[TEPaul]

The 2002 R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles says;

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

In a single sentence let me see you define what "skill" is in golf?

[Tom_Doak]

Skill is the ability to make the golf ball do what you want it to do, and to get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes.

[Steve Pieracci]

Skill is possessing the knowledge to understand what shot is required (dictated by the conditions) and the ability to execute said shot.  

[BCrosby]

TEP -

Your question flushes out how the RA/USGA have backed themsleves into a conceptual corner.

It is impossible to define "skill" at the game without making assumptions about the state of the technology the player uses. If Hogan's skills circa 1953 are a model, how do you factor in the technology in use then? Ditto, say, for Nicklaus in 1965?

There is no way to cleanly separate the skill of a player from the impements he uses. Whatever the era.

Though I do see - as if through a glass darkly - what they are getting at. But there must be a better way of articulating it.

Bob

[Craig Sweet]

Its impossible to talk about 'skill' without realizing that there is a broad range of 'skill' out there. Equipment has very little to do with 'skill' and it should not be tied into the equation.

However, my sense is the RA/USGA in some way see it tied to 'par'...that meaning...shooting par using 'skill' is prefered.

[redanman]

I cannot improve on what Tom Doak said and I am not sucking up to him.

[Kye Goalby]

......"You know, like nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills... Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills."

----Napoleon Dynamite

[BCrosby]

Craig -

How are you going to assess someone's "skill" without putting a club in their hands?

Bob

[Craig Sweet]

Bob, it wouldn't matter whether you put a new club in someone's hands or a 25 year old club in someones hands. I think it would be very obvious the golfers with more 'skill' and those with less 'skill' regardless of the age of their clubs.

Skill is NOT the equipment. Unfortunately, many golfers THINK buying the newest equipment is going to make them a more 'skilled' golfer, and that just ain't so.

[Craig Sweet]

Bob, I'm not even sure you can argue that technology/equipment, is taking the 'skill' out of the game.

If scoring is the measure of 'skill', technology is not having much effect.  If how you get from tee to hole is a measure of 'skill' you might have an argument that technology has narrowed the gap between the 'skilled' golfer and the not so skilled golfer. The arguement being technology is more forgiving to mishits, and ball flight is a bit straighter.  

However, the unskilled golfer is still unskilled and is not scoring any better today than he did 20 years ago.

So ya know, I think tossing 'skill' into this mix like they did, is probably a giant 'cop out' because we can argue the meaning of 'skill' all day long, while ignoring the bigger issue that they failed to address.

[JESII]

Skill is recognized as the reason one golfer is better than another. He is more skillful. That don't change with technology.

[Sean_A]

Skill is recognized as the reason one golfer is better than another. He is more skillful. That don't change with technology.

People are forever telling me that the only reason I win a game or two is because I am lucky.  When I lose it is because the other chap was better on the day.  Its a hard life.

Ciao

Sean

[Mike Hendren]

Skill is the ability to make the golf ball do what you want it to do, and to get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes.

Or, the ability to get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes, regardless of one's ability to make the ball do what he wants it to do.

Mike

Skill and talent are not the same thing.  Or are they?

[Mike Hendren]

Sean,

"I'd rather be lucky than good."
- Lee Buck Trevino

[JESII]

Skill and talent are not the same thing.  Or are they?

No, I don't think so. I'll take skill over talent every time.

[JESII]

Sean Arble,

I call that "deceptive skill".   So long as you come out on top more often than not. Otherwise they might be right.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

"I'd rather be lucky than good."
- Lee Buck Trevino

So would I!

Ciao

Sean

[Craig Sweet]

Feeling lucky?  Power Ball is something like $380 million!

[Mike Hendren]

Craig,  

A tax on those willing to pay it.  You can't lose if you don't play.

Mike

[Craig Sweet]

Yeah Mike...but if you won...

There's a nice peice of land right next to Sand Hills....you're own private Idaho!

[Tom Huckaby]

I have no doubt that success in golf will always be determined by the indian far more than the arrow.  That is, a great player like Sully could beat me with him whittling a tree branch down into a club against me with modern sticks.

BUT...

those of you who think technology has not made the golf ball easier to hit strongly and accurately need to go try hitting hickory golf clubs, and soon.  Those who think today's golf balls don't go farther need to go back and use some balatas.

It is rather revealing.

TH

[JESII]

Tom,

I would say technology has changed the game, not necessarily changed ones skill or talent. That's why my definition simply compares player to player.

An argument could be made I guess, was Hogan more skillful in shooting 14 under par at Augusta than Woods was in shooting 18 under? I don't know. I think the only apples to apples argument concerning skill has to be tied to comparable equipment (whatever that equipment is).

[Tom Huckaby]

Sully - oh absolutely - skill can best be measured relative to one's contemporaries.  So I have no arguments with your definition... My queries go more toward where one takes it from there.

Because it just does remain compelling to me how much easier it is these days to hit the ball solidly, straight, and for at least some, far.

TH  

[JESII]

Aha, how does ones skill relate to the actual golf course? I think two things would shock most of us in a real comparison of equipment of today versus 20 or 40 or even 80 years ago.

I think the distance difference would be much less than we think it might, but accuracy would be greatly enhanced.

I think your score at the end of the day would be much closer to your handicap than you could presently imagine.

My position is, IT'S GOLF, you still have to go out and do it.

[Tom Huckaby]

100% agreement.

But I have to particularly note:

I think the distance difference would be much less than we think it might, but accuracy would be greatly enhanced.

That's a point I've been harping on a LOT lately.  To me the distance issue is important, but what's REALLY easier with modern clubs is accuracy.  In fact this is what lead me to using hickories, not distance... I did a thread on this recently which isn't that buried yet.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()