Nature vs Nurture: New study in favor of Nature
- Thread starter iusedtoberich
- Start date
Tiger started when he was 2. And had a father who had already mapped out out Tiger's life plan. Dan started when he was 30?
I doubt any one expects Dan to be a serious threat to the PGA.
The point is that it is a personal experiment that ONE person is undertaking publicily to see how good he can get from ZERO by following the 10,000 hour "rule" and deep practice.
If he achieves getting on the PGA then it certainly will prove that it's possible. Not getting there conversely doesn't prove it's impossible. At any rate it's awesome that we live in a world that allows people to quit their job and pursue a life of golf to prove an assertion.
It certainly will have proved that it was possible for Dan McLaughlin. However, regardless of the outcome, it will neither prove nor disprove that it's possible for any other individual.
Last edited:
But here we are debating it.
Note that the 10,000-hour idea is not about time playing. It's about time spent in directed, organized, supervised practice. Not many pool players -- maybe no pool players -- have ever tried that. Walter Lindrum, on the other hand, may have had that many hours in during practice.
That would be correct ,,,One of the best instructors on the planet could do very little with Charles Barkley ,,, now if Charles was 5 -9. 150 I would have liked his chances much better
1
But here we are debating it.
Note that the 10,000-hour idea is not about time playing. It's about time spent in directed, organized, supervised practice. Not many pool players -- maybe no pool players -- have ever tried that. Walter Lindrum, on the other hand, may have had that many hours in during practice.
I would be willing to bet that Mark Wilson came pretty darn close!
Sure it will...
Of course it will provide evidence that it's possible for another individual.
The detractors claim that no one can do so if they don't start at an early age and or don't have a natural ability.
Someone not starting until a later age and succeeding absolutely flies in the face of the claim that you have to start at an early age and means that it's possible for people to do so.
Jaden
p.s. it's impossible to refute a claim of nature being responsible because anyone successful can be claimed to have had the natural ability.
Of course it will provide evidence that it's possible for another individual.
The detractors claim that no one can do so if they don't start at an early age and or don't have a natural ability.
Someone not starting until a later age and succeeding absolutely flies in the face of the claim that you have to start at an early age and means that it's possible for people to do so.
Jaden
p.s. it's impossible to refute a claim of nature being responsible because anyone successful can be claimed to have had the natural ability.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4804498&postcount=114 <--It figures you would skate right by this post !
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the millions of duffers who start golf later in life and toil endlessly while struggling to maintain their sub 20 handicaps provide a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
There have been PGA caliber golfers who started late in life (post teen years).
Larry Nelson
Calvin Peete
Y.E. Yang
He could be a natural to begin and with Ben Hogan. Bobby Jones. Jack , Arnie , Lee , Tom , Gary , Watson , and many many more all under 6' he certainly has the build for the game ,,, and if you were to pick someone you would pick his type of build who obviously is above average in other areas to start with not a couch potato or a muscle bound goon or a homeless guy off the streets
however he still got miles to go because the hard part is just starting
1
It's also impossible to refute the claim that if a person does not become world class after 10k hours of practice it simply means he didn't practice properly.
You realize that you are proving my point with this post right???
Do you realize that you are proving my point with this post...
You're making a statement that is impossible to prove wrong.
The two sides are arguing two different things.
One side is saying that in order to excel at something, you have be naturally gifted.
The other side is saying that you have to practice correctly and diligently for 10,000 hours at something to become an expert and that most people who do so will become an expert at the thing they practice barring physical or mental limitations.
Not the best necessarily, but an expert.
One of those things is disprovable, the other isn't.
Yes, some people will never get to an expert level no matter what training or practice they put into something, but that doesn't disprove the statement. Just like the fact that there are occasionally savants that are immediately gifted at something, that doesn't prove that people have to be naturally gifted at something to become an expert.
I personally think that desire is a HUGE thing and that many people, but not most can become an expert at something with the right desire, motivation and proper training and that 10,000 hours of practice is a pretty good measure of whether it is possible for an individual to attain a certain level.
Of course, attaining a certain level of ability is NOT the same as attaining a certain level of competition.
Jaden
Do you realize that you are proving my point with this post...
You're making a statement that is impossible to prove wrong.
The two sides are arguing two different things.
One side is saying that in order to excel at something, you have be naturally gifted.
The other side is saying that you have to practice correctly and diligently for 10,000 hours at something to become an expert and that most people who do so will become an expert at the thing they practice barring physical or mental limitations.
Not the best necessarily, but an expert.
One of those things is disprovable, the other isn't.
Yes, some people will never get to an expert level no matter what training or practice they put into something, but that doesn't disprove the statement. Just like the fact that there are occasionally savants that are immediately gifted at something, that doesn't prove that people have to be naturally gifted at something to become an expert.
I personally think that desire is a HUGE thing and that many people, but not most can become an expert at something with the right desire, motivation and proper training and that 10,000 hours of practice is a pretty good measure of whether it is possible for an individual to attain a certain level.
Of course, attaining a certain level of ability is NOT the same as attaining a certain level of competition.
Jaden
Last edited:
Those millions are NOT trying to attain world class proficiency. They have lives, jobs, kids, spouses, community responsibility, other hobbies, etc...
Put a million people on the Dan Plan playing golf exclusively and watch the global average get way better.
You can see it in pool. There are thousands of more world beater class players in the world now than there was 30 years ago. Why? Because of better instruction, access to instruction, access to knowledge and motivation. As well more people have the time to pursue a "career" in pool, inasmuch as the billiard industry can support people who make a living playing pool.
In fact, I'd bet that there are millions more "better" golfers now than there were 30 years ago, 50 years ago etc...
Unless his practice has been documented. The the claim can certainly be refuted. Dan is doing all that he can according to best practice so in his case the claim that he didn't practice properly will not hold much merit.
Just by the sheer numbers if one person can achieve something then it shows that it's POSSIBLE for someone else on the planet to achieve it.
Many things were once thought to be impossible, the four minute mile for example. Once broken many followed and now high school students run it.
Before the 4 minute mark was broken I am sure you would have found many takers willing to bet large against it. I am sure many did and lost.
And Mark plays (played) at a world class level.
Although,..... there are people who are already making that exact claim. They are saying that since Dan chose to spend his first 6 months putting, and then gradually move to his irons, and then his drive, he has reduced his chances of success!
I have never questioned the value and impact of directed practice on a person's ability to acquire a skill - golf, pool, basketball, or even 100 meter sprinting. Obviously, if everyone in the world became obsessed with golf and decided to spend their time practicing golf, then the level of golf skills would increase globally! This fact is so obvious that I'm not sure why it even needs mentioning.
However, the point that I feel is equally obvious is the impact that genetically inheritable traits will also have (in addition to quality of practice, desire, drive, what have you) in determining which of those millions of "expert" golfers will be the considered among the best.
...but they might, if they had broken 90 within 30 days of picking up a club.
Well....time will tell won't it? My thought is that you can't go 10k hours without working on all facets.
Bob brought up Walter Lindrum. For those that don't know Walter was the greatest english billiards player EVER.
His father and older brother were both champions. Young Walter was forced to practice with only ONE BALL on the table for years until he could put that ball anywhere at will.
Whether or not that was the right way to do it the point is that most would think you start with trying to make billiards or aim at something with more than one ball. But this unconventional way taught Walter to have perfect speed control, not just good or great but perfect.
Was he born a perfect billiard player? No, he was in the perfect environment to be trained to be the perfect billiard player.
Walter was so good he had to spot the rest of the field huge weight to get them to even play and even at that he ran out of opponents because they couldn't stand to lose with that much weight.
What if everyone had trained like Walter and had champions as mentors?