a 4.1 he needs to play better in tournaments because there you can't hide bad days by just not posting a score, by inexperience he may have let himself feel the pressure of needing to show a steady incline of improvement and therefore omit rounds from posting. If his tournament scores once again are in the double digit range over par this whole thing may start to unravel.

[bkuehn1952]

Does Dan have to get a tour card in order to "win"?  That seems like an unrealistic goal.  But if he gets to scratch or to the point that he's playing competitively in high level amateur tournaments, doesn't that validate the 10,000 hour rule, at least somewhat?

As a 4HC, he's in the top 2.5% of all gofers who keep handicaps.  Scratch would be the top 1%.  It doesn't make much sense to say that he only "wins" if he makes the tour or something like that.  Especially since those guys have all probably put in more than 10,000 hours and probably started with more talent. The guy doesn't seem to have any natural talent for the game, and is better than 97.5% of other golfers.

I agree with you. His definition of "expert" is too lofty.

Of course, starting a project with a goal to achieve a 0.0 index is not as compelling as playing on the PGA Tour.  My gut feeling is that Dan's original plan was to create publicity for his project.  To a certain extent he has succeeded in that facet.  He has had write-ups in major magazines, interviews on TV and radio, etc...  None of that would likely have occurred without his goal of playing on the PGA Tour.  No one is going to write about a goof ball who quits his job and spends 5 years trying to be a scratch golfer.  The goal is what makes the story pop.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

That's a very compelling argument.

His original goal of becoming a pro golfer might have been misguided by his inexperience with the game. Even scratch is pretty hard without talent. So, If he had a goal of reaching something reasonable, like 4 handicap, with 10,000 hours, that makes a lot more sense.

He's halfway there time-wise, and if he can get to a solid 2 to 4 handicap, I would agree that he succeeded.

On the other hand, if this is his main point, then it has already been proven by my son's classmates and the thousands of other 14-18 year old golfers playing high school golf.

His inexperience may be showing up again with his questionable index,  unless he really is a 4.1 he needs to play better in tournaments because there you can't hide bad days by just not posting a score, by inexperience he may have let himself feel the pressure of needing to show a steady incline of improvement and therefore omit rounds from posting. If his tournament scores once again are in the double digit range over par this whole thing may start to unravel.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious to me as well that if he scores in the 92 range, that he is most likely not a legitimate 4 handicap. It seems like a tournament round and a normal round should only be a few strokes different.

If he does get down to a solid 2 to 4 handicap, he would at least prove his point.

That just brings up another point. Why is he doing it? I mean, other than to have fun.

I just think there are already thousands of teens who are proving that already. They train for 10,000 hours and get down to a 2 to 4 handicap, maybe scratch for those with a lot more talent. He did not need to do this to get those statistics. In fact, if I were do do the "Lihu Plan 10,000 hours of golf to become a pro", I would follow 1000 kids who started off so so and got pretty good by their early teens. I would track their records and tournament scores and record how often they practice. When they hit 10,000 hours, I would track that statistic.

However, I think it would only be more interesting after 15,000 hours. Two 15 year old kids I know at a 2 to 2.5 handicap have already practiced more than 15,000 hours.

Even one of the 8 year old kids that I talked about in earlier posts, probably practiced thousands of hours (maybe even 10,000?). One of them was at Goose Creek, where I pointed him out to @iacas and @mvmac . If that little 8 year old kid is within 150 yards of the hole he will on average get it in in a little less than 3 strokes. When he can carry a drive 220+ yards, he should be pretty close to scratch or better.

There are so many talented kids that can prove his point, I don't understand why he is personally doing it.

Maybe he just wants to prove that he can do it? IDK, if that's really interesting to anyone other than himself.

[krupa]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious to me as well that if he scores in the 92 range, that he is most likely not a legitimate 4 handicap. It seems like a tournament round and a normal round should only be a few strokes different.

If he does get down to a solid 2 to 4 handicap, he would at least prove his point.

That just brings up another point. Why is he doing it? I mean, other than to have fun.

I just think there are already thousands of teens who are proving that already. They train for 10,000 hours and get down to a 2 to 4 handicap, maybe scratch for those with a lot more talent. He did not need to do this to get those statistics. In fact, if I were do do the "Lihu Plan 10,000 hours of golf to become a pro", I would follow 1000 kids who started off so so and got pretty good by their early teens. I would track their records and tournament scores and record how often they practice. When they hit 10,000 hours, I would track that statistic.

However, I think it would only be more interesting after 15,000 hours. Two 15 year old kids I know at a 2 to 2.5 handicap have already practiced more than 15,000 hours.

Even one of the 8 year old kids that I talked about in earlier posts, probably practiced thousands of hours (maybe even 10,000?). One of them was at Goose Creek, where I pointed him out to @iacas and @mvmac. If that little 8 year old kid is within 150 yards of the hole he will on average get it in in a little less than 3 strokes. When he can carry a drive 220+ yards, he should be pretty close to scratch or better.

There are so many talented kids that can prove his point, I don't understand why he is personally doing it.

Maybe he just wants to prove that he can do it? IDK, if that's really interesting to anyone other than himself.

I think he's trying to have fun and has the money to do it.

I also think that at the end, he's going to write a book and go on a lecture circuit.  Maybe motivational speaking.

[Lihu]

I think he's trying to have fun and has the money to do it.

I also think that at the end, he's going to write a book and go on a lecture circuit.  Maybe motivational speaking.

I agree that he might have some people interested in the motivational speaking aspect.

Probably not for golf, because normal people will not be able to spend 10,000 hours to get decent at it.

Tracking children's statistics would be of more interest to parents, and not how he does personally.

So, to whom will he lecture?

[dsc123]

His inexperience may be showing up again with his questionable index,  unless he really is a 4.1 he needs to play better in tournaments because there you can't hide bad days by just not posting a score, by inexperience he may have let himself feel the pressure of needing to show a steady incline of improvement and therefore omit rounds from posting. If his tournament scores once again are in the double digit range over par this whole thing may start to unravel.

I think someone posted his latest rounds on the prior page and 2 were tournaments.  They had differentials of 5 and 11, I think.  That seems reasonable.

[bmartin461]

Two 15 year old kids I know at a 2 to 2.5 handicap have already practiced more than 15,000 hours. Even one of the 8 year old kids that I talked about in earlier posts, probably practiced thousands of hours (maybe even 10,000?).

Just for perspective, if you practiced 40 hours a week (equal to full time employment) you would have 2080 a year, so 10,000 hours = 4.8 years and 15,000 = 7.2 years. Mind you this rule of thumb is on "deliberate practice" which means a round of golf would not count. That would be a large amount of practice for a school age child. In my opinion, aside from work ethic, you have to have raw talent to be a pro, in any sport.

[krupa]

I agree that he might have some people interested in the motivational speaking aspect.

Probably not for golf, because normal people will not be able to spend 10,000 hours to get decent at it.

Tracking children's statistics would be of more interest to parents, and not how he does personally.

So, to whom will he lecture?

I have absolutely no idea.  But if Snooki can get paid to speak at Rutgers, Dan will find someone to talk to. :)

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Two 15 year old kids I know at a 2 to 2.5 handicap have already practiced more than 15,000 hours.

Even one of the 8 year old kids that I talked about in earlier posts, probably practiced thousands of hours (maybe even 10,000?).

Just for perspective, if you practiced 40 hours a week (equal to full time employment) you would have 2080 a year, so 10,000 hours = 4.8 years and 15,000 = 7.2 years. Mind you this rule of thumb is on "deliberate practice" which means a round of golf would not count. That would be a large amount of practice for a school age child.

In my opinion, aside from work ethic, you have to have raw talent to be a pro, in any sport.

Yes, I agree. Of the 1000 kids I would track, I would expect that only 10 of them reach scratch and that 1 of them might be a pro prospect.

BTW, in regard to the 15 year old kids I am including their weekly rounds so they put in something like 60 to 80 hours per week. So, I think they are actually higher than 15,000 hours, possibly double. The thing is they are seriously addicted to golf too. Note that I used the word "addicted". Both sets of parents are very concerned. . .

[hopefulhacker]

Yes, I agree. Of the 1000 kids I would track, I would expect that only 10 of them reach scratch and that 1 of them might be a pro prospect. BTW, in regard to the 15 year old kids I am including their weekly rounds so they put in something like 60 to 80 hours per week. So, I think they are actually higher than 15,000 hours, possibly double. The thing is they are seriously addicted to golf too. Note that I used the word "addicted". Both sets of parents are very concerned. . .

Assuming they get 8 hours sleep per day, that means they have 112 waking hours per week. And you know kids that practice (or play) for 60-80 of those hours.... For every week.... of every year!!!! Somehow I think you'll struggle to find anyone that plays 10 hours out of 16 waking hours every day. It would probably detrimental to play/practice that much. (Injuries etc)

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Yes, I agree. Of the 1000 kids I would track, I would expect that only 10 of them reach scratch and that 1 of them might be a pro prospect.

BTW, in regard to the 15 year old kids I am including their weekly rounds so they put in something like 60 to 80 hours per week. So, I think they are actually higher than 15,000 hours, possibly double. The thing is they are seriously addicted to golf too. Note that I used the word "addicted". Both sets of parents are very concerned. . .

Assuming they get 8 hours sleep per day, that means they have 112 waking hours per week.

And you know kids that practice (or play) for 60-80 of those hours.... For every week.... of every year!!!!

Somehow I think you'll struggle to find anyone that plays 10 hours out of 16 waking hours every day.

It would probably detrimental to play/practice that much. (Injuries etc)

I agree for you and me, but these kids are built for it. I'm sure they take care of themselves, like hit shorter if they feel sore to avoid injury. They do take some breaks. One of them went on a family vacation and suffered from withdrawals being away from golf for three days.

Here's one of their schedules (according to his mom and dad): Mon-Fri School from 8am to 2pm @ lunch he hits at the range and pitches and putts. I don't think he putts in the classroom, yet. After 1 hour of homework time, he tries to play 18 holes (Currently he can do it, and in the winter less because of the dark). He plays for free or $1. At 5:00 he eats dinner and from 5:30 to 6:30 he does more homework. From 6:30pm to 9:30pm (sometimes 10:00pm) he goes to the night range and practices till they close at night. Sometimes puts in an 18 hole par 3 round. Including some practice rounds, which he practices drills because he does it every single day, he puts in about 6 hours per day. On the weekends he's pretty much a fixture on the course and plays 2 (sometimes 3) rounds per day, plus drills and lessons. That would be 6*5+20 to 24 or about 50 to 58 hours per week or more including scoring rounds.

IDK, what the other kid's schedule is like, he has more natural talent, but pretty much lives on the local courses as well. He's on my kids high school team, but we don't know his practice habits. At least I don't.

@mvmac can ask my kid about the previous one (they've known each other since kindergarten) when we go to our lesson.

[flopster]

I think someone posted his latest rounds on the prior page and 2 were tournaments.  They had differentials of 5 and 11, I think.  That seems reasonable.

He had 1 tournament that he finally shot at his index, rated 69.9/123 he shot a 76, that's the same as a 79 where I play not bad in fact good but not great by any measure for where he wants to wind up. The other looks like it was at the same course probably the day before must be a 2 day event, so that second score was actually after playing a competitive round the day before, looks like he shot himself out of contention the first day so he was probably relaxed the second day since nothing was on the line by then.

[nevets88]

I wish this guy the best of luck but this experiment in my mind proves to me that for sports, whatever he is trying to prove, doesn't work. I know more than a few talented athletes who got to a legit 5 in a year or even less, they were consistently breaking 80 and some had full time jobs. In 2, 3 years scratch. The way he approached it, starting with 1 foot putts and going to longer distances from there, ugh, that's the furthest from the way I would go about it. If he goes on the talk circuit after this you'd have to pay me to go listen to him. Sports, music, endeavors that require physical skill and coordination. There's a bit of talent involved. You just can't pick a paint brush up, paint for 10k hours and be Picasso or Monet. Not to be a complete negative nabob, but the research into better practicing methods today helps one become the best he/she can be better than previously but to be the best out of everyone, sorry, but there's a significant innate ability involved.

[Abu3baid]

I wish this guy the best of luck but this experiment in my mind proves to me that for sports, whatever he is trying to prove, doesn't work.

I know more than a few talented athletes who got to a legit 5 in a year or even less, they were consistently breaking 80 and some had full time jobs. In 2, 3 years scratch.

The way he approached it, starting with 1 foot putts and going to longer distances from there, ugh, that's the furthest from the way I would go about it. If he goes on the talk circuit after this you'd have to pay me to go listen to him.

Sports, music, endeavors that require physical skill and coordination. There's a bit of talent involved. You just can't pick a paint brush up, paint for 10k hours and be Picasso or Monet.

Not to be a complete negative nabob, but the research into better practicing methods today helps one become the best he/she can be better than previously but to be the best out of everyone, sorry, but there's a significant innate ability involved.

Although I agree with you, I can't verify if he had people giving him advice on this or not.

Is there better ways of going about it sure.. Will we ever really find out?  I doubt it.

The only real way to do that in my opinion is to take a group of people (let us say around 20) and have 10 of them practice the same exact way as Dan did, then take the other 10 and make them practice/learn in what ever method you want to follow, and then periodically look at the results in a controlled environment.

To me it is just entertaining to watch someone put undue pressure on him self in front of the world.  I wouldn't do it the way he did!

[hopefulhacker]

I agree for you and me, but these kids are built for it. I'm sure they take care of themselves, like hit shorter if they feel sore to avoid injury. They do take some breaks. One of them went on a family vacation and suffered from withdrawals being away from golf for three days.

Here's one of their schedules (according to his mom and dad): Mon-Fri School from 8am to 2pm @ lunch he hits at the range and pitches and putts. I don't think he putts in the classroom, yet. After 1 hour of homework time, he tries to play 18 holes (Currently he can do it, and in the winter less because of the dark). He plays for free or $1. At 5:00 he eats dinner and from 5:30 to 6:30 he does more homework. From 6:30pm to 9:30pm (sometimes 10:00pm) he goes to the night range and practices till they close at night. Sometimes puts in an 18 hole par 3 round. Including some practice rounds, which he practices drills because he does it every single day, he puts in about 6 hours per day. On the weekends he's pretty much a fixture on the course and plays 2 (sometimes 3) rounds per day, plus drills and lessons. That would be 6*5+20 to 24 or about 50 to 58 hours per week or more including scoring rounds.

IDK, what the other kid's schedule is like, he has more natural talent, but pretty much lives on the local courses as well. He's on my kids high school team, but we don't know his practice habits. At least I don't.

@mvmac can ask my kid about the previous one (they've known each other since kindergarten) when we go to our lesson.

I still think you are overestimating the hours spent playing/practicing each week.

Finishes school at 2pm and 1 hours homework before dinner at 5:30 means that at an absolute maximum there is 2.5 hours free time.

That's not allowing any travel time from school -> home and then home -> course, and I'm assuming he needs to change into golf gear etc.

That has to bring it to well under a 2 hour window...even if he lived right beside his course & school.

There is no way he's getting 18 holes played in 1.5 to 2 hours he has before dinner at 5:30

I really can't see him getting a full 3 hours in between 6;30 and 9:30 (or 10), Again travel to/from etc etc.

These kids may seem like they "live" golf, but your estimation of 6 hours a weekday is still way too high imo.

I would imagine it is much closer to 4 hours per day than 5 or even 6.

He still "lives" golf playing 4 hours per day, it allows for no interaction with other kids (unless he is meeting them at golf)

Whatever about too much golf being detrimental to his game (injuries etc), it surely has to be detrimental to his development as a child.... very little "free" time, very little time to interact with other kids.

Even though it may seem they are "always" playing golf, the reality has to be that with school, the need to eat , and general "living life" stuff like attending birthday parties, socializing etc etc....40 hours is still a hell of a lot to accumulate on av erage per week.

They may be gone to the course for 20-24 hours at the weekend (seems quite high and shows bad parenting to let them away for that long imo) but I am sure this time is not dedicated completely to practice. There has to be a lot of down time for these 10 hour days.

All this may seem a bit pedantic, but it makes a big difference when you are throwing out figures like a 15 year old having clocked up ~ 15,000 hours golf.

40 hours per week for 50 weeks of the year = 2,000

Assuming they didn't get into the routine until they could walk, talk etc, gotten to an age were they could be left alone to look after themself, then we don't have 15 years to multiple it by.

At a push I think even the most dedicated would have amassed 10,000 hours.

Just my opinion on it, maybe there are kids that have more the 10,000 clocked up....but I would seriously worry about their development (social skills etc) if they had more than that in the bank.

[nevets88]

Although I agree with you, I can't verify if he had people giving him advice on this or not.

Lots of people giving him advice.

http://www.svt.se/sport/talangprofessorn-talang-ar-bara-en-myt

http://thedanplan.com/guest-blog-from-stuart-hamilton/

His swing coach: feel ain't real:

[David in FL]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious to me as well that if he scores in the 92 range, that he is most likely not a legitimate 4 handicap. It seems like a tournament round and a normal round should only be a few strokes different.

If he does get down to a solid 2 to 4 handicap, he would at least prove his point.

Sorry, I disagree.

There is a HUGE difference between a 2-4 hcp and even an honest 0 hcp.  There's an even bigger difference between an honest scratch player and someone who can reasonably compete on any kind of professional tour, let alone either the Web.com or the PGA tour.

I know plenty of players in the 2-4 hcp range.  Most practice very seldom.  Most don't even take lessons.  All have jobs, families, and other obligations.  They're good players, but a 2-4 hcp just isn't all that good of a golfer.......at least when compared to what it takes to successfully play professional golf.

From the article @Stretch posted, it sounds as if Dan may be trying to subtly redefine his goal.  It mentions achieving a + hcp and even goes so far as to define that as good enough to "have the skill set to compete in a legitimate PGA tour event."  That statement by itself is nonsense, though it may ring true to the average recreational golfer who simply doesn't have a concept of the true skill level of an actual tour pro.