10 Thousand hours....

[NewStart14]

2 hours everyday for 13 1/2 years is all.......... 10,000 hours.

In golf I think it's better to look at repititions.......... it takes 60 reps a day for 21 days of the month to ingrain a swing change. It takes 3 months of these reps to own it!! (I believe that's a slicefixer saying).

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='ChrizZ' timestamp='1401976178' post='9434991']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1401975179' post='9434893']
[quote name='ChrizZ' timestamp='1401974042' post='9434781']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1401973805' post='9434763']
[quote name='ChrizZ' timestamp='1401973362' post='9434739']
Gladwell said that elite performers [b]average[/b] 10000 hours. What the study actually showed that there were some elite performers who achieved world class level with less than 2000 hours of practice and there were elite performers who achieved mastery with over 30000 hours of practice.

[b]If it was as easy as putting in 10000 hours everyone would be doing it.[/b]
[/quote]


No. Because putting in 10000 hours of actual practice in one subject is incredibly difficult. Average person doesn't even sniff 1/10th the motivation to do that.
[/quote]
There are thousands of mini tour players and good college golfers all over the world that have been practicing golf since they were 5 years old. 99% of them will never make it to the big show.
[/quote]

I mean I'd say that mini tour players have a pretty good mastery of their game. [b]No one said that 10000 hours equals peak performance at whatever discipline you compete in.[/b] Golf has a ton of parity. A mini tour player is definitely elite. They will beat 99/100 club golfers except at places like Medalist.
[/quote]
Gladwell initially did, but he has since backpedalled.

I see what you´re saying though although there is still a big gap between your average mini tour player and your average PGA tour player.
[/quote]

Yes but that's like the gap between the average D1 college bball player and Brian Scalabrine. The d1 player is still elite in my opinion.

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1401898061' post='9429061']
In the book Outliers, author Malcolm Gladwell says that it takes roughly ten thousand hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field.

Do you believe that and or do you feel it applies to golf ?

More importantly, how many "quality" hours do you think you have in so far ?
[/quote]

10K hours is a kind of trendy number. You see it elsewhere in marketing devices like [i]"10,000 steps a day to a healthier you! Buy our step-counters now at Dick's Sporting Goods..." [/i]That kind of thing. Human learning does not fall conveniently into timelines or pre-fab formulas. The way this 10,000 hours thing makes sense is that people don't really work hard enough at most things to do them to a high level as it is. Most jobs only require a certain amount of mediocity in terms of performance ability to sustain employment (the old saying is 50% of doctors graduated in the lower half of their classes...again, if you go for such anecdotes). For some, that number of hours essentially equates to, "Make a more concerted effort to improve over time" and (whaddayaknow) people see improvement, and this comes as some kind of miracle to them when really, the only thing missing, is that U.S. society has forgotten what personal initiative and dedication means.

The trouble with setting number goals is that the numbers run out over time. People like athletes, professional musicians, artists, and other high-output individuals devote a serious amount of time to coordinated/tactile/athletic activities not to just reach some number. They do it because their skin crawls if they don't get practice time or competition. 10,000 hours is baby steps to those kind of people.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1401980671' post='9435559']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1401898061' post='9429061']
In the book Outliers, author Malcolm Gladwell says that it takes roughly ten thousand hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field.

Do you believe that and or do you feel it applies to golf ?

More importantly, how many "quality" hours do you think you have in so far ?
[/quote]

10K hours is a kind of trendy number. You see it elsewhere in marketing devices like [i]"10,000 steps a day to a healthier you! Buy our step-counters now at Dick's Sporting Goods..." [/i]That kind of thing. Human learning does not fall conveniently into timelines or pre-fab formulas. The way this 10,000 hours thing makes sense is that people don't really work hard enough at most things to do them to a high level as it is. Most jobs only require a certain amount of mediocity in terms of performance ability to sustain employment (the old saying is 50% of doctors graduated in the lower half of their classes...again, if you go for such anecdotes). For some, that number of hours essentially equates to, "Make a more concerted effort to improve over time" and (whaddayaknow) people see improvement, and this comes as some kind of miracle to them when really, the only thing missing, is that U.S. society has forgotten what personal initiative and dedication means.

The trouble with setting number goals is that the numbers run out over time. People like athletes, professional musicians, artists, and other high-output individuals devote a serious amount of time to coordinated/tactile/athletic activities not to just reach some number. They do it because their skin crawls if they don't get practice time or competition. 10,000 hours is baby steps to those kind of people.
[/quote]

Good stuff, MG...

[NewStart14]

One can spend 2 hours a day working incorrectly and never improve. One can spend 30 minutes a day working with correct, though not perfected motions, and improve quickly.

It's kinda like some of the slicefixer students who show 0 improvement after a year. They are NOT practicing the right moves. They practice, the just aren't practicing correct movements.

This is exactly why I finally decided to go see my local pro at his indoor studio. I feel like I have wasted 4 weeks getting back into this game. You can groove an incorrect swing if you hit enough balls. But take a two day break, and you have to regroove again........and again........and again.

[dirthead]

I'm not really sure whether 10,000 hours is a valid number or not. I think it depends on the person's individual talent and the quality of the time spent practicing. Someone that starts with a good coach/instructor would probably make headway much faster than someone trying to figure out the game on their own.

Nick Faldo started playing golf at age 13. At 17 he won a couple of top level amateur tournaments. At 18 he turned pro. So from never playing to turning pro in 5 years. He was probably much less than 10,000 hours, but his natural talent is obvious. Much less time for him than the norm.

RRFireblade,

I would love to hear the story of your golfing life, if you wouldn't mind sharing. You've made reference to touring and playing at a pro level, but I would really be interested in hearing some of the details and experiences you have had. You are at a level that most of us only dream about, and you have had experiences that a lot of us would find very interested.

[MadGolfer76]

Talent = rate of assimilation based on physical and mental capacity (and financial access, believe it or not). All things being equal, we characterize those with faster assimilation rates as having "talent." The funny thing is that those *initial* rates of assimilation slow down as we reach maturity. This means that those who were slower in terms of initial development can often catch up to those who learned fast early on, so long as the effort and perseverance is there.

[RRFireblade]

[quote name='dirthead' timestamp='1401984112' post='9435973']
RRFireblade,

I would love to hear the story of your golfing life, if you wouldn't mind sharing. You've made reference to touring and playing at a pro level, but I would really be interested in hearing some of the details and experiences you have had. You are at a level that most of us only dream about, and you have had experiences that a lot of us would find very interested.
[/quote]

Nice of you to say, might take a book though. It's not all glamourous I assure you, over all I made it well enough to be where I am right now in life but there are things I did to get here I'm not all that proud of also.

[dirthead]

[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1401998645' post='9437655']
[quote name='dirthead' timestamp='1401984112' post='9435973']
RRFireblade,

I would love to hear the story of your golfing life, if you wouldn't mind sharing. You've made reference to touring and playing at a pro level, but I would really be interested in hearing some of the details and experiences you have had. You are at a level that most of us only dream about, and you have had experiences that a lot of us would find very interested.
[/quote]

Nice of you to say, might take a book though. It's not all glamourous I assure you, over all I made it well enough to be where I am right now in life but there are things I did to get here I'm not all that proud of also.
[/quote]

Thanks for the reply. We see the glamorous side of it every weekend on tv. It's the other side of the story that I would find more interesting. I wasn't good enough coming out of college to even try, but I have played with pro level players over the years, so I have "seen" what kind of talent and dedication it takes to be there. Hearing a first hand account of what a person went through to get there, stay there, then transition on to something else would be fascinating to me. If you ever feel like sharing your story, please do. I'm sure more of us than just me would be very interested in hearing it.

[Reasonability]

I have measured this for golf and have the definitive answer:

My game is mastered -- pure and perfect in every way. And it took me EXACTLY 3 hours to the minute. (plus the rest of my life facing the fact I ain't that good).

[LittleLeftToRight]

I think the 10000 hour thing doesn't translate to sports. If someone put 10000 hours into learning Physics for example, he would be a physicist. Or a lawyer, or a doctor etc.

For sports, I think it is wishful thinking to say if you put 10000 hours in you will be a master. To me, that is like saying if you jump 10000 times you will reach the moon. The only thing that is constant is potential. If someone has the potential to be a master, they may achieve it only if they put the work in. If they don't have the potential, it won't ever happen even if they spend 100000000 hours doing it.

I think that people who have no potential glom on to this 10000 hour hypothesis to give themselves hope.

[hbear]

The same potential can be said for non-sports as well. People have limits and upper bounds for that as well. Some people just don't have what it takes to become a masterful entrepreneur, doctor, professor, etc. There are intellectual limits as well.

[RBImGuy]

you need superior strategy also as the difference in practice will show if you do progress during the session and its measureable also as to many spend to much time practicing but not actually improving. if its not mesureable your likely wasting time.

[tembolo1284]

[quote name='Reasonability' timestamp='1402009737' post='9438715']
I have measured this for golf and have the definitive answer:

My game is mastered -- pure and perfect in every way. And it took me EXACTLY 3 hours to the minute. (plus the rest of my life facing the fact I ain't that good).
[/quote]

Please give me the name of your LSD dealer.

[stryper]

I don't think 10k hours guarantees mastery in any endeavor. But I do think that anyone that has achieved mastery (or more likely, advanced proficiency) in anything has pretty much accumulated that sort of total along the way. The ones who haven't-- who have started late, for example, and somehow made it--are the outliers among outliers.

[MadGolfer76]

Most people who are recognized as "masters"...of anything...are usually the first ones to say just how far they still have to go.

[Conrad1953]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1402093284' post='9445247']
Most people who are recognized as "masters"...of anything...are usually the first ones to say just how far they still have to go.
[/quote]

Well said.

[RBImGuy]

[quote name='stryper' timestamp='1402092137' post='9445149']
I don't think 10k hours guarantees mastery in any endeavor. But I do think that anyone that has achieved mastery (or more likely, advanced proficiency) in anything has pretty much accumulated that sort of total along the way. The ones who haven't-- who have started late, for example, and somehow made it--are the outliers among outliers.
[/quote]

I disagree.
Talent is overated as a requisite for performance.
You can start late and be as good as the best in the field.
Naturally you need superior strategies to do so along the way.

Allen Doyle is such example. Beating a young Tiger (16) with 17 shots due to knowing how to play the game.
https://www.sunnehanna.com/index.php/history

[Hoganstriker]

Greg Norman 27 to scratch 18 months aged 15.
I just don't understand anyone who does not include the idea of talent. You have to assume they have not payed attention during their life or simply have not been around high level sport enough. It's a very booksmart concept this silly idea of x time in equals a level of mastery.
Seen talent and been around it my whole life. There's always another level when it comes to sport. 10k is just another idea to try to sell to make money.

[stryper]

[quote name='RBImGuy' timestamp='1402142707' post='9447921']
[quote name='stryper' timestamp='1402092137' post='9445149']
I don't think 10k hours guarantees mastery in any endeavor. But I do think that anyone that has achieved mastery (or more likely, advanced proficiency) in anything has pretty much accumulated that sort of total along the way. The ones who haven't-- who have started late, for example, and somehow made it--are the outliers among outliers.
[/quote]

I disagree.
Talent is overated as a requisite for performance.
You can start late and be as good as the best in the field.
Naturally you need superior strategies to do so along the way.

Allen Doyle is such example. Beating a young Tiger (16) with 17 shots due to knowing how to play the game.
https://www.sunnehanna.com/index.php/history
[/quote]

Allen Doyle, Greg Norman and....???

Of course there are a few others, but again, they are the outliers among outliers. There are thousands more who log the hours for every one that doesn't. Do you disagree with that?

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1402168129' post='9449353']
Greg Norman 27 to scratch 18 months aged 15.
I just don't understand anyone who does not include the idea of talent. You have to assume they have not payed attention during their life or simply have not been around high level sport enough. It's a very booksmart concept this silly idea of x time in equals a level of mastery.
Seen talent and been around it my whole life. There's always another level when it comes to sport. 10k is just another idea to try to sell to make money.
[/quote]

Dude here's what you don't get. No one is saying talent isn't important. The whole thing, it's pretty much impossible to define whatever that is and just because you dont have talent doesn't mean you can't achieve at a high level. Literately no one has said that starting conditions don't matter. It's just that, there's no point considering them. If you want to be good at something, you might as well work as hard as you can, regardless of how initially good you are. You're creating a straw-man to attack that no one is saying.

You know what really high level athletes have in common? They generally work very hard. Sure they might have great genetics, which is still not proven from a scientific stand-point, nor is it even close to fully understood, but the overwhelming majority work hard. And guess what? We can't control the genetics part, so why even worry about it? All you want to do is make excuses for people to sit on their couch all day. Get up and practice, you will improve.

[Hoganstriker]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1402258630' post='9454671']
[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1402168129' post='9449353']
Greg Norman 27 to scratch 18 months aged 15.
I just don't understand anyone who does not include the idea of talent. You have to assume they have not payed attention during their life or simply have not been around high level sport enough. It's a very booksmart concept this silly idea of x time in equals a level of mastery.
Seen talent and been around it my whole life. There's always another level when it comes to sport. 10k is just another idea to try to sell to make money.
[/quote]

Dude here's what you don't get. No one is saying talent isn't important. The whole thing, it's pretty much impossible to define whatever that is and just because you dont have talent doesn't mean you can't achieve at a high level. Literately no one has said that starting conditions don't matter. It's just that, there's no point considering them. If you want to be good at something, you might as well work as hard as you can, regardless of how initially good you are. You're creating a straw-man to attack that no one is saying.

You know what really high level athletes have in common? They generally work very hard. Sure they might have great genetics, which is still not proven from a scientific stand-point, nor is it even close to fully understood, but the overwhelming majority work hard. And guess what? We can't control the genetics part, so why even worry about it? All you want to do is make excuses for people to sit on their couch all day. Get up and practice, you will improve.
[/quote]

I think maybe I have made my opinion clear on this issue. Perhaps it would be more productive to look at RBs point on strategies for improvement. Poor mechanical based strategy doesn't build skill as fast as other ways. Rb makes a good point regarding strategy and intention.
I have a theory that for some golfers the very first time they use a club whether by instruction or natural luck they do a couple things fundamentally well that are important. For these folks since those fundamental aspects are in some sense innate or automatic they improve as long as their instruction if any doesn't muck things up. For others the first moves they make naturally are fundamentally counter to good golf. These folks struggle much harder and fight for every inch they get always.
Now if we combine someone who is athletically gifted and has certain fundamental aspects come naturally and loves golf and works hard you get a Greg Norman type.
Many pros say things like golf came easily for them and they went scratch in short order at a young age.
I don't want to continue to point out the obvious regarding talent.
It might be interesting though to discuss the best strategy to improve though. I for one am not of the opinion that working out or stressing on mechanical details is the best way to go.
I would say changes in intention and understanding can be quite revolutionary. I know RB wants to talk about this.
What's the best master plan RB?

[ctmason_98]

[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1402168129' post='9449353']
Greg Norman 27 to scratch 18 months aged 15.
I just don't understand anyone who does not include the idea of talent. You have to assume they have not payed attention during their life or simply have not been around high level sport enough. It's a very booksmart concept this silly idea of x time in equals a level of mastery.
Seen talent and been around it my whole life. There's always another level when it comes to sport. 10k is just another idea to try to sell to make money.
[/quote]

Here's my only piece on this...and I'll just say it and be prepared to get flamed...because I understand how saying such things upsets such people.

I've heard Greg Norman say in interviews now that he got to be scratch in 18 months and then in another say he was scratch in "under a year."

Point is...Greg Norman said it...and continues to say it. Don't mean he DID it.

[Atrayn]

"Eventually, you will succeed and make the change over to the new swing but biomechanical experts say that it can take up to 2,000 practices before the new swing consistently replaces the old one. This is called the “adaptation period”

[pmcuk]

My field is performing artists, and the average age that a classical musician starts seriously on an instrument is 7yrs. If you look at 4 hours per day over 5 days, or 20 hours a week, that's about 500 hours or 10 years, which means he or she would be a master at the age of 17. That's about right, actually.

I don't know the average age that a top tour golfer starts learning, but I'm imagining that 7yrs isn't too atypical. So the same could apply.

[BenHoganSlam1953]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1401984765' post='9436055']
Talent = rate of assimilation based on physical and mental capacity (and financial access, believe it or not). All things being equal, we characterize those with faster assimilation rates as having "talent." The funny thing is that those *initial* rates of assimilation slow down as we reach maturity. This means that those who were slower in terms of initial development can often catch up to those who learned fast early on, so long as the effort and perseverance is there.
[/quote]

I always thought that we assimilate so quickly when young because we tend to learn by watching and emulating. Once we enter the school system reading becomes our main source of learning and as we get older we learn from watching others less and less. This is in general as exceptions are a plenty in various fields. Also, when we were young we learned by lots and lots of try and error (failure - falling down, scraping our knees often) - as we got older the concern of others laughing or embarrassment starts to take hold on many. In addition as we get older it is harder to accept how little we truly know about anything and take qualified advice at face value instead of always writing it off because we don't want to look stupid. Plus, our society tends to paint the illusion that most successful people are born that way and just seem to appear like magic, when in fact successful individuals often tend to fail over and over - however much it takes - till they succeed.

[Hoganstriker]

[quote name='ctmason_98' timestamp='1402354039' post='9462549']
[quote name='Hoganstriker' timestamp='1402168129' post='9449353']
Greg Norman 27 to scratch 18 months aged 15.
I just don't understand anyone who does not include the idea of talent. You have to assume they have not payed attention during their life or simply have not been around high level sport enough. It's a very booksmart concept this silly idea of x time in equals a level of mastery.
Seen talent and been around it my whole life. There's always another level when it comes to sport. 10k is just another idea to try to sell to make money.
[/quote]

Here's my only piece on this...and I'll just say it and be prepared to get flamed...because I understand how saying such things upsets such people.

I've heard Greg Norman say in interviews now that he got to be scratch in 18 months and then in another say he was scratch in "under a year."

Point is...Greg Norman said it...and continues to say it. Don't mean he DID it.
[/quote]

No worries. Good point. The only point I am making is he did it much faster than some guy with less talent.

[pinhigh27]

You assimilate well when young because your brain is much more plastic then vs when you are an adult. A child is undergoing many critical periods in which relationships form among the nervous system that will have permanent bearing on the person's functioning. This is why if you deprive a child of vision in one eye for a significant amount of time, it will result in complete irreversible blindness of that eye. However if you do the same to an adult, there will be no loss of function. Critical periods. Same thing for speech/hearing and many other pathways.

I still don't understand talking about the talent thing. It's a loss-loss. If you are trying to be really good at something, and ever spend any time thinking about how good your starting conditions are, then you are wasting time.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1402374866' post='9464663']
You assimilate well when young because your brain is much more plastic then vs when you are an adult. A child is undergoing many critical periods in which relationships form among the nervous system that will have permanent bearing on the person's functioning. This is why if you deprive a child of vision in one eye for a significant amount of time, it will result in complete irreversible blindness of that eye. However if you do the same to an adult, there will be no loss of function. Critical periods. Same thing for speech/hearing and many other pathways.

I still don't understand talking about the talent thing. It's a loss-loss. If you are trying to be really good at something, and ever spend any time thinking about how good your starting conditions are, then you are wasting time.
[/quote]

[i]"The middle-aged woman said, 'Start playing the piano at my age??? Do you know how old I'll be before I get any good at it??"[/i]

[i]Her friend said, "The same you'll be if you didn't play the piano."[/i]

If one is simply playing golf for recreation and fun...absolutely. Worrying about talent is a waste of time. Just allow yourself the necessary time for your body to learn the new skills you're asking of it.

But talent considerations are vital if someone is planning on playing competitively. Especially at a high level.

[coachg]

[quote name='stryper' timestamp='1402169997' post='9449483']
[quote name='RBImGuy' timestamp='1402142707' post='9447921']
[quote name='stryper' timestamp='1402092137' post='9445149']
I don't think 10k hours guarantees mastery in any endeavor. But I do think that anyone that has achieved mastery (or more likely, advanced proficiency) in anything has pretty much accumulated that sort of total along the way. The ones who haven't-- who have started late, for example, and somehow made it--are the outliers among outliers.
[/quote]

I disagree.
Talent is overated as a requisite for performance.
You can start late and be as good as the best in the field.
Naturally you need superior strategies to do so along the way.

Allen Doyle is such example. Beating a young Tiger (16) with 17 shots due to knowing how to play the game.
[url="https://www.sunnehanna.com/index.php/history"]https://www.sunnehan...dex.php/history[/url]
[/quote]

Allen Doyle, Greg Norman and....???

Of course there are a few others, but again, they are the outliers among outliers. There are thousands more who log the hours for every one that doesn't. Do you disagree with that?
[/quote]

Black Swan phenomenon...There is always the random few that don't quite fit into the template.