What sport am I?

[Lukas Michel]

 What sport am I?
 

• I’m an individual sport that requires completing a _______ in the least amount of ______.
• In order to take the least amount of _______ competitors must choose their line wisely, balancing risk with reward.
• The world’s best _______ are a combination of thrilling terrain and an exacting design that finds the competitor with the best skill, strongest mental fortitude and concentration.
• Many famous ________ were built in the 1920s and 30s with minimal earth moving equipment, using what was in the ground. Often these have quirky individual ______ that would never be designed this way today, but are famous and world renown.
• People flock from around the world to have a shot at the best _______. There’s something about being where the greats of the sport have all competed and trying it for yourself. Modern designs are generally less interesting.
• The best competitors and thinkers can only differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack when given sufficient width to choose their approach.
• Some people refuse to call it a “sport” or its competitors “athletes”
• Millions of people watch the sport in its many formats around the world.
• “Purists” may find the format most popular in America less interesting due to its emphasis on execution and repetition, rather than creativity, flair and strategy.

One hint… it’s NOT golf.
I’ll admit, I don’t know a huge amount about the sport I’m describing (well at least as not as much as golf), but the more I read about it the more similarities I find. For sports that superficially seem so different, they are very similar!
Hopefully there are some here that know the sport better than I do and perhaps point out even more similarities.

[Nigel Islam]

Skiing?

[Pete_Pittock]

Luge or the sport of bobsledding. The Cresta run at St Moritz comes to mind.

[Lukas Michel]

Nigel, Pete.


They fit most of the descriptions quite well but there's a few they don't. Not quite the sport I was thinking of. Think bigger and more general - it's a sport with a lot of different formats.

I'll explain my descriptions more thoroughly once someone gets it.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Nice statements.
Auto racing.
Marathon runners fit except for the athlete comment.
There is a good reason to make a race track safer (flatter/boring) due to today's speeds, less of a reason to do so on to a golf course.
Cheers

[Lukas Michel]

Spot on Mike.


Yes, in a way safety has killed the ability to create tracks like they once were (but it's a fair argument).


I was also going to make comments with regard to regulation and technology. Both sports have seen technology change the sport completely - and formula 1 in particular with the FIA have been much more influential with their regulation of the sport (again mostly due to safety). There are plenty of parallels between the sports and I think they could learn a lot from each other.


Here's my detailed descriptions with the blanks filled in.

What sport am I?
 

• I’m an individual sport that requires completing a circuit/track in the least amount of time.
• In order to take the least amount of time competitors must choose their line wisely, balancing risk with reward.

Much like golf, the driving line involves balancing risk with reward. How fast you enter the corner and how much you cut off is like how much club you take and how much you try to cut off.

• The world’s best tracks are a combination of thrilling terrain and an exacting design that finds the competitor with the best skill, strongest mental fortitude and concentration.

Courses and tracks are very similar in what makes them good. Undulation is crucial to fun and the thrill of driving.

• Many famous tracks were built in the 1920s and 30s with minimal earth moving equipment, using what was in the ground. Often these have quirky individual ______ that would never be designed this way today, but are famous and world renown.

Monza, the Nurburgring, Bathurst, Spa and many others were built in this "golden age" of design - around the same time as many of the great courses of the world.

• People flock from around the world to have a shot at the best tracks. There’s something about being where the greats of the sport have all competed and trying it for yourself. Modern designs are generally less interesting.

As Mike says, safety has limited modern designs. They are less "quirky" and less fun.

• The best competitors and thinkers can only differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack when given sufficient width to choose their approach.

This is an interesting one and I don't really know how applicable it is to racing, but to me it would seem more width means more decisions on the correct "driving line". This is analogous to narrow fairways dictating precisely where shots are played, and wide fairways leaving you open to your own decision making.

• Some people refuse to call it a “sport” or its competitors “athletes”
• Millions of people watch the sport in its many formats around the world.
• “Purists” may find the format most popular in America less interesting due to its emphasis on execution and repetition, rather than creativity, flair and strategy.

The reference here was NASCAR, hopefully I didn't offend anyone, but it seems that way to me (I must admit I don't watch it)

[Matthew Mollica]

Nice work Lukas.


I often think about auto racing and golf parallels. Particularly as they relate to circuit / course changes and ever-evolving technology within the sports.


Each competitor completes the same number of laps around the course, and the course is the same for all competitors.

Why should it matter if the course is completed more quickly (read less strokes) if the cars, tyres, fuel and other factors (read clubs, balls, and other factors) are constantly evolving?

Is anyone lengthening Monza because the times of today are too quick compared to the race winning times of years gone by? Similarly, is anyone kicking up a stink and altering Spa because the lap record is so far below what Fangio did?

Are they legislating against the car advances getting out of control?  Interesting parallels...

MM

[Thomas Dai]

Interesting comparison golf and motor racing and not just in relation to courses and tracks either.

Take golf and Nascar for example. The former where equipment technology has been allowed to develop virtually freely, the latter where, with the occasional change and/or change back, things like 8 cylinder engines, rear-wheel-drive, carburetors, 4 forward speed manual gearboxes etc have largely held sway.

I'm sure there's a Nascar expert herein who will put me right on the details but I'm sure you get my drift in comparison to golf.

atb

[Tim Gallant]

Spot on Mike.


Yes, in a way safety has killed the ability to create tracks like they once were (but it's a fair argument).


I was also going to make comments with regard to regulation and technology. Both sports have seen technology change the sport completely - and formula 1 in particular with the FIA have been much more influential with their regulation of the sport (again mostly due to safety). There are plenty of parallels between the sports and I think they could learn a lot from each other.


Here's my detailed descriptions with the blanks filled in.

What sport am I?
 

• I’m an individual sport that requires completing a circuit/track in the least amount of time.
• In order to take the least amount of time competitors must choose their line wisely, balancing risk with reward.

Much like golf, the driving line involves balancing risk with reward. How fast you enter the corner and how much you cut off is like how much club you take and how much you try to cut off.

• The world’s best tracks are a combination of thrilling terrain and an exacting design that finds the competitor with the best skill, strongest mental fortitude and concentration.

Courses and tracks are very similar in what makes them good. Undulation is crucial to fun and the thrill of driving.

• Many famous tracks were built in the 1920s and 30s with minimal earth moving equipment, using what was in the ground. Often these have quirky individual ______ that would never be designed this way today, but are famous and world renown.

Monza, the Nurburgring, Bathurst, Spa and many others were built in this "golden age" of design - around the same time as many of the great courses of the world.

• People flock from around the world to have a shot at the best tracks. There’s something about being where the greats of the sport have all competed and trying it for yourself. Modern designs are generally less interesting.

As Mike says, safety has limited modern designs. They are less "quirky" and less fun.

• The best competitors and thinkers can only differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack when given sufficient width to choose their approach.

This is an interesting one and I don't really know how applicable it is to racing, but to me it would seem more width means more decisions on the correct "driving line". This is analogous to narrow fairways dictating precisely where shots are played, and wide fairways leaving you open to your own decision making.

• Some people refuse to call it a “sport” or its competitors “athletes”
• Millions of people watch the sport in its many formats around the world.
• “Purists” may find the format most popular in America less interesting due to its emphasis on execution and repetition, rather than creativity, flair and strategy.

The reference here was NASCAR, hopefully I didn't offend anyone, but it seems that way to me (I must admit I don't watch it)

I take serious offence! Do you know how hard it is not to fall asleep while keeping the wheel at a 10 degree turn to the left for three hours?!

[jeffwarne]

Now there's a sport The Bridge as a course easily makes the Top 10 in.
Dangerous quirky road racing with wildlife always in play.
Proclaimed by many racing greats as their favorite track.
a crying shame they didn't leave the entire track intact,and route the course around and over it though no doubt liability and safety would've been a big concern

[Peter Pallotta]

Lukas - the race tracks/courses are indeed different, as are the race cars/technology, but let's not forget the difference in the drivers themselves. Exhibit A: Gilles Villeneuve vs Rene Arnoux, 1979 French Grand Prix.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeLK9UftveA

[Thomas Dai]

This thread might be going somewhat OT but what the hell -


1955 - 1,000 miles Brescia-Rome-Brescia in 10 hrs


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JjXVGUlKoEA





Atb

[Kalen Braley]

I agree to many of the comparisons here...

On a related note, what does the Phoenix Open and your weekly NASCAR event have in common?