Being tall an advantage?

[CyboNinja]

41 minutes ago, natureboy said:

How so, if they are using the same neurology and muscle groups?

No one has a precisely centered pivot - even the pros. By that thinking (less physical precision due to height), tall men should be incapable of hitting a nail on the head consistently with a hammer. I don't see many warnings about this out there in home improvement media.

Also don't take it personally if you're tall and not very good. It's an inherent advantage - on average & all else being equal. But there are many other abilities that go into golf that don't make height a strong determinant of success like in basketball.

With golf the issue for tall people is balance. The taller an object, the higher up CoG becomes thus making balance much more critical. 

Also the longer a lever is (arms) the less precise it becomes. Its simple physics.

[DrvFrShow]

People between 5'4" and 5'9" have the easiest time with golf because it's not as hard on their backs. The downside of being tall is the bending over to hit the ball depending upon how long one's arms are. If one has gorilla arms it's one thing. If one has t-rex arms, well they just don't make clubs long enough.

[Tod]

What a fun topic.

Son is 6'8", I am 6'4". He is more flexible and more athletic than I, and his HCI is half of mine. But, the only reason he hits the fall much further than I do on occasion is that he is 30 years younger. 

And I am sticking by that.

But all the regulars at the course love to watch him hit.

[natureboy]

20 hours ago, CyboNinja said:

With golf the issue for tall people is balance. The taller an object, the higher up CoG becomes thus making balance much more critical. 

But that higher CoG is supported by proportionally sized legs and leg muscles. If taller people were more inherently accident prone then you'd expect them to have a higher injury rate, but for NBA players e.g. that appears not to be the case:

Quote

It makes sense that tall athletes would be at greater risk for injury because their bones are longer and they tend to weigh more, which puts added stress on the body every time they jog up and down the court, dive for a loose ball, or lunge for a rebound. But surprisingly, the data doesn't back that up. A 17-year review of injuries in the NBA—which looked at more than a thousand players and over three thousand injuries—found no correlation between injury rate and player demographics, including age, weight, NBA experience, and most importantly, height. (Injuries and player demographic information were reported by each team's athletic trainer. Criteria for reportable injuries were those that resulted in a practice or game being missed, or those requiring emergency care). So while it seems like big men break down far more often than other players, it doesn't appear to be true. We just take notice when they do.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-do-nba-big-men-break-down-1594253833

Edited August 6, 2016 by natureboy

[tdiii]

On 8/6/2016 at 0:54 PM, natureboy said:

But that higher CoG is supported by proportionally sized legs and leg muscles. If taller people were more inherently accident prone then you'd expect them to have a higher injury rate, but for NBA players e.g. that appears not to be the case:

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-do-nba-big-men-break-down-1594253833

Taller people, like St. Bernards and Great Danes, don't live as long as short people. 

I'm 6'6".  The long arc is an advantage in length, but the errors get magnified.  I think tall folks struggle with tempo more too. 

[Aguirre]

Of course it is, but it's obviously not absolute. Put your arm out in front of you and move it from side to side. Do you notice how your fingertips move faster than your bicep? Being tall means longer arms, which means your hands move faster. 

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, tdiii said:

Taller people, like St. Bernards and Great Danes, don't live as long as short people. 

I'm 6'6".  The long arc is an advantage in length, but the errors get magnified.  I think tall folks struggle with tempo more too. 

They also make more money, are happier on average, but get cancer more frequently.

It's possible there's more relative error / tempo issues, but I'm not convinced. If it is a real effect, it doesn't seem very significant. Big men in the NBA wouldn't be capable of shooting field goals if that was true and quite a few of them have good percentages. Shorter tennis players would be more powerful and dominate taller players from the baseline due to hitting the sweet spot of the racquet more consistently. Do you have difficulty hitting a nail on the head with a hammer? 

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by natureboy

[tdiii]

Just now, natureboy said:

 Big men in the NBA wouldn't be capable of shooting field goals if that was true and quite a few of them have good percentages. Shorter tennis players would be more powerful and dominate taller players from the baseline due to hitting the sweet spot of the racquet more consistently. Do you have difficulty hitting a nail on the head with a hammer? 

 

Shaquille?  Andre Drummond?  Wilt?  Big centers have notoriously struggled with free throws as compared to point guards. 

 

I'm a lot closer to a nail than I am a golf ball.   And you are a lot closer to a golf ball than am I. 

[natureboy]

1 minute ago, tdiii said:

Shaquille?  Andre Drummond?  Wilt?  Big centers have notoriously struggled with free throws as compared to point guards. 

I'm a lot closer to a nail than I am a golf ball.   And you are a lot closer to a golf ball than am I. 

Some have for sure, but the big guys are so rare they get selected just for size vs. coordination. Point guards come from a much larger population group in height so they can be selected for above average coordination / precision.

A few exceptions to the trope of the ungainly / poor shooting big man off the top of my head in Bill Laimbeer, Kevin McHale, LeBron James, Kareem, David Robinson, Magic (just a difference of 3") and I don't know the NBA that well. If it was a 'rule' there wouldn't be exceptions.

The head of a nail is a much smaller target than a golf ball and you don't hammer a nail home by leaning in close to it - it's naturally done at arm's length which is longer if you are taller.

[CyboNinja]

On 8/5/2016 at 6:15 PM, natureboy said:

The head of a nail is a much smaller target than a golf ball and you don't hammer a nail home by leaning in close to it - it's naturally done at arm's length which is longer if you are taller.

Balance isn't much of an issue for anyone when hitting a nail with a hammer. Also swinging a hammer is a simple motion with 2-3 pivot points. There's also the fact that when you mis-hit a nail (which we all do) you just bend it back straight and drive it in. Comparing a golf swing to hitting a nail with a hammer is a poor comparison. I'm tall and I almost never miss with my spoon or fork either. 

Tennis was also mentioned. Also a poor comparison I feel. The sweet spot on a tennis racquet is exponentially larger than a golf club. So is the ball. The racquet is also much shorter which makes hitting the sweet spot even more likely. No one has to get their racquets modified because they're tall. 

In basketball the taller you are the closer you are to the rim (your target), which makes it easier to score. Certainly an advantage. In golf being taller puts you further away from your target. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_in_sports 

""Advantages for below average height include:^[1]

• Faster reaction times (shorter neural networks)
• Greater strength to weight ratio
• Faster limb acceleration
• Greater endurance
• Greater power to weight ratio
• Faster rotational capability
• Greater agility
• Greater balance and lower centre of gravity
• Lower risk of heat exhaustion""

 

The data backs it up. Only a handfull of tall pros ever made it to the HOF and those in the GOAT conversation are all of average height. If being tall was such an advantage in golf there would be many more exceptionally tall golf pros. And there are virtually none. 

[natureboy]

4 hours ago, CyboNinja said:

Balance isn't much of an issue for anyone when hitting a nail with a hammer. Also swinging a hammer is a simple motion with 2-3 pivot points. There's also the fact that when you mis-hit a nail (which we all do) you just bend it back straight and drive it in. Comparing a golf swing to hitting a nail with a hammer is a poor comparison. I'm tall and I almost never miss with my spoon or fork either. 

Tennis was also mentioned. Also a poor comparison I feel. The sweet spot on a tennis racquet is exponentially larger than a golf club. So is the ball. The racquet is also much shorter which makes hitting the sweet spot even more likely. No one has to get their racquets modified because they're tall. 

In basketball the taller you are the closer you are to the rim (your target), which makes it easier to score. Certainly an advantage. In golf being taller puts you further away from your target. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_in_sports 

""Advantages for below average height include:^[1]

• Faster reaction times (shorter neural networks)
• Greater strength to weight ratio
• Faster limb acceleration
• Greater endurance
• Greater power to weight ratio
• Faster rotational capability
• Greater agility
• Greater balance and lower centre of gravity
• Lower risk of heat exhaustion""

 

The data backs it up. Only a handfull of tall pros ever made it to the HOF and those in the GOAT conversation are all of average height. If being tall was such an advantage in golf there would be many more exceptionally tall golf pros. And there are virtually none. 

Jack Niklaus was 2" over the average height for his day as was Tiger Woods. It's pretty clear from examples like Tony Finau that tall guys are becoming more common on tour. The average height on tour is already above the average for the general population. It's clearly not everything, but just from that alone it's obviously a net advantage, whatever drawbacks height has on coordination due to faster neural networks.

Your argument that height being an advantage means that there would automatically be many more exceptionally tall golf pros doesn't follow. Because PGA pros are taller on average than US population (and IIRC the longest PGA drivers were on average taller than the average pro) alone demonstrates that height is an advantage in golf. But relative to basketball it's clearly not as important / critical a quality. Other combinations of traits and abilities matter too and they are likely more statistically common in the larger group of individuals who are merely above average in height instead of exteme outliers in height. This small group of extreme outliers is likely to have only a few individuals possessing this combination of other traits, and they are likely to get pushed into basketball anyway from an early age. Growth spurts I accept do radically alter fine motor control in the short-term and this may significantly interrupt a young player's development path and interest in the sport.

In the .3 seconds of a downswing, the nerve signal speed difference cited in some literature (112 m/s for 5' vs 99 m/s for 6'7") would imply that a nerve impulse could cycle the full length of a 5' person's body ~ 22 times to a 6'7" person's ~ 15 times. There's a percentage difference, but it's not clear for the interval involved if that translates directly to decreased performance, less coordination, or is significant for the number of actual neural impulse cycles that would or could take place in the interval of a downswing. In other words both heights may have more than enough neurological cycle capacity for the activity of hitting a golf ball. Reaction time usually involves judging moving objects, and the golf ball isn't moving when struck at. If the relative nerve speed advantage of a shorter person mattered to golf more than the greater strength and power available (on average) to a taller person then the PGA would populated by munchkins.

Faster nerves may confer a slight relative coordination advantage to smaller golfers on average. However, this is likely (obviously IMO) offset by the much more substantial advantages gleaned (on average) from greater height:

Quote

Advantages for above average height include:^[1]

• Greater absolute strength
• Greater work capacity (force multiplied by distance)
• Greater work per unit of time (Power)
• Longer reach
• Greater speed and power due to mechanical advantage

 

While taller people have higher CoG's, the NBA injury study clearly showed no differential effect of height on injury rate despite the supposed higher 'clumsiness' and expected increased force from falls you'd expect to result for that higher CoG along with the slower nerve impulses. That study clearly indicated it's a non-effect in terms of relative balance / coordination (on average). Yes there have been some clumsy big men in the NBA, because they were selected for size above most other qualities, and having below average coordination wasn't as important as their relative size advantage.

 

I don't think tennis is an awful example. Taller players have longer arms and are therefore making contact with the ball farther away from their eyes and CoG as well as dealing with the impact of their slower nerves. Even though the relative sweet spot of a racquet is larger than a golf club, precision with hitting at or near the center consistently conveys advantages in generating power and accuracy (impact conditions) just like in golf. The munchkins have not taken over tennis either. Tall (even well above average) players seem to do fine in tennis even though they are often required to make contact with a moving and spinning ball while moving themselves and reversing directions - sometimes at a dead run in order to cover the court. I think that requires quite a lot of balance.

 

The nail on the hammer example was just to address simple hand-eye coordination with a relatively small implement / sweet spot and small target using a motion that is relatively quick. Tall people are not warned away from using hammers or steered toward ones with larger heads in departments stores are they?

 

I'm glad to hear you're on top of the knife and fork thing. Personally, I have a bit of a drinking problem.

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by natureboy

[ZappyAd]

53 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The average height on tour is already above the average for the general population.

 

Could this be a financial selection thing?  The pool of people that play golf tends to be financially advantaged because it is an expensive sport with high barriers to entry.  And if financial advantage correlates to being taller on average then increased height in golf pros may be as a result of their backgrounds rather than any advantage in playing the game.  I guess it might make sense to compare pga golf pros to doctors or engineers or something to try to filter out the social selection side.

Edited August 8, 2016 by ZappyAd

[colin007]

DJ is a legit 6'4", right?

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, ZappyAd said:

Could this be a financial selection thing?  The pool of people that play golf tends to be financially advantaged because it is an expensive sport with high barriers to entry.  And if financial advantage correlates to being taller on average then increased height in golf pros may be as a result of their backgrounds rather than any advantage in playing the game.  I guess it might make sense to compare pga golf pros to doctors or engineers or something to try to filter out the social selection side.

Interesting perspective. Possibly a contribution? Probably depends on what your definition of 'advantage' is. Do you have any relevant studies of average height by income / profession?

I wouldn't consider Tiger to have been 'advantaged', but middle class. Don't think DJ was 'priviliged' either. Nick Faldo would probably have been considered 'working class'. Those are anecdotal examples, but I personally wouldn't expect a big correlation between the top 200 OWGR and family income being well above average growing up. Also that income / height relationship would be the parents'. To what degree is a parent's height heritable?

Even if there's a golfer social selection effect, I'd expect any difference in U.S. golfer height from average U.S. height to be smaller than the gap between average PGA player and the U.S. average height.

Edited August 8, 2016 by natureboy

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, ZappyAd said:

Could this be a financial selection thing?  The pool of people that play golf tends to be financially advantaged because it is an expensive sport with high barriers to entry.  And if financial advantage correlates to being taller on average then increased height in golf pros may be as a result of their backgrounds rather than any advantage in playing the game.  I guess it might make sense to compare pga golf pros to doctors or engineers or something to try to filter out the social selection side.

A study has shown that tall people do make more money. Studies concluded it's about $700-$900 more a year. I would put that as not substantial. 

[WUTiger]

When wind speed exceeds 35 MPH, the advantage shifts to golers 5-foot-9 or less.

[iacas]

11 hours ago, tdiii said:

I'm a lot closer to a nail than I am a golf ball.   And you are a lot closer to a golf ball than am I. 

By like an inch or two, dude, c'mon. You're farther from the ball the same way I'm farther from the ball when I hit my 4I instead of my 7I or something.

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

Jack Niklaus was 2" over the average height for his day as was Tiger Woods.

Tiger is exactly the height of the average male today:

Any media guide or source that lists him as anything above 5'10" either used a broken ruler, measured him on cement floors with super long steel spikes, or is just exaggerating and/or reporting whatever was told to them. Tiger is 5'10". Maybe less now with less disc between a few of his vertebrae…

[Kalnoky]

Maybe the right question isn't does height make for better athletes, but rather, do good athletes tend to be taller. I think the latter is definitely true. We all know very tall awkward people who cannot make a lay-up to save their lives.

In golf we are not lining up against each other. We are playing against the course. And the ball is not moving! So there is a chance for shorter people (like me) to be very successful. 

I think PGA Tour players being taller than average has more to do with them being good athletes than anything else. 

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by Kalnoky