Nosevi

Nice of you to say. The thing is "realistic" isn't really all that interesting. I think it would be a massive achievement to get to what amounts to a shade above mini tour level having not played the game until my mid 30s but people who don't understand just how hard that would be aren't going to be interested. By contrast a target like PGA Tour splits opinion between those who truly understand how hard that is and what a miniscule proportion of the golfing population could even possibly do it if they did everything right (ie the plan and training was perfect) and those who really don't. If Dan's plan was perfect - if he had the best coaches, the best technology, the best fitness regime and trainer, players in the plus 4 to plus 6 handicap range to practice with and he had an unbelievable work ethic - I'd guess his chance would be 1 in a thousand, possibly less. I hope Dan realises his potential (which in reality is all you can ever do). My only frustration with 'The Dan Plan' isn't like Shorty - that he gets all the attention etc - I couldn't care less. It's that he won't realise his potential because he's not doing the things he'll need to do in order to achieve that. Bottom line, he needs to know his target (and by that I mean in performance terms), he needs to know his current position (in performance terms) and above all he needs an actual plan to take him between the two.

Just thought I'd update where I am going into the autumn and maybe share a little data that we've been looking at. I think I've mentioned before that Randy wrote a strokes gained spreadsheet for me during the last year (ie before September - my years mirror our academic year in the UK). I tested it and he changed a few things and now we're happy it does what it needs to do it forms the basis of my on course performance tracking and focusing of my practice. Essentially what the spreadsheet does is compare each and every shot you hit to data from the PGA Tour to assess how good that shot was and says where you gained or lost a fraction of a shot compared to how the guys on the PGA Tour hit similar shots from similar lies. So for example if they hole 50% of putts from 8 feet (forget the exact range but it's close to 8 feet), if you hole a putt from 8 feet you gain 0.5 shots, miss an 8 footer and you lose 0.5 shots. That's an easy example and generally it'll be things like 0.03 shots lost because your drive hit the fairway but was fractionally shorter than their average on a hole that length making the next shot that much further from the pin. It looks at every shot from drive to putt and every lie from fairway, rough, sand or on the green. My course happens to have similar width fairways to that specified by the PGA Tour and although it's shorter that doesn't matter as it's comparing separate shots. We've got a high degree of faith that it works - looking at the course ratings of the courses I play vs a score that would give zero strokes gained or lost it has average PGA performance in the plus 5 handicap range. Game golf assesses my current performance as 0.3 handicap and the spreadsheet gives it at 0.35 and I played with a guy off plus 4.6 on Monday and tracked his performance and other than his putting (he had a great day on the greens!) it put him 0.6 strokes lost to the PGA Tour average. We've tested it a lot and it does seem to work no matter what the course, it's all about your ability to advance the ball towards the hole. Why I really like it is that it breaks down your performance on the course and shows how you're doing in every area. These are my current averages: Total strokes lost ave - 5.35 Strokes lost driving ave - 1.8 Strokes lost approach shots ave - 0.9 Strokes lost short game ave - 0.35 Strokes lost putting ave - 2.3 And this is how the spreadsheet displays a round (or 9 holes in this case): So looking at the data I'm starting to get back I need to focus on putting (in a big way!!) and driving but I've made good progress in approach play and short game. This actually makes perfect sense as it's where I've put in the most effort recently. I hit far more iron shots on the sim than drives and around the practice green I've spent more time chipping and pitching than I have putting. I'd actually expect my driving strokes lost to go down in the spring anyway as your ability to advance the ball is a little restricted when the ball plugs in a soggy UK autumn fairway Anyway, we'll be tracking my performance like this going forwards and focusing my practice based on how I'm performing strokes lost wise on the course. Just a couple of other points. We track the rounds through Game Golf and this gives an idea of how I'm doing traditional stats wise: And this gives an idea of sort of things I go into with the programme. If anyone's even remotely interested feel free to ask about any of them and I'll try to tell you why I look at that area: Simply can't get the software to insert the pics of the spreadsheet and gamegolf in the right place so here they are (hopefully!)

Interesting vid. A lass I know at my club who plays off scratch is little but doesn't half hit the ball a long way. Photo of her through impact is below: Training I do that helps with driving isn't all that different to when I used to compete at javlin and discus (other than the intensity right now - early days). Yes there's arm stuff in there but there are a lot more squats and core stuff. I was always taught you have to build strength from the core outwards when training for a dynamic sport. There's no point in having really strong arms if your core can't support that strength. Dynamic balance is equally important.

But that's not how 'human interest' stories work, Shorty. If it was about the golf it would do but it's not. They want to portray the plucky individual out to beat the odds, that's the headline and that's how they'll try to spin it. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant, they just want to portray that image. To be fair, in this interview the interviewer almost kicks off with saying to Dan that it's a nice idea but you're going to fail, aren't you? And at several points does say things along the lines of "Yes, but you aren't going to actually make it, are you?" Dan doesn't blink but you can tell the interviewer (who says he knows nothing about golf) is less than convinced. But if Dan wanted to put out data and examples he could have done it in his blog but he hasn't done. Some clever bloke told me that's all the evidence I should need

Please tell me you listened to the whole interview and liked the bit where he gave Tiger some advice about how to get back to winning ways. Was my favourite part (And yes, I am being serious) Still don't know why it upsets you so much. You've told me why, obviously, but still don't see why he gets under your skin. Anyone who takes 5 minutes to look at his blog or read up on it can see he's a little behind where he implies he is (possibly an understatement?).

And I'm aiming a lot (lot!) lower than Dan. I doubt I'll do it but I'll give it a go merely for the challenge and fun of it. I've got a few years where it suits my family me being a 'stay at home' dad and it sure beats doing the housework Love the New Zealand interview, Randy. Come on, you gotta smile at that. "At what point does this get absurd?" Lol

I get the idea of being objective about the possibility and to an extent I'm being devil's advocate. Do I think Dan will make it? Nope. Do I think anyone currently trying to do anything remotely similar will make it? Highly unlikely tbh. Do I think it's possible for someone in their mid 30s to build the skill set and have the athletic ability to play golf at that sort of level? Yes I do. There's no individual skill in golf that someone of 14,16, 18 or 20 can learn that someone in their late 30s can't. If you think there is - name it (question is for anyone not nevets) But what are the odds of finding someone of that sort of age who can build a skill set to compete at this sort of level in all areas of the game? Very, very small indeed.

I would say that is the case to a degree but as an adult you can use experience and knowledge to offset that somewhat. Also, some people get better at learning as they get older so that blanket statement is only sometimes the case. As a young kid I was quite literally bottom of my class, in fact I failed the entrance exam to my school and only got in after my father had a long chat with the headmaster (he's never told me what he said). At 19 I went to Oxford University where I got a degree with honours. Later as an Air Traffic Controller I had to learn literally books and books of rules and be able to recite regulations word perfect that sometimes ran to over a page long and there were a lot of them! In fact I was an air traffic examiner and we had to learn more than the guys we were examining. Absolutely no way on earth could I have learned all of what I had to learn in my 20s and 30s when I had been a kid, just couldn't retain that amount of focus on one subject or retain information in that way. Some people become better 'learners' as they get older. Admittedly not everyone but some people do.

If I had Rory's technique I wouldn't be on an internet forum talking about it I'm not sure if the graph backs up what you say about size being important or what I was saying about it not being so important. A small factor but not all that significant. The top of your two curves are an inch and a half apart which would indicate it's not necessary to be much over average height to play golf at the top level. Can't remember how tall Dan is, is it 5'9"? If so the graph would indicate he's as tall or taller than about 20% of PGA Tour players. I guess what I'm saying is that I think athletic ability and natural strength is way more important than height and the fact I used to competitatively throw discus and javlin and spent most of my life playing back row forward in Rugby (Kind of like a Tight End) at a reasonable level probably has more to do with an ability to get the ball out there than my height. Of course the flip side is you don't get that many tiny javlin throwers or Tight Ends do you so maybe that argument has the odd hole in it What I find more interesting is the age argument. Is it that people think you can't learn a new skill like golf in your mid 30s to mid 40s or that you can't play the game to a high level in your mid 30s to mid 40s? Average age on the PGA tour is normally reported to be about 35 indicating there are a fair few players in that mid 30s to mid 40s range so guessing it's just that people believe you can't learn it later in life?

My girl's under a cover and in a bubble just to be safe I drive my car but Erik's right - you'd be surprised how many nice cars are just gathering dust. Shame really.

It's the format I played for my club in competitions against other clubs last summer for exactly that reason - to play under a bit of pressure. Downside is matchplay rounds also don't count under our system (due to 'gimmee's etc) so my handicap didn't change regardless of scores shot. Maybe something Dan could look at in the spring to help him up his performance under pressure. It's also by far and away my favourite format. My understanding is it's actually how the game was originally played long before the advent of the concept of 'par'.

Yep, absolutely. I wasn't saying all handicaps would be significantly higher under our system merely that his would be. Some people play better under pressure than others. If you don't score as well in tournaments as you do in social rounds your handicap would be higher over here. If you rise to the challenge and are not adversely affected by the fact you're in a tournament there would be little difference. It wasn't a comment about the 2 systems, merely that one individual would have a higher handicap here. That's an unavoidable fact - he hasn't played well at the only times our system uses to determine handicap.

Under Congu we'd only use his tournament scores so if those are representative of his normal tournament scores he'd have a handicap of about 8 or 9 here I'm afraid. Think he may need to practice playing under pressure a little prior to QSchool

Sorry for my ignorance of exactly how your system works re slope so not sure if this changes anything - he's not playing it from the tips according to his GHIN. Could that explain it?

Just noticed this bit and you know what, you're probably right, Shorty. In fact almost definitely right. But a decade ago I didn't play golf, I was having way too much 'fun' in hot and sandy places bikering with various Arab nations and when I was back here I was playing and training for Rugby, Golf didn't feature. In the World cup the England team fielded Nick Easter at number 8 who's 36 so I think older than Dan. Now while you could quip "And how did that go?" Please don't tell me the power and athleticm required for a golf swing is greater than that required to play back row forward at international level. People age at different rates and while I was hopeless at sport at school I represented my College in Oxford in Rugby, rowing, football and cricket. The coordination thing just clicked a tad late with me. Like I said, you're probably right but I'm aiming at a lot lower than PGA Tour, I think my target is possible however unlikely. I've proved age isn't necessarily a barrier to learning to hit the ball well and with sufficient force to mix it with the youngsters if you put in the work. And besides, I have the time and it's fun trying to stretch yourself in this sport so what's the harm in giving it a bash? But when I fail at QSchool for the Europro (2 steps down from European Tour) I will have failed. Had a blast trying but failed

Simple answer to the first bit in bold is no. But there is just so little to go on. I too would like to see more data and videos etc. I would like to see how the Plan is going, how it's transformed his game. Maybe we'll get more of that when the Plan starts up again in the spring? Kind of hope so. Lol OK, fair point, but it's not all about size, although I guess it helps. It's about technique backed up by physical conditioning rather than the other way round IMO. All the power in the world won't result in long drives if your technique is dreadful. It's just that I've seen good results through understanding the science (of both the physics of ball flight and when it comes to building strength), working hard on technique and putting in productive hours in the gym. Dan could do the same and see good results. That's why I keep saying that I think he could go further than he is but it'll require a change in the way he does things. I really do believe that. But he needs a good coach, a proper golf-specific pysical profiling to help determin what he needs to work on in the gym to build power and speed, hours spent working on technique, some balance work thrown in, some.......... It's not going to just happen.

That could well be true, maybe I'm merely putting it out there. But there again, when I posted video of me hitting controlled drives, swinging well within myself, to about 300 yards and showing it wasn't all that difficult to carry the ball 290 if you put some (a lot) effort in in the gym and work on your technique (a lot), those who mocked when I claimed I could drive it as far as some on tour didn't exactly rush forward to appologise I'm kidding, clearly. I don't have an answer for why there is zero actual concrete evidence in Dan's Plan. I have suspicions but there is just nothing in there that says how good or bad he is at golf.

Sounds like a good year - nice one.

This is one area where I think the Plan (or at least the record of it) has fallen short. Truth is we have no real data about Dan's skill set at all other than a handicap (which some believe while others don't). We've got a few Gamegolf rounds from a year ago from when his handicap was at it's lowest, a bit of Trackman data from a bit ago and.......... well that's about it. Personally, the reason why I don't join with those doubting Dan is that there is literally nothing to go on so I give him the benefit of the doubt. But I must confess that with a Flightscope at his disposal I don't get why there is no data, no screenshots, no skills tests. And then no videos of shortgame either. There's just nothing concrete at all. I don't know why. I guess the blog is fine for people who want to follow the 'story' of Dan but for anyone actually interested in the golf it's pretty empty and that's a shame.

Interesting stuff and yes - the hours you've estimated for Faldo (and it is an estimation, neither of us actually know how many hours he practiced prior to winning the English amateur) is more than I estimated. But while we're debating how much time one or other golfer took to get to a given level you're still talking about talent. Surely the whole point of the Dan Plan is to prove talent is not required. In order to reach mastery in a given field a person doesn't require talent, they just need to put in (on average) 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. Talent is at best over-rated at worst totally unrequired. That's the premise of the 10,000 hours rule and what the Dan Plan is trying to prove. The moment you start talking about talent you're saying the Plan (not Dan, the Plan itself) has failed to prove it. My take on it - talent is in fact required to reach mastery in a given field.

I'm sorry but that's not a fact, that's an opinion. Let's not fall out over it, we just slightly disagree what constitutes 'mastery' (which is what the 10,000 hours theory is about) in golf. I practice with 3 guys playing off between plus 4 and plus 5 (two are tour pros) and a lass off plus 2 before she turned pro a year ago, it's likely effected my judgement. No snags, it's just a difference of opinion so like I said, let's not fall out over it One thing I think is a fact though is that if the target was the PGA Tour, remains the PGA Tour and he makes scratch he has not succeeded in his goal. We can go backwards and forwards about how well he's done but he has not succeeded in his goal. Done well IMO, maybe even very well, perhaps incrediably well......... but he has not succeeded in his stated goal of getting to the PGA Tour. In no way does any of this put down his efforts. Dan and I get on fine as it happens. I'm one of the few that think he can go further than he is now, we'll see if I'm right. Good to see him talking about getting good coaching in his blog entry. It's just, IMO, when you set targets and make them you succeed, set them and don't and you fail. No stigma attached with setting a high target and failing to hit it but you don't 'succeed' in an endeavour if you don't hit the target you set. Just how I see it.

Fair enough Shorty The first part was everso slightly tongue in cheek, the second part - I just wanted to know how a guy on a different continent who you don't really have anything to do with and isn't really hurting anyone could get under your skin like that. Like I said with me, his Plan he can do as he likes as far as I'm concerned. If interviewers don't bother to do a bit of research prior to interviewing him, so be it, I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it. Regarding "not getting it" DrvFrShow, or in some way thinking that getting to scratch isn't good as someone else said - totally wrong. It's just that I happen to agree with Randy. I thought the whole pretense of the 10,000 hours rule is that talent is not required, it's over-rated, it's all about applying oneself through deliberate practice. Surely that's what the whole project is about. If you say it looks like his talent ceiling is scratch and that's where he gets to so declare success what does that prove? Someone else's talent ceiling may be single figures, another guy it may be plus 1, another it may be..... I'm looking at the project not at Dan himself. If he gets to scratch good on him, pat on the back, I think he will have done well. But the project itself has failed to prove the 10,000 hours rule, it's just shown that one guy reached his own personal potential. If you spend long enough at something you'll reach your own potential is hardly ground breaking news, we all pretty much know that already don't we? Again, I'm not in any way belittling getting to scratch or saying Dan won't have done well if he does. I'm just saying that you can't declare success of the project when your end point isn't close to your goal and only goes to show that the pretense upon which the project is based is flawed. Dan will have done well. The project will have failed to prove the 10,000 hours rule. All IMO. You're obviously welcome to all disagree with me.

Ok, I'll agree that Dan's apparent slant towards media exposure vs things that will actually help (like coaching) isn't going to do him any favours, and his goal is just a little far fetched, and maybe he's not the perfect subject for this 'experiment' but putting all that aside, why do you think he doesn't stand a chance? Kidding of course but seriously, why do you care? But if getting to scratch 'proves' the 10,000 hours theory then it's been proven thousands and thousands of times before, begging the question - what does Dan doing it again prove that all those others doing it didn't?

Ok, but a couple of hours a week since they were 5 adds up to just over 1,000 hours vs Dan's 10,000 hours. That's arguably quite a big difference. I'm sure they practiced more than that but equally sure it wasn't 20 hours a week, every week since they were 5. Nick Faldo didn't play golf until he was 13, 4 years later he won the English Amateur Championship and British Youths and turned Pro the year after. Within 2 years of that he had won on the European Tour, played in the Ryder Cup and within 3 years he had finished 3rd in the European Tour order of merit. That was all within the timescale of the Dan Plan, mostly while he was still at School. Point is what would getting to scratch actually prove? That putting in the amount of time that most people could dedicate in maybe 25 years or more it was possible to get to scratch? I already know that as pretty much every scratch player under the age of 35 on the planet already did it. I'm not being awkward I just don't think it'd be ground breaking when it's been done thousands of times before.

Thought you'd 'enjoy' the update ............