Tour is ever inching towards MLB circa '98

[milesgiles]

7 hours ago, dbelles1 said:

Let me begin by saying @bladehunter is a legend and please don’t take this the wrong way. But basketball at the youth level isn’t exactly the perfect analogy. I’m looking into coaching basketball and I’ve seen way too many kids that are pushed into being big men at a young age because they have size and then they get to high school and suck because they are a true big man stuck in a point guard’s body. It’s easier to develop a post game then passing, shooting, dribbling as you age. 

Sorry for the very off topic rant. 

 

Now getting back on topic, I love what BAD is doing. From what i’ve heard he’s trying to slim up to increase flexibility, similar to his friend Kyle Berkshire. Potential injuries to him seem very unlikely as he seems to be very good at minimizing potential risks to his body. Now the PED’s. I don’t think he is as the PGA uses the same company that all other major leagues use. Their policy is that they do blood and urine tests at random. So, seeing what others say about BAD’s personality that him using PED’s is out of the question.

 

 Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk.

 

 

just to emphasise, I strongly believe hardly anyone uses actual PEDs. MAYBE if old, washed up, injured, or a no hoper.

 

HOWEVER the tour doesnt do any meaningful testing for anything at all. How many tests did they do last year? No one knows. Could be zero. Thats definitely relevant for beta blocks, cannabis and other relaxants which there are a TON of rumours about.. as Ive said many times, watch how many qualified players drop out of the Olympics because their mums dog is ill..

[Frankensteins Monster]

If you think the muscle, and fat, Bryson put on is somehow abnormal, you either have never stepped foot in a gym, or, if you have stepped foot in a gym, and haven't made close to the progress Bryson has made, you are just going through the motions and are doing nothing but getting a little sweaty.

[llewol007]

Good luck with the packing on 20 pounds of muscle equates to yardage theory. To a mad scientists maybe, but to an up an coming golfer who does not have the same amount of access to whatever is needed, most golfers will forgo that path and really address the approach which has already been implemented when Tiger and probably others before have implemented of adding strength training and stretching to the game. The whole distance issue really can be muted with equipment rules that can be put in place by the powers that be. Giving drivers length limits can be one. Knocking it down from a 48" max to a 46" max is a big one.  Until the problem becomes so absurd that the Rules committee has to step in, then nothing will change nor a flock of PGA players will commit to being in a gym 8-10 hours a day. Just like any muscle, if you do not keep exercising it, you will lose the strength aspect of it. Yes there will always be one or two who will push the limits. Kudos to them who stretch the box. It is a wait and see to how many will it take to stretch the box before the box breaks. 

[milesgiles]

30 minutes ago, llewol007 said:

Good luck with the packing on 20 pounds of muscle equates to yardage theory. To a mad scientists maybe, but to an up an coming golfer who does not have the same amount of access to whatever is needed, most golfers will forgo that path and really address the approach which has already been implemented when Tiger and probably others before have implemented of adding strength training and stretching to the game. The whole distance issue really can be muted with equipment rules that can be put in place by the powers that be. Giving drivers length limits can be one. Knocking it down from a 48" max to a 46" max is a big one.  Until the problem becomes so absurd that the Rules committee has to step in, then nothing will change nor a flock of PGA players will commit to being in a gym 8-10 hours a day. Just like any muscle, if you do not keep exercising it, you will lose the strength aspect of it. Yes there will always be one or two who will push the limits. Kudos to them who stretch the box. It is a wait and see to how many will it take to stretch the box before the box breaks. 

 

i agree with some of that

 

but bryson didnt add weight to swing harder as such, he did it to keep his balance better ie more inertia. No one knows how much strength he gained since he apparently doesnt do any compound lifts..

 

and no one uses a 48 anyway. Its the head size that is the problem. Knock it back to 200, 250cc, the 130mph wangers will have to have a rethink 

[milesgiles]

39 minutes ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

If you think the muscle, and fat, Bryson put on is somehow abnormal, you either have never stepped foot in a gym, or, if you have stepped foot in a gym, and haven't made close to the progress Bryson has made, you are just going through the motions and are doing nothing but getting a little sweaty.

 

'working out like a wet towel' as an acquaintance memorably said of a friend of mine..

[milesgiles]

2 hours ago, mcd89 said:

This is an interesting topic. I definitely didn't and probably still don't think Bryson has used peds but I was watching some golf recently with an extended family member who is a pro international rugby player, walks around at 115kg so he knows a thing or two about adding muscle and weight, and in maintaining it. He says there is no way Bryson did it 100% naturally over the time frame in which he did. Gave a few reasons, but its certainly put a bit of doubt in my mind about Bryson. 

 

did WHAT exactly?

 

your rugby relation has been hit in the head too many times

 

I gained 50 odd pounds in a few months in my early twenties, hell of a lot was fat (like Bryson) and I have a lot smaller frame then he does.

 

What, exactly, is suspicious? He's a s smooth as a bar of soap and hasnt posted any lift numbers that I know of

 

Ridculous.

[bscinstnct]

40 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

did WHAT exactly?

 

your rugby relation has been hit in the head too many times

 

I gained 50 odd pounds in a few months in my early twenties, hell of a lot was fat (like Bryson) and I have a lot smaller frame then he does.

 

What, exactly, is suspicious? He's a s smooth as a bar of soap and hasnt posted any lift numbers that I know of

 

Ridculous.

 

Good newbie muscle gains and a ton of fat.

 

Very common experience for a young guy with decent genetics who does the big lifts and eats a ton of food. We did it for Uncle Rico football and coach asked us if we were juicing when he saw us after the summer. 

 

Whats unusual about BD is he’s not doing big lifts but he’s definitely put on a very good amount of muscle so he must be doing heavy lifts in the right set/rep range for whatever lifts he’s doing.

 

The total amount of weight he has gained is a lot! So, whether you think he’s using peds or not, we can all agree...

 

He doggin a lot of food! ; )

Edited March 9, 2021 by bscinstnct

[Ferguson]

Pretty soon you'll see tour players walking around like this. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JohnnyCashForever]

On 3/8/2021 at 4:02 PM, animalgolfs said:

I'm stating this as an opinion: 

 

The Tour is chasing distance ala MLB '98 and using Bryson as the poster boy.....and we all know how it ended with MLB 

 

 

I absolutely love Bryson- but I'm seeing gym signs that I'm not comfortable with. 

 

This isn't going to end well IMO 

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with Bryson bulking up, but I hope that BAD's other passion, analytics, doesn't eventually ruin the sport, like it has with MLB, NASCAR, and the NBA.  To me, that is the bigger danger.  Perhaps the sport of golf is too richly complex to be reduced in any meaningful way by analytics, but I thought the same of baseball back in the day when analytics was just getting started there.  Unfortunately, today, analytics has made MLB unwatchable.  

 

 

            

[DFS PFD]

It's so obscene that these baseless claims of PED use by Bryson exist. You guys should look at sports like Crossfit or NFL if you want to see rampant steroid abuse. Bryson's distance isn't even unique, look at the long drive guys. His distance is only unique when compared to Zach Johnson and Fred Couple's. Very clear some of you have never been in a professional athletes environment to actually see PED's and their typically "minimal" results. The drugs don't just make you magically better at everything. 

[soregongolfer]

19 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Or devolves.  Depends on your perspective. 

from my perspective all sports named have devolved to something closer to Saturday morning wrestling vs their glory days.  
 

basketball is a great example.  And it’s leaked down to the youth school level.  I have a 5ft11 12 year old , and he easily has made his school team for last two seasons.  They want him to shoot more 3s.  Which makes me mad/sad and confused all at once.  He can shoot. But.  He’s not a guard.  The true big man play in Bball has been totally abandoned.  I watched game after game this season of them chunking  up 3s at around a 14 % make rate , while The low post was wide arse open all day every day.  2 points 80 % of the time has to  better than 3 points 14 % of the time.  But I’m called a dinosaur and told to shut it. Lol. 

Analytics.  A three is worth 50% more than a two.  At least that's what's happening in the NBA.  In youth leagues, I gotta go with the post play if my team is only sinking 14% of threes.  I think shooting threes in the NBA also extends careers for smaller guards.  Guys like Lillard and Curry aren't getting beat up mixing it up with the bigs anymore.  

 

Those same analytics state a strikeout is better than a ground out.  But the words that come out of my mouth when there are guys on second and third with less than two outs and my guy strikes out instead of hitting a grounder to the right side shouldn't be heard by children under 15.  🙂

 

As far as PEDS, folks are missing something in regards to testing.  Athletes have a lot of leeway in their numbers.  IIRC, athletes are allowed 4X the testosterone numbers than that of the "average" man.  That's big number.

Edited March 9, 2021 by soregongolfer

[TiScape]

1 hour ago, DFS PFD said:

 You guys should look at sports like Crossfit or NFL if you want to see rampant steroid abuse. 

Wait, what? The NFL has rampant steroid abuse??? 😳 Next your gonna tell me the Mr Olympia contest isn’t clean!!! Haha

 

So over this BAD/PED back and forth. Arguing over something we will never know the actual answer to is kinda ridiculous. Unless he gets busted, I say we just drop it. Who’s in?! Haha

Edited March 10, 2021 by TiScape

[golfortennis]

1 hour ago, soregongolfer said:

Analytics.  A three is worth 50% more than a two.  At least that's what's happening in the NBA.  In youth leagues, I gotta go with the post play if my team is only sinking 14% of threes.  I think shooting threes in the NBA also extends careers for smaller guards.  Guys like Lillard and Curry aren't getting beat up mixing it up with the bigs anymore.  

 

Those same analytics state a strikeout is better than a ground out.  But the words that come out of my mouth when there are guys on second and third with less than two outs and my guy strikes out instead of hitting a grounder to the right side shouldn't be heard by children under 15.  🙂

 

As far as PEDS, folks are missing something in regards to testing.  Athletes have a lot of leeway in their numbers.  IIRC, athletes are allowed 4X the testosterone numbers than that of the "average" man.  That's big number.

 

Well the big thing is, in youth leagues, it's hard for them to actually reach the hoop from that far out.  Once you reach a certain level of physical ability... our high school coach many moons ago told us how if you go 6-18 in a quarter shooting 3s(33%), you need to go 9-18 from two to match the output.  And 72 points is a good total in a high school game.  We spent a week after holidays chucking up threes and absolutely blasted our opponent who we would not have beaten playing conventionally.  Of course the next day he ditched that strategy and that was that.

 

A strikeout is better than a groundout because you're not grounding into a double play.  How many DPs get turned in youth baseball?  Of course you want the ball in play.

 

That is huge if you are right about the leeway.  Add in the fact you can get a TUE for a near mortal condition, and you can drive a Mack truck through the "anti-doping" rules.

 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, soregongolfer said:

Analytics.  A three is worth 50% more than a two.  At least that's what's happening in the NBA.  In youth leagues, I gotta go with the post play if my team is only sinking 14% of threes.  I think shooting threes in the NBA also extends careers for smaller guards.  Guys like Lillard and Curry aren't getting beat up mixing it up with the bigs anymore.  

 

Those same analytics state a strikeout is better than a ground out.  But the words that come out of my mouth when there are guys on second and third with less than two outs and my guy strikes out instead of hitting a grounder to the right side shouldn't be heard by children under 15.  🙂

 

As far as PEDS, folks are missing something in regards to testing.  Athletes have a lot of leeway in their numbers.  IIRC, athletes are allowed 4X the testosterone numbers than that of the "average" man.  That's big number.

Yep. Analytics.  The ruiner  of all things fun .

its like you choose to play artificially or by proxy when you trust the numbers vs going after it .  The numbers say you’ll win X amount of the time for example.  And over time you likely will.  But my brain always wants to say “ what if we won more playing against the odds? 

 

3 point basketball for example.  Ive seen this many times.  Team comes out and they are cold.  Flat.  Dead from behind the line.  They keep firing.  Make nothing.  And let a smaller team beat them by 20.  When all they had to do was drive the lane and take the fouls and make the free throws.   I cussed under my breathe all this season as I watched our team win 2 games all season , while firing 3s.  We have a coach ( jv) that is a numbers guy ( math teacher ) and he’s also a small dude.  So he seems to have no concept of inside play.  Drives me nuts.  And to make matters worse. The varsity coach/ team plays the opposite.  Go figure.  
 

 

[Aviador Naval]

5 hours ago, JohnnyCashForever said:

 

I don't have a problem with Bryson bulking up, but I hope that BAD's other passion, analytics, doesn't eventually ruin the sport, like it has with MLB, NASCAR, and the NBA.  To me, that is the bigger danger.  Perhaps the sport of golf is too richly complex to be reduced in any meaningful way by analytics, but I thought the same of baseball back in the day when analytics was just getting started there.  Unfortunately, today, analytics has made MLB unwatchable.  

 

 

            

Perhaps you need to ask an 8 yr old how to use Google and enter any or all of the following phrases:  Trackman; pressure plates; high speed video; Shot-Link; strokes gained; Every Shot Counts; damn near US Forestry Service detailed green contour/slope books; ...

 

Wise-assery aside, the golf analytics train left the station long ago - ask @RichieHunt.

 

The issue with Bryson is his pseudo junk science like spraying water on his irons to assess the differences in ball-flight in damp conditions.  I'm sure a large portion of that is truly part of his make-up and to that extent am glad to see him being true to himself and wish him well on exploring new frontiers.  We may all learn something just as 'strokes gained' has drawn into serious question some previous beliefs regarding true leverage in scoring.  However, I'm equally sure a large portion of it is there to cultivate his brand/image.  To the latter, wide-spread adoption of his well-marketed junk science would be the surest sign of the golfing apocalypse.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Aviador Naval

[aenemated]

11 hours ago, milesgiles said:

I gained 50 odd pounds in a few months in my early twenties, hell of a lot was fat (like Bryson) and I have a lot smaller frame then he does.

 

Heh I gained a good 30lbs in 6 months in my early 20s because I was working at a dotcom that had a fridge full of free sodas and a bin full of free Snickers bars. It didn't even take any effort! 🤣

 

 

[anth]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Yep. Analytics.  The ruiner  of all things fun .

its like you choose to play artificially or by proxy when you trust the numbers vs going after it .  The numbers say you’ll win X amount of the time for example.  And over time you likely will.  But my brain always wants to say “ what if we won more playing against the odds? 

 

3 point basketball for example.  Ive seen this many times.  Team comes out and they are cold.  Flat.  Dead from behind the line.  They keep firing.  Make nothing.  And let a smaller team beat them by 20.  When all they had to do was drive the lane and take the fouls and make the free throws.   I cussed under my breathe all this season as I watched our team win 2 games all season , while firing 3s.  We have a coach ( jv) that is a numbers guy ( math teacher ) and he’s also a small dude.  So he seems to have no concept of inside play.  Drives me nuts.  And to make matters worse. The varsity coach/ team plays the opposite.  Go figure.  
 

 

I’ll add to this.  Analytics are looking at stats over the course of a game, or even a season. The 3 point craze in the NBA backs that up - 4/10 from 3 beats 5/10 from 2.

 

But as you point out these stats don’t take into consideration that teams run hot and cold from deep.  And when the game, or a series is on the line, and you absolutely need a bucket, do you have a go-to player or play that you can rely on?

 

What did Houston miss in that series? 27 consecutive 3’s?

[deadsolid...shank]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Yep. Analytics.  The ruiner  of all things fun .

its like you choose to play artificially or by proxy when you trust the numbers vs going after it .  The numbers say you’ll win X amount of the time for example.  And over time you likely will.  But my brain always wants to say “ what if we won more playing against the odds? 

 

3 point basketball for example.  Ive seen this many times.  Team comes out and they are cold.  Flat.  Dead from behind the line.  They keep firing.  Make nothing.  And let a smaller team beat them by 20.  When all they had to do was drive the lane and take the fouls and make the free throws.   I cussed under my breathe all this season as I watched our team win 2 games all season , while firing 3s.  We have a coach ( jv) that is a numbers guy ( math teacher ) and he’s also a small dude.  So he seems to have no concept of inside play.  Drives me nuts.  And to make matters worse. The varsity coach/ team plays the opposite.  Go figure.  
 

 

I don’t really care about Bryson. If he is or isn’t. He’s not winning every time out, so, eh, whatever. 
 

But analytics, oh boy, they drive me nuts. I’m a big Dodger fan, and Dave Roberts has zero “feel” for the game. Thank goodness Tampa Bay’s manager is the same way, or they likely would have won the series. The Dodgers hadn’t come close to touching Snell all game long. 
 

Blade, you would like me as your boy’s coach. I hate the three. It’s been a while, but I still wanted my offense moving TOWARDS the basket, not this 3 man weave crap at the top of the key. They seem to forget that the best looks from three come from an inside-out look where the shooter is already square and can step into into his shot. But since the numbers do suggest success playing for the three (since  you don’t have to make as many to score the same amount) makes sense,I would really like to see the line moved back. Enough to where it’s starts to be detrimental to make it the focus of the offense. But it’s never going to happen so I’ve come to accept I just don’t enjoy the game as much anymore (just like baseball). 

[RichieHunt]

1 hour ago, Aviador Naval said:

Perhaps you need to ask an 8 yr old how to use Google and enter any or all of the following phrases:  Trackman; pressure plates; high speed video; Every Shot Counts; ridiculously detailed damn near US Forestry Service detailed green contour/slope books; ...

 

Wise-assery aside, the golf analytics train left the station long ago - ask @RichieHunt.

 

The issue with Bryson is his pseudo junk science like spraying water on his irons to assess the differences in ball-flight in damp conditions.  I'm sure part of that is truly part of his make-up and to that extent am glad to see him being true to himself and wish him well on exploring new frontiers.  However, I'm equally sure a large portion of it is there to cultivate his brand/image.  Wide-spread adoption of his pseudo junk science would be the surest sign of the golfing apocalypse.

 

The game is fairly simple from an analytics standpoint because like baseball it's fairly stationary.  

 

MLB was ruined when games took longer and longer to play, along with the player strikes and lockouts.  Now with the 'Opener' pitching strategy and making all of these pitching changes, the game just takes longer and longer.  But that's on baseball to resolve, not those that utilize analytics to their advantage.

 

Just like it's on the designers to counter advanced strategies using analytics.  Don't want reckless bombers to dominate?  Don't allow for doglegs to be carried, make the rough longer on par-5's and don't have wide open fairways on straightaway holes.  It's really fairly simple.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

[aenemated]

36 minutes ago, deadsolid...shank said:

But analytics, oh boy, they drive me nuts. I’m a big Dodger fan, and Dave Roberts has zero “feel” for the game. Thank goodness Tampa Bay’s manager is the same way, or they likely would have won the series. The Dodgers hadn’t come close to touching Snell all game long.

 

Oh man, I remember when that happened and I was like ... holy s***, we're gonna win this now. 

 

Me and Ms. aenemated were on the road to Vegas for my birthday during that game and I was torturing her by making her listen (she will watch golf with me all day but she has a crazy hatred of baseball) - I was honestly about to just turn it off and spare her till Cash pulled him. 

 

Definitely the dumbest damn decision since Roberts left Darvish in to get obliterated in the first two innings of G7 in 2017. 

[bladehunter]

8 hours ago, deadsolid...shank said:

I don’t really care about Bryson. If he is or isn’t. He’s not winning every time out, so, eh, whatever. 
 

But analytics, oh boy, they drive me nuts. I’m a big Dodger fan, and Dave Roberts has zero “feel” for the game. Thank goodness Tampa Bay’s manager is the same way, or they likely would have won the series. The Dodgers hadn’t come close to touching Snell all game long. 
 

Blade, you would like me as your boy’s coach. I hate the three. It’s been a while, but I still wanted my offense moving TOWARDS the basket, not this 3 man weave crap at the top of the key. They seem to forget that the best looks from three come from an inside-out look where the shooter is already square and can step into into his shot. But since the numbers do suggest success playing for the three (since  you don’t have to make as many to score the same amount) makes sense,I would really like to see the line moved back. Enough to where it’s starts to be detrimental to make it the focus of the offense. But it’s never going to happen so I’ve come to accept I just don’t enjoy the game as much anymore (just like baseball). 

100 %.  Amen. 
 

move it back.  Or take the 3 away completely and force real play.  
 

this idea of saving gaurd from inside play makes me mad.  Let the little guys mix it up , or get off the court.  

[bladehunter]

9 hours ago, anth said:

I’ll add to this.  Analytics are looking at stats over the course of a game, or even a season. The 3 point craze in the NBA backs that up - 4/10 from 3 beats 5/10 from 2.

 

But as you point out these stats don’t take into consideration that teams run hot and cold from deep.  And when the game, or a series is on the line, and you absolutely need a bucket, do you have a go-to player or play that you can rely on?

 

What did Houston miss in that series? 27 consecutive 3’s?

Yep.  And it seems that analytics in the hands of amateurs is a dangerous combo.  I should shut up , but the more I study and think about this basketball deal , the madder it makes me.  This team isn’t cold from 3 , 14% for a season is a non starter in my opinion.  And yet the small guys keep getting sent onto the court to throw them up while he sits 4 bigs that dominate the boards in practice .  Guys an idiot.  There , I said it.  lol. 

[deadsolid...shank]

20 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Yep.  And it seems that analytics in the hands of amateurs is a dangerous combo.  I should shut up , but the more I study and think about this basketball deal , the madder it makes me.  This team isn’t cold from 3 , 14% for a season is a non starter in my opinion.  And yet the small guys keep getting sent onto the court to throw them up while he sits 4 bigs that dominate the boards in practice .  Guys an idiot.  There , I said it.  lol. 

One of my biggest complaints about coaches is when they pigeonhole players into position by size. My high school had a team (20 years after me) that was incredibly talented (it included a guy who won on the PGA Tour a couple years ago ((now it’s still a golf related post😀)j, number one ranked team in the state. But....tow particular players on this team. One was a 5’10” kid, really good athlete, strong, QB of the football team. Played guard. Could not throw it in the ocean if he was standing on the beach. Played the perimeter jacking up 3’s.  2nd player, 6’4”, real skinny kid, not overly athletic or strong. One of the best shooting kids I’ve seen, won the 3pt contest in the local all star game. Could flat out stroke it. Almost always played on the block🙄. Drove me crazy. 
 

Big guys CAN play the perimeter, little guys can play on the block (depending on defense of course). Too many coaches don’t recognize and utilize each players particular skill set. 

[Ferguson]

11 hours ago, Aviador Naval said:

Perhaps you need to ask an 8 yr old how to use Google and enter any or all of the following phrases:  Trackman; pressure plates; high speed video; Shot-Link; strokes gained; Every Shot Counts; damn near US Forestry Service detailed green contour/slope books; ...

 

Wise-assery aside, the golf analytics train left the station long ago - ask @RichieHunt.

 

The issue with Bryson is his pseudo junk science like spraying water on his irons to assess the differences in ball-flight in damp conditions.  I'm sure a large portion of that is truly part of his make-up and to that extent am glad to see him being true to himself and wish him well on exploring new frontiers.  We may all learn something just as 'strokes gained' has drawn into serious question some previous beliefs regarding true leverage in scoring.  However, I'm equally sure a large portion of it is there to cultivate his brand/image.  To the latter, wide-spread adoption of his well-marketed junk science would be the surest sign of the golfing apocalypse.

 

Just like business, there are companies that adopt wild and crazy strategies, spending months creating glossy reports only to stumble when it comes to results.  Why?  They fail at execution.   Sounds like many tour players, doesn't it?

 

Bryson's "junk science" as you call it, is not something a person can adopt at a weekend seminar.  It's a strategy (all his own) that he planned, implemented and that is now producing results.  No one shares his vision and therefore no one can replicate his process 100%.

 

 

 

[milesgiles]

whilst i have absolutely no clue what the basketball talk is about, bear in mind its not necessarily the coaches job to win.. a good coach is identifying talent, developing skills and encouraging a style of play that may pay off in the future, not necessarily in the 'now'

[tsecor]

Bryson may be able to bomb it 360 and i know it helps, but seeing him short his 120 yard wedge into a bunker multiple times makess me feel at ease that his scoring will always be the same....he will have good weeks and bad weeks, miss cuts ect......distance is great but its only 1 aspect of a complete game.....it helps, i know but im not sure its a problem for the tour.....lack of elite talent is more of a problem...

 

but here is Bryson and his pals talking about their protein diet....

 

 

Bryson and his buds talking protein

[miamistomp]

 Training and good practice are what separates equally talented athletes

 

 Rory can probably bust a ball as far as Bryson without extra strength work but his putting is erratic as is his wedge play and he does not  seem to worry about it all that much

 

Right now Bryson is just a more formidable competitor and gets some face time in golf media because of his weight gain 

 

I doubt Bryson would be using a steroid

If he is, he should switch to Anavar which will retain muscle mass with less fat

[bladehunter]

33 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

whilst i have absolutely no clue what the basketball talk is about, bear in mind its not necessarily the coaches job to win.. a good coach is identifying talent, developing skills and encouraging a style of play that may pay off in the future, not necessarily in the 'now'

Oh lord.  So the 90 % + who never play after high school are preparing for men’s night at the ymca ?  Lol.   I think winning begats winning.  Period. 
 

 

[milesgiles]

7 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Oh lord.  So the 90 % + who never play after high school are preparing for men’s night at the ymca ?  Lol.   I think winning begats winning.  Period. 
 

 

 

up until recently, Britain was one of the only countries where primary school children still played 11 a side soccer routinely. Other countries reckoned it was more important to give kids more time on the ball to develop skills, so played 4 or 5 a side on smaller pitches. When those other countries started stuffing us at soccer, we realised we might nit have quite the right approach..

 

point being, put those kids in an 11 a side game, if theyve only played 5 a side, yes theyd lose. But in the long run their skill set will be stronger and by the time any professional clubs might want to sign them, they can start learning the full game with the basic skills in place.

 

Yes the vast majority wont get anywhere near a trial with a professional club, but you also dont lose talent out of the game at the same rate.

 

Put it like this, if your kid has realistic pro ambitions, wouldnt you want them on the most efficient path possible? Being the best at 15, at golf, soccer, basketball or anything else isnt very important 

[golfortennis]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

whilst i have absolutely no clue what the basketball talk is about, bear in mind its not necessarily the coaches job to win.. a good coach is identifying talent, developing skills and encouraging a style of play that may pay off in the future, not necessarily in the 'now'

 

Perhaps it's different in the UK, but the coach's job is in fact to win.  That is how you draw players ($) to your program.  You should read "Play Their Hearts Out."  It's about youth basketball, but it's not so much technical, it's about the business that youth hoops has become.  

 

Coaches are looking to build resumes for themselves, and you don't get jobs because a player who played for you 15 years ago developed into a high level player.  You get it because you win games.  Why or how you win is irrelevant.