Golf as a sport

[Jason Topp]

Behr's writings focused on the difference between golf as a sport and golf as a game.  I understand the basic idea - that golf should be considered akin to hunting or climbing a mountain rather than basketball, bowling or tennis.

Beyond that however, I do not really understand the idea.  If an architecht were to create a course that treats golf as a sport - what would it look like?  What are the best examples of such courses in existence today?

[RJ_Daley]

We've certainly talked about it before.  But, I really never saw any definitive rationale that puts golf in one category or the other.  In my own mind, it is a sport when played on a course that is manditory to walk, and is designed for competition, like a Tour Stop with walking rules, TPC course for a toon-a-mint.  I guess when any competition is taking place, even if it is cartball on a dog track, but the the physical exersion is put forth with skill to hit the ball, straighter, or more perfectly controlled curved, or further or more precise and adept, it is still a sport.

When folks go out and just golf their ball, don't keep score by the rules, or don't play for anything tangible involving a winner and looser, it is a game.  Even if there is a score and a winner and looser, if you didn't play by the rules, strictly, or made some mutually agreeable convenient exceptions to the rules, it seems to me a game.

If you go out alone and golf your ball or more than one ball as you please, it is a game but getting close to a form of recreational masturbation, and as Dr. Root says, "not dat ter ees anytink rrrrong wit dat"   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jason,

A sport requires some basic or refined physical skill(s).
A game requires rules.
Go figure.
 
I think we need a new word or two, maybe 'spame' for an activity that's more sport than game, and 'gavort', for the reverse. 

[George Pazin]

As Dick mentions, this was discussed quite a bit before, but it was awhile ago. My recollection is that Behr's thinking was that by emphasizing the sport over the game, the playing fields would be more adventurous, less formulaic.

Certainly basketball requires physical skills - many or most would argue more than golf - but the playing fields are unquestionably more formulaic!

[Jason Topp]

Behr distinguishes a game as something "enclosed in principles" and manmade but a sport is "man against nature."

Other than a preference for more natural looking golf courses, I am entirely unclear on what that distinction means.

[RJ_Daley]

"gamort" sounds more interesting.    It just goes to show what different PsOV we can come up with in this definition.  Jim thinks that the rules are the prime criteria for a game, and the physical aspects define the sport.  Yet, the sport needs rules to govern play, particularly competition.  

Mountain climbing has all the physical demand, yet not actual rules other than the climbing techniques that keep one from falling to their death, but the only competition is against the mountain.  I don't thing the serious mountain climbers bet or have tournaments to see who gets to the top first (or do they?) Hunting is also a sport yet doesn't have rules other than regulations and licenses issued by the authorities.  Yet, those are called sports.  I don't think I ever heard that a mountain climber or hunter is playing a game.  But, it is all a different set of criteria in my view about golf as sport or game with blended rules and physical challenges and skills, and 'gamort' is most certainly more appropos to me.

[Kalen Braley]

If sitting on your behind and driving in circles for 3 hours is considered a sport..

...Then I think walking 5 miles in 95 degree heat for 4 hours can also be a sport! 

[Anthony Gray]

  Golf is simply Golf.

[TEPaul]

Jason:

Personally, I think most people try to make too much of the distinction Behr was trying to make when he said he considered golf to be a sport and not a game.

I believe his point in making that distinction was that golf and golf architecture needed to retain the element of Nature more than other man created recreations where opponents opposed one another and basically vied for some thing like a ball. Games like tennis, baseball, football etc need to be strictly defined and limited spatially in a standardized playing field or the opposing tension between human opponents vying for some common item like a ball would be lost.

Golf, on the other hand, where there is no vying for some common item between human opponents like a ball needs to maintain the illusion of unlimited space and randomness as is raw Nature.

And there was a real reason for that in his mind---eg that golf is essentially two opponents, the human one and the playing field. Consequently, since the playing field is essentially static (it cannot move about to vie for and oppose a common item like a ball as a human opponent can) it needed, to retain its defenses against a human opponent and his unvied for ball, those elements of Nature that include randomness, visual deception and a sense of unlimited space, as in hunting or fishing which are also recreations where no common item such as a ball is vied for between human opponents.

Personally, I think his ideas are pretty masterful constructs but ironically not ones that well understood by most golfers.

[RJ_Daley]

Then we get into the conflict of terms when we refer to a 'baseball game' and a game of 'basketball', which have formulaic fields of play, yet by most anyone's standards are sports played by athletes.  Maybe each individual competition can be called a game, and the institution is the sport.  All of which I think we explored in past threads, with circuitous results.  

[TEPaul]

RJ:

In my opinion, it isn't necessary and it's frankly not producive to argue just over the terms "sport" and "game." What is important if one wants to understand what Behr meant by making that distinction is what he was trying to say about a particular type of playing field---a golf course as distinct from a tennis court, baseball diamond or football field, for instance.

[Dan Kelly]

If an architecht were to create a course that treats golf as a sport - what would it look like?  What are the best examples of such courses in existence today?

"Architecht" could be a good Freudian slip! (Or not.)

A "sport" course might look a little like "The Amazing Race" -- spread out over the world, with athletic exertion and cunning required to get expeditiously from hole to hole.

Hello, Golf Channel?

[Jim_Kennedy]

RJ,

You know, I was going to type gamort but I was thinking about tying golf in with cavorting and hit the v instead of the m and never finished the idea. Oh boy,  

Something else to think of, you can play a game of sports, but you cannot sports a game.

[RJ_Daley]

Dan, I'm surprised you didn't go this route:  

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Main Entry: sport
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: recreational activity; entertainment
Synonyms: action, amusement, athletics, ball, disport, diversion, exercise, frolic, fun, fun and games, gaiety, game, games, pastime, physical activity, picnic, play, pleasure, recreation  
Antonyms: vocation, work  

What isn't golf, vocation or work!  

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

Personally, I think most people try to make too much of the distinction Behr was trying to make when he said he considered golf to be a sport and not a game.

I believe his point in making that distinction was that golf and golf architecture needed to retain the element of Nature more than other man created recreations where opponents opposed one another and basically vied for some thing like a ball. Games like tennis, baseball, football etc need to be strictly defined and limited spatially in a standardized playing field or the opposing tension between human opponents vying for some common item like a ball would be lost.

Golf, on the other hand, where there is no vying for some common item between human opponents like a ball needs to maintain the illusion of unlimited space and randomness as is raw Nature.

And there was a real reason for that in his mind---eg that golf is essentially two opponents, the human one and the playing field. Consequently, since the playing field is essentially static (it cannot move about to vie for and oppose a common item like a ball as a human opponent can) it needed, to retain its defenses against a human opponent and his unvied for ball, those elements of Nature that include randomness, visual deception and a sense of unlimited space, as in hunting or fishing which are also recreations where no common item such as a ball is vied for between human opponents.

Personally, I think his ideas are pretty masterful constructs but ironically not ones that well understood by most golfers.

Tom:

Can you give examples of courses that demonstrate Behr's concept?

[John Kavanaugh]

People who golf that do not compete are as much golfers as Spike Lee is a Knickerbocker.

[Joel Zuckerman]

People who golf that do not compete are as much golfers as Spike Lee is a Knickerbocker.

John--What exactly do you mean by "compete?"  At the USGA level?  State level?  For the club championship?  OR--In a $5.00 Nassau with their friends?

[John Kavanaugh]

For a coke, pride or till it hurts.  I believe that without competition architecture is overpriced landscaping.

[JSPayne]

A "sport" course might look a little like "The Amazing Race" -- spread out over the world, with athletic exertion and cunning required to get expeditiously from hole to hole.

Hello, Golf Channel?

HA! They already have it.....haven't you seen "Highway 18"?

Not to highjack the thread in an OT fashion, but I often have this same discussion of game vs. sport in regards to poker as well. I guess maybe golf vs. poker (think man vs man or man vs nature....plus the balance of luck and skill in both) or golf vs bowling (I know we've been there before) could be a whole seperate topic.........

[RJ_Daley]

If we go with trying to identify a golf course that is a true sporting venue, if the requirement is the athletic physicality and shot making skill set, we still have a moving scale in that all golfers are not equally skilled, yet can be relatively equally athletically conditioned or vice-versa.  Thus we see the Charles Barkley athlete of sorts, with the golfing skill set of Obama bowling, or we see the vision of a Billy Casper or other overweight heavy man playing at expert level at any course you put them on, relatively speaking.

I'd say we can get into 'architorture' as a more sporting venue if athleticism is at your core belief for sport, and maybe it would make the unfit player the one at disadvantage in true golf competition to that extent.  Courses like Whistling Straits requiring you walk, tough walk, tough shot making design, or Erin Hills. 

We say there are some courses that are 'sporty'.  Jason, is Oak Ridge a sporty course?  I don't know.  We can go there and play a game of golf among our group, compete, play be the rules, yet we'd call it a game of golf more than say we are going to play a sport of golf. 

Too many moving scales to pigeon hole golf courses as a sporting venue or a place to play a game. 

[Ken Moum]

Then we get into the conflict of terms when we refer to a 'baseball game' and a game of 'basketball', which have formulaic fields of play, yet by most anyone's standards are sports played by athletes.  Maybe each individual competition can be called a game, and the institution is the sport.  All of which I think we explored in past threads, with circuitous results.  

 I read Behr's explanation and was very much influenced by his thinking.

Your note about basketball and baseball being sports is clearly the modern usage, but I still like his distinction.

For the most part, games include:

1) The requirement of an opponent. (You can't play baseball by yourself.)
2) Defensive play, or play upon the opponent. (You can physically prevent your opponent from scoring)
3) Both "teams" use the same ball.

Games include football, handball basketball, tennis, hockey, racquetball, soccer, rugby, polo, etc.

Sports, on the other hand, generally include:

1)No play directly upon the opponent.
2) No shared ball
3) The ability to play without an opponent, in competition against a standard or your own previsou performances

Sports include darts, shooting, running, horseback riding, golf, swimming, all the ski sports--including alpine, nordic, shot put, discus, javeline, archery, automobile racing (except, perhaps NASCAR <grin>), etc. Biathlon combine two sports, and triathlon... well, you know.

Of course, like all such delineations, there are problematic examples. A no-ball game/sport, like fencing, is a perfect example.

Nevertheless, the distinction is useful to me because there's a different mindset in sports than there is in games.

[JSPayne]

Thinking as I write here.....

A square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle cannot be a square.

Similiarly, I think a sport can be a game, but a game cannot be a sport.

Obviously you have to think of the definitions of each very literally first before making a comparison, but I think the rule holds mostly true.

I view it in this sense. Something primarliy defined as a sport tends to be an activity that doesn't have a defined beginning and end, where competition for improvement or success can be as much against yourself or some innatimate object (nature, mountain, score, etc.) as against another player. Now, there can be games (or matches, etc.) within a sport, to judge relative skills at an exact moment in time, but the result may be ever-changing. The game of golf would have a distinct beginning and end, and a winner and loser in most cases.

Activities primarily defined as games, including board games, tend to have that beginning and end, usually require more than one person or exist as man vs. machine (think video games) and tend to define moment by moment the skill of a player over any predetermined length of the game. As a consequence, I don't believe they can ever be termed sports, as it is never really possible to go practice, take lessons, improve upon skills outside of replaying the game over and over again to gain experience.

Now that I wrote it all it seems I'm still a bit off........but it sounded good to start. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Golf as a sport.

I play golf for sport, for pleasure, for enjoyment, for exercise and as a walk in the park (links).

I enjoy the sporty game in high wind conditions, also my game at times can be defined as sporty, on some occasions just depressing, but generally enjoyable.

Golf offers more, it depending upon your mood, if you are alone or with friends. The Game can be sporty at times and the sport in the game is enjoyable at other times.

So I find Golf a sporty game so the approach shot is down the individual interpretation, is he or she being unsporting by using distance aids when playing a sporty game of golf?     

[TEPaul]

"Tom:
Can you give examples of courses that demonstrate Behr's concept?"


Jason:

Well, I suppose I could, at least in somewhat of an indirect way. I'm quite sure they were courses that he wrote that he admired which would include NGLA and most certainly TOC. I've never seen his own Lakeside but some pretty impressive critics did say it was one of the best ever and one would have to assume it contained this basic concept of his we're speaking of.

[Adam Clayman]

The game mind plants a tree where some guy hit one because "he shouldn't be able to do that".

Related, there was story over the weekend, the opening of Deer Season.  A Father left his little 14 yr old girl in the blind, while he went out to try and stalk the deer. Unaware that his actions screws things up for all the other hunters, upon returning to his blind he finds that his daughter has downed the biggest Deer life long hunters have ever seen.

Reminded me of that USGA commercial where the old man gets paired with the little girl who proceeds to wax him. After the completion of the round he tosses his clubs in the drink. With that "oh shit! my car keys" look on his face. In that one commercial, the USGA illustrates it has lost it's touch with a fundamental spirit of the sport.