Is Golf a Sport or a Game?

[0ldblu3]

My wife and I have had a friendly argument about this for years now. My definition comes down to being able to quantify and identify the winner, usually based on a time or score, but not on a judgement. Yes there needs to be a physical skill involved, so for golf it is the swing and for motorsports it is the act of driving and I agree that it's more obvious for some sports than others. What I don't agree with are things like figure skating, gymnastics, extreme skiing (skating, motorcycle jumping, everything x-games pretty much) where a panel of judges determine the winner.  Those things are no different than the metropolitan ballet in my opinion. Nice to watch and full of athletes at the peak of their skills, but the activity, if it is judged, is not a sport.

Golf does have a quantifiable winner, it is a sport.  I know that the immediate response is "Is chess a sport then?".  I don't believe it is due to the lack of an athletic component.  A grand master could dictate the moves to me and I could manipulate the pieces on the chessboard and achieve the same affect. That would not be the case with Fred Couples telling me to execute an 8iron shot.  It's not the degree of athleticism that determines sport, but the measurement and determination of competition.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

My friends and I always debate the "rules" that make something a sport or not.  There are two that we have agreed upon:

1.  It must have objective scoring.  (Gymnastics, Figure Skating, and even boxing when it comes to a decision, are not sports ... just performances)

2.  Your legs must be moving.  (Darts and billiards fall into the "games" category per this rule, but bowling makes it as a sport even if you can drink beer while you do it)

This leaves golf in a somewhat gray area since they argue that they mean you must be running or walking, while I explain to them that your legs move plenty.

Anyways, I vote yes, it's a sport.

Rule 3 hasn't been defined precisely yet, but it would be something along the lines of "the athlete must be human."  That would rule out horse racing and auto racing because in those activities the "athlete" is the horse or the car.

By the way, if you are a diehard gymnast or auto racer don't take me too seriously here, we are just having fun.

Originally Posted by 0ldblu3

My wife and I have had a friendly argument about this for years now. My definition comes down to being able to quantify and identify the winner, usually based on a time or score, but not on a judgement. Yes there needs to be a physical skill involved, so for golf it is the swing and for motorsports it is the act of driving and I agree that it's more obvious for some sports than others. What I don't agree with are things like figure skating, gymnastics, extreme skiing (skating, motorcycle jumping, everything x-games pretty much) where a panel of judges determine the winner.  Those things are no different than the metropolitan ballet in my opinion. Nice to watch and full of athletes at the peak of their skills, but the activity, if it is judged, is not a sport.

Golf does have a quantifiable winner, it is a sport.  I know that the immediate response is "Is chess a sport then?".  I don't believe it is due to the lack of an athletic component.  A grand master could dictate the moves to me and I could manipulate the pieces on the chessboard and achieve the same affect. That would not be the case with Fred Couples telling me to execute an 8iron shot.  It's not the degree of athleticism that determines sport, but the measurement and determination of competition.

Looks like you and I are pretty much on the same page here.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

My friends and I always debate the "rules" that make something a sport or not.  There are two that we have agreed upon:

1.  It must have objective scoring.  (Gymnastics, Figure Skating, and even boxing when it comes to a decision, are not sports ... just performances)

2.  Your legs must be moving.  (Darts and billiards fall into the "games" category per this rule, but bowling makes it as a sport even if you can drink beer while you do it)

This leaves golf in a somewhat gray area since they argue that they mean you must be running or walking, while I explain to them that your legs move plenty.

Anyways, I vote yes, it's a sport.

Rule 3 hasn't been defined precisely yet, but it would be something along the lines of "the athlete must be human."  That would rule out horse racing and auto racing because in those activities the "athlete" is the horse or the car.

By the way, if you are a diehard gymnast or auto racer don't take me too seriously here, we are just having fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0ldblu3

My wife and I have had a friendly argument about this for years now. My definition comes down to being able to quantify and identify the winner, usually based on a time or score, but not on a judgement. Yes there needs to be a physical skill involved, so for golf it is the swing and for motorsports it is the act of driving and I agree that it's more obvious for some sports than others. What I don't agree with are things like figure skating, gymnastics, extreme skiing (skating, motorcycle jumping, everything x-games pretty much) where a panel of judges determine the winner.  Those things are no different than the metropolitan ballet in my opinion. Nice to watch and full of athletes at the peak of their skills, but the activity, if it is judged, is not a sport.

Golf does have a quantifiable winner, it is a sport.  I know that the immediate response is "Is chess a sport then?".  I don't believe it is due to the lack of an athletic component.  A grand master could dictate the moves to me and I could manipulate the pieces on the chessboard and achieve the same affect. That would not be the case with Fred Couples telling me to execute an 8iron shot.  It's not the degree of athleticism that determines sport, but the measurement and determination of competition.

Looks like you and I are pretty much on the same page here.

By your definition I'd call golf a sport if the player walks and carries (or pulls) their own equipment and is in a competition against other players. Playing from a power cart or with a caddie and casually among friends (or alone) with no other competitors or adhering strictly to the rules is an activity, not a sport.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

By your definition I'd call golf a sport if the player walks and carries (or pulls) their own equipment and is in a competition against other players. Playing from a power cart or with a caddie and casually among friends (or alone) with no other competitors or adhering strictly to the rules is an activity, not a sport.

Yeah, and if Casey Martin does even remotely well next Thursday, you can bet that topic comes up big in the news again.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

By your definition I'd call golf a sport if the player walks and carries (or pulls) their own equipment and is in a competition against other players. Playing from a power cart or with a caddie and casually among friends (or alone) with no other competitors or adhering strictly to the rules is an activity, not a sport.

Yeah, and if Casey Martin does even remotely well next Thursday, you can bet that topic comes up big in the news again.

Whether he does well or doesn't, the fact he's allowed to compete says that how a person gets their body from point A to point B is not an integral component in the activity. It's not as if he's competing in the biathlon but only the shooting portion, then for the skiing portion he gets on a snowmobile.

[MbolicGolf]

Sport Meaning "game involving physical exercise" first recorded 1520s.  All sports are games but all games are sports.

Game Meaning "contest played according to rules" is first attested c.1300

There's not hard and fast rule and every pastime is somewhere along a continuum of physical activity.

For the sake of simplicity Soccer, Basketball, baseball, football, jaiali, tennis, racquet ball, MMA are Sports.

Chess is a game, it is a contest(match between two people) played (started continued and finished) according to it's rules (artificial man made boundaries governing the behavior of the contestants). That involve little to no physical exercise (to employ or put into active use).

Golf is game. While golf does have a physical component, and golf definitely has rules and it is played, it does not have a contest or a match between two entities. Yes golfers compete against each other, but they do not contest each other. all things being equal, if you take two players of different golfing acumen who both have perfect mental acuity, there is nothing one golfer can do to the other within the rules to affect how the other  golfer acts. One golfer and cannot contest or challenge another golfers actions a golfer plays his own game and then his performance is scored according to the rules. The reason one golfer scores better than other is because he plays the game according to the rules better than the others not because he caused the other players to perform in a diminished manner in a physical sense nor did he change the conditions of the field so that it is no longer with in the reach of his competitors acumen.  All the elements of the game and physical exercise must be present to constitute sport.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

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

Great. I say golf has all of those things.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

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.

If "baseball is another sport ," then you're saying golf is a sport. Glad we agree.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

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.

"The Round Mound of Rebound" wasn't fat? He didn't use his big ass to box people out from rebounds? The word "fat" is used in a quote on his Wikipedia page.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

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.

Perhaps not the way you think. I excelled at soccer as a kid. I called it one of the hardest sports there is (I think it's harder at the high school level than the pro level, actually - they walk too much and behave like pussies every time someone touches them.). Our warmups for soccer practice were to run three miles. We had three practices a day. :P

I've played other sports. We went to the national championship tournament as a roller hockey team in college.

It's unlikely you'll get out of breath playing golf. It's not necessarily an aerobic sport, but I still consider it a sport, and the people who play it at the top level are athletes.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

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.

At least you didn't compare Tim Herron to those guys. You know there's only one stratosphere, right? So they can't be in a different stratosphere. :)

Originally Posted by Harmonious

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.

Pretty much the best short response to Kapanda yet. Nicely put.

Originally Posted by abraxas

why do people get so bent out of shape when others say golf isn't a sport?  who cares?

Nobody's getting bent out of shape, on either side. It's a debate. That's what people do on forums.

Originally Posted by colin007

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

therefore, golf is not a sport.

Hockey players skate. :) Skiers ski, skaters skate, and so on down the line. Soccer, baseball, football, and other sports only have a person run maybe 5% of the time, some less.

But at least your definition excludes NASCAR. :D

Originally Posted by MbolicGolf

Golf is game. While golf does have a physical component, and golf definitely has rules and it is played, it does not have a contest or a match between two entities. Yes golfers compete against each other, but they do not contest each other. all things being equal, if you take two players of different golfing acumen who both have perfect mental acuity, there is nothing one golfer can do to the other within the rules to affect how the other  golfer acts. One golfer and cannot contest or challenge another golfers actions a golfer plays his own game and then his performance is scored according to the rules. The reason one golfer scores better than other is because he plays the game according to the rules better than the others not because he caused the other players to perform in a diminished manner in a physical sense nor did he change the conditions of the field so that it is no longer with in the reach of his competitors acumen.  All the elements of the game and physical exercise must be present to constitute sport.

Bold part is wrong.

If that were the case everyone under par would be declared the "winner."

If you're taking this approach, then the 5K or the 400m or the mile aren't sports either, nor are things like the javelin, the high jump, etc. They just record scores and you don't directly compete against the others because you can't "affect" how they act.

Except all of those things can be played at a sort of match play or round robin. In golf you have 153 opponents (or more, or less), not just two.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Whether he does well or doesn't, the fact he's allowed to compete says that how a person gets their body from point A to point B is not an integral component in the activity. It's not as if he's competing in the biathlon but only the shooting portion, then for the skiing portion he gets on a snowmobile.

I agree with that, but I just remember that last time he was in the open everybody had an opinion on that topic.  I believe that Jack Nicklaus and maybe Tom Watson?? both helped lead the backlash that said or implied that "walking IS an integral part of the game."

So I imagine that if he does well enough to be on the leaderboard at the end of the day Thursday or Friday, somebody will re-hash the subject and try to start a controversy.  However, he is currently a college golf coach who just had a great day early this week, so the odds are against it.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by MbolicGolf

Golf is game. While golf does have a physical component, and golf definitely has rules and it is played, it does not have a contest or a match between two entities. Yes golfers compete against each other, but they do not contest each other. all things being equal, if you take two players of different golfing acumen who both have perfect mental acuity, there is nothing one golfer can do to the other within the rules to affect how the other  golfer acts. One golfer and cannot contest or challenge another golfers actions a golfer plays his own game and then his performance is scored according to the rules. The reason one golfer scores better than other is because he plays the game according to the rules better than the others not because he caused the other players to perform in a diminished manner in a physical sense nor did he change the conditions of the field so that it is no longer with in the reach of his competitors acumen.  All the elements of the game and physical exercise must be present to constitute sport.

Track & Field and Swimming would not be considered sports under your definition?

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by iacas

Great. I say golf has all of those things.

If "baseball is another sport," then you're saying golf is a sport. Glad we agree.

"The Round Mound of Rebound" wasn't fat? He didn't use his big ass to box people out from rebounds? The word "fat" is used in a quote on his Wikipedia page.

I disagree that golf has those things.

Yes, I did say golf was a sport.  I said it was "difficult" for me to call it that, but I do think it is a sport.

NO, Chuck was not fat.  He was strong.  He didn't use his big ass, he used his superior strength, jumping ability and quickness.  Every player he was banging around with under the basket had a fatter ass than he did - they were all 6-10 inches taller and outweighed him by 50+ lbs.  He is 6'4" for gosh sakes.  He was a phenomenal athlete.  He could also make plays, shoot, handle the ball and defend any position on the floor.

This is a fat ass?

[MbolicGolf]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Track & Field and Swimming would not be considered sports under your definition?

Well does how fast one runner run during a race or what lane a runner choose during a race affect his competitors? Does drafting not affect the outcome of the race? in early heats runner bird dog races to save themselves for later heats, runners also push themselves to new personal or world records in effort to best their completion.

While there is no drafting in swimming, the fact that there are other people the pool affect how you swing your race. Whom you're swinging against will affect how you swing your race. Again there is a continuum but there are head-to-head contests in swimming and running.  Even if you take a singular activity such as high jump, the point is if someone jumps higher than you do he forces you to contest his or her jump.

If you're on the Tee Box and someone strokes a 350 drive you're not forced to blast a 351 drive in order to remain competitive. What someone else does physically does not compel you to beat him or her in the same manner in golf. Instead of driver wedge you can take 3i 7i.

In the case of running and swimming Vs. golfing there is a forced reaction on a participant that isn't as prevalent or is not there in golf. You can exert some measure of influence on the competitor’s physical performance in the former and not so much on the latter. Again it's a continuum but I think the that golf falls toward the game end of the continuum where as track and field falls toward the sport end because of the difference in physical exertion and the level of influence one has on their competitors.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by MbolicGolf

Well does how fast one runner run during a race or what lane a runner choose during a race affect his competitors? Does drafting not affect the outcome of the race? in early heats runner bird dog races to save themselves for later heats, runners also push themselves to new personal or world records in effort to best their completion.

While there is no drafting in swimming ...

No.  You run as fast as you possibly can (if you want to win) regardless of how fast everybody else runs, unless you are Bolt and already ahead of everyone else.

Drafting?  Never heard of it in running.  Auto racing, certainly, Cycling, perhaps.  But running?  I don't think you could possibly go fast enough and be tucked in behind the guy in front of you (without leaving your lane and tripping on his feet) for that to be possible.  (And, actually, I think there is a little drafting in swimming because the guys will try and hug the lane line next to somebody slightly ahead of them to "ride the wave" they are creating.  How much that helps, I have no idea)

Originally Posted by MbolicGolf

Even if you take a singular activity such as high jump, the point is if someone jumps higher than you do he forces you to contest his or her jump.

And knowing that somebody is -8 in the clubhouse while you are -6 on the 15th hole is different than this how?

Originally Posted by MbolicGolf

If you're on the Tee Box and someone strokes a 350 drive you're not forced to blast a 351 drive in order to remain competitive. What someone else does physically does not compel you to beat him or her in the same manner in golf. Instead of driver wedge you can take 3i 7i.

Same answer as above.  How you get to the final result is no more or less important in golf than it is in the high jump, but it's the final result that matters.  How high you jumped, not your form, is what is measured.  Likewise, how many shots it took you to finish the hole, not which clubs you used, are what's important in golf.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

I disagree that golf has those things.

Yes, I did say golf was a sport.  I said it was "difficult" for me to call it that, but I do think it is a sport.

Well since we haven't defined those things, disagreeing is pretty pointless (as is agreeing).

Originally Posted by MbolicGolf

Well does how fast one runner run during a race or what lane a runner choose during a race affect his competitors? Does drafting not affect the outcome of the race? in early heats runner bird dog races to save themselves for later heats, runners also push themselves to new personal or world records in effort to best their completion.

There are no lanes in marathons or longer races, and some don't have the runners racing at the same time as each other.

There's no drafting either.

Originally Posted by MbolicGolf

While there is no drafting in swimming, the fact that there are other people the pool affect how you swing your race. Whom you're swinging against will affect how you swing your race. Again there is a continuum but there are head-to-head contests in swimming and running.  Even if you take a singular activity such as high jump, the point is if someone jumps higher than you do he forces you to contest his or her jump.

And if someone gets to -8 and you're still back at -6, you've gotta make a few birdies to win. Or three in the last four holes.

The things other golfers do affect how you play to win the tournament. Plus golf can be played at match play.

You just obliterated your own argument.

[MbolicGolf]

Bold part is wrong.

If that were the case everyone under par would be declared the "winner."

If you're taking this approach, then the 5K or the 400m or the mile aren't sports either, nor are things like the javelin, the high jump, etc. They just record scores and you don't directly compete against the others because you can't "affect" how they act.

Except all of those things can be played at a sort of match play or round robin. In golf you have 153 opponents (or more, or less), not just two.

If lynchpin of a sport is physical excercise, then it stands to reason that that the contest be phsyical. Meaning you have to move a mass in a way that supersedes your opponent in spite of your opponents best efforts to stop you. In golf no one is stopping you, or preventing you from doing anything.  a runner can block another runners way he can draft off the runner and force the opponent to run faster than they would like.  The other thing is that there's no simultaneous activity in golf, when you perform the activity you are given a silent environment so you can make your shot. If golf was players scrambling to hit the same ball then I would call it a sport.

The point of distance or timed sports is that everyone is given the same goal 100m, 200m, 5k, and you have to complete that goal faster than your opponent doing substantialy the same thing your opponents are doing. In golf there's no number or shots or time or distance that every golfer has to adhear too. The goal is to put the ball in the hold and you can do that in anyway you see fit with in the rules. In anycase I see your point but I still fall on the game side of the fence becasue there's not enough physical conteste between players to over come the induviduality.

[dsc123]

Sort of like baseball, where one guy hits a double and if the other team doesn't come up and hit a triple, they lose?

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by iacas

Well since we haven't defined those things, disagreeing is pretty pointless (as is agreeing).

They were defined as strength, speed, agility, quickness, etc.   Look back a couple posts...

[MbolicGolf]

Originally Posted by iacas

And if someone gets to -8 and you're still back at -6, you've gotta make a few birdies to win. Or three in the last four holes.

The things other golfers do affect how you play to win the tournament. Plus golf can be played at match play.

You just obliterated your own argument.

I thought about match play but match play is still the same game of golf physically it's just scored differently.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by MbolicGolf

The point of distance or timed sports is that everyone is given the same goal 100m, 200m, 5k, and you have to complete that goal faster than your opponent doing substantialy the same thing your opponents are doing. In golf there's no number or shots or time or distance that every golfer has to adhear too.

Golf is exactly the same here.  The distance or timed sports require you to run a distance, and the golf equivalent is you are required to finish 72 holes.  There is no set score to reach, but there isn't a set time to reach in running and swimming sports either.  You simply have to do it faster (or is less strokes) than everybody else.