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

[RandallT]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless

Here's a link to a BBC podcast from 1 March 2014, with the latest episode called "10,000 Hours."  The podcast starts with Dan's story, and from there it broadens out to the various aspects of the "10,000 Hours" studies, papers, books, etc.  It touches on a lot of the caveats we've discussed here regarding the necessary talent and physical attributes, and it traces how people have run with the original concepts by K. Anders Ericsson in 1993 (based on a small group of violinists). A good background listen, if you are doing some mindless task and have 10 minutes.

Ericsson, by the way, is not pleased with how many have twisted his original ideas and has a published essay on his academic web page called "The Danger of Delegating Education to Journalists."  Here's a google cache of it:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O-kZdYZxJEoJ:www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/2012%2520Ericssons%2520reply%2520to%2520APS%2520Observer%2520article%2520Oct%252028%2520on%2520web.doc+&cd;=1&hl;=en&ct;=clnk≷=us

Here's the actual word doc at Florida State for those unafraid of viruses (my computer says the Word doc is virus free):

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/2012%20Ericssons%20reply%20to%20APS%20Observer%20article%20Oct%2028%20on%20web.doc

[nevets88]

I have no bloody clue how his story viralized, I would have thunk something like this would stay under the radar, but it did come around the time of Gladwell's Outliers hubbub. I'm guessing many who think if they just practiced a little more relative to the little that they currently do, they could be scratch, are putting their hopes in him. Or Dr Ericsson is giving it scientific weight and legitimacy.

Based on the video of his 7 iron above, I think he's got the physical ability to get to scratch or somewhere around it. I think he has a athletic talent deficit (sorry Dan, but this is something I'm familiar with) way more than a strength deficit.

[Lihu]

I have no bloody clue how his story viralized, I would have thunk something like this would stay under the radar, but it did come around the time of Gladwell's Outliers hubbub. I'm guessing many who think if they just practiced a little more relative to the little that they currently do, they could be scratch, are putting their hopes in him. Or Dr Ericsson is giving it scientific weight and legitimacy.

Based on the video of his 7 iron above, I think he's got the physical ability to get to scratch or somewhere around it. I think he has a athletic talent deficit (sorry Dan, but this is something I'm familiar with) way more than a strength deficit.

This is what I meant by my daughter having more power. A typical 12 year old girl (like my daughter) is definitely going to be smaller and weaker than any normal man, but the amount of power she can put into her swing seems much higher than him. She drives about 190 and hits her 8i about 130.

If Dan is a solid 4 handicap I would think that he could drive roughly 270 yards and hit his 8i 160 yards (both are carry). I admit that can't really see if he can do that with videos of his swing. So, I will retract the "wimpy" comment, for now, but it sure does not look like it.

[Abu3baid]

This is what I meant by my daughter having more power. A typical 12 year old girl (like my daughter) is definitely going to be smaller and weaker than any normal man, but the amount of power she can put into her swing seems much higher than him. She drives about 190 and hits her 8i about 130.

8i - 130 yds - 12 yo girl = awesome

[nevets88]

IMHO, power is not his problem. He looks limber enough. His path is not that in to out and he can hit more up on the driver.

http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Dan-Plan-2013-01-25-Multi-Group-Report.pdf

[Lihu]

IMHO, power is not his problem. He looks limber enough. His path is not that in to out and he can hit more up on the driver.

http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Dan-Plan-2013-01-25-Multi-Group-Report.pdf

Okay, his carry distance is similar to me and my son. He has a fade/slice. I don't really see how he could be a legitimate 4 handicap. By the time I get to a solid 12 handicap, I am hoping to be able to drive 250 (carry) and have a slight push/draw on all my normal shots.

A little bit of perspective on a 4 handicap, is they're really good.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

This is what I meant by my daughter having more power. A typical 12 year old girl (like my daughter) is definitely going to be smaller and weaker than any normal man, but the amount of power she can put into her swing seems much higher than him. She drives about 190 and hits her 8i about 130.

8i - 130 yds - 12 yo girl = awesome

Thanks, she has a John Daly take away from taking ballet from 3 to 8 years old.

But. . .there are two girls 14 and 16 who drive 220 to 240 and are about the same size as her. I guess they would be more comparable to Dan, except they can drive a bit further yet straighter. They pace off their chips and putts, and par Altadena golf course from the Blue tees.

I just don't understand what he's trying to prove? There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already.

[nevets88]

I just don't understand what he's trying to prove? There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already.

In a nutshell generalization, that those w/o talent can achieve what those w/talent can. Maybe for certain domains. imho, not golf. Respectfully, I don't agree with the latter statement. I'll write more later.

THE THEORY

Talent has little to do with success. According to research conducted by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University, “Elite performers engage in ‘deliberate practice’–an effortful activity designed to improve target performance.” Dr. Ericsson’s studies, made popular through Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers and Geoff Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, have found that in order to excel in a field, roughly 10,000 hours of “stretching yourself beyond what you can currently do” is required. “I think you’re the right astronaut for this mission,” Dr. Ericsson said about The Dan Plan.

http://thedanplan.com/about/

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/45853/the-dan-plan-10-000-hours-to-become-a-*********er/864#post_959556"] I just don't understand what he's trying to prove? There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already. [/QUOTE] In a nutshell generalization, that those w/o talent can achieve what those w/talent can. Maybe for certain domains. imho, not golf. Respectfully, I don't agree with the latter statement. I'll write more later. THE THEORY Talent has little to do with success. According to research conducted by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University, “Elite performers engage in ‘deliberate practice’–an effortful activity designed to improve target performance.” Dr. Ericsson’s studies, made popular through Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers and Geoff Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, have found that in order to excel in a field, roughly 10,000 hours of “stretching yourself beyond what you can currently do” is required. “I think you’re the right astronaut for this mission,” Dr. Ericsson said about The Dan Plan. [URL=http://thedanplan.com/about/]http://thedanplan.com/about/[/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/93449/] [/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/93450/] [/URL] [URL=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf[/URL]

I just looked up Dan's more recent stat, posted 6 months after the ones you posted. It looks like he does drive 270, carrying 255, with a slight draw. http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Dan-Plan-2013-06-21-Multi-Group-Report.pdf Given this newer data, I would say he could be a 4.1 handicap. He did not post any newer stats.

[flopster]

I'm probably not in the position to comment on US HCapping from over this end of the pond, but a solid +1 handicapper (consistently shoots -1 obviously) would qualify for the cut week in/week out on the lower tours regardless of event or course..

My best mate turned pro off +2 (was a shaky plus two at that! I've seen him shoot high 80s) and routinely makes cuts week after week..

The top 100 in the world really are a different breed.. But from what ive encountered over my few years of highly highly competitive golf: The pro's on TV really aren't what people make them out to be.

[RFKFREAK]

Took a few days but finally read all 49 pages of this entire thread. Wish I were as dedicated to my golf game. :bugout: [quote name="Lihu" url="/t/45853/the-dan-plan-10-000-hours-to-become-a-*********er/870#post_959556"] I just don't understand what he's trying to prove? There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already. [/quote] At this point, make back all the money he potentially lost since beginning this project and make lots more on the lecture circuit/book tours.

[nevets88]

There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already.

All these talented kids were probably talented to begin with, not through deep practice. Their parents saw when toddlers they could hit a ball well w/o any intervention and poured in their resources to develop something already there. I wonder how many of those 12 year olds had terrible coordination, couldn't even make contact with a ball even after trying for a month after they first touched a club.

I'm not discounting the techniques and ideas derived from observing expert level people practice, I subscribe to them, deeply (no pun intended), but I seriously have my doubts about one of the points the book is trying to make. imho, people can rise to higher levels of performance given these new techniques than not having known about them before, but to say that only deep practice is responsible for the hot spots Coyle visited, is oversimplified. It's complicated. And so many people have over simplified a hypothesis, maybe perhaps out of a hope that we all can be super high performers at whatever we choose. I'm not saying don't strive, but don't expect to become the next Mozart either just because you put in your 10K. While I'm not convinced of Coyle's main point - I got a lot out of the description of myelin and how our nervous system works and examples of deep and deliberate practice/techniques, etc...

Yes, I'm cynical, sometimes I wonder if this project has somewhat deeper political/academic motivations. It's most probable that Dan is not going to qualify for the PGA Tour even if he has 20K hours. Who is going to want to listen to him lecture after he completes his 5K more hours assuming he doesn't make the tour? People have already written books before about quitting their job and working on golf full-time. It's almost a cliche, like the mid-life red sports car or extra-marital affair with a younger woman.

[RFKFREAK]

Yes, I'm cynical, sometimes I wonder if this project has somewhat deeper political/academic motivations. It's most probable that Dan is not going to qualify for the PGA Tour even if he has 20K hours. Who is going to want to listen to him lecture after he completes his 5K more hours assuming he doesn't make the tour? People have already written books before about quitting their job and working on golf full-time. It's almost a cliche, like the mid-life red sports car or extra-marital affair with a younger woman.

I think you're underestimating the market for this sort of thing.

[nevets88]

I think you're underestimating the market for this sort of thing.

No doubt. I didn't think he'd get the attention he does now.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

There are many talented golfers in early to late teens who are proving the "Talent Code" hypothesis already.

All these talented kids were probably talented to begin with, not through deep practice. Their parents saw when toddlers they could hit a ball well w/o any intervention and poured in their resources to develop something already there. I wonder how many of those 12 year olds had terrible coordination, couldn't even make contact with a ball even after trying for a month after they first touched a club.

I'm not discounting the techniques and ideas derived from observing expert level people practice, I subscribe to them, deeply (no pun intended), but I seriously have my doubts about one of the points the book is trying to make. imho, people can rise to higher levels of performance given these new techniques than not having known about them before, but to say that only deep practice is responsible for the hot spots Coyle visited, is oversimplified. It's complicated. And so many people have over simplified a hypothesis, maybe perhaps out of a hope that we all can be super high performers at whatever we choose. I'm not saying don't strive, but don't expect to become the next Mozart either just because you put in your 10K. While I'm not convinced of Coyle's main point - I got a lot out of the description of myelin and how our nervous system works and examples of deep and deliberate practice/techniques, etc...

Yes, I'm cynical, sometimes I wonder if this project has somewhat deeper political/academic motivations. It's most probable that Dan is not going to qualify for the PGA Tour even if he has 20K hours. Who is going to want to listen to him lecture after he completes his 5K more hours assuming he doesn't make the tour? People have already written books before about quitting their job and working on golf full-time. It's almost a cliche, like the mid-life red sports car or extra-marital affair with a younger woman.

You're not being cynical, and I think this project and its supporters do have some other agenda.

Also, I think any talented kid needs deep practice.

They might be naturally talented, but if they only practice something once a week they can't get good.

What I get behind the data from Coyle's book is not that any average kid can get as good as a gifted kid with 10,000 hours of practice.

An example from the book covers "Footbol de Sala", the example exactly follows my hypothesis above. We need to assume that we find the most talented kids who play football in any group. We take a group who play and succeed in Footbol de Sala and compare them to the ones who play standard football (soccer). The reason these kids are so good is because they have much more contact with the ball and more close up work, and practice many more hours with ball handling. In both cases, all the non-talented kids are out of the picture, because they don't play well enough to stay in the game.

The main idea I get is that a talented kid who practices for 10,000 focused hours, will succeed over even a slightly more talented kid who does not practice as much. Not that any average kid can succeed.

I agree that there is not even a remote chance of success for a non-talented person even with 20,000 hours of focused training.

The agenda that is being pushed seems to be rooted upon our education system that we are all equal. Yes, we should all be given the same opportunities for education, but there is no point for someone to try to do something that is impossible.

However, this is his goal:

"It’s a project in transformation. An experiment in potential and possibilities. Through 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice,” Dan, who currently has minimal golf experience, plans on becoming a professional golfer . But the plan isn’t really about golf: through this process, Dan hopes to prove to himself and others that it’s never too late to start a new pursuit in life.  For a detailed description of the project, please read this blog post: http://thedanplan.com/blog/?p=1090 "

Definition of professional golfer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_golfer

He could still teach, in which case he has some chance of success.

[krupa]

Few observations:

1)  He lives in Portland.  While it's possible to play golf year-round, there are definitely going to be more bad weather days than Florida.  It also isn't nearly as golf-centric as Florida is.  Throw a rock in Florida and it lands on a golf course.  Throw a rock in Portland and you hit someone with multiple tattoos drinking coffee.  If I was going to drop everything and devote my life to golf, I would not do it in Portland (and I love Portland.)

2)  He doesn't work with a coach on a regular basis.  6 weeks between sessions?

3)  It appears his deliberate practice has trailed off a little.  If you read his entries (http://thedanplan.com/countdown/) from the end of February until now, he keeps talking about missing make-able putts but he isn't going back and practicing putts.  He's practicing irons and chipping and putting.  It seems to me that a "deliberate practitioner" would be skipping the casual 9-holes with buddies and spending that time on the putting green instead (weather permitting of course. )

[joekelly]

Update on the basic argument, as outlined below.

Underlying arguments over whether winners are made or born, or over nature versus nurture, the disagreement points to deep uncertainty about who should receive expert instruction and how best to teach people to excel.

"No one disputes that practice is important," says psychologist David Zachary Hambrick of Michigan State University in East Lansing. "Through practice, people get better. The question is whether that is all there is to it."

But more to read here

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140310-gladwell-expertise-practice-debate-intelligence/?google_editors_picks=true

[David in FL]

However, this is his goal:

"It’s a project in transformation. An experiment in potential and possibilities. Through 10,000 hours of “deliberate practice,” Dan, who currently has minimal golf experience, plans on becoming a professional golfer. But the plan isn’t really about golf: through this process, Dan hopes to prove to himself and others that it’s never too late to start a new pursuit in life.  For a detailed description of the project, please read this blog post: http://thedanplan.com/blog/?p=1090"

Definition of professional golfer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_golfer

He could still teach, in which case he has some chance of success.

Further down the same page.....

Logging in 30-plus hours a week he will hit the 10,000 hour milestone by December 2016. During this time, Dan plans to develop his skills through deliberate practice, eventually winning amateur events and obtaining his PGA Tour card through a successful appearance in the PGA Tour’s Qualifying School, or “Q-School”.

It's worth noting that "winning amateur events" encompasses a broad spectrum, including winning the "C" flight in his club championship, or the Hogan flight of a local GC AmTour event to the USGA Championships.  Heck, if he can even advance to match play at the U.S. Amateur or make a top-10 at his State Am or the U.S. Mid-Am, I'll be impressed.   Obtaining a PGA Tour card is pretty specific though.....

What does NOT impress me (in this unique circumstance) is a handicap index, until we see some consistent, verifiable tournament results.