Golfers as Athletes

[Ian Mackenzie]

Two words:


Gary Player


Tiger is an outlier - in almost every way.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Tiger's body is failing because:


he trained incorrectly (see running miles in combat boot, adding a ridiculous amount of muscle weight)


led an extremely stressful double life


attended specialized Navy SEAL training courses



Jack didn't need to train because- like Rory- he didn't need to-- the gym doesn't give you swing speed-- fast twitch muscles, sequence and how you torque the club does. But the gym does improve those area's, and help them 'work' deeper in the round--and help you have a longer, more enjoyable life...


How bout this weekend at the Honda--Gary Woodland loses to Rickie Fowler--how do you explain that? Should Rickie add more muscle to keep up with Woodland's driving distance? Of course not--you know why? Because Rickie already KILLS it, and has a Varsity short game to Woodlands JV--


The short game, judging slope, wind, etc will always be the equalizer.


The game has changed in that golfers are now forced to be athletes- forced to become athletes because of the amount of effort it takes to play at the highest level--travel, scheduling, pro-am, off the course engagements..


-eat impeccably
-exercise regularly, smartly, and with proper professional guidance
-manage your schedule


Bottom line is you don't have to train like an NFL corner back to compete on the PGA Tour--simply because it's useless--it doesn't help golf.


The USGA has effed the game because they didn't control the ball and driver head--that's the bigger issue.

[Peter Pallotta]

It's *golf*,  and it always has been golf. They used to praise The Old Course 100 years ago for the same reason they praise Tom D's courses today: because the very essence and ethos of the game for which these fields of play are so well suited is that there are many ways to shoot the lowest score, and that you don't need to be the biggest or fastest or strongest in order to do it --a reality/fact proved countless times over countless years on tours all over the world.

[Phil McDade]

I am surprised that Sam Snead has not been mentioned.  Incredibly long career.  Did he do anything special conditioning wise?

Carl,


I believe smooth swinging Sammy Snead  was very flexible and I remember a tale that he'd kick his feet up above his head and try to touch top of a door frame... I'd bet on good genes and coordination at play with him.

He did this at Augusta National, and would bet first-timers to the clubhouse that he could do it -- always took money from folks unsuspecting of his unreal natural grace and abilities. Nicklaus, too, was a tremendously skilled athlete -- terrific high school basketball player, and accomplished in other sports like baseball, football, and tennis.

[Mark_F]

This thread is hilarious.


Tiger Woods is finished because his swing ruined his body, not the gym.

[Tom_Doak]

Two words:


Gary Player


Tiger is an outlier - in almost every way.

Arrgh ... I wish I had not used Tiger's name in this thread, as like with everything else in golf, his name draws all the attention.  My new friend was not talking about Tiger when he started the discussion ... he was actually a fellow Aussie talking about Jason Day and how short HIS career will probably be from swinging so hard at it.


Does everyone here really believe that Dustin Johnson and Rory and the boys will still be top-flight golfers at age 45, as Nicklaus was?  And does anybody believe that somebody with Bernhard Langer's game will still be competitive as a Tour player in another twenty years?  I sure don't.


And the reason I don't think they'll be competitive has something to do with architecture.  If designers keep designing for these guys, and "Tiger-proofing" every TOUR course, then only the players who have modeled their games after Tiger's will be able to compete.  Those nostalgiac stories of Watson at Turnberry, etc. were only possible because of links conditions that take length out of the equation for success ... whereas more and more modern courses are built that make length a prerequisite for success.  Watson said it himself, he could only compete with the young guys in the Open, not at today's Masters or U.S. Open.

[Kyle Harris]

Really nice to see all you paragons of fitness chime in here.

Nicklaus's swing was wholly possible because of his freakish shoulder mobility. Most flying right elbows pull your right side out of sync with the rest of your body. Nicklaus's shoulder mobility allowed him to stay on plane.

His hip was another matter.

Repetitive motion injuries are caused by continual motion that does not push the entire range of motion of the joint. Had Nicklaus done things like squatting (even light-weight like Rory does) he probably could have avoided the hip replacement.

The second-tier of the PGA Tour back then was no where near as competitive as today's "second-tier." Judging these guys based on wins, in a much larger competitive field, isn't the way to go.

[Niall C]

Does everyone here really believe that Dustin Johnson and Rory and the boys will still be top-flight golfers at age 45, as Nicklaus was?  And does anybody believe that somebody with Bernhard Langer's game will still be competitive as a Tour player in another twenty years?  I sure don't.

Tom


You may well be correct however I think whether these guys are still about in their 40's will depend on more than their physical ability to still swing a club. Take Henrik Stenson as an example. In recent years he has had a new lease of life, finally winning a major. I think I'm right in saying that he has attributed his revival to losing a lot of money through bad investments (or was it a crooked manager, I can't recall) and therefore needing to go back out and effectively start again. Didn't Nicklaus also have financial worries well into his playing career ? I'd imagine that for most guys financial comfort is a big incentive. Once that is achieved then I think their priorities change.


Niall

[JMEvensky]

 Smoking really does not help. 

 Now you tell me. You sure this isn't one of those alternative facts?

[Jerry Kluger]

I recently heard an interview with Sam Snead's son and he told many stories about his father's flexibility.  My recollection is that he said that his father had some elastic bands of some sort that he would take with him when he traveled and used them to stretch and maintain his flexibility.  We have a Champions Tour at my club every year and I am amazed at how far those guys can still hit the ball and how well they can score on a 7200 yard course. 

[Jim Nugent]

Tiger was the 2nd strongest pound for pound athlete at Stanford.   

Can you give me some proof of that?

Jim,  I have this for now,   ''

Stanford's former weight-room supervisor told golf coach Wally
Goodwin that ``pound for pound, Tiger's one of the strongest
athletes on campus.''

http://www.si.com/vault/1995/03/27/8093046/goodness-gracious-hes-a-great-ball-of-fire-only-19-amateur-sensation-tiger-woods-has-the-golf-world-shaking-its-head-in-awe

Ben, 'one of the strongest' is quite different from '2nd strongest'.

Pound for pound strength doesn't really mean much anyway.  Lighter lifters always can lift bigger multiples of their body weight than heavier ones.   That's true in power lifting (squat, dead lift & bench) and Olympic lifting. 

320 yard drives with a balata ball and 43 inch metal driver

Your basic non sequitur, i.e. the fact has nothing to do with the question.   

[jeffwarne]

Tiger was the 2nd strongest pound for pound athlete at Stanford.   

Can you give me some proof of that?

Jim,  I have this for now,   ''

Stanford's former weight-room supervisor told golf coach Wally
Goodwin that ``pound for pound, Tiger's one of the strongest
athletes on campus.''

http://www.si.com/vault/1995/03/27/8093046/goodness-gracious-hes-a-great-ball-of-fire-only-19-amateur-sensation-tiger-woods-has-the-golf-world-shaking-its-head-in-awe

Ben, 'one of the strongest' is quite different from '2nd strongest'.

Pound for pound strength doesn't really mean much anyway.  Lighter lifters always can lift bigger multiples of their body weight than heavier ones.   That's true in power lifting (squat, dead lift & bench) and Olympic lifting. 

320 yard drives with a balata ball and 43 inch metal driver

Your basic non sequitur, i.e. the fact has nothing to do with the question.   

When presented "proof" while not perfect, but certainly strong anecdotal eveidence,("one of the strongest", driving distance longer than anyone else in the game -or certainly anyone at Stanford)


you counter with


"pound for pound doesn't really doesn't  mean much anyway"


Why ask for "proof" of something you deem irrelevant anyway?

[BCowan]

Jim,

   That was something I heard or read 20+ years ago I recall from a publication or what I believed was a reliable source.  It didn't seem like an important enough nugget to fact check back then.  I remember certain things very vividly.  Pound for pound strength does mean a lot to me, it means you have genetic gifts that you can put up a lot of weight without amassing weight.   

[Jason Topp]

Tiger is a bad example because he trained poorly as Mr.  Sweeney described above.

As for other top athletes like Dustin Johnson it will be interesting to see what happens.  I would be surprised if careers are shortened because of increased injuries.  There were a bunch of careers shortened by injury before fitness became table stakes for success on professional tours. 

That is not to say careers will be longer.  Another way careers might be shortened is if the level of athleticism required to compete at the highest level goes up.  If one needs to be more of an elite athlete in order to have a chance to win an event, I suspect that it will be more difficult for a 40-45 year old to remain competitive regardless of injury. 

My sense is that nerve rather than body is the biggest factor players stop winning.  It is incredibly rare for a player to win majors over a time span lasting 10 years.  Only the very best win majors over that long of a time span.  For most, they have about a five year window.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

The really worrying development these days is concussion in Rugby. Bigger players than ever hitting each other with ever greater force.

[Ryan Coles]

Two words:


Gary Player


Tiger is an outlier - in almost every way.

Tiger got there first, that's all. Player worked out his jaw more than anything, mainly self aggrandisement and exaggeration.


To me it seems as the opening post is correct. Players will and do get injured more, and their careers will be shorter. What no one mentions when they say this though is that it's virtually impossible to compete in the modern game without being flexible, powerful and athletic. It is the likes of Shane Lowery who is the outlier.

[A.G._Crockett]

1. Going from the instance to the generalization is a logical fallacy of the first magnitude, so comparing Woods to Nicklaus or Player or anybody else is probably NOT going to be instructive.

2. We only know what DID happen with each of those individuals, not what MIGHT have happened had any of them conducted their careers, including training methods differently.  Many people more knowledgeable about the golf swing than I predicted trouble for Woods very early on; perhaps without his fanatical training regimen he breaks down even earlier.  Perhaps Nicklaus wins another Masters at 50 if he spends time with trainers and in the weight room; who knows?

3. While it is entirely possible to work out incorrectly, or to work out too much, I always suspect that opposition to weight training is more about not WANTING to train harder than not NEEDING to train harder.  Here's a fundamental law of EVERY sport that involves speed and power; ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL, if I'm fitter and stronger than you are, I win.  Thinking otherwise is delusional, and flies in the face of mountains of research and "best practices" for ALL sports. 

4. All of that said, the emerging data regarding youth sports is that young people benefit from playing multiple sports; it prevents to some extent, overuse injuries.  A lot of this has come out of research done in regards to pitchers in travel baseball having Tommy John surgery before they are out of high school, but it seems to translate pretty well to ALL sports; I can't think of a single reason that golf would be different.  I would suspect that Nicklaus benefited from playing other sports throughout high school rather more than he did from NOT working out, and I would suspect that Woods suffered from making a zillion golf swings and not doing much else rather more than he did from working out too hard.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Does everyone here really believe that Dustin Johnson and Rory and the boys will still be top-flight golfers at age 45, as Nicklaus was? ...

I do. Train smart and you will keep going. Part of the reason athletes in more active sports train is to prevent injuries.

[Garland Bayley]

1. Going from the instance to the generalization is a logical fallacy of the first magnitude, so comparing Woods to Nicklaus or Player or anybody else is probably NOT going to be instructive.
...

The problem is that we don't have access to all the data necessary to give the generalization. Do you?
Bob Charles trained hard like Gary Player, and had great longevity. I suspect that these instances might hold up in a generalized study.

[jeffwarne]

Two words:


Gary Player


Tiger is an outlier - in almost every way.

Does everyone here really believe that Dustin Johnson and Rory and the boys will still be top-flight golfers at age 45, as Nicklaus was?  And does anybody believe that somebody with Bernhard Langer's game will still be competitive as a Tour player in another twenty years?  I sure don't.


And the reason I don't think they'll be competitive has something to do with architecture.  If designers keep designing for these guys, and "Tiger-proofing" every TOUR course, then only the players who have modeled their games after Tiger's will be able to compete.  Those nostalgiac stories of Watson at Turnberry, etc. were only possible because of links conditions that take length out of the equation for success ... whereas more and more modern courses are built that make length a prerequisite for success.  Watson said it himself, he could only compete with the young guys in the Open, not at today's Masters or U.S. Open.

Tom,
Should a 59 year old be able to compete with younger stars? I believe that's just where the course size has not kept up with equipment gains.Old players can merely hit drivers where young ones are foreced to hit 3 irons
I hate modern equipment gains more than anyone, but I understand the reactions to them-to not adjust the fields of play when the game has changed makes it even MORE of a different game IMHO.That doesn't mean I think courses should place their hazards at prdetermined distance that's ever changing as tech grows(300 yards per Rees Jones) But obviously that's a different topic as we both agree hazards should never be placed at conistent distances.
That's why (modern equipment)I like Erin Hills as a site for a US Open-but hate it a model for future public golf courses-and would hate to play and walk it very often.


And yes. I do think DJ will be a Top flight golfer at 45.
Rory may well hurt himself on a vanity regimen-though he does like to show off his nips....

and Nicklaus wasn't-Top Flight at 45-certainly not by his standards-that's why the win at age 46 at the 86 Masters was so special.
It was the second of his comebacks, the first one coming at age 40 after having his worst year ever at age 39.
He had two PGA Tour wins in nearly 6 years between his 1980 PGA win and his 86 Masters win-arguably Top Flight but not by his standards and I'd bet DJ wins more regular between age 40 and 46 (which is saying a lot because Nicklaus is the greatest player ever.)

[Peter Pallotta]

You know what's amazing, A.G.? That over the years I could've grown so fond of you personally and so respectful of your posts despite the fact that you're always so maddeningly logical and condescendingly clear-headed and astute! But just to be a pest, I will point out that there is no use is hinging your argument on the all-else-being-equal cliche -- since "all else" is *never* "equal".... at least not in the real world of non-delusionals...    

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom D,


Bernhard Langer had one of the longest careers at a competitive level that the game of golf has ever seen.


What Turnberry proved was by playing shorter it actually levelled the playing field away from the long hitters to allow all round skill decide who would be champion. The fact that the powers that be do not see this and still try to negate the top players through length says much about the mindset they have.


Jon

[Mike Schott]

Nicklaus is an interesting case. He was a terrific athlete and played basketball and football. He was also very good to his body, seemingly not playing that much outside of tournaments and even then he did not play that often, similar to Tiger. I wonder if that made a difference in his career. He placed a high priority on family.

[John Kirk]

Does everyone here really believe that Dustin Johnson and Rory and the boys will still be top-flight golfers at age 45, as Nicklaus was?  And does anybody believe that somebody with Bernhard Langer's game will still be competitive as a Tour player in another twenty years?  I sure don't.

And yes. I do think DJ will be a Top flight golfer at 45.

Curiously, even before Tom redirected the conversation away from Tiger Woods, and asked the question above, I thought to myself that among the best modern players, Dustin Johnson has the best chance of being great as he ages. He generates great power with a very compact swing.  He never appears out of balance.  And he is gradually becoming one of my favorite golfers.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm not judging but does Dustin Johnson have the kind of woman behind him that it takes to be successful over three decades? They just don't make em anymore like Arnie and Jack had at home.