News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kyle Harris

Hunters
« on: June 03, 2012, 12:55:04 PM »
I've got a seed planted for an In My Opinion piece, but I figured it may make for better thread material.

“I think I see the appeal, now,” I said to a work colleague whom I knew enjoyed quail hunting.

Previously that afternoon, while adjusting irrigation for the night, a quail darted from out of a bush and flew like a bullet into a more distant bush. Having long pondered the idea of golf as sport, the uncertain and sudden nature of the quail’s flight lead me to think of the amount of skill and preparedness required on the part of the hunter.

“A bird jumped out of that same bush the other day and made my heart race.”

My colleague’s voice quivered a bit in excitement; sealing his sportsman’s mentality forever in my head.

In the modern era of rigid definition in golf, perhaps it would serve the golfer well to consider the mentality of the hunter on an upland bird hunt while considering a few analogous concepts between the hunt and golf:

1.   The best marksman is not necessarily the best hunter
2.   Hunting requires painstaking amounts of preparation for what is, ultimately, an uncertain set of circumstances leading to a shot.
3.   The final measure of success in the hunt is the number of quarry bagged.

How can one not consider the hunt and hunter in an era where a large portion of the golfing world focuses solely and the athletic execution of a stroke while simply adding these strokes to form the desired “quarry” of score? The pervasive maintenance and design mentality for the past fifty years focused on removing the variables that lead to my colleague’s increased heart race leaves the golfer wanting for the visceral urges that drove humans to the links in the first place.

Perhaps the reason lay in golf’s victimization by its own success. When golf reached a point driven by market forces, instead of serving the purpose of those drawn in by its foundations in classic sport, accessibility and growth in terms of participants diluted certain elements in the name of ease of access. Indeed, a certain Darwinian element of golf has always kept many away from the game. However, pretty well anyone can enjoy striking a ball with a club – just as anyone could really enjoy target practice on a rifle range.  

Maybe the desire to take randomness and natural variance from the golf course is rooted in another visceral urge; the urge to survive. In the dim ages, the poorest hunters didn’t eat. In the modern age, the poorest golfers change the golf course and conditions to mask their shortcomings.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 12:57:41 PM by Kyle Harris »

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2012, 01:06:46 PM »
I like the analogy.  :)

I often have thought of sports and golf in particular for us humanoids as being rooted in the "hunt".

For Cro Magnons, the Mastodon hunt could be akin to playing 36-48 in a day at Bandon, LOL.

The clarity of the necessity of the kill for survival is as clear as putting the ball in the hole to score.

Of course, true hunting is not done with a cart,  8)

thanks for sharing the thought
It's all about the golf!

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2012, 01:51:58 PM »


Of course, true hunting is not done with a cart,  8)




Or a gun
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Hunters
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2012, 06:40:21 PM »
Kyle:

My co-author on the MacKenzie biography, Dr. Scott, made a long analogy between golf [and the practice of golf course design] and deerstalking, which was Dr. MacKenzie's favorite pastime when he summered at his family's ancestral home in the west of Scotland.  It helped me to understand the game better as an outdoor sport, which was always the point of those Max Behr arguments that seemed so semantic.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2012, 07:30:11 PM »
I would imagine that more Cro-Magnons than not would have gladly used an EZGo for their hunting parties, if they had one.   ;)

"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2012, 07:35:05 PM »
I would imagine that more Cro-Magnons than not would have gladly used an EZGo for their hunting parties, if they had one.   ;)



Wasn't there a brand of golf ball in the 70s called Kro-Flight?  Was that meant for Cro-Magnon Golfers?!
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2012, 07:48:24 PM »
Kyle:

My co-author on the MacKenzie biography, Dr. Scott, made a long analogy between golf [and the practice of golf course design] and deerstalking, which was Dr. MacKenzie's favorite pastime when he summered at his family's ancestral home in the west of Scotland.  It helped me to understand the game better as an outdoor sport, which was always the point of those Max Behr arguments that seemed so semantic.

cool

thanks
It's all about the golf!

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2012, 08:02:04 PM »

Wasn't there a brand of golf ball in the 70s called Kro-Flight?  Was that meant for Cro-Magnon Golfers?!

Yes, along with Kro-Flite irons spears and woods bludgeons.


p.s let's not forget why golf was invented:
 
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 08:48:20 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Kyle Harris

Re: Hunters
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2012, 09:22:27 PM »
Kyle:

My co-author on the MacKenzie biography, Dr. Scott, made a long analogy between golf [and the practice of golf course design] and deerstalking, which was Dr. MacKenzie's favorite pastime when he summered at his family's ancestral home in the west of Scotland.  It helped me to understand the game better as an outdoor sport, which was always the point of those Max Behr arguments that seemed so semantic.

Tom:

Max Behr is always in the back of my mind when I go native on this sort of thing.

Tom Paul and I have long discussed these points as they relate to Max Behr and he tends to disagree with ole Max on the point that the golfer is not accepting of a feature that is obviously contrived.

I disagree.

To me, it seems that the golfer actually tends to reject the fact that the golf course is constructed, and this is where the idea of controlling the conditions of the golf course to make up for a golfer's shortcomings comes to bear. After all, the golf course was an arbitrary idea of some architect, so what is wrong with more arbitrary ideas?

Amongst the many things I've learned in the past year, the idea of making the golf features fit the landscape is near the top. The architect must force the golfer to suspend disbelief and truly believe they are sporting across a landscape that has always fit golf. I know some decry the use of non-influential bunkers or features, but these are very important to further this end. Sometimes the most important bunker on the hole is the one that ties the "strategic" bunkers the are directly in play to the out of play areas.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2012, 09:32:36 PM »
Kyle:

My co-author on the MacKenzie biography, Dr. Scott, made a long analogy between golf [and the practice of golf course design] and deerstalking, which was Dr. MacKenzie's favorite pastime when he summered at his family's ancestral home in the west of Scotland.  It helped me to understand the game better as an outdoor sport, which was always the point of those Max Behr arguments that seemed so semantic.

Tom:

Max Behr is always in the back of my mind when I go native on this sort of thing.

Tom Paul and I have long discussed these points as they relate to Max Behr and he tends to disagree with ole Max on the point that the golfer is not accepting of a feature that is obviously contrived.

I disagree.

To me, it seems that the golfer actually tends to reject the fact that the golf course is constructed, and this is where the idea of controlling the conditions of the golf course to make up for a golfer's shortcomings comes to bear. After all, the golf course was an arbitrary idea of some architect, so what is wrong with more arbitrary ideas?

Amongst the many things I've learned in the past year, the idea of making the golf features fit the landscape is near the top. The architect must force the golfer to suspend disbelief and truly believe they are sporting across a landscape that has always fit golf. I know some decry the use of non-influential bunkers or features, but these are very important to further this end. Sometimes the most important bunker on the hole is the one that ties the "strategic" bunkers the are directly in play to the out of play areas.

Kyle,
Can you give me an example of a bunker that ties a strategic bunker to an out of play area?
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2012, 11:29:58 PM »
In an anthropology class years ago, we discussed human evolution and the repressed instincts instilled, particularly in men, from our nomadic hunter/gatherer days.

We talked about a hypothesis of the anthropology community centered around golf, basically addressing the possibility that golf's addictiveness stems from its unique ability to satisfy the innate desire of humans to be in the field, seeking a target with precision and strategizing how to reach it. Equating hitting a golf ball to throwing a spear or slinging a rock doesn't seem too far flung.

We know historically that golf was banned in its early days for taking the attention of archers. Perhaps it spoke to the same targeting instincts that drove them to archery in the first place.

And if all this has any truth, perhaps it also explains the deep satisfaction we get from playing courses that appear most natural, and the value of pursuing design rooted in nature.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Hunters
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2012, 08:42:29 AM »
Jeff,

The random bunkers on # 18 at NGLA might fit into Kyle's "tie in" premise.

TEPaul

Re: Hunters
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2012, 10:18:55 AM »

"Tom:
Max Behr is always in the back of my mind when I go native on this sort of thing.
Tom Paul and I have long discussed these points as they relate to Max Behr and he tends to disagree with ole Max on the point that the golfer is not accepting of a feature that is obviously contrived.
I disagree.
To me, it seems that the golfer actually tends to reject the fact that the golf course is constructed, and this is where the idea of controlling the conditions of the golf course to make up for a golfer's shortcomings comes to bear."



Kyle:

Max Behr and his writing on golf architecture is in the back of my mind too any time I go native, or more accurately start to think what-all "natural" really means in golf and certainly in golf course architecture. After-all, he was the one, probably the only one, who articulated in depth this distinction between golf as a sport versus golf as a game. To do that he essentially used the analogies of some of the inherent characteristics involved in hunting and fishing to highlight some similar characteristics of golf as a sport. The analogies he used for the idea and requirements of a game were basically tennis, football, baseball and such.

Behr's treastises on golf as a sport versus golf as a game were never much understood, at least by none other than a very select few (Mackenzie, Hunter, Thomas, Bob Jones etc). They certainly flew over the head of his basic debating opponent on this theme---Joshua Crane! And even if his distinction was somewhat understood by others, most did not really see or understand the point of it. C.B. Macdonald's reaction to that distinction may be the most instructive and interesting of people really in the know back then (Macdonald thought Thomas's half strokes for putts was completely pointless too, apparently failing to understand or appreciate where Thomas was really trying to go with it----which was essentially to make golf architecture more easily adaptable to all player levels as well as to render golf architecture considerably less expensive to both make and maintain).

So what was at the root of Behr’s point in declaring or defining golf as a sport rather than a game, and to use the analogies of hunting and fishing as sports? It was basically not much more than the fact that in all three (golf, hunting and fishing) essentially the OPPONENT was Nature itself!!

For fairly obvious reasons this type of analogy or similarity between golf on the one hand and hunting and fishing on the other was never an easy analogy or comparison to make. It was obviously not an easy analogy to make because most just could not really see any similarity at all between hunting and fishing and golf! To most golf seemed far more similar to something like tennis or hockey or lacrosse et al as they all involved sticks and balls, and certainly hunting and fishing don't.  For that reason the similarity or analogy was apparently never understood other than by a slight or select few who could obviously see a lot further along to what Behr was really getting at.

Behr’s point with this idea of golf as a sport rather than a game only had to do with the fact that golf and the golfer really do have to deal with Nature as an opponent and not ONLY just a human opponent which is the entire point and purpose of games like tennis, hockey and lacrosse et al, which necessarily require standardized spatial definitions to render the dynamic of human movement more effective and efficient in those particular games. Very few could see that because golf seemed to them to be so much more like tennis or football or baseball or hockey or lacrosse or whatever that involved human opponents competing against one another by vying for a common ball. Apparently so few then or today realized that is just not what golf is----human opponents do not and cannot vie for a common ball in golf so the type of standardized spatial definition so necessary to those games to make human movement more effective and efficient just does not need to exist in golf or be a part of it----hence the idea of making it some replication of the unlimited spatiality and randomness of Nature itself. And that is around which Behr’s idea of golf as a sport completely revolved. Unfortunately, he never really articulated that point of golfers not vying for a common ball well enough, in my opinion!

Later I will put something on here concerning Behr’s ideas about why the golfer would accept that which was natural or he thought was natural and would not accept that which he thought was artificial and consequently want to change it. This is basically the only thing I disagree with what he wrote and the reason I do is I just believe the ensuing 50-75 years since he wrote it have proven him wrong; not with all golfers but most. I regret to say I believe that is true but nevertheless I do.



« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 10:37:52 AM by TEPaul »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2012, 12:14:35 PM »
Kyle:

My co-author on the MacKenzie biography, Dr. Scott, made a long analogy between golf [and the practice of golf course design] and deerstalking, which was Dr. MacKenzie's favorite pastime when he summered at his family's ancestral home in the west of Scotland.  It helped me to understand the game better as an outdoor sport, which was always the point of those Max Behr arguments that seemed so semantic.

Tom:

Max Behr is always in the back of my mind when I go native on this sort of thing.

Tom Paul and I have long discussed these points as they relate to Max Behr and he tends to disagree with ole Max on the point that the golfer is not accepting of a feature that is obviously contrived.

I disagree.

To me, it seems that the golfer actually tends to reject the fact that the golf course is constructed, and this is where the idea of controlling the conditions of the golf course to make up for a golfer's shortcomings comes to bear. After all, the golf course was an arbitrary idea of some architect, so what is wrong with more arbitrary ideas?

Amongst the many things I've learned in the past year, the idea of making the golf features fit the landscape is near the top. The architect must force the golfer to suspend disbelief and truly believe they are sporting across a landscape that has always fit golf. I know some decry the use of non-influential bunkers or features, but these are very important to further this end. Sometimes the most important bunker on the hole is the one that ties the "strategic" bunkers the are directly in play to the out of play areas.

Gca doesn't need fancy this and fancy that with all sorts of tying this to that.  What gca needs is good shots which may up good holes which when combined make up good courses.  Don't underestimate what the land gives ya, but if the land doesn't give enough, make it give ya something.  Its not rocket science, but you would think some modern folks would like it to be.

BTW - If Max Behr was a decent writer maybe more folks would have paid attention to him - acchh - what dreck.  

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

TEPaul

Re: Hunters
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2012, 12:36:38 PM »
"BTW - If Max Behr was a decent writer maybe more folks would have paid attention to him - acchh - what dreck."


Sean:

Actually, I take real exception to and some offense from that remark. Behr was essentially a brilliant writer if one is interested in really imaginative and probably very fundamental ideas and truths rather than only a writing style. The problem most people had and have with his writing style is it was distinctly old fashioned in all kinds of ways from even his own era. I think more than anything else, Max Behr was a man interested in and really into some old-fashioned and classical ideas and philosophies that he felt were base-rock fundamental and should be enduring and never lost. But once one gets passed or around that his thoughts are frankly like laser-beams into and in the history of golf architecture writing. In my opinion, he tried to look right through the chaff and almost into a golfer's soul.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2012, 01:57:57 PM »
"BTW - If Max Behr was a decent writer maybe more folks would have paid attention to him - acchh - what dreck."


Sean:

Actually, I take real exception to and some offense from that remark. Behr was essentially a brilliant writer if one is interested in really imaginative and probably very fundamental ideas and truths rather than only a writing style. The problem most people had and have with his writing style is it was distinctly old fashioned in all kinds of ways from even his own era. I think more than anything else, Max Behr was a man interested in and really into some old-fashioned and classical ideas and philosophies that he felt were base-rock fundamental and should be enduring and never lost. But once one gets passed or around that his thoughts are frankly like laser-beams into and in the history of golf architecture writing. In my opinion, he tried to look right through the chaff and almost into a golfer's soul.


TP

Blame Behr for his poor writing rather than get upset with the guy who points it out.  Beyond "style" of writing, my biggest beef with gca mumbo jumbo is by far the the most complicated aspects of golf are brought to the table by the golfer, not the archie or his creations.

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

TEPaul

Re: Hunters
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2012, 10:56:07 PM »
Sean:

No, I'm not going to blame Behr for his writing, I'm going to blame the guy who points it out; in this case, you, with your comment of 'dreck." This is not the first time someone has complained about or blamed Behr for his writing, but in my opinion, those who have are probably either unwilling or incapable of taking the time to understand what he is really saying.

Look, I believe in the "Big World" theory that golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there is room in it for everyone. The deal is for anyone to get some real enjoyment out of it whether he likes some things and not others and also if his buddy doesn't agree with what he likes or thinks.

I don't think there is any question that Behr was writing for a pretty intellectual group and what he said went over the heads of most. But just because some people aren't in that strata who "get" Behr doesn't mean to me that they can't have as much fun and interest with golf and golf architecture as those who believe they do "get" Max Behr and what he wrote.  ;)
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 10:59:06 PM by TEPaul »

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2012, 12:56:40 AM »
1.   The best marksman is not necessarily the best hunter
2.   Hunting requires painstaking amounts of preparation for what is, ultimately, an uncertain set of circumstances leading to a shot.
3.   The final measure of success in the hunt is the number of quarry bagged.


As someone who spent 23 years writing about hunting, and during that time about as much time hunting birds as I did playing golf, I 'd like to add something to this simple list.

I think there's an even more essential parallel between these sports.

First, your point three is almost not true.  One of the best things ever written about hunting by modern man comes from Jose Ortega y Gasset, a Spanish philosopher who wrote Meditations on Hunting where this appears:

Quote
One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted…If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job.

If that sounds a little like the words of our Melvyn, it is no accident....

For my part, I believe that a study done in the late 70s is a reasonable explanation of the appeal.  It concluded that hunters pass through five stages including:

  • Shooter (The hacker)
    Limiting Out (Yhe man in your point three)
    Trophy (Top 100 collectors?)
    Method (hickory golfers?)
    Sportsman (????)

Here's a nice writeup of the stages, http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/hunter-stages.php, and I think the parallels with golf are pretty remarkable.

Note that hunters, like golfers, often get stuck in one stage and never pass beyond it.  I used to think that made them impure, but I'm not so sure. Unlike Melvyn, I won't suggest that they aren't really sportsmen, even though I believe their behavior is ultimately bad for the sport, in fact it might bring the ultimate demise of it as it once was.

Does any of that sound familiar?

For a really deep look at this subject you might read Ted Kerasote's "Bloodties."

Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2012, 03:09:09 AM »
Sean:

No, I'm not going to blame Behr for his writing, I'm going to blame the guy who points it out; in this case, you, with your comment of 'dreck." This is not the first time someone has complained about or blamed Behr for his writing, but in my opinion, those who have are probably either unwilling or incapable of taking the time to understand what he is really saying.

Look, I believe in the "Big World" theory that golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there is room in it for everyone. The deal is for anyone to get some real enjoyment out of it whether he likes some things and not others and also if his buddy doesn't agree with what he likes or thinks.

I don't think there is any question that Behr was writing for a pretty intellectual group and what he said went over the heads of most. But just because some people aren't in that strata who "get" Behr doesn't mean to me that they can't have as much fun and interest with golf and golf architecture as those who believe they do "get" Max Behr and what he wrote.  ;)

TP

The first role of a writer such as Behr is to communicate his ideas effectively.  I could sit and read his awful writing, but I choose not to because I don't value his ideas that highly.  Its not that I think he is wrong, its just that golf is not that complicated to need long winded explanations.  I get far more flavour of what golf is about by reading Darwin because for one he was a much better writer than Behr and for two his approach to describing the game is far less academic.  I am not inclined toward trying to make out a game as any more than just that. For all of our meanderings, golf courses really aren't complicated and in fact are amazing straight forward in what is on offer.  

Ciao
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 07:34:21 AM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

TEPaul

Re: Hunters
« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2012, 07:09:31 AM »
Sean:

"Golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there is plenty of room in it for everyone."

I'd say that applies to golf architecture writing too.

Kyle Harris

Re: Hunters
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2012, 08:11:43 PM »
Ken:

In my view, that is a rather contrite and accurate post regarding the subject.

I propose that a "method golfer" may be one that employs a shot for the joy of executing that shot and not necessarily because it is the best or most effective.

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2012, 09:32:46 PM »

I propose that a "method golfer" may be one that employs a shot for the joy of executing that shot and not necessarily because it is the best or most effective.

A parallel between the bow hunter and the ground game (or the hickory player), both typically fail.

Other observations.. With hunting (and fishing), as in golf, you rarely achieve the desired result, regardless of the implement employed. Many never achieve bagging a trophy.

Another, It's all about the wind and getting in the right position to make the shot
"We finally beat Medicare. "

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2012, 09:56:28 PM »
I was fortunate enough to have grown up hunting with men who seemed to have understood the finer points, and I think the quote Ken posted really encapsulates the sport at its best. 

Where I grew up, killing something was easy as a drive down a country road and a shot from the hood of the car, but actually hunting was an art.  While I haven't hunted for years, I oftentimes think of hunting when I play golf or when I am considering golf architecture. I'd add two similarities I see between hunting at its best and golfing at its best, the first of which is suggested by the quote above.  Hunting allows one to develop an intimate knowledge with and connection to the land on which one hunts.  It is a special feeling to have been over an interesting piece of land enough times that you start to understand and feel every aspect of the land, yet realize you haven't even scratched the surface. I believe this is what the author means when he referred to "immersion in the countryside."

The second element is the fundamental importance of randomness.  The wind, the weather, the varying patterns of the movement of game, happening to be in the right place at the right time, or the wrong place at the wrong time. No matter how prepared the hunter might be, success and failure always involve factors beyond the hunter's control.  It takes some luck to be successful and there is often hard luck, but both are part of the process.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2012, 10:08:00 PM »
I got to tell you, I've never gone hunting, but you guys are making it sound very appealing.

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
This is how the Australopithecus felt, one or two million years ago, when he first hit something with a stick. Puny humanoid muscles were amplified by the principals of mechanics so that a little monkey swat suddenly became a great manly engine of destruction able to bring enormous force to bear upon enemy predators, hunting prey, and the long fairway shots necessary to get on the green over the early Pleistocene's tar pit hazard.
 --P.J. O'Rourke

Carson Pilcher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hunters
« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2012, 10:12:56 PM »
1.   The best marksman is not necessarily the best hunter
2.   Hunting requires painstaking amounts of preparation for what is, ultimately, an uncertain set of circumstances leading to a shot.
3.   The final measure of success in the hunt is the number of quarry bagged.


As someone who spent 23 years writing about hunting, and during that time about as much time hunting birds as I did playing golf, I 'd like to add something to this simple list.

I think there's an even more essential parallel between these sports.

First, your point three is almost not true.  One of the best things ever written about hunting by modern man comes from Jose Ortega y Gasset, a Spanish philosopher who wrote Meditations on Hunting where this appears:

Quote
One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted…If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job.

If that sounds a little like the words of our Melvyn, it is no accident....

For my part, I believe that a study done in the late 70s is a reasonable explanation of the appeal.  It concluded that hunters pass through five stages including:

  • Shooter (The hacker)
    Limiting Out (Yhe man in your point three)
    Trophy (Top 100 collectors?)
    Method (hickory golfers?)
    Sportsman (????)

Here's a nice writeup of the stages, http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/hunter-stages.php, and I think the parallels with golf are pretty remarkable.

Note that hunters, like golfers, often get stuck in one stage and never pass beyond it.  I used to think that made them impure, but I'm not so sure. Unlike Melvyn, I won't suggest that they aren't really sportsmen, even though I believe their behavior is ultimately bad for the sport, in fact it might bring the ultimate demise of it as it once was.

Does any of that sound familiar?

For a really deep look at this subject you might read Ted Kerasote's "Bloodties."



Probably, one of the best posts I have read.  I could not agree more.

When I read the first post by the OP, I was so excited that someone else has seen the parallels.  I have been a golfer since the age of 10, and a hunter since before then.  I guess I am a purist in both forms form time to time.  I enjoy playing with hickories.  During my college hunting days, I gave up guns and solely hunted whitetail with a bow.  After that, I gave up hunting all together for hiking.  I figured out that I just loved being outdoors.  Fast-foward another 20 years, and a golfing buddy no-less takes me quail hunting.  Walking the land, watching the dogs work and ultimately trying to strategize on how to have the best angle for a shot once the birds flushed was a thrill.  Even after you put in the planning, there is no way to foresee how they will flush (or the bounce on the green).  The two to me are eerily similar, and I now have a passion for both.  BTW, they both are equally as expensive!  HA!

As to point 3, each person sets their own internal goal.  For some it's the journey, for others it's the score.....and sometimes, it's both.  :)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back