Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Jonnydanger81
Note: This thread is 2376 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Some very opposing views on this topic.  Makes for a nice discussion.  One side will be eating crow by the end of Dan's project, that's for sure.

I'll stick to my belief that Dan will get to a positive handicap.  Where he goes from there is dependent on that six inch course between his ears.

BTW some of the people/sports you all are comparing this to is kinda ridiculous.  Bolt, Michaelangelo and Pavaratti are world renowned in their area of expertise (Mich and Pav actually don't fit into this discussion anyway because the judgment of their skills is subjective).  I'm sure Van whatever is too.  No one, not even Dan himself is saying that he's going to be the next Hagen, Palmer, Nicklaus, or Tiger Woods.  Also I and everyone on the positive side of the argument I'm sure agrees with the Michael Jordan analogy.  Haha Michael Jordan.....really???  The greatest basketball player ever?  Nice.  Again, he's not saying he can be world #1.

Golf is not a game like the traditional sports in America.  One doesn't have to be a great athlete to put together an effective golf swing.  Definitely don't have to be an athlete to learn an effective putting stroke.  The rest is in the head man.  Knowledge of how to play the game as well as the mental ability to stay out of your own way.  I mean really what else is there?  Please someone enlighten me.

Is it so unbelievable that Joe Blow who is a +.8 can do well in a Thursday pre-qualifier then go on to shoot the round of his life the following Monday and qualify for the PGA open event later that week?  At that point why not him?  He's in the field.  If he's a + he physically has all the shots in his bag.  So why can't he make the cut?  Why can't he make some cash Sunday?

I think it's great that he's only at 8 after two years.  Now it is obvious that he's not some prodigy who can shoot 70 within nine months.  He is as normal and average as it gets.  The forum is full of people that want to tell him its impossible.  People that are angered and bitter that some random dude with absolutely no experience in this game whatsoever is already better than they are after two years when they''ve been playing the game their whole lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


As far as not being a natural athlete, that is meaningless without qualifiers. Jim Ryun didn't consider himself a natural athlete.  He was the fastest high school miler in his state 6 months after starting to train and an olympian with in 2 years.  His skills didn't match the previous sports he played but matched up with middle distance running perfectly. You might be in the same boat. Or it could be that most people with average talent and enough practice can get kind of close (whatever that means. To me it means you show up at Q school and make at least to the second to last round or are at least playing nationwide events but your definition can vary) in golf. I know enough people that have put crazy hours into sports and most of them don't make it. The few that did not do anything different. They just responded better to the training.

If that computer existed and everyone had access to it, who would be the tour pros? If there were 30 million people all training properly, you think they would all shot the exact same scores? You don't think there would be some physical advantages (longer levers, more fast twitch muscles, heck even just the ability to recover fast enough so that you don't get injured and can train 8 hours a day 360 days a year) that would help some people play better?  The same situation exists today but instead of perfect training (you get 100% out of your potential) we have less optimal training (you probably get 50-95%). I could be way wrong on how maxed out the pros all. Maybe there will be some major break through and everyone will start driving the ball 400 yards, hitting 200 yard approach shots to within 10 ft 9% of the time, and start sinking 90% of 20footers. I sort of doubt it though. And unless you keep that training a secret it will not help you for long.

Your x verus y isn't the right comparison. It is x versus Larry Nelson who pick up the game by reading Hogans book and playing a lot.  Against 1 random person, good coaching and hard work gives you a huge advantage. Against 100k people, that 1 in 100k talent has the advantage. Or think of it another way: iacas (pick your favorite teacher) has access to himself 24/7. Why isn't he on tour? Obviously poor short game At the top talent matters because pretty much all of them work hard. At lower levels you can outwork people and out coach them (this still happens but the difference between a good HS coach and a bad one is a lot bigger than the gap between a good college and a bad one)

Everyone starts off thinking the sport is all about hard work. If I went from a 30 to 20 in 100 hours of practice, a 15 in the next 200, and a 10 with another 500 and to a 5 with another 1000. Just another 8k hours and I will be  a pro right? Not likely, somewhere you run into a barrier where improvement stops. You spend 2 years playing and working on your game and your index goes from 5 to 4.

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

I absolutely believe that.  The problem is figuring out exactly what "practice" means.  I guess it comes from being kinda close (not that close, but playing qualifiers) and I am not a natural athlete.

My point is that for everyone on this board under 30 a "perfect" computer program could print out a six year program to turn that person into a tour pro.  I absolutely believe that.  There is some combination of hours, given a totally blank calendar for six years, that could turn any of us into a tour pro.  Now, that computer program might have to be really exact, and of course it doesn't exist, but I absolutely believe someone could make the PGA Tour if they knew exactly what to do.  I bet there would be very few people under 30 for whom the computer said "there is literally no way for you, no matter how closely and perfectly i micromanage your minutes in practice, for you to make the pro tour".

Person X and Person Y have never played golf.  Person X takes a lesson with iacas every day for a year.  Person Y takes no lessons at all.  Both play every day.  Person X has an overwhelming advantage to be a much better player; the percentages almost certainly approach 100%.  SO we know that practice can make all the difference at a low level.  Why would it change at a high level?  People have this idea that the better you get, the more talent matters, because those players have "practiced to perfection" everything else, so it must be talent.  That is nonsense.  Its backed up by nothing but our intuition.  Reading a thread on the ball flight laws, where people say we can measure it and it must be right and intuition / feel are wrong, then the exact same is used to back this talent argument.  We know that equipment, practice time, practice mode, practice topic and teacher are huge at the early stages of the game.  There is absolutely nothing to suggest that it would be different at a higher level.

Just my opinion, but yes, I believe that there is a series of practice steps over six years that anyone under 30 on this forum could take to get to the Tour.  The problem is its probably pretty exact, and such a computer doesn't exist.  But I do believe it has very little to do with talent.



Link to comment
Share on other sites




Everyone starts off thinking the sport is all about hard work. If I went from a 30 to 20 in 100 hours of practice, a 15 in the next 200, and a 10 with another 500 and to a 5 with another 1000. Just another 8k hours and I will be  a pro right? Not likely, somewhere you run into a barrier where improvement stops. You spend 2 years playing and working on your game and your index goes from 5 to 4.





Coyne went from either a 15 or an 18 I can't remember which to + handicap in one year while writing the book Paper Tiger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote:
A good dart throwing technique could only get you so far (I'd imagine). I know almost nothing about darts

This is my point.  Everyone says talent creates a glass ceiling as though it is a fact, but nobody has anything to back it up but this ludicrous argument that because tour pros have access to the best teachers, talent must be the difference.  Its not about having access to the best teachers.  Its about knowing what is best for you to accomplish your goals.  That isn't easy to know.

Quote:
So, do you think the same could be said for anyone to become a professional concert pianist, like Van Cliburn? Or a world-renown sculptor like Michaelangelo? Or perhaps a record-setting track star like Usain Bolt?

I addressed this earlier in the thread.  No.  I do believe talent exists, as I said in the comments about the NBA Center.  I do believe natural talent exists and is a factor, I just think it isn't in the top 10.  I do not believe that there is a glass ceiling and that a vast majority of the population is born in such a way that they cannot be  PGA Tour pro.

Quote:
I think you're vastly underestimating the difference between "decent player" and "Tour level."

No, I don't think so.  Did you read my comments earlier in the thread re: tennis?  That said, I think its next to impossible, but I do not think it is impossible.  I think there is a practice routine / regimine out there that, given six years, could turn a healthy under 30 male into a Tour level player.  I'm not saying its easy to find that routine, or that 1 out of 1,000,000 might not find it.  But I think the idea that there is a glass ceiling for all but a tiny percentage is silly.

Quote:
Everyone starts off thinking the sport is all about hard work.

Again, you are misreading my argument.  I don't think its all about hard work.  I think that with the right combination of hard work, practice routine, nutrition, mental coaching, etc.. etc... anyone could do it.  I'm not saying its easy.  I'm not saying that any but a tiny, tiny percentage would actually *figure out* the steps needed to do it.  What I am saying is that I do not believe that being a PGA Tour pro has a glass ceiling that is just unachivable to most.

I believe, given my experience, that anyone under thirty without a handicap could, given six open years to do it, become a tour level tennis pro.  I worked almost 15 years and didn't make it, but I am sure if i had a different teacher, worked on different things, maybe played better competition earlier, etc... etc... I could make up the gap.  i'm NOT saying its easy.  I AM saying that, within reason (i.e. no physical disabilities) there is no "talent level" below which you simply cannot do it.

Quote:
Or think of it another way: iacas (pick your favorite teacher) has access to himself 24/7. Why isn't he on tour? Obviously poor short game a3_biggrin.gif At the top talent matters because pretty much all of them work hard. At lower levels you can outwork people and out coach them (this still happens but the difference between a good HS coach and a bad one is a lot bigger than the gap between a good college and a bad one)

This is the exact argument I find so silly.  All pros work hard, and at about the same rate, so therefore the difference must be talent.  No, no.  There are a million factors more important than talent *other than working hard* - choice of teacher, choice of practice routine, choice of caddy, on-course strategy, etc... etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

No, I don't think so.  Did you read my comments earlier in the thread re: tennis?  That said, I think its next to impossible, but I do not think it is impossible.  I think there is a practice routine / regimine out there that, given six years, could turn a healthy under 30 male into a Tour level player.  I'm not saying its easy to find that routine, or that 1 out of 1,000,000 might not find it.  But I think the idea that there is a glass ceiling for all but a tiny percentage is silly.

Again, you are misreading my argument.  I don't think its all about hard work.  I think that with the right combination of hard work, practice routine, nutrition, mental coaching, etc.. etc... anyone could do it.  I'm not saying its easy.  I'm not saying that any but a tiny, tiny percentage would actually *figure out* the steps needed to do it.  What I am saying is that I do not believe that being a PGA Tour pro has a glass ceiling that is just unachivable to most.

This is the exact argument I find so silly.  All pros work hard, and at about the same rate, so therefore the difference must be talent.  No, no.  There are a million factors more important than talent *other than working hard* - choice of teacher, choice of practice routine, choice of caddy, on-course strategy, etc... etc...


Talent is a word people use when they dont know.

People also tend to apply this in how they themself would be able to do it which then of course is a no due to limitation.
Working hard alone dont cut it.

You need a good plan, a superb success algoritm to improve consistently at every practice measureable.

You need time and deep deliberate practice to build enough variation that alone takes around 2 years.

You need a fitness level and focused work for a long time with ambition and dedication.

Dan has that even though he now shows strains 2 years down the road due to overloading his system with the time involved with the practice.

His face says it all and yea I read people pretty good.

back to coaching the golf pro.

Robert Something

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

Talent is a word people use when they dont know.

People also tend to apply this in how they themself would be able to do it which then of course is a no due to limitation.

Working hard alone dont cut it.

You need a good plan, a superb success algoritm to improve consistently at every practice measureable.

You need time and deep deliberate practice to build enough variation that alone takes around 2 years.

You need a fitness level and focused work for a long time with ambition and dedication.

Dan has that even though he now shows strains 2 years down the road due to overloading his system with the time involved with the practice.

You also need some innate ability (mental and physical).

Again, you cannot train everyone to jump as high as Michael Jordan, to run as fast as Usain Bolt, or to swing a golf club as fast as a PGA Tour player.

I think that's all anyone is saying.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm not sure why people refuse to accept there are natural talents and abilities.  I realize it goes against what people want to believe, but there is a reality to it.  I'm 100% confident that no matter how much I practiced I could not make it on the PGA Tour.  I doubt I'll ever get to below a 5 handicap.  That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the game or don't want to put the time in to improve.  Dan may get to scratch (a reach) by the end of his 10,000 hours, but he's not going pro based on what he's shown so far.

There's a reason schools and the military test aptitude because we all have some natural abilities and talent, the key is to identify what your born talent is.  China and Russia spend a great amount of resources developing their Olympic athletes.  Many are trained as young children and all that are selected into their programs are given the same opportunity to succeed but only a very low percentage make it to the Olympics.  They are selected in the following manner before they ever show any skills in the sport they are selected for;

  • Doctors measure height, arm span, bone density, flexibility and other things to predict what a child will be like in the future. X-rays and bone tests are used to determine bone density and structure and predict future growth.
  • Children demonstrating exceptional flexibility and balance are sent to gymnastics and diving camps. Tall children are sent to volleyball and basketball camps. Those with quick reflex are guided into ping pong. Kids with long arms are pushed into swimming or javelin throwing. Those with shorts arms make ideal weightlifters. Potential archers are picked on the basis of a test of steady nerves in which they are asked to spread their palm and stack as many .22 caliber bullets as they can on top of one another. Ideal candidates can stack eight or more bullets. Only those that can that can stack six or more are even looked at. Strong shoulders, superior vision and a cool demeanor are viewed as desirable attributes for archery.


I think people discount what's required to be a professional golfer because people that are older, out of shape, non athletic can become good in the sport.  There's a difference between what it takes to be good and to be a professional.

Joe Paradiso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I watched some of the Dan webisodes last night. I like Dan and I wish him well.

He swings like I'd swing left handed and his short game is brutal, but I truly wish him well.

Mizuno MP600 driver, Cleveland '09 Launcher 3-wood, Callaway FTiz 18 degree hybrid, Cleveland TA1 3-9, Scratch SS8620 47, 53, 58, Cleveland Classic 2 mid-mallet, Bridgestone B330S, Sun Mountain four5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This is the exact argument I find so silly.  All pros work hard, and at about the same rate, so therefore the difference must be talent.  No, no.  There are a million factors more important than talent *other than working hard* - choice of teacher, choice of practice routine, choice of caddy, on-course strategy, etc... etc...

Two words: Tiger Woods. He won everything in sight as a young boy, with his dad his main coach. His dad got some local pro whose name I don't recall to teach him, and he won everything in the junior amateur ranks. He met Butch somewhere along the way, won a bunch of US amateurs, and then destroyed the field at the '97 Masters. He then completely revamped his swing, winning only one event in 1998 during that process, but came back and dominated the game from 1999-2003. He then changed coaches and swings, losing his #1 ranking during the process, came back with a new swing, and dominated again from 2005-2009. He then changed coaches and swings AGAIN, and now he's just won Bay Hill by five shots, and is driving the ball better than he has in the last ten years. Obviously, it doesn't matter very much what coach or swing he uses. It doesn't seem to matter whether he is 21 in perfect health, or 32 with a broken leg. It doesn't seem to matter whether he practices 8 hours a day, or spends all his time chasing women. He was born with an incredible talent for playing golf. He was a scratch golfer when he was 12. He didn't need a super optimal computer to plan his every waking second. In fact, he was only allowed to play golf after he finished his schoolwork. I'm actually having a hard time understanding how any adult with normal experience can possibly believe that there aren't wildly different levels of innate potential, which more than compensate for any amount of training. I thought most kids find out in elementary school that some people are simply faster and stronger than others. Training and nutrition will lead to improvement, but the average person will not be able to attain anything like the strength or speed of a "natural," even if he trains optimally, and the natural trains haphazardly. To take a less complicated example than golf, an average young adult, untrained but in good health, can probably not run a mile without stopping to rest. If he trains diligently for a few months, he should be able to run a mile in 8 minutes. If he continues training for a year, he might get it down to six minutes. And if he gives up everything else and devotes his life to the mile, with optimal training and nutrition for several years, he may or may not get it down to five minutes. But no amount of training, however optimal, will get him under four and a half minutes, unless he was born with the right genes. And anybody who is capable of running a mile under four minutes, which is pretty much just a decent time for a major college track athlete these days, would be able to run a six minute mile the first time he ever saw a track, and a five minute mile after a month of training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Originally Posted by TyWebbb

Coyne went from either a 15 or an 18 I can't remember which to + handicap in one year while writing the book Paper Tiger.



I love the book. In the book he he has a 9.4 after the first month and ends as +.4. Now he definitely had issues along the way but it also sounds like he put in 2k+ hours of work. The  one thing to remember is that he had been a much better golfer as a kid.  He just hadn't been playing/practicing much for the previous 10 years.  And his tournament scores were wretched. It would have been great to see what one more year of training would have done though. Could he have fixed his swing just a bit more to stop hitting OOB? Could he have become a much better putter?


Originally Posted by TyWebbb

Some very opposing views on this topic.  Makes for a nice discussion.  One side will be eating crow by the end of Dan's project, that's for sure.

I'll stick to my belief that Dan will get to a positive handicap.  Where he goes from there is dependent on that six inch course between his ears.

BTW some of the people/sports you all are comparing this to is kinda ridiculous.  Bolt, Michaelangelo and Pavaratti are world renowned in their area of expertise (Mich and Pav actually don't fit into this discussion anyway because the judgment of their skills is subjective).  I'm sure Van whatever is too.  No one, not even Dan himself is saying that he's going to be the next Hagen, Palmer, Nicklaus, or Tiger Woods.  Also I and everyone on the positive side of the argument I'm sure agrees with the Michael Jordan analogy.  Haha Michael Jordan.....really???  The greatest basketball player ever?  Nice.  Again, he's not saying he can be world #1.

Golf is not a game like the traditional sports in America.  One doesn't have to be a great athlete to put together an effective golf swing.  Definitely don't have to be an athlete to learn an effective putting stroke.  The rest is in the head man.  Knowledge of how to play the game as well as the mental ability to stay out of your own way.  I mean really what else is there?  Please someone enlighten me.

Is it so unbelievable that Joe Blow who is a +.8 can do well in a Thursday pre-qualifier then go on to shoot the round of his life the following Monday and qualify for the PGA open event later that week?  At that point why not him?  He's in the field.  If he's a + he physically has all the shots in his bag.  So why can't he make the cut?  Why can't he make some cash Sunday?

I think it's great that he's only at 8 after two years.  Now it is obvious that he's not some prodigy who can shoot 70 within nine months.  He is as normal and average as it gets.  The forum is full of people that want to tell him its impossible.  People that are angered and bitter that some random dude with absolutely no experience in this game whatsoever is already better than they are after two years when they''ve been playing the game their whole lives.


The difference between being Tiger Woods and losing your card is smaller than the difference between being  a +1 and being on the tour. Lets look at your +.8. He shows up at the monday qualifier for the honda open. the course has a CR of something like 75.6/144. Your guy will shoot something around 74 to maintain his handicap. He needed to shoot a 66 to make the playoff or 8 shots better than normal. From the USGA handicapping guidelines that is a 20000:1 shot.  Now the odds might be better at other spots as florida has a lot of good golfers. I am guessing Puerto Rico is one of the easier ones. It took a 69 to qualify but the championship course (I assume that is what they played) is a rating of 77.7 for a difference of about -7 or a 2349:1 shot. But lets say he makes the field. How is he going to do in the tournament. The cut was at the honda was 1 on a par 70 course so our guy is likely to have to beat his handicap by 3 2 times in a row (it is probably worse as the course is harder). That is about 1:3000 event. Can your +1 make the cut in a tour event? Sure. People also win powerball all the time.

Golf has a physical component to go with the skill. There is a reason why Arnold Palmer and Jack Nickalus are not still playing on the tour. There is a reason why woman are on the LPGA not the PGA. There is also a huge skill factor which is why the 70 year old can still beat the 30 year old.

The real problem with the Dan plan is that it isn't going to prove anything. Lets say he ends up as a +3 (great golfer but still not close to a tour pro). Is it because of lack of talent or poor practice (should have done S&T;, didn't take an aimpoint, should have trained with a k-vest for 4000 hours, didn't lift enough, lifted too much,.....).  Of course that is good for Dan because even if he fails he can put  a postive spin in his documetary which is the real goal of the Dan Plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Originally Posted by iacas

or to swing a golf club as fast as a PGA Tour player.

I think that's all anyone is saying.



How about faster?

You guys know the swings used on the tour isnt made for speed right?

Golf dont have much physical limitations.

its a walk and someone carry your bags.

Most of the time your waiting for someone else.

Most of the time your talking to people.

I find the game simply a lazy game but that is why you could drink a lot in the evenings and have fun.

The requirements are not that high for golf.

Talent is way overrated for Golf pros.

Robert Something

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

How about faster?

You guys know the swings used on the tour isnt made for speed right?

Golf dont have much physical limitations.

its a walk and someone carry your bags.

Most of the time your waiting for someone else.

Most of the time your talking to people.

I find the game simply a lazy game but that is why you could drink a lot in the evenings and have fun.

The requirements are not that high for golf.

Talent is way overrated for Golf pros.

Many other trolls in Sweden?  There were those 3 trolls who lived under the bridge, and all those garden trolls, but I was always told they were from Norway.

Tell you what, walk 18 holes on a hilly golf course, in mid-summer, in the southern US, and tell us how it's not a physical game. It's not quite as easy to make a good swing when you are sweating like crazy, and your legs are about ready to give out.

I won't even comment about the talent of golf pros (assuming you mean tour pros and not your neighborhood course pro).  You clearly have never played with any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Originally Posted by Harmonious

Quote:

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

How about faster?

You guys know the swings used on the tour isnt made for speed right?

Golf dont have much physical limitations.

its a walk and someone carry your bags.

Most of the time your waiting for someone else.

Most of the time your talking to people.

I find the game simply a lazy game but that is why you could drink a lot in the evenings and have fun.

The requirements are not that high for golf.

Talent is way overrated for Golf pros.

Many other trolls in Sweden?  There were those 3 trolls who lived under the bridge, and all those garden trolls, but I was always told they were from Norway.

Tell you what, walk 18 holes on a hilly golf course, in mid-summer, in the southern US, and tell us how it's not a physical game. It's not quite as easy to make a good swing when you are sweating like crazy, and your legs are about ready to give out.

I won't even comment about the talent of golf pros (assuming you mean tour pros and not your neighborhood course pro).  You clearly have never played with any.



Golf is played by hitting the ball from point A to B. It's considered mastered by the ones doing it in the fewest strokes regardless of the weather conditions or the course setup. Maybe Dan will get there. If he does he either discovered a hidden talent or he practiced properly (deeply enough?!?). If he doesn't make it then he either wasn't talented enough or didn't practice properly or long enough or he waited too long to start. Neither of the outcomes Dan will have prove either position, but when someone discounts that naturul talent exists I strongly believe it's because they've never seen it.

Mizuno MP600 driver, Cleveland '09 Launcher 3-wood, Callaway FTiz 18 degree hybrid, Cleveland TA1 3-9, Scratch SS8620 47, 53, 58, Cleveland Classic 2 mid-mallet, Bridgestone B330S, Sun Mountain four5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Several of the replies seem to completely miss my point.

For the last (hopefully) time, if you actually read what I write, nowhere do I say natural talent doesn't exist.  It absolutely does.  There is no question.  I have "seen it" on the Tennis tour, certainly.  My point is not that natural talent doesn't exist, as I've said repeatedly.  My point is that it is not a top factor in determining making it to the PGA Tour.  My second point is that it is impossible to measure, and therefore nobody on here has any idea how important it is; the argument "everyone works hard so it must be talent" is stupid.

My points:

1.  I do believe natural talent exists.

2.  I do not believe there is a glass ceiling that would prevent someone from making the Tour who is otherwise healthy and has six years to dedicate to the cause (i think it is possible, not likely).

3.  I do believe that at the top levels, nautral talent is a factor, but it is one of many and not the most important.

Do you really think Tiger Woods just happened to be born the most talented golfer of all time into a household that was totally dedicated to his pursuit of golf from the cradle?  Really?  Or is it more likely that they just happened to hit upon a training program that eventually produced the greatest golfer of all time, given his predispositions?  If Dan had been born into Tiger Woods' house, and was raised like him by Eldrick, do you think he'd make the PGA Tour or be stuck at a +3?  If Tiger Woods didn't play golf until 20, then started the Dan Plan, would he make it because of "natural talent" ?  Of course not.

Natural talent exists.  It is way less important than everyone thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

Several of the replies seem to completely miss my point.

For the last (hopefully) time, if you actually read what I write, nowhere do I say natural talent doesn't exist.

I know you're not replying to me, because I didn't read any of your posts.

Mizuno MP600 driver, Cleveland '09 Launcher 3-wood, Callaway FTiz 18 degree hybrid, Cleveland TA1 3-9, Scratch SS8620 47, 53, 58, Cleveland Classic 2 mid-mallet, Bridgestone B330S, Sun Mountain four5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by sean_miller

I know you're not replying to me, because I didn't read any of your posts.



I feel I can answer this because you gave me the same smart-assed remark in another thread (or maybe this one - I don't remember) yesterday.  If he didn't quote you, and you didn't read his post, its obviously impossible that you missed his point because you couldn't possibly know what his point is.

So rest assured, neither he (nor I yesterday) is talking to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

You need time and more time for practice. Talent is a grown ability and you dont get good by watching TV, reading a magazine and thinking about it.

Short high intensity practice with proper management as shown in Russia where basically every russian top 10 on the tennis tour comes from one school the same place in Russia.

In golf on the LPGA tour the southkorean influence is big.

Most would never think about going scratch, or going tour, due to either they dont have the talent or the resources or some other excuse.

Dan can succeed.

But he probably won't due to a lack of natural talent. He wasn't recruited for this path, unlike the tennis and golf prodigies you're referring to.





Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

But he probably won't due to a lack of natural talent. He wasn't recruited for this path, unlike the tennis and golf prodigies you're referring to.

The problem I have with this argument, Sean, is that it seems like you are equating having natural born talent with starting the activity at a young age.  Let's use tennis as an example.  I don't know the backstories of any of them too well, but most of those pros surely start young, and end up cultivating their talent at a Boliterri academy or the like, right?  Well, what got them started playing tennis?  How did they know THAT was going to be their thing?  Would you not say there was a bit of luck involved, in that those born with that "natural talent" had parents who liked tennis enough to have them try it?

And wouldn't that mean that for every Roger Federer out there, there could be several just like him that were not born to parents who liked or were interested in tennis?  There has to be, right?  Nothing is that efficient.  Now what would happen if one of those people born with the "natural talent" but never given a chance to cultivate it, happened to start trying at a later age?

Could Dan not be one of those guys?  I know a lot of you think that going from nothing to 8 HDCP in 2 years proves he doesn't have it, and maybe you are right.  But my point here is simply that even if there is something as "natural talent" that doesn't preclude somebody from discovering it later in life.

P.S. Hey, John Clayton, I downloaded "Life Is Not A Game Of Perfect" as recommended.  (I'm only a quarter of the way in, but really like it so far.)  My favorite line so far (apropos to the thread) is a quote from (I forgot) ... "People generally become what they think of themselves."  (Or something close to that, I'm going off memory)





Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I know you're not replying to me, because I didn't read any of your posts.

I feel I can answer this because you gave me the same smart-assed remark in another thread (or maybe this one - I don't remember) yesterday.  If he didn't quote you, and you didn't read his post, its obviously impossible that you missed his point because you couldn't possibly know what his point is.

So rest assured, neither he (nor I yesterday) is talking to you.



Actually you were, just that you took my comment out of context and implied I said something I hadn't. I was commenting directly to soon-tourpro who referred to the Russian tennis mills and South Korean golf mills then hinted this had some relevance to Dan's situation.

That suddenly low index guy disputed something people were saying immediately after I said something similar is surely a coincidence.

Mizuno MP600 driver, Cleveland '09 Launcher 3-wood, Callaway FTiz 18 degree hybrid, Cleveland TA1 3-9, Scratch SS8620 47, 53, 58, Cleveland Classic 2 mid-mallet, Bridgestone B330S, Sun Mountain four5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by sean_miller

Actually you were, just that you took my comment out of context and implied I said something I hadn't. I was commenting directly to soon-tourpro who referred to the Russian tennis mills and South Korean golf mills then hinted this had some relevance to Dan's situation.

That suddenly low index guy disputed something people were saying immediately after I said something similar is surely a coincidence.


Then say that.  Don't get all passive aggressive and say you didn't read the posts if you did.

Secondly, how exactly could I take you "out of context" when I quoted your entire post?

You inferred that because he wasn't recruited he lacked natural talent.  I was simply making a counter point to that.  If I misinterpreted what you were saying, then say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 2376 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Wordle 1,013 2/6 🟨⬜⬜🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Thought I was gonna be a big shot today...  🙂    Nice Job!
    • Cool here's my tweak, "If a player’s ball lies in the general area and there is interference from exposed tree roots or exposed rocks that are in the fairway or 1 club length from the fairway the tree roots and exposed rocks are treated as ground under repair. The player may take free relief under Rule 16.1b.[But relief is not allowed if the tree roots only interfere with the player’s stance.]
    • I would never do the extended warranty on the $50 slow cooker.  I also routinely reject the extended service plans on those toys we buy for the grand-kids.  I do consider them on higher cost items and will be more likely to get one if the product has a lot of "Electronic Tech" that is often the problem longer-term.  I also consider my intended length of ownership & usage.  If my thought is it would get replaced in 2-3 years then why bother but if I hope to use it for 10 years then more likely to get the extension. I did buy out a lease about a year ago.  Just prior to the lease end date the tablet locked up and would not function.  I got it repaired under the initial warranty and would not have bought it out if they had not been able to fix it since IMO once electronic issues start in a car they can be hard to track down & fix.  They did fix it but when I bought out the lease I paid up for the extended warranty the would cover electronic failures because my intent is to keep that car for another 8-10 years and I just do not trust the electronics to last.  Last week the touch screen went black and was unresponsive.  It reset on the 2nd time I restarted the car but that is exactly how the last malfunction started.  I fully expect to have a claim on that on repair under the extended warranty.  I do not recall the exact cost to fix last time since I did not pay it but I think it was @ $700-$800 and I suspect that will be higher next time.
    • Have you looked at Model Local Rule F-9 Relief from Tree Roots in or Close to Fairway?  You could extend this to cover exposed rocks.  The rule is recommended to be used only for areas relatively near the fairway, a player who hits a shot 20 yards in the woods doesn't really deserve relief.   Players can always take Unplayable Ball relief, they're not required to play it from a rock or a root.  Of course, they hate to take the penalty stroke too.
    • I agree with @klineka, you're clearly doing something right.  Its always going to be a bit of a guessing game if you don't have any scoring history.  On the other hand, understanding that it takes only 54 holes to establish an actual handicap, and they have about 6 weeks in which to play and post enough scores, I don't think its at all unreasonable to require them to have an official handicap before they become eligible for prizes.  I don't know how you structure the fees for the series of competitions, but if its possible they'll play with the group without being eligible for prizes, you could consider a way to let them do that without contributing to the prize pool.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...