A female client asked an interesting question the other day in the fitness center.
"Did you watch the Masters?"
"Certainly," I replied.
"Well," she stated, "The three guys in the playoff looked fat and out-of-shape. Tiger Woods, on the other hand, looked incredibly ripped and Phil Mickelson more fit than ever. Do you think Woods and Mickelson (neither of whom made the playoff) have overdone fitness to the point that it is hurting their game?"
The question caught me off guard. I grew up in an era when strength training for golf was taboo. Gary Player was the only professional, an outcast, who dared train with weights. I recognized the value of strength for athletes in my 2005 book, In Arthur's Shadow, stating, "...professional golf would embrace strength training only when a Mr. Universe won the United States Open title." I was wrong. Mr. Universe hasn't come through yet, but Woods is a reasonable substitute.
THEN: When fitness was first adopted by the professional golf community, I waited for the first sign of skill deterioration to trigger a blame on 'lifting weights.' I worked with enough pros and amateurs who hopped aboard the fitness train to realize that most were looking for an out. They never tried it long enough to produce an effect, just as the majority of today's fitness novices.
NOW: Professional golfers generally recognize the value of strength training and fitness, having been bombarded by a commercial monster over the potential benefits to improve performance. Suddenly, 'lifting weights' is OK for golf.
How much seems to be the issue. Some training is good, but too much is not. The reported workouts of Woods and others reflect the same errors made by bodybuilders when they first arrived on their scene - more is better. Really? More exercise is often the cause of lack of progress among many trainees, but hardly in the case of golfers. Most players are afraid to get strong enough to make a significant difference. They tiptoe in just to say they're part of the movement.
My answer to the female client, before I stray too far, was as follows. Golf is a high skill game in which strength plays a minor role. When a skinny runt outhits you by 60 yards, you'll soon discover that skill and timing have more to do with success than strength. Strength protects you from injury and improves power production, but the fact remains, the most efficient way to improve golf is to improve your swing through proper skill training. Nonetheless, if strength represents 5% or 10% of golf success, one must fill that percentage to reach one's potential. According to Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones, "A stronger athlete is a better athlete, short of checkers and chess." He found few professional athletes strong enough for their sport.
As I see it, too much strength and conditioning in golf is rarely, nor likely to become, the problem. It remains, however, a viable scapegoat on the horizon.
THEN: Golfers did nothing.
NOW: They're doing too much?
How can you win?
"Did you watch the Masters?"
"Certainly," I replied.
"Well," she stated, "The three guys in the playoff looked fat and out-of-shape. Tiger Woods, on the other hand, looked incredibly ripped and Phil Mickelson more fit than ever. Do you think Woods and Mickelson (neither of whom made the playoff) have overdone fitness to the point that it is hurting their game?"
The question caught me off guard. I grew up in an era when strength training for golf was taboo. Gary Player was the only professional, an outcast, who dared train with weights. I recognized the value of strength for athletes in my 2005 book, In Arthur's Shadow, stating, "...professional golf would embrace strength training only when a Mr. Universe won the United States Open title." I was wrong. Mr. Universe hasn't come through yet, but Woods is a reasonable substitute.
THEN: When fitness was first adopted by the professional golf community, I waited for the first sign of skill deterioration to trigger a blame on 'lifting weights.' I worked with enough pros and amateurs who hopped aboard the fitness train to realize that most were looking for an out. They never tried it long enough to produce an effect, just as the majority of today's fitness novices.
NOW: Professional golfers generally recognize the value of strength training and fitness, having been bombarded by a commercial monster over the potential benefits to improve performance. Suddenly, 'lifting weights' is OK for golf.
How much seems to be the issue. Some training is good, but too much is not. The reported workouts of Woods and others reflect the same errors made by bodybuilders when they first arrived on their scene - more is better. Really? More exercise is often the cause of lack of progress among many trainees, but hardly in the case of golfers. Most players are afraid to get strong enough to make a significant difference. They tiptoe in just to say they're part of the movement.
My answer to the female client, before I stray too far, was as follows. Golf is a high skill game in which strength plays a minor role. When a skinny runt outhits you by 60 yards, you'll soon discover that skill and timing have more to do with success than strength. Strength protects you from injury and improves power production, but the fact remains, the most efficient way to improve golf is to improve your swing through proper skill training. Nonetheless, if strength represents 5% or 10% of golf success, one must fill that percentage to reach one's potential. According to Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones, "A stronger athlete is a better athlete, short of checkers and chess." He found few professional athletes strong enough for their sport.
As I see it, too much strength and conditioning in golf is rarely, nor likely to become, the problem. It remains, however, a viable scapegoat on the horizon.
THEN: Golfers did nothing.
NOW: They're doing too much?
How can you win?
No comments:
Post a Comment