Fitness in golf

First topic message reminder :

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.

Also, The London Marathon is graded so that the faster runners start at the start of the queue.
If he didn't know he was already fast, then why would he be at the start and have the space to run in that time? Running 3 hours from mid way back through the congestion would have made it even more unlikely.
I imagine he already knew he was decent.

Everyone's a cynic. He was definitely fat, he definitely ran the time.
I've seen the pictures. Hardly seems like a publicity hunting pathological liar to me.
Ill give him the benefit of the doubt as there is no basis on here that it can't be done other than personal experience of people who aren't particularly very good marathon runners, excepting Super maybe, who's chosen Olympic event would either be cynicism or hatred of fat people.

Diggers, I'm sure he did it, he's an exceptional person, there is however the doubt he got off the sofa as a 16 stone, kebab eating, 20 a day smoker and did it.
The doubt is in the journalistic interpretation, rather than his actual preparation.
I've seen some pretty astonishing things in running that are hard to explain, so I'm sure it could be possible, many things are. I just think it's been romanticised a tad.

Did he do his three weeks marathon training on a beach with a rusty 3-iron?

It's the 3 week bit that I believe is a bit of porky pies. Regardless of how crammed with natural talent a body is, it simply cannot go from non exercising fat smoking bloater to sub 3 hour marathon runner in 3 weeks, that Diggers is biological fact. So the story, admirable though it is, has been bent out of shape somewhere. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if journos are plugging that line they are being downright irresponsible (watch a generation of fat smoking bloaters kill themselves trying to emulate).
A marathon ain't just a long run that's only twice as long as a half marathon. The human body has certain limits and the marathon distance and beyond exceeds some of the body's natural limits. Extending those limits through training or learning the body to work through them is simply not a 3 week process.

How is it a biological fact Jas? I've not seem anything that proves that, I doubt its even possible to prove its impossible.
I can fully understand you believing its impossible but that's utterly different to it being a fact.

The body has enough glycogen to carry a decent runner 18-20 miles with training before it runs out, after it runs out the body switches to fat (which is not as efficient a fuel). That changeover is what the wall is. To go beyond that, they way you have to train your body is to run to glycogen depletion so that the body will get the message & store more. Or run at a pace that will allow the body to run on a mixture of glycogen & fat. Training the body to do that is just not something you can do in 3 weeks. Given that he clearly never hit the wall, I would assert that the guy had a lot more training in him than the romanticising journos would have you believe.

Problem being, what's the definition of a decent runner, what the guys natural levels of endurance? So many variables in that theory there is no way it in any proves its a biological fact that he couldn't do it. Does it suggest its unlikely, yep, and that's about it.
There are plenty of freaks of nature walking around, Michael Phelps is an example with his physical attributes. Supposedly superhuman feats are actually not that uncommon in either life or sport.

To me the key to this lies in the wording and interpretation of "3 weeks marathon training".

On most weeks I run about 50k a week, but I'm not training for anything, and if I was to start training for a marathon, that training would be completely different, it has to be, and I wouldn't refer to my prior training as "marathon training"

So, whilst he might have only done 3 weeks "actual" Marathon training, I wouldn't say it was unlikely he had a fair amount of other running under his belt.

Journalists very frequently get details wrong or paraphrase incorrectly. I'm not saying it's impossible, or that he didn't do it, but what's more likely, journalistic licence romanticising or jazzing up an already remarkable story or the journalistic claim actually misinterpreting reality/mistake?

The man on the street likes to read fairy stories. I have no doubt this guy has done amazing things - and his story has been rightly publicized. It seems I'm not alone though in having certain natural cynicism about the details though. It's hardly new that the media would exaggerate something is it?

Diggers seems intent on believing it word for word .. others here can't buy the story 100% - doesn't make it a bad thing - it's the nature of the "meedja"

It's not just the nature of the media Davie, its human nature to be cynical. I'm as bad as anyone done of the time.
I just don't buy the its impossible line on here. Clearly others do, fair enough.

And social media usually uncovers any untruths pretty quickly these days, very little is gotten away with. I haven't seem anything from anyone who knows the guy to suggest any exaggeration.

One thing is a fact though. Unless Mo has another crack in the future English and British marathon running is in dire straits right now. God story that Way is we should be producing much faster guys.

Despite the debate I think we all pretty much agree on most of it. Yes it's a great story, yes he ran the race, yes he didn't exactly have an athletic background. The debate is around the alleged detail of the training and timing of the training regime required. Whilst I'm only an average runner (although I do have a PB of 2:51:52 when I was in my 20s) I have done plenty of research on the subject of training & dietary requirements of marathon preparation. Whilst I might have over egged the pudding with claiming biological fact, I bet there wouldn't be an athletics coach/physician that would contradict what I was saying .

I'm sure what they'd say is by and large you are spot on but it's only a general theory and there are exceptions to every rule.
Anyway good on him whatever.

I think I've solved the controversy - it's actually THIS guy

I entered a marathon* once.

Got peanuts all over me kn0b.

*hugely out of date but simply doesn't work with snickers

Haii thank you...

Roller_Coaster wrote:I entered a marathon* once.

Got peanuts all over me kn0b.

*hugely out of date but simply doesn't work with snickers

Haii thank you...

Thought you preferred Hersheys alley.

hI peeps was amazed with Clarke wonder what the other half of him was doing that week,

Should the whole golf industry not be ashamed for not tackling woods on doping? Everybody involved(player and journalists particularly) seem to pretend theres no question for him to answer.

Is there?

It's not only Woods. I think it's pretty common on the PGATour.

Watching a feature on Brendon Todd on 'Inside the PGA Tour' on Sky and there's a bit with him playing tennis. He's 29, has quite a podgy belly on him and struggles to run when playing tennis. Looks about as far from a naturally sporting under 30 year old as you could possibly imagine.
Doesn't do much for the 'golf is not a proper sport' argument

MustPuttBetter wrote:Watching a feature on Brendon Todd on 'Inside the PGA Tour' on Sky and there's a bit with him playing tennis. He's 29, has quite a podgy belly on him and struggles to run when playing tennis. Looks about as far from a naturally sporting under 30 year old as you could possibly imagine.
Doesn't do much for the 'golf is not a proper sport' argument

Clearly nobody needs to be super fit to play golf to a high standard and if golf is your profession the focus will be drilling technique over and over again but there will be (in the modern game) some time set aside in the gym for golf specific conditioning. So golfers, unless they're natural athletes probably would transfer very well to other sports.

On the other hand well conditioned elite athletes from other sports can achieve a decent standard in golf and whilst they will have to spend hours and hours on technique too, they're physique will no doubt have helped them. Examples I'm thinking of...Tim Henman, Ivan Lendl, Mathew Pinsent, Alan Hansen

MustPuttBetter wrote:Watching a feature on Brendon Todd on 'Inside the PGA Tour' on Sky and there's a bit with him playing tennis. He's 29, has quite a podgy belly on him and struggles to run when playing tennis. Looks about as far from a naturally sporting under 30 year old as you could possibly imagine.
Doesn't do much for the 'golf is not a proper sport' argument

In my book it's not - it's not a sport it's a game like darts, snooker etc. It still has a physical aspect and I think being in better physical condition is a contributing factor in helping a player make the best of their ability. But it's relatively insignificant compared to proper sports like football or rugby.

Kafelnikov...

Although I do agree with JAS, I would say it's probably the hand eye co-ordination and ability to use implements to move a ball such as tennis (damn you Kafelnikov), hockey, cricketing batsmen etc over physical conditioning that would give a better "leg up" when transferring to golf.

Yup, Kafelnikov is basically a club golfer who gets into some pro tournaments by virtue of name and nepotism. He's a hopeless golfer and would be lucky to qualify for the Europro.

He's like one of those hopeless losers you see in Olympics or Commonwealth games who comes in 3 laps behind the winner.

JAS wrote:Clearly nobody needs to be super fit to play golf to a high standard and if golf is your profession the focus will be drilling technique over and over again but there will be (in the modern game) some time set aside in the gym for golf specific conditioning. So golfers, unless they're natural athletes probably would transfer very well to other sports.

On the other hand well conditioned elite athletes from other sports can achieve a decent standard in golf and whilst they will have to spend hours and hours on technique too, they're physique will no doubt have helped them. Examples I'm thinking of...Tim Henman, Ivan Lendl, Mathew Pinsent, Alan Hansen

Not sure I buy that argument. Henman clearly has inherently excellent hand/eye coordination - I'd be willing to bet he'd be good at any racket type of sport. Didn't know Lendl played golf but he's probably the same. Pinsent's a good golfer??? Hansen was outstanding at golf, squash and football so, again, not sure simply saying they were fit is an overriding factor.

Clearly, being able to carry a golf bag for, say, 2 rounds a day helps but beyond a reasonable level of cardio fitness and decent flexibility, I'm not sure that being any fitter has the remotest impact on golfing ability. I'd place flexibility above raw fitness by some margin.

I think being fitter whilst perhaps not being able to technically improve your game has the benefit of meaning the participant might be able to maintain higher levels of energy and thus concentration late into a round/tournament. Especially if it's a very hot or humid place.

I can't think of any sport where not being fit helps a sportsman.

You shouldn't really come off a course feeling exhausted, and if you are a fat lump like Dufner, Lowry etc then carrying an extra couple of stone around your waist can't possibly do your stamina any good at all.

super_realist wrote:I can't think of any sport where not being fit helps a sportsman.

Sumo wrestling?

MustPuttBetter wrote:

super_realist wrote:I can't think of any sport where not being fit helps a sportsman.

Sumo wrestling?

Since when have they not been fit? The trouble with all this, is someone's definition of 'fit'. Sumo wrestlers, by definition, are fit for sumo. Mo Farah would have a no chance against one of them despite his obvious 'fitness'.

For golf, where does one draw the line re. being fit enough? What 'sort' of fitness? It could be other things altogether (probably is) but I don't see much of an improvement in Westwood (in particular) or Clarke since getting 'fitter'. 9C is someone whom I'd hazard has gone way beyond what was beneficial and may well have harmed his game. I reckon most would benefit from doing more of the Jimenez-type exercises far more than pounding the roads or pumping iron.

Sumo "players" need to be fat, Golfers don't and get no benefit from being so.

Since when have sumo wrestlers been fit??
Can you be fit and obese at the same time?

Just because they're the appropriate build for their sport doesn't make them fit

Fit fat, tomato potatoe, quail quayle. Stop being pedantic guys. MPB's joke was fine, I actually thought about it myself...

Id say dj agrees with people believing fitness is important in golf