Williamevanl

well you could lose it and then have someone else find it after you've given up on it.

Just going to go ahead and say "called it", about 3 years ago.

Wow bumped post from 4 years ago! There are several courses in the area that open if possible for nice weather. Beaver Creek is one of them, Jester will open anytime weather permitting. I just assumed if there are several that do it within 20 miles there would have been others that did the same thing.

Ok thanks. :/ :) btw, I find the site search function very difficult for such things. I think I got back 1000's of results. Can we do quotes or anything?

I appreciate that but is there an online link, I had this argument with a buddy yesterday during a scramble and wanted to send him a link or summary of the information.

I remember there being as study done about how amateurs always do better the closer they are to the the hole but I simply can't find the thread or the study online. Could someone point me in the right direction? Thanks, -Will

I found myself wondering while reading the board that it's interesting that there doesn't seem to be any accounts of anyone just 'getting it figured out' or 'finally finding the game' It's strange but you would think this kind of thing would happen. Does anyone ever go from a normal crappy men's leauger to top notch amateur or pro? If not, why? It seems to me if it were the case the golf were the kind of thing that you could learn or improve on like a skill you would routinely see people quickly going from a 5 to a +3 handicap but that really is never the case. It seems the best golfers find themselves (quickly) in a situation where they recognize that they are really talented and that drives them to become better or the best but rarely do you find someone that has not been very good for quite some stretch (Say a few years) all of sudden start to get it together and perform at the highest level. After spending years practicing golf now and following a lot of other people's progress I'm starting to think that its an either you have it or you don't situation. It seems rare if not non-existant that someone struggles for a long time as mediocre player and then has some kind of breakthrough where the become one of the best. Is this true and if so why?

Lol, no she couldn't. :) Funny post though, "this 125lb girl was easily hitting it past me and my drives are 280-300 so she easily pounds it out there 300+"

Athletes are often listed taller than they actually are. I remember watching an interview years ago where the interviewer called out some football player on his listed height. He said something like, you're listed at 6'1 and I'm 5'11 and definitely taller than you. :) The response wasn't a positive one. :) As for Rory, if he is indeed 5'9, that would make him two inches taller than the average person from Ireland. (I suspect they are all inflated a little)

1 quad bogie and two triple bogies (and 6 bogies)! I didn't know 2 handicappers did that! Hmm +16 over those 9 holes. Oh well, he barely missed dead last by 5 people.

I interpret this whole thing as the beginning of the end. Dan realized what we have all been telling him this entire time. We said he would plateu and he has (obvioulsy). He got his handicap as low as he possibly could (for the time being) and it's basically not changed in about a year now. His tournament scores suggest that his handicap is closer to what his first handicap was (several years ago). He has basically stopped posting scores, his facebook updates and blogs have slowed down etc... Using his arms less is not going to save this thing. It's wrapping up fast. Also he posted something similar a while back. I'd track it down but it was basically "I've got it figured out, now I'm hitting my clubs the same distance as the pros, 3wd 280, 5 iron 200 yards etc.. Come on, Dan said he was confident he would be a 3 after 3000 hours and recently shot 56 over par over a 3 day stretch in a tournament. My groups mens leagues scores are much better than that! ** edit I stand corrected, looks like he decided to update some scores after all: AI 8/13 84 71.9/137 10.0 AI 8/13 86 71.9/137 11.6 AI 7/13 89 71.6/128 15.4 AI 7/13 86 73.0/133 11.0 TI 7/13 85 73.0/133 10.2 TI 7/13 92 73.0/133 16.1 TI 7/13 84 73.0/133 9.3 Yowsers!

We'll cut the crap here. Based on Dan's early scores success (years ago) I said that he would be lucky to be a 4 at 5000 hours and he wouldn't be better than a 2 and the end of this thing. I was the first to try to illustrate to people just how much time he is spending on this. I'm using my 'scientific' understanding of this entire thing to make predictions. You are late to the game but lets hear it, what are yours? (I've also provided graphs, charts, quotes etc.. this entire time of exactly what would happen and haven't missed a thing so far.) http://thesandtrap.com/t/45853/the-dan-plan-10-000-hours-to-become-a-*********er **search it apparently the site stars this out for some reason** Read the whole thing, also all along I've talked to his original coach the one that can shoot 64 in 45 minutes with 5 clubs. Dan will never beat that guy and that guy will never have a chance at professional golf. Why is that? (I just saw his original coach on tv the other day competing in the speed golf world championship)

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/

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.

What ever happened to this guy? :)

No, he just played in a 3 day tournament and shot **pulls out calculator** 15+26+15= +56. He was 56 over par after 3 days! (87, 98, 87). Holy @^$#! He said he hit 3 fairways over 3 days.

Like clockwork, I just always know somebody is going to say something like this. It's not that you have to have "these things" to be a professional golfer. You can be a 5' 1'' 350 lb anything and still have the genes that confer some advantage for golf. (or anything for that matter) Maybe think of it in terms of darts, there is something about the worlds best dart players that make them better than everyone else. It's obviously the not the tallest, strongest, fastest etc.. but it's still something. I've said it before but I would guess it has more to do with steadiness, rhythmiciy, spacial awareness etc.. You guys have to realize, even if it were throwing a ping pong ball in a 5 gallon bucket from 10 feet, there's a genetic advantage that some would have over others. You are completely missing the point, we could be talking about drawing the most perfect circle on a chalkboard, there are genetic components to that that would make one person better than another. You just seem incredibly simple minded, "um there are just strength, speed and stamina... that's it", That's obviously not the case.

X2, I work in genomics for a Biotech company. It's a billion dollar industry which is basically just figuring out which genes correlate to a plant being better at something. If the plant has X genes it's better at surviving drought, if it has Y genes it's more disease resistant. It's absolutely crazy to think that there aren't genes that confer pretty measurable advantages for all sports. I guess people that believe otherwise must not understand genetics or not believe that there could variations in a population that would confer certain advantages for golf. Hypothetically, If there was money to be made, we would sequence humans, have them play golf, determine the genetic traits that were key to being great (quality trait loci), continually funnel out ones that weren't good and ultimately create a race of super human golfers. Just like breeding corn or different dog breeds, no amount of work will allow a beagle to outrun a greyhound.

Quote: Lovinitall 8/11/2012 If Dan's routine wasn't documented the way it is and someone said, 'Hey, this guy is a 6 HC and he played the first round of golf in his life 12 months ago.', I'd think that was pretty good. If he's not at least a 3 in the next 12 months (given that he actually plays golf 4x or more per week), I'll be far more willing to concede that he's beating a dead horse re: his stated goals. That will be two solid years of playing golf, and it's where I'd expect a very avid golfer that played or practiced everyday to be after two years. The whole 'putting for six months' is not how most (any) of us approach the game. *bump, Dan's handicap just updated for the season. He's now at a 6.9. So, after a year of practicing everyday his handicap remains basically the same. (did get down to 5.7 at one point) I don't think he can keep this up for another year. (6066 hours left) Last 10 scores: H 3/13 83 69.6/129 11.7 H 3/13 84 70.4/131 11.7 A 3/13 83 71.7/123 10.4 A 3/13 81 71.9/137 7.5 H 3/13 91 73.2/137 14.7 AI 3/13 87 72.0/128 13.2 AI 3/13 84 72.0/128 10.6 AI 3/13 83 71.7/123 10.4 AI 2/13 79 68.7/118 9.9 AI 2/13 87 72.4/133 12.4 AI 2/13 87 71.9/136 12.5

Well it only took 30 pages to get that out of you. :P I agree, I've had him at a 2 at the end of this thing for a long time now and a 4 at 5000 hours so he's about exactly where I expect him. Can't believe someone above thinks he's going to make it on the web.com tour. And he's not pro at anything: (If Dan had stuck to his guns on that he would still be putting from 1-3 feet!)

? Did you just make this list up? 3 under, 3 over. You hear a lot of people say though that Rory is more like 5-7 woods, 5-11 etc.. 1. McIlroy 12.03 5-9 2. Woods 9.03 6-1 3. Donald 7.58 5-9 4. Snedeker 6.91 6 -1 5. Rose 6.44 6-3 6. Oosthuizen 6.44 5-10 Historically though many of the greats were smaller (Hogan 5-8, Jack 5-10, Trevino 5-7, Snead 5-11 etc..)

Some good points in this thread. I'd say playing with a mulligan even if you don't take it changes your score. It's like a security blanket. You can swing for the fences, take risks you wouldn't otherwise take etc... A lot of people do it though when they first start golfing. I think as soon as you start using the words handicap or score you should no longer be using the word mulligan. It is funny though for some people it's simply too painful to have to take penalty shots off the tee. I have a buddy that will just kind of break down, mumble some crap and just kind of give up after hitting a shot (or two) OB. I've also played with people that are in complete disbelief that you have to take shot 3 from the tee box, "What do you mean!?, I've only hit one shot, *HIT* OK, that ones out too. What shot is this now?! FIVE! ARGUGH.." :)

The courses in my area basically charge double membership (to include cart) I only knew of a few others members and we weren't generally out at the same time. (I would try to beat the afterworkers and go at 4 ) And by the time the weather warmed up even that didn't work, just crowded.

I face that tough decision every year. Being able to play whenever you want sounds great but a few things make it suck. Playing by yourself isn't a lot of fun. Walking even just 9 holes gets tedious and is quite the time investment The course fills up when the weather gets nice and then I don't even want to be out there wasting time waiting for people I do agree though that playing will make you better than practicing but man can the same course get monotonous.

*update Dan got his first eagle on a par 5. I was looking at the trackman stats today his Driver carry yardages are kind of surprising. (probably because I spend to much time on the forums) :) Driver Carry via Trackman 209 217 112 *ouch, well at least we know he's honest. :P 235 207 This is kind of interesting too (As far as carry distances) Average 3 wood carry: 168 total: 212 Average 3 hybrid carry: 178 total: 207 Average 4 hybrid carry: 181 total: 197 So he carries his 4 hybrid significantly farther than his 3 wood. (but gets a great deal of run on the 3 wood?) I wonder what his shots look like.