• Announcements

    • iacas

      Introducing TST "Clubs!"   08/28/2017

      No, we're not getting into the equipment business, but we do have "clubs" here on TST now. Groups. Check them out here:
Sign in to follow this  
garybbq

Question for teachers: Why are Dan McLaughlin's (www.thedanplan.com) numbers so low

Recommended Posts

Here is a link to one of his recent TrackMan stats:

http://thedanplan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Dan-Plan-2013-04-21-Multi-Group-Report.pdf

Im just curious as to why his numbers especially his driver are so short (and not very accurate)? I mean hes been doing this for over 4000 hours and it seems odd to me that he cant hit the ball any farther.

Would his coach specifically be telling him to slow down and work on length later?

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

He's hitting down (average is -1.3) and making poor contact (path is -2.0, face is 1.4 [push-fade], yet the spin axis is -2.6), so he's hitting the ball quite a bit towards the toe.

That's just a quickie glance at it. He does swing only 100 MPH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I am not a golf pro, but I would say this has a lot to do with the fact that natural ability is a major determining factor in how good someone can be at golf. Dan McGlaughlin is putting in as much or more time practicing golf as many tour pros, and he has had loads and loads of instruction, but his natural "god given" abilities can only take him so far. Not everyone can be a tour pro, heck not everyone can be a scratch golfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So do you think he is capable of swinging faster then 100MPH? I guess my question is more that usually when a young(ish) guy takes up golf they swing super hard and enjoy trying to hit 300 and have 0 control, then a coach gets them to slow things down a bit and work on accuracy. I bet lots of golfers on this forum can carry the ball over 250 with their driver, accuracy is a different story.

Dan seems to be doing neither, short in length and also not accurate..... so does it seem normal for the guy to be hitting balls every day for 4000 hours and have those numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by garybbq

I agree, but I would say most given 4000 hours can carry the driver farther then 250.

I wouldn't, working at a golf course for 8 years has allowed me to see thousands and thousands of golf swings. I would dare say 50% or more of men couldn't learn to hit a ball 250 yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Of course there is no hard an fast rule, but one of the things that surprises me when I go to a PGA Tour event is how big physically the average PGA Tour player is. Yes there are excepts so please don't blast me with a "what about Luke Donald" comment, but the overwhelming majority of today's PGA Tour pros is athletic and pretty big guys. I have seen Dan in person, he is really small. In fact Luke Donald might be bigger than him (maybe not height, but overall weight). I just think he is not physically gifted enough to be a PGA Tour pro. I think he can be a scratch golfer maybe even better, but I doubt he will be on Tour for a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Look up James Oh ( no not related to Ted Oh ) I think he is 5' 8". He shot 24 under out in the desert on a track the pros hate, designed by Jack Nicholas. One of those rounds was a 62 or 63.this was in a qualifer to get his pga tour card. I don't know how far he hits it but I would wager at least 280

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by mchepp

Of course there is no hard an fast rule, but one of the things that surprises me when I go to a PGA Tour event is how big physically the average PGA Tour player is. Yes there are excepts so please don't blast me with a "what about Luke Donald" comment, but the overwhelming majority of today's PGA Tour pros is athletic and pretty big guys.

I have seen Dan in person, he is really small. In fact Luke Donald might be bigger than him (maybe not height, but overall weight). I just think he is not physically gifted enough to be a PGA Tour pro.

I think he can be a scratch golfer maybe even better, but I doubt he will be on Tour for a living.

I was actually surprised the other way when I went to watch the Tour Championship. Tiger and a few other guys that I had seen on TV for so many years were smaller in person than I expected. It does seem like there are a lot of 6'3" guys among the younger players and almost all of them in outstanding physical condition.

BTW I was even more surprised at the LPGA event I went to just how well conditioned some of those girls were. Much more than they looked on TV. Especially Suzanne Peterson, as well conditioned an athlete as anybody. More what I would have expected from an Olympic athlete than a golfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by NM Golf

I wouldn't, working at a golf course for 8 years has allowed me to see thousands and thousands of golf swings. I would dare say 50% or more of men couldn't learn to hit a ball 250 yards.

wow seriously? so even with proper instruction and practice less then 50% of men 30ish years of age in reasonable shape cant cary over 250?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by garybbq

So do you think he is capable of swinging faster then 100MPH? I guess my question is more that usually when a young(ish) guy takes up golf they swing super hard and enjoy trying to hit 300 and have 0 control, then a coach gets them to slow things down a bit and work on accuracy. I bet lots of golfers on this forum can carry the ball over 250 with their driver, accuracy is a different story.

Dan seems to be doing neither, short in length and also not accurate..... so does it seem normal for the guy to be hitting balls every day for 4000 hours and have those numbers?


he worked backwards, he havent hit driver as long as he hit the shorter sticks.

He isnt a long hitter and he is inconsistent, however his game once it picks up a bit more consistency will be good.

atm 40% gir hurts him more than anything else.

fear from tee with driver then hard to make greens due to fear from tee.

his clubfitting might make a tad better action going which would hopefully translate to 60% or more gir.

People who belive in talent make bad guesswork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

People who belive in talent make bad guesswork.

I am going to guess English is not your first language and let the obvious grammatical errors go. I guess you are from the same camp as Dave McGlaughlin.

Taken from the Dan Plan Website:

Talent has little to do with success. According to research conducted by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University, “Elite performers engage in ‘deliberate practice’–an effortful activity designed to improve target performance.” Dr. Ericsson’s studies, made popular through Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers and Geoff Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, have found that in order to excel in a field, roughly 10,000 hours of “stretching yourself beyond what you can currently do” is required. “I think you’re the right astronaut for this mission,” Dr. Ericsson said about The Dan Plan.

I disagree with the above statement wholeheartedly. Natural talent has a lot to do with success. It certainly does not guarantee success though. I don't care how much someone works at playing golf or any activity, their natural talent will eventually be the limiting factor on how far they go or how good they get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by NM Golf

I disagree with the above statement wholeheartedly. Natural talent has a lot to do with success. It certainly does not guarantee success though. I don't care how much someone works at playing golf or any activity, their natural talent will eventually be the limiting factor on how far they go or how good they get.

I think you are taking the statement a little out of context.  It says "elite performers engage in roughly 10,000 hours of deliberate practice."  The part it leaves out is that those elite performers had talent.

It doesn't say "any idiot who practices anything for 10,000 hours will become an elite performer."  I believe that all of the people ripping on the thoery think this is what it means.

I read Outliers and I remember the example Gladwell used from Eriksons study was the violinists.  The study was comparing elite level (world class soloists), mid level (symphony), and "low" level (maybe they'll become music teachers), all from a prestigious music school.  The fact that they were accepted to that music school in the first place means they had talent.

10,000 hours doesn't separate you or me from Kobe Bryant, but it does separate Tracy McGrady or Vince Carter from Kobe Bryant.

At least, that is the way I've interpreted the thoery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

It doesn't say "any idiot who practices anything for 10,000 hours will become an elite performer."  I believe that all of the people ripping on the thoery think this is what it means.

I do think that any idiot (in resonable shape) after 4000 hours of practice and some proper instruction should be able to carry the ball farther then 250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by garybbq

I do think that any idiot (in resonable shape) after 4000 hours of practice and some proper instruction should be able to carry the ball farther then 250

And I think that you underestimate exactly how far that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by garybbq

I do think that any idiot (in resonable shape) after 4000 hours of practice and some proper instruction should be able to carry the ball farther then 250


Distance is A LOT harder to gain than accuracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

And I think that you underestimate exactly how far that is.

You really think so? I mean 4000 hours is a seriously long time to spend on golf. I have seen quite a few high handicap golfers in reasonable shape carry past 250 and they certianly didnt spend 4000 hours with a coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play a lot of golf and I don't see many men carrying it 250 and I live in CO, the ball flies here. I see a lot of guys that think they carry it 250 that are terrible at math. They make the claim when their ball is 40 yds south of the 150 marker on a 400 yd par 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    Talamore Golf Resort
    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Mission Belt
    Snell Golf
    Frogger Golf
    PitchFix USA
  • Posts

    • I ordered a PING G400 LST Driver with a Tour 65 x stiff shaft back in August. I was told that it wouldn't even ship until October. I had hit the regular G400 head with the x-stiff Project X HZRDUS Yellow shaft at a demo day and liked it even though I had to adjust the loft as low as it could go (8°) and I still launched it too high with too much spin. I was told the SLT head along with the Tour 65 shaft would correct the issues so I took a leap of faith and ordered it. While I waited for my driver to arrive I have been playing the demo because I hit it really straight even though I lost some distance due to launch and spin. Fast forward to yesterday, my new G400 SLT driver arrives. I take it out to the range and the course to play a few holes. What a difference! Club designers must be geniuses. Now with the loft set at 8.5° I launch the ball on a great angle and it goes and goes without falling out of the air. I haven't hit it on the monitor yet but I can tell the spin rates are much better. I hit the new driver and the demo to side by side and the SLT goes a good 15-20 yards farther. I just find it amazing what they are able to do with these driver heads by just moving a little weight around here and there. It's also a huge reason to get fitting if you want to play your best.
    • That new chart is wacked.  I have the original on my PC at home. Arturo has it the way I understood it... " the dot refers only to the head in relation to the factory standard lie angle which is black" I was measured on my wrist to floor and that gave them the starting point of Black +1". I then hit some balls off the lie board with tape and that showed I needed to be a lil upright so they gave me Blue dot, standard length shafts but it still off a bit.  Grabbed Blue dot, +1" and I was hitting the ball and board good so that was what I went with.  Any of my other clubs I have gone with 1* upright and +1" on shaft length.   ***** Just found this so I thought I would add it to the post ***** " a well-known standard in golf is that each 1/2" added to the shaft length = a 1* more UPRIGHT lie angle" Don't know if it is 100% but wanted to share as it might help OP with his dilemma.
    • Guess I'm not going to win this argument, so can't see the rules changing anytime soon. Hopefully the new 3 minute searching rule and maximum score on a hole will speed things up, as I guess that's one of the main reasons for changing them? Agree that ideally, we should have the same rules as the pros, but they do have advantages when it comes to looking for balls, in the form of a travelling army of spectators and marshals. Anybody who has followed a wild hitting group round in the British Open will know what I mean.
    • There are, particularly with Ping, a rather large set of variables.  And a large number of part options.  PowerSpec irons, as I understand, are "hosel bent" to reduce the loft.  Probably a bad description of what is done on my part but it, apparently, utilizes the cavity indentation near the heal/hosel.    Imagine doubling the number of parts in a Ping demo area.  Actually.... that's probably what they should do if they are going to offer it.  Regardless, it's back to the fitter time I am afraid.   
    • My understanding is that the dot refers only to the head in relation to the factory standard lie angle which is black. For example, a green dot would be the head bent to be 2 degrees upright. However, if the club is longer or shorter than standard length it is up to you and your fitter to decide which color code you need now to attain the effective lie angle that you want.
  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. KingHack82
      KingHack82
      (35 years old)
    2. TobyC
      TobyC
      (50 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon