What's your definition of "Skill"?

[RSLivingston_III]

So, are we saying that "skill" incorporates:
previsualization
physical execution
result that meets the visualized shot?

Or are there any other elements?

[rgkeller]

Skill is the combination of physical and mental attributes that permits producing a desired result on demand.

"On Demand" being the key.

[RSLivingston_III]

The "on demand" comment made me think of something else.
Is successful repetition of a shot part of the definition of skill?

ie. Hitting ten shots out of a bunker and more than half are within 3 feet.

[Eric Franzen]

To on demand hit ten shots from ten different or random locations around a green and make more of than half of them stops within 3 feet...
Now, that is skill.

[RSLivingston_III]

Eric,
Is that one skill or multiple skills?
I am trying to see if it's possible to create a laundry list(s) of "skills" that  exist currently, and did exist 20-50-80 years ago.
It might help in describing the changes to the game. Gains and loses.

[rgkeller]

The "on demand" comment made me think of something else.
Is successful repetition of a shot part of the definition of skill?

ie. Hitting ten shots out of a bunker and more than half are within 3 feet.

Repetition is the antithesis of 'on demand.'

In golf, only the first shot counts.

[TEPaul]

"I said technology is irrelevent to skill, but I didn't say that it was irrelevent to golf and golf architecture.  I said it's irrelevent to skill because skill is a relative term.  You asked "relative to what"?  I'll tell you:  all I meant by that was that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction ... similarly, and for every skill to be a skill, there must be people who can't do it.  That's why breathing isn't a skill and that's why closing your eyes isn't a skill and that's why things like walking and talking, although skills, really aren't tremendous skills, but the ability to hit a cut 5 iron off a hook lie is a skill.  
So when I say skill, I mean the ability to do something better than some decent or even a very significant percentage of the people who try to do it."

Shivas;

I don't see the relevence of those remarks, at least not to this thread and this discussion about what "skill" should be defined as in relation to golf and golf architecture.

Essentially all you seem to be trying to do is define skill as some relative physical measure amongst golfers, and in pretty much of a vacuum, to boot. You even seem to be implying that some or most golfers don't have any skill in golf. I doubt the I&B rules and regs makers are trying to imply that in their 2002 Joint Statement of Principles.

Too often we seem to forget that golf is supposed to be two very distinct contests---one being any golfer against the golf course (architecture) and the other against other people---eg opponents.

In this way golf is remarkably unique compared to other games, primarily since there is no vying for a common ball, there is no defense either. Golf against human opponents is very separate albeit parallel contests as they all contest against a golf course in their own ways.

So in this way it should be considered that everyone has  some degree of "skill" as they vie with golf courses. In this way "skill" in an I&B sense relates to golfers in relation to golf courses and golf architecture (as an opponent) and the technology of I&B is an important variable to consider in that contest and relationship with a single golfer against any golf course.

Using your island example---if a single golfer lived alone on an island and played a golf course there, the varying degrees of the technologic advancement of the clubs and balls he may use would always have a varying influence and varying relationship on his contest with the golf course and the necessity of his physical skill to deal with it to some end such as scoring. That very relevent fact does not require that there be anyone else there for him to vie against in the other and alternative but separate contest of golf---eg the parallel contest with a human opponent.

   

[Brent Hutto]

I disagree.  I believe it's a skill to use technology to your advantage.  I explained why, for example, it was a skill to hit a 3/4 swing 5 iron with blades and a balata 30 years ago and why it's a skill to smash-ball a 7 iron these days for the exact same shot today.

Exactly right. There are many skills needed to play golf well. The technology available partly determines which skills are more important than others. Back when they played stymies the skill of chipping your ball over the other guy's ball was valuable. It has zero value today because they changed the Rules.

If the USGA wants the skill of hitting the ball high, long and straight to be less important and the skill of making the ball curve on demand more important then they should say in one of their proclamations "We think hitting the ball high, long and straight should be less important than being able to curve the ball from left to right on demand" and then write I&B Rules to try and achieve that goal.

Just saying they want skill to be the determining factor or whatever is just hot air that they're using as a placeholder so whatever changes they choose to make they can say "See, we told you we were going to bring skill back into the game". No wonder Frank Thomas left the USGA to their interminable circle-jerk and went off to find something more interesting to do...

[Craig Sweet]

I think this discussion is interesting, but a tad bit extreme within the context of what the USGA might be getting at.

It all boils down to whether the technology replaces skill or not. It doesn't matter how you define skill, really. Skill is the doing. In this case, its picking up a club and hitting a ball toward a hole.

I was sitting here this morning thinking of examples where technology has taken the skill (the doing) out of somthing that once required more time, effort, and attention. Making my morning cup of coffee is pretty easy. Baking bread in a machine is way easier than crafting a loaf by hand.

Has golf become that way? Has the "doing" been taken away by technology? I don't think so. Not yet.  And isn't that what the purpose of the USGA? Isn't it their job to keep playing golf from becoming like making bread in a bread machine?

[Brent Hutto]

Has golf become that way? Has the "doing" been taken away by technology? I don't think so. Not yet.  And isn't that what the purpose of the USGA? Isn't it their job to keep playing golf from becoming like making bread in a bread machine?

Here it is in a nutshell...

Hitting a driver 280 yards in the air has become easier than it was in the days of permisson and balata. No doubt about it.

So the courses have to be stretched out if you want to keep the difficulty of driving the ball to a certain location (example, to carry a certain fairway bunker) anything like as hard as it was 20 years ago.

So now that you're  playing on longer courses the importance of ability to drive the ball 280 yards in the air actually increases even as the skill required to do it decreases. In other words, more people can carry that bunker but the ones who can't are at a bigger disadvantage.

[Doug Siebert]

Doug:

If you can hit a driver sky high into a strong wind with the ProV so much better than what you used to use it must just be about reduced spin rate. What other factor could be causing that? We certainly know the ball weighs the same as it always did.

Absolutely.  I agree the spin rate has much to do with it, with probably some assist from a dimple pattern aerodynamically optimized by CFD software made possible by today's cheaply available computing power.

But if the same low spin was available with yesterday's Rock Flite type distance balls, why couldn't I do the same with them?  I well remember the first time I played a Pro V1 was on a cool windy early spring day and the 3rd hole that was a 423 yard par 4 into about a 25-30 mph wind.  I figured from experience I had to hit a damn good drive just to get home in two, so I was stunned to say the least when I hit the ball about 260, probably 25 yards further than I would have expected.  If I was able to do that with a distance ball before, believe me I would have taken advantage of the fact that there's no one ball rule in effect for me and played a distance ball on such holes into the wind.  Later I found I got similar results even if I didn't attempt to lower my trajectory (not that I was that good at what most would consider a low trajectory anyway) as well as discovering that sidespin on such shots wasn't punished quite as severely as before.

What made the Pro V1 different in this regard?  I dunno, maybe its something odd with my high trajectory high spin rate tee shots that just clicked with the Pro V1, maybe it interfaces better with the large headed drivers, I don't really know, but for me at least the effect is very real and absolutely the largest change in skill requirements for my game that I've ever seen from equipment in my lifetime.

[Doug Siebert]

If you think about it, if you were the only person on planet earth your entire life ...  and you went about the day-to-day things that you typically do, you would have no idea what you were skilled at and what you weren't because you'd have no means of comparison.  That's all I was getting at.

That's ridiculous!  If I was the only person on earth for my entire life, I'd hopefully find some things to do to amuse myself to keep from going insane.  I might try to do something like throwing a rock at a tree stump or chattering squirrel, and at first I may not do very well.  After doing it daily for a few weeks I'd probably find I'm able to do it successfully more often, so I think I'd recognize it as a skill since I was noticeably better than I used to be.

Maybe THAT'S a good definition of a skill, something that if repeated, one can become better at.  Tossing a coin and obtaining heads isn't a skill, because you can't practice and improve to 60% heads.  Nor is making 6 inch putts because even the worst golfers make 100% of them assuming a honest effort so it can't be improved upon.  But driving the ball x yards is, because it is possible for almost anyone to improve their distance with better technique or fitness.  Hitting Shivas' fade off a hook lie is, because one can practice the shot and get better at it (though it has a bar set to a minimum assumed competence at golf without which it is not even worth bothering to try to learn it)

Now if I take my tentative definition of a skill above (before I or others think about it more and poke holes in it) and relate that to what I've been talking about, if I have a certain skill, like carrying bunkers 260 yards out or hitting the ball in the fairway when playing into a strong headwind, that I can do x% of the time, and new equipment comes along and I'm now 50% more successful due to the equipment rather than me getting better technique or physique, that new equipment has reduced the skill requirements of the game for me.

[Brent Hutto]

Now if I take my tentative definition of a skill above (before I or others think about it more and poke holes in it) and relate that to what I've been talking about, if I have a certain skill, like carrying bunkers 260 yards out or hitting the ball in the fairway when playing into a strong headwind, that I can do x% of the time, and new equipment comes along and I'm now 50% more successful due to the equipment rather than me getting better technique or physique, that new equipment has reduced the skill requirements of the game for me.

I would say that your statement is almost correct until you get to the last phrase, specifically "the game". If you change ball and driver so that you can carry a bunker 260 yards from the tee 50% more often, then the ball and driver have reduced the the skill requirements of that shot. If you move the tees back 25 yards to where the required carry is 285 yards instead of 260 yards then the skill required increases back to approximately where it was before the equipment change.

[JESII]

If technology is overcoming skill in the determination of success at golf, why do we hear so many remarks along the lines of how different the game is from the top levels down to the average club level?

If you ask me, modern technology has increased the variance between the bogey golfer and the scratch. What does that mean about skill and technology and how they do and should interrelate?

[Doug Siebert]

Shivas, if you played golf with the guys you grew up with and none of you left the area even on vacation, no golfers from elsewhere visited and there was no TV, you might think you are hot shit to shoot 2 over par on a good day, and everyone else would agree.  Then one day Tiger Woods comes to town and shoots a 63 and you find out you ain't all that after all.  Were you skilled before Tiger came to town?  Are you still skilled after you've seen that it is possible to play far better than you ever believed anyone could?  It all has to do with who you compare yourself to.

I think skill relative to others and skill relative to your own limitations are two different things.  I used to be unbeatable at quarters in college, I've made over a hundred in a row into a standard shot glass on more than one occasion.  I felt like I was pretty skilled at it, but I never had the Tiger Woods of quarters come to town and show me what was possible.

Given that the free throw record is like 3000 in a row or something insane like that, and free throws are harder than quarters, I'm sure there's some guy (probably last name of Blutarsky) who could keep going for a whole weekend without missing once.  If we redefine skill in quarters to encompass more than just into a shot glass, and talk about a "course" with a mixture of shot glasses, drink glasses, pints, pitchers, double bounce shot glasses, bank shots off purses, etc. then maybe Blutarsky isn't the best in the world anymore and someone else becomes most skilled.

[TEPaul]

"Here's my question:  why does the USGA give 2 hoots about what determines success in the game?  
Why the heck is the USGA even bothering to tell us that skill should be the determining factor in the game?  Don't they have anything better to do?"

Shivas:

Obviously they care because as they've said they don't want to see technologic advances overwhelm the game. And they and the R&A are the only entities in the world that monitor and write I&B rules and regulations for golf balls and golf clubs.

If noone did that then it may be likely that manufacturers would make and market balls and clubs where someone could hit a ball 500 yards.

I'm sure you can understand that and I'm sure you can appreciate that really would be a over-reliance on technologic advances  

[Jeff Fortson]

As defined by Webster's...

skill, n. 1. great ability or proficiency; expertness; as his skill in mathematics is well known.  2. an art, craft, or science, especially one involving the use of hands or body.  3. ability in such art, craft, or science.  4. knowledge; understanding; judgement.


Jeff F.