I agree...and you have to mention his incredibly low morals too. Why wouldnt a guy so willing to destroy his own family take something to help him become even better at what he does? But in this case I just dont understand why HGH would get someone like Tiger over the hump in a sport as skilled as golf? He been able to drive the ball over 300 yards since he was a teenager.

I was wrong about Manny though so who knows.

He definitely didn't gain 25 pounds in a year - I was just responding to what Antitrust said.

Muscle/strength as it relates to golf is an interesting thing.

Rickie Fowler (who I already can't stand) weighs something like 135 lbs. and averaged 301 yards with the driver (10th on tour) in the few events he played. Flexibility, swing mechanics, and height are just as important if not more important than strength when it comes to hitting it far. The key, obviously, is to find the perfect balance between muscularity and flexibility.

College and High School football players gain 25 lbs of muscle in a year all the time. Thats what I said. Shoot sometimes even the men in the pro's you see massive body changes in a few months off season.

Of course Tiger didnt gain it in a year. And all 25 lbs he's gained over the past year might not even be all muscle. All these articles talk about how much he drinks.. thats an easy non-muscle weight gainer there! :D

I'm not sure you understand the difference between gaining 25 pounds of muscle and simply gaining 25 pounds.

Proper bodybuilding includes two cycles - bulking and cutting. When you bulk you might gain 25 pounds or more, but a significant portion of that is going to be fat because you're basically consuming as many calories as possible (mostly in an effort to consume large amounts of protein). You can't simply put on muscle without putting on fat, unless you're an ectomorph (a.k.a. "hard gainer") and if you're an ectomorph you're never, ever going to naturally gain 25 pounds of muscle in a relatively short amount of time. Once you've bulked, you have to cut in order to get rid of the excess weight you've gained.

I guess if you're going through an extreme growth spurt or puberty (added testoterone) you have a chance to gain more, but if you think college-aged or professional athletes are gaining 25 lbs. of lean muscle naturally over the course of a year you're naive.

Most High School and College Football players ARE going through puberty.

I dont know, I just did a lot of searches and it says its possible.

The articles basically said dont expect to gain more than 25 lbs of muscle unless of a puberty situation in a year.

But realistically a mature adult can gain 10-15 lbs muscle in a year with the right training programs and calorie intake. They may gain 25-30 total with that 15 lbs muscle cause its not all muscle.

College football players aren't going through puberty, but this is a pointless argument anyways.

I think the only point is Tiger Wood's physique/muscular gains could have easily occured without taking any supplements. Hes not that big and hes always been very athletic and maintained a hard work ethic. I'm sure he works with some of the smartest trainers in the business and his gains are very modest in comparison with some of the guys in the NBA and NFL in that same age group.

Fowler is an extreme exception to the rule. Over the years, almost all of the slighter built players such as Pavin, Sluman, Pernice, Willie Wood, etc. are short hitters relative to the other pros on the PGA Tour.

By the way, why don't you like Fowler? I really like him. He looks like an exciting, young prospect. He's the kind of guy that will add some excitment to the game. Right now there are too many of those Robo-pros with no personality out there.

Seems like a bit of a d-bag to me.

I'll take McIlroy over him any day.

I think he was longer than ever, at least up until his knee injury.

I just looked up his driving distance over the years. Back in 1993, when he was still an amatuer, he played in some PGA Tour events. His average driving distance was 272.3 yards. In 1994, it was 277.3 yards. In 1995, it was 298.5 yards. From 1996 to 2000, he was at 302.8, 294.8, 296.3, 293.1, and 298. In 2005, he was up to 316.1. In 2006, he was at 306.4. In 2007 he was at 302.4.

Some of the added distance could be due to better equipment but I certainly think he has gotten longer over the years up until his knee injury. In 2005 and 2006, he was hitting the ball 30-40 yards longer than he was back in 1994 when he was 19 years old.

I would expect almost all of the change has to do with better equipment. the balls and the driver head are so different today than even in 1995. I felt so dirty writing that last sentence..

When 55 year old men can drive the ball 20 yards further than they could as 40 year old men something is going on!

Have you looked up the stats on the average drive length per year in the PGA tour during that same period? I havent but would suspect similar rises.

avg driving distance is irrelavant ----he missess/missed too many fairways for it to be any kind of accurate nummer , when he missess the ball stops in the rough immediatley with no roll , gotta look at fred funk who hits 80% of the fairways to see avg driving distance (also i think it's only done on 1 or 2 holes on each nine and those holes could be 3 woods or 2 irons off the tee for woods)

go back and watch some of the old events from the 90's he was driving the ball over 330 yrds back then when he was straight and his ball landed in the fairway and ran another 35 yrds because of the firm fairways. when he hit it into the rough the ball stops worse than a 2/5 fav does in the stretch at beualh park

i will say equipment has helped me hit the ball at least 25-30 yrds further with the driver ---- antirtust can attest that i'm not on hgh but rather byk's barbecue my waistline has expaneded from 34 to 38 over the last 15 yrs , i a m not as strong as i was in my late 20's , yet i hit the driver 25 yrds further when i hit it in the fairway

You are right that they only use around 2 holes or so to measure the drving distance. But that still adds up to a ton of drives over the year. I don't think they count drives that are in the rough. And I think they try to only measure on long holes where most guys are using driver.

Anyway, I would be curious of GPK's opinion on whether he thinks Tiger was longer when he was 20 years old.

You make good points. I bet you are right that the average drive length has increased during that period.

I'm the only guy that the new equipment hasn't helped. When I was 20 years old, I was a 3 handicap and I weighed about 123 pounds. I had Hogan blade irons and a wood driver. I hit the ball further then than I do now even though I'm stronger now. And I was 10x more accurate with my blade irons than with the fancy new irons. The problem is that I lost my swing and I've never been able to get it back. I couldn't even break 80 right now.

Average driving distance is the most useless stat on tour. They only use 1 hole one each nine to compute the average. It never takes into account downwind, in to the wind or any other variables.

What many people fail to realize is that when Tiger was REALLY LONG in his younger days, he was using a 43" steel shaft driver. He could have easily hit it another 20-30 yards using a 45-46" graphite shaft driver, but then he really would have been hitting it all over the course. As you both know, the ball has changed radically the past 10-15 years and I think that has as much to do with that technology more than anything. Tiger could hit the ball on average A LOT further than he does if he wanted to. That NIKE ONE golf ball is horrible IMO. I think it's easily a good 8-12 yards shorter than the Callaway ix, Pro V1 or Srixon V-Star.

kev he used to swing out of his shoes , some of those drives in the us am were going 350 with the steel shaft driver , he doesn't try to hit it anywhere close to that today

He doesn't need to because technology allows him to still hit it pretty far without swinging so hard. You know as well as I do, if he NEEDS to hit it that far, he can. The stat that impresses me the most about Tiger is his ball speed. 190mph+ coming off the clubface...thats absurd Marty.

agreed

I was on the Titleist launch moniter once and I was around 145 mph on average and a couple got to 150.

what was annika's ball speed ?

I have no idea. When you hit it that damn straight, it doesn't matter a great deal.:D

if tiger could hit fairways he would win every week , i think he would win just about everything

if jack could have chipped a little better and pitch the ball a little better he would have won more two - watson and trevino beat him in majors because they had better short games

everyone talks about norman being chipped in on , but trevino did it to jack in the british open and watson did it to jack in the us open

Do you think anything else goes into that stat other than clubhead speed and technology? Just curious. . .

Not really. I mean, every club company is taking advantage of all the max limits that the USGA has set, .830 COR being the main factor. 460CC clubheads maybe play a small part. 5900 MOI isn't playing much part in ball speed (that is more for less twisting of the clubhead at impact). People were raving when the 07 Taylor Made Burner came out about how far they were hitting it...well no ****, its anywhere from 3/4"-1" longer in the shaft than most drivers that people were hitting and that equates to greater clubhead speed, hence more distance.

The golf ball plays the biggest part in the distance explosion. Lighter, more consistent shafts help as well, but mainly the ball.

I know the technology has improved but do you personally hit the ball 20 yards longer now than you did in 1997?

Not a chance:wf

and neither does tiger

Antitrust32 says that guys who are 55 years old are hitting the ball 20 yards further than they when they were 40 due to the new equipment. I have heard other golfers make similar comments. I can't belive that the new equipment of the last 10-15 years has added that much distance.

If you had to guess for a good player such as yourself, how much further do you hit it today compared to 10-15 years ago. Have you gained 5 yards or so? That would seem more reasonable to me.

I think the advanced technology has helped the professionals of the game much more than your average golfer. Guys like Kenny Perry and others of the same mold are more apt to notice a huge difference in distance. Your average Joe Golfer sucks way too bad to notice much difference in a regulat basis. They will have a good round every now and then, but for the most part, their swings are way too inconsistent to take advantage of the technology today. Classic example is the R9 driver with the MWT and adjustable clubhead. Peoples swings on average suck way too much to spend that kind of money. Your really good players with consisent swings can go from hitting a slight fade to a slight draw. But your 18 handicap hits a bunch of slices, pulls, tops etc in the course of one round to move the clubhead and weights to a given position and expect great results.

Its useless to gauge my lack of increase in distance, as I now use a 10 degree loft driver vs an 8.5 degree driver I used to hit. I played with such a low loft driver because I lived at the beach and played in the wind constantly, so it was needed for me to keep my ball flight down. I hit it much straighter and consistent than I did back 10-15 years ago. Some of that is new technology, a lot of it is more knowledge of my swing. I'm probably on average 10 yards longer than I was then, but its the accuracy that has made the biggest difference for me. My short game sucks now. I used to be able to get up and down from anywhere. Now that I hit it straighter, I hit more greens, so I quit practicing my short game.

I'm surprised you said that technology has helped the better players more than the weaker ones. I would think it would be the opposite. Most new technologies in golf nowadays are geared towards added forgiveness, higher MOI, etc. which obviously benefit the weaker players who have more trouble hitting the ball cleanly. Most pros still use blades because they'd rather have workability/versatility/feedback and they don't have issues with contact. I read something recently in one of the golf magazines where someone said the new groove rule will simply make the gap between the top few and the rest of the pros greater because it'll put more emphasis on skill and less on technology.

I guess balls are an area where extra technology is more important to pros. Most amateurs just aren't good enough to take advantage of or feel the difference between a Pro V1 or Z-Star and a Top Flite.

if every one remembers right when tiger first came out he was the longest on tour save john daly and 1 other guy

then the new tech came out , 460cc's , new balls and all of a sudden guys that tiger was banging it bye now all of a sudden were out driving tiger

eventually tiger made the switch to the big driver as well

Yeah the swing has a big part to do with it :D

My Father is 55 now and driving the ball the furthest of his life... and he wouldnt trade in his newer clubs for the old ones thats for sure!

Yeah, you would think it would help weaker players, but I'm a huge believer that the hotter drivers, better golf balls and more consistent shafts are of greater benefit to the better players. The more consistent you swing, the more advantage you can take of the new technology.

I only like steel shafted irons... grafite driver. I dont like the grafite irons, they are too light, need some weight!

With the old equipment you really needed to hit the ball in the center of the club face. With the new equipment (especially the drivers with the bigger faces) you don't have to quite hit it square in the center of the club. The new equipment is more forgiving. In that way, I think the new equipment could help a guy who is an 18 handicap more than it would help a pro. The pros are almost always hitting the ball square in the center of the club face any way. It's the 18 handicaps that are hitting the ball off the toe and that type of thing. The more forgiving equipment is going to really help that type of player. Now if you're talking about a horrendous player that can't break 120, the new equipment probably won't do him much good. But for an 18 handicap who can at least make halfway-solid contact most of the time, I think that being able to get away with hittting one a little off-center could really make a big difference.

You are stronger than the average woman. You need steel shaft irons.

Even with the new technology, the guy is still an 18 handicap, so it isn't helping his game a lick. I know of very few people that used to be a 25 handicap and now are an 18 because of equipment. And I don't know and 10 handicappers that used to be 18-20 handicappers before changing equipment. Until 18 handicappers start spending 80-85% of their practice time chipping and putting, they will remain 18 handicaps for life, I don't care how great the technology is.

I know what you mean. I was so used to heavier clubs that it took me a while to get used to the new irons. The Hogan Apex irons were much heavier than Callaway irons. Although, I think it was more the blade of the iron that was heavier, rather than the shaft. It took me a while to feel like I could hit the lighter irons as far as the heavier ones.

Let's just say hypothetically that you have a guy who is an 18 handicap right now and he is using Hogan Apex irons from the 1980s and a wood driver. If he got a new set of Calloways, don't you think he might be able to get down to a 14 handicap?