Talk:Golf/Archive 2

Sport or game?

Golf is absolutely not a sport and the wikipedia entry inaccurate links this page with sports. Golf is barely a physical activity. You don't even need to walk between holes; the Supreme Court in PGA Tour vs. Martin (2001) ruled that whether or not a golfer walks between holes does not "fundamentally alter the nature" of the game. While golf requires skill, so does darts. Beither are sports.

Please follow this link for a "rigorous" definition of a sport: http://www.stanford.edu/~sehealey/sport.html

Please note that golf is NOT a sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zskys (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If javelin, shotput, and discus are considered sports then Golf is surely a sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.80.198 (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Zoomzoom, but that addition does not seem to make sense. If you define that "sport is defined as a cardiovascular activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs" then golf is a sport and it makes no sense to dispute that as you do. There are certainly many more definitions of "sport" that may or may not include golf. And on the whole, it does not seem to matter much, but traditionally, golf seems to be considered a game more often than not. I don't really care what it is called, but please let's keep the article consistent. Cheers, Kosebamse 13:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that golf is a sport. Facts&moreFacts 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf is most certainly a sport since it required a skilled physcial movement to play (i.e. a golf swing).

The definition of a sport is not that it takes physical skill to play. The definition of a sport is that you have a direct opponent right there trying to stop you. In golf, is there any direct opposition trying to block the ball or something. No, there isn't, therefore golf is a game, not a sport. This isn't a bad thing, even though most people take it like that.

I think that your definition of what a sport is is arguable, at best. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of variations of the definition of a sport and/or game, and how it applies to golf. Anyway, the general consensus on this article, over the period of time I've been involved in maintaining it, is that golf is a sport. Unless there is a significant majority of people who wish to change Golf to a game, let's leave it that way for now. Regards, Rahzel 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sport doesn't have to be a game with a direct opponent. If that was the case, then a lot of sports, including winter and summer olympic sports really wouldn't be sports. This includes skiing, golf, gymnastics, track, cross country, swimming, snowboarding, and archery

Golf's not a sport. A sport should require strenuous physical activity. Mack 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where does it say that? Is it in a dictionary or something? Baseball really doesn't require much strenuous physical activity.

Try this: A game is an activity involving compliance with a set of rules for the purpose of achieving or completing an objective, which may mean "winning" the game or may mean mere completion or fulfillment. Cf crossword puzzles, which are completed but do not involve a win. Sport is a subset of game, and the distinguishing characteristics of sport are that the activity involves competition against an opponent or opponents in any single occurrence of the activity, and that the result is determined by a quantitive measurement (ie, points, time, distance, etc) that is influenced by the physical achievements of the participants. That is, the participants must use a physical action to achieve their score (regardless of how strenuous the physical activity might be). The fact that one can practice a sport does not invalidate its status as a sport on the grounds of the lack of opposition; a competition of multiple participants is still the normal and primary version.

Under these definitions, it is easy to see that Chess and Poker are not sports (they can be executed without any physical exertion), but Golf along with Bowling and Darts (to name but two disputed pursuits) is most certainly a sport. Darcyj (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...participants must use a physical action to achieve their score (regardless of how strenuous the physical activity might be)... Under these definitions, it is easy to see that Chess and Poker are not sports (they can be executed without any physical exertion)" Don't you have to move the Chess pieces and Poker cards with your hands? These movements consist of physical action, right? But then I suppose if you were a quadriplegic, you could potentially devise an acceptable way to play these two games in a professional setting, as opposed to bowling or darts. Or golf. I guess I agree with Darcy. Cheers! Papayafrenzy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first definition of sport at dictionary.com [1] is as follows:

an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.

When played at a professional level (PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, etc.) or organized amateur level (NCAA, USGA Amateur), golf is clearly competitive and played with great skill and physical prowess. Armchair quarterbacks may debate the athletic nature of the game. What non-golfers do not realize is that the full golf swing creates enormous stresses on golfers' bodies. These are similar to the stresses experienced by a baseball pitcher or batter, and baseball is classified as a sport by most people. The stresses are short in duration, but high in intensity. A significant number of golfers experience golf related injuries each year. For example, see [2]. This qualifies golf as an athletic activity.

Regarding chess and poker, nothing in the rules for those games requires the player to move the pieces, cards, or chips. When Deep Blue played Gary Kasparov, Deep Blue did not move the pieces. It simply displayed its moves on a screen, and one of Deep Blue's creators moved the chess pieces on the board. Kasparov was not playing the guy moving the pieces; he was playing against a machine. The rules of golf require the golf player to hit the ball. Tiger Woods cannot play golf at this writing due to knee surgery, and he can't win tournaments while recovering by directing somebody else to hit shots for him.

Some people dismiss golf as not being a sport because many people play golf with some objective other than competition. For example, my brother-in-law plays golf with physicians, not with the objective of beating them, but to help him make a sale of pharmaceuticals. In these cases, I would not call golf a sport. Likewise, swimming is sport when people swim in a race; swimming is not sport when one does it to save his or her own life. Tessar 02:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that golf is a sport. It is a game. In a sport, one actually has more activity and in gold, walking a short distance to the next hole is not really an intense activity. It is like saying that Tiger Woods is an athlete. Whether you play soccer, hockey, tennis or any other 'sports' as a pro or just as an amateur with your friends for fun, your body still still gets more strenuous activity, while in golf...well, you just don't. Might as well call "channel flipping with a remote" a sport. Norum (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I am not too bothered about this issue - It is rather a hair splitting exercise, and the two terms, Sport and Game are not mutually exclusive. However, many may be suprised to learn that Sports Illustrated (which my American friends inform me is the most popular general sports magazine in their country), declared that a Golfer, Jack Nicklaus, was "Best Individual Male Athlete of the 20th Century" and that the Association of Sports Writers named him "1970s Athlete of the Decade" [ http://www.nicklaus.com/nicklaus_facts/ ]- But then, what do they know?. WhaleyTim (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article?

I'd say this could be a featured article. What do you people think?

Gentleman Only Ladies Forbidden

The sentence: It has been hypothesised that golf actually stands for Gentleman Only Ladies Forbidden, but may only be local conjecture, seems to be so clearly an urban myth that it can't be true. Considering that golf was invented over 500 years ago, when it wouldn't have been considered remotely likely that woman would play any sport, naming it for such a reason makes. Either way, this conjecture doesn't belong in the section it is in. EAi 00:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad to include the folk etymology, along with true etymology. User:Yau

I reposted a section on this "folk" entemology and it was reverted. I posted it in the history section, clearly indicating that it was a colloquial (though not sure if that word describes it best) description. Considering that the rest of the History section is educated guesswork at best on the origins and history (much disagreement is obvious) I don't see the harm in entertaining this idea too. Or is there somewhere such a description would be a better fit? Is denying its entry akin to saying, "we can't have a listing for the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot cause we think it's folklore" ?

I was the one who reverted the edit (as well as several Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden edits in the past). I have no particular objection to referring to this as a colloquial--my objection is the lack of a cited source with this statement. None of these edits have had any sort of source supporting this statement, and until someone can provide a source, I will most likely continue to revert those edits, as otherwise it just seems like an excuse for people to put blatantly sexist statements in the article.

Also, so as not to be a hypocrite, I will go through the history section and see if I can either find sources for the questionable statements, or add "Source Needed" tags for the information that seems correct but I can't find a source for. I hope that makes sense and is acceptable to all. --Rahzel 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] or [4] or [5] or [6] for why not. Why continue to popularise this internet myth? It's not "folk" etymology and it's not colloquial either; it's just plain wrong, and to be included will need to point out that this is the case; otherwise violates WP:V. Please sign your comments with 4 tildes. Alex 19:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy the argument about lacking citiation (though I challenge you to find a citation for ANY "folk" understanding or "wivestale"), and clearly it is not the source of the word as this explaination is abundantly rejected throughout scholarly work: that wasn't the point of posting it. However, I'm not so sure this means it has no place here. Clearly, the fact that it is discussed and disputed so regularly, the statement has some type of value, regardless of its accuracy or inaccuracy. Can this not be added in some way with clear indication that it is not factual? I don't think this is a case of trying to add "blatantly sexist statements", but rather an attempt to recognize a common explaination. I understand that Wikipedia is focused on factual info, no problem, the EXISTENCE of this false (yet common) statement and recognizing it as such does not violate this policy does it? Maybe it was the WAY I chose to explain it that was misleading.

Lies like that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. It's not true, you can even check snopes.com

Golf in Scots

Do we really need a mentioning of what golf is called in Scots at the beginning of this article? I don't think we need it any more than we need to mention what it's called in Spanish, French, German, Dutch etc. Facts&moreFacts 22:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Oh, I guess it makes sense to include it, considering the fact that golf originated in Scotland. Facts&moreFacts 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf on the Moon

Should the golf that happened on the moon by the people that landed on the moon be mentioned in this article? Facts&moreFacts 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely convinced Al's hitting one Titleist on Luna qualifies as "golf", but maybe mention it.

He hit two balls. ref Darcyj (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, has anybody heard about the company that wants to build a golf club on Luna? Trekphiler 03:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there's a huge question mark around this Moon travel as a lot of evidences tend to prove it was a worldwide hoax to intimidate the Russians and that actually, no one ever went up there.

The evidence supporting the occurrence of the Moon landings is much more abundant. Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations Darcyj (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a problem -

- too many people editing it who don't exactly know much about golf. For example, a statement like Unlike a water hazard, a sand trap offers no option for removing one's ball other than by playing it out (except in a very few extraordinary circumstances) is just patently false, as Rule 28 of the rules of golf clearly states the opposite. Once in a while I try to clean up here, but help from experts would be appreciated. Thanks. Kosebamse 07:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---I'm new to this site, but used to work at the USGA and wanted to offer something on the above comment: You are correct that Rule 28 permits the player to declare his ball unplayable anywhere on the course excpet in a water hazard and option (a) of that Rule permits the player to play a ball at the spot from where the original ball was last played (aka "stroke and distance"). Therefore, the player would be "removing" the ball from the bunker (note that another ball may be substituted when proceeding under Rule 28), under penalty of one stroke (Rule 28) under this option in any case except that in which the last stroke was played from within the bunker (in which case the spot from which the original ball was last played would be in the bunker). This position is supported from another angle under Decision 27/17.

Also, note that there is no equivalent to Rule 26-2 for a ball in a bunker (a so-called "regression" Rule).

More Scoring

There are more names for the scoring in golf: http://www.anyonefortee.com/Scoring/Birds.html Would It be appropriate to include them here?

None of these are in common use and the vast majority of golfers has not even heard of them. Because Wikipedia is not the place to popularise little-known things, these should be not included. Kosebamse 05:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parochial POV

This section on college golf is (1) empty and (2) more seriously "college golf" doesn't make a great deal of sense outside of America (and probably no sense to the vast majority of the world's golfers) and appears particularly parochial. I'd vote for deleting this section. Alex 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is very US-college-centric and far too specialist for an article of this scope. Move to College golf in the US or something similar. 80.122.67.118 09:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to College Golf in the US Alex 12:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instructional text

re this edit of mine. I have removed the instructional text on grounds that the article is already very long, and that these passages were written in a non-encyclopedic style. I do believe that such information belongs into Wikipedia, but it should be rewritten to be descriptive instead of instructive, and should go to a separate article about golf shots. Kosebamse 08:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules nomenclature

Can someone explain, either in the article or here, the meaning (in vernacular English) of the term "through the green" as used throughout the USGA rules? --Buckboard 09:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Any part of the course that is

Not the tee of the hole being played
Not the green of the hole being played
Not a hazard (bunker, water hazard etc)

WhaleyTim (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Course

The page for the Old Course at St. Andrews clames that it is older than The Old Links at Musselburgh. Which course is older? —David618 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrews Old is the oldest golf course to have been layed out as a specific course I believe. No one knows where golf was originally played and some believe it was played at musselburgh before st. andrews, but there was no formal course to speak of.

I actually heard that Muirfield is the oldest course... any comment on that?

Muirfield is a comparitivly modern course founded in the late 19C

Boumphreyfr 17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turf management

I have started a small page on Turf management. This includes a section on the maintenance of Golf courses and would appreciate any feed back or help. IndianSunset 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you! Mindman1 00:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're about 14 months late. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types of poor shots - edits/deletes

Chilly Dip : shouldn't it be "Chili" as in soup as in ladle?

Fried Egg: This is not a shot at all, but a lie (possibly the result of a poor shot, but not always) in the bunker.

Foot Wedge: Again, not a shot since it doesn't involve the club at all and is simply a euphemism for cheating. "Only use this shot when playing a friendly round of golf." Or better yet, don't use it at all. It's not a shot, it's cheating and it's doubtful that your playing companions would approve even during a friendly round especially with a wager placed on the outcome. The rules define the game of golf and intentionally breaking them whether it's witnessed or not is poor form and defeats the entire purpose of the game.

The term 'Leather Wedge' is in more common use than 'Foot Wedge' and it is a shot because a deliberate attempt to move the ball, to gain distance, or a better lie is made by striking the ball. It is of course cheating, just like hitting the ball with an illegal club is both a shot and cheating.

Putting redirect

I think putting should not redirect to Golf. It deserves its own article talking about types of putters, its correlation to a golfer's success, proper form etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lask3r (talk • contribs) .

I agree, especially since it is not just a component of golf but of mini-golf also. -- Renesis13 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. There are many different ways this article could go, particularly given the recent developments in putting technique (claw grip) and equipment (belly putter).MichaelProcton 03:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set of clubs can not be "easily" shared

my friends and i have regularly played 2 or three players to one set of clubs. This requires a little work: you could do with a putter each but otherwise sharing isnt a problem as you all tee off seperatley, and if you end up at different ends of a par 5 to each other you grab a roughly sutiable club, or three, or the closest if someone else has the exact one you want. or you wait. I expect playing this way is far too much fun than you're normally allowed to have on a golf course though :-)

anyway, my point being that "easily" is probably not the correct wording, though i understand it's probably not allowed at some courses, but the level of enforcement may vary considerably.

cycloid 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with sharing is not the logistics of it, but the fact that most courses forbid it and wont allow you to tee off on the 1st if you dont each have your own set of clubs.

Redirection items at top of page

I think that two of the redirects given at the top of the page: "Putting can also refer to shot put. "This article includes information on golf swings. For other meanings, see Swing. "

Are a little bit jarring to the reader and slightly off topic. While I can certainly understand the relevance of these redirects, I'm curious as to how many people search for "putting" meaning shot put, and Swing doesn't even redirect to the golf page. I think that we may want to consider removing these two redirects, as their functionality may not be worth the space they take up at the top of the article. Thoughts? --Rahzel 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]