Strength and Golf

[Zitlow]

 

[Edward_Majorwin]

> @talfredson said:

> If anybody is looking to hit on some balance, stability, explosiveness, and power put this in your routine.

>

>

 

Does the idiotic bar drop from shoulder height at the end help with anything? That would get you kicked out of most gyms in the world

[aenemated]

> @Edward_Majorwin said:

> > @talfredson said:

> > If anybody is looking to hit on some balance, stability, explosiveness, and power put this in your routine.

> >

> >

>

> Does the idiotic bar drop from shoulder height at the end help with anything? That would get you kicked out of most gyms in the world

 

It helps not injure yourself.

[talfredson]

> @aenemated said:

> > @Edward_Majorwin said:

> > > @talfredson said:

> > > If anybody is looking to hit on some balance, stability, explosiveness, and power put this in your routine.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Does the idiotic bar drop from shoulder height at the end help with anything? That would get you kicked out of most gyms in the world

>

> It helps not injure yourself.

 

Hence why he is using "bumper weights." If he was using metal weights, yeah he would be an idiot. I agree though that he probably should be on a platform if he's going to drop the bar from that high.

[Soloman1]

> @puresurfr said:

> Haha, there ALWAYS will be the mental aspect of performance. I absolutely agree that there is not only a individuals mental wall but also the sport in general. Perfect example is the 4 minute mile, it used to be considered unbreakable until it wasn't and now everybody is under 4min. I see that happening in the marathon. The 2 hour mark will eventually fall and then the elites will no longer see that as a wall.

 

“Everybody” is not running sub 4 minute miles. If you factor in the increased efficiency of track surfaces today to running on cinders in 1954, only one person per year has broken the 4 minute mile. Plus, the population and population of runners is larger, and Bannister trained only 45 minutes while skipping classes in med school, compared to college kids today who train as if they are professionals while studying very little.

[puresurfr]

> @Soloman1 said:

> > @puresurfr said:

> > Haha, there ALWAYS will be the mental aspect of performance. I absolutely agree that there is not only a individuals mental wall but also the sport in general. Perfect example is the 4 minute mile, it used to be considered unbreakable until it wasn't and now everybody is under 4min. I see that happening in the marathon. The 2 hour mark will eventually fall and then the elites will no longer see that as a wall.

>

> “Everybody” is not running sub 4 minute miles. If you factor in the increased efficiency of track surfaces today to running on cinders in 1954, only one person per year has broken the 4 minute mile. Plus, the population and population of runners is larger, and Bannister trained only 45 minutes while skipping classes in med school, compared to college kids today who train as if they are professionals while studying very little.

 

 

when I meant everybody, I meant all the world class elite runners, I didn't mean everybody at home or casual weekend warriors. I think Roger trained more than 45mins a day but I wasn't around at that time. But since you are unhappy with my comment, ill remove it....

[DaveLeeNC]

> @puresurfr said:

> > @Soloman1 said:

> > > @puresurfr said:

> > > Haha, there ALWAYS will be the mental aspect of performance. I absolutely agree that there is not only a individuals mental wall but also the sport in general. Perfect example is the 4 minute mile, it used to be considered unbreakable until it wasn't and now everybody is under 4min. I see that happening in the marathon. The 2 hour mark will eventually fall and then the elites will no longer see that as a wall.

> >

> > “Everybody” is not running sub 4 minute miles. If you factor in the increased efficiency of track surfaces today to running on cinders in 1954, only one person per year has broken the 4 minute mile. Plus, the population and population of runners is larger, and Bannister trained only 45 minutes while skipping classes in med school, compared to college kids today who train as if they are professionals while studying very little.

>

>

> when I meant everybody, I meant all the world class elite runners, I didn't mean everybody at home or casual weekend warriors. I think Roger trained more than 45mins a day but I wasn't around at that time. But since you are unhappy with my comment, ill remove it....

 

From what I have read regarding Banister's training, he was very much into interval training and little else (I believe that he mostly ran quarter mile repeats). 45 minutes for a workout in his case is a reasonable estimate.

 

dave

[puresurfr]

I used to run cross country and the 880 and the mile as well....i do remember his interval training but i never realized that he trained for such a short period....I train harder than him for golf and im not even top 10 on the block i live on.....haha and i live on a very short block !

[PorscheFan]

> @oikos1 said:

> So what did you guys decide?

 

Sorry - I took a 2 day break due to a golf outing that had WAY too many bottles of Fireball. I still hurt. I shall read on...

 

[PorscheFan]

> @dpb5031 said:

> Now, I'll extend an olive branch and concede that if two players had an identical swing, identical kinematic sequencing, are the same size, and possess identical nueromuscular potential to generate speed, I'd agree that the stronger player would theoretically be capable of "hitting it farther."

 

Yay!! We agree!!! I knew a break was a good thing!

 

Since no other variables were mentioned by the OP, I assume strength to be the only variable in question and everything else as a constant.

 

We agree! What a beautiful day! (except for my headache... and stomach ache... and...)

[wkuo3]

> @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?

>

 

Brute force and also leverage all played a part in the golfer's potential ability to hit the golf ball farther.

There is a limit on the leverage one golfer could apply to the golf swing, kind of a limit to the strength one golfer could acquire...... but most of us ignored the connective tissue from our muscle to the skeleton structure. This is something could be improved through time and effort.

Brute force does not automatically = hitting the golf ball farther. Application of force and leveraged advantage to the golf swing can be translated to higher swing speed , higher ball speed , longer distance.

When pursuing after longer distance, one will push one's physical ability to near the maximum capability. Beware of injury.

We all want to watch our drives sail over 300 yards, and show off the numbe rof the iron we just hit over 200 yards ( was that a 6 iron ? )......... Vanity is what kills the beast.

Anyone could be a low handicap index holder if he/she learns to apply his/her ability to the golf swing efficiently. Long drive contest ? That's totally in another arena.

However, if there is more froce , there is a potentially more distance. Anyone could have told you that.

 

[dpb5031]

> @PorscheFan said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > Now, I'll extend an olive branch and concede that if two players had an identical swing, identical kinematic sequencing, are the same size, and possess identical nueromuscular potential to generate speed, I'd agree that the stronger player would theoretically be capable of "hitting it farther."

>

> Yay!! We agree!!! I knew a break was a good thing!

>

> Since no other variables were mentioned by the OP, I assume strength to be the only variable in question and everything else as a constant.

>

> We agree! What a beautiful day! (except for my headache... and stomach ache... and...)

 

I dont think we ever truly disagreed with the exception of some nuanced details. I'm pretty sure that the disconnect was primarily in the interpretation of the original question in the first post of the thread.

 

As stated, I'm a huge proponent of strength training and never claimed that it's not beneficial, but IMO strength is just one variable and not the most influential on swing speed for most (barring a serious deficiency). Some of us are just wired better neurologically for speed than others, and that component is just not fully understood. The interesting thing will be to see how science and training advancements continue to evolve to help players maximize their potential in this area, and hopefully develop ways to prevent it from diminishing so much as we age.

[PorscheFan]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @PorscheFan said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > Now, I'll extend an olive branch and concede that if two players had an identical swing, identical kinematic sequencing, are the same size, and possess identical nueromuscular potential to generate speed, I'd agree that the stronger player would theoretically be capable of "hitting it farther."

> >

> > Yay!! We agree!!! I knew a break was a good thing!

> >

> > Since no other variables were mentioned by the OP, I assume strength to be the only variable in question and everything else as a constant.

> >

> > We agree! What a beautiful day! (except for my headache... and stomach ache... and...)

>

> I dont think we ever truly disagreed with the exception of some nuanced details. I'm pretty sure that the disconnect was primarily in the interpretation of the original question in the first post of the thread.

>

> As stated, I'm a huge proponent of strength training and never claimed that it's not beneficial, but IMO strength is just one variable and not the most influential on swing speed for most (barring a serious deficiency). Some of us are just wired better neurologically for speed than others, and that component is just not fully understood. The interesting thing will be to see how science and training advancements continue to evolve to help players maximize their potential in this area, and hopefully develop ways to prevent it from diminishing so much as we age.

 

Agree fully. Lots of aspects that can lead to increased speed, and they're all worth exploring. I've gained from many of them, but technique is the next major stepping stone for me, having been largely self-taught with more than a few glaring swing inefficiencies.

 

Hopefully getting to meet some of the TPI folks next week so looking forward to learning more about where they're taking their approach to speed.

 

Really good, healthy debate!

[Short Bucket]

We could look to baseball during the steroid era to get an idea on the effect of strength as a major factor in distance gains.

Apply that to tour players and I would be shocked if similar gains couldn't be achieved.

 

[Nard_S]

Little has been mentioned of this but the idea you can increase distance without a heavy diet of smacking balls is fantasy. If you play 36 a week, or if you hit 70 balls a week, you will not get far. Get to 300 balls a week and higher week over week, you have a decent chance if you mange it right. Golf muscles even if they are gym prepped need reps.