[George Pazin]

I'm assuming many have seen the article in this month's Golf about the guy testing the "10,000 hours to mastery" theory. I'm just wondering what people think about it.

How accurate would you say it is with regard to design? Can you achieve mastery in 10,000?

I know what my answer is - the theory is a bunch of BS - I'm curious to know what others think.

[Garland Bayley]

No, everyone cannot achieve mastery in design in 10,000 hours.
However, some may.

[Jud_T]

If you practiced for 10,000 hours could you paint as originally as Picasso or Jackson Pollock?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Garland

Confucius say  ‘Man born 550BC can master design overnight’, however ‘Man born 1970-80’s cannot master the unknown’. I presume that loosely translated means the old lost wax process is lost for ever, so no longer are templates true or reflect the original idea or model.

A sort of 'Design concept lost in interpretation'.

Not many Designers seem to like the sayings of Confucius, but then who likes wisemen?

Melvyn

[Neil White]

If you practiced for 10,000 hours could you paint as originally as Picasso or Jackson Pollock?

I reckon with 10,000 hours I could probably do both - only at the same time on the same piece of canvas........... 

[Peter Pallotta]

George: in general, I don't think that fellow is actually testing the theory, or much of anything at all -- except maybe the patience and/or gullibility of the American public.  How presumptuous of him to think that his own limited experience will somehow serve as a window to the truth.  If, in the end, he doesn't achieve mastery after 10,000 hours, it doesn't prove (or disprove) the theory at all -- it only proves that he couldn't achieve mastery.  Someone else might, or might not. (Of course, I don't really think he's concerned about any of that; it's just a hook for a story and a bit of self-promotion, and the Golf writers/editors are happily playing along, not wanting to overestimate the intelligence of their readers, I suppose).

More specifically, in terms of gca, I'm reminded of Ian Andrew's thoughts on the design master vs the design prodigy.  He writes: “The Master is equal to the prodigy in terms of talent; but their route to a successful expression of that talent is much, much longer. They usually begin the journey without clarity, and much of the early work is setting the table for what is to come in the future.  They obtain clarity through exploration.  They learn, work, experiment, seek new ideas, create, assess, refine and so on, often for decades until through determination and inherent ability they find what they are looking for.  The main reason for this drawn out approach is that they seek perfection.”  I quoted Ian in a recent essay, and compared his thoughts about mastery to those of ancient Chinese philosopher Chuang Tzu.  Chuang Tzu tells of a music stand maker/wood worker who achieved mastery through taking all the steps necessary for personal transformation, i.e. to enable him to stand aside and let the work express itself. I described those elements/steps this way: one-pointed concentration of focus and intention; a period of intense inner and outer silence; a profound shift in priorities, from those of the (outer) world to those of the (inner) spirit; a deep humility and a healthy (realistic) ego; and Time.

Can someone learn how to design and build a course in 10,000 hours? Sure, I guess some people can/might (while others not).  Can anyone with so limited and ego-driven a goal and so self-seeking and personal an intention achieve mastery in 10,000 hours? No - certainly not in the sense that Ian and Chuang Tsu use the word; their attitude would be all wrong. But then again, I think there are very very few, in any profession, who have and who honour and who pursue such a goal i.e. mastery any more. The almighty dollar (and the almighty ego/need for recognition and for what passes as a career) wins out almost every time.

Peter

[Jud_T]

I think more accurately, one can learn how to build a golf course in 10,000 hours, but not necessarily how to build a great one...

[JMEvensky]

Peter,as usual,nice response.

There are people born with artistic talent--authors,musicians,painters,and golf course architects.Maybe with 10,000 hours of practice one could learn the skills--but they'd never get the flair or soul of what makes any artistic endeavor worthwhile.

This whole 10,000 hour thing seems like trying to reduce a difficult concept,innate artistic talent,to something quotidian.

Not everything can be taught nor can everything be learned--no matter how many hours one spends trying.

[Tom_Doak]

George:

If you worked on a golf course construction crew for 60 hours a week, year-round, you'd be up to 10,000 hours in 3 1/2 years.  If you were able to convince your bosses to let you see every facet of the job, you might then know enough to go out and design/build a golf course on your own.  But you wouldn't necessarily be great at it, or there would be hundreds and hundreds of great designers by this method already.

I saw the article in question and thought how silly it was.  If a kid with athletic ability started out on the same quest when he was 13 or 16, his chances would be 100x as good of reaching his goal as the guy in the article.  That's probably true for golf course design, as well.

You have to put in 10,000 hours to be great at something ... but that doesn't mean everyone who puts in 10,000 hours will get there.

[Matthew Petersen]

The 10k hours thing really started with Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, but it seems like all anyone remembers is that part of it and none of the rest of his theory.

The point of the 10k hours was only in reference to people who are already outliers in terms of talent. The point was that it takes talent PLUS long, hard work. The book features several people with extraordinary talent who never really did anything interesting with their lives and of course the world is full of people who work incredibly hard, but don't have the talent to make that work really be worth anything.

[Padraig Dooley]

The 10k hours thing really started with Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, but it seems like all anyone remembers is that part of it and none of the rest of his theory.

The point of the 10k hours was only in reference to people who are already outliers in terms of talent. The point was that it takes talent PLUS long, hard work. The book features several people with extraordinary talent who never really did anything interesting with their lives and of course the world is full of people who work incredibly hard, but don't have the talent to make that work really be worth anything.

I think the theory is 10,000 hours of deliberate practice plus at least 10 years. It's not just work but the right type of work as well. A good example would be driving, I'm sure most of us have driven a great deal and would have a big number of miles and hours clocked up but driving to the shop isn't the right type of work/driving required to become a formula one driver.

The right type of work is vital towards the 10,000 hours. Mastery of a subject has to be defined as well. How would you define a master architect? Golfer? One good course could potentially be a fluke, so it would have to be multiple good courses. Would tour level/near tour level golf be mastery i.e. plus 4/5 handicap for a period of years or would it be multiple wins on tour?

I don't believe in talent, haven't seen enough evidence for it. It could be argued there isn't enough evidence against it as well. I believe unless a physical barrier is in your way e.g. height for basketball anything can be achieved with the right type and amount of work.

[Philippe Binette]

Some have work more than 10 000 hours in the business and still don't get it...

You can master a craft in 10 000 hours... but it doesn't give you the artistic sense.

[Mike Nuzzo]

George
Some aspects of golf design are so rare and especially hard to gain those hours.
Who has put in 10,000 hours of routing?
And seen their results.

I did not read the article, but did read the Gladwell book I assume for which it is based.
I will say if you practice 10,000 hours of Brazillian Jiu Jitsu you will be able to disarm 999/1000 people.
You won't be a world champion, but you will be a black belt.
After 1,000 hours my skills are substantially different from my first day - my wrestling experiences did provide a large boost.

[David Harshbarger]

Mike,

Good point about getting feedback on the design.  Jeff Brauer has mentioned many times observing golfers on his courses and how they deal with the course.  Tom Doak has noted how caddies, through observation of countless rounds, have access to a wealth of information about how architectural features act in use. 

In a long form art like architecture, golf or otherwise, how much of the 10,000 hours has to be dedicated to feedback and reflection on same?

Dave

[George Pazin]

This whole 10,000 hour thing seems like trying to reduce a difficult concept,innate artistic talent,to something quotidian.

Not everything can be taught nor can everything be learned--no matter how many hours one spends trying.

This is how I feel as well.

George:

If you worked on a golf course construction crew for 60 hours a week, year-round, you'd be up to 10,000 hours in 3 1/2 years.  If you were able to convince your bosses to let you see every facet of the job, you might then know enough to go out and design/build a golf course on your own.  But you wouldn't necessarily be great at it, or there would be hundreds and hundreds of great designers by this method already.

I saw the article in question and thought how silly it was.  If a kid with athletic ability started out on the same quest when he was 13 or 16, his chances would be 100x as good of reaching his goal as the guy in the article.  That's probably true for golf course design, as well.

You have to put in 10,000 hours to be great at something ... but that doesn't mean everyone who puts in 10,000 hours will get there.

This is the same thinking that popped into my head. I have spent WAY more than 10,000 hours printing t shirts, and while I think we are very good printers, I don't even think we're the best in the Burgh, let alone competitive with any national firms. I still learn new things every day, I'm nowhere close to mastering screenprinting.

Your last line says it all.

[Philippe Binette]

In the 10 000 hours... it has to be 10 000 quality hours... with the right people and guided by a vision.

you could spend 10 000 hours on a construction crew, become really good at something (like doing bunkers) but you need to understand the big picture, the logistics and the concepts that would make a golf course

[Jeff_Brauer]

My dad always liked they saying "Some guys have X years of experience, and others have one year of experience X times over."  Time spend doesn't equate to lessons learned, nor does it equate to talent for the task at hand.  I for instance, could spend 10K hours trying to be a ballerina with 0% chance of success..........

For a normally talented prospect in golf design, with normal apprentice experiences, 10K hours, or about five years would be about right. 

That said, I recall leaving K and N after 7 years, figuring there wasn't much more I could learn from them, but a lot I could learn from being totally responsible for my own mistakes, not the firm I worked for.  I probably learned more in the second seven years of my career than the first, and I do credit K and N for teaching me a lot, and very well.

[Dan Kelly]

I for instance, could spend 10K hours trying to be a ballerina with 0% chance of success..........

I'd pay to see that!

Of course, you -- like this danplan.com guy -- could make a decent income from your jeff-in-tutus.com Website, and from the gimmicky book you could write at the end.

I agree with those who have said: Some things can be learned; others cannot. At least they cannot be *mastered*.

[Mike_Young]

George:If you were able to convince your bosses to let you see every facet of the job, you might then know enough to go out and design/build a golf course on your own. 

What TD says in the one sentence above is the key.  Over the last 30 years there has been a concentrated effort by the golf design "industry" if it can/could ever be called , where clients and students were led to believe that stacks of drawings were needed in order to design a golf course and get it permitted in modern times.  IMHO that was BS.  A good engineer could take a stick routing and get it done for any architect out there.  If you spent many of those 10,000 hours "designing" in a room at a drafting table or computer then I say no way.  IF you were fortunate to work in the field then I think it could be done. 

[Niall C]

You have to put in 10,000 hours to be great at something ... but that doesn't mean everyone who puts in 10,000 hours will get there.

How many hours did MacKenzie put in before he designed Alwoodley I wonder ? If the 10,000 hours figure is correct then perhaps it doesn't all have to be experience directly in the same field. For instance, perhaps time spent trying to spot enemy trenches in the Boer War without getting your head shot off counts just as much. Just a thought.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:

Mr. Colt's forward to Dr. MacKenzie's book indicates that MacKenzie had spent a lot of time thinking about the subject of design before they met -- describing the photos and drawings he had in his study on their first meeting.

I doubt he was up to 10,000 hours at that point.  But, I don't know if he was "great" yet, either.  As Jeff says, you really have to spend some of those 10,000 hours out in the field learning from your mistakes before you can be considered accomplished at design.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Whether it be Anders Ericsson's work or the  writings of Malcom Gladwell or the books like Talent Code or various others on the theory of learnind and excellence, the 10000 hours/ten years always comes up as a guidline of "expert'.
However all the books also include the specific enviroment where the learning takes place, the level of the practioce...deliberate and deep practice are often reffered to.
From what I read this 'experiment" falls way short on so many levels when compared to the centres of excellence such as Russian Womens tennis, Brazilian futsal and the resulting skills or the Table Tennis prodigies explained in the book Bounce.
The ten thousand hour theory is a MINIMAL requirement upon which so many other fcators have to be included.
What is so very interesting from these books is how few of the so called 'child prodigies" actually are freaks at all, and when one delves deeper into their backgrounds they actually show they have been exposed t the 10000hours...but just at a very early age.

[Niall C]

Tom

Interesting point. When did he become great ? I've yet to play Alwoodley but it certainly gets a good right up. Also what constitutes great, do you have to be a at least competent at all aspects of golf course design or can you palm off certain aspects to the contractor/shaper/specialist consultant ?

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()