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

[CarlOwen]

I find this whole 10,000 hours claim as the only basis for expertise complete nonsense. If the writer were not such a geek (Malcolm Gladwell) and actually participated in sports as a kid and adult, he would know there are just some people who really are gifted either athletically, or psychologically or both.

I remember very clearly a couple of kids who just about do anything on the first try, and golf was one of them. This one kid I knew, literally was playing bogey golf after just a few rounds.

I remember another kid who was amazing at diving, combine complete fearlessness with unbelievable coordination.

For the rest of us, there are varying degrees of ability, and to say one package fits all, it's 10,000 hours or bust is nonsensical. For some it would come far earlier, and for others, it will never happen.

[CarlOwen]

one more thing. If the 10,000 hour participant doesn't have superior emotional/psychological control, no amount of practice will get him to the pros.

Most of us know plenty of guys who could shoot scratch golf or better who never came close to making it to the pros.

[Golfingdad]

I find this whole 10,000 hours claim as the only basis for expertise complete nonsense. If the writer were not such a geek (Malcolm Gladwell) and actually participated in sports as a kid and adult, he would know there are just some people who really are gifted either athletically, or psychologically or both. I remember very clearly a couple of kids who just about do anything on the first try, and golf was one of them. This one kid I knew, literally was playing bogey golf after just a few rounds. I remember another kid who was amazing at diving, combine complete fearlessness with unbelievable coordination. For the rest of us, there are varying degrees of ability, and to say one package fits all, it's 10,000 hours or bust is nonsensical. For some it would come far earlier, and for others, it will never happen.

Read my post a couple above yours ... Your facts are off. ;)

[narmno]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

Nonsense.  There's certainly good and bad "advice" to be found, and it must be evaluated, but without accepting that there exist experts in virtually every arena that know more than you, you'll never benefit from teachers, coaches, or mentors, whether in sport, business, or life.....

You should certainly learn from teachers, coaches and mentors. Try things that coaches tell you, listen to your teacher, listen to feedback, etc. but you should never blindly follow the "life advice" someone gives you. You should internally understand it and then carry out what you think is best. If you do end up following the advice for a bit, you'll end up constantly re-evaluating it, stopping if it feels wrong, having some sense of control/autonomy, etc. You'll perform much better in the end.

[Edit]

Your other disagreement--

Quote:

Not quite.  Not having the talent to reach the highest levels of achievement in something isn't quite the same as "sucking" at it.  Dan's improved his game significantly.  I just don't believe that he'll reach his goal, not because he "sucks" at golf, but he seems to be lacking the extreme level of talent and athleticism required to complete at the level he's set for himself

"Admitting you suck at something" could just mean admitting you're incapable of something. It's not easy, and I don't say you should do it constantly, but often it's something people need to do. In Dan's case, if he wants to be real he needs to admit to himself that the way his tournament rounds are going, he won't reach his goal of reaching Tour-level. Reaching scratch (on his home courses) might be a more reasonable goal.

[narmno]

I'll defend him ;) ...

A)  The 10,000 hour theory is NOT even Gladwell's to begin with, it's Anders Erikkson's.

and B) The part of the theory that Gladwell mentions in his book doesn't even apply to a guy like Dan anyway.  It was developed from working backwards using a bunch of very well accomplished violinists .. not random joes who have never even seen a violin or a piece of sheet music.

So Eriksson found some accomplished violonists and saw the best ones had put in 10,000 hours of work.

Gladwell puts this in his book and constantly references a "10,000 rule" which (quoting Wikipedia) states that "the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours." This is called saying something out of thin air. The rule has since been debunked many times.

It's fine to read Gladwell for his entertaining and well-written anecdotes. But beyond that it's mostly bullshit.

Btw, the most sad thing about Dan is the poor way he's gone about his 10k hours.

[Pretzel]

one more thing. If the 10,000 hour participant doesn't have superior emotional/psychological control, no amount of practice will get him to the pros. Most of us know plenty of guys who could shoot scratch golf or better who never came close to making it to the pros.

I believe the author of the book with the "10,000 hour theory" came out to say that it didn't apply to all situations, such as sports or things for which someone didn't already have talent.

[narmno]

So Eriksson found some accomplished violonists and saw the best ones had put in 10,000 hours of work.

Gladwell puts this in his book and constantly references a "10,000 rule" which (quoting Wikipedia) states that "the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours." This is called saying something out of thin air. The rule has since been debunked many times.

It's fine to read Gladwell for his entertaining and well-written anecdotes. But beyond that it's mostly bullshit.

Btw, the most sad thing about Dan is the poor way he's gone about his 10k hours.

Don't have permission to edit, so adding on (last post--promise!):

If you like reading and have spare time to learn more about Gladwell, read here: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/11/pinker-on-gladwell.html The blogger is a genius theoretical physicist.

[jamo]

I find this whole 10,000 hours claim as the only basis for expertise complete nonsense. If the writer were not such a geek (Malcolm Gladwell) and actually participated in sports as a kid and adult, he would know there are just some people who really are gifted either athletically, or psychologically or both.

He was, apparently, a pretty high-level sprinter at one point. FWIW, Gladwell isn't my favorite author, but I do enjoy his books. He's an excellent writer and storyteller who, I think, overestimates his grasp of statistics and causality. He's not a scientist, but given the topics he tends to write about, people seem to think he is. Part of that is a failing on his part (he tends to be overly certaint, using "is" when "might be" is probably more accurate), and part of it lies with the readers, I think. 10,000 hours is not some sort of magical number, which is the problem with The Dan Plan. Excellence can be accomplished in 5,000 hours with the right training and background (trying not to use the word "talent" here), or you might spend 20,000 hours on something and never get there. The fact that the readers of Gladwell's books don't understand that is unfortunate. We seem to definitively know very little about what it takes to be world-class at something - you can find a study that'll support pretty much any opinion - so I think the fact that Gladwell assigned a hard number to it was misleading.

[Golfingdad]

Btw, the most sad thing about Dan is the poor way he's gone about his 10k hours.

Yeah, and this is another reason why the experiment can't prove anything;  those who believe the 10k hour rule to be legit will say he failed because his deliberate practice was anything but.

He was, apparently, a pretty high-level sprinter at one point.

FWIW, Gladwell isn't my favorite author, but I do enjoy his books. He's an excellent writer and storyteller who, I think, overestimates his grasp of statistics and causality. He's not a scientist, but given the topics he tends to write about, people seem to think he is. Part of that is a failing on his part (he tends to be overly certaint, using "is" when "might be" is probably more accurate), and part of it lies with the readers, I think.

10,000 hours is not some sort of magical number, which is the problem with The Dan Plan. Excellence can be accomplished in 5,000 hours with the right training and background (trying not to use the word "talent" here), or you might spend 20,000 hours on something and never get there. The fact that the readers of Gladwell's books don't understand that is unfortunate.

We seem to definitively know very little about what it takes to be world-class at something - you can find a study that'll support pretty much any opinion - so I think the fact that Gladwell assigned a hard number to it was misleading.

Yeah, I agree with this.  His books are very entertaining, and they do get you to think, but he does come across with a tad bit of arrogance that can easily be mistaken for knowledge.  He definitely tries to sound like a scientist. Outliers was my first introduction to him and I made that mistake at first.

I also like reading his opinion on sports as well. @jamo , I'm sure you've read a lot of his email exchanges with Bill Simmons ... I love those, especially when they get to brainstorming about things like the NBA lottery/draft/playoffs and such.

Anywho, I wandered ... sorry about that. ;)

[jamo]

Yeah, I agree with this.  His books are very entertaining, and they do get you to think, but he does come across with a tad bit of arrogance that can easily be mistaken for knowledge.  He definitely tries to sound like a scientist. Outliers was my first introduction to him and I made that mistake at first. I also like reading his opinion on sports as well. @jamo , I'm sure you've read a lot of his email exchanges with Bill Simmons ... I love those, especially when they get to brainstorming about things like the NBA lottery/draft/playoffs and such. Anywho, I wandered ... sorry about that. ;)

I agree. I like when he has him on the podcast too.

[David in FL]

You should certainly learn from teachers, coaches and mentors. Try things that coaches tell you, listen to your teacher, listen to feedback, etc. but you should never blindly follow the "life advice" someone gives you. You should internally understand it and then carry out what you think is best. If you do end up following the advice for a bit, you'll end up constantly re-evaluating it, stopping if it feels wrong, having some sense of control/autonomy, etc. You'll perform much better in the end. [Edit] Your other disagreement-- "Admitting you suck at something" could just mean admitting you're incapable of something. It's not easy, and I don't say you should do it constantly, but often it's something people need to do. In Dan's case, if he wants to be real he needs to admit to himself that the way his tournament rounds are going, he won't reach his goal of reaching Tour-level. Reaching scratch (on his home courses) might be a more reasonable goal.

But neither of those are what you said in your OP.......

[beastmode87]

What I don't understand is if this experiment upsets you or you think it's foolish why do you continue to follow Dan religiously? Why do people care if money is being donated to him? It isn't your money so who cares. I love how people too criticize how he began his training by just putting. Like he should've know better or something. The guy hadn't even picked up a club until 4 years ago how would he know what deliberate practice is. That's why it's called trial and error. Give the guy credit for putting himself out there and trying something that 99% of the people on here are incapable of. At least he is trying for a goal (even if it is unrealistic) instead of sitting here playing Monday morning quarterback like the rest of you.

[Lihu]

What I don't understand is if this experiment upsets you or you think it's foolish why do you continue to follow Dan religiously? Why do people care if money is being donated to him? It isn't your money so who cares.

I love how people too criticize how he began his training by just putting. Like he should've know better or something. The guy hadn't even picked up a club until 4 years ago how would he know what deliberate practice is. That's why it's called trial and error. Give the guy credit for putting himself out there and trying something that 99% of the people on here are incapable of. At least he is trying for a goal (even if it is unrealistic) instead of sitting here playing Monday morning quarterback like the rest of you.

The main reason I stay subscribed to this thread is to look for comments from some of the other golfers, but it's always fun to watch his progress as a golfer.

He got to the 10 handicapper range after dedicating 2 years and 5000 hours of work. Not bad.

It's also fun to use him as a benchmark for comparison of your own progress. For instance, my son spent about 1000 hours over 5 years and I have spent over 2000 hours over a period of almost 4 years. We got seriously good instruction only the last year or so. My son is somewhere around a 10 handicap, and I hope to be in the 10 handicap range within another 1000 hours of work or less.

A more extreme comparison would be @GHIN0011458 who spent a little over 4000 hours, and is a real scratch golfer.

His progress makes some of us happier about our own progress. So, in a possibly unintentional manner, he makes other golfers feel really good about themselves.

[Pretzel]

What I don't understand is if this experiment upsets you or you think it's foolish why do you continue to follow Dan religiously? Why do people care if money is being donated to him? It isn't your money so who cares.

I love how people too criticize how he began his training by just putting. Like he should've know better or something. The guy hadn't even picked up a club until 4 years ago how would he know what deliberate practice is. That's why it's called trial and error. Give the guy credit for putting himself out there and trying something that 99% of the people on here are incapable of. At least he is trying for a goal (even if it is unrealistic) instead of sitting here playing Monday morning quarterback like the rest of you.

Considering the fact that I, in the last four years (since freshman year of high school, considering it a "re-start" as I relearned the entire swing etc.) have accomplished more than him (lower handicap and better tournament scores) while also juggling school and robotics, it shows that he knows very little about deliberate practice and showed no desire to learn about it. When he quit his job to play golf, you'd expect he would at least bother to put in the time and effort to figure out how he should go about learning the game. He has no other responsibilities, so he might as well perform his one duty well enough for it to be worthwhile.

[beastmode87]

What I was trying to say is that everyone comes back to the point that his time spent putting at the beginning was a waste. To assume that he knew what was needed at the immediate beginning of this experiment is just not realistic. He started it literally with no knowledge of the game and has gone from there. To say he has not put in time and effort into this experiment is just a foolish statement. He has gone about many different avenues to learn about the game and what it takes to get better. It seems that no matter what he does it is not enough for some people. People were criticizing his mental side of the game for his poor tournament scores. He then goes to a seminar regarding the mental side of the game and to help him improve upon it and the same people now say it is a waste of time.  At least be consistent in your analysis. You say you have made more progress than him in less time while omitting the fact that you had already played the game and are younger than him. Saying that you a re-creating your entire swing and constituting that as a "re-start" as to compare yourself to someone picking up a club for the first time 4 years ago is just not a realistic comparison. You had already played the game since this "re-start" so hence you were light years ahead of him. The comparison isn't even close.

[Pretzel]

What I was trying to say is that everyone comes back to the point that his time spent putting at the beginning was a waste. To assume that he knew what was needed at the immediate beginning of this experiment is just not realistic. He started it literally with no knowledge of the game and has gone from there. To say he has not put in time and effort into this experiment is just a foolish statement. He has gone about many different avenues to learn about the game and what it takes to get better. It seems that no matter what he does it is not enough for some people. People were criticizing his mental side of the game for his poor tournament scores. He then goes to a seminar regarding the mental side of the game and to help him improve upon it and the same people now say it is a waste of time.  At least be consistent in your analysis. You say you have made more progress than him in less time while omitting the fact that you had already played the game and are younger than him. Saying that you a re-creating your entire swing and constituting that as a "re-start" as to compare yourself to someone picking up a club for the first time 4 years ago is just not a realistic comparison. You had already played the game since this "re-start" so hence you were light years ahead of him. The comparison isn't even close.

Anyone with a brain and internet access could have looked up some of the best ways to start out as a beginner. I guarantee that you'll not find a single place that recommends you putt from 2' out for days before moving on to longer putts.

I didn't omit those facts, I left them in there without stating them since other comments I made appeared to make them seem obvious. I was merely pointing out that there are much faster routes to improvement than the one he took, and it wouldn't have taken much time or effort for him to find them.

[nevets88]

Considering the fact that I, in the last four years (since freshman year of high school, considering it a "re-start" as I relearned the entire swing etc.) have accomplished more than him (lower handicap and better tournament scores) while also juggling school and robotics, it shows that he knows very little about deliberate practice and showed no desire to learn about it. When he quit his job to play golf, you'd expect he would at least bother to put in the time and effort to figure out how he should go about learning the game. He has no other responsibilities, so he might as well perform his one duty well enough for it to be worthwhile.

To be fair to Dan, he has to grease the media machine. IMHO, this is probably more time consuming than it sounds, the interviews, making sure you're still "in the spotlight" to keep the donations coming, etc...

[Lihu]

What I was trying to say is that everyone comes back to the point that his time spent putting at the beginning was a waste. To assume that he knew what was needed at the immediate beginning of this experiment is just not realistic. He started it literally with no knowledge of the game and has gone from there. To say he has not put in time and effort into this experiment is just a foolish statement. He has gone about many different avenues to learn about the game and what it takes to get better. It seems that no matter what he does it is not enough for some people. People were criticizing his mental side of the game for his poor tournament scores. He then goes to a seminar regarding the mental side of the game and to help him improve upon it and the same people now say it is a waste of time.  At least be consistent in your analysis. You say you have made more progress than him in less time while omitting the fact that you had already played the game and are younger than him. Saying that you a re-creating your entire swing and constituting that as a "re-start" as to compare yourself to someone picking up a club for the first time 4 years ago is just not a realistic comparison. You had already played the game since this "re-start" so hence you were light years ahead of him. The comparison isn't even close.

Many of our statements were completely the opposite of this.

We have been saying he spent a lot of time practicing, and that whatever many of the rest of us are doing is way more efficient.