or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Being tall an advantage?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Being tall an advantage? - Page 7

post #109 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by colin007 View Post

I would say that 6'6" is abnormal tall. I'm 6'4" and I think of someone my height as being at the uppermost limit of normal, meaning we can get clothes that fit at most clothing stores. Once you get past that then it gets difficult. You'll come across someone my height almost every day, but a guy 6'5"+ not as frequently.


6.6 is not abnormal, but it is unusual.

 

According to this chart: http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/230_cumulative_percent_distribution_of_population_by.html .

 

 

80% males are UNDER 6 ft tall.

12% are 6-1 or taller.

7% are 6-2 or taller.

4% are 6-3 or taller.

2% are 6-4 or taller.

 

I once read a study that said when men go over 6-5 in height, the social advantages of being tall reverse and height starts to become a disadvantage.

 

As far as golf goes, the few advantages (being able to more power) are quickly outweighed by the disadvantages.

 

Adding an inch to the club length (1) causes the swing weight to shoot through the roof, (2) makes the shaft more flexible, and (3) makes it more difficult to hit the ball in the center of the head.

post #110 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by HytrewQasdfg View Post
 


6.6 is not abnormal, but it is unusual.

 

According to this chart: http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/230_cumulative_percent_distribution_of_population_by.html .

 

 

80% males are UNDER 6 ft tall.

12% are 6-1 or taller.

7% are 6-2 or taller.

4% are 6-3 or taller.

2% are 6-4 or taller.

 

I once read a study that said when men go over 6-5 in height, the social advantages of being tall reverse and height starts to become a disadvantage.

 

As far as golf goes, the few advantages (being able to more power) are quickly outweighed by the disadvantages.

 

Adding an inch to the club length (1) causes the swing weight to shoot through the roof, (2) makes the shaft more flexible, and (3) makes it more difficult to hit the ball in the center of the head.

 

The chart you showed seems to indicate only males at 6'4" and not >6'4". I assume that the number is in the sub 0.5% range. It still means that 1 in 200 males you meet is over 6'4".

 

I think the sweet spot of being more attractive to women is now something like 6' to 6'1", the study I attached is just a little outdated.

"In a double-blind study by Graziano et al., it was found that, in person, using a sample of women of normal size, they were on average most attracted to men who were of medium height (5'9"- 5'11") and less attracted to both men of shorter height (5'5"- 5'7") and men of tallest height (6'2"- 6'4").[74]"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1978.tb00606.x/abstract;jsessionid=00BFE6E1C840C693F3D235D986DFC022.f01t04

 

It would be interesting to hear other peoples personal experiences regarding this topic. I think it is "technically" off topic for this thread, but not by looking at the title. ;-)

 

 

BTW, an interesting tidbit is that in the 1992 census, roughly 35% in all categories of the men 59 and under are taller than me, and in the 1978 census 99.7% of the males were taller than me. :smartass: 

post #111 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

I guess we're both wrong, given the recent Open Championship results.

 

The top 3 are under 5'9", and also impressive that that Rory got 2 eagles in one round. He might be a paradigm for golfing ability.

Agreed, the Open Championship is a great example of being short is an advantage. According to Google Rory and Ricky are 5'9" and Sergio is 5'10". I reiterate a point that I made earlier that gives the advantage to the shorter golfer...

 

Tall golfers' eyes are farther from the ground, and consequently, farther from the ball. This would lead to the conclusion that the ball would seems smaller to the tall golfer. If a study were done of who strikes the ball more solidly on the clubface, I would venture to say that shorter golfers might be the winner because they perceive the ball to be a larger target than the tall golfer. Those of us who golf with any regularity understand that more bad shots are created by off-center hits on the golf club. Thus, the advantage goes to the shorter golfer, since they are seeing a larger ball to hit.

 

In addition, since almost half of the shots in any round are taken on the green, I think the same can be said for putting. The shorter putter sees a larger ball, a larger cup and their eyes are closer to the line of the putt.

post #112 of 118

I actually saw something about Rory's swing on TV earlier today which said that Rory hits the ball so far because he extends his arms away from his body giving him a longer swing arc giving him more clubhead speed and effectively giving him the swing arc of someone taller than his 5'10 stature.  That means that being taller does give you an advantage as long as you can control it as well as Rory.  

 

At a high enough level in most sports being tall does matter...a lot...there is a reason that most professional athletes are taller/bigger than the average person.  The best thing about golf however is that accuracy is much more important than power and when you are on a 165 yard par three or putting from 20 feet it doesnt matter how much more power you have than the little guy.

post #113 of 118

This thread has taken a turn toward silliness. Now it's an advantage to be short because 3 short guys were the final 3 in The Open? (SMH)

 

That would be like scouts for the NFL running back to the office after the Super Bowl and telling management to only draft 5' 10" quarterbacks because Wilson won the Super Bowl or baseball scouts not recommending drafting any more tall pitchers after watching Roy Oswalt pitch.

 

Nobody in their right mind ever suggested that shorter people couldn't play or even be the best, or fastest, or strongest. It just takes more effort, better technique, probably more talent, and more strain on their bodies to achieve the same power.

 

No way for me to prove it but I would bet the ranch that any of those athletes would take an extra inch or two in height if they could snap their fingers and have it.

post #114 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 

This thread has taken a turn toward silliness. Now it's an advantage to be short because 3 short guys were the final 3 in The Open? (SMH)

 

That would be like scouts for the NFL running back to the office after the Super Bowl and telling management to only draft 5' 10" quarterbacks because Wilson won the Super Bowl or baseball scouts not recommending drafting any more tall pitchers after watching Roy Oswalt pitch.

 

Nobody in their right mind ever suggested that shorter people couldn't play or even be the best, or fastest, or strongest. It just takes more effort, better technique, probably more talent, and more strain on their bodies to achieve the same power.

 

No way for me to prove it but I would bet the ranch that any of those athletes would take an extra inch or two in height if they could snap their fingers and have it.

 

I don't think anyone actually said that? I think I just said that Rory's 2 eagles in one round is pretty impressive, and that height does not seem to have had an advantage in this case. It seems that Rory has found some way to do what is normally in the domain of the larger players.

post #115 of 118
I'm working on a theory that short people need 11,000 hours to be world class experts in their chosen field.

Now that's a turn toward silliness.
post #116 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

I don't think anyone actually said that?

Hmmm. Looks like it to me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfreuter415 View Post
 

Agreed, the Open Championship is a great example of being short is an advantage. According to Google Rory and Ricky are 5'9" and Sergio is 5'10". I reiterate a point that I made earlier that gives the advantage to the shorter golfer...

 

Tall golfers' eyes are farther from the ground, and consequently, farther from the ball. This would lead to the conclusion that the ball would seems smaller to the tall golfer. If a study were done of who strikes the ball more solidly on the clubface, I would venture to say that shorter golfers might be the winner because they perceive the ball to be a larger target than the tall golfer. Those of us who golf with any regularity understand that more bad shots are created by off-center hits on the golf club. Thus, the advantage goes to the shorter golfer, since they are seeing a larger ball to hit.

 

In addition, since almost half of the shots in any round are taken on the green, I think the same can be said for putting. The shorter putter sees a larger ball, a larger cup and their eyes are closer to the line of the putt.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 


I guess we're both wrong, given the recent Open Championship results.

 

The top 3 are under 5'9", and also impressive that that Rory got 2 eagles in one round. He might be a paradigm for golfing ability.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post


I'm not that positive that if RM was taller if he could be "better". Two eagles on a major course in one round is enough for me to say that height doesn't matter in golf. It's only talent. Plus, I have also seen enough 5'7" golfers drive over 300 yards. They are more athletic when they swing, but their more compact bodies also allow them to be more so 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post

Top 3 @ the Open yesterday - 5' 10" and under.

I recall Curtis Strange noticing the disparity in height between DJ and RM and RM holding up his own with DJ distance wise.

Mo Martin. Ladies Open winner. 5' 2".

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post


Actually, not having clubs that fit might be one of the main reasons. It looks really uncomfortable hunching over the irons even though they are already +1.5 inches.

Let's see, I'm about 5'10" and use a standard length club. If I were 6'6", i would need a club that is almost 8" longer just to have the same comfortable setup position.

Clubs are fit based on wrist to floor or something similar that reflects how far a person's hands are from the ground. The 6' 6" guy may not have very much more wrist to floor distance than I do.

post #117 of 118
Ok, maybe, but the overall meaning that we got was a bit distorted.

Rory might not be better if taller, tall amateurs I have played with look uncomfortable hunched over their clubs, . . . Etc.

Taken like this, ok, I agree it looks like this.

Really, the intent was never meant to mean that shorter is better.

I think talent is talent no matter how tall the athlete.
post #118 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
No way for me to prove it but I would bet the ranch that any of those athletes would take an extra inch or two in height if they could snap their fingers and have it.

 

"Those athletes" being McIlroy and Garcia? I'd take your bet. After this weekend I suspect McIlroy's quite ok with his stature and, if magically given the opportunity to play again like he did over the weekend, probably wouldn't want to change a single thing. But you're right, who knows.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Being tall an advantage?