Nature vs Nurture: New study in favor of Nature

[SJDinPHX]

I think the average PGA card carrying pro would carry a handicap of around +3 to +6. (So 6.3 to 9.3 strokes better than Dan is Currently.

You surely meant -3 to -6, didn't you ! (I know you know more about golf, than CJ, or Barton ! )

 

[one stroke]

In "The Sports Gene", the author writes of Dan McLaughlin, who at the age of 30 -after reading books such "Outliers" & "Talent is Overrated"- decided to quit his job and become a pro golfer - in spite of having almost no prior golf or high level athletic experience.

In order to maximize his chances of success, McLaughlin hired a PGA certified instructor and even consulted with Dr. Ericsson (father of the 10k hour hypothesis) in order to design his 10k hour experience for optimal effectiveness.

In addition to the 10k hours of deliberate, focused, engaged practice he spends considerable amount of time on stuff like nutrition, physical fitness, psychology, etc... (none of which counts towards his 10k hours of practice). And of course every practice hour is logged and recorded.

McLaughlin is currently at hour 5,343 and his handicap as of May 1st, 2014 is down to an impressive 3.3. Not bad consider the fact that he had almost no golf experience prior to "The Dan Plan".

My question -especially for all the proponents of the 10,000 hour rule- is: Do you think Dan McLaughlin will get his PGA tour card within 1 year of reaching his 10,000 of practice (probably sometime around 2017)? Or more specifically, what do you think his chances are?

I assume that besides low probability events like health issues (or a healthy male in his early 30's), proponents of the 10k hour rule would think it would be highly likely.

In any case, would love to hear people's thoughts, it might make for some interesting action.

Well I would sure like to know what almost no means or high level sports ,,,,
The fact that he's played something probably means he has some skills going in
For all we know he had world class talent going in but never pursued it
Bad example ,,, a good example would be if Hank Haney could put Charels Barkley on the senior tour ,, I would love to hear Hanks response if someone were to ask him what the chances would be ,,,,, my bet zero to none and none left town

Now back to Dan not knowing anything else I would say the chances are very slim although 3 is great golf it's light yrs away from 0 and 10x that from a card the hard part is just beginning


1

 

[BJTyler]

You surely meant -3 to -6, didn't you ! (I know you know more about golf, than CJ, or Barton ! )

I'm using the standard convention of stating handicaps that are less than 0 as +... I know, it is an odd convention, but I think it stems from the fact that while most amateurs need to have strokes subtracted from their scores, pros have strokes added.

 

[BJTyler]

Well I would sure like to know what almost no means or high level sports ,,,,
The fact that he's played something probably means he has some skills going in
For all we know he had world class talent going in but never pursued it
Bad example ,,, a good example would be if Hank Haney could put Charels Barkley on the senior tour ,, I would love to hear Hanks response if someone were to ask him what the chances would be ,,,,, my bet zero to none and none left town

Now back to Dan not knowing anything else I would say the chances are very slim although 3 is great golf it's light yrs away from 0 and 10x that from a card the hard part is just beginning


1

according to the book, prior to "The Dan Plan", Dan McLaughlin:

- went to the driving range with his brother on 2 occasions as a child
- played some youth tennis
- ran cross-country for 1 season in High School.

He is 5'9" and weighed 150lbs, studied journalism in college, and worked as a photographer.

Whether he had some latent talent or not, we'll never know. But, seeing that he is only a 3 handicap after over 4 years, I am willing to bet against it.

 

[SJDinPHX]

according to the book, prior to "The Dan Plan", Dan McLaughlin:

- went to the driving range with his brother on 2 occasions as a child
- played some youth tennis
- ran cross-country for 1 season in High School..He is 5'9" and weighed 150lbs, studied journalism in college, and worked as a photographer..Whether he had some latent talent or not, we'll never know. But, seeing that he is only a 3 handicap after over 4 years, I am willing to bet against it.

BJ, I knew this "Dan Plan" sounded eerily familiar !..There was an APA 3 pool player, who went on a similar crusade, a while back !..He didn't even have to become a pro..All he had to do, was get good enough to beat a decent shortstop (whose name I believe, was 'Louser')..The guy also tried to cram all his "pro lessons" and practice into only 4-5 months, but he was SUPER dedicated !

Of course he fell WOEFULLY short !..Only cost him 10K to find out he did not have even one ounce, of the elusive "pool playing gene" in his body !.. I wish I could remember his name ?..I can see his 'stroke', like it was yesterday !

SJD

PS..It would have cost him a lot more than 10K, but he hedged his bet at the last minute !..The name will come to me eventually ! :sorry:

 

[Bob Jewett]

The other thing to consider is the age that training begins. I've seen some studies that seem to show that if you are not a member of a chess club by age 12 you should forget about being a grand master. Similarly, if you do not learn a second language by about that age, it will be very difficult for you to be fluent in anything but your first language.

Like the guy doing the DanPlan, I'd bet against anyone starting pool at age 30 to place in the upper half of the US Open or the World Championships.

 

[SJDinPHX]

The other thing to consider is the age that training begins. I've seen some studies that seem to show that if you are not a member of a chess club by age 12 you should forget about being a grand master. Similarly, if you do not learn a second language by about that age, it will be very difficult for you to be fluent in anything but your first language.

Like the guy doing the DanPlan, I'd bet against anyone starting pool at age 30 to place in the upper half of the US Open or the World Championships.

Good points Bob..Almost everyone would agree !...But there is a cue case maker in China, who will insist, the whole world is dead wrong !

 

[BJTyler]

The other thing to consider is the age that training begins. I've seen some studies that seem to show that if you are not a member of a chess club by age 12 you should forget about being a grand master. Similarly, if you do not learn a second language by about that age, it will be very difficult for you to be fluent in anything but your first language.

Like the guy doing the DanPlan, I'd bet against anyone starting pool at age 30 to place in the upper half of the US Open or the World Championships.

You can generally tell how old a person was when he/she immigrated to this country. If they speak English with an accent it was almost during their post teen years. Only exception is with Scandinavians, they tend to lose their accents more easily...but i'm not sure why.

 

[one stroke]

The other thing to consider is the age that training begins. I've seen some studies that seem to show that if you are not a member of a chess club by age 12 you should forget about being a grand master. Similarly, if you do not learn a second language by about that age, it will be very difficult for you to be fluent in anything but your first language.

Like the guy doing the DanPlan, I'd bet against anyone starting pool at age 30 to place in the upper half of the US Open or the World Championships.

Of course you would bet against it ,, if you took 100 12 yr olds I would bet against that and would no doubt come out ahead by a long margin ,, ,,


1

 

[Cameron Smith]

You surely meant -3 to -6, didn't you ! (I know you know more about golf, than CJ, or Barton ! )

No, it would be +3 and +6 because they have to add 3-6 strokes to their score whereas everyone else is removing strokes from their score.

 

[BJTyler]

Of course you would bet against it ,, if you took 100 12 yr olds I would bet against that and would no doubt come out ahead by a long margin ,, ,,


1

So here is a hypothetical question. If you were given the freedom to select 20-30 youths (ages 4-6) per year, remove them from their homes, give them access to world class coaching and training, and allow them to completely dedicate their lives to the task of becoming world class athletes in a given Olympic discipline. How would you select the kids in order to maximize your chances of success?

Would you examine their physical characteristics?
Would you examine their parents and their physical characteristics?
Would you give them a battery of cognitive tests?

i.e. would you examine any inheritable, genetically influenced traits? or do you think a random selection of kids would yield the same chances for success?

 

[Nostroke]

Well I would sure like to know what almost no means or high level sports ,,,,
The fact that he's played something probably means he has some skills going in
For all we know he had world class talent going in but never pursued it
Bad example ,,, a good example would be if Hank Haney could put Charels Barkley on the senior tour ,, I would love to hear Hanks response if someone were to ask him what the chances would be ,,,,, my bet zero to none and none left town

Now back to Dan not knowing anything else I would say the chances are very slim although 3 is great golf it's light yrs away from 0 and 10x that from a card the hard part is just beginning


1

I had a 2 handicap for a while at 16 (on an easy course that i knew like that back of my hand) and people used to ask me why I don't turn pro.

I used to just think to myself- "Wow you dont really know anything do you?"

 

[BJTyler]

Cool. I tried to track his performance and I don't understand golf handicaps and was surprised to find out that pros don't have handicaps. I guess that means they are all expected to be par or better?

Ok with a little Googling.... Pro golfers play consistently UNDER par which is 75. Taking more strokes than 75 means you are a -number handicap. Taking less strokes to finish the course means you are a +number handicap. Pro golfers who stay comfortably on tour are at about +5 and better. Tiger is +8 to +13.

Dan is currently -3 with a little over 5000 hours of practice. He started out having never played golf at all. He started in 2010. In 2012 he was a -8.7. I have no idea what all that really means except that according to the articles it seems as if a +4 would be the minimum one needs to get a PGA card. So he has 4700hours and 12 months to go from -3 to +4 and must play well enough to qualify.

I am glad he is doing it. Will make for a great case study into the future.

btw...there is a convenient donations link on his website if anyone is so inclined.

 

[Nostroke]

Cool. I tried to track his performance and I don't understand golf handicaps and was surprised to find out that pros don't have handicaps. I guess that means they are all expected to be par or better?

Ok with a little Googling.... Pro golfers play consistently UNDER par which is 75. Taking more strokes than 75 means you are a -number handicap. Taking less strokes to finish the course means you are a +number handicap. Pro golfers who stay comfortably on tour are at about +5 and better. Tiger is +8 to +13.

Dan is currently -3 with a little over 5000 hours of practice. He started out having never played golf at all. He started in 2010. In 2012 he was a -8.7. I have no idea what all that really means except that according to the articles it seems as if a +4 would be the minimum one needs to get a PGA card. So he has 4700hours and 12 months to go from -3 to +4 and must play well enough to qualify.

I am glad he is doing it. Will make for a great case study into the future.

Damn- Things sure have changed since i played starting with 75 being par being one of them and then everything else. Scratch or zero handicap was the end of the measurement on the best end. and a 2 meant you should average 2 over par generally speaking.

 

[Nostroke]

Science is not anywhere close to figuring out the power of the mind. If you read these mumbo jumbo articles or books that limit your belief then you are only doing yourself harm. Try reading The Biology of Belief if you want a better way to look at how genes affect performance imo.

Carrying a crystal in your pocket and sitting under pyramids chewing on Acai berries is the surer route to success!.

 

[one stroke]

So here is a hypothetical question. If you were given the freedom to select 20-30 youths (ages 4-6) per year, remove them from their homes, give them access to world class coaching and training, and allow them to completely dedicate their lives to the task of becoming world class athletes in a given Olympic discipline. How would you select the kids in order to maximize your chances of success?

Would you examine their physical characteristics?
Would you examine their parents and their physical characteristics?
Would you give them a battery of cognitive tests?

i.e. would you examine any inheritable, genetically influenced traits? or do you think a random selection of kids would yield the same chances for success?

No question about it Genetically influenced traits ,, no mind you other countries have been doing this for yrs ,, and yes produce world class ,, but that's out of thousands



1

 

[Bob Jewett]

... But, seeing that he is only a 3 handicap after over 4 years, I am willing to bet against it.

Depending on how you do the extrapolation, he will pass Tiger when they are around 120.

Another chapter in "The Sports Gene" talks about the efforts of the Australians to improve their winter sports performances. Instead of improving the training of their veteran lugers (or whatever) they found the best athletes available from stuff like surf lifesaving competitions and put them on snow and ice (which they had never seen before). They got some very remarkable results. Sometimes general athletic ability can go a long way.

 

[one stroke]

Cool. I tried to track his performance and I don't understand golf handicaps and was surprised to find out that pros don't have handicaps. I guess that means they are all expected to be par or better?

Ok with a little Googling.... Pro golfers play consistently UNDER par which is 75. Taking more strokes than 75 means you are a -number handicap. Taking less strokes to finish the course means you are a +number handicap. Pro golfers who stay comfortably on tour are at about +5 and better. Tiger is +8 to +13.

Dan is currently -3 with a little over 5000 hours of practice. He started out having never played golf at all. He started in 2010. In 2012 he was a -8.7. I have no idea what all that really means except that according to the articles it seems as if a +4 would be the minimum one needs to get a PGA card. So he has 4700hours and 12 months to go from -3 to +4 and must play well enough to qualify.

I am glad he is doing it. Will make for a great case study into the future.

The world is full of +4s that are not good enough to get a card ,,,
You have to qualify ,, either in Q school or being the leading money winner on a couple of the mini tours ,,, so just going out and shooting sub par rounds and posting it on your PGA handicap card isn't worth a hill of beans ,,

1

 

[one stroke]

Well that's convenient that you can't remember a single name out of the "hundreds" who were brought up in a family of champions and who put in thousands of dedicated hours practicing deeply but despite all that didn't turn into world class players. One would think that at least ONE of those people would have at least reached enough a level that you would remember their name.



I would not be the one to coach you. But I would BET LARGE that if you were willing to put in the time that someone like John Schmidt or CJ Wiley could coach you to the point you consider to be an A player.

If you were willing to document and film the whole thing and pay for the coaching. I would bet $5000 that you would reach that level. I sincerely believe that you would willingly pay off when you realized how strong you were able to get.

Well I would have to know more about his skills and age ,, running a 100 is a big task to learn in 6 months ,, I would bet against it

1

 

[(((Satori)))]

Carrying a crystal in your pocket and sitting under pyramids chewing on Acai berries is the surer route to success!.

Some of the best pool I have played was after meditating under a pyramid and then playing while carrying stones in my pocket. Thinking back it might have just been because I was using CTE at the time.