As of yesterday, 59 year-old Tom Watson was leading the British Open, and Tiger Woods failed to make the cut. I think this safely puts to bed the discussion of whether golfers are athletes, and for that matter, whether Woods deserves "super athlete" status. Similar to how Barry Bonds put it after passing Babe Ruth...y'all can't talk about Tiger Woods anymore.
5 comments:
If it requires physical effort...it can be considered a sport. Chess...Poker...Spelling bee...not sports...Golf however...sport.
Tiger's missed his second cut in a major EVER. One just after his father passed away...and here at Turnbery where he'd never played the course till the week before the event.
I'm up in the air on NASCAR and racing being sports...I tend to lean towards yes...though constantly turning left isn't something I care to do...it does require a lot of physical effort.
When the talk heading into EVERY major is Tiger vs. the field I don't think non-golfing fans appreciate just how great Eldrich is at golf.
I was watching PTI the other day and Ryan and LeBetard were filling in...and both thought Watson winning would be bad for golf. Precisely due to the argument you've raised. 59 year olds shouldn't be able to compete with 20 and 30 year old guys.
I liked their argument...I disagreed with it...but liked it. In response I would simply say golf isn't always about who can crush it the furthest. It's a touch and feel game at times...and you can compete at an older age. What about Jamie Moyer or Rickey Henderson...and why can't I think of the position player who batted cleanup FOREVER...was it Ruben Sierra?
Or Chris Chelios in Hockey. While I know he sucks...even Vinny Testaverde shows up every few years and throws the ball around. You can be old and compete in a sport.
- Joe -
"If it requires physical effort...it can be considered a sport."
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there. That is much too broad of a definition. In this way grocery shopping could be considered a sport. Or sex. Or throwing up for 24 hours from food poisoning.
Golf is not a sport. Neither is NASCAR. They are games. They are events. They are contests of skill. But they are not sports. Sports require a defense.
This doesn't necessarily mean Tiger isn't an athlete. Olympic diving isn't a sport either, but I would never presume that the people who compete in it are not athletes.
I have to respectfully disagree. I think that golf is indeed a sport, and an extremely difficult one at that.
I do enjoy the premise that a defense is required to be considered a sport. I just don't think the defense has to be a peer, per say. In golf's case, for example, I think the defense is the course itself. I also think that golf does incorporate a good deal of traditional athletic values, like swinging, touch, and the physical act of walking the course, which is certainly not Lance Armstrong-esque, but which is also not driving around in a circle either.
More importantly, combined with its athletic elements, I think it's the mental warfare of golf that makes it a sport, and that separates it from other sports. I always enjoyed the anecdote: "What's more difficult: Hitting a 90 mph fastball with 50,000 fans screaming at you, or hitting a ball just sitting there with 10,000 fans in complete silence?" The mental aspect is what Tiger Woods has mastered, and, along with his physical attributes, have made him one of the great athletes of our generation.
I agree with the previous poster's example of Jamie Moyer, Henderson, and I'll even throw in Nolan Ryan. I don't think the fact that a 60-year old man playing well makes golf any less of a sport...I think the nature of golf lends itself to such things happening. Because it's not AS physical as other sports doesn't make it less of a sport. There's also this: Tom Watson didn't win.
So put me down for golf as sport. Maybe because I suck at it so bad I have more respect for it. Whatever the case, great conversational topic!
I was definitely wrong about one thing..."Argument Ender" should have been titled "Argument Beginner!" Thanks everyone for the comments, and that they are so diverse makes the discussion so interesting.
After I posted my original thought, Tom Watson didn't win the tournament. Though apparently he could have, if not for a late missed putt. He still beat Tiger Woods though. :) And I can point out that Woods also sometimes loses to middle-aged guys who smoke, and/or are overweight. I think we could say Woods is an athlete, in the same way we can call a poker player who also happens to run really fast, or a bodybuilding scrabble player (imagine the intimidation there), athletes - not because they have to show it in their primary endeavor of competition, but because they are athletic anyway.
Moyer, Henderson, Ryan, Sierra, and Testaverde are examples of old guys who played past age 40. But they were certainly exceptions to the rule, and only Ryan was dominant for any more than a fleeting moment or two.
I too like the defense premise...but I don't buy it in terms of there needs to be physical players out there as a defense. If that were the case wouldn't chess be a sport...you can take a defensive strategy and move your pieces rather defensively.
I also refuse to give soccer a leg up on golf. One's mental...the other is physical. I'm sure I could've come up with a better definition than what I did...I have in the past...but I'd much rather include too many "sports" vs. exclude some real ones.
Bill...do you really have a problem with LeBetard? The more I watch him the more I think I argue in a style fairly similar to his on a lot of subjects...though not all. I HATE on the show when fill in's just brush off a question because they know nothing about the topic...as though it's beneath them...especially on the big finish.
- Joe -
Post a Comment