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

[pholmes]

When I read his round summaries he seems to be scrambling all the time. He makes a lot of putts for par and has to get up and down from pretty far away too much to be super consistent. He seems to hit too few fairways to be that consistent to me.

[Lihu]

I think the thing is that a decent player who frequently scores 85 will certainly have 95 fairly often,but would probably be 90 or 91 a lot of te time.

A 3 marker will NOT have 85 very often. Dan is not a genuine 3.

I  know a lot of plyers with handicaps less than 5 and they may be have a few rounds in the low 80s, but guys off 3 are not shooting in the 80s except in horrendous conditions or on tough courses on a bad day.

I was hoping you would chime in, and even by USGA standards it's pretty much statistically "impossible".

To be a 3.3 he most likely would need to score par a number of times, and have an anti-handicap of 5.61 based upon Don Bender's profile of player B in Figure 5 assuming that the distributions scale with handicap.

[Golfingdad]

I think the thing is that a decent player who frequently scores 85 will certainly have 95 fairly often,but would probably be 90 or 91 a lot of the time.

A 3 marker will NOT have 85 very often. Dan is not a genuine 3.

I  know a lot of plyers with handicaps less than 5 and they may be have a few rounds in the low 80s, but guys off 3 are not shooting in the 80s except in horrendous conditions or on tough courses on a bad day.

Yeah, and in his last 20 he has an 86, two 90's and a 96.  Seems pretty hard to believe.

And they post every score. Dan just posts the odd one that suits his vanity project.

On the other hand ... it seems to me that a vanity capper - who was actually choosing to not post certain scores - would absolutely "forget" to post those four scores.  Especially when you consider that his next worst score is an 82.

If we could ignore just those 4 scores (which I think a true vanity capper would do gleefully) then his remaining 16 look pretty typical.  11 in the 70's, 2 80's, 2 81's and an 82.

I don't know what to think.

Here's an idea:  In a year or two, when his project ultimately fails, he should be invited to be a contestant on the Big Break.  That would be entertaining.

[Lihu]

Yeah, and in his last 20 he has an 86, two 90's and a 96.  Seems pretty hard to believe.

On the other hand ... it seems to me that a vanity capper - who was actually choosing to not post certain scores - would absolutely "forget" to post those four scores.  Especially when you consider that his next worst score is an 82.

If we could ignore just those 4 scores (which I think a true vanity capper would do gleefully) then his remaining 16 look pretty typical.  11 in the 70's, 2 80's, 2 81's and an 82.

I don't know what to think.

Here's an idea:  In a year or two, when his project ultimately fails, he should be invited to be a contestant on the Big Break.  That would be entertaining.

Very briefly.

[Golfingdad]

Very briefly.

I don't know.  There have been some pretty shitty golfers on the Big Break lately ... he may do OK.

[Lihu]

I am looking at Dan's statistics page.

http://thedanplan.com/statistics-2/

I noticed that he gets about 8% birdies, 60% pars, 29% bogies and 3% double bogies. This seems like a lot of bogies and doubles. Birdies seem okay, and he putts and chips pretty well at 1.8 per GIR and 1.6 per hole. I think his short game is pretty good.

The only thing that sticks out to me are the 29% bogey and 3% double bogey. This just seems like a lot.

What are the statistics of a typical 3.3 handicap?

[Golfingdad]

I am looking at Dan's statistics page.

http://thedanplan.com/statistics-2/

I noticed that he gets about 8% birdies, 60% pars, 29% bogies and 3% double bogies. This seems like a lot of bogies and doubles. Birdies seem okay, and he putts and chips pretty well at 1.8 per GIR and 1.6 per hole. I think his short game is pretty good.

The only thing that sticks out to me are the 29% bogey and 3% double bogey. This just seems like a lot.

What are the statistics of a typical 3.3 handicap?

Well, 8% birdies is about 1 1/2 per round, 29% bogies is 5 1/4 and 3% doubles is 1/2 per.  Unless I'm missing something, that averages out to 4.25 over par per round.  Seems about right if you assume an average course with a rating in the vicinity of 72 and the fact that the mean is always going to be higher than the handicap.

[Lihu]

Well, 8% birdies is about 1 1/2 per round, 29% bogies is 5 1/4 and 3% doubles is 1/2 per.  Unless I'm missing something, that averages out to 4.25 over par per round.  Seems about right if you assume an average course with a rating in the vicinity of 72 and the fact that the mean is always going to be higher than the handicap.

It just seems a little heavy on the bogey and doubles and not enough birdies to make up for it, but I guess you're right.

It is odd that he has has 0 eagles. Even as a "17" I was staring one actual eagle chance (12 foot putt) and quite a few where it was possible to chip in. If I took my handicap and divided it by 5, I would think I would have many more eagle opportunities and thus get at least a small percentage of them.

The number of birdies is low, my son is roughly a 10-12 handicap and gets at least 1 birdie per round even if he also gets a double on occasion. Again, divide the handicap by 3 and I would expect 3 to 4 birdies per round.

My kid's high school coach is approximately a "2" and expects an eagle and a few birdies per round on a <=71.5 rated course. He only struggles getting birdies on something like a 75 rated course. The best score Dan got was on a 6600 yard course, which is probably rated something like 71.5 or less.

He's not a very solid 3.3, if at all, in my mind.

[Golfingdad]

It just seems a little heavy on the bogey and doubles and not enough birdies to make up for it, but I guess you're right.

Not to me.  It's an average score of 76.25 on a par 72.  That seems right on par with a 3.3 handicap.

It is odd that he has has 0 eagles. Even as a "17" I was staring one actual eagle chance (12 foot putt) and quite a few where it was possible to chip in. If I took my handicap and divided it by 5, I would think I would have many more eagle opportunities and thus get at least a small percentage of them.

I don't think it's that odd.  He's only been playing for a couple of years now and he's not a long hitter.  In my life, I've got something like 7 or 8 eagles and all but two of them are by virtue of reaching a par 5 in two or a short par 4 in one.

The number of birdies is low, my son is roughly a 10-12 handicap and gets at least 1 birdie per round even if he also gets a double on occasion. Again, divide the handicap by 3 and I would expect 3 to 4 birdies per round.

Your expectations are too high.  Divide your handicap by 3 and it's just a pinch lower than mine, and then consider this:  3 birdies in one round is something I've only done a handful of times ... ever.  And I have NEVER gotten more than 3 birdies in one round.  Not once.

My kid's high school coach is approximately a "2" and expects an eagle and a few birdies per round on a <=71.5 rated course.

I think his expectations are quite a bit too high as well.  Eagles are pretty rare for even the best players.

The best score Dan got was on a 6600 yard course, which is probably rated something like 71.5 or less.

It's a 72.0/128.  It was a -1.8 differential.  The distance of the course is not relevant in that case.  It's accounted for by the fact that he got a negative differential.  (Allegedly ;))

He's not a very solid 3.3, if at all, in my mind.

Ha.  On this, we agree.  But it's the fluxuations in the scores that lead me to that conclusion, not so much the stats.  If he had one round in the 90's, or perhaps even two, we could write it off (I shot a 101 in a tourney last year so I know how that can happen**), but the fact that he has 4 rounds that bad is what makes his 3.3 look weak to me.

**I think it was a 94 with ESC.

[newtogolf]

Yeah, and in his last 20 he has an 86, two 90's and a 96.  Seems pretty hard to believe.

On the other hand ... it seems to me that a vanity capper - who was actually choosing to not post certain scores - would absolutely "forget" to post those four scores.  Especially when you consider that his next worst score is an 82.

If we could ignore just those 4 scores (which I think a true vanity capper would do gleefully) then his remaining 16 look pretty typical.  11 in the 70's, 2 80's, 2 81's and an 82.

I don't know what to think.

Here's an idea:  In a year or two, when his project ultimately fails, he should be invited to be a contestant on the Big Break.  That would be entertaining.

I don't think Dan is a vanity capper, I'd guess he plays his home course well because he's familiar with it and struggles at courses that he isn't.  We have a few guys in our club that know exactly how to play our course to shoot the lowest scores.  When their swing is cooperating they shoot low.  When they represent our club in inter-club competitions they get killed either because they can't play to their handicap at other courses or they can't handle the pressure of competition or combo of both.

[Lihu]

Not to me.  It's an average score of 76.25 on a par 72.  That seems right on par with a 3.3 handicap.

I don't think it's that odd.  He's only been playing for a couple of years now and he's not a long hitter.  In my life, I've got something like 7 or 8 eagles and all but two of them are by virtue of reaching a par 5 in two or a short par 4 in one.

Your expectations are too high.  Divide your handicap by 3 and it's just a pinch lower than mine, and then consider this:  3 birdies in one round is something I've only done a handful of times ... ever.  And I have NEVER gotten more than 3 birdies in one round.  Not once.

I think his expectations are quite a bit too high as well.  Eagles are pretty rare for even the best players.

It's a 72.0/128.  It was a -1.8 differential.  The distance of the course is not relevant in that case.  It's accounted for by the fact that he got a negative differential.  (Allegedly ;))

Ha.  On this, we agree.  But it's the fluxuations in the scores that lead me to that conclusion, not so much the stats.  If he had one round in the 90's, or perhaps even two, we could write it off (I shot a 101 in a tourney last year so I know how that can happen**), but the fact that he has 4 rounds that bad is what makes his 3.3 look weak to me.

**I think it was a 94 with ESC.

I meant a +2 not a 2**, sorry, but I get your point. Maybe he just says that to get the kids to have higher expectations of themselves, as he got one during one of the tournament days while following the team.

**My son corrected me on the handicap. So, invalidates my assertion anyway.

[Golfingdad]

I don't think Dan is a vanity capper, I'd guess he plays his home course well because he's familiar with it and struggles at courses that he isn't.  We have a few guys in our club that know exactly how to play our course to shoot the lowest scores.  When their swing is cooperating they shoot low.  When they represent our club in inter-club competitions they get killed either because they can't play to their handicap at other courses or they can't handle the pressure of competition or combo of both.

Yeah, you're probably right, but it's hard to tell.  There isn't one rating/slope that stands out on his handicap card as being a lot more common than the others.  Of course, he could be playing the same course several times from different tees too, but who knows.

I meant a +2 not a 2, sorry, but I get your point. Maybe he just says that to get the kids to have higher expectations of themselves, as he got one during one of the tournaments while following the team.

Yeah, a +2 is considerably better than a 2 ... but you are probably right that its more of a motivational thing with the kids.

Eagles are rare for everybody, including pros.  As an example, JB Holmes has played 46 rounds on the PGA tour this year, and just won last week so he's not playing poorly ... and he has 1 eagle all year.  Same with Matt Kuchar and Sergio Garcia.  And Rory McIlroy, in 26 rounds on the PGA tour, has ....... ZERO eagles this season.

The leader is Will Mackenzie with 12 in 54 rounds, and the tour as a whole in God only knows how many rounds**, has only 108.

There has been 25 tournaments so far this year with Fedex Cup points, so I assume those are the ones that count towards the stats.  If you figure 144 players for 2 rounds each tournament and 70 for 2 rounds each tournament, then that is 428 rounds per tournament, and 10,700 rounds total.  So that is exactly a 1% eagle average at the tour pro level.  They are very rare. ;)

[Lihu]

Yeah, a +2 is considerably better than a 2 ... but you are probably right that its more of a motivational thing with the kids.

Eagles are rare for everybody, including pros.  As an example, JB Holmes has played 46 rounds on the PGA tour this year, and just won last week so he's not playing poorly ... and he has 1 eagle all year.  Same with Matt Kuchar and Sergio Garcia.  And Rory McIlroy, in 26 rounds on the PGA tour, has ....... ZERO eagles this season.

The leader is Will Mackenzie with 12 in 54 rounds, and the tour as a whole in God only knows how many rounds**, has only 108.

There has been 25 tournaments so far this year with Fedex Cup points, so I assume those are the ones that count towards the stats.  If you figure 144 players for 2 rounds each tournament and 70 for 2 rounds each tournament, then that is 428 rounds per tournament, and 10,700 rounds total.  So that is exactly a 1% eagle average at the tour pro level.  They are very rare. ;)

Ah, but my assertion was that if the pros played the courses we play, like a 72CR/128, they would probably get a heck of a lot of eagles. Your observation that eagles comes with distance is very well founded. We have a couple short par 5s (only a little over a year ago were really hard for me), which even I can make in two with a driver-hybrid or a couple times with 7i (465-470 yards with tiny uphill grades).

I assume that his coach does not even get many birdies on the pro courses, maybe even struggle for par.

[Golfingdad]

Ah, but my assertion was that if the pros played the courses we play, like a 72CR/128, they would probably get a heck of a lot of eagles. Your observation that eagles comes with distance is very well founded. We have a couple short par 5s (only a little over a year ago were really hard for me), which even I can make in two with a driver-hybrid or a couple times with 7i (465-470 yards with tiny uphill grades). I assume that his coach does not even get many birdies on the pro courses, maybe even struggle for par.

Good point, however id contend that the pros would still average well under an eagle per round.

[Lihu]

Good point, however id contend that the pros would still average well under an eagle per round.

No arguments there. :-D

[MS256]

Good point, however id contend that the pros would still average well under an eagle per round.

You probably play tougher courses than most of the ones I usually play but there are typically 3 or 4 par 5s in the 490 to 510 yard range and I figure they would likely eagle at least two of them (which is basically the same as making birdies on a many of the par 4s they play).

There are also typically at least two par 4s that are "drivable" for me (and many of them could probably get there with a 3W). I would be surprised if they didn't eagle at least one of those every other round.

So, my total guess is...Most of the guys on the PGA Tour would average 2 1/2 eagles a round on the courses I play.

(Could be totally wrong).

Of course I do occasionally play longer courses from the tips and they probably wouldn't have any more eagles on those than they do on Tour. Basically same length holes and not as perfect course conditions.

BTW. Eagles come in bunches for me. I might have 3 or 4 in a couple of days and then not have another one for a month (or two...or three).

Haven't even had one this year but I did miss an eagle putt of less than 2 feet last week.

My last eagles were on back to back holes last fall. A hole out on an 80 yard second shot and a 30 ft. putt on the next hole.

I also used to have many more eagles than I do now, and shot substantially higher and more inconsistent scores...But gambled a whole lot more.

[Golfingdad]

You probably play tougher courses than most of the ones I usually play but there are typically 3 or 4 par 5s in the 490 to 510 yard range and I figure they would likely eagle at least two of them (which is basically the same as making birdies on a many of the par 4s they play).

There are also typically at least two par 4s that are "drivable" for me (and many of them could probably get there with a 3W). I would be surprised if they didn't eagle at least one of those every other round.

So, my total guess is...Most of the guys on the PGA Tour would average 2 1/2 eagles a round on the courses I play.

(Could be totally wrong).

I think you guys are giving those pros way too much credit.

You say that you have 4 Par 5's around 500 yards and 2 Par 4's that are driveable.  And you think the pros would eagle 50% of the par 5's and 25% of the Par 4's.  Look at it another way.  Call those Par 5's par 4's, and call the par 4's par 3's.

The 4 500 yard par 4's are now equal to the longest par 4's they play on tour.  Now consider that the leader this season in "par 4 birdie or better percentage," which includes all of the par 4's, not just the longest, is at 22%.  So all Par 4's combined, of which I imagine that 500 yarders make up a miniscule percentage, the pros don't birdie them even half as often as you suspect they'd eagle your par 5's.

Same idea with your new "par 3's," which I imagine are 280-320 or something?  Of course, that is considerably longer than pretty much every single Par 3 on the PGA tour, save for maybe one at the US Open or something, and still the leader in this category on tour is birdieing his Par 3's under 20% of the time.

And throw in the fact that the average on the PGA tour is going to be considerably lower than the best in the category.

[MS256]

I think you guys are giving those pros way too much credit.

You say that you have 4 Par 5's around 500 yards and 2 Par 4's that are driveable.  And you think the pros would eagle 50% of the par 5's and 25% of the Par 4's.  Look at it another way.  Call those Par 5's par 4's, and call the par 4's par 3's.

The 4 500 yard par 4's are now equal to the longest par 4's they play on tour.  Now consider that the leader this season in "par 4 birdie or better percentage," which includes all of the par 4's, not just the longest, is at 22%.  So all Par 4's combined, of which I imagine that 500 yarders make up a miniscule percentage, the pros don't birdie them even half as often as you suspect they'd eagle your par 5's.

Same idea with your new "par 3's," which I imagine are 280-320 or something?  Of course, that is considerably longer than pretty much every single Par 3 on the PGA tour, save for maybe one at the US Open or something, and still the leader in this category on tour is birdieing his Par 3's under 20% of the time.

And throw in the fact that the average on the PGA tour is going to be considerably lower than the best in the category.

You might be right but the stats from the courses they play don't necessarily tell the whole story even if the hole distance is the same.

They are playing on narrow fairways, firm greens, and very often more obstacles to scoring like bunkers and holes wrapping around water so they have to think twice about always bombing away. Most of our "eagle holes" only have the woods (which are more penal than their "woods") to worry about.

A problem for me but it's usually wide enough between the woods that it shouldn't be much problem for them (except for a few of those giant "blocks" that Tiger hits).

Our greens are typically very receptive and if you can hit the target you can score.

Would be interesting to find out what they would do but I would expect a boat load eagles.