Wrong. Tiger in particular was seriously into fitness.

Tiger Woods on his old workout routine: “Well, I used to get up in the morning, run four miles,” Woods said. “Then I’d go to the gym, do my lift. Then I’d hit balls for two to three hours. I’d go play, come back, work on my short game. I’d go run another four more miles, and then if anyone wanted to play basketball or tennis, I would go play basketball or tennis. That was a daily routine.

https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/tiger-woods-revea...

I'm into fitness too: I go to the gym, I ride my bike for long distances, etc.

My job involves sitting at a desk and writing code; my athleticism has nothing to do with it. It's the same with Tiger Woods.

Obviously Tiger was into athletics because he felt it improved his golf performance - and was probably right in doing so, considering that it was his peak period of accomplishment.

Being into athletics helps my work performance too. Athletic, fit people live longer, are healthier, have fewer sick days, and it probably extends to mental performance too, which is important in programming. Being fit also probably helps combat physical problems stemming from sitting down too much, such as back problems.

I don't see the difference. Golf is not an athletic sport, and it's plainly absurd to try to argue otherwise. There's nothing "athletic" about walking around slowly and hitting a ball with a stick; even bowling is more athletic than that. It might take some skill, sure, just like playing a musical instrument like a piano takes a lot of skill, but there's nothing athletic about playing a piano either.

> Golf has absolutely nothing to do with athleticism.

Golf has more than a little to do with athleticism, though, like many, especially individual, sports, it's possible for amateurs to play at (often, an approximation of) it without much athleticism.

Well, one thing: shoes with cleats. :)