Nosevi

Just reading that back, just want to make something clear. I'm in no way saying that getting to scratch isn't good, far from it. But I know kids who have done it by 15 or 16 while attending school. Guy I know won our under 18 championship at 16, again at 17 and again at 18. He was playing off scratch in less time than Dan would have taken and while just practicising after school and at weekends. To show any measure of success I think Dan needs to go toe to toe at pro level and show that that can be done if starting later in life. Playing at scratch level with friends in social rounds at his home club just wouldn't mean anything to me in terms of his stated goal. It's not coming up short, it's not on the same page.

The only place I think we differ is the scratch thing. Getting to playing to an average of par on a CR 72.0 course in 10 out of 20 social rounds in maybe 8 years of playing golf full time is a far cry from successfully playing as a pro. Playing on maybe the Canadian Tour somewhat successfully would do it for me. It's not his goal but it would be an achievement.

Dan's updated his blog: http://thedanplan.com/so-much-and-so-little/ Can't wait till Shorty reads it

Not arguing, just asking in a friendly way - which bit of what I wrote don't you agree with I don't think the project can succeed in any meaningful way without some measure of success on the course. I don't think fame and fortune will follow for Dan without it. I'm not saying he'll definitely succeed to any given level with help, I'm saying he won't without it. Regarding the other bit I wrote, I just feel that you need a measure of natural ability particularly in areas of the game requiring strength, athleticism, coordination and balance. If you don't have them hidden deep down somewhere you're going to come up well short. Learning to score around the green for 18 months becomes pointless if you discover that you can't get there in the first place. I know you're passionately against him and that's fine - when you put yourself out there you have to take the rough with the smooth. Personally I don't care if people choose not to look at the available evidence (or lack of it in some cases) and draw their own conclusions, choosing merely to believe media reports etc. You never see actual data on his blog and that to me is all I need to know. I deliberately post up actual launch data and video, posted a couple of vids on working on driver technique (but trying not to 'teach' - not my thing) yesterday. Dan will be called out for not feeling able to share his current data (he owns a Flightscope yet you won't find full launch data on his site) and I'll be called a show off because I do. No win situation I don't care how Dan goes about his plan I just think it lacks too many things like organisation, target setting, route towards those targets, and a few more I could add to move him forwards. His call, his plan. But do I care if he spends his time bring interviewed and being invited to charity golf gigs etc? Not really. It's a distraction, nothing more.

I don't think he'll get one without the other. I hope he's coming round to that realisation. There are many skills in golf, some like putting most people can get pretty good at with enough practice, others like driving distance take a level of natural ability. To be able to compete at PGA Tour level you need to be pretty darn good at all of them. That's why I think the way to go is ensuring you have the ability to do the things that require natural ability first - if you can't drive the ball far enough to play a tour set up then being able to putt on one becomes meaningless. If you hit a brick wall talent wise, you just can't get the ball out there or can't strike irons to the required standard, then the project is over. No snags you gave it a shot.

This is something I've worked quite hard on over the past year. In addition to optimising launch while minimising spin I'd add that you need to remain balanced or you'll find you lose control of your spin numbers. If you can't hold a relaxed, balanced finish you'll probably find you're swinging too hard for your current ability and any added club head speed will be wasted - your spin numbers will climb so your carry will drop. I did a quick post here and while many may think the project itself is a little silly (they may have a point ) this area is one where I can perhaps pass on some of what I've found.

Just a quick post about driving. I actually shot a quick vid for Randy (in case people haven't gathered and sure he won't mind me saying but he's an integral part of what I'm trying to achieve now - bounce ideas off him, he handles stats gathering, a certain take on assessment, we chat via video link most weeks...) but may as well post up as others may find it interesting. Essentially it's a demo on how I've used the tech I have available to increase my driver distance. The distance the ball flies is a result of 3 things: ball speed (which is itself the result of clubhead speed, centreness of strike and dynamic loft), launch angle and spin. You need to maximise the first, optimise the second and limit the third in order to maximise your distance. You also need to be able to do that while remaining in balance, which hopefully you can see I'm doing by the slightly posey finish I tend to hold. Vid 1 Vid 2 I wondered whether to post up - carrying it 290 hitting 315 yards plus could be seen by some as bragging. If people choose to see it that way that's fine but it's an aspect of the game that becomes more important the higher level you play at. I want to eventually play at a higher level and being able to do this matters. Anyway, if anyone wants me to try to describe how you hit a ball that hard with very little spin I'll try but it is a bit difficult to describe in words, be far easier if you popped over here for a session in the swing studio and I'll show you

Yep, but as you can see it runs down the side of that and several of the other fairways, you can see it in the vid showing the run off area in front of that par 3 green. Heard a visitor complaining to the pro about it once after a round, his responce was - "I advise you keep out of it then. Lessons can be booked through the pro shop."

Regarding the first comment, I think so. Another member said it all seemed to be about his gym work but if that's the case I think he's missing the point. I think gym work is important so you can maximise the impact of your skills work but I don't think it's a substitute. You still need the skills in the first place IMO. Second comment, kind of hoping you don't mean me? I disagree with some of Dan's approaches but at the end of the day where I differ from some is that I acknowledge that it's his plan. I'll look at where he is in a detached way (if I can) but won't put down his efforts - IMO he's doing what he feels will benefit him most. I slightly disagree on a few fronts but then I've disagreed with him on those points for a while now and we agree to disagree. I think he needs to change his approach but I've said that to him as well as on here. I'm not putting him down by saying that, I'm trying to help.

Isn't this guy the one who looked like he was going to spend more time in the gym than on the course? I know some have criticised Dan's apparent lack of athleticism but there's probably a happy medium.

Sorry for that. I thought we were just trying to assess how tough the courses and set ups are that Dan hopes to play in the future. I was just interested to find out how much tougher they are than where he currently plays and the only way to assess that seemed to be by their CR. Would appear they're about 4 shots a round tougher. So a pro that averages 71 on those courses should, in theory average 67 where Dan is (with all rounds, not best 10 of 20). Dan averages 80.8 for his last 20 rounds (I think) indicating he needs to drop about 14 shots a round. I think my maths is right but happy for anyone to correct me :-)

Thanks. Like I said, in no way would I liken myself to Jason but in this particular area I think we definitely see eye to eye. I'll try to upload the last 2 images of my course that I was trying to upload yesterday, no idea why they wouldn't upload. One on the biggest defences on many holes on my home course is the rough - it's massively penal and if you drive it off line you're not getting anywhere close to the green with your e=second shot, I don't care who you are. Quite a claim. This gives an idea of the rough along side quite a few of our fairways with my bag in shot to give some perspective. You've got to be properly off line to hit this stuff but if you are you're pitching out sideways if you happen to be lucky enough to find your ball. So that gives an idea of my course - greens with some interesting routes across them that you really need to think about and fairways you really don't want to miss by too much. About the only thing it doesn't have is the length of the sort of set ups I'll hopefully one day be playing, it's about 10 yards per hole short from the back of the tee boxes where I practice from. I've come up with one solution to this and it's fairly simple - just walk the ball back 10 yards after every drive to play it as if it were a tad longer. I've done that a few times but for now it's a pretty good test.

Will finish that post tomorrow, for some reason the mobile app keeps crashing

Was having a chat on The Dan Plan thread about course ratings and the differences between tour setups and the courses you practice on which seemed relevant to trying to see where Dan is now and I found it interesting as I had taken a few photos and videos of my home course this morning to share. One of the reasons I chose it was that it has aspects that are at least similar to courses I will be expected to play in the future, it's certainly not a 'resort course', so thought I'd show a little of that. One of the things that visitors notice about yhe course id thr greens. In the summer they sre pretty quick but they are also undulating with some great breaks to them - you better be able to read (or reid?) a green or you're made to look very silly. I took some photos of the greens but you don't reall get an idea of the undulations but a putt across one of the greens maybe gives a better idea: There's also some pretty good run off areas off some of the greens - come in short and you're out of luck. This is on the front of a longish par 3: They also tend to tuck the flags away a bit to make life interesting. I'm on the mobile app but what should be the second picture below gives an idea from today and no I didn't take that flag on to that extent, I pushed it a little and got lucky.

Interesting questions. He's not given up, I've suggested he posts that up. We're in touch every now and then. Regarding all the chat about course ratings, appologies. The reason I found it interesting and to an extent 'on topic' is because it's relevant in seeing where Dan is. Shooting a given score round Riverside isn't the same as shooting that score on a tour setup but just how different is it? I chose my course specifically because it has aspects similar to the courses I'll be expected to play in the future such as penal rough, similar width fairways and tough greens (actually going to add a post about that to my thread as I took some photos and vids earlier today). I don't know Riverside, obviously, but the only pictures I've seen make it look reasonably 'tame'. It means there may be something of a culture shock when Dan moves to tougher courses, +1 Very good advice. I just think he would do well to tell people that's the plan.

Regarding Majors, Augusta National was unofficially rated during the 2010 Masters by some guys who rate courses for a living. The course then measured almost exactly the same as it was advertised as measuring this year and the team came up with a rating of 78.1

Can't see why not if he has an invite (take it it's by invite only?). Don't they do putting challenges and chipping challenges etc. ie stuff he can do without making a full swing? If he does and just does short game it'll be interesting to see how he gets on.

But surely they normally play from the Championship tees which are rated so it's just a case of looking them up and seeing what the rating is? I'll check for a few tournaments in a mo but I can't see them adding a tee box on every hole for each PGA Tour event then digging it out again afterwards and the tee boxes they often use look to be permanent, raised tee boxes. Granted on some courses there are 'special' tees reserved for pros but I thought that was the exception rather than the rule. Fairway widths for standard PGA Tour events are specified by the tour to average between between 25 - 30 yards wide in the pro landing area which sounds about right for a tough championship course over here so guessing it's the same over there (my course averages 31 yard wide fairways in the landing zone - I'm sad enough that I've measured them). Greens on tour average a diameter of 45 feet or at least they did in 2013 and I can't see them shrinking much over the last couple of years so are probably slightly bigger target than average (my course averages 38 feet diameter greens so as an area to hit it's significantly smaller than an average course played on tour). Point is they don't create new courses for the tour events, they just play from a long way back. Again 2013 but the average length of course played on the PGA Tour that year was 7227 yards - pretty long. 7800 or 7900 yard setups are quite rare and in fact other setups have to be below the 7227 yard average to make up for those that are above it (at least in 2013 they did) How does this all relate to Dan? It is 'his' thread so maybe we better drag it back on topic A course like Riverside doesn't have 30 yard wide fairways and isn't 7227 yards long so it's not representative to how you need to strike your shots into a green. What I do on my course to get a feel for playing a longer setup is move the ball back from every drive I hit and tee the ball behind the tee boxes on the par 3s. For the tour I'm aiming at it's only 9 yards a hole compared to the distances they played this year. If I was aiming at PGA Tour it'd be closer to 30 yards a hole so about the same as Riverside (although I think the fairways are a tad more generous and rough looks nothing like as penal). It's just something I do to get used to playing a longer setup and I think Dan could do the same.

Interesting info. From our previous conversations I take it CR 75.0 as an average is calculated?

No probs I just think you hit the nail on the head - where does talent come into golf played at the highest level? Is it a skill that can be learned or is it a talent? At the end of the day that's what The Dan Plan is all about, isn't it? I mean everyone accepts that other sporting pursuits require talent - I could never be an Olympic sprinter no matter how hard I trained for example - but some feel golf can be mastered through hard work alone. My personal opinion is that there are too many aspects of golf that require talent for the game to be 'mastered' to an elite level without some measure of natural ability. If you possess below average strength, balance and coordination I think you will struggle. The flip side is if you are above average in these areas and 'train smart' I think you can probably go further than many people think.

I think the clock ticks down - he's almost 6,000 hours in. At least I think so..... (sorry for no multi quote, can't seem to go back and do it)

I think his communication has been aimed at the media rather than individual followers or those interested in the Plan for quite some time. His call but I think I'd do it the other way round - engage with followers on the blog etc first and foremost. We've spoken about it before, I think the media side is a distraction he could do without, he disagrees.

Hate to contradict you there but it is actually - that's what talent means. You can't build talent, you can only realise the talent you have. In my previous life as an air traffic control officer we tested for aptitude (or talent) prior to people being selected. Your brain has to work in a particular way to be able to do the job and most people simply can't do it no matter how much training you put them through. It's a talent ie a natural ability given at birth. What's debateable is whether being able to strike a golf ball on a par with the pros is actually a talent. I think it takes a certain level of natural coordination so probably is to a degree.

Hard to argue with most of that. For starters I don'd buy the 10,000 hours theory either especially when applied to a sport - how many golfers spend 10,000 hours doing golf over their lives vs how many play at the top level? Any brief look at the available evidence shows by simply spending time golfing in the hope to get good enough to play at an elite level simply doesn't work, at least not to get the vast majority of people anywhere close to tour level. Regarding becoming one of the top x golfers in the US first, fair point and I'm actually agreeing with you. But whatever your target, be it PGA Tour, Web.com, one down from there (which is really what I was saying would be a bit more sensible) you've got to know what you are aiming at in terms of raw performance and have a plan as to how to get there. When Dan went to Pebble he said he was amazed at how well the pros struck their long irons. Most people would be if they had the chance to stand next to tour pros striking them. But then again most people aren't trying to emulate them. I just think it was a bit of a blind spot in Dan's approach from the begining. That's not a criticism but on day one when he went to see a coach that coach should have as a minimum said "Ok, you want to be a tour pro. This guy plays on tour - go hit some balls with him and see exactly what you're aiming at." My coach called over one of the England international squad and had him practice along side me as most go from there directly to a tour of some description, probably to point out how daft I was being. A year down the line and looking at my launch data vs theirs and the void between the two has gone. But that's not by accident and it's not just from playing lots of golf. It's by working out what they do that I didn't do by looking at high speed video of pros together with their launch data (not random youtube clips but the guy hitting the ball and the resultant data from that swing) and working out how to get from where I was to where they are. But you absolutely have to know what your target is in terms of performance and have a detailed plan of how to get there. Simply putting in the hours isn't going to work.

There's a lot of people assuming Dan is done. I really don't think it's the end, he's got too much time invested in it and to stop now would prove very little and doesn't even test the 10,000 hours theory. He'll see it through. To anyone saying Dan has conned people out of their money I'd disagree. As far as I know there were no concrete promises made and people just wanted to help Dan succeed. They liked seeing someone give it a go so freely handed over cash to help him along. I'm not sure my golfing union would allow it as you're not allowed to be sponsored financially in any way to play golf as an amateur over here but I'm not sure how it works over there. That said over here many top amateurs are 'sponsored' by the bank of mum and dad to roam the world playing golf in amateur tournaments for zero reward to gain experience of big competitions all in the hope they'll make it to the pro ranks, while other talented youngsters whose parents aren't in a position to pay for their child to chase their dreams in this way and continue to support them into adulthood have to look them in the eye and tell them they need to go get a job - it's far from a level playing field. Quite a few get sponsored by Universities over there but for those that don't it's an uphill struggle compared to the 'rich kids'. Maybe it'd be fairer if amateurs could be 'sponsored' or at least have their golf and travel expenses picked up by someone other than parents. At the end of the day practically every (but not all) top amateur is in fact sponsored it's just that the golfing unions make sure it's only by family - it could be argued that's a tad elitist. While people may disagree with methods Dan's used and maybe say he should be more open (Gamegolf rounds, video updates, correct inaccuracies about progress in interviews etc) as that was the pretense of the whole thing, I don't think he's conned anyone or been dishonest. The problem is more that he's slowly shown less and less of what's going on as progress has slowed whereas people want to see more and more as they get interested in the project. I think I'd always answer people who ask questions on the blog etc as they're the ones interested in the project, I'd be tempted to back away from the media side of things. Anyway, I think you'll find he's not done and personally I hope he is able to change his approach a little for phase 2 of the plan. I think he needs to honestly assess where he is in every area right now, see where his skillset needs to be to achieve his goal (which maybe needs looking at given the time left as well as the fact that a direct route to the PGA Tour has been cut off, Web.com would be the most lofty ambition now but perhaps one down from there would be more sensible) and track the progress required in every area to get from A to B. Just going out and playing lots of golf is not going to work, you need to develop a skillset in each area of the game that enables you to compete at a higher level be it driving distance, striking your irons, bunker play, chipping etc and the hard yards to do that are on the practice ground and in some cases in the gym, not out on the course. The course is for applying those skills, not developing them in the first place......... all IMO obviously