What is SKILL in golf?

[TEPaul]

I believe I've put a thread like this on here in the past but I think it's time again for another thread on SKILL.

The 2002 "R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles" on equipment has this to say about SKILL.

"The purpose of the Rules is to protect golf's best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is the dominant element of success throughout the game."


To ensure that SKILL is the dominant element of success throughout the game!!

So, my only question is----do you think the word and idea of SKILL as it is used in that Joint Statement of Principles needs a DEFINITION (to be included in that Joint Statement of Principles)?

In other words, does the idea of SKILL as used in that statement mean only PHYSICAL skill or does it also mean MENTAL skill too? And further, did any difference or distinction between PHYSICAL and MENTAL Skill in golf even occur to the writers of the R&A/USGA Joint Statements of Principles? If it didn't I wonder what that might mean, and I wonder what it might mean for golf or architecture if they began to consider what the differences may be and may mean.

Some may even claim that PHYSICAL and MENTAL skill as skill relates to golf are somewhat interwinned and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that but I certainly wouldn't say that PHYSICAL and MENTAL Skill are one and the same thing either.

I, for one, would like to see a definition included in that Joint Statement of Principles and I would encourage it.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Mental skill has to be part of it.  If you hit a long, straight shot into a bunker, that's your own fault.

You know you are going to hear from Melvyn about judgment of distance being a mental skill that should still be part of the game.  Personally I agree with him, but that ship has sailed.

[Steve Lang]

  No.  What would be the point?

Perhaps what is not skill should be defined as an appendix for the pointless..

marking a ball within 2 feet of the cup and lining up the cheater line..

[Eric_Terhorst]

Tom,

I would have thought that the word “skill” in golf by implication includes both physical and mental  attributes.  In fact, it works in all sports—the baseball batter tries to outwit the pitcher and guess what’s coming in a mental test AND put the fat of the bat on the ball in a test of physical strength and agility.  Later today, Troy Polamalu will try to knock Larry Fitzgerald’s lights out AND to be successful he also needs to apply what he learned in practice and in watching game films to split-second decision-making. 

If the underlying concern is “technology overwhelms skill” (whether mental or physical), then I note that one player can, for example, go right at a flag and end up spinning it off a green with a high-spin wedge shot while a player with more brains and skill can execute a shot away from the flag (mental skill), or with less spin (physical skill) to achieve his objective of putting for birdie.  The technology in the club can help him or hurt him, depending on the quality of decision-making. 

Isn’t it a question of degree, as to when technology overwhelms skill?    I don’t envy the rule-makers in making decisions—it seems they are damned if they severely inhibit progress and damned if they enable too much technology into the game.  How will your proposed change to the definition help the rule-makers strike the right balance?

[TEPaul]

David and Eric:

While I am certainly fascinated with what you both think they (R&A and USGA) may think the word SKILL means in the context of their "Joint Statement of Principles", the real question here is do you think they should include a definition in that statement as to what they think SKILL means---and if and how and to what degree it might mean PHYSICAL and/or MENTAL Skill (or perhaps even some other variation of golfing results)?

[Charlie Goerges]

I guess I can add little except to perhaps flesh out what skill is in general. From the dictionary: (paraphrasing) Ability, expertness, wisdom, knowledge.

I would also add that personally I think a skill is an ACQUIRED ability (as opposed to talent, which might be called INNATE ability, though both can mean the same thing as well). Not to get sidetracked; if ability is acquired, it makes sense that it apply to something not natural to the human person. In this case golf, or using golf clubs.

Where it gets murkier is in asking 'what is the skill by which you wish to judge the outcome of the contest?' By way of analogy, think of computer software. Skill with a calculator means little without a deep understanding of mathematics; but what about skill in writing computer code coupled with an adequate understanding of mathematics?

Should the implements of the game approximate the calculator, or is it fine if some approximate powerful computers with AI technology? And how do you draw such a distinction with a simple plastic and metal object with no moving parts?

[Peter Pallotta]

Dave - I think you got it right.

TE -  I think it may've been Haultain in an article about keeping your eye on the ball who looked deeper into this physical technique/skill/habit to find the psychological/emotional equivalent -- and that equivalent was awareness, the ability to pay attention. And to do that, Haultain suggested, a golfer had to become a master of his own spirit, i.e. he had to learn to control his emotions and fears and wants so that moment by moment he could be focused on the task/shot/decision at hand.  The skill, in short, being related to a golfer's character. So the architectural angle might be that golf courses would ideally be designed to test -- and reward - this level of awareness and attention -- to test and reward, in other words,  character.

Peter 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,

No, I don't think it needs further definition, the meaning is clear enough.

Start adding definitions and you invariably narrow the effectiveness that a statement like this..... "The purpose of the Rules is to protect golf's best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is the dominant element of success throughout the game." .....can have on the game and it's equipment.


  

[Peter Pallotta]

It just struck me, thinking about my own post, that these days the only test of character (as a skill set) might be the much-maligned US Open Set-Up -- though it tests that character, it seems to me, within in a narrow context and 'bandwidth', i.e. the ability not to have your brain fried by constant pressure

Peter

[Scott Warren]

Is skill in golf not simply "the ability to hit the ball where you intend to, and to know the right place to hit it"? Or am I being overly simplistic?

[Bob_Huntley]

Is skill in golf not simply "the ability to hit the ball where you intend to, and to know the right place to hit it"? Or am I being overly simplistic?

Scott,

Your answer is quite simple and correct. Out of the worlds golfing population, few do it every time, come to think of it, no one does it every time.


Bob

Bob

[TEPaul]

"Start adding definitions and you invariably narrow the effectiveness that a statement like this....."


Jim Kennedy:

I, for one, wouldn't agree with that. It might narrow the effectiveness of that statement if they decided to define Skill narrowly in the context of that statement, but on the other hand it might be far more expansive in what they do with I&B regulation in the future if they define variously what Skill means to them. 

The 2002 R&A Joint Statement of Principles is a very interesting document to me and I feel it's a very good and interesting subject why they decided to write what they did with it in 2002. There are a number of potential reasons in my opinion.

And furthermore, there are more words in it that I would love to see more clearly defined. For instance what does "significantly" mean quantitatively and what does "challenge" mean qualitatively or quantitatively?

There is another most interesting new entry or idea or perhaps concern in that Joint Statement that I feel most people have totally missed. That is the statement even talks about their willingness to reign in I&B advancement even if "athleticism" increases significantly in the future. As far as I can tell the R&A/USGA has never before (before 2002) mentioned any concern or interest at all with the idea of an advancement in physical athleticism. To me that has nothing to do with I&B as it is defined by the R&A/USGA. That only has to do with the golfer himself and physically.

Frankly, I think most of what that R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles (2002) is all about is a very good and very clever and very comprehensive statement that can be used well by the R&A and USGA should any manufacturer try to claim or sue in court that they had something just sprung on them suddenly and inexplicably by the R&A and USGA. That kind of argument has been attempted before by plaintiff manufacturers that attempts to claim that the R&A/USGA I&B Rules and Regs have unfairly restrained their trade somehow (such as springing something on them they could not have been aware of previously).

If that argument was used in the future by a manufacturer I could sure see the defendent lawyer objecting to that statement or claim by pointing to this Joint Statement of Principles and I can sure see the judge sustaining that objection because of that legally comprehensive Joint Statement! 

[TEPaul]

"That way I could parse, spin and overlawyer it into the next 40 page GCA thread!   "


Aah, David, do you know how a thread poster can completely delete his own thread? If you do please tell me. 

[Chris Cupit]

My best guess is that the word skill was used primarliy to describe physical ability.  I think their primary concern was not to allow the ball or club to be so forigiving as to make the skill of solid contact resulting in long, controlled distance and a tight dispersion pattern to become "easy".

In that case they failed because there cannot be any debate that the game, while still difficult and challenging for most, is far easier for elite players.  It is easier to hit the ball solid and control where it goes by a pretty good amount. 

Mentally I think they did feel that judgement vis a vis distances should remain part of the game but as Tom Doak mentioned that horse left the barn a long time ago.

Right now maybe they are trying to prevent some electronic device or cart from giving the player distance, wind direction and speed, club he should use based on his distance he achieved while warming up on the range, pep talk if he needs one........and then have him select a club twice the size of what many grew up with made of the latest space age materials, customized in a testing center with the ideal ball for that particular day's weather conditons.....

Oh well, as silly as some of what I said was, I really believe all of it will occur one day and for a very few, it will matter since it requires a lot less skill in many areas tha ever before.

Part of what I see as wrong is that pure physical size and strength matter more today than ever.  If you can bomb it and putt well the middle stuff really doesn't matter.  The gap between the physically gifted and the not will just widen.  The "little" guy will have less of a chance to compete as the skill required to hit the ball solid has been dumbed down and the mental advantage of distance judgement doesn't matter either.

[Eric_Terhorst]

The real question here is do you think they should include a definition in that statement as to what they think SKILL means-

I was going to say that it wouldn't make any difference but it would just cause..uhm.. time consuming...arguments, but Mr. Schmidt's comment makes that observation unnecessary. 

 I take it you're suggesting the time to develop the definition and then use it appropriately might be time well spent?  To me, the Principle you've highlighted seems fine as is. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
When I was replying to your original post I was going to use Shivas as an example of why I feel like I do, but didn't. Thank you Dave for saving me the trouble.  

Keeping the language clear and simple is more important than trying to cover every base.  As soon as you start down that road you always leave yourself open, or miss something important.  That can make it easier for outside influences to dilute their (USGA/R&A) 'power', whereas right now the simplicity of it allows them to manage the definition with maximum latitude.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

I know what you mean. I've been well aware of the highly negative and corrupting influences on golf of over-analyzing and over-arching lawyers like Shivas for years now. If someone does not stop people like that soon there may not be a game like golf left for us in the future! We all may end up playing some indoor variation of it in a courtroom or mediation room.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The ability to execute an intended shot

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You say that Skill=”the ability to execute the intended shot”.


The Joint Statement of Principles says:

"The purpose of the Rules is to protect golf's best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is the dominant element of success throughout the game."

Or alternatively to insert your thought,

"The purpose of the Rules is to protect golf's best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than (the ability to execute the intended shot), and to ensure that (the ability to execute the intended shot) is the dominant element of success throughout the game."

Does that really sound like what Skill in golf should mean to you in that Joint Statement of Principles Patrick?

[Patrick_Mucci]

YES

[Charlie Goerges]

I think Patrick's definition is 'on the screws' as it were. For the purpose of golf, it can't go any further without resulting in an infinite regress in terms of the physical, or a black hole in terms of the mental/emotional.

[Rich Goodale]

I would marginally prefer to leave the definition undefined, but if one must clarify the obvious, Pat's words work well.

[Peter Pallotta]

Charlie, Rich -
You're probably right. But just to say: the trouble with binary equations (in this case technology vs skill) is that a healthy relationship between the two never seems to emerge - it always ends up being yes or no, black or white, winners and losers. And if you want to guess the winner, all you usually have to do is to follow the money. Just saying.
Instead, complicate the hell out of it and watch the world open up - a messy affair, granted, but I'm not sure that we were placed here to be tidy.
Peter

[Rich Goodale]

Peter

I do not think it is a binary question.  It is skill and technology and weather and blood alcohol content and the status of relationships and whatever other factor is important to you, on the day.

Anybody who plays golf with any passion (i.e. everybody on this site) knows what "skill" is.  If those writing the rules do not, they do not deserve to be writing the rules........

rich

[TEPaul]

PeterP:

Your last post is excellent and came just in the nick of time. A few people preceeding your post actually said Patrick Mucci's thoughts and words worked well. If that becomes the case on here I think GOLFLCLUBATLAS.com as most of us have come to know it and love it has reached the absolute end of its line and should go off the air and come to an end!