Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]
Discussion
Shakermaker said:
Surely its just about improving your technique though to allow you to be better?
Again, that isn't the question. I'm asking why pay money to be a better player if the resulting change in your handicap means that your enjoyment doesn't increase and you have no more chance of winning a competition than before?Here's an example. I play off of a 13 handicap. I could spend £1,000 and get down to 11. Having spent that £1,000 I still need to turn in exactly the same relative performance to win a competition as I would have before. The money has not made me any more competitive.
- If* a golfer derives a big chunk of their enjoyment from getting better than I can see why they'd spend the money, but as I discussed in my original post, there are many factors that contribute to my enjoyment, and how well I play is only one of them. Crucially, that "how I play" measurement is taken in relation to my handicap, and thus the £1,000/two shots improvement is almost irrelevant.
GroundEffect said:
98elise said:
Why do people with prosthetic legs wear shorts in preference to trousers?
I've noticed a few people with prosthetic's in shorts, and I was watching a program on the invictus games and an ex-soldier was now training cadets and he had cut off combats. He wouldn't have a modified his uniform unless there was a practical reason.
If they need to take it off and on without faff of taking off trousers?I've noticed a few people with prosthetic's in shorts, and I was watching a program on the invictus games and an ex-soldier was now training cadets and he had cut off combats. He wouldn't have a modified his uniform unless there was a practical reason.
And maybe the motion doesn't work quite right with material in the way so they can't walk as they had learned?
Ayahuasca said:
On the same theme, why did golf evolve into a multi-billion dollar adult pastime and marbles - which is essentially the same thing - is only played in school yards?
Because you cannot buy thousands of pounds worth of equipment for marbles. Using Carbon Kevlar composite marbles with an unobtanium hollow flanged swirly middle bit does not make them any easier to throw.SCEtoAUX said:
Shakermaker said:
Surely its just about improving your technique though to allow you to be better?
Again, that isn't the question. I'm asking why pay money to be a better player if the resulting change in your handicap means that your enjoyment doesn't increase and you have no more chance of winning a competition than before?Here's an example. I play off of a 13 handicap. I could spend £1,000 and get down to 11. Having spent that £1,000 I still need to turn in exactly the same relative performance to win a competition as I would have before. The money has not made me any more competitive.
- If* a golfer derives a big chunk of their enjoyment from getting better than I can see why they'd spend the money, but as I discussed in my original post, there are many factors that contribute to my enjoyment, and how well I play is only one of them. Crucially, that "how I play" measurement is taken in relation to my handicap, and thus the £1,000/two shots improvement is almost irrelevant.
SCEtoAUX said:
Again, that isn't the question. I'm asking why pay money to be a better player if the resulting change in your handicap means that your enjoyment doesn't increase and you have no more chance of winning a competition than before?
Not sure whether to post this or not your question is so bizarre I feel a whole company of parrots coming my way. Anyway...In sport generally your enjoyment will increase as your ability does. As your ability increases so will your chances of winning a competition. A major target in golf is to play off the lowest handicap possible. This is a primary achievement in its own right.
Secondly in the proper, big money tournaments, handicap makes no difference - the winner is the person who gets round the course in the least amount of shots.
SCEtoAUX said:
SpeckledJim said:
SCEtoAUX said:
Why do people pay for golf lessons, when there's a perfectly good handicap system in place meaning that you can be competitive, regardless of your ability?
I know there's an "It's more fun the better you get" argument, but I don't buy it. Like many golfers I enjoy the game most in nice weather, when you don't have to wait on every hole and when you're playing with a good bunch of people.
I play off of 13, could probably get down to 10 or 11 if I threw a few hundred quid at lessons, but my enjoyment would still be based on the above factors and not on the fact I'd got a bit better.
Pseud's Corner Answer:I know there's an "It's more fun the better you get" argument, but I don't buy it. Like many golfers I enjoy the game most in nice weather, when you don't have to wait on every hole and when you're playing with a good bunch of people.
I play off of 13, could probably get down to 10 or 11 if I threw a few hundred quid at lessons, but my enjoyment would still be based on the above factors and not on the fact I'd got a bit better.
Golf in the pure, zen sense is not played against other people. It's played against yourself.
Practical answer:
Your handicap doesn't make you competitive. It just tells people the precise degree to which you are uncompetitive.
Playing golf well is simply more fun than playing badly. Drilling one down the middle is more fun that ballooning one into the cabbage. Sinking a putt is more fun than missing it. Landing a ball softly next to the flag is more fun than scuffing it into a lake.
Not to mention that winning is more fun than losing.
Whilst a handicap allows two golfers of differing standard to enjoy a match together, the actual nett result is pretty immaterial. Whoever took the fewest shots is actually the winner, and everyone quietly knows it.That's a golfer off 25 who beats a golfer off 5 'on the day' doesn't do any boasting about it. It's not a 'real' win.
It goes without saying that any proper golf tournament doesn't entertain handicaps. Best Gross IS golf. Either in strokeplay or matchplay formats. Everything else is a bit of a fudge.
You could make the case that Jordan Speith plays well, and by comparison even the best player at most clubs plays badly relative to him. My question assumed that *most* golfers can hit a ball fairly well, they'll find most fairways, sink a few putts, and stick one to within six inches on a few occasions each year. That golfer will occasionally have a good round by their own standards, and have plenty of bad ones too. This is related to your "Zen" answer.
Thus, the golfer I refer to above will have most fun when he plays better than he usually does, and not so much fun when he doesn't. He's never going to be Jordan Speith though. What he can do is spend money on lessons and get a bit better, but then all he'll be doing is raising the "Zen" standard that he has and still need to perform relatively better or worse to have more/less fun.
I don't agree with your "real winner" suggestion though. My club, and many others, it littered with trophies containing the names of people who have had the best nett score in a competition. Try telling a bloke who plays off of 18 that on the day he shot a 78 and won a trophy he wasn't the real winner.
Still an interesting question I think and it's partly prompted by the fact that there's a whole industry, full of golf professionals, who want to sell you things. The cynic in me does not want to buy those things (gear or lessons) because I genuinely don't equate getting better with more enjoyment. My enjoyment comes from playing better than I would expect to on any given occasion.
Football, tennis, and all the other proper sports don't have handicaps. Neither does golf when it is played properly.
Improving at golf WILL increase your enjoyment. Have you ever been at the range with an absolute beginner when they middle a 7-iron for the first time? When they turn to look at you with a 'wow' expression, because they didn't feel like they did anything different, but the ball went 50% further and felt amaaaaaazing? That moment is their first step on understanding the appeal of golf, and it grows with improvement.
If you're off 13 then you're playing pretty good golf and you middle the ball quite a lot, but by no means all the time. So you're familiar with both the great sensation of middling it, and also the horrible sensation of a duff, blade, or heavy contact. Would you be happier with middling it 49 times out of 50, like a great golfer does, or 30 times out of 50, like you do now?
I'm a lousy pianist. If I'm very lucky I can walk up and deliver Chopsticks with a couple of stumbles. On a rare occasion I might produce Chopsticks without noticeable (to me) error, and that'll bring me some small satisfaction. The same achievement simply wouldn't register with a good pianist, as they are performing at a much higher level, and deriving a much greater amount of enjoyment from it.
Golf is the same.
And in a similar sense, if I manage a perfect chopsticks, and my 'piano opponent' delivers the complete Beethoven's 5th with a tiny stumble, that doesn't mean I've beaten him in a piano competition. He's both better than me, and he's having more fun.
For golf read any hobby.
Some people like to paint pictures. Most of us can knock up a picture of (for example) a lighthouse and people would be able to tell that the big red and white hooped tower on top of a cliff is a lighthouse. Taking lessons to refine one's technique would probably lead to creating better pictures. If you just paint for the fun of painting it doesn't matter what the end product looks like.
Same with playing a musical instrument. It's fairly easy to pick up an instrument, learn to read basic music and knock out an approximation of a tune within a few hours' practice. Practise more and you'll get better but lessons will make a huge difference.
Some people like to paint pictures. Most of us can knock up a picture of (for example) a lighthouse and people would be able to tell that the big red and white hooped tower on top of a cliff is a lighthouse. Taking lessons to refine one's technique would probably lead to creating better pictures. If you just paint for the fun of painting it doesn't matter what the end product looks like.
Same with playing a musical instrument. It's fairly easy to pick up an instrument, learn to read basic music and knock out an approximation of a tune within a few hours' practice. Practise more and you'll get better but lessons will make a huge difference.
DRFC1879 said:
If you just paint for the fun of painting it doesn't matter what the end product looks like.
Not sure I agree with that. 95% of painters are just doing it for fun, but all of them will care what the end product looks like. The difference between painting and golf is that golf is very easily measured and quantified.
SpeckledJim said:
And in a similar sense, if I manage a perfect chopsticks, and my 'piano opponent' delivers the complete Beethoven's 5th with a tiny stumble, that doesn't mean I've beaten him in a piano competition. He's both better than me, and he's having more fun.
Being better at something doesn't necessarily mean it's more fun though, especially when you get so good at it that it becomes your job rather than your hobby.Mind you in the case of golf I can definitely see the point of having lessons. Last time I tried I got a bit bored of hunting around in the woods for my ball after every stroke
RizzoTheRat said:
Being better at something doesn't necessarily mean it's more fun though,
Usually it does, and certainly in amateur golf. Striding up the middle 18 times and signing for a smug 72 is certainly more fun than spending 5 wet-footed hours in the cabbage to be rewarded with a 108.RizzoTheRat said:
especially when you get so good at it that it becomes your job rather than your hobby.
Granted. Different kettle of fish.glazbagun said:
You also get push button kettles which drip really hot water directly into your cup. They ever seem to be quite as good as just boiling a kettlefull yourself though.
My Mum has one of the boiling taps, it is a bit annoying to use as you have to run it through before it boils, but it is pretty quick and you end up using boiling water to clean anything you can. I had one of the push button kettles too, which was good, it slowly pushed boiling water out to a pre determined cup or mug measure. Great for one or two mugs, but a pain to fill up a saucepan or anything tall like a French press.popeyewhite said:
SpeckledJim said:
The difference between painting and golf is that golf is very easily measured and quantified.
One is a sport involving physical skills. Sport doesn't have to be measurable, it's the skill that is enjoyable.But the measurement is important to something qualifying as a proper sport. Without the measurement aspect, there's no competition.
There's both skill and competition to enjoy in a sport.
If you said you went painting with your mate, nobody would ask "who won?".
SpeckledJim said:
Yes, the skill is enjoyable in both activities.
But the measurement is important to something qualifying as a proper sport.
Hmmm. Define "proper sport". Surely jogging is a proper sport. What about going out for a bike ride? How about a kickabout with your mates in the park?But the measurement is important to something qualifying as a proper sport.
What about aesthetic sports? Ballroom dancing for instance/gymnastics etc? Sure there are skills that have to be included, but measurement is based on judges' opinion, not any objective scoring system.
SpeckledJim said:
Without the measurement aspect, there's no competition.
I've made no comment about competition, but if I were to I'd note that simply one person arriving somewhere before another could be described as competitive. And of course you don't need a winner for sport to be competitive.Just some musings... .
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff