I wonder whether this denotes someone who is genuinely bad at golf,
or someone who is actually really excellent at it, but sees himself
as bad because he's painfully aware of the (very small percentage of)
golfers who are even better than him. I was uncharitably assuming
the first interpretation but, when I reflect on my experience of
competition, the second interpretation actually seems more likely. >Furthermore, these two seemingly very different definitions may
be actually be equivalent, or only differences in viewpoint.
My reasoning is as follows: Assume X is a competitive activity --
golf/ chess/ backgammon/ darts/ tennis etc. etc. The fact that
someone has thought enough about X to label himself "bad" means that
he is likely to have an interest or experience in X that is far
greater than the average population as a whole -- at the very least,
he probably means he has played X. (I'm using "he" here because it's
the badgolfer_man tag that stimulated the conversation). So "bad"
probably doesn't mean relative to the whole population. And it's
perhaps most likely to mean "bad relative to how good he wants to be"
and that description applies to every competitor in X who is not
ranked the World No. 1. These considerations only apply to
competitive activities. If Y is an activity that most people need to
do like cooking/ communicating/ driving, then "bad" may really mean
"bad" in every sense. No reason to assume that a self-described "bad
driver" is actually a good driver.
Paul
peps...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder whether this denotes someone who is genuinely bad at golf,
or someone who is actually really excellent at it, but sees himself
as bad because he's painfully aware of the (very small percentage of) >golfers who are even better than him. I was uncharitably assuming
the first interpretation but, when I reflect on my experience of >competition, the second interpretation actually seems more likely. >Furthermore, these two seemingly very different definitions may
be actually be equivalent, or only differences in viewpoint.
My reasoning is as follows: Assume X is a competitive activity --
golf/ chess/ backgammon/ darts/ tennis etc. etc. The fact that
someone has thought enough about X to label himself "bad" means that
he is likely to have an interest or experience in X that is far
greater than the average population as a whole -- at the very least,
he probably means he has played X. (I'm using "he" here because it's
the badgolfer_man tag that stimulated the conversation). So "bad"
probably doesn't mean relative to the whole population. And it's
perhaps most likely to mean "bad relative to how good he wants to be"
and that description applies to every competitor in X who is not
ranked the World No. 1. These considerations only apply to
competitive activities. If Y is an activity that most people need to
do like cooking/ communicating/ driving, then "bad" may really mean
"bad" in every sense. No reason to assume that a self-described "bad >driver" is actually a good driver.
PaulHello Paul,
I find it humbling that you have analyzed my internet identity so
thoroughly. Over the years I've also noticed others seem to be
fascinated by the name "badgolferman" but more to the point of ridicule
than curiosity. Since you seem so interested I will give you the story
behind why I chose that name.
I have been playing golf for more than 40 years. During that time I
have never progressed beyond the point of shooting below 84 for a
round. I have read many books, used swing aids, watched videos, even
gotten lessons. My typical golf score is always in the 90s no matter
how much or how little I play. That is still better than the "average"
golfer which is identified as someone who shoots in the 100s.
In my early years I was obsessed with golf and would become very
frustrated when I hit a bad shot or had a bad round. Eventually I
found I had to change my attitude otherwise I would no longer play the
game I loved. That's when I realized I would never become a
professional golfer for whatever reason (no talent, no practice, no
money, etc.) and decided to just accept whatever happened that day. I accepted that I was a bad golfer relative to what I wanted to be.
In the late 1990's I played in a golf tournament dubbed "Bad Golfer Association" made up of a bunch of duffers. I liked the name so I made
the email address badg...@yahoo.com. That lasted for a few years
until I was invited to a new email service from Google named Gmail. It
hadn't become public yet so you had to be invited then. I could have
chosen badgolfer at gmail.com but instead decided upon badgolferman at gmail.com because that's how I was often referred to by friends on my
daily joke list which I maintained at the time.
Since I bought a Honda Goldwing three years ago I don't play much golf anymore, but my scores still hover in the 90's whenever I do go out.
That places me in the "bad golfer" category compared to my other golfer friends.
Mike T.
On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:10:19 PM UTC+1, badgolferman
wrote:
peps...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder whether this denotes someone who is genuinely bad atgolf, >or someone who is actually really excellent at it, but sees
himself >as bad because he's painfully aware of the (very small
percentage of) >golfers who are even better than him. I was
uncharitably assuming >the first interpretation but, when I
reflect on my experience of >competition, the second
interpretation actually seems more likely. >Furthermore, these
two seemingly very different definitions may >be actually be
equivalent, or only differences in viewpoint. >My reasoning is as >>follows: Assume X is a competitive activity -- >golf/ chess/
backgammon/ darts/ tennis etc. etc. The fact that >someone has
thought enough about X to label himself "bad" means that >he is
likely to have an interest or experience in X that is far >greater
than the average population as a whole -- at the very least, >he
probably means he has played X. (I'm using "he" here because it's
the badgolfer_man tag that stimulated the conversation). So "bad" >>>probably doesn't mean relative to the whole population. And it'sbe" >and that description applies to every competitor in X who is
perhaps most likely to mean "bad relative to how good he wants to
not >ranked the World No. 1. These considerations only apply to >>>competitive activities. If Y is an activity that most people need
to >do like cooking/ communicating/ driving, then "bad" may really
mean >"bad" in every sense. No reason to assume that a
self-described "bad >driver" is actually a good driver. >
PaulHello Paul,
I find it humbling that you have analyzed my internet identity so
thoroughly. Over the years I've also noticed others seem to be
fascinated by the name "badgolferman" but more to the point of
ridicule than curiosity. Since you seem so interested I will give
you the story behind why I chose that name.
I have been playing golf for more than 40 years. During that time
I have never progressed beyond the point of shooting below 84 for
a round. I have read many books, used swing aids, watched videos,
even gotten lessons. My typical golf score is always in the 90s no
matter how much or how little I play. That is still better than
the "average" golfer which is identified as someone who shoots in
the 100s.
In my early years I was obsessed with golf and would become very
frustrated when I hit a bad shot or had a bad round. Eventually I
found I had to change my attitude otherwise I would no longer play
the game I loved. That's when I realized I would never become a
professional golfer for whatever reason (no talent, no practice,
no money, etc.) and decided to just accept whatever happened that
day. I accepted that I was a bad golfer relative to what I wanted
to be.
In the late 1990's I played in a golf tournament dubbed "Bad
Golfer Association" made up of a bunch of duffers. I liked the
name so I made the email address badg...@yahoo.com. That lasted
for a few years until I was invited to a new email service from
Google named Gmail. It hadn't become public yet so you had to be
invited then. I could have chosen badgolfer at gmail.com but
instead decided upon badgolferman at gmail.com because that's how
I was often referred to by friends on my daily joke list which I >>maintained at the time.
Since I bought a Honda Goldwing three years ago I don't play much
golf anymore, but my scores still hover in the 90's whenever I do
go out. That places me in the "bad golfer" category compared to
my other golfer friends.
Mike T.
Hello Mike,
I do indeed find this interesting. At the risk of being
platitudinous, it strikes me that this type of situation will arise
for every competitive person no matter how good they are. You scored
in the 90s and probably regretted not scoring in the 80s which is a >near-identical situation to those who score in the 80s and regret not
scoring in the 70s. I think your level is high enough that, if you
went on a round with Tiger Woods, even when he was at his best, it
would sometimes happen that you could match his score for individual
holes.
Paul
peps...@gmail.com wrote:[...]
I do indeed find this interesting. At the risk of being
platitudinous, it strikes me that this type of situation will arise
for every competitive person no matter how good they are. You scored
in the 90s and probably regretted not scoring in the 80s which is a
near-identical situation to those who score in the 80s and regret not
scoring in the 70s. I think your level is high enough that, if you
went on a round with Tiger Woods, even when he was at his best, it
would sometimes happen that you could match his score for individual
holes.
Paul
You are perhaps correct. The bottom line is I learned to not take
myself so seriously anymore.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:35:29 |
| Calls: | 6,656 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,332,151 |
| Posted today: | 1 |