[Kalen Braley]

Kyle,

No doubt countless rules in the game have been changed over the years, and many for good reason.  The stymie was an active part of the game (In golf's history its been allowed far longer than banned) and to now declare it unethical seems very odd, even if its not desirable in your book.

While I agree whole-heartedly it has no place in stroke play, match play seems the perfect application as another method to try to distract or put pressure on your opponent.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Kyle,


In your eyes, A sport requires some level of physical action or exertion and a game requires some level of rules and structure?


So hitting a golf ball is a sporting activity, but once you perform that activity on a golf course with tee markers and flagsticks you are now playing a game?


Where does it end? Is ditch digging a sport, how about sex, how about an overweight man walking from their car to the office on a hot day? If the overweight man is asked to walk between his car and the office in less than 2 minutes does that change it to a game? what if the ditch digger was forced to only use one type of shovel?


You seem to have a grand and broad view of sport, while at the same time a rather limited and confined view of game. You're afraid to define sport and game as that would then reduce your ideal of sport to something less than. Why is the existence of the game of golf harmful to you? Why do you so badly need it to be as much as sport as possible?


Finally, why do so many activities need to fall into either category? Especially outdoor activities such as the ones you've mentioned such as kayaking, hunting, or hiking. I've been a backpacker for more than 20 years, hiked all over the US, and it would have never crossed my mind to categorize hiking as either a sport or a game, it's a pursuit of something different than either.


Much of this discussion has been a "bit of sport" where does that English phrase fall into your definition?

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,


In your eyes, A sport requires some level of physical action or exertion and a game requires some level of rules and structure?


So hitting a golf ball is a sporting activity, but once you perform that activity on a golf course with tee markers and flagsticks you are now playing a game?


Where does it end? Is ditch digging a sport, how about sex, how about an overweight man walking from their car to the office on a hot day? If the overweight man is asked to walk between his car and the office in less than 2 minutes does that change it to a game? what if the ditch digger was forced to only use one type of shovel?


You seem to have a grand and broad view of sport, while at the same time a rather limited and confined view of game. You're afraid to define sport and game as that would then reduce your ideal of sport to something less than. Why is the existence of the game of golf harmful to you? Why do you so badly need it to be as much as sport as possible?


Finally, why do so many activities need to fall into either category? Especially outdoor activities such as the ones you've mentioned such as kayaking, hunting, or hiking. I've been a backpacker for more than 20 years, hiked all over the US, and it would have never crossed my mind to categorize hiking as either a sport or a game, it's a pursuit of something different than either.


Much of this discussion has been a "bit of sport" where does that English phrase fall into your definition?

Sport: Wits of human v. nature
Game: Activity where athletic/sporting prowess is regulated to simulate or provide interest with/for others.
Athletics: Doing things with your body virtuoustically.


Golf has elements of all three. The stymie exists solely within the Game camp. You literally need another player to have it.


Have you ever looked up “game theory?” All games are simulations or tests. They require more rules than sport.


When you do things “for the sport of it” you are giving some unintended opponent (the deer, the golf course, the mountain, the river) a challenge.


When you play a game you have an intended opponent and then you create rules to make whatever it is you are competing at interesting.


To some, stymies make the game interesting.


To me, it’s as stupid as impeding your backpacking progress by rolling rocks down the mountain at you so I can get to the top first.

[Kyle Harris]

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70100.0.html


Thread title/subject: SPORT
Arbitrary Rules Suggestions to Prevent It: GAME

[Gib_Papazian]

As to the original question before the studio audience, I once had a scratch player whine the Principal's Nose ought to be removed because it blocked his view of the putting surface. Cannot imagine what would happen if he had to navigate the Dell or Klondike.


My favorite EVER, comes from my Caddy at County Down, who was prevailed upon to pack for Gary Player, who retires the trophy for egocentric pomposity . . . . . (save it V.Ketz, I already know your cheap retort)


Apparently, Gary was pontificating about his erudite genius as an architect, opining that RCD has many deficiencies, the most glaring being blindness off the tee on holes like #2. "If I were to redesign and improve this golf course, I would remove the sand hills between the tee and fairways."


Good thing Merion and Riviera did not hire the Black Knight as a consulting architect, one can only imagine what their 18th holes would look like. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Sport: Wits of human v. nature
Game: Activity where athletic/sporting prowess is regulated to simulate or provide interest with/for others.
Athletics: Doing things with your body virtuoustically.

Based on these definitions, are all commonly known sports ( soccer/football, American football, cricket, rugby, hockey, baseball, basketball, tennis, etc...) just games? Using your definition, is the only pure sport in existence running?


What is chess? based on the above it appears chess wouldn't even be a game, at least not by those the play. Possibly the playing of chess could be viewed as a game by those watching 2 people playing. Or maybe within baseball players do things athletically, but the Manager is actually playing the game of baseball as they are regulating their teams sporting prowess?


Where does mental capacity and strategy come into play? you've avoided it all together in your reply.

[Kyle Harris]

Sport: Wits of human v. nature
Game: Activity where athletic/sporting prowess is regulated to simulate or provide interest with/for others.
Athletics: Doing things with your body virtuoustically.

Based on these definitions, are all commonly known sports ( soccer/football, American football, cricket, rugby, hockey, baseball, basketball, tennis, etc...) just games? Using your definition, is the only pure sport in existence running?


What is chess? based on the above it appears chess wouldn't even be a game, at least not by those the play. Possibly the playing of chess could be viewed as a game by those watching 2 people playing. Or maybe within baseball players do things athletically, but the Manager is actually playing the game of baseball as they are regulating their teams sporting prowess?


Where does mental capacity and strategy come into play? you've avoided it all together in your reply.

You’re being unnecessarily obtuse. Strategy is at the core of game and sport. It’s a human condition. However, games generally have rules which limit which strategies may be employed or else the game is “broken.”


And yes, the examples you cited are more akin to games than sport. The rules are completely arbitrary and generally exist to limit excessive athleticism, or subsets of it, from dominating.


Football is about speed, until you hit the boundary. Why else would the boundary exist?


Why do you assume “game” is a pejorative? Ego? [size=78%] [/size]

[Garland Bayley]

...
The stymie is definitely in the realm of the game aspect. In fact, it flies in the face of the sport aspect because an opponent's golf ball is NOT an integral part of the course. There is nothing in the SPORT of golf that says part of your maneuvering should consider an opponent.

Playing alone is more a measure of ability than it is a game since, even in economics, a game requires an opponent.

SPORT is *never* fair. Hunters don't cry that's it's unfair if their quarry moves in an unanticipated manner. The kayaker doesn't complain that the river is "unfair." They just go do it and if a course is beyond their abilities they move up a set of te... rather... they find an easier class of rapids.
...

A. V. Macan argues that complaints of the stymie being unfair are unjustified, because the sport of golf has many chance happenings.

Your ruling the ball not to be part of the sport is quite arbitrary. Seems at least Macan would disagree with you. I also have an article from Donald Ross arguing in favor of the stymie. Unfortunately it is reproduced so poorly I can't make out much of it.

[Garland Bayley]

Kyle,

No response to Macan who calls your stance childish, and causing deskilling of the game?

Have to wonder if you have ever played a match with stymie in play.

Or, are you criticizing the course without playing it?

I have. It never came up.
My understanding of your answer is that you have never played with the presence of a stymie, so you have no experience with it.
I suppose you could call many changes that have improved the overall nature of golf as "deskilling" the game.

Would Mr. Macan be in the deep rough/narrow fairway camp so that the tee ball added a specific skill to the game?
The tee ball has always been a specific skill of the game, rough or no rough. Mac would design his hole so that intelligent positioning mattered, the USGA dumbs down the game with deep rough/narrow fairways to magnify the scoring margin between individual players.
Let's have the courses dictate what is and is not skill and not the opponent. Which is kind of the point here. Actually, not kind of... it IS the point.
Please tell me you are not thinking that players purposely position their ball to create a stymie. That would be absurd given the size of the hole and the size of the ball. However, it would explain how you conveniently rule the ball out of the "sport".

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

No response to Macan who calls your stance childish, and causing deskilling of the game?

Have to wonder if you have ever played a match with stymie in play.

Or, are you criticizing the course without playing it?

I have. It never came up.
My understanding of your answer is that you have never played with the presence of a stymie, so you have no experience with it.
I suppose you could call many changes that have improved the overall nature of golf as "deskilling" the game.

Would Mr. Macan be in the deep rough/narrow fairway camp so that the tee ball added a specific skill to the game?
The tee ball has always been a specific skill of the game, rough or no rough. Mac would design his hole so that intelligent positioning mattered, the USGA dumbs down the game with deep rough/narrow fairways to magnify the scoring margin between individual players.
Let's have the courses dictate what is and is not skill and not the opponent. Which is kind of the point here. Actually, not kind of... it IS the point.
Please tell me you are not thinking that players purposely position their ball to create a stymie. That would be absurd given the size of the hole and the size of the ball. However, it would explain how you conveniently rule the ball out of the "sport".

Read again. The ball is not part of the COURSE. All those other so-called unfair things are because of the COURSE. Not the ball. The ball is as much a part of the course as your or other player’s equipment… in that it’s not.


And yes, I’ve played in a match where stymies were active. I’ve never been stymied.


And MANY on this thread have argued that purposefully laying a stymie when you are otherwise out of the hole is one of those so-called added elements. You proponents here can’t seem to make up your mind as to how this adds to the game.

[Kalen Braley]

Kyle,

I'm not sure what the goal is by segmenting the entire competition into smaller sub-components to somehow exclude it.  Yes the ball is not apart of the course, but neither is the weather or your opponent.

But whether it be the course, the weather, the conditions, how well you're hitting your driver, have a sore back, or even what your playing competitor does (stymie or not), they are all external factors to be considered for a winning strategy.

P.S.  The "add" in this case is to put another tool in the box to potentially be used in Match Play.

[Kyle Harris]

Wait, so my opponent can stop my ball?


Weather is part of nature. Remember that whole man v. nature thing?


Is THE OPPONENT’S BALL an integral part of the golf course? Hell no. Yet you people treat it like a bunker or mound or whatever because it takes skill to overcome when playing a stymie.


What “like situation” is the opponent’s ball alike? Tufts writes that the rules treat like situations alike.

[Garland Bayley]

Wait, so my opponent can stop my ball?


Weather is part of nature. Remember that whole man v. nature thing?


Is THE OPPONENT’S BALL an integral part of the golf course? Hell no. Yet you people treat it like a bunker or mound or whatever because it takes skill to overcome when playing a stymie.


What “like situation” is the opponent’s ball alike? Tufts writes that the rules treat like situations alike.

Without the ball you have no sport. So it seems to me to be an integral part of the sport. Arbitrarily ruling it out of the sport arena, rules out the sport of golf.

Are you just parroting Tufts ideas? If so, we would appreciate quotes from Tufts to know who and what we are debating.

Please don't be a Tufts sycophant, if that is what you are doing.

[Kyle Harris]

Wait, so my opponent can stop my ball?


Weather is part of nature. Remember that whole man v. nature thing?


Is THE OPPONENT’S BALL an integral part of the golf course? Hell no. Yet you people treat it like a bunker or mound or whatever because it takes skill to overcome when playing a stymie.


What “like situation” is the opponent’s ball alike? Tufts writes that the rules treat like situations alike.

Without the ball you have no sport. So it seems to me to be an integral part of the sport. Arbitrarily ruling it out of the sport arena, rules out the sport of golf.

Are you just parroting Tufts ideas? If so, we would appreciate quotes from Tufts to know who and what we are debating.

Please don't be a Tufts sycophant, if that is what you are doing.

So I can place my club between my opponents ball and the hole?


If my opponents ball ends up, after I’ve placed my bag of clubs there, with my bag between their ball and the hole I may not move my bag?


By your logic, no, I must not move my bag. Clubs are no less a part of the “sport” than the ball.


Like situations alike is the Tufts quote. Please apply it to the above.

[Kyle Harris]

Wait, so my opponent can stop my ball?


Weather is part of nature. Remember that whole man v. nature thing?


Is THE OPPONENT’S BALL an integral part of the golf course? Hell no. Yet you people treat it like a bunker or mound or whatever because it takes skill to overcome when playing a stymie.


What “like situation” is the opponent’s ball alike? Tufts writes that the rules treat like situations alike.

Without the ball you have no sport. So it seems to me to be an integral part of the sport. Arbitrarily ruling it out of the sport arena, rules out the sport of golf.

Are you just parroting Tufts ideas? If so, we would appreciate quotes from Tufts to know who and what we are debating.

Please don't be a Tufts sycophant, if that is what you are doing.

Also, why do you keep replacing “course” with “sport” to advance this argument? It’s disingenuous.


The golf ball is not an integral part of the course. Therefore it is not something you use skill to maneuver your ball around.

[Garland Bayley]

Kyle,

You keep talking about scoring and holing out. Neither can be done without the ball. You can't hole out by sticking your club in the hole. You can't hole out by trying to stick your bag in the hole. You can't keep score by counting the number of times you have lifted your bag, etc.

The ball is an integral part of the sport. Just saying you have arbitrarily ruled it out of the sport to make a much belabored point.

Nuf said.

[Sean_A]

Kyle,

No response to Macan who calls your stance childish, and causing deskilling of the game?

Have to wonder if you have ever played a match with stymie in play.

Or, are you criticizing the course without playing it?

I have. It never came up.
My understanding of your answer is that you have never played with the presence of a stymie, so you have no experience with it.
I suppose you could call many changes that have improved the overall nature of golf as "deskilling" the game.

Would Mr. Macan be in the deep rough/narrow fairway camp so that the tee ball added a specific skill to the game?
The tee ball has always been a specific skill of the game, rough or no rough. Mac would design his hole so that intelligent positioning mattered, the USGA dumbs down the game with deep rough/narrow fairways to magnify the scoring margin between individual players.
Let's have the courses dictate what is and is not skill and not the opponent. Which is kind of the point here. Actually, not kind of... it IS the point.
Please tell me you are not thinking that players purposely position their ball to create a stymie. That would be absurd given the size of the hole and the size of the ball. However, it would explain how you conveniently rule the ball out of the "sport".

Read again. The ball is not part of the COURSE. All those other so-called unfair things are because of the COURSE. Not the ball. The ball is as much a part of the course as your or other player’s equipment… in that it’s not.


And yes, I’ve played in a match where stymies were active. I’ve never been stymied.


And MANY on this thread have argued that purposefully laying a stymie when you are otherwise out of the hole is one of those so-called added elements. You proponents here can’t seem to make up your mind as to how this adds to the game.

If a guy is out of the hole you give him the putt. No stymie action there.


Ciao

[Sean_A]

Wait, so my opponent can stop my ball?


Weather is part of nature. Remember that whole man v. nature thing?


Is THE OPPONENT’S BALL an integral part of the golf course? Hell no. Yet you people treat it like a bunker or mound or whatever because it takes skill to overcome when playing a stymie.


What “like situation” is the opponent’s ball alike? Tufts writes that the rules treat like situations alike.

Without the ball you have no sport. So it seems to me to be an integral part of the sport. Arbitrarily ruling it out of the sport arena, rules out the sport of golf.

Are you just parroting Tufts ideas? If so, we would appreciate quotes from Tufts to know who and what we are debating.

Please don't be a Tufts sycophant, if that is what you are doing.

Also, why do you keep replacing “course” with “sport” to advance this argument? It’s disingenuous.


The golf ball is not an integral part of the course. Therefore it is not something you use skill to maneuver your ball around.

We shall have to agree to disagree. But I will take Bobby Jones' opinion over yours 7 days a week.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

You keep talking about scoring and holing out. Neither can be done without the ball. You can't hole out by sticking your club in the hole. You can't hole out by trying to stick your bag in the hole. You can't keep score by counting the number of times you have lifted your bag, etc.

The ball is an integral part of the sport. Just saying you have arbitrarily ruled it out of the sport to make a much belabored point.

Nuf said.

Is the ball an integral part of the course?


Not sport. Stop conflating the two. Is. The. Ball. An. Integral. Part. Of. The. COURSE.

[Kyle Harris]

Wait, so my opponent can stop my ball?


Weather is part of nature. Remember that whole man v. nature thing?


Is THE OPPONENT’S BALL an integral part of the golf course? Hell no. Yet you people treat it like a bunker or mound or whatever because it takes skill to overcome when playing a stymie.


What “like situation” is the opponent’s ball alike? Tufts writes that the rules treat like situations alike.

Without the ball you have no sport. So it seems to me to be an integral part of the sport. Arbitrarily ruling it out of the sport arena, rules out the sport of golf.

Are you just parroting Tufts ideas? If so, we would appreciate quotes from Tufts to know who and what we are debating.

Please don't be a Tufts sycophant, if that is what you are doing.

Also, why do you keep replacing “course” with “sport” to advance this argument? It’s disingenuous.


The golf ball is not an integral part of the course. Therefore it is not something you use skill to maneuver your ball around.

We shall have to agree to disagree. But I will take Bobby Jones' opinion over yours 7 days a week.

Ciao

So you’d stiff Alister Mackenzie, too?

[Sean_A]

Wait, so my opponent can stop my ball?


Weather is part of nature. Remember that whole man v. nature thing?


Is THE OPPONENT’S BALL an integral part of the golf course? Hell no. Yet you people treat it like a bunker or mound or whatever because it takes skill to overcome when playing a stymie.


What “like situation” is the opponent’s ball alike? Tufts writes that the rules treat like situations alike.

Without the ball you have no sport. So it seems to me to be an integral part of the sport. Arbitrarily ruling it out of the sport arena, rules out the sport of golf.

Are you just parroting Tufts ideas? If so, we would appreciate quotes from Tufts to know who and what we are debating.

Please don't be a Tufts sycophant, if that is what you are doing.

Also, why do you keep replacing “course” with “sport” to advance this argument? It’s disingenuous.


The golf ball is not an integral part of the course. Therefore it is not something you use skill to maneuver your ball around.

We shall have to agree to disagree. But I will take Bobby Jones' opinion over yours 7 days a week.

Ciao

So you’d stiff Alister Mackenzie, too?

I don't know Dr Mac's opinion on the matter. But in the case of playing the game, yes, to me Jones' opinion carries far more weight than Dr Mac's.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()