Strength and Golf

[wmblake2000]

> @RRstein82 said:

> > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > @Lakers2020 said:

> > > I've never hit the ball that far. I hit a 34* 7 iron about 155 yards and I'll hit a good drive about 250-260 including roll. My swing is technically sound - I hit the center of the clubface on shots. I have a very smooth rhythm and swing a lighter shaft. Here is my question:

> > > If two golfers have an identical swing but one if fairly stronger (strength) than the other will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?

> > >

> >

> > I’m not even as long as you ... but I just got consistently longer. From 210 ish off the tee to 230-240, and from 135 7 iron to 145. This at age 67.

> >

> > 100% technique.

> >

>

> No, it's not. It's a combination of technique, flexibility/mobility and strength. My technique could certainly use improvement, but off the tee I'm 50 yards longer than you and my 7 iron is 30 yards longer than you. I'm also 30 years younger than you, so most likely a lot more flexible and significantly stronger (I could be wrong, but it's a safe assumption giving the age discrepancy). Are there 60+ year old guys who are longer than me based solely on technique? I'm sure they are, but that's because their technique is exponentially better than mine. If I woke up tomorrow and had the same skill as a 60+ year old guy who's longer than me today, I bet good money he wouldn't be longer than me anymore. So of course technique plays a major roll, but it's not 100%. Don't discount strength and fitness.

 

I'm not arguing that older, less flexible, less strong guys can hit it farther than younger, more flexible and stronger guys. And I generally go to the gym, stretch, etc - but not lately when my distance improved. My '100% technique' was about my recent improvement. That was clearly, no-doubt-about-it from better technique (since I haven't been in the gym any during this period) and my swing has coalesced after a lot of work on it.)

[surefire]

I think people need to be clear on a few different concepts:

Strength: this is the amount of force your muscles can exert.

Power: This is the rate at which your muscles can exert that force.

 

Ignoring mechanics for now - I don't disagree that most people will gain a lot from improved mechanics, in order to hit the ball far you need to be powerful.

Being strong means you can exert a large force with your muscles, maybe you can bench 150kg, but if it takes you 5 seconds to express that 150kg of force, the golf swing is over before you even came close to applying full force.

Being fast means you can apply your full strength quickly, this is likely more useful for golf, but if the total amount of force you generate is low, your clubhead speed and distance will still be limited.

 

Being powerful means you can apply a larger force quickly, this is what it takes to hit the ball further, all being equal.

 

So if you're going to train for golf, think about power, not strength. Moving a heavy weight slowly is not that useful.

 

 

[BBE12]

> @surefire said:

> I think people need to be clear on a few different concepts:

> Strength: this is the amount of force your muscles can exert.

> Power: This is the rate at which your muscles can exert that force.

>

> Ignoring mechanics for now - I don't disagree that most people will gain a lot from improved mechanics, in order to hit the ball far you need to be powerful.

> Being strong means you can exert a large force with your muscles, maybe you can bench 150kg, but if it takes you 5 seconds to express that 150kg of force, the golf swing is over before you even came close to applying full force.

> Being fast means you can apply your full strength quickly, this is likely more useful for golf, but if the total amount of force you generate is low, your clubhead speed and distance will still be limited.

>

> Being powerful means you can apply a larger force quickly, this is what it takes to hit the ball further, all being equal.

>

> So if you're going to train for golf, think about power, not strength. Moving a heavy weight slowly is not that useful.

>

>

 

Very well put. Power is *functional* strength.

[Zitlow]

Momentum plays a huge part in applying force (energy) to a golf ball.

[PorscheFan]

Going back to the OP's question: 'If two golfers have an identical swing but one (is) fairly stronger (strength) than the other will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?'

 

I would assume yes based on Superspeed Golf protocol. I can swing the medium weighted club 6mph faster than I can swing the heavy club and I can swing the light club 6mph faster than the medium club. That tells me that power definitely affects swing speed. Technique is a critical component, but the 'identical swing' constraint in the question removes it's influence. So, if strength is the only changing variable, with the same smash and launch conditions, stronger guy will hit it further.

[dpb5031]

> @PorscheFan said:

> Going back to the OP's question: 'If two golfers have an identical swing but one (is) fairly stronger (strength) than the other will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?'

>

> I would assume yes based on Superspeed Golf protocol. I can swing the medium weighted club 6mph faster than I can swing the heavy club and I can swing the light club 6mph faster than the medium club. That tells me that power definitely affects swing speed. Technique is a critical component, but the 'identical swing' constraint in the question removes it's influence. So, if strength is the only changing variable, with the same smash and launch conditions, stronger guy will hit it further.

 

You should go back and read what's already been covered. Strength and speed are very different things. Many examples given...

[PorscheFan]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @PorscheFan said:

> > Going back to the OP's question: 'If two golfers have an identical swing but one (is) fairly stronger (strength) than the other will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?'

> >

> > I would assume yes based on Superspeed Golf protocol. I can swing the medium weighted club 6mph faster than I can swing the heavy club and I can swing the light club 6mph faster than the medium club. That tells me that power definitely affects swing speed. Technique is a critical component, but the 'identical swing' constraint in the question removes it's influence. So, if strength is the only changing variable, with the same smash and launch conditions, stronger guy will hit it further.

>

> You should go back and read what's already been covered. Strength and speed are very different things. Many examples given...

 

Nope - in this case we're talking about the ability to move mass more quickly with the same kinematic sequence. Less mass, more speed. More strength, more speed.

 

The fast-twitch muscle fibers - type IIA and IIB - that are responsible for explosive speed are the same muscle fibers that provide max strength and power. Some people assume that they're different muscle fibers.

 

[Warrior42111]

There's also a difference between sheer muscle mass and functional strength. You can get jacked and bulky at the gym and have it not be functional. Also, you can have great functional strength for whatever sport you play and not look like a bodybuilder.

[PorscheFan]

> @Warrior42111 said:

> There's also a difference between sheer muscle mass and functional strength. You can get jacked and bulky at the gym and have it not be functional. Also, you can have great functional strength for whatever sport you play and not look like a bodybuilder.

 

Yep, and on top of sheer strength there's arguably a neuromuscular element that isn't well understood. You could gain X lat strength by doing low pulldown reps of a heavyish weight with very slow, controlled movements. Alternatively your could perform the same reps with the same weight trying to move that mass as quickly as possible. There would arguably be neuromuscular benefits to doing the latter.

 

[Warrior42111]

> @PorscheFan said:

> > @Warrior42111 said:

> > There's also a difference between sheer muscle mass and functional strength. You can get jacked and bulky at the gym and have it not be functional. Also, you can have great functional strength for whatever sport you play and not look like a bodybuilder.

>

> Yep, and on top of sheer strength there's arguably a neuromuscular element that isn't well understood. You could gain X lat strength by doing low pulldown reps of a heavyish weight with very slow, controlled movements. Alternatively your could perform the same reps with the same weight trying to move that mass as quickly as possible. There would arguably be neuromuscular benefits to doing the latter.

>

 

Are you referring to overall rep speed on a slow down on concentric motion? Slow concentric motions, IMO, are very good as they help with tendon flexibility. Overall though I change it up every 7 weeks between high weight low rep. and low weight high rep to keep the body guessing.

[Krt22]

> @RRstein82 said:

> > @wmblake2000 said:

> > > @Lakers2020 said:

> > > I've never hit the ball that far. I hit a 34* 7 iron about 155 yards and I'll hit a good drive about 250-260 including roll. My swing is technically sound - I hit the center of the clubface on shots. I have a very smooth rhythm and swing a lighter shaft. Here is my question:

> > > If two golfers have an identical swing but one if fairly stronger (strength) than the other will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?

> > >

> >

> > I’m not even as long as you ... but I just got consistently longer. From 210 ish off the tee to 230-240, and from 135 7 iron to 145. This at age 67.

> >

> > 100% technique.

> >

>

> No, it's not. It's a combination of technique, flexibility/mobility and strength. My technique could certainly use improvement, but off the tee I'm 50 yards longer than you and my 7 iron is 30 yards longer than you. I'm also 30 years younger than you, so most likely a lot more flexible and significantly stronger (I could be wrong, but it's a safe assumption giving the age discrepancy). Are there 60+ year old guys who are longer than me based solely on technique? I'm sure they are, but that's because their technique is exponentially better than mine. If I woke up tomorrow and had the same skill as a 60+ year old guy who's longer than me today, I bet good money he wouldn't be longer than me anymore. So of course technique plays a major roll, but it's not 100%. Don't discount strength and fitness.

 

Im the same age as you and hit it roughly the same distance,have not lifted a single weight in the last 2+ years, can't touch my toes, am obese according to the BMI scale, and my technique is hot garbage. It's less hot garbage than it used to be but technique is the only thing has changed going from swinging 100ish to 110+.

[dpb5031]

> @PorscheFan said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @PorscheFan said:

> > > Going back to the OP's question: 'If two golfers have an identical swing but one (is) fairly stronger (strength) than the other will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?'

> > >

> > > I would assume yes based on Superspeed Golf protocol. I can swing the medium weighted club 6mph faster than I can swing the heavy club and I can swing the light club 6mph faster than the medium club. That tells me that power definitely affects swing speed. Technique is a critical component, but the 'identical swing' constraint in the question removes it's influence. So, if strength is the only changing variable, with the same smash and launch conditions, stronger guy will hit it further.

> >

> > You should go back and read what's already been covered. Strength and speed are very different things. Many examples given...

>

> Nope - in this case we're talking about the ability to move mass more quickly with the same kinematic sequence. Less mass, more speed. More strength, more speed.

>

> The fast-twitch muscle fibers - type IIA and IIB - that are responsible for explosive speed are the same muscle fibers that provide max strength and power. Some people assume that they're different muscle fibers.

>

I dont think it's as linear as you claim in terms of the strength/mass/speed relationship. The golf club is very light. If you were talking about a sledgehammer, an axe, or a shotput your assertion would make more sense.

 

Plenty of young teens who are not very strong by practically any metric who can move a light weight and skinny stick through the air much faster than larger, much physically stronger, but older guys.

[Man_O_War]

think of a machine used for the iron byron : the more power the faster the club goes...BUT the power is applied to the hinge, then the club free wheels from there. in a circle.

Basically, strength applied well is why you see long drive people with huge muscles. the strength can't be used all the way through to heave the club like amateurs like us do so to some extent strength works .. you rarely see a skinny sickly person driving it 340, but you will see average built people killing it applying strength correctly. Strength helps the Stimulus.....then reaction

[dpb5031]

> @Man_O_War said:

> think of a machine used for the iron byron : the more power the faster the club goes...BUT the power is applied to the hinge, then the club free wheels from there. in a circle.

> Basically, strength applied well is why you see long drive people with huge muscles. the strength can't be used all the way through to heave the club like amateurs like us do so to some extent strength works .. you rarely see a skinny sickly person driving it 340, but you will see average built people killing it applying strength correctly. Strength helps the Stimulus.....then reaction

 

Yes but it takes more than strength, or even strength combined with good kinematic sequencing and swing technique to create speed.

 

There is most certainly a neuromuscular efficiency component that plays a more significant role than strength alone. There's just too much obvious evidence for me to believe otherwise.

[PorscheFan]

> @Krt22 said:

 

> Im the same age as you and hit it roughly the same distance,have not lifted a single weight in the last 2+ years, can't touch my toes, am obese according to the BMI scale, and my technique is hot garbage. It's less hot garbage than it used to be but technique is the only thing has changed going from swinging 100ish to 110+.

 

We’re eerily similar then. I last touched my toes when I was about eleven.

 

I’m also the only person I know to have fractured a pinky swinging a driver due to a ridiculously in-to-out swing with a hold-off.

 

Anyone can gain speed with a more efficient technique, but equally, more strength with exactly the same swing would move the club faster with zero efficiency gains. I’ve deliberately dropped muscle mass over the last couple of years. I personally just try to keep it where I need it functionally and train for fast movement, though low carb eating habits make that a harder task.

 

[Man_O_War]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @Man_O_War said:

> > think of a machine used for the iron byron : the more power the faster the club goes...BUT the power is applied to the hinge, then the club free wheels from there. in a circle.

> > Basically, strength applied well is why you see long drive people with huge muscles. the strength can't be used all the way through to heave the club like amateurs like us do so to some extent strength works .. you rarely see a skinny sickly person driving it 340, but you will see average built people killing it applying strength correctly. Strength helps the Stimulus.....then reaction

>

> Yes but it takes more than strength, or even strength combined with good kinematic sequencing and swing technique to create speed.

>

> There is most certainly a neuromuscular efficiency component that plays a more significant role than strength alone. There's just too much obvious evidence for me to believe otherwise.

 

absolutely! then you imagine strength applied in the kinematic sequence correctly... that's length. or you imagine a tall person with long arms or machine with a long lever and hinge at the end and that = length with no strength. not necessarily applied.

Take the prop of a helicopter...and put a golf club at the end of it, that's 1000 yard drives or more..but you see speed of the prop, but behind it is a huge power unit that after starting with all its power, freewheels the prop with much less power even though the prop with momentum has picked up more speed.

[dpb5031]

> @Man_O_War said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @Man_O_War said:

> > > think of a machine used for the iron byron : the more power the faster the club goes...BUT the power is applied to the hinge, then the club free wheels from there. in a circle.

> > > Basically, strength applied well is why you see long drive people with huge muscles. the strength can't be used all the way through to heave the club like amateurs like us do so to some extent strength works .. you rarely see a skinny sickly person driving it 340, but you will see average built people killing it applying strength correctly. Strength helps the Stimulus.....then reaction

> >

> > Yes but it takes more than strength, or even strength combined with good kinematic sequencing and swing technique to create speed.

> >

> > There is most certainly a neuromuscular efficiency component that plays a more significant role than strength alone. There's just too much obvious evidence for me to believe otherwise.

>

> absolutely! then you imagine strength applied in the kinematic sequence correctly... that's length. or you imagine a tall person with long arms or machine with a long lever and hinge at the end and that = length with no strength. not necessarily applied

 

Agreed, but the nueromuscular efficiency component has been largely ignored in this discussion. In simple terms, it's how quickly and efficiently our brains, through our nervous system, can recruit our muscles to perform the task being called upon.

 

Strength is great, as is good swing technique and sequencing... but if your nervous system can't put it all together in a flash, the returns will be limited. I think nueromuscular efficiency plays a larger role in swinging a golf club fast than strength. Heck, a driver only weighs what, about 330 grams, not to mention it's counterbalanced to a degree. I'd venture that theres a point of diminished return in terms of strength. You just have to be "strong enough". Again, different story with a much heavier object like 20 lb sledgehammer. Strength becomes more critical to the task.

 

I further believe that our nueromuscular efficiency diminishes as we age. This will slow you down even if you've fully maintained (and even improved) strength, flexibility, and technique.

[PorscheFan]

 

> @dpb5031 said:

> I think nueromuscular efficiency plays a larger role in swinging a golf club fast than strength.

 

I also believe it's a massive part of the overall speed equation (hence why I brought it up), but that's not the exam question. The exam question is 'would changing the strength variable alone change the speed / length outcome', and that's a 'Yes' IMHO.

Does improved technique generate more speed? Yes. Would increased neuromuscular efficiency increase speed? Yes. Are they more important than strength? Arguably IMO. Is that the exam question? I don't beleive so. If the question was what are the most important aspects of gaining speed I'd be with you 100%. I just don't beleive that's what the question was.

 

> @dpb5031 said:

>Heck, a driver only weighs what, about 330 grams, not to mention it's counterbalanced to a degree. I'd venture that theres a point of diminished return in terms of strength. You just have to be "strong enough". Again, different story with a much heavier object like 20 lb sledgehammer. Strength becomes more critical to the task.

 

It's the same principle. If you have weight ports in that driver that 'only' weighs about 330 grams take the weights out. You will swing it faster as the body can use the same power to move slightly less mass more quickly. Equally, add heavier weights and the opposite will happen. 15lb sledgehammer vs. a 20lb sledgehammer: same thing. Sprinting 100M with and without a 20lb weight on your back: same thing.

 

[SirFuego]

IMO it really comes down to how that additional strength is being used in the golf swing.

 

Consider the case of a junior player with clubs that are too heavy for them. They have a tough time controlling the club and can get erratic results. They might need to apply a death grip on the club just so it doesn't go flying out of their hands. This tension causes them to slow down their swing. They might actually shorten their swing because they can't get good results with a longer swing. Now make them stronger and they have a lot more control over the club and can grip it more normally. This removes tension and improves stability. As such, they can now swing the club faster and distance increases.

 

Now let's look at an already strong person who puts on more strength. Before adding strength, they were adequately strong enough to grip a club appropriately, make a decent turn with it and return the club back to the ball. Now they add strength and the club feels even lighter. They might now feel that they can swing a lot harder than before. However, this additional strength is just creating tension in the swing. Plus if there were inefficiencies in the swing before, the additional tension just amplifies it. As a result, they are now swinging slower and distance decreases.

 

Another thing to consider is that changing the weight of a club can also impact speed -- and lighter is not always faster. I was swinging a driver with a heavier shaft faster than one with a lighter shaft at my recent driver fitting. I felt like I could swing with a better tempo with the heavier club, which slowed down my transition a bit, which I think is why I improved my speed. My fitter said that he sees that somewhat regularly, too. I could see a similar effect from your overall strength changing -- the club feels lighter, but your tempo gets thrown off by that and you aren't able to generate as much speed.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, one trainer noticed that his top athletes came home from college slower because their workout routine was purely strength without incorporating "power" elements into it. It's probably safe to assume that these kids already had pretty well-refined swings, so technique wouldn't have been their limiting factor.

 

Increased strength will likely make you more resilient to injury and might make it easier to hack the ball through deep rough. But it really comes down to how you will be able to "use" that additional strength in your golf swing.

[smashdn]

When I want to swing faster, I loosen my grip a bit.

 

That an a dollar might get you a cup of coffee.

[Lakers2020]

This article is interesting - https://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/12/21/modern-pro-swing

[dpb5031]

> @PorscheFan said:

>

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > I think nueromuscular efficiency plays a larger role in swinging a golf club fast than strength.

>

> I also believe it's a massive part of the overall speed equation (hence why I brought it up), but that's not the exam question. The exam question is 'would changing the strength variable alone change the speed / length outcome', and that's a 'Yes' IMHO.

> Does improved technique generate more speed? Yes. Would increased neuromuscular efficiency increase speed? Yes. Are they more important than strength? Arguably IMO. Is that the exam question? I don't beleive so. If the question was what are the most important aspects of gaining speed I'd be with you 100%. I just don't beleive that's what the question was.

>

> > @dpb5031 said:

> >Heck, a driver only weighs what, about 330 grams, not to mention it's counterbalanced to a degree. I'd venture that theres a point of diminished return in terms of strength. You just have to be "strong enough". Again, different story with a much heavier object like 20 lb sledgehammer. Strength becomes more critical to the task.

>

> It's the same principle. If you have weight ports in that driver that 'only' weighs about 330 grams take the weights out. You will swing it faster as the body can use the same power to move slightly less mass more quickly. Equally, add heavier weights and the opposite will happen. 15lb sledgehammer vs. a 20lb sledgehammer: same thing. Sprinting 100M with and without a 20lb weight on your back: same thing.

>

 

Since you're bringing up the "exam question," LOL, here is exactly what the OP asked: "If two golfers have an identical swing but one is fairly stronger (strength) than the other, will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?"

 

MY response was and still is "not necessarily." Stronger does not always equal faster. The faster player will be faster, even if he's not the stronger of the two.

 

I'll credit you for bringing up the "nueromuscular element." It's the basis behind overspeed training, but like a lot of other things, we're all wired differently and have different limits. Some of us are strong but slow, while others are very fast even though they may not be that strong.

 

A weaker player with a faster & more efficient nueromuscular response is very likely (IMHO) to produce faster CHS than a stronger player with a slower nueromuscular wiring if everything else about their technique is the same. The weaker player just has to be "strong enough" to support the speed IMO.

 

That's why I've expressed that in terms of heavier v. lighter objects, I don't believe there's a perfectly linear relationship as you're suggesting. In other words, the heavier the object, the more actual strength matters to move it, but being a much less important factor in trying to move significantly lighter objects rapidly.

[PorscheFan]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @PorscheFan said:

> >

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > I think nueromuscular efficiency plays a larger role in swinging a golf club fast than strength.

> >

> > I also believe it's a massive part of the overall speed equation (hence why I brought it up), but that's not the exam question. The exam question is 'would changing the strength variable alone change the speed / length outcome', and that's a 'Yes' IMHO.

> > Does improved technique generate more speed? Yes. Would increased neuromuscular efficiency increase speed? Yes. Are they more important than strength? Arguably IMO. Is that the exam question? I don't beleive so. If the question was what are the most important aspects of gaining speed I'd be with you 100%. I just don't beleive that's what the question was.

> >

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > >Heck, a driver only weighs what, about 330 grams, not to mention it's counterbalanced to a degree. I'd venture that theres a point of diminished return in terms of strength. You just have to be "strong enough". Again, different story with a much heavier object like 20 lb sledgehammer. Strength becomes more critical to the task.

> >

> > It's the same principle. If you have weight ports in that driver that 'only' weighs about 330 grams take the weights out. You will swing it faster as the body can use the same power to move slightly less mass more quickly. Equally, add heavier weights and the opposite will happen. 15lb sledgehammer vs. a 20lb sledgehammer: same thing. Sprinting 100M with and without a 20lb weight on your back: same thing.

> >

>

> Since you're bringing up the "exam question," LOL, here is exactly what the OP asked: "If two golfers have an identical swing but one is fairly stronger (strength) than the other, will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?"

>

> MY response was and still is "not necessarily." Stronger does not always equal faster. The faster player will be faster, even if he's not the stronger of the two.

>

> I'll credit you for bringing up the "nueromuscular element." It's the basis behind overspeed training, but like a lot of other things, we're all wired differently and have different limits. Some of us are strong but slow, while others are very fast even though they may not be that strong.

>

> A weaker player with a faster & more efficient nueromuscular response is very likely (IMHO) to produce faster CHS than a stronger player with a slower nueromuscular wiring if everything else about their technique is the same. The weaker player just has to be "strong enough" to support the speed IMO.

>

> That's why I've expressed that in terms of heavier v. lighter objects, I don't believe there's a perfectly linear relationship as you're suggesting. In other words, the heavier the object, the more actual strength matters to move it, but being a much less important factor in trying to move significantly lighter objects rapidly.

 

I never actually suggested a perfectly linear relationship at all; simply a relative relationship. Maybe that’s part of the confusion. The thing about a golf club is it’s a long object with the majority of the weight at the end, far from the body. A small difference matters in terms of the ability to swing that object with speed.

 

Nelly Korda is a tremendous athlete. My guess is she’s both neuromuscularly efficient and efficient in terms of swing mechanics. The fact that she can’t drive it as far as the average PGA tour player isn’t down to efficiency or mechanics. Like any top-drawer athlete she’s pushing the boundaries with the physique she has. Now, would she outdrive someone stronger with poor neuromuscular efficiency and mechanics (like me)? Absolutely. But for equal mechanics and efficiency, strength is a factor.

 

You’re a SuperSpeed golf guy. In the simplest sense that’s why the green club is incrementally lighter than the blue by only a handful of percentage points... Because they know - with complete certainly - that no matter who you are you’ll be able to swing that relatively lighter club relatively faster, even though it’s a ‘light’ object and the relative head weight difference is tiny. Likewise, your ‘strong enough’ strength simply doesn’t allow you to swing the red club with the same speed. It doesn’t. If your strength was adequate that - with equal mechanics and neuromuscular efficiency - you could swing them all at the same speed then the set simply wouldn’t work for overspeed training. It does work because - sledgehammer or not - that tiny incremental mass difference has a real effect on your ability to swing that object with speed.

[Krt22]

> @PorscheFan said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @PorscheFan said:

> > >

> > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > I think nueromuscular efficiency plays a larger role in swinging a golf club fast than strength.

> > >

> > > I also believe it's a massive part of the overall speed equation (hence why I brought it up), but that's not the exam question. The exam question is 'would changing the strength variable alone change the speed / length outcome', and that's a 'Yes' IMHO.

> > > Does improved technique generate more speed? Yes. Would increased neuromuscular efficiency increase speed? Yes. Are they more important than strength? Arguably IMO. Is that the exam question? I don't beleive so. If the question was what are the most important aspects of gaining speed I'd be with you 100%. I just don't beleive that's what the question was.

> > >

> > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > >Heck, a driver only weighs what, about 330 grams, not to mention it's counterbalanced to a degree. I'd venture that theres a point of diminished return in terms of strength. You just have to be "strong enough". Again, different story with a much heavier object like 20 lb sledgehammer. Strength becomes more critical to the task.

> > >

> > > It's the same principle. If you have weight ports in that driver that 'only' weighs about 330 grams take the weights out. You will swing it faster as the body can use the same power to move slightly less mass more quickly. Equally, add heavier weights and the opposite will happen. 15lb sledgehammer vs. a 20lb sledgehammer: same thing. Sprinting 100M with and without a 20lb weight on your back: same thing.

> > >

> >

> > Since you're bringing up the "exam question," LOL, here is exactly what the OP asked: "If two golfers have an identical swing but one is fairly stronger (strength) than the other, will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?"

> >

> > MY response was and still is "not necessarily." Stronger does not always equal faster. The faster player will be faster, even if he's not the stronger of the two.

> >

> > I'll credit you for bringing up the "nueromuscular element." It's the basis behind overspeed training, but like a lot of other things, we're all wired differently and have different limits. Some of us are strong but slow, while others are very fast even though they may not be that strong.

> >

> > A weaker player with a faster & more efficient nueromuscular response is very likely (IMHO) to produce faster CHS than a stronger player with a slower nueromuscular wiring if everything else about their technique is the same. The weaker player just has to be "strong enough" to support the speed IMO.

> >

> > That's why I've expressed that in terms of heavier v. lighter objects, I don't believe there's a perfectly linear relationship as you're suggesting. In other words, the heavier the object, the more actual strength matters to move it, but being a much less important factor in trying to move significantly lighter objects rapidly.

>

> I never actually suggested a perfectly linear relationship at all; simply a relative relationship. Maybe that’s part of the confusion. The thing about a golf club is it’s a long object with the majority of the weight at the end, far from the body. A small difference matters in terms of the ability to swing that object with speed.

>

> Nelly Korda is a tremendous athlete. My guess is she’s both neuromuscularly efficient and efficient in terms of swing mechanics. The fact that she can’t drive it as far as the average PGA tour player isn’t down to efficiency or mechanics. Like any top-drawer athlete she’s pushing the boundaries with the physique she has. Now, would she outdrive someone stronger with poor neuromuscular efficiency and mechanics (like me)? Absolutely. But for equal mechanics and efficiency, strength is a factor.

>

> You’re a SuperSpeed golf guy. In the simplest sense that’s why the green club is incrementally lighter than the blue by only a handful of percentage points... Because they know - with complete certainly - that no matter who you are you’ll be able to swing that relatively lighter club relatively faster, even though it’s a ‘light’ object and the relative head weight difference is tiny. Likewise, your ‘strong enough’ strength simply doesn’t allow you to swing the red club with the same speed. It doesn’t. If your strength was adequate that - with equal mechanics and neuromuscular efficiency - you could swing them all at the same speed then the set simply wouldn’t work for overspeed training. It does work because - sledgehammer or not - that tiny incremental mass difference has a real effect on your ability to swing that object with speed.

 

She drives it as far as Jim Furyk. I would not be surprised if she is actually stronger than he is in some areas lol

[PorscheFan]

> @Krt22 said:

> She drives it as far as Jim Furyk. I would not be surprised if she is actually stronger than he is in some areas lol

 

Seriously, that’s a great comparison - I’ll bet it’s close. She’s such a frikkin athlete

 

[dpb5031]

> @PorscheFan said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @PorscheFan said:

> > >

> > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > I think nueromuscular efficiency plays a larger role in swinging a golf club fast than strength.

> > >

> > > I also believe it's a massive part of the overall speed equation (hence why I brought it up), but that's not the exam question. The exam question is 'would changing the strength variable alone change the speed / length outcome', and that's a 'Yes' IMHO.

> > > Does improved technique generate more speed? Yes. Would increased neuromuscular efficiency increase speed? Yes. Are they more important than strength? Arguably IMO. Is that the exam question? I don't beleive so. If the question was what are the most important aspects of gaining speed I'd be with you 100%. I just don't beleive that's what the question was.

> > >

> > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > >Heck, a driver only weighs what, about 330 grams, not to mention it's counterbalanced to a degree. I'd venture that theres a point of diminished return in terms of strength. You just have to be "strong enough". Again, different story with a much heavier object like 20 lb sledgehammer. Strength becomes more critical to the task.

> > >

> > > It's the same principle. If you have weight ports in that driver that 'only' weighs about 330 grams take the weights out. You will swing it faster as the body can use the same power to move slightly less mass more quickly. Equally, add heavier weights and the opposite will happen. 15lb sledgehammer vs. a 20lb sledgehammer: same thing. Sprinting 100M with and without a 20lb weight on your back: same thing.

> > >

> >

> > Since you're bringing up the "exam question," LOL, here is exactly what the OP asked: "If two golfers have an identical swing but one is fairly stronger (strength) than the other, will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?"

> >

> > MY response was and still is "not necessarily." Stronger does not always equal faster. The faster player will be faster, even if he's not the stronger of the two.

> >

> > I'll credit you for bringing up the "nueromuscular element." It's the basis behind overspeed training, but like a lot of other things, we're all wired differently and have different limits. Some of us are strong but slow, while others are very fast even though they may not be that strong.

> >

> > A weaker player with a faster & more efficient nueromuscular response is very likely (IMHO) to produce faster CHS than a stronger player with a slower nueromuscular wiring if everything else about their technique is the same. The weaker player just has to be "strong enough" to support the speed IMO.

> >

> > That's why I've expressed that in terms of heavier v. lighter objects, I don't believe there's a perfectly linear relationship as you're suggesting. In other words, the heavier the object, the more actual strength matters to move it, but being a much less important factor in trying to move significantly lighter objects rapidly.

>

> I never actually suggested a perfectly linear relationship at all; simply a relative relationship. Maybe that’s part of the confusion. The thing about a golf club is it’s a long object with the majority of the weight at the end, far from the body. A small difference matters in terms of the ability to swing that object with speed.

>

> Nelly Korda is a tremendous athlete. My guess is she’s both neuromuscularly efficient and efficient in terms of swing mechanics. The fact that she can’t drive it as far as the average PGA tour player isn’t down to efficiency or mechanics. Like any top-drawer athlete she’s pushing the boundaries with the physique she has. Now, would she outdrive someone stronger with poor neuromuscular efficiency and mechanics (like me)? Absolutely. But for equal mechanics and efficiency, strength is a factor.

>

> You’re a SuperSpeed golf guy. In the simplest sense that’s why the green club is incrementally lighter than the blue by only a handful of percentage points... Because they know - with complete certainly - that no matter who you are you’ll be able to swing that relatively lighter club relatively faster, even though it’s a ‘light’ object and the relative head weight difference is tiny. Likewise, your ‘strong enough’ strength simply doesn’t allow you to swing the red club with the same speed. It doesn’t. If your strength was adequate that - with equal mechanics and neuromuscular efficiency - you could swing them all at the same speed then the set simply wouldn’t work for overspeed training. It does work because - sledgehammer or not - that tiny incremental mass difference has a real effect on your ability to swing that object with speed.

 

Really no confusion; I've been consistent:

Strong does "not necessarily" equal fast, even with perfect swing technique. There's a relationship between strength and speed, but it's not as profound as you're suggesting.

 

I don't think the science is fully understood, but I believe that the nueromuscular component is the key differentiator. I further believe this component diminishes with age sooner than the strength component. Strength is no doubt a beneficial factor (never said it wasn't) just not to the degree that you are suggesting in terms of the "relative" perspective. I further believe that strength becomes increasingly more important as the object we're trying to move becomes substantially heavier.

 

Again, to answer the OPs question...all else equal in terms of swing technique and quality of strike, the stronger individual will "not necessarily" be the faster individual. The faster individual will be faster.

 

@PorscheFan , I'm not sure if you agree or disagree? ?

 

[puresurfr]

Ok, here are my results from my recent experiment into gaining strength. Im in my 50s and decided to hit weights again to try to get longer. Its been about 10 months now and my strength levels are up across the board

 

Bench 235 (315) *405

Deadlift 240 (365) *500

Squat 255 (345) *450

Shoulder Press 140 (205) *285

 

The numbers on the left are my starting numbers and the numbers on my right are my improved numbers and the asterisk is where I hope to get to in the next 18 months. In addition I have been doing stuff such as Battle ropes, Super Speed, plyometric box jumps and I do a bit of running and rowing and dynamic and static stretches. I plan to do Clubbells and Kettlebells next

 

* I do many more exercises in the gym but these exercises are considered the hallmark of powerlifting. The one exercise which I feel helps the most is Torso Twists on the Landmine machine.

 

Im glad I got back into the gym, I feel better and definitely gained muscle and lost some fat. However it was really disappointing that I didn't gain much length, I would say im perhaps 2mph faster in swing speed and maybe 5 yards of carry.

[PorscheFan]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @PorscheFan said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > @PorscheFan said:

> > > >

> > > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > > I think nueromuscular efficiency plays a larger role in swinging a golf club fast than strength.

> > > >

> > > > I also believe it's a massive part of the overall speed equation (hence why I brought it up), but that's not the exam question. The exam question is 'would changing the strength variable alone change the speed / length outcome', and that's a 'Yes' IMHO.

> > > > Does improved technique generate more speed? Yes. Would increased neuromuscular efficiency increase speed? Yes. Are they more important than strength? Arguably IMO. Is that the exam question? I don't beleive so. If the question was what are the most important aspects of gaining speed I'd be with you 100%. I just don't beleive that's what the question was.

> > > >

> > > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > >Heck, a driver only weighs what, about 330 grams, not to mention it's counterbalanced to a degree. I'd venture that theres a point of diminished return in terms of strength. You just have to be "strong enough". Again, different story with a much heavier object like 20 lb sledgehammer. Strength becomes more critical to the task.

> > > >

> > > > It's the same principle. If you have weight ports in that driver that 'only' weighs about 330 grams take the weights out. You will swing it faster as the body can use the same power to move slightly less mass more quickly. Equally, add heavier weights and the opposite will happen. 15lb sledgehammer vs. a 20lb sledgehammer: same thing. Sprinting 100M with and without a 20lb weight on your back: same thing.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Since you're bringing up the "exam question," LOL, here is exactly what the OP asked: "If two golfers have an identical swing but one is fairly stronger (strength) than the other, will the stronger golfer hit the ball farther?"

> > >

> > > MY response was and still is "not necessarily." Stronger does not always equal faster. The faster player will be faster, even if he's not the stronger of the two.

> > >

> > > I'll credit you for bringing up the "nueromuscular element." It's the basis behind overspeed training, but like a lot of other things, we're all wired differently and have different limits. Some of us are strong but slow, while others are very fast even though they may not be that strong.

> > >

> > > A weaker player with a faster & more efficient nueromuscular response is very likely (IMHO) to produce faster CHS than a stronger player with a slower nueromuscular wiring if everything else about their technique is the same. The weaker player just has to be "strong enough" to support the speed IMO.

> > >

> > > That's why I've expressed that in terms of heavier v. lighter objects, I don't believe there's a perfectly linear relationship as you're suggesting. In other words, the heavier the object, the more actual strength matters to move it, but being a much less important factor in trying to move significantly lighter objects rapidly.

> >

> > I never actually suggested a perfectly linear relationship at all; simply a relative relationship. Maybe that’s part of the confusion. The thing about a golf club is it’s a long object with the majority of the weight at the end, far from the body. A small difference matters in terms of the ability to swing that object with speed.

> >

> > Nelly Korda is a tremendous athlete. My guess is she’s both neuromuscularly efficient and efficient in terms of swing mechanics. The fact that she can’t drive it as far as the average PGA tour player isn’t down to efficiency or mechanics. Like any top-drawer athlete she’s pushing the boundaries with the physique she has. Now, would she outdrive someone stronger with poor neuromuscular efficiency and mechanics (like me)? Absolutely. But for equal mechanics and efficiency, strength is a factor.

> >

> > You’re a SuperSpeed golf guy. In the simplest sense that’s why the green club is incrementally lighter than the blue by only a handful of percentage points... Because they know - with complete certainly - that no matter who you are you’ll be able to swing that relatively lighter club relatively faster, even though it’s a ‘light’ object and the relative head weight difference is tiny. Likewise, your ‘strong enough’ strength simply doesn’t allow you to swing the red club with the same speed. It doesn’t. If your strength was adequate that - with equal mechanics and neuromuscular efficiency - you could swing them all at the same speed then the set simply wouldn’t work for overspeed training. It does work because - sledgehammer or not - that tiny incremental mass difference has a real effect on your ability to swing that object with speed.

>

> Really no confusion; I've been consistent:

> Strong does "not necessarily" equal fast, even with perfect swing technique. There's a relationship between strength and speed, but it's not as profound as you're suggesting.

>

> I don't think the science is fully understood, but I believe that the nueromuscular component is the key differentiator. I further believe this component diminishes with age sooner than the strength component. Strength is no doubt a beneficial factor (never said it wasn't) just not to the degree that you are suggesting in terms of the "relative" perspective. I further believe that strength becomes increasingly more important as the object we're trying to move becomes substantially heavier.

>

> Again, to answer the OPs question...all else equal in terms of swing technique and quality of strike, the stronger individual will "not necessarily" be the faster individual. The faster individual will be faster.

>

> @PorscheFan , I'm not sure if you agree or disagree? ?

>

 

I definitely disagree with regard to the specific question posed. With all else being equal and only one parameter - strength - increased, player 2 will be longer. Every time. Simple things like SSG weight differentials only cement the physics.

 

On many, many other things I think we agree though. On 99% of things I’d say we’re in complete agreement, and that’s the more important thing,

[PorscheFan]

> @puresurfr said:

> Ok, here are my results from my recent experiment into gaining strength. Im in my 50s and decided to hit weights again to try to get longer. Its been about 10 months now and my strength levels are up across the board

>

> Bench 235 (315) *405

> Deadlift 240 (365) *500

> Squat 255 (345) *450

> Shoulder Press 140 (205) *285

>

> The numbers on the left are my starting numbers and the numbers on my right are my improved numbers and the asterisk is where I hope to get to in the next 18 months. In addition I have been doing stuff such as Battle ropes, Super Speed, plyometric box jumps and I do a bit of running and rowing and dynamic and static stretches. I plan to do Clubbells and Kettlebells next

>

> * I do many more exercises in the gym but these exercises are considered the hallmark of powerlifting. The one exercise which I feel helps the most is Torso Twists on the Landmine machine.

>

> Im glad I got back into the gym, I feel better and definitely gained muscle and lost some fat. However it was really disappointing that I didn't gain much length, I would say im perhaps 2mph faster in swing speed and maybe 5 yards of carry.

 

 

That’s an incredible effort - congrats! It must be great to feel better overall.

 

Don’t get discouraged re the relatively small increase in swing speed. There isn’t necessarily a significant correlation between the specific gains you made and swing speed, at least from what I’ve read. That doesn’t diminish what you achieved though.

 

Squat and deadlift are covered in these threads a lot, however I believe Sasho’s studies conclude that the max vertical ground forces required by the faster swingers are roughly equal to the vertical force produced from running, which most everybody is physically capable of without a single squat. The need for 400lb squats is something I still don’t personally understand with respect to swing speed.

[Nard_S]

Technique is king but the right strength is also highly helpful. The guy who does biceps curls and bench presses will lose to the guy who is on the bar working his entire body and working against his mass. The marathoner will lose to the sprinter. Core & leg strength developed to go fast twitch can do wonders for swing. I added 15 yards on driver spending 4 months at the gym once. I have not been there in almost 2 years, my technique is better these days but I do miss the quick muscles I used to have and will be heading back. You don't just swing faster to hit it further you also have to hold a force of stability against that very speed otherwise it's pretty useless.