Being tall an advantage?

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, Lihu said:

No not a rule, just an observation, but obviously not just mine. . .

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

Also just an observation. The fastest swing ever is possessed by a person who is 5'11" (Jamie S.), and the average height of a PGA tour player is 5'11". If taller people are at a distinct advantage, the average height would be like 6'4".

The shorter neural networks is an empirical fact, but the association with better performance is not documented by any study I've seen. If this mattered significantly to performance then batting average in the Major Leagues would correlate to height, but it doesn't.

The power to weight ratio and ability to rotate more in a given area, I've already pointed out as the reason why gymnasts are shorter. There is no such requirement or playing area limitation in golf, except possibly for truly proportional clubs for taller players.

If Jamie Sadlowski was my height his flexibility and other gifts that enable him to generate clubhead speed would not have put him over the top to win long drive titles. The relative difference in strength is too significant.

Edited August 15, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

15 hours ago, Lihu said:

and the average height of a PGA tour player is 5'11". If taller people are at a distinct advantage, the average height would be like 6'4".

So, I'm not confident that we can conclude that being taller is a distinct and absolute advantage in golf.

I think that average is a bit low.

This article is the best summary of the issue I've found on the web: (http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/tallGolfer.php) The height data suggested a 2" deviation in the median/mean between the PGA and the general U.S. population. I doubt all PGA / pro players are lying about their height like Tiger and Rory. In a nutshell:

Quote

Height matters, but other factors matter a lot more.  - Dave Tutelman

Extremely tall people are a smaller subset of any population. Extremely high physical coordination is also a small subset of any population. Because of the normal distribution, very tall & highly/extremely coordinated people will be a smaller sized group from which to draw talent than the larger group of average height and high/extreme coordination (or whatever other factors matter in golf). So that will decrease the representation of extremely tall people in golf.

On top of that extremely tall people who are above average in coordination tend to get pulled into other sports early, particularly basketball, where their (on average) greater strength, leverage, or reach give them significant advantages. And golf requires a lot of time/focused practice to develop excellence.

Jaime Diaz echoes my point that tall, coordinated athletes historically tended to be pulled toward other sports, which is slowly changing.

Quote

As the average height of humans goes up with each generation, and golf has become more lucrative, a greater number of taller young athletes are being drawn to the game instead of team sports. - Jaime Diaz

Obviously, high levels of coordination / proprioception matter a great deal in golf. You have to hit the ball solidly, repeatably, and consistently to play great golf. If you can do that and also hit it farther do to greater strength from being taller than average you have a distinct advantage. No one ever said it was an absolute advantage (i.e. taller=better golfer). Clearly a tall klutz is at a disadvantage to a shorter exceptionally coordinated person, unless that shorter person is so short they have a really big disadvantage in generating club head speed. Remember your critiques of Dan McLaughlin due to his slight build?

If the power to weight ratio of a smaller person was such an advantage wouldn't you expect short volleyball players to predominate, because they could 'outleap' taller players who did not have this advantage and therefore overcome the advantage of the taller players' greater reach?

Edited August 15, 2016 by natureboy

[Lihu]

On 8/14/2016 at 8:16 PM, natureboy said:

The shorter neural networks is an empirical fact, but the association with better performance is not documented by any study I've seen. If this mattered significantly to performance then batting average in the Major Leagues would correlate to height, but it doesn't.

The power to weight ratio and ability to rotate more in a given area, I've already pointed out as the reason why gymnasts are shorter. There is no such requirement or playing area limitation in golf, except possibly for truly proportional clubs for taller players.

If you are tall enough to need to use longer clubs than "allowed", just get longer shafts and try it out.

There's no point in suffering. However, I doubt that even with the best fitted non-conforming equipment that you would improve your handicap that significantly. You might gain a few strokes at most?

 

Quote

If Jamie Sadlowski was my height his flexibility and other gifts that enable him to generate clubhead speed would not have put him over the top to win long drive titles. The relative difference in strength is too significant.

That's a pretty big "if".

 

21 hours ago, natureboy said:

I think that average is a bit low.

This article is the best summary of the issue I've found on the web: (http://www.tutelman.com/golf/swing/tallGolfer.php) The height data suggested a 2" deviation in the median/mean between the PGA and the general U.S. population. I doubt all PGA / pro players are lying about their height like Tiger and Rory. In a nutshell:

The page you quoted reinforces what I stated earlier that the average PGA height is around 5'11". I don't see how this shows that being taller is advantageous?

If being taller is a distinct advantage, then the average PGA player would be somewhere over 6'4".

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

The page you quoted reinforces what I stated earlier that the average PGA height is around 5'11". I don't see how this shows that being taller is advantageous?

If being taller is a distinct advantage, then the average PGA player would be somewhere over 6'4".

On that page, the median value for the 'typical pro' (which included a lot of non top-200 players) was given as 6' which is ~ 2" over the median height for the general population.

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

If being taller is a distinct advantage, then the average PGA player would be somewhere over 6'4".

No, I've already given reasons why that wouldn't automatically be the case. If power to weight ratio, lower center of gravity, and shorter/faster neural networks were advantages you'd see shorter than average golfers on tour. You don't.

They tend to be taller than the average population. Here's the general advantage to height in golf:

[CyboNinja]

On 8/11/2016 at 1:37 PM, CyboNinja said:

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/tall-order-trouble-bigger-golfers-face-course/

Here's what actual pros have to say on the matter. After everything that's been stated I'm inclined to take their word for it. 

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, CyboNinja said:

Here's what actual pros have to say on the matter. After everything that's been stated I'm inclined to take their word for it. 

Their anecdotal experience I suspect is not supported by the stats. It's a fluff piece for a segment of their audience. Even if taller players have a harder time putting, it's still less important than the long game where height is an advantage to hit it far. I'll try to see if there's a correlation on pro putting skill.

Also, folks should be on the lookout for this cognitive bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance. If you believe you should be less accurate as a taller player, you may actually perform under your ability / potential.

[CyboNinja]

 

10 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Even if taller players have a harder time putting, it's still less important than the long game where height is an advantage to hit it far. 

Wait, so putting is less important than driving? Ummm what?

[natureboy]

21 minutes ago, CyboNinja said:

Wait, so putting is less important than driving? Ummm what?

As a contribution to scoring, yes. Driving alone is more important. Plus 'long game' includes approach shots. The relative importance of putting alone vs. the whole long game isn't even close.

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

On 8/14/2016 at 7:57 PM, Lihu said:

Also just an observation. The fastest swing ever is possessed by a person who is 5'11" (Jamie S.), and the average height of a PGA tour player is 5'11". If taller people are at a distinct advantage, the average height would be like 6'4".

Here's some data representing ~ 190 regular players on the PGA tour. The average height for this group is 72", 2" over the US Average.

Regarding Sadlowski, note the different slopes of the swing speed & ball speed vs. height. A shorter golfer may be able to generate a high clubhead speed, but that speed translates into better ball speed if you have longer limbs.

@CyboNinja there does appear to be a slight negative correlation between putting (as well as short game) and height. Personally I don't think this represents any innate physical advantage / disadvantage. I think it represents a 'survivor effect'. If shorter players are (on average) at a disadvantage in generating power, they will need to be better putters to make it to the tour and then make cuts. Quite often longer (and on average taller) players don't need to be very good putters to make it on tour and win. Rory, though small is actually an example of this. He had great length (and superior swing mechanics considering his size). He never felt the need to push himself to be an excellent putter or have a strong short game.

[CyboNinja]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

A shorter golfer may be able to generate a high clubhead speed, but that speed translates into better ball speed if you have longer limbs.

 

 

 

That is not true. If a 4' tall golfer and a 7' tall golf each swing their club at 100mph then both will hit it approximately the same distance. Having longer limbs simply makes a higher clubspeed more achievable. That's it.

 

And for why PGA golfers are a meager 2" above average I feel the reason for that is simply because short people typically don't play sports. I played a lot of sports growing up. And nearly every player on every team I was on was above average height. Some were very tall and some closer to average but only a handful out of hundreds of teammates, accross several sports, could be considered short. Short people generally don't play sports as much as average height or tall people. This is likely why for every major sport the average height is taller than the mean. Aside from the jockeys of course. 

[DaveP043]

On 6/11/2014 at 0:24 PM, Hardballs said:

Does being tall in height give an advantage? Amongst the group of friends I play with, I'd say 4/5 are approx. 5'8" ish, with 4/5 being 6' or slightly over! Now it could be coincidence? Or it could be height advantage? But the taller ones are the big hitters, up to 40 yards longer on drives, and hitting 8irons over 150yrds, and although were all capable of beating each other, the taller guys tend to win more? And I don't think this is coincidence! Just wondering what others views are of this? And if anyone can name a really good short arse golfer?

Just for fun, I'm going back to the original post.  If we look at two large pools of golfers, taller and shorter, there just might be a trend for the pool of taller players to be longer than the pool of shorter players.  But really, each player is an individual, and when you compare individual to individual, the better player has the advantage, not necessarily the taller one.  If they're of equal abilities, the taller player just might have a distance advantage, but the shorter player must do something better than the taller one.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be of equal overall abilities.  Given that we have a pretty limited ability to change our height, really, what does it matter?  If the handicaps are right, the lower handicap has a very small advantage over the higher one (based on the 0.96 multiplier used to calculate your index), but 4% is so small as to be insignificant in a small group of golfers.

[natureboy]

10 hours ago, CyboNinja said:

That is not true. If a 4' tall golfer and a 7' tall golf each swing their club at 100mph then both will hit it approximately the same distance. Having longer limbs simply makes a higher clubspeed more achievable.

That's a good point. How then to explain the much steeper slope of the trend for ball speed to height vs. swing speed to height?

I would say that because they are stronger overall that the taller player is able to generate competitive club head speed with relatively less effort (not swinging out of their shoes) which translates into better contact (on average). I can't think of another physiological reason for the difference in the trend lines.

So because they can generate club head speed with an easier swing (think Ernie Els) they have and edge in generating good impact conditions at a higher swing speed than a shorter player who has to put more total body effort into it. Of course that is with all other skills / abilities equal, but it's a significant built-in edge for a taller player to overcome other below average skills/abilities.

10 hours ago, CyboNinja said:

And for why PGA golfers are a meager 2" above average I feel the reason for that is simply because short people typically don't play sports. I played a lot of sports growing up. And nearly every player on every team I was on was above average height. Some were very tall and some closer to average but only a handful out of hundreds of teammates, accross several sports, could be considered short. Short people generally don't play sports as much as average height or tall people. This is likely why for every major sport the average height is taller than the mean. Aside from the jockeys of course. 

I think what you mean to say is that shorter people are commonly under-represented on team sports. That makes sense, because many sports favor total strength / speed / reach with which taller players tend to have the edge. Exceptions being jockeys and gymnasts where the requirements of the sport create some disadvantages for taller participants.

Like I said to @Lihu, the reason the average is only 2" (still statistically significant difference) is that playing golf well requires more than simply the ability to hit it far. Plus taller athletes tend to get recruited into other team sports as you note. I expect the average height on tour to increase over the next 10 years or so as tall players taking up the game like Tony Finau become more common. Guys with the stature of Corey Pavin and David Toms will have a really hard time cracking the tour in the future, unless they have a swing as great as Rory or have other-wordly short game and putting skills.

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

Just for fun, I'm going back to the original post.  If we look at two large pools of golfers, taller and shorter, there just might be a trend for the pool of taller players to be longer than the pool of shorter players.  But really, each player is an individual, and when you compare individual to individual, the better player has the advantage, not necessarily the taller one.  If they're of equal abilities, the taller player just might have a distance advantage, but the shorter player must do something better than the taller one.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be of equal overall abilities.

That's true. There are many ways to make the sausage. But because of the relative importance of the ability to generate distance and the long game, the shorter player has to be quite a bit better relatively at one of the 'less valuable' skills. Relative to being able to put the ball closer to the hole in the shortest number of strokes, distance is its own form of accuracy.

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

If the handicaps are right, the lower handicap has a very small advantage over the higher one (based on the 0.96 multiplier used to calculate your index), but 4% is so small as to be insignificant in a small group of golfers.

If the handicaps are close it may be a small advantage. A larger spread typically creates a very significant advantage in a head-to-head match to the better golfer. More due to consistency in scoring near their HCP than the .96 'bonus'. I think Knuth stated that for equality in HCPs the multiplier should be more like 1.08 vs. .96, a spread of 12%.

 

Just a side note about the correlations I did with the PGA players. Age is also significantly correlated with a number of performance metrics. Almost all are negative or relatively neutral. Distance and putting are negatively correlated, approach game neutral, and short game / ARG is positively correlated so experience seems to matter there (or it could be a survivor effect).

Edited August 17, 2016 by natureboy

[DaveP043]

8 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That's true. There are many ways to make the sausage. But because of the relative importance of the ability to generate distance and the long game, the shorter player has to be quite a bit better relatively at one of the 'less valuable' skills.

Again, my point is that when you get down to one individual against another, all of the statistics developed for a large population become immaterial.  I'm 5'-9, and a 4 handicap.  I have a big advantage over a guy 6-3 who plays off 9.  I don't care that overall, taller players have a better likelihood of hitting it further than shorter players, that statistic simply has no bearing.  This particular tall player is at a severe disadvantage playing me straight up.  He's probably at a pretty small disadvantage playing a net match against me.  One on one, height makes no difference, ability makes a huge difference.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Again, my point is that when you get down to one individual against another, all of the statistics developed for a large population become immaterial.

It's nonsensical to boil it down to one on one.

[natureboy]

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Again, my point is that when you get down to one individual against another, all of the statistics developed for a large population become immaterial.  I'm 5'-9, and a 4 handicap.  I have a big advantage over a guy 6-3 who plays off 9.  I don't care that overall, taller players have a better likelihood of hitting it further than shorter players, that statistic simply has no bearing.  This particular tall player is at a severe disadvantage playing me straight up.  He's probably at a pretty small disadvantage playing a net match against me.  One on one, height makes no difference, ability makes a huge difference.

Agreed. But as far as long-term potential if that taller player has relatively the same skills/talents as you, but just hasn't worked on his game as long then he will likely pass you in HCP rating down the road. The individual abilities always matter, but on average taller players have a built-in advantage for becoming a better golfer long-term.

I would bet that the chart below also is correlated somewhat with increasing height. It's not impossible to become a low HCP in time if you are shorter than average, but it will tend to make it a bit harder. You'll have to compensate with increase accuracy, consistency, putting and/or short game.

[DaveP043]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's nonsensical to boil it down to one on one.

IF we're talking generalities, you're absolutely right.  But many times I try to evaluate how certain statistics should influence my behavior.  

For instance, I've learned through TST that for a large population, proximity improves as shot distance decreases.  This goes against some of the old "wisdom", that of laying up to a comfortable full-swing distance.  I see two potential stages of responses.  The first stage is to change my behavior, to always lay up as close to the hole as possible, within the constraints of my shot zones and the hole design.  I've actually made this change. The second stage is to keep detailed records while I do that, to see if the same trend holds true for this individual (me) as it does for the large population.  I'm way too lazy to keep those stats, but my impression is that I haven't hurt my scoring by changing my normal practice.

But for the tall/short statistics, I simply can't find a way to apply the statistics to myself, or to any individual.  Its an interesting intellectual exercise, and has filled 15+ pages of discussion, but one without a practical use as far as I can tell

[iacas]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

IF we're talking generalities, you're absolutely right.  But many times I try to evaluate how certain statistics should influence my behavior.

Your behavior to do what? Grow six inches? C'mon Dave…

Being tall = advantage doesn't mean you can do much or evaluate it in the singular case.

[Lihu]

On 8/16/2016 at 8:39 AM, natureboy said:

On that page, the median value for the 'typical pro' (which included a lot of non top-200 players) was given as 6' which is ~ 2" over the median height for the general population.

No, I've already given reasons why that wouldn't automatically be the case. If power to weight ratio, lower center of gravity, and shorter/faster neural networks were advantages you'd see shorter than average golfers on tour. You don't.

They tend to be taller than the average population. Here's the general advantage to height in golf:

Actually, your plot does not show as much difference as I would have expected.

The simple fact is tall people who don't want to get hit or tackled by a 300 pound lineman have existed for over half a century. Golf is a good alternative for athletic and yet non-contact types. The fact that the average NFL and the average baseball player are so much bigger than the average 5'11" PGA player, is not just a coincidence. I think the spread of tall and short players will continue, with the average player being somewhere between 5'11" and 6' possibly? Not much more, though. . .