Are golfers really athletes?

Chubs wrote:

You don't have to be a good athelete to be a good golfer. John Daly smoked 2-3 packs a day and was a drunk, overweight tub of lard. But a great golfer.

You can, however, be a great athlete and a great golfer.

As a 2:18 marathoner who has just taken up golf... Yes, it does require a good deal of athleticism.

The first point I want to make is that none of you were watching the Masters yesterday if you are complaining about golfers being fat and having man boobs. Out of the top 12 finishers, only Cabrera was fat. The rest of the guys looked like very fit athletes. Coincidence? I think not. Someone posted a picture of fat-ass Phil Mickelson. Phil has lost a GREAT DEAL of weight over the last few years as his game has improved. The guy is incredible.

The second point that I want to make is that just because someone is fat does not mean that they are not athletic. Charles Barkley is an old, fat f***, but I guarantee you that he could kick your ass in one-on-one this afternoon if he wanted to play.

I used to feel the same as most of you, but actually getting out there and playing the game has enlightened me.

One thing stands out in my mind... When we joined our Country Club, I was out at the pool judging one of my friends for being a fat f***. We were with our kids and doing dives off of the diving board. This fat friend of mine comes in from the golf course and comes over to join us on the board. His fat ass manages to do one of the most graceful 1 and 1/2 flips I have ever seen. It really opened my eyes to the fact that just because someone doesn't run everyday doesn't mean they are not great athletes.

huh??. wrote:

Look, defend golf all day. Doesn't bother me. But please don't attempt to equate an elite ultra-thin runner (e.g, Paul Tergat) with an elite ultra-fat golfer (e.g., John Daly), as has been done on this thread. That's ridiculous.

You have an eating disorder, don't you?

As someone who has run for the past 15 years, all the way from high school state placer to numerous time all-american and world team member, distance runners are not athletes to me. Most of the runners I know are unathletic and would look totally out of place on a basketball/tennis court, soccer pitch and so on. I don't think you have to be an good athlete to be a golfer either, which there are/have been many realworld examples proving this. Obviously, there will be many varying opinions about what an athlete is and isn't.

I have enjoyed the competition and the friendships built over the years in this sport. The insecurities among the distance runner community do get a bit annoying though.

Y'all need to quit bringing up John Daly. The guy is a disgrace to the golfing world, not a hero. He had a damn good drive but that was it. He wasn't able to sustain a career in golf...probably b/c he was a fat piece of shit. He is not an elite golfer.

I would definitely say that Charl Schwartzel is a better athlete than Tergat. Without a doubt.

http://foreireland.blogspot.com/2011/04/charl-schwartzel-plays-into-augusta.html

It's laughable to think the marginally better than average runners that comprise this board can criticize a sport they know nothing about as not being athletic....?

First of all, if you were truly good at something yourself, you wouldn't be trolling on this running forum...

Second of all, most of you have probably never played golf. If you have, then why aren't you on the pro tour?

Oh, yeah, that's right, because you connect with the ball one out of every three tries and when you do it goes side ways.

Then I hear you say, "golf sucks!" and go back to your trolling ways.

Running is for the people who sucked at all the other sports in school. Just admit it. You got cut from JV soccer, throw a ball like a girl and couldn't hit a golf ball 200 yards if your life depended on it.

Fatty Daly wrote:

I would definitely say that Charl Schwartzel is a better athlete than Tergat. Without a doubt.

well that's quite a statement. I guess you have very little appreciation for world records and olympic medals.

Jock Hall wrote:

I would put in the highly developed skill category.

However, it's uncanny how many pitchers, quarterbacks, and otherwise superb athletes become scratch golfers. At the highest levels it's all about muscle memory, practice, practice, and the mental game. You don't need to be a great athlete to hit this level. But it can help.

Definitely not picking on you Jock Hall, but just pointing out that being a scratch golfer doesn't mean much in the world of professional golf.

In fact, most professional golfers USGA handicaps are in the neighborhood of +5 or +6 and those are the guys struggling to stay on the Nationwide tour, not the guys with PGA tour cards.

I'm not going to get into the argument of whether golf is a sport, but I will say it takes not only a tremendous amount of refined skill to be a good tour golfer, but emotions/nerves/ etc. (whatever you want to label it) play a tremendous part in golfing at the highest levels successfully.

Tournament golf bears almost no resemblance to 18 holes with friends on the weekend.

Look, what makes someone an "athlete", whether great or not, depends on how the individual defines "athlete" to themselves. What describes "athlete"? Fast? Mental? Power?

I kind of take the "college football" mentality when it comes to saying whether or not someone is a great "athlete". All-around athletic ability that indicates (or has shown) they could potentially succeed at multiple sports.

Just because someone can run a 2:05 marathon doesn't mean they are necessarily an "athlete". They are a great runner.

You want athletes?

Jackie Robinson (Enough Said)

Jim Owens (Enough Said)

Bo Jackson Enough Said)

Deion Sanders. (As much as I can't stand the guy, he could play both sports well)

Dave DeBusschere (two sport hall of famer)

Allen Iverson (Could throw a football 70 yards in high school)

Joe Montana (Had major D-1 basketball offers)

Many, many more.

Why is it that golfers can continue competing at the highest levels well into their 40s, 50s, even 60s? That's pretty telling.

huh??. wrote:

Look, defend golf all day. Doesn't bother me. But please don't attempt to equate an elite ultra-thin runner (e.g, Paul Tergat) with an elite ultra-fat golfer (e.g., John Daly), as has been done on this thread. That's ridiculous.

Look, defend running all day. Please don't attempt to equate an elite athlete (Lebron James, Reggie Bush, Ronaldo) with an elite ultra-thin runner (Paul Tergat).

So absolutely zero professional distance runners are athletes, huh?

tergatrules. wrote:

well that's quite a statement. I guess you have very little appreciation for world records and olympic medals.

No, I have a ton of respect for both, obviously. I know how hard it is to run a 10k. I ran the Steeple, 5k and 10k in college and had a decent-though-short professional run out in Palo Alto.

I am just saying that the athleticism of Charl is higher than that of tergat.

Put them in any other sport together, any one, and I would wager that Charl would be victorious.

Tergat is a f***ing badass monster. I have a TON of respect for him.

huh??. wrote:

So absolutely zero professional distance runners are athletes, huh?

You didn't ask me, but this relates to my last post too...

I would answer:

There are plenty of professional runners who are phenomenal athletes, but the two are not synonymous. That being said, they also aren't mutually exclusive, as any of you seem to be implying with golf.

16:23 5K wrote:

Why is it that golfers can continue competing at the highest levels well into their 40s, 50s, even 60s? That's pretty telling.

40's, OK. 50's and 60's, no. Don't confuse a golfer in his 50's or 60's occasionally placing high in or perhaps winning a tournament with competing at the highest levels.

Competing at the highest levels in golf is week in, week out playing at a high level on the PGA tour. (Not the Senior Tour.)

16:23 5K wrote:

Why is it that golfers can continue competing at the highest levels well into their 40s, 50s, even 60s? That's pretty telling.

What the f*** does that matter?

It matters because you can be an fat, drunk senior citizen and still compete with the best. in what other "sport" is that possible?

16:23 5K wrote:

It matters because you can be an fat, drunk senior citizen and still compete with the best. in what other "sport" is that possible?

Um, baseball, football.

What you're saying is that body fat determines sport?

huh??. wrote:

So absolutely zero professional distance runners are athletes, huh?

I'm sure thats EXACTLY what he meant.

16:23 5K wrote:

It matters because you can be an fat, drunk senior citizen and still compete with the best. in what other "sport" is that possible?

...and just like any other sport (including running) you are not competing at the same level as those who are younger (not to the same effect, though. But not all sports are the same). There is a direct correlation between age and tournement wins in professional golf (senior tour excluded obviously). Regardless, is athleticsm defined by the phyciscal strain on the body? No. Simply because a sport is more physically demanding does not mean that it requires more athleticsm.