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

[garybbq]

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,

[iacas]

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.

[NM Golf]

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.

[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?

[garybbq]

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

[NM Golf]

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.

[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.

[noSnowman]

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

[MS256]

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.

[garybbq]

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?

[soon_tourpro]

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.

[NM Golf]

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.

[Golfingdad]

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.

[garybbq]

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

[Golfingdad]

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.

[Kieran123]

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

[garybbq]

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.

[Dave2512]

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.