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

[DenisO]

I wish him the best of luck, and hope I could do the same. I could only imagine how quickly I'd improve if I had the time and money. I can see him getting to +2 at least, although I do feel like he should be further along than he is, that's for sure simply based off of the amount I've played.

Calculating that I've played every single weekend, 5 hour rounds, plus approximately 3-4 hours of practice or 9 holes throughout the week, for approximately 7 months each year (stupid Canada) in the past 4 years, that would put me at about 1,680 hours which is on the generous side for sure since the calculations were general and I haven't strictly played that much. Myself being a 2.5 handicap, and only 17% of the way through the Dan Plan of 10,000 hours, he should definitely be doing better even though he's chosen to learn the game in a different way. I still think that he has a huge advantage just because of the amount of time he has devoted to it.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

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.

Johnny was shooting ~ 100 a few months ago (another thread) now is apparently qualifying for the US Open (or something like that)- didn't read beyond that.

The point I was making is that you didn't include my entire post - because you left out the bit where I was replying to someone else. That's the out of context bit.

You clearly disagree with what my post meant and also that you were quoting me out of context. It's safe to say that we probably disagree on a lot of things.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Johnny was shooting ~ 100 a few months ago (another thread) now is apparently qualifying for the US Open (or something like that)- didn't read beyond that.

The point I was making is that you didn't include my entire post - because you left out the bit where I was replying to someone else. That's the out of context bit.

You clearly disagree with what my post meant and also that you were quoting me out of context. It's safe to say that we probably disagree on a lot of things.

Yes, I am sure we do.  And that's fine, it's what discussion and debate is all about.  But it's the bold part above I have a problem with.  If you want to debate with other people, show them the courtesy of reading their arguments if you are going to make counterpoints to them.  Isn't that even more out of context??  Or, as it sounds like you actually have read them, then why lie and say you didn't other than just to be childish and snarky?

[sean_miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

If you want to debate with other people, show them the courtesy of reading their arguments . .

You didn't read mine then went off on a tangent.

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

Johnny was shooting ~ 100 a few months ago (another thread) now is apparently qualifying for the US Open (or something like that)- didn't read beyond that.

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

Is this directed at me?

I posted that I shot a 104 in a thread where about a 5 handicap was asking if there was something seriously wrong with him for shooting over 100.  Its true.  I did shoot a 104 in December at the Joseph J. Bartholomew Golf Course in New Orleans.  My handicap went from a 9 to a 13 due to about 10 days worth of horrid play.  After those round fell off, I went back to single digits.

As outlined in this thread ( http://thesandtrap.com/t/49746/post-mortem-130-to-88-in-6-months-what-worked-what-did-not ), I started breaking 90 consistently in July of last year.  Since then, I've been working as hard as I can on my game.  Luckily for me, I was able to sell the small business I started in 2006 for a good amount of coin and now just consult and play golf.  This past saturday I shot 74, and i am preparing a new post detailing the steps I took to go from 88 to the 70s.  My handicap has gone down about 10 shots in the last 8 months, but was a 13 as recently as December (and was a 9 for most of October and November).

Regardless, I'm not sure what I did to deserve these replies, or to have you go off topic and start implying that I was lying about my handicap/scores on an internet golf forum, other than posting something you disagree with.

I find this discussion interesting, which is why I am posting in it.

Quote:

-- I wish him the best of luck, and hope I could do the same. I could only imagine how quickly I'd improve if I had the time and money. I can see him getting to +2 at least, although I do feel like he should be further along than he is, that's for sure simply based off of the amount I've played.

Calculating that I've played every single weekend, 5 hour rounds, plus approximately 3-4 hours of practice or 9 holes throughout the week, for approximately 7 months each year (stupid Canada) in the past 4 years, that would put me at about 1,680 hours which is on the generous side for sure since the calculations were general and I haven't strictly played that much. Myself being a 2.5 handicap, and only 17% of the way through the Dan Plan of 10,000 hours, he should definitely be doing better even though he's chosen to learn the game in a different way. I still think that he has a huge advantage just because of the amount of time he has devoted to it.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

Agreed.  I also think that you could easily, with that much practice, get *worse* if you have the wrong teacher or work on the wrong things.

Quote:

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.

I agree ,I just disagree that the barrier is due to natural talent.Switching up practice schedules, new data, new drills, fresh approach, etc... can break through that barrier.  I'm not sure why we would ascribe it to natural talent that easily.

Quote:

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)

I really like the book.  Its one of my favorite reads, and great to read when you get stressed out over anything.  Puts stuff in perspective.

[Dave H]

Put me in the camp of "requires natural ability" + other stuff. I am surprised, shocked even that some people don't think natural ability is required to do things which only a small percentage of the population can do. That being said, I bet there are a lot more people who COULD be tour pros (or insert other upper echelon job in any field) based on their natural ability. BUT, because they don't have the other stuff, such as desire, mental aptitude, work ethic, etc. they aren't. I would also bet there are more people who have the desire and work ethic but lack the natural talent to become a tour pro or whatever.

All that being said, I don't think it's a good reason for someone to not follow their dreams if they want to. More power to 'em.

[x129]

Don't take this as snarky but if it was just a matter of changing it up and you will keep improving, you could make millions of dollars selling your services to every minitour/nationwide/DI Golfer out there that wants to go from a +3 to +6 (note use the handicaps as examples not exact numbers). A lot of them spend 5-10 years trying to shave those couple strokes off and get nowhere. Now in theory maybe you are right that they just aren't training right. But it is just as likely that switching up training will make them worse.

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

I agree ,I just disagree that the barrier is due to natural talent.Switching up practice schedules, new data, new drills, fresh approach, etc... can break through that barrier.  I'm not sure why we would ascribe it to natural talent that easily.

[sean_miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

Quote:

Johnny was shooting ~ 100 a few months ago (another thread) now is apparently qualifying for the US Open (or something like that)- didn't read beyond that.

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

Is this directed at me?

I posted that I shot a 104 in a thread where about a 5 handicap was asking if there was something seriously wrong with him for shooting over 100.  Its true.  I did shoot a 104 in December at the Joseph J. Bartholomew Golf Course in New Orleans.  My handicap went from a 9 to a 13 due to about 10 days worth of horrid play.  After those round fell off, I went back to single digits.

As outlined in this thread ( http://thesandtrap.com/t/49746/post-mortem-130-to-88-in-6-months-what-worked-what-did-not ), I started breaking 90 consistently in July of last year.  Since then, I've been working as hard as I can on my game.  Luckily for me, I was able to sell the small business I started in 2006 for a good amount of coin and now just consult and play golf.  This past saturday I shot 74, and i am preparing a new post detailing the steps I took to go from 88 to the 70s.  My handicap has gone down about 10 shots in the last 8 months, but was a 13 as recently as December (and was a 9 for most of October and November).

Regardless, I'm not sure what I did to deserve these replies, or to have you go off topic and start implying that I was lying about my handicap/scores on an internet golf forum, other than posting something you disagree with.

I find this discussion interesting, which is why I am posting in it.

You're shooting in the 70s and a year ago you were shooting about 100. I'd call that talent. Unless all the hard working S&T; guys who struggle (relatively speaking) are following a bullshit path. I choose to believe you have more talent than they do, but you probably feel otherwise.

[brocks]

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.

Of course he would. He wouldn't have the benefit of the extra 17 years of experience and training, so he might only win the US Open by five shots instead of 15, but he would be a winner, no doubt about it. In contrast, I can cite my own case. I was always a good athlete as a kid, did very well in football, baseball, and basketball, and was faster and stronger than most kids my age. And when I was 11 years old, they built a new golf course a few blocks from my house, and had incredibly cheap introductory memberships. My dad bought a family membership that allowed unlimited play, and since it was a new course in a small town, I could literally play all day, every day I wasn't in school, and every day after school. And I did. I fell in love with golf, my dad was an avid golfer, and taught me the rudiments, encouraged me to practice (unfortunately, he didn't give a rat's ass whether I finished my homework first or not), and knew a lot of the area club pros who also helped me out from time to time. I may have put twice as many hours into golf between ages 11-16 than Tiger did at the same age. And my all time best score during that time, on a very easy course (it had one water hazard that was barely in play, and zero bunkers), was 84. I was not a klutz, I was playing varsity sports on teams that contended for state titles, and I put more time into golf than I did any of the other sports. I read all the golf instruction books I could get my hands on. I just had no special talent for the game. I don't think I was terribly untalented, I just think I was average when it came to golf. I'll grant you that Tiger is not a good example, because he is exceptionally gifted. But I'd say that ANY player with a PGA card would have been a scratch golfer by 16, and probably sooner, if he had had the opportunity I had. And I'd say that a person with average, not bad but average talent, is not going to be a scratch golfer no matter what he does. Of course it takes training and practice to bring out your full potential, and you don't know how good you can be until you put several years into it, but you have to have the potential to begin with.

[brocks]

And just by the way, YE Yang, the only man to beat Tiger head to head in a major when Tiger had the 54-hole lead, took up golf at age 19. And was self-taught.

[soon_tourpro]

Originally Posted by brocks

And just by the way, YE Yang, the only man to beat Tiger head to head in a major when Tiger had the 54-hole lead, took up golf at age 19. And was self-taught.

allan doyle did beat Tiger with 17 shot once which Tiger couldnt understand at the time.

Allan went to play on the senior PGA tour and won 2 us open there.

http://www.sunnehanna.com/Champions/Past%20Champs/1992.aspx

I guess Talent isnt enough sometimes ;)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

I guess Talent isnt enough sometimes ;)

Nobody's said it is.

You're denying that it exists at all, though.

[RichWW2]

Originally Posted by iacas

Nobody's said it is.

You're denying that it exists at all, though.

Agreed. To become a pro athlete in any sport, you need more than just talent or hard work.  You need both.  I'm sure there are lots of people talented enough to be pro level players, but never worked hard, or sought other career paths.  Likewise, I'm sure there are lots of people who could work hard and practice every day and get nowhere near pro level.  It takes a combination of talent, hard work, dedication, etc. to become a pro level anything.

None of the "hard work" people still haven't accounted for child prodigies in their argument of talent vs work, but oh well...I guess they aren't "talented" anyway...

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by RichWW2

Agreed. To become a pro athlete in any sport, you need more than just talent or hard work.  You need both.  I'm sure there are lots of people talented enough to be pro level players, but never worked hard, or sought other career paths.  Likewise, I'm sure there are lots of people who could work hard and practice every day and get nowhere near pro level.  It takes a combination of talent, hard work, dedication, etc. to become a pro level anything.

None of the "hard work" people still haven't accounted for child prodigies in their argument of talent vs work, but oh well...I guess they aren't "talented" anyway...

That's not true for all of us "hard work" people.  I don't deny the existence of child prodigies (once saw a little kid on 60 Minutes who could repeat a sophisticated piece of music perfectly after only watching his dad play it once) or talent in general.  I would say child prodigies are the exception, not the rule, and that is not the only possible way to climb that mountain.

You expressed my opinion of Dan above; "I'm sure there are lots of people talented enough to be pro level players, but never worked hard, or sought other career paths." I totally agree with that statement and simply think that Dan could be somebody like that.

[soon_tourpro]

Originally Posted by iacas

Nobody's said it is.

You're denying that it exists at all, though.

and you do so?

[x129]

See I don't think child prodigies are exceptions. They are just the outliers. Human "talent" is on a bell curve. The prodigies are the 1 in  100 million people. 90% of us are in the middle where our talent is roughly the same. I don't think anyone would debate that there are a lot of people that could have been PGA pros if things turned out differently. Think of guys like Tony Romo, Jerry Rice, and the rest of the pro athletes that play to low single digits after spending the prime of their life working on something else. Plus of course everyone who never picked up the game. How many people do you think could have been PGA pros but didn't try hard enough? Lets say it is 1%. That means there ate 10000 PGA per 1 million people. Thats a lot of people. But there are also 990000 that don't have the talent. That is even  more.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

That's not true for all of us "hard work" people.  I don't deny the existence of child prodigies (once saw a little kid on 60 Minutes who could repeat a sophisticated piece of music perfectly after only watching his dad play it once) or talent in general.  I would say child prodigies are the exception, not the rule, and that is not the only possible way to climb that mountain.

You expressed my opinion of Dan above; "I'm sure there are lots of people talented enough to be pro level players, but never worked hard, or sought other career paths."  I totally agree with that statement and simply think that Dan could be somebody like that.

[TyWebbb]

Effective points made by both sides.  This is a nice discussion.  I'm sure it will be resurrected every 6 months or so until Dan's project is over.  Whoever said that it really won't prove anything is right though.  If he doesn't succeed it will be blamed on his routine/coach/nutritionist/trainer by the Positives.  If he does, then he will be seen as an exception to the rule by the Negatives.  Whatever though, friendly banter is fun.  Personally I appreciate the valid points a lot more than the more offensive ones that sort of drag us away from the issue.  I guess you have to take the good with the bad though.

Kudos to the gentleman (or lady) that hit us with all the stats.  1:20000 in the Puerto Rico Open and all that.  Interesting info.  Numbers don't lie I suppose.

And just for the record I'd like to say that I believe Dan WILL get to a + handicap meaning that he will have the physical ability to compete as a professional.  I am not sure where his mental game will take him past that.  My argument never has been that he will be a member of the PGA Tour which is what he is aspiring to.  I'm just saying that an effective golf swing and putting stroke can be learned  and grooved by the Average Joe given enough time and proper instruction of which Dan has plenty.  Average Joe can also be taught to play the game of golf (how to get around a course).  Dan is very average.  If he's able to stay healthy and funded for the remaining 7,500 hours then I will stand by the first sentence in this paragraph.

[TyWebbb]

One more thing about natural talent....

I absolutely believe it exists.  It's ridiculous not to.  I just don't equate the level of natural talent it takes to excel in other sports such as basketball, football, hockey, soccer, or even tennis as I do with professional golf.  Therefore I don't place nearly as high of a premium on "natural talent" in golf as I do for other sports.  There are obvious physical barriers involved in the other sports that I listed.  Not so much with golf.  Some?  Yes.  But not as many.  In other words a lot more people can be taught to develop a controlled 110 MPH club head speed than can be taught to throw a baseball 95 MPH.

Actually when I think about this topic I suppose that natural talent for a golfer isn't nearly as much physical as it is mental.  I can see how the Chinese and Russian children that can stack 13 bullets in their hand would be a better putter than the child that can only stack 6 or 8.  That mental ability to calm their nerves would definitely come in handy when standing over a 12-footer for birdie.  I'm guilty of looking at this in mainly a physical sense.  I don't retract any of my former posts or thoughts as I still believe that the physical aspects can be learned and grooved by a good percentage of would be golfers.  I do however acknowledge that there could be some innate ability to silence ones nerves regardless of the situation at hand, thereby allowing oneself to properly strike the golf ball when needed as opposed to the "not as naturally gifted" opponent that doesn't have the mental capabilities of the former.