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

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Shorty

I think that what he is doing is probbaly the most boring thing you could do. Imagine putting for 6 hours straight.

And that fact that he is hopelss - and clearly was from day one must make it worse.

I really can't understand how so many people seem to think that because someone devotes a lot of time to golf they will inevitably become good at it.

Why do people need an "explanation of his numbers". He is crap. End of story.

Pretty much. "Good" is a relative term. Unless you're very athletic, you'll never be "good" compared to the pros. I don't even know if he's athletic enough to get to scratch.

Sure, he's better than I am now...even though I agree with TJ that his handicap is probably all vanity'd down, but I also have 3 real months of golf work in...and nowhere near as many hours a week. If I had as much time and money invested as him at this point, I'd expect to be damn close to a REAL scratch golfer, if not a + handicap. To be an inflated 5-6...not great.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Pretty much. "Good" is a relative term. Unless you're very athletic, you'll never be "good" compared to the pros. I don't even know if he's athletic enough to get to scratch.

When this narcissist forst hatched his plan, there were people on this site saying stuff like "he might make it to the web.com tour, but maybe not PGATour." Or EVAN AFTER seeing video of his vile looking swing they thought he'd probably make it.

Or they immediately made it about temselves and how THEY would be scratch if they had the time and money.

He isn't athletic enough  to get to 10.

His "handicap" is DIY manipulated BS.

[Birdman10687]

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.

What are you basing this off of?  Because most scientific evidence completely contradicts your (I'm going to call it an opinion, because I'm pretty sure its not based in fact), opinion.  Natural talent has, over and over, been proven to be a myth.

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by Shorty

I really can't understand how so many people seem to think that because someone devotes a lot of time to golf they will inevitably become good at it.

Is this a serious statement?  You can't understand why people think that someone devoting a lot of time to something will make them better?

[Birdman10687]

One of the biggest issues I think most people have arises from the fact that they don't understand how many hours 10,000 is.  They drastically over-estimate the amount of time they have devoted to golf in their lives and underestimate how much this Dan guy has devoted.  They think stuff like "well I have spent 15 years playing golf and I'm not close to scratch" or "so-and-so has been playing golf their whole life and they are a scratch golfer, how can this guy think he can do it so easily."  What they don't realize is how many hours they or their scratch-golfer friend have actually spent.  They assume that because they have played golf for 15 years or many decades it must be close to or way more than 10k hours.  But it probably isn't.  10,000 hours is an absurd amount of time.  If you spend 2 hours a day practicing golf 5 days a week, it would take you TWENTY YEARS to get to 10,000 hours.  I think most people have a psychological hang-up because they think in years and amount of lifetime versus hours actually spent doing it.  I would say someone that goes the range for a couple hours a day three to four times a week ALL YEAR (read: not time off for vacation, work related stuff, bad seasons) is a pretty serious golfer and if they spent over 20 years doing that, I wouldn't doubt their abilities.

I think what makes it hard to people to fit in with their world view is the condensed amount of time Dan is doing his project in.  They see him spend 2-3 years and thing he is ridiculous to think he can get good in that amount of time or the planned 6 years or whatever because they are using their experience or their friends experience as a meter stick.  But your meter stick is way less dense than his.  He is gaining way more hours per day/week/year than probably anyone you know.  When Tiger was younger (and had school etc) I doubt even he got as many hours a week as Dan.

[Bogeysaurus]

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

What are you basing this off of?  Because most scientific evidence completely contradicts your (I'm going to call it an opinion, because I'm pretty sure its not based in fact), opinion.  Natural talent has, over and over, been proven to be a myth.

Really?  Show me the scientific evidence that contradicts talent.  I'd love to see the experiments that over and over and over prove that talent is a myth.

To the contrary the human genome has been mapped.  We know what genes do what.  To say genetic "talent" is a myth would be to ignore pretty much everything we know thanks to biologist and geneticist.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

What are you basing this off of?  Because most scientific evidence completely contradicts your (I'm going to call it an opinion, because I'm pretty sure its not based in fact), opinion.  Natural talent has, over and over, been proven to be a myth.

That is absurd.  If that we were true how could you explain guys who take the game up at a later age and in fairly short order are scratch or better (e.g., Greg Norman).  Most scientific evidence can be taken out of context.

[Bogeysaurus]

Surely all of you worked hard to grow as tall as you did.  Put in the long hours to get the perfect hair color you wanted.  And really did your due diligence to ensure you became well endowed .

I mean natural talent is a myth so hopefully you did your homework!

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by Bogeysaurus

Really?  Show me the scientific evidence that contradicts talent.  I'd love to see the experiments that over and over and over prove that talent is a myth.

Talent isn't a myth, natural talent is a myth.  The idea that someone was born with a natural aptitude to do something bizarrely specific like playing a board game with very unique rules (chess) or swing a metal thing to get a tiny ball in a tiny hole is a myth.  Talent is purely the product of practicing something enough that your body/mind becomes good at it.

Originally Posted by Bogeysaurus

To the contrary the human genome has been mapped.  We know what genes do what.  To say genetic "talent" is a myth would be to ignore pretty much everything we know thanks to biologist and geneticist.

Wait, so you are saying we mapped a golf gene?  And a basketball gene?  And a piano-playing gene?  You think it says stuff like that in the genetic map?  What about biology am I ignoring when I say that nowhere in our genome are their instructions to play golf?

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by turtleback

That is absurd.  If that we were true how could you explain guys who take the game up at a later age and in fairly short order are scratch or better (e.g., Greg Norman).  Most scientific evidence can be taken out of context.

I won't pretend to be an expert on Greg Norman.  What I do know is that his Mom was a pretty good golfer so he was around the game most of his childhood and I'm pretty sure he caddied for her.  The fact that he started "late" (15 years old) does nothing to contradict anything I have said, and thus requires no explanation.  As to the assertion that he he became scratch is fairly short order I would refer you to my post regarding people's misunderstanding between hours of golf played versus years.  It may have only taken him 2 or 3 years to become scratch, but I have no idea how much time during those years he spent playing golf.  I also am not ready to say he had no experience playing before he apparently started buckling down at the age of 15.

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by Bogeysaurus

Surely all of you worked hard to grow as tall as you did.  Put in the long hours to get the perfect hair color you wanted.  And really did your due diligence to ensure you became well endowed.

I mean natural talent is a myth so hopefully you did your homework!

There is no doubt that there are many things you can't improve.  The famous expression "can't teach height."  Of course your genes make certain characteristics set in stone.  Height is one, eye color, skin color, gender, etc.  The two for sports that I think are most important are height, as well as the ratio of fast-twitch to slow-twitch muscle fibers in your body (the ratio is more or less fixed, but obviously you can increase muscle mass).  Both of these help in sports, more in some than in others.  In basketball height is very important.  In sprinting, football, etc, a high ratio of fast-twitch to slow-twitch is important.  However, things like coordination, technique, awareness, reading defenses, reading greens, shooting a basketball, analyzing a chess position, playing the piano, etc, are all learned abilities.  No one honestly things the human genome comes hard coded with instructions on how to succeed at completely novel, man-made endeavors like golf, do they?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

No one honestly things the human genome comes hard coded with instructions on how to succeed at completely novel, man-made endeavors like golf, do they?

Youn have defeated your own argument with the list of unchangeable talents/gifts/characteristics that you gave.

Combinations of these are used for man-made endeavours.

Monkeys and parrots  can imitate musical sounds, but is it music?

Dan can swing at a golf ball a billion times. Problem is, he won't be half as good a gifted athlete would be at the game after a year of playing once a week and never practicing.

Dan ( the example here) will never reach  a high level of proficiency beacause all of his videos showing his vile swing (and there are few - you'll notice how he likes to show videos of his boring philosophising rather than his swing) indicate a lack of coordination, rhythm and timing.

[14ledo81]

Birdman, Do you honestly believe I could be as good as Tiger if I just put the time in? Sounds like you have a belief that everything should be "fair".

[David in FL]

Birdman, Do you honestly believe I could be as good as Tiger if I just put the time in? ".

Slacker. :-D

[Bogeysaurus]

Originally Posted by Shorty

You have defeated your own argument with the list of unchangeable talents/gifts/characteristics that you gave.

Combinations of these are used for man-made endeavours.

Exactly... it isn't rocket science understanding that the specific genetics that people are born with are applicable to different human endeavors.

[14ledo81]

Slacker. :-D

In my defense I have been listening to you yahoos, and never thought it possible. With my newfound knowledge, thanks to birdman, I will see you gentlemen in 20 years. I will be 52, so look for a northern Wisconsin guy leading a champions tour event by 7 strokes.

[David in FL]

[VIDEO][/VIDEO][quote name="14ledo81" url="/t/66682/question-for-teachers-why-are-dan-mclaughlins-www-thedanplan-com-numbers-so-low/90#post_877699"] In my defense I have been listening to you yahoos, and never thought it possible. With my newfound knowledge, thanks to birdman, I will see you gentlemen in 20 years. I will be 52, so look for a northern Wisconsin guy leading a champions tour event by 7 strokes.[/quote] Let's see. Adam Scott, Justin Rose, and Brandt Snedeker are all your age.....with a little bit of work, I'm sure that Birdman will agree, you'll be kicking their butts in no time! :-D

[chriskzoo]

I've been wondering how this guy was doing and said from the start that he had ZERO chance of making a living as a professional golfer.  He's 5,000 hours in and just shot 89 - give it up bro.  The biggest reality check should be his scrambling - he's at a self-reported 19%.  Pros are usually around 55-60% and the best are over 70%.