[Joe Hancock]

This, from Ally Mcintosh, from the angles thread:

“You don’t have to explain temptation, lines of charm, diagonal carries, wind, ground movement etc… etc… to me or I suspect the others. I know all that. This is about scoring. If you are just going out to hit golf shots and have fun, take it all on… but then, as I remember one argumentative thread many moons ago, is that golf or just practicing for golf?”


So, should I, as a shaper and architect, change MY thinking about any of this when I am designing and building? Or, is the above a matter of opinion on how one goes about….uh….playing golf….golfing….whichever it is…..and my job is to build challenge that is interesting and interest that is challenging?


Add other thoughts to this please. I tend to play for the opportunity to hit fun shots anymore, as my game has deteriorated.


Joe

[Steve Lapper]

Golf is, and should always be, whatever you want it to be. Young bucks and elite competitors want distance, difficulty and challenge. Older players with deteriorating swings-like us-want fun and interest, without trying taxation. The best designs have some measure of both, but never bore or fatigue. A good combination of all the above will always bring us all back.


Some sports are defined by their games, yet golf is only defined by what each of us want out of it. The common denominator will always include camaraderie, some exercise, and an excuse to be outdoors testing the playing field. No reason, IMO, to complicate it much beyond that.

[Sean_A]

This, from Ally Mcintosh, from the angles thread:

“You don’t have to explain temptation, lines of charm, diagonal carries, wind, ground movement etc… etc… to me or I suspect the others. I know all that. This is about scoring. If you are just going out to hit golf shots and have fun, take it all on… but then, as I remember one argumentative thread many moons ago, is that golf or just practicing for golf?”

So, should I, as a shaper and architect, change MY thinking about any of this when I am designing and building? Or, is the above a matter of opinion on how one goes about….uh….playing golf….golfing….whichever it is…..and my job is to build challenge that is interesting and interest that is challenging?

Add other thoughts to this please. I tend to play for the opportunity to hit fun shots anymore, as my game has deteriorated.

Joe

Joe

I think you should do you. I want to play what I like, but I want the pool of what I like to hopefully be increased.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Whose matter of opinion, Joe? Do you even know who I was paraphrasing before others assume this discussion is about my opinion?

[Joe Hancock]

Ally,


I should have made it clear that the quote I lifted from your post was the prompt for my thread, not an analysis of the quote. It got me thinking, that’s all.


Sorry for the confusion.

[Kalen Braley]

Given there are roughly 38,000 golf courses world wide and perhaps 500 of them will ever host an occasional top am or pro event...its clearly a game in my book.

Kind of like you can play HORSE on a basketball court, perhaps even at MSG...but its still just a game not a sport.

[Mike Bodo]

Personally speaking, guys like Donald Ross and many of his contemproraries from the Golden Age of architecture got things right with their approach to design by building courses that were both interesting and fun to play for the recreational golfer, yet sufficiently challenging and demanding to the elite player. It's a difficult balance to strike, but those guys were masters at it, as are many of today's modern age architects. It's called casting with a wide net to appeal to a broad spectrum of golfers. Too many courses built between these periods tilted too much one way or the other. Either they were too difficult and frustrating to play for the mid to high handicapper or boring and not challening enough to the low handicapper.


When you have a low single digit handicapper and a 30 handicapper walk of the same course following a round and both remark they had a blast playing said course is when you know you struck the right balance as an architect. It's the best compliment of your work you can receive, IMO.

[Tim Martin]

Whose matter of opinion, Joe? Do you even know who I was paraphrasing before others assume this discussion is about my opinion?

Ally-Without quotes and/or a reference how would anyone know that you’re paraphrasing someone else’s thoughts/opinion? I think the paragraph that Joe referenced attributed to you is spot on until the last sentence. At that point your out over your skis as to whether it’s golf or practicing for golf in that wouldn’t the subject player be the ultimate arbiter of that?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim,


Not sure what “out over your skis” means but that bit you are referring to was a discussion had on this message board a few years ago. I did not even contribute.


The “this is about scoring” refers solely to the Angles discussion.


I can see this topic is going to go down the ever-so-frequent Challenge Vs Fun route again.


So to play Devil’s Advocate in order to keep this thread on the topic that I think Joe intended, even if golf is a “game” and not a “sport”, what games do people play where the object isn’t to win the game? That was the argument in the thread I refer to. Isn’t winning the hole or scoring the lowest you can an inherent part of playing the game? I can answer with pro’s and con’s to that. But someone will just assume I’m on one side or the other. So I won’t.

[Tim Martin]

Tim,


Not sure what “out over your skis” means but that bit you are referring to was a discussion had on this message board a few years ago. I did not even contribute.


The “this is about scoring” refers solely to the Angles discussion.


I can see this topic is going to go down the ever-so-frequent Challenge Vs Fun route again.


So to play Devil’s Advocate in order to keep this thread on the topic that I think Joe intended, even if golf is a “game” and not a “sport”, what games do people play where the object isn’t to win the game? That was the argument in the thread I refer to. Isn’t winning the hole or scoring the lowest you can an inherent part of playing the game? I can answer with pro’s and con’s to that. But someone will just assume I’m on one side or the other. So I won’t.

Ally-I bet we have both had our share of four ball partners who made us cringe with shot selection choices. In that players mind they believe that the choice they made will lead to winning the hole or achieving the lowest score. To you and I they are just are just hitting shots(stupid shots) but it doesn’t occur to them that there is a more sensible play that will almost certainly deliver a better result. My only point is that are we as playing partners in a better position to determine whether they are just playing a game and not a sport?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ok I’m lost now


Looking back at Joe’s point, I’ll answer his question (I see the game Vs sport thing came after): No Joe, you don’t change the way you need to think about it. You just keep on building stuff that is interesting. The way you build stuff is completely irrelevant to whether people want to score or just hit shots. So always better to build interesting features rather than bland ones.

[Tim Martin]

Ok I’m lost now


Looking back at Joe’s point, I’ll answer his question (I see the game Vs sport thing came after): No Joe, you don’t change the way you need to think about it. You just keep on building stuff that is interesting. The way you build stuff is completely irrelevant to whether people want to score or just hit shots. So always better to build interesting features rather than bland ones.

Ally-I get where you are coming from and thanks.

[Joe Hancock]

Ok I’m lost now


Looking back at Joe’s point, I’ll answer his question (I see the game Vs sport thing came after): No Joe, you don’t change the way you need to think about it. You just keep on building stuff that is interesting. The way you build stuff is completely irrelevant to whether people want to score or just hit shots. So always better to build interesting features rather than bland ones.

Yes, crux of the biscuit right here…..

[Tim Gavrich]

I'd like to propose a different distinction here with regard to Joe's original post.


To me, the "sport" of golf is more like the professional game - the PGA Tour and others, etc. In other words, I see it more as shorthand for "spectator sport," e.g. the commercial version of...


...the game of golf.


Without being pedantic, in order for something to be a "game," it needs to have a competitive aspect and some sort of definite result. So to me, the game of golf is tied to competition by definition. Someone's going to win, someone's going to lose (even if you're just "playing against the golf course). Of course, there are many forms of competition the game of golf can take, but to be playing the game of golf, you need to be competing in some way, by definition.


Not all golfers are competitive, obviously. They're mainly interested in hitting the ball around, getting some exercise and enjoying being outside. That version of golf can be fun because it may involve hitting shots that you would never hit if you were concerned with making the best possible score or beating your opponent. But ultimately, I think the


Bringing this around to GCA, I think architects seem to be designing more primarily recreational golf features into courses than they used. I think of King Collins' Landmand as a very clear example of this trend. The course has held some tournament golf, but I think a lot of the wilder features and potential shots there really only become viable if you're not concerned about trying to make the lowest possible score. I'm only trying to hit a shot to the top lip of the enormous punchbowl on the 10th hole there if I'm messing around, for example. I'm only trying to sling my tee shot down the entire length of the 14th green for fun.


It's good to see features built to come alive on the recreational level, because it's a form of experimentation that will ultimately advance GCA as an art form. But I've noticed over the years that my favorite golf courses are the ones that leave me wanting to be a better golfer and to learn how to hit more shots than I'm currently capable of. I get as big a kick out of kooky shot opportunities as anyone, but that's not the primary pleasure of golf to me.

[Don Mahaffey]

There are reasons why the worlds most popular courses are viewed the way they are and it’s not just because they reward well executed golf shots. 

[Bruce Katona]

98% of the time, for me golf is a game. I'm out there to great exercise (I almost always walk), fresh air, have some fun and hopefully hit a few shots where I aim them and at the correct distance.  I may try to hit a 'hero shot" since what does it matter if my sore is a stroke or two higher - handicap increases by 0.2-0.4 - big deal.


A few times a year I'll play in an event (member/guest type event) where golf is a sport and there's trophies, prizes and year maybe even a few quid up for grabs. Those are enjoyable, but my days of considering giving up my amateur status are long gone.   

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'd like to propose a different distinction here with regard to Joe's original post.


To me, the "sport" of golf is more like the professional game - the PGA Tour and others, etc. In other words, I see it more as shorthand for "spectator sport," e.g. the commercial version of...


...the game of golf.


Without being pedantic, in order for something to be a "game," it needs to have a competitive aspect and some sort of definite result. So to me, the game of golf is tied to competition by definition. Someone's going to win, someone's going to lose (even if you're just "playing against the golf course). Of course, there are many forms of competition the game of golf can take, but to be playing the game of golf, you need to be competing in some way, by definition.


Not all golfers are competitive, obviously. They're mainly interested in hitting the ball around, getting some exercise and enjoying being outside. That version of golf can be fun because it may involve hitting shots that you would never hit if you were concerned with making the best possible score or beating your opponent. But ultimately, I think the


Bringing this around to GCA, I think architects seem to be designing more primarily recreational golf features into courses than they used. I think of King Collins' Landmand as a very clear example of this trend. The course has held some tournament golf, but I think a lot of the wilder features and potential shots there really only become viable if you're not concerned about trying to make the lowest possible score. I'm only trying to hit a shot to the top lip of the enormous punchbowl on the 10th hole there if I'm messing around, for example. I'm only trying to sling my tee shot down the entire length of the 14th green for fun.


It's good to see features built to come alive on the recreational level, because it's a form of experimentation that will ultimately advance GCA as an art form. But I've noticed over the years that my favorite golf courses are the ones that leave me wanting to be a better golfer and to learn how to hit more shots than I'm currently capable of. I get as big a kick out of kooky shot opportunities as anyone, but that's not the primary pleasure of golf to me.

Good post, Tim

[Max Prokopy]

Golf is most certainly a sport in the sense that skill level is dependent upon motor coordination (both voluntary and subconscious), some form of physical endurance, consideration of nutrition/hydration, weather tolerance, and the ability to concentrate when called upon.


Certainly nobody is beholden to these requirements in order to enjoy golf, but since one's prowess is contingent upon the above qualities (and more), it is a sport. 


Of course, it can be more than that as well...

[Mike Bodo]

Golf is most certainly a sport in the sense that skill level is dependent upon motor coordination (both voluntary and subconscious), some form of physical endurance, consideration of nutrition/hydration, weather tolerance, and the ability to concentrate when called upon.

Based on the criteria above, golf is more an athletic endeavor than a sporting one. It only becomes a sporting activity, IMO, when you are keeping score with the intent of achieving a goal or competing against one or more individuals for bragging rights, a title (team or individual), money or some combination of the three. It becomes a sport when there's some sense of competition - even if it's just you against the course. If you're out there for the sake of excersise and really don't care the score you shoot, let alone keep score for that matter, then it's little more than an athletic pursuit.

[Kyle Harris]

Golf is a sport. Few, simple rules.


Match play. Stroke play. Etc. are all games. Games being defined as simulated conflict. Rules are used to define and restrict the conflict. Baseball, football, soccer, etc. are all games.


Athleticism has nothing to do with either definition. It’s another thing.

[Brent Carlson]

As someone who has played American football and basketball in high school - I say golf is a game not a sport.  The best game there is for sure.  A sport is on a whole different level of athleticism IMO.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As someone who has played American football and basketball in high school - I say golf is a game not a sport.  The best game there is for sure.  A sport is on a whole different level of athleticism IMO.

As someone who played (and still plays) soccer since he was 3, baseball, tennis, and hockey… and coaches/teaches golf now… golf is definitely a sport. Monopoly is a game.

Also, I don't think this is the actual topic per the OP.

[Brent Carlson]

As someone who has played American football and basketball in high school - I say golf is a game not a sport.  The best game there is for sure.  A sport is on a whole different level of athleticism IMO.

As someone who played (and still plays) soccer since he was 3, baseball, tennis, and hockey… and coaches/teaches golf now… golf is definitely a sport. Monopoly is a game.

Also, I don't think this is the actual topic per the OP.

You don't have to be athletic to play golf.  You do have to be coordinated.  That's where I draw the difference. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You don't have to be athletic to play golf.

You do to play it well. I've seen plenty of "non-athletic" people playing all kinds of sports recreationally.

[Kyle Harris]

As someone who has played American football and basketball in high school - I say golf is a game not a sport.  The best game there is for sure.  A sport is on a whole different level of athleticism IMO.

As someone who played (and still plays) soccer since he was 3, baseball, tennis, and hockey… and coaches/teaches golf now… golf is definitely a sport. Monopoly is a game.

Also, I don't think this is the actual topic per the OP.

You don't have to be athletic to play golf.  You do have to be coordinated.  That's where I draw the difference.

And yet that has zero to do with the actual definition of the terms.


You hunt for the sport of it. That requires zero athleticism.


In sport, the opponent has a sporting chance to prevent you from accomplishing your goal. It’s also unwitting.


The only definition of a game is SIMULATED CONFLICT. Both sides are placed in the conflict by defined rules which define the game.


Both can be athletic or not.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()