Chamblee: "When I see the things Rory's doing in the gym, I think of Tiger Woods"

[turtleback]

When I see Chambee talking about Rory McIlroy I think of all the crap he talked about Tiger Woods.  This gives him a double bonus of talking crap about both guys.

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Tiger was averaging 20-30 yards more than the #2 guy in his younger days.  One of the PGA Tour radio guys mentioned in his first or second Masters Tiger averaged around 326 off the tee and Phil was 2nd at 306.  

Yeah, no, he really wasn't.  Tiger never even led the tour in driving distance for a season.  Not once. He WAS the #2 guy a few times, but even that was rare.  

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

When I see Chambee talking about Rory McIlroy I think of all the crap he talked about Tiger Woods.  This gives him a double bonus of talking crap about both guys.

Yeah, no, he really wasn't.  Tiger never even led the tour in driving distance for a season.  Not once. He WAS the #2 guy a few times, but even that was rare.  

That's what I get for trusting PGA Tour Radio guys.  Thanks for the clarification.  

[nevets88]

How do ya like 'dem apples Chamblee? Huh? Huh?

 

[colin007]

9 hours ago, nevets88 said:

How do ya like 'dem apples Chamblee? Huh? Huh?

 

Would.

[Big Lex]

Chamblee can be tough to like, but I think his comments about this have some merit.

I believe that many things we take for granted today regarding the definition of "fitness" will not hold up over the long term.

What looks good may not always _be_ good, at least as far as long term musculoskeletal health. All you have to do is look at the general musculoskeletal health of professional athletes over the age of 60 to see that extreme muscle development and elite athletic-level exertion exerts a good deal of wear and tear.

Tiger Woods _may_ have hastened his physical downfall by over-training, we don't know. For a counter-example, you could point to someone like Jack Nicklaus, who lasted a long time and, while fit was never "cut" and never worked out at the level of many modern pros. Then again, there is Gary Player, who would certainly argue that a fitness regimen like his enhances longevity.

It's another thing that I'm sure is being studied now, but we probably won't know the truth for another decade or so. But I would be very surprised if we don't someday find that many, many athletes overtrain, particularly with regard to the risk for long term musculoskeletal breakdown.

[jbishop15]

14 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

Chamblee can be tough to like, but I think his comments about this have some merit.

I believe that many things we take for granted today regarding the definition of "fitness" will not hold up over the long term.

What looks good may not always _be_ good, at least as far as long term musculoskeletal health. All you have to do is look at the general musculoskeletal health of professional athletes over the age of 60 to see that extreme muscle development and elite athletic-level exertion exerts a good deal of wear and tear.

Tiger Woods _may_ have hastened his physical downfall by over-training, we don't know. For a counter-example, you could point to someone like Jack Nicklaus, who lasted a long time and, while fit was never "cut" and never worked out at the level of many modern pros. Then again, there is Gary Player, who would certainly argue that a fitness regimen like his enhances longevity.

It's another thing that I'm sure is being studied now, but we probably won't know the truth for another decade or so. But I would be very surprised if we don't someday find that many, many athletes overtrain, particularly with regard to the risk for long term musculoskeletal breakdown.

If the implication is that Tiger worked out for vanity, I suggest Googling the shirtless cover he did for Men's Health. Dude was in shape, but in no way was he a body builder. 

[Big Lex]

11 hours ago, jbishop15 said:

If the implication is that Tiger worked out for vanity, I suggest Googling the shirtless cover he did for Men's Health. Dude was in shape, but in no way was he a body builder. 

Not at all. He did it because he thought he was doing something good for his body. I'm suggesting maybe he was NOT fit, at least in regard to the risk of long term injury. My reference to appearances was to suggest that the fact that a physique looks attractive does not necessarily mean that the physique is healthy.

[saevel25]

38 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

Not at all. He did it because he thought he was doing something good for his body. I'm suggesting maybe he was NOT fit, at least in regard to the risk of long term injury. My reference to appearances was to suggest that the fact that a physique looks attractive does not necessarily mean that the physique is healthy.

I highly doubt it. The guy has had injury issues going back to in Junior golf days. Tiger is in shape for as much as he could be.

The question really is, would have Tiger been any more injury prone if he didn't work out. I highly doubt it. Working out has been shown help keep injuries away. I am more likely to believe Tiger was just injury prone, but he probably was less injury prone because he worked out.

[Big Lex]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I highly doubt it. The guy has had injury issues going back to in Junior golf days. Tiger is in shape for as much as he could be....

This is the notion that I am really challenging. What defines being "in shape?" Should there be more than one definition? What I am saying is that our definition of "fitness" may be wrong. Specifically.....having low body fat, having hypertrophied muscles, having hypermobile/flexible joints and ligaments. Maybe there is something UN-healthy about this.

It may be that we have to have different definitions of fitness. The qualities I mention above - strength, flexibility, lean body mass, etc. - certainly make a body perform better in the present, and thereby constitute one definition of "fitness."

But it's also possible that the actions required to achieve and maintain this sort of physique may hasten damage in the long term. Being fit "for life" may not be the same thing as being fit for the US Open, or the Super Bowl.

Yes, Tiger had injury issues as a junior golfer, and I'm sure they played a role in the development of subsequent injuries. Maybe you are right and his training regime had nothing to do with it. I wouldn't claim that ALL of his problems are because of training; ALL athletes get injured, it goes with the territory.

But I'm pretty sure that his workout habits, which I consider severe or even extreme, definitely have contributed to his problems. But there really isn't much science that I know of to back up that belief.  Yet.

[saevel25]

Just now, Big Lex said:

having low body fat, having hypertrophied muscles, having hypermobile/flexible joints and ligaments. Maybe there is something UN-healthy about this

I will say no. Working out has been shown to decrease joint pain and injury. Working out has been shown to decrease back pain and injury.

I don't think being at a low body fat, high muscle %, and being flexible causes injuries or should be considered unhealthy. Tiger wasn't ultra low in body fat.  

7 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

But I'm pretty sure that his workout habits, which I consider severe or even extreme, definitely have contributed to his problems. But there really isn't much science that I know of to back up that belief.  Yet.

 Ok here is a question. You state you think they were severe. What exactly was he doing that you consider was to be too severe?

Honestly I would say Rory is in better shape now than Tiger was.

Quote

According to Brian Wacker of PGATour.com, McIlroy has dropped his body fat percentage to 10% from 24% in 2010, when he couldn't do a plank longer than 30 seconds. Charles Siebert of the New York Times reports that he has added 20 pounds of muscle during that period.

As long as your above 5% body fat then you are maintaining a healthy level of body fat. Even Rory isn't in the ultra low body fat range. He's in the athlete range. I don't see that harming him.

 

 

[nevets88]

I remember Ernie Els saying something like his work out was Jim Courier's warmup. Or something like that. Els is not the best example, but think of the wear and tear on the body training for tennis. No one gives them any grief for over taxing their body.

[Big Lex]

13 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I will say no. Working out has been shown to decrease joint pain and injury. Working out has been shown to decrease back pain and injury.

Where has it been shown? How long is the follow up period that it is shown to decrease injury?

Regarding back pain, most of the research shows that having "normal" weight (non-obese) and moderate levels of regular exercise decrease pain and injury risk. This is not the same thing as saying that pushing one's body fat down to 5% is healthy. Swallowing the whole bottle of medicine is not the same as taking two pills.

Regarding your question about what I consider extreme: I consider having very low body fat, being "cut," etc., to be evidence of extreme training. It is not a normal human physique. You simply cannot achieve this level of lean body mass and muscle development as seen in Tiger Woods ca. 2000-2010 without working extremely hard, frequently, etc. He worked out vigorously with weights and cardio on a daily basis for years, sometimes multiple times per day. According to Haney, he ran in combat boots. This sort of fitness regimen is extreme. He is an elite level athlete and has a training regimen to match it. I don't know how else to define extreme. You don't look the way he did, or that Rory does, from working out at moderate intensity 3-4 times per week, to quote current medical guidelines regarding healthy levels of exercise for regular people.

 

[Big Lex]

...and let's not forget the most obvious example of his extreme training: the tens or hundreds of thousands of balls hit.

[saevel25]

34 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

Regarding your question about what I consider extreme: I consider having very low body fat, being "cut," etc., to be evidence of extreme training.

Then Tiger's workout routine wasn't extreme. He was never cut.

34 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

You simply cannot achieve this level of lean body mass and muscle development as seen in Tiger Woods ca. 2000-2010 without working extremely hard, frequently, etc.

 

His body fat was not that low. He was never that big.

34 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

 You don't look the way he did, or that Rory does, from working out at moderate intensity 3-4 times per week, to quote current medical guidelines regarding healthy levels of exercise for regular people.

So basically you have no details pertaining to his exact workout routine such as types of exercises, amount of weight lifted, amount of time spent resting. Your just claiming it's extreme with out any real evidence or supported opinions from qualified medical or physical trainers.

 

[Big Lex]

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So basically you have no details pertaining to his exact workout routine such as types of exercises, amount of weight lifted, amount of time spent resting. Your just claiming it's extreme with out any real evidence or supported opinions from qualified medical or physical trainers.

 

Did you miss the details I provided? Where is YOUR evidence? Where are YOUR "supported opinions?" You said "working out has been shown to decrease injury." Where was this shown? When? What kind of injuries? In whom? Athletes? Ordinary people with back pain? Define in detail what YOU mean by "working out." You don't define anything. You just say his workout wasn't extreme, or "he wasn't that big." How is that anything more than an unsupported opinion?

The fact that walking for 40 minutes 5 times per week decreases the risk of back pain does NOT mean that doing resistance weight training on a daily or near-daily basis for a decade will not CAUSE a back injury or pain. The concept of "dosage" seems to be completely lost on you. A little of something can be great, while a lot can be deadly.

Something you did say, though, supports what I'm saying. Tiger was skinny in 1997. Tiger is on record as saying that in his junior days, he had a workout routine designed to give him "long muscles" as opposed to bulk. His physique in the 97 Masters fit this...he was very skinny. Forgive me for not having his bicep measurements, but I don't think we need them to see that there was a dramatic change in his muscle development between 97 and 2000, and certainly 2002. If you don't want to call it an extreme change, what do you want to call it? I think we can assume it's likely he was training differently in 2000 than he was in 1997.

How about this--the amount of exercise needed to transform a body from Tiger 97 to Tiger 2000 might predispose him to long term injury.

Professional sports IS abuse....a golf swing IS abuse....weight training IS abuse. The reason exercise CAUSES muscles to enlarge is because the muscles are damaged during exercise. The hypertrophy is the body's reaction to the increased stress placed on it. Muscle development is a reaction to the muscles being torn and damaged. Why is it so hard to consider that it is at least POSSIBLE that you can bring harm upon yourself by exercising vigorously and regularly for years? In other organ systems in the body, hypertrophic changes are often linked to disease and disability. It is entirely logical that _at some point_ skeletal muscle development and muscle training can lead to injury.

 

 

[boogielicious]

28 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Then Tiger's workout routine wasn't extreme. He was never cut.

His body fat was not that low. He was never that big.

So basically you have no details pertaining to his exact workout routine such as types of exercises, amount of weight lifted, amount of time spent resting. Your just claiming it's extreme with out any real evidence or supported opinions from qualified medical or physical trainers.

 

 

Just now, Big Lex said:

Did you miss the details I provided? Where is YOUR evidence? Where are YOUR "supported opinions?" You said "working out has been shown to decrease injury." Where was this shown? When? What kind of injuries? In whom? Athletes? Ordinary people with back pain? Define in detail what YOU mean by "working out." You don't define anything. You just say his workout wasn't extreme, or "he wasn't that big." How is that anything more than an unsupported opinion?

The fact that walking for 40 minutes 5 times per week decreases the risk of back pain does NOT mean that doing resistance weight training on a daily or near-daily basis for a decade will not CAUSE a back injury or pain. The concept of "dosage" seems to be completely lost on you. A little of something can be great, while a lot can be deadly.

Something you did say, though, supports what I'm saying. Tiger was skinny in 1997. Tiger is on record as saying that in his junior days, he had a workout routine designed to give him "long muscles" as opposed to bulk. His physique in the 97 Masters fit this...he was very skinny. Forgive me for not having his bicep measurements, but I don't think we need them to see that there was a dramatic change in his muscle development between 97 and 2000, and certainly 2002. If you don't want to call it an extreme change, what do you want to call it? I think we can assume it's likely he was training differently in 2000 than he was in 1997.

How about this--the amount of exercise needed to transform a body from Tiger 97 to Tiger 2000 might predispose him to long term injury.

Professional sports IS abuse....a golf swing IS abuse....weight training IS abuse. The reason exercise CAUSES muscles to enlarge is because the muscles are damaged during exercise. The hypertrophy is the body's reaction to the increased stress placed on it. Muscle development is a reaction to the muscles being torn and damaged. Why is it so hard to consider that it is at least POSSIBLE that you can bring harm upon yourself by exercising vigorously and regularly for years? In other organ systems in the body, hypertrophic changes are often linked to disease and disability. It is entirely logical that _at some point_ skeletal muscle development and muscle training can lead to injury.

 

 

Let's tone it down gentlemen. 

[Big Lex]

10 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

 

Let's tone it down gentlemen. 

Sorry if we're raising our voices a little.

There hasn't been any name calling, at least.....

I think I'm done, too. I can't think of any other ways to say what I'm saying, and I guess we're at the "agree to disagree" point.

[boogielicious]

17 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

Sorry if we're raising our voices a little.

There hasn't been any name calling, at least.....

I think I'm done, too. I can't think of any other ways to say what I'm saying, and I guess we're at the "agree to disagree" point.

No worries. We all can get passionate about things at times.