The PGA Tour Thread

Dav010

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Be interesting to see if any players follow his method over the winter.

Read an article a couple of weeks ago about US college golfing programs and the students currently coming through. They are now focusing a lot more on strength than technique with a result that distances the students are hitting it are increasing dramatically. This may now be the new template for modern golfers, bomb it as far as you can, don’t worry about being on the fairway, have enough brute strength to hack it from the rough to the green.

There was an interesting interview with Jack Nicklaus a couple of weeks ago where he said he was hoping to do one more redesign on his golf course, to make it SHORTER. This of course led to some giggles from the other panel members, Jack went onto to explain that with the length the modern golfer hits the ball, it was impractical and in most cases impossible to lengthen courses to counter this. Instead, he said he was thinking more of the club members, most of whom hit the ball <250, they are the ones who play the course the other 51 weeks of the year.

abff

AdamD wrote: »

His entire body shape has changed and whilst its not all muscle, he absolutely has added a tonne. Look at his upper body shape, he looks like a bodybuilder. Its certainly suspect.

I was struck by how much he looked like a bodybuilder. While it could just be the result of a lot of very hard work, I agree that the transformation is quite startling.

I don't know how much drug testing is done on golfers, but I'd be very surprised if any out of competition testing is done.

But we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time there should be a robust process in place for testing golfers and for penalising those who transgress.

GreeBo

AdamD wrote: »

His entire body shape has changed and whilst its not all muscle, he absolutely has added a tonne. Look at his upper body shape, he looks like a bodybuilder. Its certainly suspect.

Yeah but putting on muscle without cutting fat is going to give anyone that sort of shape.
You can clearly see that he is not at all lean.

AdamD

eagle eye wrote: »

Putting on muscle is not suspect. There are plenty of legal supplements to help you do it quickly.

Yeah its not black and white. Putting on muscle can absolutely be suspect, depending on how much and over what time scale. There is a limit to how much can be put on over a period of time without steroids.

PARlance

abff wrote: »

I was struck by how much he looked like a bodybuilder. While it could just be the result of a lot of very hard work, I agree that the transformation is quite startling.

I don't know how much drug testing is done on golfers, but I'd be very surprised if any out of competition testing is done.

But we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time there should be a robust process in place for testing golfers and for penalising those who transgress.

I don't think he would be winning any body building competitions tbh. There's definitely a shadow on that belt buckle.

He's got the shape of a hooker (rugby) more so than anything else imo.

Dav010

PARlance wrote: »

I don't think he would be winning any body building competitions tbh. There's definitely a shadow on that belt buckle.

He's got the shape of a hooker (rugby) more so than anything else imo.

I would imagine it is difficult to retain that physique while playing tournament golf. He does look a little flabbier than when he emerged after lockdown, he probably had to spend a huge amount of time in the gym to get where he did.

Borgo

Dayor Knight wrote: »

He's a big lad? Well he wasn't six months ago.

Yeah hes doing this intense training a good while now. He documents what he does and how he does it on his social media and has done since he started it. His trainer has even said he can understand about the suspicion of how big he is now. Bryson obviously pushes himself to become bigger and better. Good on em.

Dav010

A few years ago when Mcilroy bulked his physique there was debate about whether this would effect a player’s game, particularly the “feel” required for delicate shots. Gary Player said it was nonsense to suggest being fit and strong could be detrimental to your game. While I know all players are different, I think the argument that increasing strength will affect your game in a negative way is well and truly dead.

Harpon

GreeBo wrote: »

Did Bryson though?
Or is he saying he did? He doesnt look like all muscle to me at all, not like Koepka for example and he certainly has a little covid belly!

Or could be HGH belly, who knows.

The most amount of muscle you can put on in a month is about 2 pounds, so the most you would be able to put on during the 3 months of lockdown would be about 6 pounds. Bryson seems to have put on about 3 times that, and during a period when no one could do any drug testing. He had his whole career to bulk up and didn’t until lockdown.

Then we had the bout of rage from him at the camera man.

He probably is clean, but I think people are entitled to ask questions.

Augme

Harpon wrote: »

Or could be HGH belly, who knows.

The most amount of muscle you can put on in a month is about 2 pounds, so the most you would be able to put on during the 3 months of lockdown would be about 6 pounds. Bryson seems to have put on about 3 times that, and during a period when no one could do any drug testing. He had his whole career to bulk up and didn’t until lockdown.

Then we had the bout of rage from him at the camera man.

He probably is clean, but I think people are entitled to ask questions.

But he hasn't but on pure muscle. There's clearly a hefty layer of fat all over his muscle too. Bryson build change would be extremely possible to do naturally and clean. What he has achieved physique wise isn't anything impressive, anyone who hasn't done any strength workout before could achieve that with the right plan and approach.

What is incredibly impressive is that he has done all of that while he has retained an excellent technique when it comes to hitting a golf ball. And that is something I don't think PEDs would really have much of an impact on.

PARlance

Harpon wrote: »

Or could be HGH belly, who knows.

The most amount of muscle you can put on in a month is about 2 pounds, so the most you would be able to put on during the 3 months of lockdown would be about 6 pounds. Bryson seems to have put on about 3 times that, and during a period when no one could do any drug testing. He had his whole career to bulk up and didn’t until lockdown.

Then we had the bout of rage from him at the camera man.

He probably is clean, but I think people are entitled to ask questions.

This wasn't just a lockdown transformation... he was well on the way in Dec 2019.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/40792349

You can see yourself from the photo and the content of that article.

GreeBo

Harpon wrote: »

Or could be HGH belly, who knows.

Or maybe he was born a woman and is pregnant? Maybe its a benign tumour?

The most amount of muscle you can put on in a month is about 2 pounds, so the most you would be able to put on during the 3 months of lockdown would be about 6 pounds. Bryson seems to have put on about 3 times that, and during a period when no one could do any drug testing. He had his whole career to bulk up and didn’t until lockdown.

Maybe the most *you* can put on is 2 pounds, maybe a millionaire sportsman has access to better food, training facilities, coaches etc?

Then we had the bout of rage from him at the camera man.

Ah, so Sergio, Rahm, Rory, Daly, Stenson are all roiders then?

He probably is clean, but I think people are entitled to ask questions.

I don't think people are entitled to ask open questions about steroid use any more than people are allowed to raise questions about someone being a paedophile or a cheat.

ThewhiteJesus

lads there's no way he's on roids wtf are people going on about they do get tested, and i'd imagine his name is first on the list.
Look at the ned kelly on the chap he's hardly ripped.

finglashoop

finglashoop wrote: »

Gym and protein shakes my arse

Be all the lads chewing "gum" id have the problem with tbh

abff

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't think people are entitled to ask open questions about steroid use any more than people are allowed to raise questions about someone being a paedophile or a cheat.

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. I remember the Irish public generally being outraged and leaping to Michelle DeBruin’s defence when the accusations started flying during the Atlanta Olympics.

I’m not saying that the level of muscle put on by DeChambeau is anything like the level of improvement shown by Michelle, but it is enough to cause people to ask questions and he has an opportunity to defend himself by explaining exactly how he managed to achieve such an improvement without using steroids or other banned substances.

You might argue that it shouldn’t be necessary for him to do this as everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but the change is striking enough to have caused widespread speculation and a question mark is likely to remain over him until he produces an explanation that answers this question satisfactorily. It may not be fair, but I don’t think it’s the same as labelling someone a paedophile.

As for calling someone a cheat, I think there are those who push the letter of the rules to the limit and sometimes push a bit too hard and end up on the wrong side of the line. Whether it’s fair to label them a cheat is questionable unless they are serial offenders.

taytobreath

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Fair to say he's changed the game of golf. Phenomenal stuff.

Why though? I dont understand why people are saying this all the time, I'm not a golfer but I love to watch the PGA tournaments on tv, can some one enlighten me on why Bryson is changing the game, all I've seen so far is he can hit it slightly further than most. Is this the case or is he hitting it way further than the rest.

Are golfers and commentators saying these things because they think now that all golfers are going to have to hire a weights trainer and most golfers will be going to next years golf all bulked up haha.

Dav010

taytobreath wrote: »

Why though? I dont understand why people are saying this all the time, I'm not a golfer but I love to watch the PGA tournaments on tv, can some one enlighten me on why Bryson is changing the game, all I've seen so far is he can hit it slightly further than most. Is this the case or is he hitting it way further than the rest.

Are golfers and commentators saying these things because they think now that all golfers are going to have to hire a weights trainer and most golfers will be going to next years golf all bulked up haha.

The pros don’t necessarily need to be very strong to hit it huge distances off the tee, but you do have to be strong to gouge it out of thick rough and put it on the dance floor from 200 yards, or 100 yards with the same club as another pro would use from the middle of the fairway. Where most pros would stand on the tee thinking they have to find the fairway to have a chance of making the green, DeChambeau hits it so far, and he is so strong, that he knows he can make the green from thick rough.

The commentators are saying this because accuracy may no longer be a requirement and being able to keep the ball on the fairway may no longer be rewarded.

BrianD3

This is being talked about as golf's Fosbury Flop moment. I wouldn't go that far but it is interesting.

Fitness and weight training are obviously not new in golf but I think the emphasis on mass is new. I don't recall Gary Player or Tiger ever talking about packing on mass. Perhaps if Tiger had trained slightly differently and been considerably bigger, he might have had fewer issues with injury. Who knows.

DeChambeau seems be going "flat out" on his drives with a swing that looks repeatable. Conventional wisdom would say that you need to back off. Maybe his mass/strength/power/stability plus undoubted talent allow him to go all out without injuring himself or losing all control. And perhaps this then removes a variable associated with backing off which can result in a bad shot (when under pressure) even though that's what it's supposed to prevent

Add to that the aspect which has been mentioned a lot i.e. if you have a lot of physical power to hack out of rough AND you're hitting a very lofted club for your approach because you hit your drive so far, the penalty for being in the rough may be much less than conventional wisdom would suggest.

New Era

What do posters think of Matthew Wolff and his colourful choice of language, in particular in the final round yesterday. I know that f bombs is a far less of a crime than slow play and deliberately improving your lie aka Patrick reed, but still it shouldn't be condoned.

Should the overuse of foul language be a crime enough to issue a shot penalty at the very least, monetary fines are not an appropriate deterrent for players to take this issue seriously? Obviously players come out with some very interesting commentary, but would not have a microphone or a cameraman close to your face like with Wolff yesterday. And then of course you have the issue of spitting and bad etiquette in general also.

Some interesting debate for sure.

Dav010

New Era wrote: »

What do posters think of Matthew Wolff and his colourful choice of language, in particular in the final round yesterday. I know that f bombs is a far less of a crime than slow play and deliberately improving your lie aka Patrick reed, but still it shouldn't be condoned.

Should the overuse of foul language be a crime enough to issue a shot penalty at the very least, monetary fines are not an appropriate deterrent for players to take this issue seriously? Obviously players come out with some very interesting commentary, but would not have a microphone or a cameraman close to your face like with Wolff yesterday. And then of course you have the issue of spitting and bad etiquette in general also.

Some interesting debate for sure.

That’s the risk the TV broadcasters take when they put microphones close to the players. They aren’t cursing at spectators or other players, so I don’t see the problem myself.

Deeper Blue

I find it hilarious when there's a crystal clear f-bomb dropped on air followed by an awkward silence from the commentators

One of the more unexpected positives of having no crowds

People curse and use fowl language, it shouldnt even be apologised for by TV companies, it wierd anyone would take offence to it.

I also find it funny though, better then a lad taking chunks out of the course

finglashoop

New Era wrote: »

What do posters think of Matthew Wolff and his colourful choice of language, in particular in the final round yesterday. I know that f bombs is a far less of a crime than slow play and deliberately improving your lie aka Patrick reed, but still it shouldn't be condoned.

Should the overuse of foul language be a crime enough to issue a shot penalty at the very least, monetary fines are not an appropriate deterrent for players to take this issue seriously? Obviously players come out with some very interesting commentary, but would not have a microphone or a cameraman close to your face like with Wolff yesterday. And then of course you have the issue of spitting and bad etiquette in general also.

Some interesting debate for sure.

No

He can say what he wants.

DuckSlice

New Era wrote: »

What do posters think of Matthew Wolff and his colourful choice of language, in particular in the final round yesterday. I know that f bombs is a far less of a crime than slow play and deliberately improving your lie aka Patrick reed, but still it shouldn't be condoned.

Should the overuse of foul language be a crime enough to issue a shot penalty at the very least, monetary fines are not an appropriate deterrent for players to take this issue seriously? Obviously players come out with some very interesting commentary, but would not have a microphone or a cameraman close to your face like with Wolff yesterday. And then of course you have the issue of spitting and bad etiquette in general also.

Some interesting debate for sure.

I'd take that any day over the cringe-fest that was the camera following Bryson up the last fairway and him talking to himself.

GreeBo

abff wrote: »

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. I remember the Irish public generally being outraged and leaping to Michelle DeBruin’s defence when the accusations started flying during the Atlanta Olympics.

I’m not saying that the level of muscle put on by DeChambeau is anything like the level of improvement shown by Michelle, but it is enough to cause people to ask questions and he has an opportunity to defend himself by explaining exactly how he managed to achieve such an improvement without using steroids or other banned substances.

Did he not do that by telling us all that he is training 3-5 times a day and following a 2:1 keto diet?
What else do you want him to explain?

abff wrote: »

You might argue that it shouldn’t be necessary for him to do this as everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but the change is striking enough to have caused widespread speculation and a question mark is likely to remain over him until he produces an explanation that answers this question satisfactorily. It may not be fair, but I don’t think it’s the same as labelling someone a paedophile.

Well its assigning a very negative label to someone, in public. No different than calling them a cheat. Look at Vijay or Reed for how long that lasts.

abff wrote: »

As for calling someone a cheat, I think there are those who push the letter of the rules to the limit and sometimes push a bit too hard and end up on the wrong side of the line. Whether it’s fair to label them a cheat is questionable unless they are serial offenders.

I disagree strongly here. If you are cheating you are cheating, its not about pushing the rules to the limit.
If you knowingly break the rules you are a cheat, once is enough.

GreeBo

New Era wrote: »

What do posters think of Matthew Wolff and his colourful choice of language, in particular in the final round yesterday. I know that f bombs is a far less of a crime than slow play and deliberately improving your lie aka Patrick reed, but still it shouldn't be condoned.

Should the overuse of foul language be a crime enough to issue a shot penalty at the very least, monetary fines are not an appropriate deterrent for players to take this issue seriously? Obviously players come out with some very interesting commentary, but would not have a microphone or a cameraman close to your face like with Wolff yesterday. And then of course you have the issue of spitting and bad etiquette in general also.

Some interesting debate for sure.

The issue there will be that the top players get way more air time than the other Joe's, so arguably they are punished more.

But I would agree that it should be discouraged, also breaking clubs, abusing bunkers should also be penalised.
Punishment should be on the card, no point in fining these people cash.

paulie21

Mini Ryder Cup taking place tonight at Tigers newly designed course in Missouri. Team USA will consist of Tiger and Justin Thomas v Team Europe made up by Rory McIlroy and Justin Rose. The first 6 holes will be best ball, next 6 will be foursome and final 6 singles. Live on Sky from 8pm. All in aid of the Payne Stewart foundation

Seve OB

paulie21 wrote: »

Mini Ryder Cup taking place tonight at Tigers newly designed course in Missouri. Team USA will consist of Tiger and Justin Thomas v Team Europe made up by Rory McIlroy and Justin Rose. The first 6 holes will be best ball, next 6 will be foursome and final 6 singles. Live on Sky from 8pm. All in aid of the Payne Stewart foundation

whats going on with the crowd!!! :eek:

Seve OB

I want to go there on holiday. Some resort, has everything.

Mantis Toboggan

Place looks like heaven.