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

[RandallT]

I like this format. Most shows in the US only bring in a handful of experts. This show, everyone who comments, like dozens, is an expert in his field - prima ballerina, tennis, cricket, aerial skiing, music, running, academics, chess, etc...

My wife and I were struck at how many experts kept popping up throughout the show. We wondered why some were in the audience, and some were on stage. At every turn, the moderator called on some other person who had excelled or had trained an expert. It was quite an impressive array of talent.  My overall impression looking back at the show is how small Dan looks on that stage. Those were people at the top of their various fields who spoke of the importance of natural talent or genetics.... and there was Dan, just some guy with an idea but not necessarily the natural talent. The moderator tried to talk up Dan's "talent" for being passionate, but that seemed forced to me. Almost like she was trying to be nice to him.  I also thought Dan's hair looked horrible :-)

Anyway, curious to know how you think Dan performed. I thought mediocre at best.

[nevets88]

My wife and I were struck at how many experts kept popping up throughout the show. We wondered why some were in the audience, and some were on stage. At every turn, the moderator called on some other person who had excelled or had trained an expert. It was quite an impressive array of talent.  My overall impression looking back at the show is how small Dan looks on that stage. Those were people at the top of their various fields who spoke of the importance of natural talent or genetics.... and there was Dan, just some guy with an idea but not necessarily the natural talent. The moderator tried to talk up Dan's "talent" for being passionate, but that seemed forced to me. Almost like she was trying to be nice to him.  I also thought Dan's hair looked horrible :-)

Anyway, curious to know how you think Dan performed. I thought mediocre at best.

Well, the aerial skier was 5' 2"? To a naysayer like me, he didn't change my opinion at all, but I see why he acquired and maintains his following now. He's done lots of media appearances I'm guessing, but this is the first I'm seeing of him in an interview. He touched on little bits deliberate practice, could have done more? That's the novelty of his endeavor, no? But telly is a terrible format to go into that nuance. Not enough time. Viewers don't have the attention span. But he did have a chance when the host asked him about himself. I think for his following, he did okay, but his appearance are not going to convince those on the other side of the fence, nowhere near it.

[golf-noob-bruce]

BTW, perfect pitch, dunno if everyone can get it, but relative pitch, can be learned, and that's plenty. Perfect pitch is a bit overrated.

Perfect pitch is a really interesting phenomenon. It's an acquired skill, but crucially it looks like it's impossible to acquiring once you're older than something like 5 or 6. It's one of those things that you can only do if you actually picked it up as a kid ( like golf maybe... ).

[RandallT]

Perfect pitch is a really interesting phenomenon. It's an acquired skill, but crucially it looks like it's impossible to acquiring once you're older than something like 5 or 6. It's one of those things that you can only do if you actually picked it up as a kid ([SIZE=8px]like golf maybe...[/SIZE]).

[quote name="nevets88" url="/t/45853/the-dan-plan-10-000-hours-to-become-a-pro-golfer/1470#post_1026183"] :offtopic: Sorry to go off topic, this is the last you'll hear from me about it, but it is somewhat related. Absolute pitch - just because you have it is no guarantee that you'll become a great musician. It is overrated. OVER friggin' RATED . The fact that the media trot this out (absolute pitch) when talking about nature vs nurture, talent vs practice, makes the conversation seem more superficial. It's like they all drag out these cliches over and over again and don't bring up fresh ideas. It wows the audience, ooooh, he can stand in the next room and tell me what note I'm playing, just perpetuates a misnomer. And you know what. Ya get old. Ya lose it. Do you ask that grey haired concert pianist if he's got absolute pitch? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:   [/quote] I used to play piano and actually bought a set of CDs to learn perfect pitch and relative pitch. I was ok at relative pitch but perfect pitch eluded me!! The guy teaching started with F# and E flat. Those notes definitely have a quality to then. E flat more sad, melancholy, F# more discordant or jarring to the ear. If you stuck with just those two, I could get it. But add more and I would lose my reference point. Frustrating!!! Anyway here's the transcript for those who just wanna read the dialogue. http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/transcript/636/Born-or-Made I thought the 5'2" aerial skier, Alisa Camplin, was lovely. Ok, enough OT :)

[Lihu]

I used to play piano and actually bought a set of CDs to learn perfect pitch and relative pitch. I was ok at relative pitch but perfect pitch eluded me!! The guy teaching started with F# and E flat. Those notes definitely have a quality to then. E flat more sad, melancholy, F# more discordant or jarring to the ear. If you stuck with just those two, I could get it. But add more and I would lose my reference point. Frustrating!!!

Anyway here's the transcript for those who just wanna read the dialogue.

http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/transcript/636/Born-or-Made

I thought the 5'2" aerial skier, Alisa Camplin, was lovely. Ok, enough OT :)

Agreed.

[Shorty]

The thing I disliked most about the program was that it basically implied that Dan had achieved "expert" status and the only question was whether this had been achieved through dedicated practice or whether his talent was natural.

As has been seen in his website videos, he is a particularly unathletic looking specimen.

He was revelling in the attention and invariably rambled on beyond what was wanted from him.

As I suspected, the average non golf savvy viewers would think he has achieved a level of skill close to a PGA Tour player in a couple of years.

[Lihu]

The thing I disliked most about the program was that it basically implied that Dan had achieved "expert" status and the only question was whether this had been achieved through dedicated practice or whether his talent was natural.

As has been seen in his website videos, he is a particularly unathletic looking specimen.

He was revelling in the attention and invariably rambled on beyond what was wanted from him.

As I suspected, the average non golf savvy viewers would think he has achieved a level of skill close to a PGA Tour player in a couple of years.

My takeaway was that he was there as an example of a person who put a very large amount of effort, and has not yet attained his goal of being a PGA pro. Then they had all kinds of experts and world class athletes/coaches saying what they did to achieve success. Many of them just said something like "It just happened." or "I always did it." The overwhelming evidence pointed towards "Born".

They did not want to say explicitly that Dan had no chance of success although Andrew Bully pretty much said it, and they repeated him saying it three times.

I wished someone like you were on the show as well. Both you and Andrew would have had quite a bit to say about his chances of success.

[nevets88]

Nature vs nature has been argued over since forever and this is just a variant of the argument, born or made. While I liked the format of the show and learned a little, the one hour bit has been done before. I'm repeating myself but what was lost in this whole argument was how to practice better. Instead of focusing on how any schlub can practice his way to genius top 0.01% level, lost is the opportunity to talk about how better practice techniques can make the average better. Wouldn't raising the tide of an ocean an inkling be more helpful than the super complicated nuance of figuring out genius? If The Dan Plan makes it to Charlie Rose in the long run, I'm gonna puke.

[Lihu]

Nature vs nature has been argued over since forever and this is just a variant of the argument, born or made. While I liked the format of the show and learned a little, the one hour bit has been done before. I'm repeating myself but what was lost in this whole argument was how to practice better. Instead of focusing on how any schlub can practice his way to genius top 0.01% level, lost is the opportunity to talk about how better practice techniques can make the average better. Wouldn't raising the tide of an ocean an inkling be more helpful than the super complicated nuance of figuring out genius?

If The Dan Plan makes it to Charlie Rose in the long run, I'm gonna puke.

This is what I think will make a lot more sense for Dan and his future, but unfortunately he has not been keeping track of any of his progress in a meaningful way nor has he proceeded with a good method from the get go.

[Shorty]

Nature vs nature has been argued over since forever and this is just a variant of the argument, born or made.

Not as long as "Nature vs Nurture" :-)

[nevets88]

Not as long as "Nature vs Nurture" :-)

I blame autocorrect! :-)

[BerkeleyRehab]

This is what I think will make a lot more sense for Dan and his future, but unfortunately he has not been keeping track of any of his progress in a meaningful way nor has he proceeded with a good method from the get go.

He has been more worried about the media/making money than playing golf.

I just saw he tweeted he needs an agent.

Pathetic.

Self-indulgent fraud, but that is where the world is going.  God forbid he would try to get a real job.

[nevets88]

He has been more worried about the media/making money than playing golf.

I just saw he tweeted he needs an agent.

Pathetic.

Self-indulgent fraud, but that is where the world is going.  God forbid he would try to get a real job.

I looked at his FB/Twitter feeds, just looks like Australian channels trying to outdo each other. Whether this will die down and then crickets or more outlets pick up remains to be seen. It does take away from deliberate practice time - like I said, managing the media is time consuming, probably a 1/4 time job for DP.

Now as I think about the SBS episode in retrospect, the more empty it seems.

[Lihu]

Is this correct???

Dan wrote this in his blog about the trip.

"To get sidetracked for a second, another interesting aspect of Australian golf is that the only rounds you post for your handicap are “comp” (competition) rounds.  They separate comps and social rounds by making specific days and tee times for comps.  They have 3-4 comp days a week so it’s easy to get in your rounds for the handicap, but you have to pay to enter them, even at a private club.  You can play a social round for free at your home course, but a comp is $10-$15 for the scorecard.  I played along with a couple people playing in comp rounds and in all honesty it’s no different than a typical men’s club day or even social round in the states.  They are even allowed to pick up after a double as the comps are typically stableford in structure and a double or more gives you zero points so it doesn’t matter after that.  Also, another slight difference I noticed is how the handicaps are calculated. In Oz they take the best 8 of your last 20 rounds then multiply that by .93.  In the states it is the best 10 of the last 20 multiplied by .97. Interesting that it is different and there must be a reason for this.  They also round their course handicap to a full number.  The course will be rated “handicap 72” whereas in the states it’s often 72.1 or 71.9.   At the end of the day it’s golf and the same rules apply across the world."

I've been using 0.96 for my multiplier.

http://golf.about.com/cs/handicapping/a/howcalculated.htm

Also, is this also how they calculate HI in Australia?

http://www.golf.org.au/howtocalculateahandicap

[RFKFREAK]

Is this correct???

Dan wrote this in his blog about the trip.

"To get sidetracked for a second, another interesting aspect of Australian golf is that the only rounds you post for your handicap are “comp” (competition) rounds.  They separate comps and social rounds by making specific days and tee times for comps.  They have 3-4 comp days a week so it’s easy to get in your rounds for the handicap, but you have to pay to enter them, even at a private club.  You can play a social round for free at your home course, but a comp is $10-$15 for the scorecard.  I played along with a couple people playing in comp rounds and in all honesty it’s no different than a typical men’s club day or even social round in the states.  They are even allowed to pick up after a double as the comps are typically stableford in structure and a double or more gives you zero points so it doesn’t matter after that.  Also, another slight difference I noticed is how the handicaps are calculated.  In Oz they take the best 8 of your last 20 rounds then multiply that by .93.  In the states it is the best 10 of the last 20 multiplied by .97.  Interesting that it is different and there must be a reason for this.  They also round their course handicap to a full number.  The course will be rated “handicap 72” whereas in the states it’s often 72.1 or 71.9.   At the end of the day it’s golf and the same rules apply across the world."

I've been using 0.96 for my multiplier.

http://golf.about.com/cs/handicapping/a/howcalculated.htm

Also, is this also how they calculate HI in Australia?

http://www.golf.org.au/howtocalculateahandicap

@Shorty - can you confirm?

[Shorty]

@Shorty - can you confirm?

Correct about the handicapping  - best 8 of last 20 x .93

But  Dan hasn't really painted the picture about the way we play correctly. He's right to a point, though.

The thing that he doesn't seem to get is that people who have handicaps here pretty much exclusively play competition rounds. I, for example haven't played what we call a "social" round more than two or three times in the last 5 years. That's not to say that comp rounds aren't social, because they are. But no gimmes and played strictly by the rules. You swap cards and sign them at the end. You usually check totals after 9. After you putt out you'll say "5 a 2" or "4 a 3" etc.

This is why I am so often confused by people who say they play with so and so and he says 5 when he had 8. Why not say - "Ahh.... I have to sign a correct card later . Are you sure?" or "Aren't you counting the third and fourth shots in that bunker?"

He seems to think that you have rounds for handicap and other rounds. And that you get your comp/ handicap rounds "out of the way" in comps.

Funny thing is that he has a handicap based on social/casual rounds he hand picks and not from competition/tournament play. Arse up, no? ;-)

The average club here has men's comps on Saturday and Wednesday and also on Sunday.

Most competitions are stableford rounds and you have a monthly medal on the first Saturday of each month.

In stableford you do pick up after you can't get any points (2 over your hcp that hole).

I have had stableford scores of 36 which would have been nett 76 in stroke. Two 3 pointers cancel out one wipe.

Now - the nett stroke score is your comp round, but for handicapping purposes it is converted to stableford.

Previously ( about a year ago) if you had a good round going and you had 10 on the last, that's that. Now, that score means 3 over your handicap that hole, so you can have a huge blowout but not have it impact too much on your handicapping score.

Clear as mud? Sorry!

[Pretzel]

Correct about the handicapping  - best 8 of last 20 x .93

But  Dan hasn't really painted the picture about the way we play correctly. He's right to a point, though.

The thing that he doesn't seem to get is that people who have handicaps here pretty much exclusively play competition rounds. I, for example haven't played what we call a "social" round more than two or three times in the last 5 years. That's not to say that comp rounds aren't social, because they are. But no gimmes and played strictly by the rules. You swap cards and sign them at the end. You usually check totals after 9. After you putt out you'll say "5 a 2" or "4 a 3" etc.

This is why I am so often confused by people who say they play with so and so and he says 5 when he had 8. Why not say - "Ahh.... I have to sign a correct card later . Are you sure?" or "Aren't you counting the third and fourth shots in that bunker?"

He seems to think that you have rounds for handicap and other rounds. And that you get your comp/ handicap rounds "out of the way" in comps.

Funny thing is that he has a handicap based on social/casual rounds he hand picks and not from competition/tournament play. Arse up, no? ;-)

The average club here has men's comps on Saturday and Wednesday and also on Sunday.

Most competitions are stableford rounds and you have a monthly medal on the first Saturday of each month.

In stableford you do pick up after you can't get any points (2 over your hcp that hole).

I have had stableford scores of 36 which would have been nett 76 in stroke. Two 3 pointers cancel out one wipe.

Now - the nett stroke score is your comp round, but for handicapping purposes it is converted to stableford.

Previously ( about a year ago) if you had a good round going and you had 10 on the last, that's that. Now, that score means 3 over your handicap that hole, so you can have a huge blowout but not have it impact too much on your handicapping score.

Clear as mud? Sorry!

So, in other words, you don't score handicap rounds using a stroke play format but a stableford one instead? That makes sense to me, since it rewards you for doing well while not overly penalizing you should you do very poorly. The USGA actually had to implement a system of Equitable Stroke Control (ESC for short) that basically says only a net double bogey or better on each hole should be counted in handicap rounds. It sounds like that achieves a similar effect as using a stableford scoring system to handicap, but it also is more complicated than just using stableford since you have to alter your final score.

[Shorty]

So, in other words, you don't score handicap rounds using a stroke play format but a stableford one instead? That makes sense to me, since it rewards you for doing well while not overly penalizing you should you do very poorly. The USGA actually had to implement a system of Equitable Stroke Control (ESC for short) that basically says only a net double bogey or better on each hole should be counted in handicap rounds. It sounds like that achieves a similar effect as using a stableford scoring system to handicap, but it also is more complicated than just using stableford since you have to alter your final score.

Right. Its a better way. Having a 9 on the 18th after being a couple under your hcp was a great way to ruin your week. At least a wipe limits the damage. But it is all done via computer. At the end of thr round you enter your scores into the software in the clubhouse. All the adjustments are done for you Under the old system, an inconsistent player might regularly have 32-36 points in stableford but would never get within 10 of nett par in stroke. This is what makes pro scores so impressive. 6 birdies but two doubles and youve missed the cut. No hiding behind ESC or its cousins. " I had two over for 16 holes" Wow, how did you finish? 8 over. So you didn't even break 80? But i played great! But you shot 80! This is what Dan doesnt get. (typing on phone)