What's your definition of "Skill"?

[TEPaul]

"....I plan on working up to 'skill' as soon as I figure out what 'technologixal' means."

Paul;

It means typo.  

[BCrosby]

The problem with the R&A/USGA statement is that it assumes that there is this thing called "technology" in the white trunks and this other thing called "skill" in the black trunks and they are in the middle of the ring fighting with each other.

That it were so simple.  

Of course some people are more skilled than others. The rub is when you want to measure the skills of one player against another. Like in tournaments. That's were the boundary between technology and skill gets muddled. Specifically, the clubs we play with today make it harder and harder to distinguish gradations in skill levels. Technology is able to mask differences in skill. That's at the heart of the USGA's concern with technology.

Examples are easy to find.

Bubba Watson and J.B. Holmes swing out of their shoes, hitting it 350 yards and in the fairway on a regular basis. They are exploiting technology at the expense of what I consider more skilled players. Their technologically assisted distance and accuracy allows them to avoid executing many of the shots we consider important to measuring the skill of a golfer.

(On the other hand, maybe they are demonstrating a new, modern skill at using the new, modern technology. Anyone else as confused as I am about what ought to count as skill?)

Modern grooves allow pros to spin the ball out of the thickest rough, thus diminishing the value of being able to hit it straight and find fairways. (Or again, is that supposed to count as a new kind of skill?)

And so forth.

The only reason any of this matters is because the players we consider more traditionally "skilled" aren't winning tournaments. Which is not the way it is supposed to work. Some recent Tour winners seem to have gotten there more because of their ability to exploit the latest technology and less because of their superior golfing skills. (Or is it that they have skills of a different type that more traditional golfers don't have? This talk about skill is really getting confusing now.)

In any event, that's what's got the USGA troubled. Good. But I worry that the way they framed the issues will lead to unnecessary confusion. Which is why I think TEP started this thread, no?

Bob

[JESII]

Well Bob, you certainly confused me even if I didn't feel confused before reading that post, or did I?

The game has evolved through many generations of technology over the last 150 years and through each stage the game rewards different techniques and "skills". It has been said that Bobby Jones could never have played well with steel shafted clubs. It has also been said that a golfer is a golfer and a champion will figure out a way. Whichever you believe, the argument that because "traditionally skilled" golfers are not winning tour events is a reason to care about technology holds very little water.

The trouble is this recent distance evolution has been the motivation for another wave of course renovations that are intended to quell the advantage gained by the long hitters.

The game has changed, each of those evolutionary steps have made the game seemingly easier, why is this the one that'll break the camels back? I started a thread a few months ago titled "who benefits from the growth of the game?" My premise was that the steps golf focused organizations are taking to attract more participants are changing the game for the long time golfers, and not in a good way. I think a golf equivalent to a market correction is due and will (as market corrections usually are) be a good thing for golf.

[Craig Sweet]

This argument always end up back at the pro's game. Sadly because the "game of golf" is so much more than the pros.

But, speaking of the pros...the player with the most "skills" will consistantly win, year in and year out. The one dimensional, in this case big bomber, player will win occasionally. That is how it has been and always will be.  Tiger and Vijay and Phil are long hitters, but they win because they have way more skill at other aspects of the game, it's that simple.

No amount of equipment improvements will change that.

[TEPaul]

Bobzee:

You make thought provoking points in replies #3 and #27. How would you look at it if I made an analogy for golf "skill" in relation to golf equipment and its technology and the golf course to a fisherman and the "test" (weight) of a fishing line and the size of a fish? Presumably as a practical definition for "skill" in fishing if those two components were held static it would appear to NOT make the definition of a fisherman's "skill" in fishing change.

When it comes to "skill" in golf obviously the arrangement of the playing field is an essential component to define what "skill" is in golf. Let's say the arrangement of the playing field is held static. If the reliance on equipment technology (ball and clubs) was also held static it would appear what "skill" is in golf could be more accurately determined and then defined.

[BCrosby]

JES II -

If you are confused about what counts as skill v. technology, then you are headed down the the right road, grasshopper.

My guess is that sooner or later, because of these inherent confusions, the USGA is going to have to define certain types of shots as "skill" and base their rules about technology around preserving the necessity of executing those sorts of shots. Or something like that.

"Skill" alone as a criterion is just too flabby a concept to be useful.

Bob

[Craig Sweet]

Hmmm....how is skill vs. technology (equipment) playing out with the use of a range finder?

[BCrosby]

TEP -

Your hypothetical makes sense. If you hold everything constant, you could measure the thing that was not held constant. In your example, skill.

The unintended consequences of your experiment are interesting. Once you have measured skill under your controlled conditions, take a group of golfers who measured similarly in skill, and use them to test various kinds of technology. Flip the variable inputs.

We could produce a TV show using these tests as our plot lines. We could call it "Desperate Golfers" or "Golf Survivors". Or maybe not.

Bob
 

[Jason Topp]

Technology does not eliminate skill.  It changes the relative importance of skills.

Increased driving distance has widened the gap between the long hitter and the average player.  I believe the distance gap between the long hitter and the average player has about doubled since 1980 from around 60 yards to 120 yards.  1980 (270 vs. 200-210), now (320 vs. 200-210).  This difference is particularly stark in the amateur ranks.  A player who averaged 235 off the tee in 1980 could compete with a longer player.  Today, that same player may hit it a bit longer, but will get killed in anything but a mid amateur event.  

The difference becomes more important when the ball flies straighter, meaning that the advantages a short accurate player might have had 25 years ago has been diminished because when a guy hits it 300 yards and hits a toe hook, his penalty is to be hitting from the rough 50 yards ahead of his opponent as opposed to hitting it from the jungle.

Would Lee Trevino have a chance if he were starting out now?  I don't think so because his ability to control the ball and hit the fairway is not rewarded sufficiently in the current game.  
 

[Craig Sweet]

Don't confuse driving distance with skill.

[Craig Sweet]

"Would Lee Trevino have a chance if he were starting out now?  I don't think so because his ability to control the ball and hit the fairway is not rewarded sufficiently in the current game."

I don't know about that. He could flat out play.

What seperates Tiger from guys like Bubba Watson and other bombers, is he can flat out play the game from tee through green.

Taking this back down to our level, has everyone seen a big improvement in their handicap or scoring when they used today's technology? I don't think so. I know my handicap is better soley because I have worked harder, and taken some lessons. Has technology made this any easier? I can't say for sure. The last time I spent this much time and effort on my game was 35 years ago and I went from a 10 handicap to a 3. I am inclined to think its skill rather than technology.

[Jason Topp]

Don't confuse driving distance with skill.

Craig - I think driving distance is one skill in the game that should be rewarded, but the issue is - has the distance issue diminished the importance of other skills like iron play and drving accuracy.  If one has a 50 yard advantage off the tee  and keeps it on the planet, my view is that any advantage in driving accuracy and iron play will be reduced much more than if there is a 25 yard difference in distance.  

[Craig Sweet]

If a player one putts nearly every hole has his putting diminshed the importance of other skills?

[Jason Topp]

"What seperates Tiger from guys like Bubba Watson and other bombers, is he can flat out play the game from tee through green."

Tiger does not hit fairways anymore, nor do any of the top players.  That is because they do not have to.  Distance is too important for them to try and hit fairways.  Vijay Singh figured this out before everybody else and was able to win a ton of tournaments one year.  I doubt he will do it again.

"Taking this back down to our level, has everyone seen a big improvement in their handicap or scoring when they used today's technology? I don't think so. I know my handicap is better soley because I have worked harder, and taken some lessons. Has technology made this any easier? I can't say for sure. The last time I spent this much time and effort on my game was 35 years ago and I went from a 10 handicap to a 3. I am inclined to think its skill rather than technology."

It is skill rather than technology for individual improvement.  The problem is when you inject competition in the mix.  I have seen this play out at the club level in a couple of ways - one good and one bad for me:

At our member-member, my partner and I were both guys that could hit it 260 but can be erratic.  We played two matches against older members that hit it straight, had good short games but only hit it about 200 yards.  We killed them in both alternate shot and best ball because, playing from the white tees we had short irons into every green and they often had long irons or woods.  25 years ago, our advantage would have been 25-30 yards and they would have drummed us.

In an amateur event, I played with a friend from High School who could always hit it 20 yards past me.  Now it is more like 40-50 yards.  Now he is hitting partial wedges into every green on a 7000 yard course and I am hitting 4-7 irons.  Even though he was not a very good wedge player, he could always get it on the green and could break par by two putting his way around the course.  His advantage is much greater today than it was 25 years ago.


I wish I could do the color thing.

[Jason Topp]

If a player one putts nearly every hole has his putting diminshed the importance of other skills?

No - this is certainly one way to counter other skills and an important part of the game.  Nonetheless, technology has done little to improve putting and probably does not change one bit the advantage a good putter has over a poor putter.

[Craig Sweet]

Jason, I'm with you on the "color thing" but I lack the skill, even though I have the technology.

Don't you find that there's all kinds of ways to play the game, and whom ever can consistantly play the game their "way" typically scores well.

This is an observation, and I might not be right, but basicly the pros all play the game the same way.  I say that because I have noticed on TV shots of a ball in flight that they typically all land in roughly the same spot in the fairway. Of course some hit it shorter and some longer, but 80% hit to the same locations.

[KJaeger]

One could argue that the distance one can hit a golf ball is most certainly a skill in and of itself.

And if golf were a purely linear game, then the distance one could hit a golf ball would be the primary (or only?) factor for determining success.

What makes the game interesting in my view is that there are multiple dimensions to golfing "skill" which lead to success - not only how far one hits the ball, but also how accurately, how creatively etc...

Recent technological advances threaten to move the balance of the game more towards that linear ideal where distance is weighed much more heavily as a determinant of success than the other skills.

That does not mean that the "best" players (by my definition, those who can get the ball into the hole in the fewest number of strokes) will not also be those who possess great skill in other areas.

However, all things being equal, distance and power will become a "filter" for success out of proportion to the other skills which make the game interesting.  In effect, if one cannot make "ball go far" as a prerequisite then one might as well forget about competing.

In so far as golf technology facilitates the achievement of distance at the expense of accuracy, strategic thought, and creativity, then the game is in danger of losing many of the elements that make it so fascinating.  In effect, it would become like that old carnival game where you try to make the ringer hit the bell by pounding a base with a hammer.

I completely agree with Jason's assessment.  No matter how skillfully a player like Trevino (as an example) would play in all other areas, if raw distance is rewarded out of proportion to those other skills then the disadvantage becomes insurmountable.

[Jason Topp]

Don't you find that there's all kinds of ways to play the game, and whom ever can consistantly play the game their "way" typically scores well.

This is an observation, and I might not be right, but basicly the pros all play the game the same way.  I say that because I have noticed on TV shots of a ball in flight that they typically all land in roughly the same spot in the fairway. Of course some hit it shorter and some longer, but 80% hit to the same locations.

Craig - I like the pun.    I think you are right that each individual needs to play the game "his way" to improve his score.  

I agree with your observation that pros generally play the game the same way, but I think that was not the case 25 years ago.  The reason that has changed is that if you don't hit it a long way, you don't get on the tour in the first place.

[Andy Hughes]

Oy, so much to disagree with, so little time  

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.

Huck, I suspect you are fighting the old strawman here.  I am not aware of anyone here who has said the balls and clubs don't go any further today. The issue has been to what extent, how it has effected courses, and who (pro vs am) it has impacted primarily

The only reason any of this matters is because the players we consider more traditionally "skilled" aren't winning tournaments. Which is not the way it is supposed to work. Some recent Tour winners seem to have gotten there more because of their ability to exploit the latest technology and less because of their superior golfing skills.

Bob, I don’t think this is necessarily true.  If you are referencing JB Holmes, there has always been players who have won a tournament here and there. And there have always been ‘more skilled’ players who have lost tournaments.  It has been a long, long time since a Snead or a Nelson would win 10 times.
But Tiger has won twice already this year, and they don’t come more skilled than he, and Appleby won the season opener.
Also lost amid the clamor—Holmes putted brilliantly. It is not like he just launched long drives and that was that.

Nonetheless, technology has done little to improve putting and probably does not change one bit the advantage a good putter has over a poor putter.

Not sure about that.  There have been all sorts of new, technologically advanced putters coming out the past few years. Also, Dave Pelz has inserted technology and science into what had always been a murky black magic. Has his research and his teaching improved the putting of many top players?  

[Brent Hutto]

"Skill" is not something that can be quantified. By that I mean there is no generic quantity called "skill". There are various particular skills that can be measured or compared but until you say which skill you mean, the question is unanswerable.

Let's take a particular golf-related skill. For instance, the skill of getting the ball into the hole frequently from six feet with a putter. Sean Arble has more of that skill than I do so he makes a lot of 6-footers and I miss a lot of 6-footer by comparsion to him.

Let's take a different skill. For instance, the ability to chip a ball over a stymie and into the hole. I have no reason to believe that Sean is any better at overcoming a stymie than I am because neither of us has ever done it. In today's game players don't develop the ability to hit that shot because they don't need it.

Now let's try a different comparison. A skill that didn't exist anywhere in the world fifty years ago is the ability to produce 130mph of clubhead speed and still hit the ball straight enough to find it. There are a few hundred people in the world today that can demonstrate that skill. Does the fact that Bobby Jones or Jack Nicklaus couldn't swing as hard as Bubba Watson mean that Bubba is "more skilled" than Bobby or Jack? Nonsense. He just has more of one particular skill than they ever did.

Unless we let people start picking the ball up and throwing it or we allow clubs with movable parts and concave faces under the Rules of Golf there is always going to be a very high level of a whole variety of specific skill needed to win a major championship. If the makers of the Rules want to change the equipment so that Bubba's skill is devalued and Fred Funk's skill is more important, then it's within their power to do it. But when they say that they want to make sure "skill" remains important, their use of that inexact term clues us in that they probably have some specific skills that they feel are being over and under valued in today's game.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy:

Gotcha.  I own that freakin' strawman.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Andy,

I don't credit Dave Pelz but the fact is players on Tour today make more putts inside 15 feet than they did even 20-25 years ago when Pelz was gathering data. That's because they've developed nice, smooth, no-moving-parts putting strokes that are supremely evolved for making 10-footers on today's fast, true, nigh-perfect greens. Nothing to do with equipment, though, so it's a bit off-topic here.

You bring up Tiger Woods. He is the perfect example of why the naysayers are just talking silly-talk when they go on about how the modern power game is a sign that technology has removed "skill" from the game. Tiger hits it very long and he doens't hit many fairways. To a great extent that's true of Ernie and Vijay and Phil and the other great "floggers".

But hitting it long and missing fairways ain't why Tiger wins more than anyone and is in contention almost every time he tees it up. Once he hits it long and misses that fairway, he then produces shots that Ernie and Vijay and Phil can't produce more than once in a while. Tiger's better at the old-fashioned "skills" such as a) getting out of trouble and up around the green no matter what, b) chipping and pitching and bunkering it in or close to the hole, c) making that five footer for bogey when the TV guys have already declared it a double.

The big hitters have found out that with today's courses and today's clubs and balls if you hit it long enough and are strong enough with a wedge in your hand then hitting the fairway doesn't matter. The one "skill" that has been devalued by the evolution of the game is Hitting Fairways which I'd argue is not a "skill" at all. It's just something that old fogey's have been calling a "skill" so long they are incapable of thinking about it any other way.

[Jason Topp]

Nonetheless, technology has done little to improve putting and probably does not change one bit the advantage a good putter has over a poor putter.

Not sure about that.  There have been all sorts of new, technologically advanced putters coming out the past few years. Also, Dave Pelz has inserted technology and science into what had always been a murky black magic. Has his research and his teaching improved the putting of many top players?  

Yes, his teaching has improved the putting of many players at all levels of the game, but that is because he has helped players to improve their skill at putting.  This is no different than a good swing teacher improving someone's full swing and has little to do with the putter being used.

[Jason Topp]

The big hitters have found out that with today's courses and today's clubs and balls if you hit it long enough and are strong enough with a wedge in your hand then hitting the fairway doesn't matter. The one "skill" that has been devalued by the evolution of the game is Hitting Fairways which I'd argue is not a "skill" at all. It's just something that old fogey's have been calling a "skill" so long they are incapable of thinking about it any other way.

It also devalues iron play - because long hitters do not need to hit a long iron other than on a par five.

It devalues putting - because a player with a 50 yard driving distance advantage will have shorter putts than a player with a 25 yard driving distance advantage.

It devalues working the ball because there is no need to work the ball one way or another if you do not need to hit the green and you have a wedge in your hand for approach shots.

It devalues thinking your way around the course, because the best option is to kill the ball off the tee, rather than set up the most advantagous angle into a green.

In short it devalues the tools a shorter hitting player has to combat a longer player.

[Andy Hughes]

I don't credit Dave Pelz but the fact is players on Tour today make more putts inside 15 feet than they did even 20-25 years ago when Pelz was gathering data. That's because they've developed nice, smooth, no-moving-parts putting strokes that are supremely evolved for making 10-footers on today's fast, true, nigh-perfect greens. Nothing to do with equipment, though, so it's a bit off-topic here.

Brent (and Jason), I suspect that if we check the bags of everyone playing this week, we would find very few (none?) putters more than a few years old.  There is a reason there are so many two-ball putter and all the rest of the new fancy putters. They work better.
As for Pelz, he himself has brought technology into the study of putting. What before was taught was based on the teacher's gut or experience. Now, there is science and true study and meaningful statistics (Brent, please don't tell me I know to sing these praises to you!) all because of Pelz. Now, the fact that I have not availed myself of all this research and all his training aids is another story....

Huck, I just remain PO'ed that I myself am not rendering all the classics obsolete myself