AG - you've changed the issue presented by Tom in the opener though...or at least it's been changed. Certainly nobody disputes the argument that a little fitness is good.
Tom presented the suggestion that golfers will have shorter careers now that they are training like world class athletes.
I'm curious, since you're position seems to be that a little more fitness training is always going to be better than a little less...would you think Rory and Jason would benefit by more time in the gym considering their recent tweaks?
John,
That's not exactly my position. EXACTLY my position is that properly selected fitness training is better than not including some sort of fitness routine at all. How much benefit varies widely from player to player, of course. In short, I can't see any way that any player is worse off by improving fitness, flexibility, and functional strength. I am NOT talking here about "body building" in any way.
As to Rory and Jason, I have ZERO idea what they are doing. Until I learn otherwise, I am going to assume that both are under the supervision of a personal trainer, by some name or other, and that they have pretty specific programs and goals in mind. Both seem like smart guys, and both have a lot at stake, so I assume that they are being careful in their workouts, whatever those workouts might be.
Likewise, I have zero idea what caused their recent injuries, or what their doctors and trainers are doing about it, so I'm not going to speculate about that.
But I'll say this: I reject Tom's original premise 100%. "The more competitive a sport golf becomes, and the more it attracts real athletes, the more they'll have to push themselves and the more likely their careers will be shortened ... by injury, or just being overtaken by younger and stronger athletes. That's how sports works. We'd better get used to it." IMO, proper training, LENGTHENS careers, not shortens careers. Tom Brady's off-season training is incredible, and he's playing better football at 39 than he did at 29. There are lots more examples; I won't bore you with a long list, but suffice it to say that if Tom and the rugby player he quoted are right, the every pro sports team, every D1 college team, every good high school team, and almost all professional individual athletes are wrong. I don't like that math.
I posted this much earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating: We only know what DID happen, not what WOULD have happened had Woods and Nicklaus reversed their training methods. Back trouble was predicted for Woods before he was 25; without his remarkable fitness, maybe he blows up long before he did; of course, we'll never know. Nicklaus had good longevity (though I am FAR less impressed than most with that aspect of his career), but perhaps if Nicklaus had been more fit, he might have won even more for even longer; again, we'll never know.
BTW, I know this sounds like heresy, but take away a lightning-in-a-bottle back nine on a unique golf course on Sunday in 1986, and Jack wins his last major in 1980 at age 40. On top of that, he only had two other wins on Tour in between age 40 and 46, and none after 1986. That IN NO WAY diminishes what Nicklaus did in the 1986; I was there that afternoon, and it is one of my greatest sports memories. But I don't think it's great evidence for longevity, or the efficacy of his training methods, or much else except an iconic figure turning back the clock for a weekend.