Hacker News Reader

Comment by nine_k | Hacker News Reader

Golf as a sport is competitive, very much like boxing or chess. It's human vs human; a machine doing a hole in one would ruin golf no more than the invention of a wrecking ball machine ruined boxing.

Mathematics is a fundamentally cooperative match vs reality. Many mathematicians, AFAICT, saw their key skill in manipulating a wide range of highly abstract notions. Now machines just got too good at this skill, and they can work 24/7. This may feel terrifying for some. Others would bet that machines coöperating with humans will be more successful than pure machines, so they feel empowered. What's beyond doubt is that the entire field is being shaken.

View on HN

They are not very much alike at all. This is a very poor analogy.

In boxing, chess and many other competitive sports, the actions of one player directly influence and have an effect on the other player. Golf is merely a parallel challenge, where both are playing against each other but not influencing each other directly (sure maybe there are some psychological effects that can occur between the players, but no strategical impact by the actions of one player on the other).

> (sure maybe there are some psychological effects that can occur between the players, but no strategical impact by the actions of one player on the other).

You'll see a golfer perform at least a few strokes different depending on their partner, and at a pro level that's the difference between "in the money earning an extravagant living" and "washed out on day one, thinking about taking a different job"

For me, competitiveness is largely about how directly players can influence and outwit each other. In tennis, psychological pressure is just one element alongside direct tactical interaction. In a parallel sport like golf, that interaction is much more limited, which makes it feel less competitive to me. I can see the counterargument, though: because golf has fewer direct competitive elements, the psychological battle may become more significant in its own right, but I personally don't value that so highly; its something that must automatically be done anyways in sports where you are directly influencing each other alongside all the extra baggage of strategy they bring!

>no strategical impact by the actions of one player on the other

The players know if they're ahead or behind, which affects how much risk to take. Do you take the safe shot, or go for the tricky shot that could potentially save you a stroke if you get it right but could lose you more if you fail?

That's 100% true for match play. But for stroke play, interestingly, there are many tour pros that won't even look at the leaderboard on the coarse because they want to stay focused on "playing the course" and "within themselves."

No one at the business end of the leaderboard on Sunday is unaware of their position. It's very much a psychological game no matter how much you try and ignore the field.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com