Biggest gap between professional & enthusiast?

[gmh23]

superkartracer said:

Is golf even a sport?

yes

[superkartracer]

gmh23 said:

superkartracer said:

Is golf even a sport?

yes

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

Number 51 on this list, number 52 is cheerleading

[spikeyhead]

gmh23 said:

superkartracer said:

Is golf even a sport?

yes

Given that it is possible to smoke whilst playing, I'd class it as a game. As I play (badly) off 28, it's a difficult, frustrating game, but a game nontheless.

[pimpin gimp]

I'd agree with that, I've been playing for about 7 years now and I've not once considered myself to be playing a sport.

[gmh23]

spikeyhead said:

gmh23 said:

superkartracer said:

Is golf even a sport?

yes

Given that it is possible to smoke whilst playing, I'd class it as a game. As I play (badly) off 28, it's a difficult, frustrating game, but a game nontheless.

You could smoke playing a lot of sports, might not benefit you, but could be done. I'd say if its done in a competitive situation then its a sport.

Golf still requires physical exertion.

I don't play golf anymore, and can see why people don't class it as a sport, but it is.

[Haggleburyfinius]

Celt said:

deadmau5 said:

MMA? Don't think many amateurs would last long against the likes of Fedor, Silva or St. Pierre!

I was thinking some sort of fighting based sport. If an amateur drops their guard for a split second you have a fist full of glove. Professionals are just far to quick to react.

Actually, I think MMA is one of the ring sports where there is an opportunity for a lower class opponent to land a lucky blow. Those piddly gloves provide the opportunity.

Other ringsports provide more challenge to the underdog. Boxing/Kickboxing/Muay Thai/BJJ/Taekwondo etc.

[superkartracer]

gmh23 said:

Golf still requires physical exertion

Walking ? and swinging a stick.... i agree it's a game not sport, athletes they are not.

[Haggleburyfinius]

Happy82 said:

Vocal Minority said:

Suprised no one has mentioned rugby.

I play for Worcester (at a deeply lowly 4th team level) and our 1st team (v good amateurs who take it very seriously indeed) played a Worcester Warriors legends team (men of 40+ years not even close to their prime) and they basically waltzed through our 1st team at will.

Add in the unvelievable strength and physicality at the highest level of the game....there would be many hospital trips.

I played pro rugby and I do agree there's quite a gap, however I think that a lot of the difference between amateur and pro is purely fitness and strength.

I'd have to agree with this.

My generation is one that was just before Pro rugby became a worthwhile career to myself and my peers. I am 30 and at the beginning, when I was 16-18 years old there was still much more money to be made as a professional or in business. We really did not think that playing rugby was a sensible career move.

I played regional level schoolboy rugby and what is surprising is that there are quite a few guys who couldn't get anywhere near our representative teams at 16-18 are now playing Prem rugby. One is even on this year's shortlist for player of the year! He was third choice in his position just within our age group in our chunk of the country...not a particularly talented guy! The most naturally talented guys from my era work in the city and as lawyers etc.

There are a few things that go against the man on the street becoming a pro rugby player. Firstly, it is an incredibly cliquey sport; who you know is as important as how good you are. Secondly, the nuances of the game take a long time to pick up...as a result, unless you start very young and have the coaching and facilities at hand, you've no chance.

My little brother is also a good player (again, regional rep at 18) and from watching his games (he's 10 years younger than me) it seems that there is still an obsession in UK rugby with how much you can lift in the gym. I appreciate it is important but it seems that talented players are overlooked for gym rat battering rams from the lowest levels of the representative game, therefore bypassing guys who may actually have what it takes at elite level.

Therefore, I am not sure that in this country the gap between pro and enthusiast is as huge as in some other sports.

[wormburner]

superkartracer said:

gmh23 said:

Golf still requires physical exertion

Walking ? and swinging a stick.... i agree it's a game not sport, athletes they are not.

Picture your best 'athlete', whoever he is. Well, he can't hit a golf ball as far as fat, middle-aged Phil Mickelson can. How do you explain that?

He won't be able to beat Moses Kiptanui over 3000m steeplechase either. Nor will he beat Zhang Yong at weightlifting. Nor would he stand a chance of becoming a yokozuma. How do you explain that?

Perhaps your definition of athlete is rather narrow.

[gmh23]

superkartracer said:

gmh23 said:

Golf still requires physical exertion

Walking ? and swinging a stick.... i agree it's a game not sport, athletes they are not.

The "swinging the stick" is explosive strength, walking isn't part of the sport. Golf also requires a lot of skill, another characteristic of a sport.

You're definition of an athlete is obviously very narrow-minded, as it requires a lot of physical exertion over a period of time. By you're definition, sports like diving and sumo-wrestling aren't sports either, as they only use physical exertion for a very short period of time.

[simoid]

Funny this has came up, I was actually blethering to a mate about this at the weekend... on the golf course!

I found snooker and golf pros the most impressive - from a technical level.

Physically I'm in awe of the top marathon runners (13mph for 2 hours wtf?!), rowers, Tour de France style road cyclists.



I'm not so sure about the popular team sports - the likes of football and rugby in this country. I don't feel the same sense of awe when I watch these ones, especially football. I'd fancy myself to do a decent job in an SPL team at centre mid if I trained with them for a week or so.

I don't think I'd be disgraced if I woke up tomorrow and was told I was playing for Rangers on Sunday, but I probably would if I had to play at the Crucible or wherever the golfers are this week.

[Tiggsy]

gmh23 said:

The "swinging the stick" is explosive strength, walking isn't part of the sport. Golf also requires a lot of skill, another characteristic of a sport.

You're definition of an athlete is obviously very narrow-minded, as it requires a lot of physical exertion over a period of time. By you're definition, sports like diving and sumo-wrestling aren't sports either, as they only use physical exertion for a very short period of time.

Not to mention a huge number of track and field events

[oyster]

pilchardthecat said:

samwilliams said:

pilchardthecat said:

Golf isn't really a sport, (it's in with darts, lawn bowls and snooker as a skilled competitive game) so it doesn't belong in this discussion

Does motorracing go in the same category too?

I don't know enough about the degree of athletisism required in top-level competetive motor sport, so i'm not qualified to answer that

What has althleticism got to do with it?

Surely sport is anything that requires:
1. Physical prowess.
2. Skill.
3. Competition.
4. Mental strength.

Of course in different sports those 4 are differently balanced. A marathon runner plainly needs physical prowess more than skill. And a snooker player needs skill more than physical prowess.

But to say a particular sport isn't a sport just because the participant doesn't have to run around in a sweaty mess doesn't mean it isn't a sport.

Edited by oyster on Monday 30th April 11:52

[samwilliams]

oyster said:

Surely sport is anything that requires:
1. Physical prowess.
2. Skill.
3. Competition.
4. Mental strength.

Someone suggested a definition earlier that I think was quite good; that a sport was a competitive event where you couldn't achieve the same result by giving instructions to someone else. So a pure mental challenge, such as chess or bridge for example, would not be a sport, but golf, motorsport, running etc. would all fall within the category.

[simoid]

One exception being computer games

[Du1point8]

Can I say field hockey?

Think about that girly sport that some people did at school then shift it up to 100mph and you get something close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heAG3gkcEDA&fea...

at professional level you can barely see the ball it moves that fast and defenders must have NFD stamped on their health insurance to be stood there.

[Amateurish]

samwilliams said:

Someone suggested a definition earlier that I think was quite good; that a sport was a competitive event where you couldn't achieve the same result by giving instructions to someone else. So a pure mental challenge, such as chess or bridge for example, would not be a sport, but golf, motorsport, running etc. would all fall within the category.

What about tiddlywinks? It requires some skill, but surely not a sport?

[pilchardthecat]

wormburner said:

superkartracer said:

gmh23 said:

Golf still requires physical exertion

Walking ? and swinging a stick.... i agree it's a game not sport, athletes they are not.

Picture your best 'athlete', whoever he is. Well, he can't hit a golf ball as far as fat, middle-aged Phil Mickelson can. How do you explain that?

He won't be able to beat Moses Kiptanui over 3000m steeplechase either. Nor will he beat Zhang Yong at weightlifting. Nor would he stand a chance of becoming a yokozuma. How do you explain that?

Perhaps your definition of athlete is rather narrow.

So darts is a sport then? and the fat beer drinking darts player on page 1 is a sportsman?

Golf is a skilled game. Middle-aged Phil Mickelson can hit golf balls further because he has good technique.

The fact that it is a skilled game and not a sport should in no way detract from the admiration you may have for people who are very good at golf, but the fact that something requires technique, does not make it a sport.

[samwilliams]

Amateurish said:

What about tiddlywinks? It requires some skill, but surely not a sport?

As much as it's not something I'd spend time doing, I think it is as much a sport as many others that need fine motor control and tactics. I can't see any reason why it should be considered less of a sport than, say, shooting (which is featured at the Olympics).

[simoid]

samwilliams said:

As much as it's not something I'd spend time doing, I think it is as much a sport as many others that need fine motor control and tactics. I can't see any reason why it should be considered less of a sport than, say, shooting (which is featured at the Olympics).

Or shooting someone on Call of Duty? Exactly the same principle. Don't tell me PS3/Xbox is a sport

pilchardtheCat said:

Golf is a skilled game. Middle-aged Phil Mickelson can hit golf balls further because he has good technique.

The fact that it is a skilled game and not a sport should in no way detract from the admiration you may have for people who are very good at golf, but the fact that something requires technique, does not make it a sport.

I diagree, technique is only part of the reason golfers hit the ball 300+ yards.

Phil Mickelson, Tiger Woods, Alvaro Quiros gain an advantage because of technique, but also balance, flexibility and muscle power. This is why golf is a sport.

Why do you think golfers go to the gym? Hint: it's not to improve their technique or for their ego.



My personal (dodgy) sport definition is: "If you get physically tired before you get bored, it's a sport. Otherwise, it's a game."