Fitness in golf

Inspired by golfers like Clarke and McIlroy really making an effort to get in shape and the probability that to be a success in almost anything you need to be of sound body and mind as well as obviously having the technical ability let me pose this question.

How much value therefore do you think you can add to your game if you are a pro golfer by being super fit??* By fit I dont necessarly mean being able to run a marathon but being very diciplined with what you eat and excercising regularly so you are in top health.

Personally I believe that while the underdog can often rise to the top with two of the following characteristics, the most sucessful people around tend to be physically fit, mentally fit and technically superior to everyone else.



*please stay away if you just want to use this thread to sling mud at overweight golfers.

Guns,
All mickey taking aside. I don't think a golfer needs to be "super fit" to be at the top of the game, as demonstrably Woods has suffered through injury from having a laughably over muscular body, not that I think he's particularly "fit" in an Athletic/Cardio sense, rather that an over worked gym body isn't really conjucive and hasn't really helped stave off injury.
Conversely, being a porker obviously doesn't help either, no one does anything better by being 3 stone over weight.
If you taped two bags of sugar round your waist (4kg) you'd be pretty tired by the end of it.

So, talent aside, I'd say that someone like Scott, Stenson, Rose, Donald etc have the physique best suited for long term "consistency" in terms of having a trouble-free conditioning for playing the game at the top level.

Obviously there are people with more talent, and those with less who can at least in the short term overcome physical issues (either fat or slim), but I can't think of any sport in which being in anything less than optimum shape is of benefit.
If you want to be your best at anything, it isn't good to be over-developed or a billy bunter.

Cant say I disagree with any of that. Good examples too, Donald Rose etc. Again I dont think golfers should be pumping big weights or running marathons but I do think that there must be an optimum fitness level and health for playing golf and sometimes I wonder why if golfers are so diciplined and you need dicipline to be a good golfer, why they arent focusing on this a critical part of achieving sucess.

I believe if you are healthier in mind and body and technically better than everyone else you will win major after major. McIlroy, mentally clearly wasnt at the races for the last couple of years. He has sorted that out more or less and is now firing on all three cylindars. Its no surprise he won the open is it?

Interestingly Guns, whilst watching McIlroy at the weekend, they showed some old clips of him at previous Open's and competitions, and not to put too fine a point on it, he was a bit of a porker.

I'm not going into a fat debate by any means, but these guys have all day to train, and they've got all the time in the world to balance their schedules, get their practice, fitness, training, diet etc in proper perspective. So, conversely, if 9C spent less time being a gym bufty and actually practiced the weak elements of his game more, whilst remaining "fit" wouldn't it be better?
I remember him saying he was proud to "outwork all the other players in the gym"
Doesn't seem sensible to me.

Many golfers appear to be in good shape these days, although quite a few, let's call them "barrel chests" around still.
People like McIlroy are undoubtedly super talented, but since he "graduated" from being the puffy faced kid, he looks a much more balanced player, and with being in "optimum" or near "optimal" condition comes a more balanced mind.

Personally I think fitness is overrated in golf, except perhaps at the very highest level. If you ever watch "inside the PGA tour", often golfers will go through their workouts along with their coaches. Jimmy Walker and his coach were on once explaining how he needed to increase hip flexibility in order to improve his swing, and showing the exercises he was doing. I'm sure this work improved Jimmy's game, although marginally.

is Mcilroy in danger of following in Woods muscular steps? it looks to me like he could be.
I think a physique similar to that of a swimmer is probably ideal- something like Dustin Johnson. ie lean and flexible.

super_realist wrote:Interestingly Guns, whilst watching McIlroy at the weekend, they showed some old clips of him at previous Open's and competitions, and not to put too fine a point on it, he was a bit of a porker.

He was, you are absolutely right.

super_realist wrote:
and with being in "optimum" or near "optimal" condition comes a more balanced mind.

All three characteristics are interlinked. In theory the fitter you are mentally or physically the more capacity you will have to improve technique too.

I also think that if you are carrying too much weight from being fat or over-worked in the gym then it might contribute to mental exhaustion late in a round, tournament. Why carry more weight than you need to.

Flexibility and suppleness in a game of timing and finesse are more important than being musclebound.  

Dustin Johnson is a good example Hendo, Kaymer would be another, in fact, looking down the OWGR only 9C has an outrageous body on the extreme scale in the top 20 and curiously he's the one with the most injury issues, and maybe Phil could do with losing a smidge of that "barrel chest"

Any improvement vs effort can be measured by an inverted u curve. The more effort or resources you put into something the further up results go. However, if you keep doubling effort and resource you will get to a point where adding more effort and resource will just plateau your results and then results will start to drop off.

This is possibly what happened to Harrington re his obsession with technique.

super_realist wrote:Flexibility and suppleness in a game of timing and finesse are more important than being musclebound.

Nail.

Head.

But (along with the other posts) the correct specific muscle/cardiovascular fitness is important, probably in relation to mental aptitude more than physical exertion.

I think fitness in golf IS important (IF a golfer wants to reach his/her potential). Obviously everybody is different, starting from a different point in terms of natural talent and ability. When someone seeks to improve, there are various elements that they can work on to improve, they can seek to improve their technique, their course management or their fitness (you can further break fitness down into flexibility, strength, endurance etc) or a combination of any or all of the above. I can accept that many golfers who play golf mainly for enjoyment don't see the need to "whip their body into shape" which is fine. They then scratch their heads and wonder why after being on a good score through 14 or 15 holes they suddenly cave in and struggle to make buffer...go figure!! In many cases the cause will have been fatigue of some of the key muscle groups involved in the golf swing.
At the top of the game it's a very thin line between success and failure, consequently the top players will look at anything that may give them the slightest extra edge, they will therefore look at their fitness regime. How many of the Top 100 do you think totally ignore at least some degree of a fitness regime??
Another thing a lot of us amateurs miss is looking at, and it's closely couple with fitness, is hydration & nutrition (you can train in the gym but if you then go out on the course and don't fuel and hydrate , you can still get fatigued.
Player was probably one of the first to hammer the fitness side, and it did him favours in terms of remaining competitive on the Seniors tour for a lot longer than his peers of a similar age.
Woods then moved the bar further and although he has (in my view) overdone some elements of his physical toning, a lot of players looked at his example and tried to follow. Accepted wisdom in physical conditioning for the golf swing is evolving all the time. Some may not like it but the evidence is quite clear... it DOES make a difference!!

Incidentally, the guy who runs the gym at my club is in the process of producing a DVD on fitness for golf. He goes through all the muscle groups used in the golf swing and gives exercises that you can do to improve each one. Many of the exercises include the use of therabands for physical development of the key muscle groups. As a keen golfer and a qualified physio, he knows his stuff. I'll repost when the DVD is published.

Cool nice post. Nutrition is definitely really important and it is different for everyone. Novak Djockavic claims that switching to a gluten free diet was the main reason his game started to sky rocket. If you have the dicipline to find out what best works for you and stick to it it can make a big difference.

Guns,
Didn't Novak do that originally to combat unusual allergies?

JAS wrote:.... after being on a good score through 14 or 15 holes they suddenly cave in and struggle to make buffer...go figure! In many cases the cause will have been fatigue of some of the key muscle groups involved in the golf swing..

Really? After 15 holes the average golfer will have played something like 70 shots, of which around 35 will have been putts and short chips, meaning 35 full shots over something like 3 hours. I think it's more likely to be a combination of tension caused by looking like they might have a good round and "mental" fatigue/loss in concentration that lead to late round collapses.

Anyone seen that guy Steve Way? Went from Lowryesque propotions to top marathon runner. Finished tenth in the Commonwealth Games after only starting to run 7 years ago.

Bob_the_Job wrote:

JAS wrote:.... after being on a good score through 14 or 15 holes they suddenly cave in and struggle to make buffer...go figure!  In many cases the cause will have been fatigue of some of the key muscle groups involved in the golf swing..

Really?  After 15 holes the average golfer will have played something like 70 shots, of which around 35 will have been putts and short chips, meaning 35 full shots over something like 3 hours. I think it's more likely to be a combination of tension caused by looking like they might have a good round and "mental" fatigue/loss in concentration that lead to late round collapses.

Probably fewer than 35 full shots Bob, and probably fewer than 35 putts.
Trouble is most golfers/adults are in appalling shape, and if they are carrying their bag in the heat, or even pushing it, then they could become tired.
They'd be tired whether they were golfing or not.

Bob_the_Job wrote:

JAS wrote:.... after being on a good score through 14 or 15 holes they suddenly cave in and struggle to make buffer...go figure!  In many cases the cause will have been fatigue of some of the key muscle groups involved in the golf swing..

Really?  After 15 holes the average golfer will have played something like 70 shots, of which around 35 will have been putts and short chips, meaning 35 full shots over something like 3 hours. I think it's more likely to be a combination of tension caused by looking like they might have a good round and "mental" fatigue/loss in concentration that lead to late round collapses.

Yes really!! Whether it's mental or whether it's a combination of mental and physical, it DOES happen. Mental fatigue caused by concentration required during a round is noticeable. I actually feel more drained after a round of golf than a 10 mile run, that's down to mental not physical...clearly.
The fact is though if you're physically fit and in good condition it can mitigate the effects of fatigue. You also mention tension. A well conditioned fit body is less likely to succumb to involuntary tension. So on several levels fitness does have an influence.

On the other hand, if you've been fat all your life your golf swing is build around that. Carl Petterson for instance did lose some weight at a point of time (yes beleive it or not) but claimed that his swing then went awol and that he would need to rebuild it completely.

In stead he put on the weight again. Dunno if it's a bad excuse for lack of stamina, but I've heard similar stories from other barrel chests as well.

Of course he's going to make that claim, fat people always make claims like that.
He didn't persist at it, presumably because he couldn't keep the weight off, so claimed it didn't help his game.
Fat people always make excuses for being fat.

Would have thought Darren Clarke to be the poster boy for someone who, by his own admission, sometimes found it difficult to close out a round in energy-sapping (heat, humidity and hills, a la Augusta National) conditions.
Can well believe that; even in my extremely modest efforts on the golf course (a coffin-dodging bag carrier in s_r lingo), I start to lose concentration and focus when impact of physical exertion creeps in.

I think it's a well proven fact kwini. You also sleep better when in shape.

Pedro, I don't think there is anything you don't do better by being in shape.

Amazes me that Golf is the only sport in which there is so much money but which so many of the participants are so unprofessional.

kwinigolfer wrote:Guns,
Didn't Novak do that originally to combat unusual allergies?

It wasnt an allergy it was an intolerance. He isnt a coeliac. A lot of people have intolerances and dont know it. Knowing your body well is part of being healthy.

super_realist wrote:Anyone seen that guy Steve Way? Went from Lowryesque propotions to top marathon runner. Finished tenth in the Commonwealth Games after only starting to run 7 years ago.

Look at Eddie Izzard. He has run a ridiculous amount of marathons and yet never really looked in great shape.

GunsGerms wrote:

super_realist wrote:Anyone seen that guy Steve Way? Went from Lowryesque propotions to top marathon runner. Finished tenth in the Commonwealth Games after only starting to run 7 years ago.

Look at Eddie Izzard. He has run a ridiculous amount of marathons and yet never really looked in great shape.

Yeah, but he didn't do it to any standard.
THis guy went from 16 stone and 20 fags a day to 10th in the Commonwealth (albeit a tin pot event) Games

Makes you wonder him much talent is walking around untapped. Most sporty people have a clue if they are talented but Way wasn't interested at school.
How good would he have been if he'd started in his teens? You'd have to think he'd have at least been a sub 2 10 runner but who knows.
Good story though and he seems like a nice guy. The standards are not always amazing at the CG's but it's still a massive deal for the competitors.
Easy for instance to slag off someone for only bring the third best 200 runner in the UK but on reality that's a huge achievement and of course you'd have to imagine they also enjoy the sport.

Diggers wrote:Makes you wonder him much talent is walking around untapped. Most sporty people have a clue if they are talented but Way wasn't interested at school.
How good would he have been if he'd started in his teens? You'd have to think he'd have at least been a sub 2 10 runner but who knows.
Good story though and he seems like a nice guy. The standards are not always amazing at the CG's but it's still a massive deal for the competitors.
Easy for instance to slag off someone for only bring the third best 200 runner in the UK but on reality that's a huge achievement and of course you'd have to imagine they also enjoy the sport.

Or whether people are in the right sports Diggers.
People like Chemmy Alcott for example, instead of wasting their time in skiing where she had zero chance, could probably have achieved more in a sport where she wasn't so far behind.

Skiing is a brilliant sport though, and again big question does she enjoy it, clearly she does and that's a huge part.
Maybe she had say the inate talent to be a cyclist but found it incredibly dull, would she then succeed and would she be as happy at the end of it? I doubt it.
To be honest I've no idea why Alcott is on your knock list, she managed a pretty high standard despite two very serious injuries and limited funding, plus she's had a ball no doubt.

super_realist wrote:Anyone seen that guy Steve Way? Went from Lowryesque propotions to top marathon runner. Finished tenth in the Commonwealth Games after only starting to run 7 years ago.

It's a good story but I'm not sure I buy it completely myself.

There was a bit in the article about how 18mths before he started running seriously he ran the London Marathon in just over 3hrs having only trained for 3weeks.

Now given that you have to enter the London Marathon in the previous Autumn it all seems a bit exaggerated to me.

If you've never run before you don't suddenly think you know what I'll head out and run at 7 minute mile pace for 3miles let alone 26 one after the other.

Depends if you're trying to make a career out of it Diggers, and she continually struggled to finance it, so could hardly be called successful. I've no doubt she has sporting talent, but was clearly in a sport where she found it incredibly difficult to be competitive and indeed wasn't.
Why not put it to use elsewhere in a sport where she might manage a career that was worthwhile and not romanticised by the British media and not have to beg for sponsorship.
She tried, good for her on that, but ultimately failed. No shame in that, sure she could have been better elsewhere though.

She's just a very obvious example, one of many I'm sure. Plenty Tennis players too.

How many cares in woman's sport pay? Not many and her profile will probably lead to a good media career.
I don't think she's remotely failed, but we've been here before so well agree to disagree.

Same thing applies to employment too. It could be that S_R is wasting his talents in the in the energy business and should be in the Diplomatic Service......

With sport, and in particular individual sports, parents have an big influence on the choices of sport so the potential is greater for talent to be "lost" to a different sport.

You have to want it in the end. A lot of people might have Ways talent but how many people would bother running marathons or ultra marathons just because they happen to be good at it? Not me that's for sure.

Bob_the_Job wrote:Same thing applies to employment too.  It could be that S_R is wasting his talents in the in the energy business and should be in the Diplomatic Service......

With sport, and in particular individual sports, parents have an big influence on the choices of sport so the potential is greater for talent to be "lost" to a different sport.

THe difference being I make a good living, and I'm relatively successful at it.
Alcott barely made a living, if at all.

Bob_the_Job wrote:Same thing applies to employment too.  It could be that S_R is wasting his talents in the in the energy business and should be in the Diplomatic Service......

Special envoy to Russia? Or Palestine?

pedro wrote:

Bob_the_Job wrote:Same thing applies to employment too.  It could be that S_R is wasting his talents in the in the energy business and should be in the Diplomatic Service......

Special envoy to Russia? Or Palestine?

I'd be bloody good at it.
"Right, all you god botherers, take a gun each, and kill one another"

super_realist wrote:

Bob_the_Job wrote:Same thing applies to employment too.  It could be that S_R is wasting his talents in the in the energy business and should be in the Diplomatic Service......

With sport, and in particular individual sports, parents have an big influence on the choices of sport so the potential is greater for talent to be "lost" to a different sport.

THe difference being I make a good living, and I'm relatively successful at it.
Alcott barely made a living, if at all.

The other difference being that she seems to be a well adjusted, well rounded , content person.

super_realist wrote:

pedro wrote:

Bob_the_Job wrote:Same thing applies to employment too.  It could be that S_R is wasting his talents in the in the energy business and should be in the Diplomatic Service......

Special envoy to Russia? Or Palestine?

I'd be bloody good at it.
"Right, all you god botherers, take a gun each, and kill one another"

So far it's going ok then....

pedro wrote:

super_realist wrote:

pedro wrote:

Bob_the_Job wrote:Same thing applies to employment too.  It could be that S_R is wasting his talents in the in the energy business and should be in the Diplomatic Service......

Special envoy to Russia? Or Palestine?

I'd be bloody good at it.
"Right, all you god botherers, take a gun each, and kill one another"

So far it's going ok then....

Well, it would solve it.

Hibbz wrote:

super_realist wrote:Anyone seen that guy Steve Way? Went from Lowryesque propotions to top marathon runner. Finished tenth in the Commonwealth Games after only starting to run 7 years ago.

It's a good story but I'm not sure I buy it completely myself.

Another "Seve Legend" in the making perhaps ;-)

Hibbz wrote:

super_realist wrote:Anyone seen that guy Steve Way? Went from Lowryesque propotions to top marathon runner. Finished tenth in the Commonwealth Games after only starting to run 7 years ago.

It's a good story but I'm not sure I buy it completely myself.

There was a bit in the article about how 18mths before he started running seriously he ran the London Marathon in just over 3hrs having only trained for 3weeks.

Now given that you have to enter the London Marathon in the previous Autumn it all seems a bit exaggerated to me.

If you've never run before you don't suddenly think you know what I'll head out and run at 7 minute mile pace for 3miles let alone 26 one after the other.

The ballot for the race opens a week or 2 after the previous one and fills up in a morning, so you're talking almost a year...however you can apply for a Golden Bond Charity place (i.e. the Charities are allocated places and they let them go to the highest pledgers - the first London I did I applied to the BHF in the September and got one of their places). I'm not sure when their cut off is but it's certainly more than 3 weeks. However he could have got a place and not bothered training until 3 weeks before. I think it's a good story too but having run a few I'd say that even a freak of nature wouldn't be able to run a decent marathon on 3 weeks training...No...just no, it couldn't happen.

Agreed, That part of the story is fishy for sure. I've run a few and they are bloody hard, even with all the training.

Its possible, your just comparing your own inate ability against his and in reality that's just a bad comparison as he's clearly on a very different level.
Its a well documented story at local and national level, In sure someone would have scuppered it if it happened to be untrue.

No way it's possible diggers. You cannot go from a beer swilling, chain smoker who has never run in their life to running 26 consecutive 7 minute miles in 3 weeks training.
I actually think the exaggerated back story detracts from his achievements in truth.

Not for me, I buy it. Again unless you are that good you don't know, nobody on here is even close to his ability level, or any decent level really, so you can make an assessment but that's it really.
Forgetting the marathon the guy is much better at ultras, he can clearly just pound out the miles like very few people can.

Plus I've seen the picture next to his time, none of which is in doubt. He's clearly still a big guy, way bigger than now.
If he's been training for months would he be that big, no way, I bet even after 3 weeks training he'd have lost over a stone.

I'm not doubting his talent one bit just the story. It suggests that one day he looked in the mirror and decided to start running. Yet 18mnths before he'd run an incredible time on 3 weeks training having entered the previous year never having run before.

Apparently his nickname is Maverick......

Way I see it is did a fat bloke run 3 hours, answer yes as Ive seen the pics, he's a porker and the time is not in doubt.
Theory is you need to do loads of training to run 3 hours....however if you did you simply would not be a porker, the weight would drop off if you are running lots of 7 minute mikes
As nobody has come forward with the smallest story to cast any doubt Im left to believe he did it.
I could be wrong, bit given the evidence presented I'm inclined to believe him personally.

I think what is in doubt is that he ran a 3 hour marathon as a fat gluttenous smoker of 16 stone.
That clearly wouldn't be possible.
Obviously his time came after he lost at least some of the weight and gave up the tabs.

He'd obviously been running a lot, but probably only did 3 weeks of actual marathon distance training.

I buy his story, just not that he was a fat bloater when he did the 3hour one if that is the inference being made.

I don't think you need to do loads of training but to set off at that pace I think you need to know you've some talent which I don't think you would if the first time you've run was three weeks previous. Added to the fact that the first thought of doing a marathon was months previous makes me more than sceptical. He's obviously an exceptional and unusual guy but I think there's some journalistic licence involved.