Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
saevel25

Tiger's Back

Note: This thread is 3384 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

192 posts / 25310 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

The LD champion is a string bean.

The LD champion isn't a golfer. He is a long driver. When's the last time the LD guy had to walk 72 holes of varying terrain in trying conditions while under intense mental scrutiny the entire time, or had to hit a ball out of incredibly thick rough, etc.? Hasn't happened yet.

Fitness isn't just about speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

The LD champion isn't a golfer. He is a long driver. When's the last time the LD guy had to walk 72 holes of varying terrain in trying conditions while under intense mental scrutiny the entire time, or had to hit a ball out of incredibly thick rough, etc.? Hasn't happened yet.

Yea your right. My remark had nothing to do with those concerns. My point was in reference to the previous poster stating he was on roids. The man obviously strenghtened his upper body and core, whether it was due to roids isnt the issue. My comment was that if he were to be juicing for distance simply look at the LD player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea your right. My remark had nothing to do with those concerns. My point was in reference to the previous poster stating he was on roids. The man obviously strenghtened his upper body and core, whether it was due to roids isnt the issue. My comment was that if he were to be juicing for distance simply look at the LD player.

LD players are super flexible, have you seen how much shoulder turn jamie sladowski(sorry if I spelled it wrong) gets?

And I doubt that's a very consistent swing either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make you Corporate Logo Shirt look and sale better.

Your still playing that card?

He wouldn't jeopardize his career for the sake of a sponsorship deal with nike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he did, he is downright foolish. I dont see why he would need it, unless he thought his strength pre roids wasnt going to help him get to the next level....even if he did do it,,what the hell would it do for him? The LD champion is a string bean.

I agree, it would have been foolish. But tiger has recently shown he doesn't always make the best decisions.

What would it do for him? Like i said, some kinds of steroids and HGH help rebuild ligaments and tissues. Tiger was being treated for torn ligaments in his knee by galea, who provided other athletes with HGH. All i am saying is it is a real possibility Dr. Galea gave him HGH as well as the plasma treatment to heal his knee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL he got bigger because he is narrcacistic and wants to pull hot chicks. The guy is upset because his calfs are too small....his calfs...too small...lmao it had nothing to do with golf fellas as he was more dominant and longer when skinny. And to the idea that he was trying to prevent injury well if you add weight to a frame with small bones like he clearly has then you are causing more damage, not preventing it. Notice his injuries became prevalent around the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-

Any treatment for the supposed knee recovery is not within the time frame in question. The earl;y 2000's is when all the drastic changes occured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does all of the extra muscle do that some stretch training wont.

self satisfaction? I don't work out so I can become a body builder...I work out so I fill in my clothes better and look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

self satisfaction? I don't work out so I can become a body builder...I work out so I fill in my clothes better and look good.

Who said you look good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 3384 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2019 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • Another idea is to make your own shaft flex board. Maltby sell one for $180. I once made one for free using a scrap of plywood, and some 2", 1/4" dowell material. Hung it on my garage wall.  I marked known  clubs flexes on the board as reference points, using a consistent weight. The board also gave me other info besides flex.  It was crude looking, but did the job.  It mattered little what the manufacturer's rating on the shaft was, which was usually different from each company. What ever my flex board showed me, was what the actual flex was when compared to the known flexes I used.   Maltby probably has a picture of his flex board on his website. Probably other sites have picts available too. With a little self ingenuity, a person can study the picture, and build their own. It's pretty easy. 
    • I thought about this a while, and then had an epiphany last night.  Without a perfect test, the answer is almost definitely no. It's a fairly simple statistical calculation called Bayes' Theorem. The end result is that you'll end up preventing more people from driving when they aren't drunk than preventing drunk drivers. I'm going to plug in numbers, but since I'm (likely correctly!) assuming drunk driving is a rare event, the numbers don't really matter that much. I'm also going to assume the test is extremely accurate. Let's say that in 1/10,000 car trips, the driver is too drunk to legally drive. This is probably an underestimation by a factor of 100, if not more, if you think about how many car trips there are in a day. Let's assume that the when the test is positive, the driver is drunk 99.9% of the time. And then assume that when the test is negative, the driver is sober 99.9% of the time (in other words, if the test is negative, the driver is drunk 0.1% of the time). We can use this to plug in probabilities for each event. Probability that a driver is drunk: .0001 Probability that a driver is sober: .9999 Probability that a drunk driver gets a positive test: .999 Probability that a drunk driver gets a negative test: .001 Probability that a sober driver gets a positive test: .001 Probability that a sober driver gets a negative test: .999 Bayes' Theorem applies here. It says: The probability that someone is drunk driver given a positive test is equal to the probability of a drunk driver gets a positive test times the probability of a drunk driver; that divided by the following: the probability of a drunk getting a positive test times probability of a drunk driver plus the probability of sober driver getting a positive test times the probability of a sober driver. In mathematic terms (DD=drunk driver; SD = sober driver; + = positive test): P(DD | +) = (P(+ | DD)*P(DD))/((P+ | DD)*P(DD)+P(+ | SD)*P(SD)) Plug in the numbers: P(DD | +) = ((.999)*(.0001))/((.999)*(.0001)+(.001)*(.9999)) P(DD | +) = .0908 In other words, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is only 9%. Meaning that out of a 100 people that test positive under this test, 91 of them would actually be sober. Because the test is imperfect and drunk driving is rare, it's going to impact more sober drivers than drunk drivers. Even if the test is 99.99% accurate and as a false positive rate of 0.01%, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is only 50%. Note that I'm assuming that 1/10,000 car trips is one by a drunk driver. If you assume 1/100,000 car trips are by a drunk driver, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is 0.9%. (You can also use this calculate to find out the odds that a drunk driver will have a negative test, but I have other stuff to do now...) So, without a nearly perfect test, it's a bad idea for the entire population. If drunk drivers were more frequent, then it would make more sense. Hence, it makes sense for someone who is more likely to drive drunk, and why the current policy probably makes sense. 
    • Hey Ben, good to see you’re still around!   I remember those irons. They’re beautiful! Sorry, I can’t help with the driver though…
    • Sometimes this is called a Telehandler, and sometimes its called a Rough Terrain Fork Lift. It all depends on where you live. 
    • Dragging the handle without the correct wrist movements to go with it can lead to an open clubface at impact. But without a video it's hard to determine the underlying cause of your problem.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Edsland
      Edsland
      (65 years old)
    2. KingHack82
      KingHack82
      (37 years old)
    3. snowbeast
      snowbeast
      (32 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...