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

[Pretzel]

Though I agree with the rest of your points, I disagree with this. 18 holes of golf is about ten minutes hitting balls, and the rest walking around and waiting.

That's true, but I thought he'd probably consider it 4-6 hours of hitting balls since he also considers the other 24-26 hours to be still "working on his game".

[iacas]

That's true, but I thought he'd probably consider it 4-6 hours of hitting balls since he also considers the other 24-26 hours to be still "working on his game".

Yeah. Who knows…?

[Pretzel]

Yeah. Who knows…?

I would bet Dan McLaughlin

[garybbq]

So.... He plays about 5 rounds a week and warms up for 30 mins before and then hits the range after for 30 mins.?

[flopster]

I have wondered this as well but it appears anytime spent at the golf course counts as time against the clock, I think he's counting anything he does that is related to his golf game as hours counted.

[golf-noob-bruce]

"Any time spent at the golf course counts as time against the clock" Certainly does according to my wife ;-)

[hallryu]

Not sure why there are so many detractors in this thread to be honest. He was neither a professional blogger, scientist or pro golfer when he started, as far as I can see. As far as I can see, he's living the dream. Golf, golf and more golf. I wish him the very best of luck.

[mchepp]

Not sure why there are so many detractors in this thread to be honest.

He was neither a professional blogger, scientist or pro golfer when he started, as far as I can see.

As far as I can see, he's living the dream. Golf, golf and more golf.

I wish him the very best of luck.

At least for me, I do not think he is living a dream. It would be great to play golf everyday, but I get the sense the he is on the edge of making ends meet so much that he has to ask for donations. I consider this far from a dream.

The problem I think many of us have is that he is testing a "proven" theory that 10,000 hours of practice will make you an expert. Now though almost everyone in this thread thinks he has gone about the wrong way and is not actually testing anything. He now looks like he is someone looking for attention.

I would venture a guess that everyone who follows this thread and Dan are curious to know if the 10,000 theory is correct. We truly want to see it tested. Dan has screwed us because he has not gone about testing a scientific theory with ANY science, or at least any we can see. That is frustrating.

There are always going to be detractors in anything but everyone here at one time wanted to know if the 10,000 thing worked with golf. Now we'll never know, at least not in the way he has gone about it.

[nevets88]

Living the dream? He has to be playing the whatever PGA tournament in April 2018. That's pressure. And he's living a very public life, some people enjoy that some don't like the attention. His now girlfriend has 2 kids. I'm guessing he has some fallback, should he fail, to spin his experience into speaking/media income, so maybe there's not as much pressure. I know there is no way I want to be in his shoes, whatever amount of golf he is playing, I'd want to be left alone.

[Lihu]

Not sure why there are so many detractors in this thread to be honest. He was neither a professional blogger, scientist or pro golfer when he started, as far as I can see. As far as I can see, he's living the dream. Golf, golf and more golf. I wish him the very best of luck.

Realists, not "detractors".

[RFKFREAK]

Living the dream? He has to be playing the whatever PGA tournament in April 2018. That's pressure. And he's living a very public life, some people enjoy that some don't like the attention. His now girlfriend has 2 kids. I'm guessing he has some fallback, should he fail, to spin his experience into speaking/media income, so maybe there's not as much pressure. I know there is no way I want to be in his shoes, whatever amount of golf he is playing, I'd want to be left alone.

Are either his?

Didn't realize it was in the article.

[nevets88]

http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/GA277_52_53_GeneEsporte.pdf

I don't know any Portuguese and fed it into Google Translate. Dunno anything about the reputation of magazine.

The idea that training is sufficient gained force in 2008 with the launch Book Out Series - Outliers, the British journalist Malcolm Gladwell. The work advocates the "magic number" of 10,000 hours: what people think it is innate talent does not pass the manifestation of these training hours. In his book, Gladwell cites a 1993 survey of psychologist Anders Ericsson, the Academy of Music Berlin. With the help of teachers, he violinists students divided into three groups: those who had the potential to become soloists of international level, considered good and hardly would come to play like professionals. After 20 years, the first group had practiced 10,000 hours; good, 8 one thousand hours; and ranked with lower Skill, 4000 hours. U

In favor of the theory of Gladwell, Ericsson did not find someone in the group which reached excellence without practicing much, nor even a student who not having done enough was among the best. The idea was soon extrapolated to the sporting field by neurologist Daniel Levitin, University McGill, Canada. "In a study after study, of composers, basketball players, skiers, pianists, chess players, this number always resurfaces. looks like that the brain needs time to assimilate all that is needed, "writes Music on Your Brain, Scientific of a Human Obsession. The thesis has gained so much influence that people appeared willing to drop everything to test the "magic number". was the that made the American ex-photographer Dan McLaughlin in April 2010, when decided to become a professional golfer. At age 30, had never completed a departure from the sport. But in his head, what separated him from the professionals PGA Tour (the professional circuit U.S. Golf) were 10,000 hours of practice . Until the closing of this text, he had practiced 5000 hours (see above). McLaughlin is being accompanied by Ericsson, the author of the theory of 10,000 hours, which hopes to reap a definitive proof for his thesis.

Original Text:

A ideia de que treinar é suficiente ganhou
força em 2008 com o lançamento
do livro Fora de Série – Outliers, do
jornalista britânico Malcom Gladwell.
A obra defende o “número mágico” de
10 mil horas: o que as pessoas pensam
se tratar de talento inato não passa da
manifestação dessas horas de treinamento.
Em seu livro, Gladwell cita uma
pesquisa de 1993 do psicólogo Anders
Ericsson, na Academia de Música de
Berlim. Com ajuda dos professores, ele
dividiu alunos violinistas em três grupos:
os que tinham potencial para se tornarem
solistas de nível internacional, os
considerados bons e os que dificilmente
chegariam a tocar como profissionais.
Aos 20 anos, os do primeiro grupo haviam
praticado 10 mil horas; os bons, 8
mil horas; e os classificados com menor
habilidade, 4 mil horas.
U
A favor da teoria de Gladwell, Ericsson
não encontrou no grupo alguém
que atingiu a excelência sem praticar
muito, tampouco um aluno que mesmo
tendo praticado o suficiente não
ficou entre os melhores. A ideia logo foi
extrapolada ao terreno esportivo pelo
neurologista Daniel Levitin, da Universidade
McGill, no Canadá. “Em um
estudo após o outro, de compositores,
jogadores de basquete, esquiadores,
pianistas, jogadores de xadrez, esse
número sempre ressurge. Parece que
o cérebro precisa desse tempo para assimilar
tudo que é necessário”, escreve
em Música no Seu Cérebro, a Ciência
de Uma Obsessão Humana.
A tese ganhou tanta influência que
apareceu gente disposta a largar tudo
para testar o “número mágico”. Foi o
que fez o ex-fotógrafo americano Dan
McLaughlin em abril de 2010, quando
decidiu tornar-se golfista profissional.
Aos 30 anos, nunca tinha completado
uma partida do esporte. Mas, em sua cabeça,
o que o separava dos profissionais
do PGA Tour (o circuito profissional do
golfe americano) eram 10 mil horas de
prática. Até o fechamento deste texto,
ele havia praticado 5 mil horas (veja
acima). McLaughlin está sendo acompanhado
por Ericsson, o autor da teoria
das 10 mil horas, que espera colher uma
prova definitiva para a sua tese.

[late347]

At least for me, I do not think he is living a dream. It would be great to play golf everyday, but I get the sense the he is on the edge of making ends meet so much that he has to ask for donations. I consider this far from a dream.

The problem I think many of us have is that he is testing a "proven" theory that 10,000 hours of practice will make you an expert. Now though almost everyone in this thread thinks he has gone about the wrong way and is not actually testing anything. He now looks like he is someone looking for attention.

I would venture a guess that everyone who follows this thread and Dan are curious to know if the 10,000 theory is correct. We truly want to see it tested. Dan has screwed us because he has not gone about testing a scientific theory with ANY science, or at least any we can see. That is frustrating.

There are always going to be detractors in anything but everyone here at one time wanted to know if the 10,000 thing worked with golf. Now we'll never know, at least not in the way he has gone about it.

Empirical testing is not science, is that your view?

What is exactly your complaint about the scientificness of Dan Plan?

From wikipedia "Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience."

Clearly dan the plan, is an empirical experiment testing the waters of that 10 000 hours theory.

For the record, I have a hunch that Dan will not exactly be the shining start on the PGA tour. I think he needs way more clubhead speed than he currently has to be competitive at that kind of level.

I do think that he could get to scratch level though...

I do agree with you on that he should post more detailed analysis of his own golf game, so everyone could see what he's up to. See the data so to speak.

[mchepp]

Empirical testing is not science, is that your view?

What is exactly your complaint about the scientificness of Dan Plan?

From wikipedia "Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience."

Clearly dan the plan, is an empirical experiment testing the waters of that 10 000 hours theory.

For the record, I have a hunch that Dan will not exactly be the shining start on the PGA tour. I think he needs way more clubhead speed than he currently has to be competitive at that kind of level.

I do think that he could get to scratch level though...

I do agree with you on that he should post more detailed analysis of his own golf game, so everyone could see what he's up to. See the data so to speak.

If he had done empirical research of golf and specifically golf instruction before embarking on the 10,000 theory then I would agreed he started in the correct fashion. Instead he spent an ungodly amount of hours making 1 foot putts telling everyone he was going to make the PGA Tour when he had no idea what separated him from a PGA Tour player. Basically after 3 minutes of hitting 1 foot putts he had accumulated the same skill as a PGA Tour player hitting a 1 foot putt. Yet he was no closer to being a PGA Tour player after those 3 minutes or 30 hours he spent hitting 1 foot putts.

[late347]

New theories can be formulated without using an entire body of pre-existing sources to arrive to the conclusion.

You can simply test out a situation, doing an experiment. You test a hypothesis. Hypothesis turns out to be true or not.

Dan is the experiment himself. He is the volunteering test subject.

There is no requirement to use pre-existing sources of golf instruction.

Here's an example of the above point...

Trackman radar uses scientific principles built into the machine itself. Trackman doesn't care if pga instructors used to think in previous times that club path was the main contributor to slices for example. Trackman simply observes reality through radio waves and records data.

Trackman data and analysis of said data, has shown that face-to-path relationship is the truth of the matter to a slicer's problems.

But I still agree that the way he started with putting only was quite silly. He's not preparing for mini-golf after all...

He's gotta have good ballstriking ability to play  good golf.

[Jeff Hopkins]

Well looks like he is living his dream.

Good luck to him, wish I had the time & the money to follow mine.

[MS256]

New theories can be formulated without using an entire body of pre-existing sources to arrive to the conclusion.

You can simply test out a situation, doing an experiment. You test a hypothesis. Hypothesis turns out to be true or not.

Dan is the experiment himself. He is the volunteering test subject.

There is no requirement to use pre-existing sources of golf instruction.

Here's an example of the above point...

Trackman radar uses scientific principles built into the machine itself. Trackman doesn't care if pga instructors used to think in previous times that club path was the main contributor to slices for example. Trackman simply observes reality through radio waves and records data.

Trackman data and analysis of said data, has shown that face-to-path relationship is the truth of the matter to a slicer's problems.

But I still agree that the way he started with putting only was quite silly. He's not preparing for mini-golf after all...

He's gotta have good ballstriking ability to play  good golf.

An experiment using one subject would fit my definition of junk science and for me common sense and life experiences trump junk science.

One person in an experiment proves nothing on one side and very little on the other. If he made it to the PGA Tour it would mean he (one individual) had the talent to make it with training. If he didn't make it to the PGA Tour it proves he (one individual) didn't have the talent to make it with training.

I know many people that put 10,000 hours (and more) into a sport and never made it to the highest level.

[Lihu]

I think we've all seen people who put lots of effort and see very little results. That's what mid-life crisis is for. ;-)