The Dan Plan

IrishHomer

This looks very interesting I found it fro listening to sports chat last Sunday on Newstalk.

http://thedanplan.com/

A 30yr old guy who never played golf has changed career and is aiming to become a PGA tour golfer after spending 10,000 hours practising.

He has a blog and a live video every Tuesday night.

Kevinmarkham

He's regularly on Twitter too.

A trawl of Twitter will show he's not the only one pursuing this sort of thing. John Richardson (Dream On) led the way - and they're bringing out the movie later this year.

Trampas

His coach is awful.

He shouldn't be near a golf course yet

Redzah

Once more an example of a guy who underestimates the talent involved in golf and just thinks its down to purely practice and hard work. The best he can hope for is a few quid out of making a documentary about how he wasted the last 6 years of his life.

royalcarlowgc

Redzah wrote: »

Once more an example of a guy who underestimates the talent involved in golf and just thinks its down to purely practice and hard work. The best he can hope for is a few quid out of making a documentary about how he wasted the last 6 years of his life.

100% agree with you there.. He's a bit like our friend 'Tones', thinks golf is like any other sport, the more you practice the better you get. couldn't be more wrong. New day, different swing, different mind thoughts etc

dvemail

How much longer foes he have until he becomes a professional?
Judging by his swing he still has a long way to go, he will probably end up as an assistant teaching pro or something along those lines i reckon.

gorfield

Dan needs a change of plan..........

Redzah

royalcarlowgc wrote: »

100% agree with you there.. He's a bit like our friend 'Tones', thinks golf is like any other sport, the more you practice the better you get. couldn't be more wrong. New day, different swing, different mind thoughts etc

Lol, no comment on Mr. Tones!!

There's no doubt practice helps but there is a certain level every individual can achieve through this. The thing that differentiates what level each individual achieves from this point on is talent. IMO the reason so many people think its achieveable with golf as opposed to other sport is because there is no standard level of physical fitness involved (although the game has evolved in recent times). People who have never played the game before look at darren clarke, john daly, lee westwood, mickleson and all the other fat ass players who have achieved great things through golf and think 'hey this guy is 18 stone and just won $1m in a golf tournament, if i'm 13 stone and a ripped kickboxer who plays competitive sport then i can definately achieve this if not more if i practice enough'. What they don't realise is without Talent these top fat ass pro's would not have achieved their success irrespective of the amount of practice

f22

I hope there's no kickboxers reading this on "holidays" ;-P

k.p.h

Redzah wrote: »

Lol, no comment on Mr. Tones!!

There's no doubt practice helps but there is a certain level every individual can achieve through this. The thing that differentiates what level each individual achieves from this point on is talent. IMO the reason so many people think its achieveable with golf as opposed to other sport is because there is no standard level of physical fitness involved (although the game has evolved in recent times). People who have never played the game before look at darren clarke, john daly, lee westwood, mickleson and all the other fat ass players who have achieved great things through golf and think 'hey this guy is 18 stone and just won $1m in a golf tournament, if i'm 13 stone and a ripped kickboxer who plays competitive sport then i can definately achieve this if not more if i practice enough'. What they don't realise is without Talent these top fat ass pro's would not have achieved their success irrespective of the amount of practice

BOOM ...!! Fail .. you have shown a complete lack of understanding on what talent actually is and how it works. It's OK when you talk about these guys at the top of their game, sure they have some predisposition that makes them better than other players but it only accounts for a small portion of their ability(Basically what sets them apart from other top players).I live with a guy studying psychology who has a big interest in neuroscience, both of us being big sports fans we have researched this a good bit.

Sure, a certain part cognitive ability is natural and that's all it really is when it comes down to it. Intelligence. But then you have to ask yourself do all Kilkenny people have a predisposition to playing hurling, how about spanish footballers ..? How about the fact that Mickelson started playing golf before he started school and and Daly was hitting a 4 iron at the age of 4. How come all the best players in almost every sport are the one's who have been playing the longest and are the one's who practice the hardest and have the best coaches.

There's no doubt practice helps but there is a certain level every individual can achieve through this. The thing that differentiates what level each individual achieves from this point on is talent

Your dead right, but for a person of average intelligence and average athletic ability hard work in the form of proper practice with proper coaching combined with experience and a bit of self belief will take them most of the way. The human brain has the ability to learn and it dose it extremely efficiently.

Talent is so far away from the thing that separates amateur players handicaps. If you were to turn up at any of the top Irish amateur events and ask any of the players how long they have been playing and how much they practice do they have a coach.And then go and ask your weekend 18 handicapper the same questions you will find the difference in answers relates directly to the difference in the amount of shots each takes to go around a golf course.

I'm not debating whether of not some people are more naturally inclined to pick up the game of golf quicker or in general be a better player, but to say talent is the decisive factor is pure tripe...

The word talent is derived from the Greek for "divine gift". Which in itself is wrong on a few levels. But a divine gift for playing golf ... My hole ..

You should probably do a bit of research before you make your next broad sweeping comment, have a look here

spacecoyote

Have to say I would contradict the innate talent thing. Of course a naturally athletic person will have some small advantages but there is plenty of evidence of the so called 10000 hours theory, ie that in order to become a master at any discipline it takes approx 10000 hours.

They say that beethoven was a child prodigy but by the time he was recognised as an master had clocked up 10000.

Same would be true of Bill Gates with computers, Tiger Woods with golf.

f22

Talent is the one determining factor that is out of your control, it's something you're born with, like the way all top level athletes share a certain muscle type. They are born with natural ability.

While many top level amateurs are pretty much full time there are others who hold down fulltime jobs and still excel despite having far less time to commit.

A mate of mine is an international and to be honest practices so little it's hardly believable. Talent and natural abilty allows the likes of him to compete at a high level, nothing more.

k.p.h

f22 wrote: »

Talent is the one determining factor that is out of your control, it's something you're born with (no it's not), like the way all top level athletes share a certain muscle type(what). They are born with natural ability(nobody's born with anything).

While many top level amateurs are pretty much full time there are others who hold down fulltime jobs and still excel despite having far less time to commit.(people learn at different speeds)

A mate of mine is an international and to be honest practices so little it's hardly believable.(good for him) Talent and natural abilty allows the likes of him to compete at a high level, nothing more.

...

f22

The expression "you can't polish a turd" springs to mind!

Pacly

I have to agree with kph.
How can someone be born with talent? I dont see how anyone is born with being naturally gifted at golf. What makes them different from the next guy when they are born, other than their genes?
The 10,000 hours is an interesting theory though. I think they should be more spread out to give your brain more time to learn, rather than crammed into a few years. Experience counts for a lot in golf imo.

k.p.h

f22 wrote: »

The expression "you can't polish a turd" springs to mind!

Well that's true to an extent, if someone is unwilling to learn and involve themselves in the process the you are going no where. Probably heaps of personality traits that could get in the way especially when it comes to golf. But still that's all part of conditioning someone has picked up throughout life.

When someone comes up with one of these challenges and says I want to be a single digit golfer and I'm going to get lessons, practice intensively and play a lot of competitions. I usually think yup if you do that you will probably succeed (because that's pretty much what everyone who plays to that level done). It's when people start to put time frames on it I start to become doubtful, who knows how many things someone has to master to reach their goal. And when someone say I want to be a professional golfer after a year of playing at aged 30 you just have to think "you've missed the boat there buddy" because there is simply not enough time for someone to overcome all the challenges at that stage.

I was out playing with a buddy of mine early last year when we ended up playing with a guy that was out on his own. He was pretty good and the guy I was playing with asked him his handicap and then how long he was playing. It turned out he was an 4 handicap and had been playing for 8 years. He then went on to explain after some questioning that he was a "bad" 18 handicap for a good few years and he had decided to give a go getting down. He then went on to explain that it took an unreal amount of practice to get to where he was and he was still working at it. You would think that someone playing off 4 had a bit of natural talent, but where was this talent these years he was playing off 18.?

Got rid of the facepalm as that was a bit much because it is counter intuitive at best, people do learn at different speeds and some people take to it quicker but that's not to say the anyone would be unable to reach a realistic level. You could have a predisposition that makes golf easy for you that someone else dose not have but predispositions are not static and can be changed.

spacecoyote

Pacly wrote: »

I have to agree with kph.
How can someone be born with talent? I dont see how anyone is born with being naturally gifted at golf. What makes them different from the next guy when they are born, other than their genes?
The 10,000 hours is an interesting theory though. I think they should be more spread out to give your brain more time to learn, rather than crammed into a few years. Experience counts for a lot in golf imo.

Well I suppose realistically it is going to take a number of years to put in 10,000 hours of practice at a discipline, say you took 3 hours a day practicing, every day, you would have done 1095 hours in a year, it would take over 9 years to put in 10,000 hours (even 5 hours a day, every day would still take 5.5 years to reach the 10,000 mark)

When you think of it that way, its not unreasonable to say that if someone spent 5 hours a day for 5-6 years practicing golf that they could reach a level to turn pro.

Although it is a good point that starting at the age of 30 would probably put you at a disadvantage from a physical perspective.

f22

It depends how you define talent, muscle type, hand eye coordination are two simple examples of the raw ingredients you are born with that can determine ones ability to excel at a particular sport.

The 10,000 hour thing suggests every individual starts off on a level playing field, and with the the right motivation, training and hard work they will succeed, I think not!

Ask any decent golf coach for their opinion on the subject and see what they have to say.

Redzah

k.p.h wrote: »

BOOM ...!! Fail .. you have shown a complete lack of understanding on what talent actually is and how it works. It's OK when you talk about these guys at the top of their game, sure they have some predisposition that makes them better than other players but it only accounts for a small portion of their ability(Basically what sets them apart from other top players).I live with a guy studying psychology who has a big interest in neuroscience, both of us being big sports fans we have researched this a good bit.

So K.P.H. I play all the top amateur events (although my handicap has drifted out to 2 now from scratch), I play a max of 30 rounds of golf a year and often go 3 months during the winter without swinging a club. I have only ever had one lesson and i began playing when i was 13, i know plenty of people of put in more work than me and play off of 15/16 and who started at the same age. I believe i am of the same intelligence and athletic ability of these people. Please outline what separates me from them??? The simple answer is I have more talent for the game.

Sure, a certain part cognitive ability is natural and that's all it really is when it comes down to it. Intelligence. But then you have to ask yourself do all Kilkenny people have a predisposition to playing hurling, how about spanish footballers ..? How about the fact that Mickelson started playing golf before he started school and and Daly was hitting a 4 iron at the age of 4. How come all the best players in almost every sport are the one's who have been playing the longest and are the one's who practice the hardest and have the best coaches.

Greg Norman began golf at 16 and was a scratch handicap within 1 year, no level of practice for 1 year can explain this and this completely disproves your silly 10,000 hour theory. The answer is he had an extremely high level of talent for the game which enabled him to complete this amazing feat. Do I think he practiced a lot during this year? Of course. Do I think it is repeatable for anybody who has the same physique, intelligence and mirrors normans practice methods? not a chance!

Your dead right, thanks for contracticting yourself i thought i boomed and failed, but for a person of average intelligence and average athletic ability hard work in the form of proper practice with proper coaching combined with experience and a bit of self belief will take them most of the way. Not a chance will it take them most of the way, it will take them to the limit of their ability which could be a 15 handicap. The human brain has the ability to learn and it dose it extremely efficiently.

Talent is so far away from the thing that separates amateur players handicaps. Have to disagree here, I'd be interested to see if gorfield off a +2 or +3 handicap is insulted by this, all he must do is practice a lot as ur theory says talent is not what has got him to international amateur level, just hard work apparently. If you were to turn up at any of the top Irish amateur events and ask any of the players how long they have been playing and how much they practice do they have a coach.And then go and ask your weekend 18 handicapper the same questions you will find the difference in answers relates directly to the difference in the amount of shots each takes to go around a golf course. Already answered this one above, so now that you're asking one of the players (aka me) i'm telling u i don't practice much, play less than the average club golfer and don't have a coach.

I'm not debating whether of not some people are more naturally inclined to pick up the game of golf quicker or in general be a better player, but to say talent is the decisive factor is pure tripe... Think i've addressed from all of the above.

The word talent is derived from the Greek for "divine gift". Which in itself is wrong on a few levels. But a divine gift for playing golf ... My hole ..

Why does the word talent exist, why is this definition wrong on a few levels? What about ur hole?

You should probably do a bit of research before you make your next broad sweeping comment, have a look here

My reseach has come in the form of playing the game at a high level for years and by analysing other players/colleagues careers over the years both amateurs and pro's of all levels. You're research seems to be from phychology books and pub banter with your roomie who has a keen interest in neuroscience. I'll let you be the judge who is best placed to comment on this issue

link_2007

Well if your writing is bolded then you must be correct.

Redzah

f22 wrote: »

It depends how you define talent, muscle type, hand eye coordination are two simple examples of the raw ingredients you are born with that can determine ones ability to excel at a particular sport.

The 10,000 hour thing suggests every individual starts off on a level playing field, and with the the right motivation, training and hard work they will succeed, I think not!

Ask any decent golf coach for their opinion on the subject and see what they have to say.

Totally agree on all of the above, K.P.H. might be another boards user in disguise who thinks that spending hours on the range in the midlands is all it takes to be a good golfer, this is only 1 ingredient. Apparently the key to being good a golf has expanded now from just hard work and practice to hard work, practice and a good phsychology book.

Redzah

link_2007 wrote: »

Well if your writing is bolded then you must be correct.

Just easier to address his points that way link2007, it was not any form of statement, just makes it easier to read which is his writing and which is mine when addressing his points in this form. Any ideas for an easier method of doing this will be gratefully received? bear in mind my IT skills are average at best.

alxmorgan

I'm with kph on this stuff - I find this you have to have the talent thing to succeed a bit simplistic.

For example Beethoven (or maybe it was Mozart I can't remember) wrote classical pieces regularly in his teens which are considered at best average. The more he worked the better he got. So if he was just naturally talented then why did it not show for so long (perhaps about 10,000 hours worth )

As for being a golf pro starting at 30 - I do think even if 10,000 hours works a lot of these hours would need to be when you are very young as otherwise a lot of things are deeply ingrained in you and difficult to change.
We all know that children are sponges when it comes to knowledge so I'm fairly sure this makes a difference when learning a swing in golf (or tennis or football or whatever)

Ask any decent golf coach for their opinion on the subject and see what they have to say.

Yes but again the coach may see most people once they are developed physically, mentally etc

The only way to prove this would be to have the coach take a bunch of similar toddlers and work the same way with them for years
And even this might not work as people have different natural learning styles

alxmorgan

Redzah wrote: »

Just easier to address his points that way link2007, it was not any form of statement, just makes it easier to read which is his writing and which is mine when addressing his points in this form. Any ideas for an easier method of doing this will be gratefully received? bear in mind my IT skills are average at best.

If you work at them I am sure they will get better

death1234567

spacecoyote wrote: »

When you think of it that way, its not unreasonable to say that if someone spent 5 hours a day for 5-6 years practicing golf that they could reach a level to turn pro.

Yes it is unreasonable. There are lots and lots of golfers that have been playing the game since they were little, have a natural talent for the game, and have put in way more than 10,000 hours practice and still aren't good enough to turn pro.

This Dan fella sounds like someone who's deluded and/or has an alterior motive (e.g. write a book about his attempt)

Redzah

alxmorgan wrote: »

I'm with kph on this stuff - I find this you have to have the talent thing to succeed a bit simplistic.

For example Beethoven (or maybe it was Mozart I can't remember) wrote classical pieces regularly in his teens which are considered at best average. The more he worked the better he got. So if he was just naturally talented then why did it not show for so long (perhaps about 10,000 hours worth )

As for being a golf pro starting at 30 - I do think even if 10,000 hours works a lot of these hours would need to be when you are very young as otherwise a lot of things are deeply ingrained in you and difficult to change.
We all know that children are sponges when it comes to knowledge so I'm fairly sure this makes a difference when learning a swing in golf (or tennis or football or whatever)



Yes but again the coach may see most people once they are developed physically, mentally etc

The only way to prove this would be to have the coach take a bunch of similar toddlers and work the same way with them for years
And even this might not work as people have different natural learning styles

I can't help but note the caveat here. Different learning styles aka TALENT.

Also on the Beethoven/Mozart thing. Do musicians not write different pieces based on maturing as individuals, kind of like when a mainstream singer/artist writes more meaningful and deeper work later in their life, is this not basic human development as opposed to shear practice?? i.e. their work changed but the talent was still there, it was not only from pure practice but how their personality developed is a big part of this as music is an expression of an individuals feelings

f22

KPH, by your own admission you play quite a bit of golf, put in hours on the range, read up on a bit of the psychology side of the game and study a bit on the likes of youtube. As far as I recall your handicap is in the high teens, nothing wrong with that at all.

How is it with less golf and practice that many others can play the game to a much higher standard? Is it the 10,000 hour factor, or is it that they are far more talented at the game?

Redzah

f22 wrote: »

KPH, by your own admission you play quite a bit of golf, put in hours on the range, read up on a bit of the psychology side of the game and study a bit on the likes of youtube. As far as I recall your handicap is in the high teens, nothing wrong with that at all.

How is it with less golf and practice that many others can play the game to a much higher standard? Is it the 10,000 hour factor, or is it that they are far more talented at the game?

Ouch

f22

Redzah wrote: »

Ouch

That's not meant as a personal stab at all, I'm simply using it as a real world example. I have no problem removing it if it causes offence.

Redzah

f22 wrote: »

That's not meant as a personal stab at all, I'm simply using it as a real world example. I have no problem removing it if it causes offence.

Nah, i was only joking f22, does sound like k.p.h, thinks guys are better than him at golf because they practice their arse off, which based on what u have said could not be further from the truth.

GreeBo

Redzah wrote: »

My reseach has come in the form of playing the game at a high level for years and by analysing other players/colleagues careers over the years both amateurs and pro's of all levels. You're research seems to be from phychology books and pub banter with your roomie who has a keen interest in neuroscience. I'll let you be the judge who is best placed to comment on this issue

The 10,000 hour idea is not just some random thing that kph came up with, its a pretty well thought of international theory.

Redzah

GreeBo wrote: »

The 10,000 hour idea is not just some random thing that kph came up with, its a pretty well thought of international theory.

That has been completely disproved when citing Greg Norman as an example

f22

GreeBo wrote: »

The 10,000 hour idea is not just some random thing that kph came up with, its a pretty well thought of international theory.

I can buy into the idea for certain areas but there's certain elements to our makeup that can't be manufactured, creativity being a prime example. Take Jonathon Ive as an example, the guy who helped reshape Apple with the design of the iMac and everything with an "i" after it.

What sets him apart from everyone else educated in industrial design at Northumbria university with him, what sets him apart as one one of the most influential designers of our generation? His creative talent, something he was born with!

Redzah

f22 wrote: »

I can buy into the idea for certain areas but there's certain elements to our makeup that can't be manufactured, creativity being a prime example. Take Jonathon Ive as an example, the guy who helped reshape Apple with the design of the iMac and everything with an "i" after it.

What sets him apart from everyone else educated in industrial design at Northumbria university with him, what sets him apart as one one of the most influential designers of our generation? His creative talent, something he was born with!

Agreed f22

It seems to me that the 10,000 hour theory is an idea that has strong support by those who may be average to poor at a given sport and begrudge those who are better than them by adopting the following stance;

'he's only better than me because he practices more, if i did that too i'd be great, if i had the time for this..... blah blah blah', what a load of nonsense.

Talent is being completely underestimated on this thread. The best golfer in my former club is in his 50's, has won over 50 scratch cups (most of them while nursing a hangover), has a beer belly and does not practice or get lessons. He continues to win 95% of his senior cup matches and regularly beats internationals (but does not enter west, east, north and close anymore). The only explanation for this is he is supremely talented.

Benny Cake

I reckon the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. With 10,000 hours practise, an individual will in all likelihood be "the best they can be" at a given sport.

However, what varies is the "best they can be" part. For some people it's a 12 handicap, for others its the number 1 golfer in the world. This is the natural talent side of the equation.

f22

Another interesting example used was that of Kilkenny hurlers, do Kilkenny people have a predisposition for the game? My own grandfather won 4 all Ireland medals with Kilkenny, I was a decent hurler myself as a nipper, even while growing up in Dublin and not being surrounded by the hunger and talent prevalent in most parishes of Kilkenny.

Do all Kilkenny people have a predefined disposition, no, but if you look down the years how many generations and extended family members have worn the black and amber jersey? hell of alot. That natural talent has been bred and passed down through generations. Anyone can pick up a hurl and learn to play the game but few ever have a chance to wear that jersey.

alxmorgan

Redzah wrote: »

I can't help but note the caveat here. Different learning styles aka TALENT.

Also on the Beethoven/Mozart thing. Do musicians not write different pieces based on maturing as individuals, kind of like when a mainstream singer/artist writes more meaningful and deeper work later in their life, is this not basic human development as opposed to shear practice?? i.e. their work changed but the talent was still there, it was not only from pure practice but how their personality developed is a big part of this as music is an expression of an individuals feelings

A different learning style has nothing to do with talent. I'm not saying fast v slow - for example being an introvert v's an extrovert (Myers-Briggs definition not common definition) has a huge impact on how you learn. Not better or worse - just different

Talent is being completely underestimated on this thread. The best golfer in my former club is in his 50's, has won over 50 scratch cups (most of them while nursing a hangover), has a beer belly and does not practice or get lessons. He continues to win 95% of his senior cup matches and regularly beats internationals (but does not enter west, east, north and close anymore). The only explanation for this is he is supremely talented.

Or that he put in the time to get as good as he is and now his attitude (being hungover may help in reducing anxiety )...level of comfort with his own game and limits and excellent course management keep him at sufficient level to win ?

Do all Kilkenny people have a predefined disposition, no, but if you look down the years how many generations and extended family members have worn the black and amber jersey? hell of alot. That natural talent has been bred and passed down through generations. Anyone can pick up a hurl and learn to play the game but few ever have a chance to wear that jersey.

I would have thought living and breathing hurling, learning from excellent teachers (note the 10,000 hours theory is very strong on the right kind of practice) and playing hurling morning till night since before you could walk like most of them do is more likely to support the 10,000 hours theory

f22

alxmorgan wrote: »

I would have thought living and breathing hurling, learning from excellent teachers (note the 10,000 hours theory is very strong on the right kind of practice) and playing hurling morning till night since before you could walk like most of them do is more likely to support the 10,000 hours theory

So what makes that final 15 and the extended panel stand out from the rest of the hopefuls then? Is it luck, or is it a natural gift of speed, agility and mental and creative skill combined with the coaching you've so rightly mentioned.

irish bloke

Pacly wrote: »

How can someone be born with talent? I dont see how anyone is born with being naturally gifted at golf.

Are you sure??????????

A study was completed on the genetic make up of Tiger Woods recently with the following results:D

Redzah

alxmorgan wrote: »

1. A different learning style has nothing to do with talent. I'm not saying fast v slow - for example being an introvert v's an extrovert (Myers-Briggs definition not common definition) has a huge impact on how you learn. Not better or worse - just different.

2. Or that he put in the time to get as good as he is and now his attitude (being hungover may help in reducing anxiety )...level of comfort with his own game and limits and excellent course management keep him at sufficient level to win ?

3. I would have thought living and breathing hurling, learning from excellent teachers (note the 10,000 hours theory is very strong on the right kind of practice) and playing hurling morning till night since before you could walk like most of them do is more likely to support the 10,000 hours theory

1. Under your theory would learning styles not be thought the same? Furthermore what you seem to be referring to is how the individual absorbs the information and how they process it. This sparks the talent in the individual and hence a more talented individual will reach a different level than a less talented, his/her personality is an element of this talent

2. I know him v well and he said he played a bit but was a wheeler and dealer so not as much as he should and always was out on the piss etc. Gas man actually and one of the most talented i've ever seen. With the right practice and soberness he would have had a great chance but the fact remains that without the talent he had no chance and can only maintain his high level due to an extreme talent.

3. Again, i think practice is important but you are underestimating the talent involved.

irish bloke

f22 wrote: »

So what makes that final 15 and the extended panel stand out from the rest of the hopefuls then? Is it luck, or is it a natural gift of speed, agility and mental and creative skill combined with the coaching you've so rightly mentioned.

I thought the argument was; that with practice (i.e. the 10,000 hours theory) that you could get to a professional top level?? Not that you would be one of the top 50 golfers in the world or one of the top 15 kilkenny hurlers..

I would go along with the theory that provided you are not physically or mentally incapacitated and you start at the right age and have the right coaching, anyone could get to an acceptable professional level in any discipline. obviously there is a difference between the very top sports people.

Redzah

irish bloke wrote: »

I thought the argument was; that with practice (i.e. the 10,000 hours theory) that you could get to a professional top level?? Not that you would be one of the top 50 golfers in the world or one of the top 15 kilkenny hurlers..

I would go along with the theory that provided you are not physically or mentally incapacitated and you start at the right age and have the right coaching, anyone could get to an acceptable professional level in any discipline. obviously there is a difference between the very top sports people.

I presume we're talking about the level Dan the Man is referring to which is a Tour Pro (i.e. not a club pro who can turn pro off of 4 or 5 which would still be difficult for him to achive but a lot more possible).

On this basis of a touring pro i don't think that this is possible unless he has a great talent for the game.

royalcarlowgc

Redzah wrote: »

I presume we're talking about the level Dan the Man is referring to which is a Tour Pro (i.e. not a club pro who can turn pro off of 4 or 5 which would still be difficult for him to achive but a lot more possible).

On this basis of a touring pro i don't think that this is possible unless he has a great talent for the game.

Don't get me started on the playing abilities of 90% of club pros around Ireland.
Hotshots turning pro off 4!, and then when someone asks them what handicap they were when they turned pro... Oh scratch of course!!

I got down to scratch so I love pulling them lads up

k.p.h

Redzah wrote: »

That has been completely disproved when citing Greg Norman as an example

Norman was born in Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia to Merv and Toini Norman. His mother was the daughter of a Finnish carpenter, and his father an electrical engineer.[1] As a youth, he played rugby and cricket and was a keen surfer. His mother was a fine golfer with a single-figure handicap. Norman began playing golf at 16, somewhat late for a world-class player, and within a year was playing to a scratch handicap. Norman attended Townsville Grammar School in Townsville, Queensland (enrolled 1964) then moved on to Aspley State High School on the north side of Brisbane.[2]

His mother was a golfer with a low handicap, he played other sports. All environmental factors that would have aided his progress. If you clicked on the first link I put up here you had a look you would understand a little how these things work.

To be honest this might go over some people heads and like I said it is counter intuitive, but ye are using your personal opinion not to debunk me but actually years a substantial research from people highly respected in their fields.

I personally don't mind what anyone thinks, but the first post I replied to implied that there is a glass ceiling, a level someone can get to and can't go any further because of talent constraints. It implied that someone was born with skills and could not learn and improve. That's not true, if you practice properly and address you weaknesses you will improve no questions asked. Of course some people will have been conditioned to learn faster than you and make better decisions and in turn play better than you, but these predispositions are like I said not static and can be changed too.

Innate talent dose not exist and never has. There is no magic involved, sure there are external factors but they are all within someone’s control. In life as in golf people need to forget about this type of thing, it just holds people back and is used as a cop out constantly.

BigChap1759

I'm surprised that people honestly think that you can get to pro level just by practise/coaching -absolute nonsense if you ask me and devalues the skill that top players have:rolleyes:

k.p.h

BigChap1759 wrote: »

I'm surprised that people honestly think that you can get to pro level just by practise/coaching -absolute nonsense if you ask me and devalues the skill that top players have:rolleyes:

I'm not saying that or anywhere near that by the way, and I actually don't think anyone else in thread said that.?

BigChap1759

"Your dead right, but for a person of average intelligence and average athletic ability hard work in the form of proper practice with proper coaching combined with experience and a bit of self belief will take them most of the way"

Thought this was what you were saying in the above?

Kid Charlemagne

Innate talent dose not exist and never has.

Colm Cooper, Lionel Messi, Seve Ballesteros, Henry Shefflin, Phil Taylor, Roger Federer, Usain Bolt.....

LostPassword

k.p.h wrote: »

Innate talent dose not exist and never has. There is no magic involved, sure there are external factors but they are all within someone’s control. In life as in golf people need to forget about this type of thing, it just holds people back and is used as a cop out constantly.

You're going way overboard here I'm afraid and mis-representing the 10,000 hours thing quite a bit. People can be, very obviously in many cases, genetically predisposed to certain activities - it is easy to find people who will never be world class mathematicians, computer scientists, sprinters, long-jumpers or basket-ball players, no matter how many hours they put in. And there is no reason to believe that golf is any different. What the research shows is not that such activities are entirely dependant on nurture and not at all on nature, but that genetics or talent or whatever you want to call it does not distinguish who is going to succeed, but just identifies a large and broad cohort who could succeed and within that, talent is more or less irrelevant, practice is what determines ability.

So, for example, if you took the top 5% of people in terms of innate mathematical (or any other) ability, although some may be naturally better than others, this is totally irrelevant compared to application when it comes to how expert they end up being.

alxmorgan

In Talent is Overrated the author tells the story of a Czech man who performed a really out there test case.
He adveristed for a wife and brought up 3 daughters with the aim of making them chessmasters.
His wife had never played the game and he had only played occasionally.
He implemented the deliberate pratice regime and the 10,000 theory and all 3 became grand masters and at least one a world champion.

What are the odds of them just having the talent by chance ?

You know something I may be wrong but I hope I'm not - seems dispiritingly limiting. Too late for me anyway. I'm even older than Dan

alxmorgan

Kid Charlemagne wrote: »

Innate talent dose not exist and never has.

Colm Cooper, Lionel Messi, Seve Ballesteros, Henry Shefflin, Phil Taylor, Roger Federer, Usain Bolt.....

So the fact that Seve spent endless hours chipping and playing flop shots with a 3 iron had nothing to do with it ?