I read this not too long ago. Obviously the author was a pretty good high school golfer who played a ton growing up and had a knack for the game, so it's not quite the same as coming out of nowhere. It was neat to see how much he improved, but I really wish he could have stuck with it for another year or two. I'm not saying he'd have made it through Q-School or anything, but I think he was clearly feeling the pressure when it came time for tournaments and some more experience would have helped him immensely.

Not sure if this counts as spam, but since it's on topic, I'd assume not.

Dan dropped by for an interview on my show Monday morning.

ARTICLE + AUDIO

I think you're very wrong about the "high proportion". A ton of work goes into it and that's why 99% of players will never be scratch. First of all, they don't have the dedication, and 2nd, they don't have the ability. Golf only gets tougher as you start dropping strokes and I'm not sure high HC's realize this. It becomes exponentially harder to improve once you get to a certain point.

A high proportion could probably go from 90 to 80 with the proper amount of work, but from there it's an epic battle to be scratch.

no lessons, played about 10 rounds, went to the range 2-3 times a week, and i shot 93 the first year. i don't know if his coach knows how to turn a novice into a pro but he shoulda went with irons and driver first...

you shot 93 with a wedge and a putter?

Almost everyone has at least played mini-golf before. I'm sure 3 or 4 putting every hole their first time out is realistic. Now imagine somebody who has never swung a club before. This person will likely take 15 shots to get on the green, if they can even hit the ball.

I don't really think shortgame overtakes long game in importance until you're under like a 30 handicap.

Too lazy to look, but IIRC Plimpton also wrote a book about trying golf with the pros, called Bogey Man. Never read it, but did read Paper Lion which is wonderful.

Or maybe we're talking about different books/authors.

I haven't read this. However it appears the guy only played for one year of training. One year even if played 12 hours a day isn't enough. Dans 6 year plan gives him enough time to catch up. Nothing can be accomplished in one year. I still have my doubts about dan being able to afford 6 years after minor savings but if he does hes got a shot.

I know this thread has been dead for almost a year, but thought I'd share that I'm playing with Dan on Wednesday at my club. He's been on his program for almost 2 years, so it will be interesting to see where he is skill-wise at this point. I don't know him or have any part of his program, just got hooked up through a friend. I'm working with my close friend who is attempting to break the world record for most holes played in a day on foot (it's 24 rounds on a 6000 yard course, if you're interested), and he has been dealing with some people who do some marketing for the Dan Plan and knows him fairly well. Dan apparently lives in Atlanta and we are all going to tee it up this week. My friend said Dan has recently started hitting full 6 irons, but I haven't looked at his site to see if he has progressed beyond that. His handicap is apparently 11.4 and he shot 82 & 83 in November, so we'll see how it performs in a couple days.

I'll drop a post after we play if anyone is still interested. The world record however, is going to be a fun story!

Look forward to hearing about the round, Doc.

Just read this thread for the first time today. At the risk of rehashing the debate, here's my thoughts (and a brief history) on the subject:

My Dad was a basketball coach, and I grew up with a ball and a hoop. Spent hours and hours in the gym. Dad would have loved nothing more than for me to be point guard at Ole Miss. I would've loved that, too.

Took up golf at age of 10 yrs. and 10 months of age, and loved it. It didn't take me anytime to realize that my ceiling was much higher in golf than basketball. (There is some HUGE advantage for golfers who began at a young age)

I'd say in my teen years, if you would've taken a random 100 other boys my age and had some kind of competitions (teen Olympics, if you will) I would have fallen between the top 10% - 20% of most every category.
I was a good athlete, but not elite by any stretch of the imagination.
In my small H.S. full of bad teams, I was the MVP in golf, basketball, and tennis.

Now to compare it to Division 1 college golf (where we spent some of the off-season playing other sports- I think if you would've had the same type of Olympic (athletic) competition with 100 other college golfers, I would've fallen in the top 25-40%.

I played many years on the Hooters Tour, and from time to time had the opportunity to play basketball, tennis, ping pong, pool, and other activities with these guys.

My athletic talents would've been very close to the median of these guys. Close to half of these guys were faster, stronger, more co-ordinated, or talented than me.

I'm sure at an even higher level I would fall further still.

All this to say that although I believe that golf, more than any other sport, allows one to get out of the sport what they put into it,
that a certain level of athletic ability is unquestionably an asset.

One other data point-
If you listed 100 things that it took to be a great golfer (from discipline to mental awareness to hard work, putting, length, short-game, yada yada),
I think that on the Hooters Tour I would have fallen in the top 20%, on the PGA Tour I felt I was in the bottom 20%.

paper tiger is coyne. a take-off on paper lion which i hadn't realized until i read your post. gonna start on all plimpton's books. thing is he was very athletic and had no chance on the most simple stuff at elite level.

locals i know of have shot 59 twice and 61 (course record) recently and these guys barely play competitively any more. people vastly underestaimate how goodmtop guys are

So if someone starts in their late 20s or early 30s, what skill level can they get to? You said starting at an early age was a huge factor. In modern times no pga tour player or nationwide tour player has started in their 20s (YE Yang is closest example starting at age 19).. and I think YE Yang is probably the last person getting on the tour starting that late given the trend of golf being breed into kids at a super young age. Does this mean you are true freak of nature if you can start in your late 20s/early 30s and get past +2?

What level do you see Dan getting to? My concern for Dan is from watching the videos where he is getting coached I dont think Chris Smith is doing that great of a job, so I think unless Dan switches coaches to someone really smart, I dont think he makes it past a 3 handicap.

I think if you start in late 20's, and get better than +2, you are either a freak of nature, have devoted a very large amount of quality time to improving, or maybe both.

I know nothing of Dan and his journey other than what I've read in this thread, but I would be surprised if gets to a 3. The method he's taking seams very quirky and ineffective. I agree with you that he'd benefit from a new teacher/approach.

If he's been at it for 20 months and is only an 11.4 playing with 6 iron and shorter I don't think he will get near his goal. I would imagine that he's put in 3000-5000 hours into the short game and short iron game and that is just not enough progress. I bet there are very few players under 35 years old who are like a 4 or better with a full bag that wouldn't be an 11 with a 6i and shorter bag.

I am not as pessimistic as JTrout. I imagine he will be better than scratch and maybe get to +2 or +3 but no where near professional level.

I shouldn't start again, but.....

99% of humans could practice the rest of their lives non-stop and never approach +2 or +3.

BO