What's your definition of "Skill"?

[JESII]

would you say there are varying levels of skill in fly fishing?

[JESII]

Skill in fishing, especially fly fishing, is in the presentation, figuring out what fly to use, and line control.

Now, you tell me what skill there is in golf.

Craig,

I'm assuming your question is rhetorical (sp?). Golf skills are very comparable to those you listed, but attempting to define "skill" in that context gets a bit more difficult. And when you then try to define "skill" as a key element of I&B regulations you need more referrence points in my opinion. That is why I'd like to see success defined first. Success at fishing is much clearer.

[Craig Sweet]

JES..

Yes, fly fishing like any endevour can handle a wide range of skill. I mentioned what I think are three of the most imortant. Another would be the ability to read the water, and a basic understanding of fish in their habitat.

Notice I said nothing about the equipment. Yet fly fishing, much like golf, has experienced a huge technology leap.

What set of skills are important when playing golf that would be important regardless of equipment? Can we list some of those skills?

[Craig Sweet]

JES, is success in fishing getting a fish to rise to your fly? Is it hooking and playing the fish, only to have it come off? Is it bringing the hooked fish to net? Is success a nice cast that presents the fly where you want it with do drag? Is success controling your line so the fly doesn't drag?

Is it standing knee deep in the Madison River while osprey and eagles fly over head, as your gaze turns to the mountain tops glowing pink in the dying sun?

Success is nothing more than a measure of skill, and a poor one at that.  A skulled wedge shot that dribbles and rolls up on to a green and stops less than 3 feet from the hole is NOT a skillful shot, but it is every bit as successful as a nice high wdge shot that lands and stops 3 feet from the hole.

My read on interjecting "equipment" or "technology" into a discussion about "skill" is we want to say that we do not want equipment to make golf like "shooting fish in a barrel".

[JESII]

Craig,

I think you are dissecting the term "skill" and listing the components one must be proficient at to be considered highly skillful. Are there really fishermen that consider an accurate cast with do drag but no fish a success? I think the goal in fishing is clear, you maybe can tell me otherwise. As I said earlier, I'm not a fisherman so your word is gold on that front in this conversation.

What set of skills are important when playing golf that would be important regardless of equipment? Can we list some of those skills?

All of the decision making actions:
Yardage judgement
Green reading ability
Shot selection
Composure

My read on interjecting "equipment" or "technology" into a discussion about "skill" is we want to say that we do not want equipment to make golf like "shooting fish in a barrel".

And my question all along is "what is the golf equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel"? How would it be measured?

Are you looking to make sure no ball could ever stop 3 feet from the hole on a skulled wedge? I mean even I might catch a fish someday so who are we going to blame for that?

[Craig Sweet]

JES,

I can assure you it's the fishing, and NOT the catching, that's important.

If you fill a 50 gallon drum with water and fish, and hand someone a gun, you have eliminated all the skill from "fishing". In fact you no longer are fishing.

The golf equivalant might be something along the lines of regardless of skill level, the equipment will guarentee a **certain** outcome.

Can you argue that todays ball and club can deliever a **certain** outcome?  Of course not. So, are we in danger of skill being replaced by technology?

[JESII]

Craig,

Lets not confuse enjoyment with "success" or "skill". I can get to the Madison River, and I can find some waders, and I can get out into the river, and I can enjoy the entire experience. But I ain't no fisherman.

[Craig Sweet]

JES, absolutely right, we should not confuse enjoyment with skill and success.

But the USGA is saying golf is a game of skill, and they do not want technology to replace skill.

That brings us right back to the definition of skill. How you apply this to the question...(is technology replacing skill??)...requires a measure of BOTH skill and technology. Other wise, how do you know the gap is narrowing?

[JESII]

I think the definition of "skill" would rely on the determination of "success". What are golfers trying to accomplish? Not in terms of competitive success, but rather real individual performance. Just like the fisherman out on the river by himself, what determines a success for a golfer in the way catching a fish does for the fisherman?

The USGA has a damn tough job in this because the answers to my question are endless. How different would Tiger Woods answer be to that of a bogey golfer? In trying to keep one set of rules for the full range of golfers they obviously have to take into account that full range of "skill".

Let's go back to the analogy of dialing back equipment to just sustain a sportsman's ability. Let's take that to Tiger Woods and use even par as the bar for "just sustaining his ability". What type of equipment would it be that for Tiger to feel he was really successful he would shoot even par? What would the bogey golfer be able to do with that equipment?

[Craig Sweet]

Skill might have something to do with success, but success has little to do with skill.

Where does technology fit into this?

Am I anymore skillful because I use a ProV1? No.

Am I more successful because I use a ProV1? Maybe, if the spin of the ball makes me 4 yards straighter and 10 yards longer.

Technology might make me more successful, but it won't make me more skillful.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I think you're right. Success in golf probably should be defined too.

Obviously with a bonefish success is just getting the little mother into the boat. An analogy to that in golf I realize is not so simple. But do not fear---by the close of business on Friday I will have gotten either Max Behr or some of his quotations in on this discussion and then things should really be confusing.  

Don't forget in one of his articles on golf architecture it was Max who said one should not attempt to land a minnow with a Salmon rod. The only thing more technologically overwhelming and egregious than that was when Saddam Hussein shot a bunch of fish in a swimming pool with a machine gun. Some sportsman that jerk was.

[Craig Sweet]

TPaul, you are assuming that Saddam was shooting fish and not the swimming pool.  

[TEPaul]

Craig:

You're right, it's hard to say with that jerk. He could've been trying to shoot his mother who was just in for a swim with the fishes.

Can you believe that trial over there? It's totally out of control. If he disrupts the trial again I think the judge should just find him in contempt of court and tell the guards to take him out the back door and just throw him in the pool and then take a bunch of machine guns and shoot the damn swimming pool.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I think that Tom Doaks assessment of the question is as good as you can get.......however.....by his definition, technology has  probably made those skills "easier"...so does that serve to compromise the value of the skill and as such the game.

There can be little doubt that hitting the ball the desired distance and direction is "easier" now than it has ever been, so does that mean that the corresponding skill level has dimished accordingly...I think the answer has to be YES.

[Doug Siebert]

Craig is right that playing with a Pro V1 doesn't make him more skillful, hopefully we can all agree on that.

Where I think the disagreement that some have is that myself and others would maintain that by playing with a Pro V1, the variety of skills Craig is required to maintain to play at a given level (whether that level is a +2 or a 20 handicap) is reduced.

I want to get away from the concept of distance as a "skill", so let's focus on what happens when you stand on the tee of a long hole with a narrow fairway playing into a 30 mph wind.  Prior to the Pro V1 it was much more difficult to play that shot because you had to control your trajectory and even the tiniest sidespin could make the ball miss the fairway.  With the Pro V1 trajectory control becomes much less important -- even a really high drive gets some pretty respectable distance into that kind of wind.  And while shots with sidespin are surely penalized, it certainly doesn't seem to me that they are penalized as much as they used to be with say the Titleist Professional I was using prior to switching to the Pro V1.

So does using the Pro V1 reduce the skill requirements for the game by taking away much of the need to control trajectory and to limit sidespin quite as much as before when playing into the wind?  Like I said I'm just focusing on one small portion of the total package (that we still can't agree on a definition of) of what compromises "skill" in golf.

[Brent Hutto]

So does using the Pro V1 reduce the skill requirements for the game by taking away much of the need to control trajectory and to limit sidespin quite as much as before when playing into the wind?  Like I said I'm just focusing on one small portion of the total package (that we still can't agree on a definition of) of what compromises "skill" in golf.

Where you say "ProV1 reduce the skill requirements for the game" I would instead say "ProV1 changes the mix of skill requirements for the game" although your basic point is correct. At whatever level we're discussing, when the equipment changes the expectations change.

So yes, it is easier to put a ProV1 in a narrow fairway with a 30mph crosswind than it is to put a Titleist Tour Balata into that same narrow fairway with the same 30mph crosswind. However, if you have an entire field of very good players using the ProV1, the (relative) value of simply hitting the fairway is less for all of them. Maybe with a Tour Balata the guy who squeezes a little low cutter out there 220 yards and barely keeps it in the right edge of the fairway would have hit a great shot. Now with the ProV1 a "good shot" would be one that's 250 yards and ends up on whichever is the preferred part of the fairway.

Here's the thing. If the equipment makes it easier to do something (i.e. hitting the fairway in a 30mph crosswind) then at any level of competition that particular skill is thereby devalued. At the same time, by making one element of the game easier the equipment raises the bar on other elements of the game and brings other skills into greater value in separating good players.

I'm not trying to minimize the discomfort or sense of loss that some people feel when their favorite part of the game becomes devalued by the best players in the world. But the game isn't static.

[TEPaul]

".......however.....by his definition, technology has  probably made those skills "easier"...so does that serve to compromise the value of the skill and as such the game.

There can be little doubt that hitting the ball the desired distance and direction is "easier" now than it has ever been, so does that mean that the corresponding skill level has dimished accordingly...I think the answer has to be YES."

Michael:

What you are asking is obviously what R&A/USGA I&B monitoring, testing and administration is attempting to control. That's certainly what their 2002 Joint Statement of Principles says when it mentions 'The purpose of the Rules is....to prevent an over-reliance of technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is the dominant element of success throughout the game'.

But to do that successfully and effectively one would think they would need to have some definition for what they actually consider "skill" to be (as the dominant element of success throughout the game). Otherwise, it would seem they don't have any kind of "baseline" so how could they measure in any way if, when or how there may be an over-reliance on technological advances in I&B vs skill in the game at any point in time?

That's why I mentioned perhaps they should come up with some kind of working definition for "skill" at least as a more effective way of determining technological advances in I&B.

As far as I can tell they've never done that or apparently ever even thought of it.

[Doug Siebert]

I'm not trying to minimize the discomfort or sense of loss that some people feel when their favorite part of the game becomes devalued by the best players in the world. But the game isn't static.

Don't get the idea that my favorite part of the game was hitting drives into a 30 mph wind (I was thinking headwind, not crosswind, but I guess either works to some extent)  That was probably one of the scariest shots in golf -- for any level of player.  Now its been lost, and I think that's a loss for all levels of the game.  Its too bad that someone with as poor trajectory and directional control off the tee as I had is now able to hit driver into such a wind, sky high, and get some very good results from it.  Not only am I not scared by the shot anymore, I don't even think twice about pulling driver since it isn't much more difficult than the same shot without wind.

And I don't agree with your assertion that devaluing some skills makes other skills more important.  If we make control of trajectory, direction and sidespin into a strong headwind less important with the Pro V1, what skills are becoming more important by virtue of that shot being easier?

I think your mistake is assuming that skill in golf is a zero sum game.  I think it is quite possible (and actually happening) that as the requirement for mastery of some skills is being removed from the game the total amount of skill required to play the game is being reduced, or at least certain skills are becoming so marginalized that it is possible to reach the highest echelons without them.  Being able to hit a full shot head high is useful in some very limited circumstances, but if a player only comes across a situation where it is warranted once every 100 holes, learning it is clearly less important than extra practice to reduce one's putts per GIR by .01.

[TEPaul]

Doug:

If you can hit a driver sky high into a strong wind with the ProV so much better than what you used to use it must just be about reduced spin rate. What other factor could be causing that? We certainly know the ball weighs the same as it always did.

[Craig Sweet]

"So what is skill?  To me, it's the relative ability to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible, assuming all things being equal between players."

Didn't you just define "success"?

[Craig Sweet]

The USGA is making this more complicated than it needs to be. They want to guard against the day when equipment becomes the source of success rather than ability.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

The concept of skill has been blurred by technology.  The actual shot may be easier but greenkeeping technology has kept up with the ball and club for the average player.  

Leaving the VERY BEST out of the equation for now, the average player is buying drivers for over $300, putters for over $150 and still getting the same results.  Yes the ball goes further but as we have seen the handicaps have changed very little.  

Skill still depends on the players ability to put the spheroid in the hole in the fewest number of strokes with consisitency in the given conditions.  

The technology has been self correcting on opposing sides of the ball.  

[Craig Sweet]

Shivas..good food for thought.

"Skill" is many things that ultimately lead to, and end with, "execution".  

"Success" is an entirely different matter and is not always a result of skill.

However, the more "skilled" golfer, or fisher, will often execute better, and be more successful. (shoot par, catch more fish...whatever your measure of success might be)

Is there a point when technology surpasses "skill" on the way to execution, thus leading to success?

I happen to think that golf is such a complex game, with so many variables, both internally and externally, that require a great deal of skill to be consistantly successful, that equipment has a minimal impact.

[TEPaul]

"To me, skill is a RELATIVE term.  Thus, I essentially agree with JES that technology is irrelevent to it."

Shivas:

Maybe it is, but relative to what? That's why I mentioned that perhaps the R&A/USGA should think about defining it and what it is relative to.

Maybe you do think that technology is irrelevent to golf, golf architecture or even skill in golf (however they define it) but you have to admit that we're talking about this in the context of rules and regulations to do with controlling "technology's" influence in golf. You must admit if for some reason I&B was used where everyone could hit the golf ball twice as far as they do now that one could not very well claim that technology is irrielevent.

In my opinion what this ultimately relates to is technology's effect on golf courses themselves, not just some arbitrary assumptions of what skill in golf may be.

[TEPaul]

To be even more specific than just a definition of "skill" in golf it should be pointed out that the 2002 R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles has gone much farther in other aspects than the R&A/USGA has ever gone before regarding I&B and it's influence on distance, for instance;

Look at this from the statement:

"The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these distances emanate from advanced equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game........The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game."

That statement goes much farther than the R&A/USGA ever has before in speaking about the contributing factors to distance increases. For instance, they never before included "athleticism", never included "course conditions, "player coaching" or the phrase "or a combination of these and other factors" as contributing factors to distance increase that they would consider.

This statement is about as comprehensive as it can get in a general sense on contributing factors to distance. Basically it has every possible contributing factor covered, at least in a legal sense if they get sued. In other words if some manufacturer sued them claiming they were not aware the R&A/USGA would consider such areas to control distance they could always just point to this statement as evidence of what the manufacturer should have been aware of.

One should also note in the quotations above the use of "at the highest level" and certainly the words "significant" and "meaningful" as they relate to distance increases.

What do those terms specifially mean? Are they intending at some point to quantify what those terms mean?