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

[Williamevanl]

Originally Posted by 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%.

He's done a lot worse very recently, shooting 56 over par over a 3 day tournament. (high 90's one day) Lot of good comments in this thread and a lot of bad ones. Yes there's no reason to think that just practicing will continue to make you better at golf. (It does in the short term but quickly has diminishing returns and flat lines pretty quickly).

And it's absolutely crazy to think that there aren't genes that confer advantages for all sports. "Sure genes can affect how: fast you are, tall you are, dark you are, how high you can jump, how strong you are, how smart you are, how mentally stable you are, how susceptible to disease you are, your attention span, your ability to focus, your steadiness, your ability to repeat some action, insert 1000 pages of things that genes are definitely known to affect (oh but they don't have any affect on how good you can become at some physical act?!)". Somehow that's where the unfair advantage conferred by genes ends, a magic fairness fairy steps in and says "no if someone wants to work at something they can become just as good as anyone else"

So no, there's not golf gene (just as there's no height gene) but there are a lot of genes that confer some advantages for golf just as there are for height. The height research exists, I just interviewed a guy recently that sequenced an NBA player for just that reason.

[Williamevanl]

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

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?

Take it from a guy who practices every day as a full time job:

Recent Quote from Dan

"Random Stat: At times it seems like the more I work on something the worse it gets, at least in the present."

The world is going to be an interesting place over the next 20 years, with the cost of sequencing going down and companies like 23 and me, it's only a matter of time before they do start to do comparative genomic analysis of professionals in sports against average people. We already do it with crops because there's enough money in it for it to be profitable, soon it will be cheap enough that we will do it for all kinds of studies (such as this). Keep the dream alive while you can. :)

https://www.23andme.com/health/Muscle-Performance/

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by garybbq

I bet lots of golfers on this forum can carry the ball over 250 with their driver, accuracy is a different story.

Average tour pro is in the mid 260s I believe.  I bet "lots" cannot.

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.

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

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?

You have the gumption to ask somebody else if they're serious?  Have you ever spent a portion of your life doing copious amounts of recreational drugs?  Of course talent defines the limitations of what a person is capable of achieving.  All other things being equal (meaning same nutrition, same workout, same technique, etc), the person with the higher jumping ability is going to jump higher.  If the guy with lesser ability has better technique, he may jump as high or higher than the more gifted athlete...until that athlete learns the better technique (if ever).  This might translate to track and field, or it might translate to basketball.

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

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.

A person isn't born with a natural aptitude for something bizarrely specific like chess.  They are both with a natural aptitude to memorize, quantify, calculate and process information at a faster rate, or more consistently, or more accurately, or for a longer period of time.  The application of those talents or natural gifts is what determines how those gifts will be specifically used.

Stop acting like you don't understand this concept, because I'm pretty sure you do and you're simply trying to parse words to make yourself semantically correct.  Talent isn't a myth but natural talent is?  Really?

[newtogolf]

Genetics and natural ability play a big part in pre-determining how good someone will be at any given endeavor.  With hard work and "proper" practice one can still become very good at something like golf, but without natural ability, good instruct / practice and hard work you're not going to be on the PGA Tour.

Dan does not appear to have any natural ability to play golf,  I'm also not confident he's got very good instruction or making the best use of his time practicing given his results.  +56 over 3 rounds is close to where I'm at, I have spent about 500 hours of practice and playing without much instruction.

Something isn't right, while I wouldn't expect him to be a scratch golfer after 5000 hours, I'd certainly expect him to be far beyond where he's at today.

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by Shorty

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.

Not really.  I gave a list of things that are unchangeable.  It is a strawman to say that because there are things that are unchangeable that all things are unchangeable.

Originally Posted by Shorty

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

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.  Monkeys and parrots don't have the capability to learn the way we do.  So no, they would not be able to compose music like a human can.

Originally Posted by Shorty

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.

You state this like its a fact, but it is obviously an opinion.  You are entitled to it, but I think it is wrong.  I do agree that hand eye coordination is something you learn and can practice.  Someone who has spent many hours practicing hand eye coordination will have a leg up on another person who has no practice with their hand eye coordination  if they are both trying to learn a skill that requires hand eye coordination.  This is often coloquially referred to as "skill transfer."  If i take football and SLIGHTLY change the rules, or the shape of the ball, the number of players on the field, etc, would Tom Brady have to start at square one and suddenly be on equal footing with random Joe?  No, obviously not.  His years of learning football will easily transfer to this new game.  So if you have a baseball player who has spent years and years training his hand eye coordination to hit a moving pitch and ask him to use a smaller club and hit a smaller ball that isn't moving will he have a leg up on someone with no prior experience?  Of course.  But its not because he is a "born athlete," its because he there is skill transfer between something has already spent hours and hours practicing.  I think a lot of people confuse being a "born athlete" with someone who has just practiced hand eye coordination.  If you want to say that Dan has no prior experience with other hand-eye-coordination related activities and so will be behind on golf I might agree with you.  But he wasn't BORN that way.

Originally Posted by Shorty

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.

I guess your point here is that rhythm and timing are inborn?  You think Tiger Woods was born with the ability to time his swing?  All those hours and hours and hours of practice he spent to develop timing and rhythm and coordination he actually didn't need to because he was born with that ability already?

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by 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".

I think if you took a child and started him at golf the age that Tiger started and he practiced hard and spent as much time at the game as Tiger and had the personality to stick with it, then yes, I do.  I think you see it every day.  Every golfer on the PGA tour has spent their life learning the game.  Every chess master, concert pianist, etc etc has spent hours and hours and hours learning.  What does that tell you?  No one in the history of the world has been born an expert at anything.

I'll add that, you have made the implication that I believe this idea that there is no such thing as natural talent because I have this hope that everything should be fair.  I'll say I think you are missing the actual psychological bias.  I think people believe that there is such a thing as a natural talent because it is a form of self handicapping.  If people believe that talent is born not made, it makes it easier to accept their own failure or inability to apply themselves.  If everyone understood that through hard work they could be good at something, it would mean they didn't have an excuse to be medicore.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

I think if you took a child and started him at golf the age that Tiger started and he practiced hard and spent as much time at the game as Tiger and had the personality to stick with it, then yes, I do.  I think you see it every day.  Every golfer on the PGA tour has spent their life learning the game.  Every chess master, concert pianist, etc etc has spent hours and hours and hours learning.  What does that tell you?

:facepalm:

What does it tell you that for every golfer that made it to the PGA Tour after picking up the game as an infant, there are 100 more that also did the same, but couldn't make it there?  More appropos, what does it tell you that there are people that did NOT pick up the game as infants, and still made the tour?  By your logic, that person should be thousands or millions of hours behind the person of the same age who started since they were an infant.

No, half this forum could NOT be Tiger Woods if we just started at 2 years old.

[JetFan1983]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

I think if you took a child and started him at golf the age that Tiger started and he practiced hard and spent as much time at the game as Tiger and had the personality to stick with it, then yes, I do.  I think you see it every day.  Every golfer on the PGA tour has spent their life learning the game.  Every chess master, concert pianist, etc etc has spent hours and hours and hours learning.  What does that tell you?

:facepalm:

What does it tell you that for every golfer that made it to the PGA Tour after picking up the game as an infant, there are 100 more that also did the same, but couldn't make it there?  More appropos, what does it tell you that there are people that did NOT pick up the game as infants, and still made the tour?  By your logic, that person should be thousands or millions of hours behind the person of the same age who started since they were an infant.

No, half this forum could NOT be Tiger Woods if we just started at 2 years old.

Hehe, you may want to add a couple zeros to that number there, Brandon

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by Bogeysaurus

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

How much do you think being tall affects golf?  Like what specific genetic qualities do you think makes a world class golfer a world class golfer?  I am curious what about human evolution makes you think people who are good at golf would be selected through survival of the fittest.

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

:facepalm:

What does it tell you that for every golfer that made it to the PGA Tour after picking up the game as an infant, there are 100 more that also did the same, but couldn't make it there?  More appropos, what does it tell you that there are people that did NOT pick up the game as infants, and still made the tour?  By your logic, that person should be thousands or millions of hours behind the person of the same age who started since they were an infant.

No, half this forum could NOT be Tiger Woods if we just started at 2 years old.

It isn't about age at all.  Its about the amount of time they spent practicing.  And choosing as your cut-off the best ~250 golfers amid hundreds of thousands that play the game and saying if you can't make it to the top 250 or whatever that proves that your weren't "born" talented because you spent 10k hours practicing but weren't good enough is absurd.  If you had someone spend 10k hours practicing golf and they weren't any good at all you might have an argument.  But spending 10k hours and being "only" the 500th best in the world and thus not making the PGA tour does little to support your view.

[MS256]

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

How much do you think being tall affects golf?  Like what specific genetic qualities do you think makes a world class golfer a world class golfer?  I am curious what about human evolution makes you think people who are good at golf would be selected through survival of the fittest.

I've been sitting here reading your comments and shaking my head. I'm trying to find the part where this is just a long running April fools joke.

No way in the world you could seriously believe the things you are saying.

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by JetFan1983

Hehe, you may want to add a couple zeros to that number there, Brandon

Yeah and most of those people didn't practice anywhere near as much as Tiger Woods.  There are also thousands upon thousands of people who took up chess at the age of 8 just like Bobby Fisher and probably played a lot when they were younger.  Perhaps they even had dreams of being a grand master.  But what didn't they have?  They lacked what Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, and Bobby Fisher all had.  The obsessive, pathological drive to be the best and to win.  That drive made them spend hours and hours and hours learning their craft and becoming the best.  Basically, MOST of those people that didn't make it merely didn't try hard enough.

[Birdman10687]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Genetics and natural ability play a big part in pre-determining how good someone will be at any given endeavor.  With hard work and "proper" practice one can still become very good at something like golf, but without natural ability, good instruct / practice and hard work you're not going to be on the PGA Tour.

Dan does not appear to have any natural ability to play golf,  I'm also not confident he's got very good instruction or making the best use of his time practicing given his results.  +56 over 3 rounds is close to where I'm at, I have spent about 500 hours of practice and playing without much instruction.

Something isn't right, while I wouldn't expect him to be a scratch golfer after 5000 hours, I'd certainly expect him to be far beyond where he's at today.

You know Bruce Harmon is his swing coach, right?

[JetFan1983]

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetFan1983

Hehe, you may want to add a couple zeros to that number there, Brandon

Yeah and most of those people didn't practice anywhere near as much as Tiger Woods.  There are also thousands upon thousands of people who took up chess at the age of 8 just like Bobby Fisher and probably played a lot when they were younger.  Perhaps they even had dreams of being a grand master.  But what didn't they have?  They lacked what Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, and Bobby Fisher all had.  The obsessive, pathological drive to be the best and to win.  That drive made them spend hours and hours and hours learning their craft and becoming the best.  Basically, MOST of those people that didn't make it merely didn't try hard enough.

Lol, OKaaayyyyyyyy.... not gonna involve myself in what I'm sure will turn out to be a fun, productive discussion with you. Good luck to you, good sir!

Originally Posted by Birdman10687

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Genetics and natural ability play a big part in pre-determining how good someone will be at any given endeavor.  With hard work and "proper" practice one can still become very good at something like golf, but without natural ability, good instruct / practice and hard work you're not going to be on the PGA Tour.

Dan does not appear to have any natural ability to play golf,  I'm also not confident he's got very good instruction or making the best use of his time practicing given his results.  +56 over 3 rounds is close to where I'm at, I have spent about 500 hours of practice and playing without much instruction.

Something isn't right, while I wouldn't expect him to be a scratch golfer after 5000 hours, I'd certainly expect him to be far beyond where he's at today.

You know Bruce Harmon is his swing coach, right?

Who is Bruce Harmon? Dan's coach is some guy named Bruce Furman.

Did you mean Butch Harmon?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by MS256

I've been sitting here reading your comments and shaking my head. I'm trying to find the part where this is just a long running April fools joke.

No way in the world you could seriously believe the things you are saying.

I think he does. Scary, isn't it?

But it's nice to know we could all be better than Tiger if we wanted to be badly enough.

Imagine the kind of twisted crap these people teach their kids.

[14ledo81]

If only it were so simple. The best athletes would then be those who could operate on the least amount of sleep. That way they could get more hours of practice in. Hmmm..maybe they would have to practice how to function while sleeping less??? On the other hand, we would not even need tournaments any more. We could just keep a running tally of who has the most practice hours in.

[14ledo81]

I think he does. Scary, isn't it? But it's nice to know we could all be better than Tiger if we wanted to be badly enough. Imagine the kind of twisted crap these people teach their kids.

No doubt. The word "average" becomes meaningless.

[cipher]

I really don't know much about this dan plan thing.  I refuse to look at the stupid site of his because it just seems so egocentric.  If this guy has put 5000 hours in and is where he is, he has no shot at much of anything.  Heck I have more of a chance to do something in golf because I have about 700 hours of practice into the last two and a half years.  Oh yeah and I have zero chance of doing anything in golf.