Is Golf a Sport or a Game?

[Kapanda]

Alright, so we got onto the next step.

Yes, the being in shape is a factor that has the same weight across the board. So Prince Fielder is an argument against baseball being a sport, but Prince has also shown he can hustle his body when needed in baseball, so he makes up for not being in such great shape. You don't see that in golf. But the point that he is out of shape does go against baseball, it's just that baseball makes up for it. Golf does not.

Swinging a club at 90 mph is not athleticism, it's a product of moving your body a certain way. The fact that weak and out of shape individuals can do that only shows you don't need athleticism to do such a thing.

Factors of athleticism are power, strength, flexibility... those are the things that come to mind, sure there are more.

Now, can you be completely out of shape and completely lack athleticism and still play golf, sure, but that doesn't mean that golf players are particularly athletic neither (in comparison to the average individual). I can accept that I don't know much about golf, but are you saying that the average individual really doesn't have the physiological ability to be good at golf?

I'm probably as in shape as (if not in better shape than) McIlroy, Donald, probably in better shape than Mickelson, but most likely not in better shape than the average pro baseball player, pro footballer, pro basketballer, etc. They're probably all stronger, more powerful, and possibly even more flexible than me. I can't do what those first basemen can when trying to catch a low throw (Prince plays 1B).

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Yes, the being in shape is a factor that has the same weight across the board. So Prince Fielder is an argument against baseball being a sport, but Prince has also shown he can hustle his body when needed in baseball, so he makes up for not being in such great shape. You don't see that in golf. But the point that he is out of shape does go against baseball, it's just that baseball makes up for it. Golf does not.

I disagree. They all swing their drivers 100+ MPH. And just because we don't see them having to "hustle" doesn't mean they can't.

Besides, I said Cecil Fielder, not Prince. They're both big guys, but I think Cecil was bigger.

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Swinging a club at 90 mph is not athleticism, it's a product of moving your body a certain way. The fact that weak and out of shape individuals can do that only shows you don't need athleticism to do such a thing.

If that's the case, swinging a bat fast is not athleticism either, because "it's just a product of moving your body a certain way."

That's pretty close to how one might choose to define "athleticism" - moving your body with precision at high speeds.

I haven't met a golfer at the PGA Tour level who is "weak."

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Factors of athleticism are power, strength, flexibility... those are the things that come to mind, sure there are more.

Power: check.

Flexibility: check.

Strength: perhaps golfers come up short here if you define power as "speed" and "strength" as "ability to do a lot of work" (i.e. lift weights), but largely because golf is not about strength (nor are a lot of sports - baseball, soccer, etc. Perhaps only football really truly favors "strength" at certain positions over "power" - and even then you have speed rushers and bull rushers at some positions.

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Now, can you be completely out of shape and completely lack athleticism and still play golf, sure,

You can be completely out of shape and completely lack athleticism and play ANY SPORT. You cannot do those things and play ANY SPORT at the top levels .

Originally Posted by Kapanda

I can accept that I don't know much about golf, but are you saying that the average individual really doesn't have the physiological ability to be good at golf?

Uhm, I would say they have as much physiological ability to be good at golf as they have to be good at any other sport.

Perhaps you're too new to golf to realize how difficult it is. Oh, wait, you didn't shoot 67 (on 18 holes) your first time out on a championship layout, did you? Do you know of someone who did? Anyone? Ever? In the history of golf?

Originally Posted by Kapanda

I'm probably as in shape as (if not in better shape than) McIlroy, Donald, probably in better shape than Mickelson, but most likely not in better shape than the average pro baseball player, pro footballer, pro basketballer, etc. They're probably all stronger, more powerful, and possibly even more flexible than me. I can't do what those first basemen can when trying to catch a low throw (Prince plays 1B).

I'm sorry, but you can't compare yourself.

Gymnasts aren't necessarily "stronger" or more "powerful" than a baseball player. Or a basketball, football, or even soccer player. What about long-distance runners? Some of those guys are twigs. Yet they can run 100 miles over mountains in well under a day. Heck, they can run 100 miles over some badass terrain in under 16 hours. Heck, people have even outrun horses . Is distance running a sport?

I guess you've given up on answering why "demanding" is one of the things that support something being a "sport" or at least "more of a sport" than something else.

---

I think what it boils down to is that you're too new to golf to appreciate the "athleticism" involved in playing golf at the highest level.

[Kapanda]

I had another post here! Where d'it go??

Anyway, really doesn't boil down to me not considering the athleticism in golf.

Gymnasts don't have the same type of athleticism that footballers have, but their body is able to do things nobody else's can. They enhanced their physiological abilities to a point far and beyond what any average human being can do.

That does not seem to be true about golf. That's not even the point of golf anyway, the point of golf is not to showcase the extent of the body's abilities at all, it's to showcase the skill one can develop. That's a completely different criteria, though.

The "more of a sport" thing was tongue in cheek. Something either is or is not a sport, obviously.

But the nature of the comment was to show how certain activities that are widely acknowledged as sports have that common factor, that the activity itself taxes the body to a significant degree. Cannot generally play sports like football, running, basketball, etc etc, beyond mid forties. Those that do are considered wild aberrations. Not true about golf again.

Seems to me - and I say this with all respect that you do deserve - that your passion for the game makes you defend it regardless. It's quite obvious that golf is not an activity that is particularly physically demanding, especially if compared to other activities that are undisputedly considered sports. It is, on the other hand, an activity that demands an extremely high level of skill, even to play at the lowest of levels. It's a highly skilled game, much, much more so than football and basketball, but not a very physically demanding one.

[Jefferey13]

Kapanda I think you maybe don't know what a sport is? A sport isn't defined by how physically demanding the activity is. Is helping someone move a sport? Being a gardner/farmer? Those things make you extremely tired and are very physically demanding, but are not sports. A sport is simply using a variety of physical skills in competition for enjoyment. Not only is golf an undisputed sport, it is also the most difficult. Golf is the only sport I can think of where someone brand new to it literally can not play it.

[Jimdangles]

Originally Posted by Jefferey13

Kapanda I think you maybe don't know what a sport is? A sport isn't defined by how physically demanding the activity is. Is helping someone move a sport? Being a gardner/farmer? Those things make you extremely tired and are very physically demanding, but are not sports. A sport is simply using a variety of physical skills in competition for enjoyment. Not only is golf an undisputed sport, it is also the most difficult. Golf is the only sport I can think of where someone brand new to it literally can not play it.

Have you ever tried playing hockey for the first time? In comparisson the difference between tiger woods an a first time golfer isnt as much as a first time hockey player to me (intermediate/advanced hockey player). I have seen many adults try and pick up hockey and it is not easy at all. Even very athletic people I know.

Learning golf might be a little bit harder but just making good contact with the ball may end up putting a toe shot 200 yards with an ugly terrible swing. putting is basic hand eye. its not hard to just hit the ball forward.

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by Jefferey13

Kapanda I think you maybe don't know what a sport is? A sport isn't defined by how physically demanding the activity is. Is helping someone move a sport? Being a gardner/farmer? Those things make you extremely tired and are very physically demanding, but are not sports. A sport is simply using a variety of physical skills in competition for enjoyment. Not only is golf an undisputed sport, it is also the most difficult. Golf is the only sport I can think of where someone brand new to it literally can not play it.

Really, this thing has been beaten to death Jefferey! It's ambiguous what a sport is (I've said that at least three times in this thread)! There is no consensus! Yes, I don't know what a sport is to the extent that nobody truly knows! That would include you too!

From wiki:

Definition

Show Jumping , an equestrian sport

The precise definition of what separates a sport from other leisure activities varies between sources, with no universally agreed definition. The closest to an international agreement on a definition is provided by SportAccord , which is the association for all the largest international sports federations (including association football , american football , cycling , equestrian sports , baseball and more), and is therefore the de facto representative of international sport.

SportAccord uses the following criteria, determining that a sport should: ^[1]

• have an element of competition
• be in no way harmful to any living creature
• not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football )
• not rely on any 'luck' element specifically designed in to the sport

They also recognise that sport can be primarily physical (such as rugby or athletics ), primarily mind (such as chess or go ), predominantly motorised (such as Formula 1 or powerboating ), primarily co-ordination (such as billiard sports ) or primarily animal supported (such as equestrian sport ). ^[1]

There has been an increase in the application of the term 'sport' to a wider set of non-physical challenges such as electronic sports , especially due to the large scale of participation and organised competition, but these are not widely recognised by mainstream sports organisations.

[Ceejay]

Quote:

a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport, exercise, or game requiring physical skill.

I noticed at the beginning someone had quoted this, but under that same definition you could pretty much classify anything as a sport.

I love Golf, but it's a game. It's not like there aren't professional games played everywhere -- Chess, Go, Starcraft, etc. But realistically speaking Golf is a game.

I should also just note that this is just my opinion. I don't see much difference in Golf and say something like Bocci Ball or Lawn Darts...even Horseshoes. It's more complex, obviously, and the technology is a lot more advanced but the concept is still the same. I wouldn't consider those games sports, and I don't consider Golf a sport either.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Gymnasts don't have the same type of athleticism that footballers have, but their body is able to do things nobody else's can. They enhanced their physiological abilities to a point far and beyond what any average human being can do. That does not seem to be true about golf. That's not even the point of golf anyway, the point of golf is not to showcase the extent of the body's abilities at all, it's to showcase the skill one can develop. That's a completely different criteria, though.

So golf is just about "skills"?

You just keep throwing words out there without defining them and hoping that they make your case, right? Being a QB in football is "all about skills." In baseball they talk about the five skills or tools a player needs. Golfers "enhanced their physiological abilities to a point far and beyond what any average human being can do" too. Or did you break par on your easier-than-a-PGA-Tour-event course your first time out? And you're an above average human being, right?

You're being too vague, but you have to because you don't think golf is a sport, and you're struggling to actually demonstrate why. So you try, but you get wrapped up in using "demanding" on your body and "skills" and you talk about how swinging a golf club is just "how we move our body" but fail to get that's true of every action in every other sport as well (particularly hitting in baseball).

Originally Posted by Kapanda

The "more of a sport" thing was tongue in cheek. Something either is or is not a sport, obviously.

So which is it? Is NASCAR a sport? Is golf?

Originally Posted by Kapanda

But the nature of the comment was to show how certain activities that are widely acknowledged as sports have that common factor, that the activity itself taxes the body to a significant degree. Cannot generally play sports like football, running, basketball, etc etc, beyond mid forties. Those that do are considered wild aberrations. Not true about golf again.

Not many people beyond their mid-40s are winning PGA Tour events, but okay. So is curling a sport? I'm sure we could name other things commonly accepted as sport that aren't "taxing" people's bodies to significant degrees. Bowling. Kickers in football don't tend to look too taxed. Relief pitchers in baseball don't. DHs don't - actually, most baseball players don't, because they really don't move around a whole lot. They're certainly not walking six miles over hills. Perhaps you underestimate, too, how taxing golf is.

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Seems to me - and I say this with all respect that you do deserve - that your passion for the game makes you defend it regardless. It's quite obvious that golf is not an activity that is particularly physically demanding, especially if compared to other activities that are undisputedly considered sports. It is, on the other hand, an activity that demands an extremely high level of skill, even to play at the lowest of levels. It's a highly skilled game, much, much more so than football and basketball, but not a very physically demanding one.

Nope. I simply don't think you've done anything to prove that golf isn't a sport. I think your newness to the game helps you in failing to understand how the game is played at the higher levels.

At least you are finally starting to hone in on a definition that makes sense to you, though you haven't defined "skill" nor have you said that "demanding" is an absolute necessity, because again we could probably name other things you think are sports.

FWIW, I don't consider NASCAR a true sport. It's "demanding on the body" but that only matters if that's part of your definition for "sport." Perhaps my definition of a sport includes "players don't regularly poop or pee themselves while participating."

Originally Posted by Kapanda

SportAccord uses the following criteria, determining that a sport should:[1]

have an element of competition

be in no way harmful to any living creature

not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football)

not rely on any 'luck' element specifically designed in to the sport

Competition: check

Harmful: check

No Single Supplier: check

Luck Designed In: check

So I suppose the last one rules out card and board games, but pretty much everything else counts? Darts, shuffleboard, and even video games would count as a "sport" under those guidelines. I think they are too broad.

[Kapanda]

Lol soo, we agree that the definition of sports is ambiguous...?

And because I couldn't resist... there is no vagueness in defining athleticism, physical ability, and skill. There really is none. Sports require a mix of both, some more than others.

I don't win tour events because I don't have the skill, not because I don't have the physical ability. My body is able to perform as well as most pros' bodies (most likely exception being Woods). But I can't use a golf club for shit. That takes skill. The same way it takes skill to make a one-handed catch in football. It's not that my body isn't able to do it, I just suck with my hands. I just took it for granted that the difference between athleticism and skill was obvious, which is why I didn't put much effort in explaining it.

[Kapanda]

Honestly finding it quite surprising that you seriously trying to make the case that golf takes particular athletic dexterity to perform at the higher levels. You are honestly trying to make the case that golf, just like running, gymnastics, baseball, basketball, etc., requires a high level of athleticism to perform properly.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Lol soo, we agree that the definition of sports is ambiguous...?

No. I think we agree that you've yet to provide your definition in a way that's not entirely ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Kapanda

And because I couldn't resist... there is no vagueness in defining athleticism, physical ability, and skill. There really is none. Sports require a mix of both, some more than others.

Then define them. Because from where I'm sitting, golf requires a mix of athleticism, physical ability, and skill.

Originally Posted by Kapanda

I don't win tour events because I don't have the skill, not because I don't have the physical ability.

I don't think you realize how dumb that sounds.

I'm not the starting QB for the Steelers because I don't have the skill, not because I don't have the physical ability.

I'm not the starting shortstop for the Pirates because I don't have the skill, not because I don't have the physical ability.

I'm not playing on Sidney Crosby's wing because I don't have the skill, not because I don't have the physical ability.

Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Honestly finding it quite surprising that you seriously trying to make the case that golf takes particular athletic dexterity to perform at the higher levels. You are honestly trying to make the case that golf, just like running, gymnastics, baseball, basketball, etc., requires a high level of athleticism to perform properly.

Yep.

And you've not offered a single thing to say otherwise, including a simple definition for "athleticism."

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Jefferey13

Kapanda I think you maybe don't know what a sport is? A sport isn't defined by how physically demanding the activity is. Is helping someone move a sport? Being a gardner/farmer? Those things make you extremely tired and are very physically demanding, but are not sports. A sport is simply using a variety of physical skills in competition for enjoyment. Not only is golf an undisputed sport, it is also the most difficult. Golf is the only sport I can think of where someone brand new to it literally can not play it.

Maybe you don't know what a sport is?

Have you ever watched somebody who's never been in the water try and swim? And . . . go. Now add in a surf board.

Ice skating anyone? Add in the rest of the components to turn that activity into speed skating (long or short track), figure skating, or even hockey.

Riding a bike is not so easy for beginners, and that's without any type of competition. Now try downhill mountain biking or moto cross.

Riding down a snow covered hill on a sled is easy, but snowboarding is downright hilarious when done by a beginner. By the time you realize you're on the wrong edge you've already bounced off your face. Twice.

Any sport or activity worth learning to do at all, let alone well, is completely laughable when done by someone without a very similar background. Golfers feel golf is unique, but it's really not.

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by iacas

Uhm, then how the heck do you define "athleticism"? Because from where I'm sitting, athleticism has a huge part in the success.

Every "sport" has its fat guys. Charles Barkley. John Daly. Cecil Fielder. Any lineman. Tim Thomas.

I'm curious, btw, how this breaks down by handicap. I doubt many low single digit handicappers would call golf anything but a sport, and I bet most of the people saying "not a sport" have higher handicaps. They don't really understand how far removed they are from the upper levels of the game. I could be wrong, but that's just a thought.

It does depend on how you define athleticism.  I define it with strength, speed, agility, quickness, etc.

I agree many other sports have "fat" guys - baseball especially.  Baseball is another sport that you don't have to be a great athlete (by my definition) to play.

But, come on, Barkley.  He was NOT fat in his playing days.  He was arguably one of the greatest athletes and quickest jumpers ever to play.  He was an athlete.  No question.  The only "non-athletic" guys you find on a basketball floor are a few 7 footers.

I'm sure handicap, or being very good at golf, effects people's opinions here.  I also think people who excelled at other 'more physically demanding' sports have a very different opinion on it.

When you look at Luke Donald (or Rory or Bubba or Phil or anyone with maybe the exception of Tiger) compared to LeBron James or Calvin Johnson, I don't think they are in the same stratosphere in terms of athleticism.

I am not questioning the skill and ability it takes to be a great golfer.  I'm just saying it is very different than what I consider "athletic".

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Kapanda

I don't win tour events because I don't have the skill, not because I don't have the physical ability. My body is able to perform as well as most pros' bodies (most likely exception being Woods). But I can't use a golf club for shit. That takes skill. The same way it takes skill to make a one-handed catch in football. It's not that my body isn't able to do it, I just suck with my hands. I just took it for granted that the difference between athleticism and skill was obvious, which is why I didn't put much effort in explaining it.

Sounds like your definition of athleticism is "I can do it" and your definition of skill is "I can't do it". You must view yourself as an athlete. You suck at golf, so it must not be an athletic endeavor. So long as it makes sense to you, I guess.

BTW, ever tried walking 18 holes in 95 degree/99% humidity, while swinging a golf club?  I guess that only requires skill, not athleticism.

[abraxas]

why do people get so bent out of shape when others say golf isn't a sport?  who cares?  i just find it funny that golfers dont even carry their own bags and basically just walk around and hit the ball 70 times.  and only half those hits are actual swings...the other half are just putts!

not to say i dont love golf but c'mon

[colin007]

heres my definition of a sport  - you have to run while playing.

therefore, golf is not a sport.

[colin007]

Originally Posted by abraxas

why do people get so bent out of shape when others say golf isn't a sport?  who cares?  i just find it funny that golfers dont even carry their own bags and basically just walk around and hit the ball 70 times.  and only half those hits are actual swings...the other half are just putts!

not to say i dont love golf but c'mon

im with carlos here.

[Infamous 273]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

It does depend on how you define athleticism.  I define it with strength, speed, agility, quickness, etc.

I agree many other sports have "fat" guys - baseball especially.  Baseball is another sport that you don't have to be a great athlete (by my definition) to play.

But, come on, Barkley.  He was NOT fat in his playing days.  He was arguably one of the greatest athletes and quickest jumpers ever to play.  He was an athlete.  No question.  The only "non-athletic" guys you find on a basketball floor are a few 7 footers.

I'm sure handicap, or being very good at golf, effects people's opinions here.  I also think people who excelled at other 'more physically demanding' sports have a very different opinion on it.

When you look at Luke Donald (or Rory or Bubba or Phil or anyone with maybe the exception of Tiger) compared to LeBron James or Calvin Johnson, I don't think they are in the same stratosphere in terms of athleticism.

I am not questioning the skill and ability it takes to be a great golfer.  I'm just saying it is very different than what I consider "athletic".

you make some good points.  i agree with your opinion on chuck barkley.  a lot of people don't understand that he is barely 6' 4", and he DOMINATED guys much bigger than him.  his explosiveness in his prime was second to none.

i think something that is often overlooked when it comes to comparing athletes in general is what's between the ears.  take lerbron james for instance:  easily the most athletic player the league has seen in terms of tangibles (height, speed, vert leap, etc.), and at the same time, probably one of the most fragile minded as well.  stack him up vs MJ, and he beats him all day up and down the floor and above the rim...however, MJ had the intangibles; he knew how to put the ball in the basket when it mattered the most, and he made players around him better.

one thing golfers have over all other athletes sans triathletes/boxers/mma fighters, is superior mental toughness and an over arching belief in themselves.  that's what makes golf such a special sport.  there's no finger pointing after the game, no blown calls by the ref, no ground ball between the legs.  when a golfer wins or loses, he has one person to thank/blame: himself.  a lot of these so called "athletes" who play team sports and rely heavily on the contributions of others for their success would crumble in a sport like golf where the only place to look for help when the times get tough is within.