What is SKILL in golf?

[TEPaul]

"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........  "


Richard the Arrogant:

That last remark is perhaps the perfect representation of the smug arrogance of the ethos of far too many on this website and others out there who are constant criticizers of the way golf is today, particularly the USGA. Your remarks, despite the emoticon; no, I suppose I mean even because of the emoticon it bespeaks the fact that so on here many feel, as you just said ie "(ie everybody on this site)" knows what skill is and presumably also knows golf and what it really is better than those who essentially administer to it today.

Well, why don't you recommend the final step and suggest that this website administer to golf in the place of the R&A and USGA?

By the way, do you have a couple of million dollars laying around the house to run as comprehensive I&B tech center as the USGA has? Don't even get me started on what the other side doesn't and never has contributed to that effort!   


Sorry, a bit of a hiatus there while watching the wrap-up of the Super Bowl. What a game that one was! 

Happy Groundhog Day, Rich?!?

No problem, that one's Pennsylvania too, you know!?! 

[Rich Goodale]

Happy Groundhog Day, Tom.

[Jason Topp]

I actually think the USGA statement is pretty meaningless.  

Skill will always decide who is successful in the game, regardless of what technological advances occur.  Technological changes only change the skills that are rewarded.

Increased distance off the tee has changed the skill mix at the highest level in favor of driver length over accuracy, in favor of wedge play over iron play.  Improved green conditions have changed the primary putting skills needed in favor of distance control over a solid strike.  Changes in the golf ball have reduced the difficulty of controlling the ball in the wind.  I actually could argue that the groove rule will reduce skill requirements of the game because of the random nature of fliers.

I favor a distance rollback but I do not think the USGA should define what it means by skill.  The game will always change and any defined set of skills beyond getting the ball from the tee into the hole in the fewest number of strokes is a recipe for a bunch of meaningless arguments and lawsuits.  

[TEPaul]

"I actually think the USGA statement is pretty meaningless."


Jason:

Maybe you do. Maybe a lot of golfers do too, but neither you nor they are the ones who need to think about losing a lawsuit over I&B issues, are you?     

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
In 36 well chosen words they acknowledge the technology that's  flourished within the framework of the rules, but state that they aren't going to let those advances overshadow skill as the primary element of the game because they are the ruling bodies.

It's a clear message, and they're usually the best kind to send. 

[Sean_A]

I agree with Jason.  The USGA statement is waste of time because skill always separates the best from not so best.  Why?  Because skill is simply being able to get the ball in the hole.  Beyond this generality it is down to individuals to best decide what techniques they will use to get the ball in the hole.  There are no pictures on scorecards.  The USGA statement strikes me that the authors know what the current balance percentages are now.  So what is it, 70% skill and 30% tech?  Its the stuff of nonsense.   

Tom P - If you think this statement is what stands between the USGA being successfully sued or not those blue suiters are goofier than I imagined.

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

‘Ship has Sailed’ you may well be right but we have also dismissed the old medical practice for centuries of blood letting as being based upon pure ignorance and that ship has long since sailed. Yet, the modern masters of medicine today utilise that exact practice albeit in a more delicate way by using leaches, so the ship would appear to have returned to port.

Perhaps there is wisdom in some of the old ways.

Skill is reflected in being able to understand not just ones abilities but absorb the full nature of your surroundings as you commit to whatever it is you are partaking.

Melvyn

[Bruce Leland]

"I actually think the USGA statement is pretty meaningless."


Jason:

Maybe you do. Maybe a lot of golfers do too, but neither you nor they are the ones who need to think about losing a lawsuit over I&B issues, are you?     

and isn't this REALLY what this discussion is all about???

To Quote within a Quote from Jim Kennedy:
 In 36 well chosen words they acknowledge the technology that's  flourished within the framework of the rules, but state that they aren't going to let those advances overshadow skill as the primary element of the game because they are the ruling bodies.

They are the ruling bodies until the courts get involved and the fact that the game of golf has come to the point (with the previous Ping suit) that what our ruling bodies govern in their and our sport is decided by a Judge OUTSIDE of the game / sport is ridiculous. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bruce,
The Ping days are long gone, remember what happened to Eli Callaway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Feel free to use the word "athleticism" as a sustitute for my multi-word definition.

[Bruce Leland]

Bruce,
The Ping days are long gone, remember what happened to Eli Callaway.

Jim, I completely agree with the premise of your post in theory but in practice it falls short.  Specifically, as Mr Paul states, the ruling bodies of the game have become more concerned about the possibility of having to defend against a suit than they are about protecting golf's best traditions.  It's the spectre of the cost of that defense that is guiding current I&B policy, IMHO.

My feeling is that the R&A and the USGA as the ruling bodies of golf should be able to govern and dictate the rules of the game ESPECIALLY in light of the technological advances of recent years that have allowed fundamental changes in the way the game is played by the current breed of top amateurs and professionals. 

Roll back the ball and let the unwashed masses play their juiced up version of golf.  As for me, I'll continue to compete within the framework of the rules as proposed and adopted by the ruling bodies of golf whether I can drive it 300 or 265.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Feel free to use the word "athleticism" as a sustitute for my multi-word definition.  "


Pat:

No problem. Do you think "Athleticism" includes MENTAL as well as PHYSICAL Skill?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Shiv,

Look up "USGA/R&A Joint Statement Of Principles" and all your questions should be answered.

[TEPaul]

Quote from: TEPaul on Yesterday at 10:36:06 pm
"I actually think the USGA statement is pretty meaningless."


Jason:

Maybe you do. Maybe a lot of golfers do too, but neither you nor they are the ones who need to think about losing a lawsuit over I&B issues, are you?    


"and isn't this REALLY what this discussion is all about???"



Bruce Leland:

To open a discussion on the legal or lawsuit ramifications of the R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Prinicples was not my intention when I started this thread. I was thinking along the lines of trying to open the door for a discussion of turning away from the ever increasing direction to more "equitableness" and fairness in golf and architecture to one of more unpredicableness, randomness and a greater maintenance and preservation of luck. I was thinking that if MENTAL Skill was used in a definition of Skill as well as PHYSICAL Skill it might do that but on reflection that door does not really seem to be available in this thread or in the minds of most on here.

But again, creating a discussion of the legal ramifications of that Joint Statement of Principles was not my intention with this thread. However, I certainly do suspect it was on the minds of those who wrote that Joint Statement of Principles in 2002. I don't think it was the only thing on their minds but nevertheless.... 

Perhaps many are unaware of it but one of the goals of the R&A/USGA I&B tech people in 2002 and simultaneous to that Joint Statement of Principles was to allow the R&A and USGA to get up on the cutting edge of I&B development to something akin to the manufacturers. The thought was that this would allow the R&A/USGA to understand better performance ramifications of I&B progress coming down the pipeline at them in the context of conformance. They (R&A/USGA) wanted to get more proactive rather than reactive. To this goal they infused approximately $10 million toward better understanding the physical characteristecs of I&B and particularly B (balls). In this process they asked each manufacturer to provide prototype balls for testing that went 15 AND 25 yard LESS far! The manufacturers have all provided them with those prototype balls, and they are in the process of extensive testing now.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave,
Read 'em again. If that doesn't work keep at it, it will eventually come to you.   

[Jim_Kennedy]

I was thinking that if MENTAL Skill was used in a definition of Skill as well as PHYSICAL Skill it might do that but on reflection that door does not really seem to be available in this thread or in the minds of most on here.-TEP

Tom,
That 'door' closed because 'Skill' as it relates to golf conjures up both physical and mental preparedness, and that relationship is tighter than two coats of paint.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

As far as what the R&A and USGA mean when they use the word "Rules" in that 2002 Joint Statement of Principles, instead of you going on and on for about ten pages on what they mean or what they should mean why don't you just do everyone a favor and call them up and just ASK THEM what they mean? That's what they're in Far Hills and St. Andrews for and that's why they have telephones and people to answer them at those locations!  


Jim Kennedy:

How can you be so sure that is what the R&A and USGA mean when they use the word Skill? What do you suppose they mean exactly when they use the words "preserving the "Challenge" of the game" in the same statement?  What do you suppose they mean exactly when they use the word "significantly" a couple of times in that same statement?

I suppose they basically mean they reserve the right to do something to preserve the "Challenge" of the game when something changes enough in their collective opinions to make taking action appropriate. That might be tomorrow, next year or never. The good news is they do have their ODS protocol in place and they are watching and testing and testing and watching.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Once again, if you (or anyone else) is so concerned about what they mean by what they write then just call them up and ask them!   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave,

It's perfectly clear:

While generally welcoming this progress, the R&A and the USGA will remain vigilant when considering equipment Rules. 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.

...and easily followed along, for most people.

[TEPaul]

Bruce Leland:

In your post #38 it looks like you're advocating what we call "bifurcation" (two sets (at least) of I&B Rules and Regs including so-called "competition" balls). It looks pretty clear to me that the Joint Statement of Principles pretty much precludes anything but a single set of I&B Rules and Regs for all golfers as it has always been.

On the other item you mentioned in your post #38---ie fear of manufacturers lawsuits, I think they were very concerned about that a few years ago but perhaps not so much anymore. Personally I think the thing that may concern them more from the manufacturers in the future is not lawsuits but having the manufacturers basically just walk away from the R&A/USGA I&B Rules and Regs and conformance. After all R&A/USGA I&B conformance is strictly voluntary and it always has been. Those two organizations have absolutely no structure or ability to enforce those I&B conformance Rules and Regs in anything other than their own thirteen national championships.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Kennedy:

Good pick up there in bolds in your reply #48. Do you think it would be too simplistic to point out to Mr. Schmidt that when he reads the word "Rules" in the Joint Statement of Principles he is in the "Equipment" Section of the USGA and not in the "Rules" (Golf's Playing Rules) section of the USGA?

Can you see Mr. Schmidt in a court of law making a hairsplitting distinction about some word or term only to have the Judge respond: "Mr. Schmidt, that issue was in last week's case, not this week's case! 

[JMEvensky]

Bruce Leland:

In your post #38 it looks like you're advocating what we call "bifurcation" (two sets (at least) of I&B Rules and Regs including so-called "competition" balls). It looks pretty clear to me that the Joint Statement of Principles pretty much precludes anything but a single set of I&B Rules and Regs for all golfers as it has always been.

On the other item you mentioned in your post #38---ie fear of manufacturers lawsuits, I think they were very concerned about that a few years ago but perhaps not so much anymore. Personally I think the thing that may concern them more from the manufacturers in the future is not lawsuits but having the manufacturers basically just walk away from the R&A/USGA I&B Rules and Regs and conformance. After all R&A/USGA I&B conformance is strictly voluntary and it always has been. Those two organizations have absolutely no structure or ability to enforce those I&B conformance Rules and Regs in anything other than their own thirteen national championships.

A hypothetical.

The PGA Tour institutes its own I & B regs for its own tournaments.The European Tour adopts them,as well.The USGA/R & A choose to adopt them for both Opens.

Would this bifurcation eventually lead to unification(successively lower levels adopting the regs)?This is the Goodale Theory which now makes a lot of sense to me.

Do the USGA/R & A fear someone else usurping their rules-making hegemony or would they welcome it,assuming that equipment would be "reined in"?

Couldn't the PGA Tour act as a "beard"?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
To answer an earlier question of yours:

That's pretty much it, they wrote a document that gives them a lot of room in which to manuever.

When they say: "Golf balls used by the vast majority of highly skilled players today have largely reached the performance limits for initial velocity and overall distance" and:   ...."any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable." and then bring up: "Improved player coaching",  I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think they meant a guy who can physically bomb it and who is also schooled in the mental side of the game, i.e., that's a lot of what coaching is about.

...and now about Dave. We know he knows the difference between what are laws and what are rules of a game (big difference), but he likes to exercise his densely packed Teutonic gray matter.
Just think, we are getting all this for free.   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave,
C.mon, you know what you were doing when you wrote:
Does anybody really believe that these are the 3 purposes of the Rules (which includes the I&B Rules, as the USGA and R&A says in the first sentence)?
...because you deliberately took the '3 purposes'  out of context by dropping the first sentence of the quote, which read: "While generally welcoming this progress, the R&A and the USGA will remain vigilant when considering equipment Rules".

This argument is out of gas. Go back in the archives, dig up your cheater line thread, and see if you can get some more mileage out of that. 

edit: Nice try Dave, but you know that it's not a bifurcation as there is only one rule. It's just a grace period, and you know the difference.

[TEPaul]

"A hypothetical.

The PGA Tour institutes its own I & B regs for its own tournaments.The European Tour adopts them,as well.The USGA/R & A choose to adopt them for both Opens.

Would this bifurcation eventually lead to unification(successively lower levels adopting the regs)?This is the Goodale Theory which now makes a lot of sense to me.

Do the USGA/R & A fear someone else usurping their rules-making hegemony or would they welcome it,assuming that equipment would be "reined in"?

Couldn't the PGA Tour act as a "beard"?"




Jeff:

I'm not sure what you mean by some of that or in some of that. What do you mean by bifurcation (I&B) would lead to unification? There is I&B unfication at pretty much all levels of golf under the R&A and USGA administrations now and has been for many many decades.

Would the USGA and R&A like to give up their control of I&B regulation and administration or do they fear someone usurping that area? That's an interesting question. I'd say probably not because it puts both of them in a position of added power but on the other side of the coin they do have to continuously face obstacles in many forms from the I&B commercial interests. It's also not exactly cheap to test and administer to I&B rules and regs. I'm not sure any Tour would want that cost and responsibility unless they just planned to totally cave in to whatever commercial interests in I&B wanted to do.

Would the PGA Tour like to get into I&B? Actually, if they ever tried to do that there are a few legal and beauracratic hoops they'd have to pass through that were set up under the settlement of those PING lawsuits back in the late 1980s. (Finchem once mentioned that the PGA TOUR might get into I&B Rules and Regs in his frustration with the rift on COR issue between the R&A and USGA but in about a day apparently one of his lawyers explained to him what the PGA TOUR would have to do to get into I&B regulation. About two days later he went public stating they would not do that.

As far your remark about the PGA Tour being a "beard", I'm not sure what you mean by that.