How low could you go with 10,000 hrs practise

Hallsy said:
Just read this article. I only wish i could find the time :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26384712
Click to expand...

Yeah I know the theory well and have most of those books on my shelf. I just read Bounce by Mathew Syed which sums up the theories very nicely and in a very readable style.

To answer your question it would be scratch comfortably but most likely a plus figure handicap. The importance of course is in quality practice with feedback which aids learning and improvement.
 
10k hours is 3 1\2 years of practising 8 hours every day....
I doubt anyone can practice golf for that long each day.
So, at 4 hours a day, every day, that's 7 years.....
Looks like he's doing 3-3 1\2 hours a day

So he's at 4.1 and he's halfway through..this is where it starts getting tougher.
And he'll need a serious +handicap to compete on Tour....

It shows dedication.

I can't answer the question because there is no way on Earth I would practice for 3 hours a week, let alone 3 hours. day......
 
Last edited:
I could do that, but..........

It would need to be somewhere with the sun permanently on my back. Nothing worse than 6 layers and frozen toes - ask Lee Westwood

Somewhere where the practise facilities were top drawer. A muddy field with crappy pick ups and no targets is hardly inspiring.

I'd need to be financially comfortable enough not to even consider working. If your mind isn't on your task then its a futile excercise from the outset.

And, I'd need a practise buddy. Loneliness is a killer and would sap enthusiasm
 
I just read this article as well and its a fascinating read. I like computer analogy they used, looks like I need to get off my backside and get a software update this year!
 
This theory is interesting, of course, but a massive simplification. It is loosely based on some work looking at successful people and the amount of time they invested to get there. So far, so good. But there is a huge caveat. it is all retrospective.

It does not look at people starting out and follow them through (i.e. prospectively). If you take a bunch of hopefuls and watch them on their development path, along the way many drop out or realise they weren't going to succeed, and leave only those who were pretty much always going to make it, i.e. those with the necessary amount of natural talent. This is an effect known as the healthy survivor effect, and it turns out that the natural talent is what determines who succeeds more than practice. Even if it is true that successful golfers have invested 10k hours, it does not mean that if you invest 10k hours you will get there too.

in other words, those who got there because they were always going to do so, not because of whatever factor they were being observed for. Any duffer who thinks he can do 10k hours and join the Tour is delusional and certain to be disappointed.
 
one of the examples in the book is of a man who believed in the theory and set out to prove it using his children. He had three daughters and schooled them in the game of chess for 10,000 hours each. All three went on to become chess grand masters.

I think saying this man or anyone similar is delusional is very harsh. For the most part the 10,000 hours would be completed by the ages of 11-15 but this does not mean it is not possible in later life.
 
I guess as with most things practice can only take you so fat there has to be an element of natural ability.

Finding the time, money and patience would be the hardest thing but then if you won the lottery......

Interesting comment about the chess teaching there too
 
Guess it depends on what you are practicing. Practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent. So if you're just practicing you're bad habits you won't improve. With a decent coach overseeing you I reckon you could get very low.
 
Ethan said:
This theory is interesting, of course, but a massive simplification. It is loosely based on some work looking at successful people and the amount of time they invested to get there. So far, so good. But there is a huge caveat. it is all retrospective.

It does not look at people starting out and follow them through (i.e. prospectively). If you take a bunch of hopefuls and watch them on their development path, along the way many drop out or realise they weren't going to succeed, and leave only those who were pretty much always going to make it, i.e. those with the necessary amount of natural talent. This is an effect known as the healthy survivor effect, and it turns out that the natural talent is what determines who succeeds more than practice. Even if it is true that successful golfers have invested 10k hours, it does not mean that if you invest 10k hours you will get there too.

in other words, those who got there because they were always going to do so, not because of whatever factor they were being observed for. Any duffer who thinks he can do 10k hours and join the Tour is delusional and certain to be disappointed.
Click to expand...

The golfer quoted isn't retrospective (neither was the violin research) he set out with the idea of doing 10,000 hrs from the start point of never having played and he's got to 4 handicap halfway through - whether he can get to a plus handicap/pro standard is a different thing though but he's got another four years to do it in.
 
davidy233 said:
The golfer quoted isn't retrospective (neither was the violin research) he set out with the idea of doing 10,000 hrs from the start point of never having played and he's got to 4 handicap halfway through - whether he can get to a plus handicap/pro standard is a different thing though but he's got another four years to do it in.
Click to expand...

But the theory, popularised by Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers, is backed on looking back from success to practice.

I have no doubt that practice (of the right sort) is a key factor - all great players/violinists practice a lot - but in the absence of the necessary measure of natural talent, it is not enough.

4 handicap to Tour pro is still a gargantuan leap.
 
It depends how he is defining the tour pro? If he means mixing it week in week out on the european tour or higher then your going to need the talent on top of the practice imo.

In theory he could do his PGA pro exam thing now and turn pro. I think getting a start in a pro event may be even doable but becoming a pukka tour pro is a long long way from a 4 handicap and a long way from just getting a start in a pro event.
 
Robobum said:
I could do that, but..........

It would need to be somewhere with the sun permanently on my back. Nothing worse than 6 layers and frozen toes - ask Lee Westwood

Somewhere where the practise facilities were top drawer. A muddy field with crappy pick ups and no targets is hardly inspiring.

I'd need to be financially comfortable enough not to even consider working. If your mind isn't on your task then its a futile excercise from the outset.

And, I'd need a practise buddy. Loneliness is a killer and would sap enthusiasm
Click to expand...

Same for me..... PLUS an entire new body, diet/exercise mentor and probably mind coach :angry:
 
Ethan said:
This theory is interesting, of course, but a massive simplification. It is loosely based on some work looking at successful people and the amount of time they invested to get there. So far, so good. But there is a huge caveat. it is all retrospective.

It does not look at people starting out and follow them through (i.e. prospectively). If you take a bunch of hopefuls and watch them on their development path, along the way many drop out or realise they weren't going to succeed, and leave only those who were pretty much always going to make it, i.e. those with the necessary amount of natural talent. This is an effect known as the healthy survivor effect, and it turns out that the natural talent is what determines who succeeds more than practice. Even if it is true that successful golfers have invested 10k hours, it does not mean that if you invest 10k hours you will get there too.

in other words, those who got there because they were always going to do so, not because of whatever factor they were being observed for. Any duffer who thinks he can do 10k hours and join the Tour is delusional and certain to be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Good post, completely agree. :thup: ... although coincidence may be that he might be one of the people that WOULD make it anyway, and he's accidentally stumbled on his niche.
 
I think the time thing is only relevant asuming you are practising efficiently. Most as beginners golfers start doing a full swing based on the subjective opinion of a golfer rather than trying to seek out the scientific facts about e.g. biomechanics.

Doing the full swing first more often than not contains multiple faults which then multiplies more faults THEN start to apply ridiculous amounts of corrections over years. Thats crazy and a waste of time.

There was some golfer who recommened practising the parts of your swing seperately. The method i use starts from green to tee, and while your busy doing simpler short game to establish solid ball contact, you work on the parts of the swing e.g. shoulder turn.

I spent 10 years learning music the traditional way, and in the last while completely changed my learning approach which would have taken 5 years from scratch instead of 10.

Its all about knowing factual information and applying it in the most efficient way.
 
Last edited:
With that much practice myself, as long as it was structured and I was following the advice of a pro I reckon I'd get down to low single figures. But no lower than that as I know I just don't have the mental or natural ability ability to go into plus figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Orikoru
Practise Areas at Clubs
2 3
Replies
58
Views
4K
SwingsitlikeHogan
SwingsitlikeHogan
Tashyboy
Ping G430 v Titliest TSR2
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
Oddsocks
Oddsocks
Orikoru
How much do you spend on practice?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
4K
Neilds
N
N
What Would You Change About the WHS?
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
8K
Deleted member 36483
D
K
How to secure a Motocaddy m5 trolley?
Replies
5
Views
848
Oddsocks
Oddsocks
Top