Why Golf is the Best of All Games

In a letter written to Owen Fiss by philosopher John Rawls about a conversation he had with Harry Kalven, Rawls highlights six reasons why baseball is the best of all games. Here are the reasons offered and why golf may just be a better game.

First: “The rules of the game are in equilibrium.”

This is a difficult point to dispute in favor of golf because of the increased distance and performance provided by high tech golf equipment. Whereas in baseball, a wooden bat and leather ball are standard year-to-year and decade-to-decade. The advancement of golf equipment is out-pacing many of the courses (for professionals).

Second: “The game does not give unusual preference or advantage to special physical types.”

With the steroid controversy looming over Major League Baseball, there seems to be some concern that “bigger IS better.” Power is becoming a dominating factor in both baseball and golf, however, for golf pure power is less of an advantage than in baseball. Power in golf is only one element of moving the ball from point A to point B. Directional control is equally important, and much harder to master.

Thus, the game of golf gives less of an advantage to special physical types, although it does favor power.

Third: “The game uses all parts of the body.”

I’ve heard people all my life tell me that golf is not a sport. People have their reasons for saying this, including that there isn’t enough movement, no physical contact, and rarely do golfers break a sweat unless the temperature is high.

Golf is the most athletic of games. The ability to strike a golf ball solidly is almost as or as difficult as hitting a baseball thrown by a pitcher at 90 MPH. Only when the golf swing is viewed in slow motion do you realize just how involved every part of the body is. Look at a professional players’ impact position. It’s very athletic looking.

Fourth: “All plays of the game are open to view.”

Baseball is a clear winner in this category. No matter if you are watching golf on TV or live in person, you will not see every shot on the course or even every shot of a single player.

The suspense in golf is built shot by shot over four days until the Sunday roars weigh heavy on the players walking the course. Nothing is in view, and that is part of the excitement.

Fifth: “Baseball is the only game where scoring is not done with the ball, and this has the remarkable effect of concentrating the excitement of plays at different points of the field at the same time.”

Every player’s ball has the potential to change the outcome of the tournament. Unlike basketball or football, the focus isn’t on a single ball. Like baseball, there are multiple points of focus that may or may not be simultaneously altering the outcome of the competition.

Sixth: “There is the factor of time, the use of which is a central part of any game. Baseball shares with tennis the idea that time never runs out, as it does in basketball and football and soccer.”

Like baseball, there is no factor of time in golf. In certain golf formats, E.g., matchplay, time can be a strategic tool. In both baseball and golf the viewer and players know what marks the end, but don’t necessarily know when it will come. The advantage of the lack of time is that more focus is placed on the actual play than on working against time.

Two great games.

Congrats Red Sox

It was nice to see the Red Sox win on Sunday night, although I would have preferred the Rockies to win a couple games. I hate to see anyone get swept in four games as solidly as the Sox took care of the Rockies. There were a couple moments when the games were enticing, but overall the series lacks the drama on which you want a world championship event to end. The resulting chaos of Boston winning in Boston would have been priceless, too. Bitter-sweet. Maybe next year.

Curt Schilling, the Boston Red Sox veteran strike throwing pitching machine, has a blog titled, “38 Pitches,” which I just found today. His comments on the World Series and baseball are worth a look.

Prince Chasing Cecil Fielder

Watching first baseman Cecil Fielder hit home runs in the early 90s is one of my favorite memories as a Detroit Tigers fan. He peaked in 1990 with 51 homers.

Prince, Cecil’s son, now plays for the Milwaukee Brewers and is closing in on his father’s peak year.

Prince Fielder, who passed Willie Mays as the youngest to reach 50 in a season, said he wants to hit 52 home runs this season. That would be one more than his father hit in 1990 for the Detroit Tigers.

Well, good for you Prince, although the article goes on to make Prince look like an asshole and Cecil look like a bigger asshole. Apparently, they’re having some father-son issues and using the national media to work it out.

In other baseball news…

Speaking of home runs, I posted a couple weeks ago about a campaign Marc Ecko was running online to decide what to do with Barry Bonds’ 756 home run baseball. The results are in and the public has voted to iron an asterisk onto the ball and send it to the Hall of Fame. This is rude to Barry Bonds and a sad outcome, however Bonds may have brought it on himself. I think it would be better to wait a few years and gain some perspective on the matter.

I’m A Fan

I moved to New Hampshire about nine months ago and became a default Boston Red Sox fan, which means I’m on their side if I go to a game at Fenway and they’re playing anyone except my home team, the Detroit Tigers. I can see myself being a default Chicago Cubs fan if I were to move to Chicago, which makes me wonder if it isn’t the teams but good ball parks that I like. The Red Sox play in Fenway with the Green Monster and the Cubs play in Wrigley Field with the ivy. Each of these parks are historically significant, and have become as much a part of baseball history as their teams.

I am wondering if people are less inclined to be Red Sox Fans now that they’ve won a World Series title. They used to garner a sympathetic fan base because they just couldn’t close the deal, but now that they’re regularly topping the chart aren’t they on the way to being the Yankees? There are enough similarities to make me question this. I’m a bit sick of seeing people everywhere wearing Red Sox hats just because they’re riding the wave. I’d suggest they stick with their local team and get off the Red Sox bandwagon before the fad fades.

Ballpark Location

Alex Reisner has made the observation that baseball parks are built differently depending on whether they are located in an urban or rural area. Further:

Professional baseball teams must play in places where fans can go to see them. Before the 1950s this meant that they played in cities where the population was dense and public transportation available. In the 1950s, however, as cars became affordable and good roads the rule rather than the exception, the growing class of car owners began to move to the suburbs. It was no longer necessary to locate a ballpark in the city, and it became common practice to build on the outskirts where land was cheaper, parking safer, zoning rules more lax, and events generally less disruptive.

He notes that ballparks built after 1960 when personal transportation was more widely used are more symetrical and larger, while the shape of ballparks built before that time are often irregular and smaller so they fit into a city center. Look at the New York Mets’ Shea Staduim on the left and the Boston Red Sox Fenway Park on the right below.