Why do the pros hit it so far? Here's my take

[Alx]

3 hours ago, mvmac said:

That isn't what you originally posted. This is what you said.

Uhhh... The point was to illustrate that speed is derived from your maximal performance and even suboptimal mechanics get close.

3 hours ago, mvmac said:

Most club golfers don't have much raw speed to start with and it's really tough to develop. What I'm saying is if you take the average 40-60 year old, add a little gym time, don't change the mechanics, that isn't going to lead to "a lot" of distance.

Because they are weak and seriously unfit when compared to a trained individual.

Depends on what little gym time means. If it's some "golf program" where you throw a medicine ball around you're right it's useless.

3 hours ago, mvmac said:

Again you were originally talking about club golfers adding a lot of distance by going to the gym. The guys taking the steroids were already really good at hitting a baseball.

It's like when a new driver or ball comes out. The people that benefit the most are the tour players because they swing fast and hit it really solid. You're not going to see much distance gains if you hit it all over the face and contact is inconsistent. 

Again. The point was to illustrate that speed is derived from your performance.

3 hours ago, mvmac said:

McIlroy a lightweight? lol

I was exxagerating but understandably it's hard to tell over the internet .

 

I think well have to agree to disagree on some aspects. But keep in mind mcilroy getting "fit" meant maybe adding 20-30 kilos to his squat. Your average joe can easily add 60+ kg. The scale of change is very, very different.

 

You stick with what you're doing. I'll stick with what works. I say this in the least passive agressive way possible. 

2 hours ago, Pretzel said:

We're trying to help you realize they're more comparable than you think. Even outside of world champion weightlifting, 1. even being able to bench press 250 or more is something a LOT of people will never be able to do, regardless of how much they work at it. 2. That's less than a quarter of what world champion weightlifters can accomplish, yet I'd be willing to bet at least 50-75% of the population would be unable to do it even with regular strength training.

Hitting the ball 300 yards is another thing that I think at least 50-75% of the population is just physically incapable of doing. You can go on and on about the merits of strength training all you want, 3. but when McIlroy went from a limp noodle to the muscular figure he is today he gained about 6 yards in total.

There is benefit to strength training, yes, but the average golfer won't hit the ball 300 yards as a result of it. The benefits of strength training are the "icing on the cake", so to speak, that let's a golfer at the top squeeze out the last drops of their potential once their technique has been perfected. It can help amateurs swing faster too, but the benefits won't be very obvious to most players since most players are 4. too inconsistent to be able to take advantage of the marginal gains it provides.

1. You're so wrong. I can't even.

2. No it isnt. World record raw bench is 330kilos.

3. Scale of change.

4. This is a different issue that I noted earlier...

Edited April 11, 2017 by Alx

[nevets88]

3 hours ago, Pretzel said:

We're trying to help you realize they're more comparable than you think. Even outside of world champion weightlifting, even being able to bench press 250 or more is something a LOT of people will never be able to do, regardless of how much they work at it. That's less than a quarter of what world champion weightlifters can accomplish, yet I'd be willing to bet at least 50-75% of the population would be unable to do it even with regular strength training.

Hitting the ball 300 yards is another thing that I think at least 50-75% of the population is just physically incapable of doing. You can go on and on about the merits of strength training all you want, but when McIlroy went from a limp noodle to the muscular figure he is today he gained about 6 yards in total.

There is benefit to strength training, yes, but the average golfer won't hit the ball 300 yards as a result of it. The benefits of strength training are the "icing on the cake", so to speak, that let's a golfer at the top squeeze out the last drops of their potential once their technique has been perfected. It can help amateurs swing faster too, but the benefits won't be very obvious to most players since most players are too inconsistent to be able to take advantage of the marginal gains it provides.

People think they hit it a lot further than they do because they're conning themselves by their estimation of how far the ball went. If the distance were more immediately evident and obvious, take an analogy like, I can run the marathon in 2 hours and change no problem, and find they can't even keep a 5 minute mile pace for a quarter of a mile or even a couple of hundred yards, they wouldn't say this as much. Or I can throw a fastball like the MLB guys and find they can barely crack 55 mph, ow, I think I threw out my shoulder.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Alx said:

2. No it isnt. World record raw bench is 330kilos.

Google says:

Quote

The current world bench press champion is Ryan Kennelly, who pressed 1075 lbs (487.6 kg) in November 8, 2008.

So, 250 pounds is < 1/4 * 1075 pounds.

I'm with @Pretzel: most golfers are not going to add much speed by working out and lifting weights. You can't teach someone to run a 4.4 40. Speed is more genetic than anything.

I can roll off the couch after a year of doing no actual "training" and hit it farther than most male golfers ever could. (Not a brag at all - I have decent but not great speed, and thousands and thousands can likely hit it past me one-handed if they catch it solidly, or from their knees.)

(Remember, too, 50% of the world is women.)

[kpaulhus]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

Google says:

So, 250 pounds is < 1/4 * 1075 pounds.

I'm with @Pretzel: most golfers are not going to add much speed by working out and lifting weights. You can't teach someone to run a 4.4 40. Speed is more genetic than anything.

I can roll off the couch after a year of doing no actual "training" and hit it farther than most male golfers ever could. (Not a brag at all - I have decent but not great speed, and thousands and thousands can likely hit it past me one-handed if they catch it solidly, or from their knees.)

(Remember, too, 50% of the world is women.)

To your point, I hit the golf ball further now that I haven't worked out seriously in two years, than when I did when I was benching 400lbs. Thats probably more attributed to better form as well. There is a guy at my club who is 6'3 190lb stick looking man and he hits his driver 380 yards. Doesn't look like he even tries. Speed is IMO more of a genetic vs training thing. Sure you can increase your speed, but even then you might not be as gifted as someone who is genetically fast. 

[freshmanUTA]

1 hour ago, Alx said:

Depends on what little gym time means. If it's some "golf program" where you throw a medicine ball around you're right it's useless.

Again. The point was to illustrate that speed is derived from your performance.

I was exxagerating but understandably it's hard to tell over the internet .

You stick with what you're doing. I'll stick with what works.

1. You're so wrong. I can't even.

2. No it isnt. World record raw bench is 330kilos.

3. Scale of change.

4. This is a different issue that I noted earlier...

I would seriously hate for someone to read this thread and think that you're providing good information.

First off, a majority of club golfers don't hit the gym period, so even 1 hour a week will give them better results than they're already seeing. 

Also, you do realize that golf specific training is what every PGA pro that has a training program does right? And that program where you "throw a medicine ball around" is used by professionals in every sport that requires rotation. Just ask baseball, hockey, football, and soccer players. I myself played junior hockey for a year and the most common stability exercise was half kneeling med ball throws. 

If speed is derived from strength, why can't all body builders, strong men, baseball players or any other strong athlete swing a golf club fast? And why is it that players like John daly can rip bombs without ever physically training off the course and being out of shape. I play every week over summer with my brother who's a Division 1 baseball player and his clubhead speed would be lucky to reach 115 if he gave it 100%. Physical Training is important but the best way to learn to hit the ball farther and straighter is hitting the ball, not hitting the gym. 

Rory Mcilroy wasnt strong before he started lifting, in fact his body was so weak that the muscles he used for the golf string were dispoportionatey stronger than the rest of his body, and his training started as a way to get the rest of his body caught up. That process took about a year and since then Rory has been lifting hard because it's what helps him stay able to swing fast, not because it makes him swing faster. Anyone who pays attention to anything about golf knows Rory is extremely strong, that's just you not knowing not it being hard to tel over the internet.

 

1. 57% of the US population polled who were over age 20 said they visit the gym 1 or less times a week. So more than half of the USA will never be able to bench 250. That's just the half that don't lift/visit the gym, of the ones that do, honestly how many do you think will ever lift 250lbs or 250kg, either measurement, both are not going to be reached by a majority of the population. You sir, are the incorrect one.

2. I believe he meant pounds which is closer to 1/3 the record, but the point is still the same.

3. Rory would fit into your scale of change considering before he turned pro he wasn't actively in the gym. He started in 2010, to primarily cure body imbalances and eventually moved to pure strength. So according to you as soon as he switched to pure strength(mid-2011), his SS and distance should have increased, but his total distance went up only around 6 yards, or in other words the weight training wasn't as beneficial as you claim.

4. So the question is, how can weight lifting improve their distance if they're so inconsistent they don't hit it as far as they already SHOULD based off their current SS? Why would weight training make he ball go farther if they're already struggling with distance because they don't hit properly. If hat was the case hen they would swing faster, but without the corrections of their swing the ball would just lose more distance due to spin, etc. Or would just become more innacruate and inconsistent.

 

The fastest way to increase distance is to have a better swing, period. Now if a golfer is at peak performance and they're hitting it 220 max when they're 25, it's dead straight and there are no path and contact errors then yes weight training will gradually allow them to swing faster, but the faster way to hit farther is improving your swing.

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by freshmanUTA

[Shorty]

If someone like Steve Stricker rocked up to your golf course and you'd never heard of him, you wouldn't be saying OMG look at the clubhead speed on that guy. Still, he'd be bombing it out there without even looking like he was trying. If Fred Couples was a stranger to you, you'd be marvelling at his fluid swing, not his power - but his distance would stun you. You wouldn't be trying to work out how much time he spends in the gym.

Timing + square contact + X factor = distance.

People like iacas can probably quantify the x factor, but heavy gym sessions are not the way to great distance. 

[Alx]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

Google says:

So, 250 pounds is < 1/4 * 1075 pounds.

I'm with @Pretzel: most golfers are not going to add much speed by working out and lifting weights. You can't teach someone to run a 4.4 40. Speed is more genetic than anything.

I can roll off the couch after a year of doing no actual "training" and hit it farther than most male golfers ever could. (Not a brag at all - I have decent but not great speed, and thousands and thousands can likely hit it past me one-handed if they catch it solidly, or from their knees.)

(Remember, too, 50% of the world is women.)

Youre quoting equipped results. They are not comparable to raw lifts...

 

 

15 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

Also, you do realize

I do. 

But do you realize I cannot write out every single thing as you'd be reading an essay at that point. Ofcourse theres sport specific training. Why does everyone get hung up on the smallest little things...

17 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

speed is derived from strength

I said performance. It's admittedly a vague term BUT I never said strength. There's other much more useful metrics but they usually increase as a byproduct. Please dont get hung up on this.

6 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

1

Are you even serious? Because half the population wont do something does not mean they cant.

8 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

2

No they are both quoting equipped results.

9 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

3

I never said everyone. There will always be exceptions. It's just a forum. I won't write a full on thesis on here so I have to leave some obvious things out as far as benefits of training...

13 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

4

We discussed this already... I never said having a higher ss would make you more skilled.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Alx said:

Youre quoting equipped results. They are not comparable to raw lifts...

So? Honestly, I don't know the difference… just as you don't know what @Pretzel was citing.

You're not offering much in the way of proof, @Alx.

[freshmanUTA]

5 hours ago, Alx said:

But do you realize I cannot write out every single thing as you'd be reading an essay at that point. Ofcourse theres sport specific training. Why does everyone get hung up on the smallest little things...

Are you even serious? Because half the population wont do something does not mean they cant.

But the way you wrote it described what you meant in a manner of "don't do 'golf training' with those dumb medicine balls, do bodybuilding lifts" and that may not be what you meant but that's how I interpreted it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

If they don't go to the gym, the physically can't lift 250kg, it's not rocket science. Not to mention body strength is a genetic thing and some people won't ever reach the same peak strength.

[Pretzel]

8 hours ago, Alx said:

1. You're so wrong. I can't even..

I would be willing to place a wager of $20 that, if you went to a rec center gym (people who are somewhat fit, but not ripped like they might be in more dedicated gyms) and picked randomly (not just picking out the biggest muscle bros in the room) 5 girls and 5 guys, you would find that less than 5 of them can bench press 250 pounds despite being in the minority of the population that frequents the gym.

If you go to your local YMCA or other rec center, perform this experiment (choosing the first 5 girls and first 5 guys that walk into the gym while you're there) and film the whole thing, and more than 5 people can do it I will send $20 to a Paypal account of your choice. That's how confident I am that my assertion is so right, and I can even.

8 hours ago, Alx said:

2. No it isnt. World record raw bench is 330kilos.

Okay, then the world record how you want to define it is 727 lbs. 250 lbs is still only ~1/3 of that world record, meaning it's a far cry from elite levels and I'd still bet most couldn't do it. As much as you want to deny it, not everyone can become strong, which doesn't really matter anyways since golf is a matter of speed rather than strength.

 

8 hours ago, Alx said:

3. Scale of change.

In 2016, Rory McIlroy had a driving distance average of 306.8 yards. 

In 2010, Rory McIlroy averaged 300.0 yards off the tee.

In 2009, Rory McIlroy averaged 305.2 yards off the tee. 

Turns out all that weight training did pretty much diddly for Rory. I only looked up 2010 earlier because it was a nice, even numbered year.

That said, your scale is this. In 7 years of weight training, Rory gained 1.6 yards off the tee. He started at 305.2. This means he made a gain of .5242% in his total driving distance from 7 years of training.

9 hours ago, Alx said:

4. This is a different issue that I noted earlier...

It's an issue that completely dismantles your argument. Nobody is going to hit it further because of weight training when a good portion of them are sliced into the weeds anyways. 

Technique always has been, and always will be, the fastest path to gain additional distance and lower your scores. Weight training helps, but not really all that much because it turns out being strong is often times very different from being fast.

@iacas had a great example when talking about the 40 meter dash. Do you think a sprinter would suddenly run faster if he could squat 100 pounds more weight than he did previously? If so, why don't we see sprinters with thighs the size of tree trunks like powerlifters have?

[mvmac]

9 hours ago, lastings said:

Another thing to add that seems to be getting lost here is that the pros simply have better swings.   Muscle or not.   

Not lost on me, I've been talking about the importance of mechanics for several posts 

[uitar9]

15 hours ago, Shorty said:

If someone like Steve Stricker rocked up to your golf course and you'd never heard of him, you wouldn't be saying OMG look at the clubhead speed on that guy. Still, he'd be bombing it out there without even looking like he was trying. If Fred Couples was a stranger to you, you'd be marvelling at his fluid swing, not his power - but his distance would stun you. You wouldn't be trying to work out how much time he spends in the gym.

Timing + square contact + X factor = distance.

People like iacas can probably quantify the x factor, but heavy gym sessions are not the way to great distance. 

Was listening to Player on tour radio. He also used the x factor. It's just there.

[Lihu]

7 minutes ago, uitar9 said:

Was listening to Player on tour radio. He also used the x factor. It's just there.

Isn't X factor something you can develop and improve kind of like a 6th key or something?

The talent part is the timing and square contact. I would think that those are things that you can't teach very well?

[saevel25]

54 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Isn't X factor something you can develop and improve kind of like a 6th key or something?

The talent part is the timing and square contact. I would think that those are things that you can't teach very well?

X-factor is a myth. What matters more is fast arms and torso speed. 

You can tell someone to get more hip and shoulder separation, but if this causes them to turn at the same speed or maybe slower them how does that increase distance? 

I think it might be more that amateurs just don't turn enough to begin with. 

[Lihu]

30 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

X-factor is a myth. What matters more is fast arms and torso speed. 

You can tell someone to get more hip and shoulder separation, but if this causes them to turn at the same speed or maybe slower them how does that increase distance? 

I think it might be more that amateurs just don't turn enough to begin with. 

Ah, okay. I had this misconception that X-factor was just a measure of how much golfers turn or not turn.

[lastings]

41 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I think it might be more that amateurs just don't turn enough to begin with. 

This.  shoulders don't turn enough going back.  Thus, even a good hip turn does create enough torque.  This means that clubhead speed has to be generated by the arms. distance gets lost here, not to mention that it's pretty tough to create a good impact position when you're trying to generate all your speed with your arms.  There is a pretty good chance that your motion will become out of sync. 

[JxQx]

10 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Technique always has been, and always will be, the fastest path to gain additional distance and lower your scores. Weight training helps, but not really all that much because it turns out being strong is often times very different from being fast.

Agreed, technique is always going to be the biggest factor followed by genetics. Strength by itself will not help people hit the ball further, they need to be more explosive. Explosiveness can be trained to an extent but is very much genetic related, similar to flexibility.

[Lihu]

54 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

X-factor is a myth. What matters more is fast arms and torso speed. 

You can tell someone to get more hip and shoulder separation, but if this causes them to turn at the same speed or maybe slower them how does that increase distance? 

I think it might be more that amateurs just don't turn enough to begin with. 

Wow, this is a subject for another thread, but X-factor seems to be a recipe for injury!