[Tom Huckaby]

Andy - you and me both, bruthah.  So hey, you just need to punt on the whole thing like I have, at least partially... the hickory brethren await....

 

[Jason Topp]

Brent (and Jason), I suspect that if we check the bags of everyone playing this week, we would find very few (none?) putters more than a few years old.  There is a reason there are so many two-ball putter and all the rest of the new fancy putters. They work better.
As for Pelz, he himself has brought technology into the study of putting. What before was taught was based on the teacher's gut or experience. Now, there is science and true study and meaningful statistics (Brent, please don't tell me I know to sing these praises to you!) all because of Pelz. Now, the fact that I have not availed myself of all this research and all his training aids is another story....


Huck, I just remain PO'ed that I myself am not rendering all the classics obsolete myself  

Andy:

I just bought a new putter in hopes of taking advantage of it.  I do not think, however, that the advances in putter technology have fundamentally altered the game.  When one chokes a putt, its still not going to go in.  

[Andy Hughes]

Tom, I doubt I would go down that road. I don't hit the ball far enough that I have any of the issues that everyone whines about here; bunkers are more than relevant to me and hazards all have to be considered--I can't fly past the trouble.
But I have for the past year or two taken to playing with 6-7 clubs most rounds. Don't know if our reasons are the same, but I suspect there is some congruence. It feels more 'sporting' somehow, though I don't think that is the right word.

[Andy Hughes]

I just bought a new putter in hopes of taking advantage of it.  I do not think, however, that the advances in putter technology have fundamentally altered the game.  When one chokes a putt, its still not going to go in.

 
Nope, I am sure you're right about that, but when you do stumble upon that putter, you'll remember your good buddy Andy, won't you?  

[Jason Topp]

I'm keeping it a secret!

No one has accused me of finding that putter yet.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy - we're on the same path without a doubt.  I sure as hell play short tees using the hickories, so that the hazards are in play.  For me this is all about accuracy and ball-striking challenge, not distance.

TH

[Sean_A]

This thread has me confused.  Are people saying that less skilled players are routinely winning tournaments over more skilled players because of equipment?  

I am with Brent.  There are many skills involved in the game.  Some are more important than others, but I couldn't detail which are most important.  I think that is relative to each individual and each tournament.  Hell, there have been times when counting was a skill that was taken for granted and cost players serious cash and prestige!  What I do know is the winner each week is the best player.  The player who best combined all the skills necessary to win that tournament.  That would include selecting the appropriate tools for the job.  

Ciao

Sean

[Steve Lang]

 
Skill is exercised while good and bad luck are experienced in the game of golf.

[ForkaB]

I would modify/simplify Tom Doak's definition as follows:

"Skill at golf is the ability to consistently get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes."

This is remarkably similar to the authorized USGA version which is:

"Skill at golf is the ability to get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes over four rounds in the middle of June at a course chosen by us, which has been specifically altered by us in design and maintained to standards imposed on the club by us to make this as hard as humanly possible, regarless of any other consequences, intended or otherwise, to the players, the spectators or the course."

[Doug Siebert]

Skill is recognized as the reason one golfer is better than another. He is more skillful. That don't change with technology.

Sure it does.  Let's say that you and I were as evenly matched as could be in 1980 scorewise, but that our games were very different.  You were a Hogan who couldn't putt or chip to save your life, but you still scored the same as me thanks to your ability to hit those persimmon drivers dead square and down the middle every time and work the ball towards the flag.  I was a kind of low-rent Ballesteros who was all over the damn place and often not even hitting the ball square but my world class short game and putting kept me even with you.

So if we were plucked out of 1980 and dropped into 2006 and setup with the latest equipment, got to practice with it, etc. do you think we'd still be evenly matched?  I think I'd be kicking your ass up and down the course because your skills would have been made less important due to technology and mine wouldn't be.  My wild shots would be less wild and my inability to hit the sweet spot every time would be much less of an issue.  I'd be flogging it and utilizing my square grooved wedges from the rough, rendering your ability to be in the fairway every time much less of an advantage.

[Doug Siebert]

You bring up Tiger Woods. He is the perfect example of why the naysayers are just talking silly-talk when they go on about how the modern power game is a sign that technology has removed "skill" from the game. Tiger hits it very long and he doens't hit many fairways. To a great extent that's true of Ernie and Vijay and Phil and the other great "floggers".

But hitting it long and missing fairways ain't why Tiger wins more than anyone and is in contention almost every time he tees it up. Once he hits it long and misses that fairway, he then produces shots that Ernie and Vijay and Phil can't produce more than once in a while. Tiger's better at the old-fashioned "skills" such as a) getting out of trouble and up around the green no matter what, b) chipping and pitching and bunkering it in or close to the hole, c) making that five footer for bogey when the TV guys have already declared it a double.

The big hitters have found out that with today's courses and today's clubs and balls if you hit it long enough and are strong enough with a wedge in your hand then hitting the fairway doesn't matter. The one "skill" that has been devalued by the evolution of the game is Hitting Fairways which I'd argue is not a "skill" at all. It's just something that old fogey's have been calling a "skill" so long they are incapable of thinking about it any other way.

You are missing the point.  The skill of driving the ball in all aspects has been mostly removed, other than for raw power.  Tiger's skill still earns him more wins because he has the one skill that technology hasn't really affected, a short game and putter that's pretty much second to none.  I don't think his recovery shots are that much better than that of other pros, but he can be pretty fearless trying stuff that could leave him in a bad spot because he knows he's got a better chance at getting up and down from anywhere around the green than anyone else out there.

Now maybe the majority will decide that skills for driving the ball are unimportant to the future of golf, like finding the center of the clubface (big headed drivers make that much less relevant) and hitting it with a square face (low spin balls means that hurts you less) and controlling the trajectory (high works great all the time now, even into the wind thanks to the modern ball) and working the ball (who cares, just hit over those trees or traps) and hitting it in the fairway (carry is almost all your distance now, so its better to FLOG than golf off the tee)

The "you da man" crowd loves the long ball, and so do the announcers apparently, so that has become the only truly meaningful skill off the tee on par 4s and 5s.  It makes good TV, its good for equipment sales, its much more understandable to casual fans than the ability to work the ball around a dogleg or decide to hang back with a long iron to insure avoiding the rough.

The problem is that by devaluing the skill required for driving the ball and making it all about length, the long hitters have an advantage that's difficult for those with other skills to overcome.  If Tiger got really sick and permanently lost a bit of strength such that he dropped from near the top of the driving distance list to 120th do you think he'd win as much as he does now?  I think that he'd be ZERO threat to Nicklaus' and Snead's records if that happened, he might win one here and there, but not like today.  Tiger's able to demonstrate his superior short game and putting skills only because has the distance required to compete effectively in today's game.  Take that away and he's not going to be the Paul Runyan of the 21st century.  The Paul Runyan of the 21st century is playing some mini tour in Florida or giving lessons at Tin Cup's driving range.

[Craig Sweet]

"The skill of driving the ball in all aspects has been mostly removed, other than for raw power."


Tell that to the over 10 handicapper.

[JESII]

Doug,

Are you serious? "Pluck them out of 1980 and dropped them into 2006...".

We play the game that's on the table today. I agree, the game has changed, but the way skill is defined has not. First in wins.

The point Tom Paul makes is that there are ways to keep the game challenging for those of you who feel it's lost its challenge. Like using the lighter test weight, you can use old equipment. Unfortunately, old golf equipment is not so easy to find but if you want to you can.

p.s. why should we care what the guys on TV are doing to golf courses? If the position is taken that we will not alter our golf courses from their function simply to attract a professional event what's the harm.

[Brent Hutto]

OK Doug, let's do the thought experiment that your comments suggest...

Imagine it's some time around 1980 and we're spectators at a US Open. The final hole is 450 yards uphill to a firm, elevated green with some pitch to it. Jack Nicklaus needs a par to win the championship. The fairway is just 24 yards wide with thick, nasty rough on both sides. Jack threads his drive right down the middle and puts it dead center of the fairway 190 yards from the hole. He floats a soft-landing 3-iron onto the middle of the green which unbelievably stops three yards from where it lands. He 2-putts from 25 feet and wins. Amazing!

Now it's next year's US Open. The final hole is 480 yards uphill to a firm, elevated green with some pitch to it. The pin is tucked six paces from the left edge. Tiger Woods needs a par to win the championship. The fairway is just 24 yards wide with thick, nasty rough down both sides. Tiger hits his drive 305 yards but it lands 20 yards right of the fairway and he draws a thick but playable lie in the rough. He muscles a pitching wedge through the rough and hits a sky-high shot that hits the center of the green and trickles over to the back left. He 2-putts from 25 feet and wins. Amazing!

So which took more skill? Jack's dead-center drive and 3-iron that held a firm green? Or Tiger's 305 yard drive and ability to control the ball out of the terrible rough? In each case, it took incredible skill to make par. Some people would find Jack's totally under control, never a doubt par more thrilling, others would find Tiger's ability to overpower an incredibly difficult hole more spectacular. It's still golf either way.

[BCrosby]

Brent is correct.

Any use of the concept of "skill" must make baseline assumptions about technology and era.

Otherwise the concept doesn't shovel much coal.

Bob

[Jason Topp]

Brent

Your examples are fair examples.

The difference in the two situations is that, in the first Nicklaus had to hit the fairway to hit his second, the same as the rest of the field.  

In the second example, Tiger did not face that challenge.  Hitting the fairway does not matter.  It does for players without his length.  This gives Tiger a double advantage - he is closer to the green by virtue of his natural length advantage and he has a much wider area from the tee from which he can make par, because he is within the distance from which he can do so.

Either scenario can be thrilling, but it increases the emphasis on hitting the long ball off the tee and decreases the emphasis on hitting the fairway.  

I prefer to see a game where there are multiple ways to get it done.  

[Brent Hutto]

Either scenario can be thrilling, but it increases the emphasis on hitting the long ball off the tee and decreases the emphasis on hitting the fairway.  

I prefer to see a game where there are multiple ways to get it done.  

I have the same preference you do. I find the Jack finish more exciting and the old game of position and accuracy first (at least in US Opens  ) to be a more complex and rewarding one to watch.

But my point is that it's all valid golf, there are just different sets of skills emphasized. Both forms have their admirers...

[TEPaul]

BobC and JESII;

I think your exchanges are very good---sort of on the same track that I've been thinking of.

I've been thinking about the matter of "skill" in golf for a long while and most particularly what anyone means by it and certainly what the R&A and USGA mean by it, since, in a real sense, they HAVE essentially based their entire "philosophy" or "principles" of regulating golf's balls and equipment on the matter of preserving 'the element of skill' as ‘the dominant element of success throughout the game of golf’, so that it (skill) does not become overwhelmed (?) by 'technological advances’.  

Of course it has for some time occurred to me that even if they essentially base their entire I&B rules and regulations, even the very existence of them, on the idea of preserving this element of skill “as the dominant element of success throughout the game”, they have never attempted to define it, as far as I can tell.

Should they define it? And if they did would some appropriate definition add anything to their attempt to preserve ‘the best traditions of the game’ and this (skill) as “the dominant element of success throughout the game” which they are attempting to preserve and defend against “technological advances” with their I&B monitoring and rules and regulation setting?

I did mention this (the possible need for a definition of skill) to someone on one of the regulatory bodies’ Executive Committees as well as the Rules Committee that has to do with this matter of I&B rules and regulations. Interestingly, that person did not exactly have a ready answer other than to respond after quite a pause—“Hmmmm, that’s interesting”.

There have been some thought provoking attempts at a definition of “skill” in golf on this thread. I would only ask, should intelligence in the sense of something like course management be considered a facet of “skill” in golf and used in a definition of skill? This is of course more than just physical accomplishment, it is also mental or intellectual accomplishment.

And perhaps more importantly, the definitions and the idea of skill in this thread’s posts do seem to reflect some useful comparison of competitors or opponents in golf (this is what the highly defined playing field of games like tennis are almost entirely supposed to do---eg isolate and highlight human skill against a human opponent as the only opposing force or factor) but what about the playing fields of golf compared to other games? What is the difference there in the useful application of “skill” in golf or its definition?

It seems to me that the idea or definition of “skill” in golf should indicate the competition of any golfer against the golf course itself as much as against any human opponent and in that way golf and its architecture is highly unique compared to other games or even sports. Obviously one of the primary reasons golf is so different this way is it is one of the few games where the ball is not vied for by the opponents. This in itself should tend to make the playing fields of golf themselves of almost co-equal importance to the human opponent as a test of skill for any golfer.

In the next post I’ll quote Max Behr’s ideas on “skill” in golf and maybe it can be seen what it would mean to skill in golf or a definition of it if both golf courses and balls and implements could somehow be held constant, or constant to a much greater degree---despite how difficult that may seem to regulate that. In that way "skill" in golf could be more effectively isolated and understood as the supposed "dominant element for success throughtout the game".

[Jason Topp]

Tom - I agree that the notion of skill should be defined.  Of course, that will give rise to a squabble in and of itself.

[TEPaul]

"Tom - I agree that the notion of skill should be defined.  Of course, that will give rise to a squabble in and of itself."

Jason:

Of course it will and as you can probably tell I am sort of asking if "skill" should be defined at all (even if I can't exactly explain specifically why I think it should be). But if it's determined that it should be (by the USGA/R&A) I certainly am wondering what exactly would be accomplished if "skill" was defined by them and even defined really well.

I can't help but notice in the 2002 USGA/R&A Joint Statement of Principles that even if the quote about "skill" from that statement I put on my first post on this thread seems to indicate the R&A/USGA might want to be very vigilant regarding technological progress and it's effect on "skill", they also say this in the same statement;

      "In a historical context, the game has seen progressive developments in the clubs and balls available to golfers who, through almost six centuries, have sought to improve their playing performance and enjoyment.
      While generally welcoming this progress,....."

One wonders just how vigilant they do want to be if they qualify that part in the Joint Statement on "skill" I quoted in the first post with the statement quoted just above.

I do realize, however, that often, and particularly in Rules writing, including not just I&B Rules but also the playing Rules, they do want to remain intentionally vague in many situations for the simple reason those individual situatons can then be interpreted by them, as they should be.

But nevertheless, if there was a definition for "skill" by the R&A/USGA and it was fairly definite one would think to endeavor to keep it that way in the future, the other two variables, balls and clubs, and golf courses, would of necessity also have to be held fairly constant and most of us would certainly welcome that.  

[JESII]

But nevertheless, if there was a definition for "skill" by the R&A/USGA and it was fairly definite one would think to endeavor to keep it that way in the future, the other two variables, balls and clubs, and golf courses, would of necessity also have to be held fairly constant and most of use would certainly welcome that.  

How so? Are you saying any definition of "skill" today would not have been accurate or comprehensive 20 years ago?

[Craig Sweet]

Hmmm..so the USGA/RA do not want golf to get to the point where people say; "Play Golf ? Why there's no skill in that."

[TEPaul]

"How so? Are you saying any definition of "skill" today would not have been accurate or comprehensive 20 years ago?"

Sully:

I think I'd prefer to say it the other way around----that some very definite working definition of "skill" 20 years ago would probably not be very accurate today, simply because I&B in the last 20 years hasn't been held very constant.

But as you may see, I'm talking about a definition for "skill" in golf as it applies to two quite separate things----to some relative measure of ability or accomplishment amongst human opponents in golf, on the one hand, and on the other hand, as some relative measure of any golfer's ability and accomplishment in relation to golf courses themselves.

If you think about it those two things can be quite different, even in a singles match play situation.

Some years ago I had dinner with Robin Weiss (multiple Curtis Cupper) and Carole Semple Thompson (even more multiple Curtis Cupper) and I asked them both about how they basically played match play. Robin said she always just played the golf cours almost no matter what her opponent was doing and Carole said she always played off everything her opponent was doing.

Do you see what I mean? Both were playing competitive matches against opponents but one was only playing the golf course while the other was doing just about the opposite. They were both using their golf "skill" to the best of their abilities but with two quite different approaches.

[George Pazin]

Do you see what I mean? Both were playing competitive matches against opponents but one was only playing the golf course while the other was doing just about the opposite. They were both using their golf "skill" to the best of their abilities but with two quite different approaches.

This is a pretty interesting story, Tom, and one that highlights what I think is disappearing from the game.

This is all purely anecdotal from me, but it seems to me that in the past, there was more variety in golf. People chose to hit it longer at the price of accuracy, some chose to play conservative against their opponents' aggressiveness, Hogan went for pure position, while a Hagen played a more colorful style, etc.

Today, with the primary skill being emphasized being power, there seems to be less room for unconventional approaches. Along the lines of Jason Topp arguing that Trevino wouldn't succeed today, I think what Jason really means is that Trevino's style or approach wouldn't succeed today. Trevino himself is probably shrewd enough that he would've succeeded, but is there not a greater cost to the game when we forsake alternative approaches to the game in favor of the unrelenting pursuit of distance?

I don't know for sure that it is technology that has created this conundrum. It could simply be that the much greater depth, both in field quality and athlete quality, in golf today has driven the game to this. Maybe this is simply the evolution of the game, as it grows from something country club athletes dominated to a huge money maker that is attracting better athletes away from other sports.

But it certainly has had, and continues to have, an impact on the game, and, more importantly to the subject matter of this site, the wonderful playing field that we all love on many levels.

So, am I - and others on this site - imagining this loss, instead pining for the grand old days of yesteryear that really weren't any more grand than today, or is there really a problem?

[TEPaul]

Here's an interesting reference to "skill" by Max Behr (with his usual grandiloquence and convolutedness).  

"In every sport there is a definite point beyond which man can only proceed at the peril of destroying his pastime altogether. He starts out to contest against an unknown quantity (the golf course, my parenthesis), and nature sets the task. For this he must have instruments which, skillfully used, create a fair contest. It is quite possible for him to devise, or use, instruments which would overwhelm nature---he can take a salmon rod to catch a minnow--but the all absorbing interest of a true sportsman lies in that delicate adjustment of his instruments down to the point where they will just sustain his skill in order that upon it, and it alone, must depend the decision of the contest. It is this fine point that is at the heart of the controversy over a standard ball and the form and make of golf clubs,"

(That was written by Behr in the 1920s---pretty spooky, huh?).

But just imagine this subject of "skill" in golf as it relates to the golfer and his clubs and ball, his contest with his human opponent and his contest with the golf course itself in an analogy to the fisherman, his natural environment, his tackle and a fish.

We know that to catch a 12-15 lbs bonefish a fisherman using 4 lb test has delicately adjusted his intruments down to that fine point where they will just sustain (basically highlight) his skill to catch that fish.

And we should know that if the 4 lbs test and the weight and strength of a fish are held in that constant a definition of the fisherman's skill would not need to change. Think of that analogy as it applies to "skill" in golf. At the very least we do know that the fisherman and the golfer really do have two very separate opponents in their contests and in their sport.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()