The original game as invented by bored semi-drunk Scots was, I’m sure, a good laugh several hundred years ago with wee sticks and a random round thing.
The modern game and all its hideous capitalist/ classist cultural connotations is fucked.
The original game as invented by bored semi-drunk Scots was, I’m sure, a good laugh several hundred years ago with wee sticks and a random round thing.
Robin Williams did a great bit on this.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/14NQIq4SrmY?si=kv-5NtoSsdtBs3p0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good Bot!
Thanks I’ll have a look.
I have it on good authority that golf was in fact invented by Bandrobas Took during the Battle of Greenfields.
Well, I recently learned of the existence of Excel competitions, so I’m not sure about the ‘most boring’ part.
Some people really excel at spreadsheets.
Jus’ gonna leave this here:
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/xubbVvKbUfY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If you don’t see the beauty in the orchestrated beauty of Excel macros and formulae, then there’s no helping you.
What about VBA? Remote data? Python?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Nope, this is better than golf.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That’s horrifying, if you have the forbidden knowledge of what people only program in excel is capable of
I don’t know if there still are, but back when you texted on a 12-button phone keyboard, there were texting competitions.
IMHO sport is a misnomer. “Game” seems more fitting to me.
I’m always interested in this take. By definition,.it’s clearly a sport.
How do you define sport and how does it not meet the definition? It’s a game of physical skill, mental concentration, and competition.
I have always viewed it as a sport involves and active defensive player and an overall greater level of physical movement
What about non-team sports, like running, cycling, surfing, skiing, etc. maybe there’s a defensive strategy but there’s no active defensive player. Are those also not sports?
Interesting point, i know they are definitely sports so it kinda throws my point away haha
Not really. They meet your qualifier of greater amount of physical activity/movement.
Sport has connotations of fast paced physical activity.
Games like Solitaire and Golf can be done by yourself and for most people won’t be spiking your heart levels to a runners high.
Motorsports have no defensive player and do not involve much physical movement (unless you count the car’s movement).
Giving a cat a bath involves a defensive player (the cat) and significant physical movement (depends on the cat’s mood).
Giving the cat a bath (other than the weird one I had that loved water) is classified as a blood sport.
Part of the definition of a sport is that it accomplishes absolutely nothing useful at all, other than entertainment, thought about it and perhaps fitness. Bathing a cat is not a sport because it actually has a useful goal, I.e. cleaning a cat.
I would say that getting healthier and fitter is absolutely useful, and so is entertainment.
But anyways, some sports can be useful for training purposes (Ever heard of the Firefighter Olympics? It’s really cool).
Also there’s also stuff like people jogging/biking to go places, and sailing maybe can also fall into this category though I don’t think it’s a thing anymore. (IIRC in the 1700s there was a sort of sport where ships would race each other across the Atlantic to deliver stuff as fast as possible. Not sure though, take with grain of salt.)
There’s still people who sail to get to a destination. It’s a bit of a rich person thing, though. Even without a motor, boats are holes in the water that you sink money into. More so if it has to be ocean-going.
Fuck that, I’m starting a competitive cat bathing club.
Fishing has entered the chat.
Definitely a defensive participant and an offensive participant, but way less physical activity like 90% of the time.
Sport shooting as well.
You haven’t played golf with me. Better watch your balls as you have your legs open to swing.
Where do you draw the line between sports and games? Are sports competitive where games are fun? Is poker a sport? Are video games capable of being sports? What could be done to golf that would make it a sport? Are all sports games if not all games are sports?
These are the questions that keep me up at night.
Not saying I hold this opinion myself but I think people that say this usually draw the line to physical exertion being required.
When I think of sport I think of anything where one sweats due to physical exertion.
I sweat playing rocket league and working on my car, but they’re not sports.
If you can play it while drinking a beer it isn’t a sport.
Any sport can be played while drinking a beer if you put your mind to it and believe in yourself.
Chess is a sport, and one can absolutely play chess drunk
No it isn’t.
I mean you can believe what you want, but you’re factually incorrect
Ever hear of Beer league hockey, sport?
I would piss my colleague off by telling him he’s got a nice hobby…
Good. They need to accept reality.
Oh that just made him angry, I always added that no sport has the winner of a major tournament in their mid 40s.
Sports that are more based on endurance than sprinting tend to have older people who do well. Mid-40s is pushing it for championship level, but you can still be competitive at that stage, and still participate well into old age if you don’t have any major health/injury issues.
I mean… Tom Brady was a super bowl MVP in his 40s.
Chris Chelios won a Stanley Cup in his 40s.
But your point is well taken nonetheless.
But that’s a team sport though. If we compare that to tennis the oldest tournament winner is Rosewall in the 70s at 37 years old and more recently Federer in 2018 at 36 years old.
Definitely a fair point.
Removed by mod
As much as assaulting fish is a sport. Much more reasonable and intellectual though
Do you move a lot during chess (yourself, not the pieces :P)?
I actually get exhausted playing golf - but that’s because I’m BAD at it. Apparently I put too much force into my swing. Every time I’ve tried to play I get told to relax and “let the club to the work”.
So they literally have these weighted sticks to reduce the amount of frickin effort required to hit the ball.
It’s not a sport. It’s an ANTI-sport. The less you try the better you’ll be.
Can you imagine if we had an Olympic running sport to see who the slowest runner was? That’s what golf is. Get the weakest, limpest, vitamin-defficient humans and see how accurately they can hit a tiny ball into a hole.
It was invented by the Scots as a joke against the English while they all go and compete in proper sports like caber tossing and hammer throwing.
Or to keep it short, know that John Daly is one of the greats of the sport. Look up a picture of John Daly dated any time in the last 30 years, and you’ll know how hilarious that is.
And people complain that Starcraft isn’t a sport.
Wait until you hear about the laws in place that guarantee them access to water their fields no matter the drought. Nobody has heard of an unkempt golf course.
Not just that, but I found a few golf courses in my city where natural habitats used to be. These place could have easily been changed into nature parks for the local residents to go wind down a bit, but noooOOOooo. Some rich assholes had to buy the land and destroy the ecosystem so they could whack a ball around some fucking grass into a little hole.
Would there be a difference to the sport if a part of the land was just left natural? I expect it would make the sport more interesting, atleast to the spectators.
It was invented in Scotland. Where there’s grass everywhere and almost no trees. Why not just play in natural landscapes that are suited for the game?
The golf course near me has spent the last month about a foot underwater.
I have never been so smug. I hope it’s ruined.
every golf course could be a lovely botanical garden/park or arboretum, with little paths every which way and carefully crafted scenery to make you feel like you’re inside a disney movie
You see this?
I used to hike along the coast there quite regularly but someone decided it was much better to turn the whole thing into a gulf course and to illegally block access to locals.
Edit: Of course they also chose the driest part of the island.
Where is this? California has strict regulations about the actual beach access. So e.g. Pebble Beach is in one of the most beautiful locations in all of Northern California, ridiculously expensive and nearly impossible to play as a mortal, but you can still go drive around 17 mile drive through the course and walk along the coastal trails for free.
It’s in st Lucia in the Caribbean.
There is regulations for beach access too here where all the coastline need to be accessible to the public.
So far with this particular resort they are doing everything they can to discourage people from coming in and showed a strong disdain for the local community.
Maybe they should be on the lookout for people pouring cement into the golf holes.
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON EACH SIDE. Seattle estimated they could solve the housing crisis by closing a handful of their muni courses (leaving multiple municipal and a dozen private courses in the area) and building medium density housing there. Solving a critical need by getting rid of a few locations for a dying sport:
https://www.theurbanist.org/2019/06/12/unlike-seattle-golf-really-is-dying/
It’s a waste of space otherwise.
Most of the golf courses near me are pretty much this - densely forested areas with meticulously landscaped little gardens, which happens to have some holes built in.
A lawn is not a garden.
Correct. I’m not talking about lawns.
Golf courses are lawns.
So you just didn’t read my first comment in this thread then
Please post a picture of this golf course with no lawns
Oh I get it now, your reading comprehension is just poor.
This.
Please. For the love of God don’t let this lazy comment cliché migrate to here.
IMO, rectangle sports are the most boring sports in existence. It’s literally a rectangle and always a rectangle every time… And everyone stands around watching the exact same shit happening inside the perfectly constructed rectangle. It’s the same thing, over and over. Not only that but millions of people say they love sports, but they don’t even play, just stare at a glowy rectangle and watch people in a rectangle run around. You can’t define a more boring sport than that. At the very bare minimum, to spice things up, how about introducing some goddamn obstacles randomly placed in the rectangle. Add some actual dynamic scenarios that keep the players on their toes and trying to come up with new strategies.
Motocross and enduro racing are sports and so is golf. Golf courses are all different, they unique, dynamic change depending on temperature, weather, grass length, wind, dew point, hole location.
But I do agree in general, golf courses are very big waste. Especially when placed in the middle of deserts or places that require significant resources to maintain.
Dude you can describe anything this way to make it sound boring, but that doesn’t even get close to reality and I think you know that deep down. I don’t even like sports and this is a senselessly reductive way of framing the discussion.
IMO, rectangle phone screens are the most boring screens in existence. It’s literally a rectangle and always a rectangle every time… And everyone hold it around watching the exact same shit happening inside the perfectly constructed rectangle. It’s the same thing, over and over. Not only that but millions of people say they love their phone, but they don’t even post, just stare at a glowy rectangle and watch people in a rectangle posts around. You can’t define a more boring screen than that. At the very bare minimum, to spice things up, how about introducing some goddamn obstacles randomly placed in the rectangle. Add some actual dynamic scenarios that keep the owners on their toes and trying to come up with new strategies.
Soccer fields are affected by temperature, weather, state of grass, wind, etc. too. So are football and baseball fields. Baseball fields are all unique. Cricket fields are round.
That said, there are obstacles in those identical rectangles. But unlike golf, these obstacles can move and think! They are called opponents and believe it or not, they can often be more dynamic than a tree or pond!
Yeah i might enjoy soccer if players got to run around with roman candles firing them at each other
Goalies get three mortar shells per match
Soccer just needs to adopt some rules from hockey and it would be more entertaining.
Soccer doesn’t even have the entertaining fights that hockey has. The soccer players just crumple to the ground screaming in (fake) pain as soon as anything remotely touches them. Every time.
The fans more than make up for the players
I’ve always wondered why we don’t really have hooligans in the US. Not just for soccer/football, but any sport. I wonder if Hockey fans’ thirst for violence is quenched by the fights in hockey, and that’s why there is no Hockey hooligans or something.
We got Raiders fans who are pretty close, though.
There’s a university not far from me that regularly burns couches for big games. Two years in a row, fans have taken uprights from football stadiums and thrown them in lakes/rivers. There’s usually a game or two per year that cars get flipped or other vandalism.
The NFL is really good at killing reporting, but fights among fans are fairly common and people have died this year from them.
The US has hooligans.
Fair points. Yea I guess we just got our own breed of them. I think the only reason it’s really different is that most of the fan bases are too separated to do the gang fight thing like they do in some places.
It’s like you don’t even believe in Philadelphia sports teams.
Lmao you are right. It’s the same thing just dumb drunk fans doing dumb things. The difference is that our obnoxious fans are spread out enough that they don’t meetup and have gang fights too often. Ours mostly just fuck their own cities up.
A man was recently killed in the Patriots stadium after an away fan sucker punched him. US sports definitely have “hooligans”.
While horrible that still sounds nothing like hooligans that will literally contact each other and arrange a meeting somewhere near the stadium before/after the match to beat each other up with home made weapons.
I think the true reason is that in the US that would just immediately devolve into gun shootouts and that’s probably too much for anyone.
Bruh Philadelphia burns down every time they win something big
Plenty of college football stadium goalposts are designed to be easily replaced because fans will storm the field and take them down/home with them after big wins
Yea I know all about this. It’s still a different thing than gangs forming around teams and then meeting up to have a large scale fight. I guess guns and the fact that the fan bases are spread out kind of keep everybody from considering that idea in the US.
They could just use the old rules
Like what happened in Pasadena, 1994.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
deleted by creator
I’m not a fan of watching sports myself, but you’re ignoring a big part of it: The strategy behind it and its execution. But apart from that, I think most people just want to feel like a part of something and cheering on a team is an easy way to do that.
You just gave me an idea…
Soccer on a square field, four teams playing against one another, scoring in the nets closest to yours gives one point, in the net facing yours gives 2 points. Imagine the chaos!
Aussie rules football is all that you describe, but on an oval.
Golf is boring to watch. But for most players it is a social game. It’s like going to a bar with a few friends, but getting a little exercise. And they don’t do a ton of leveling. Costs too much, and using the land the way it is, is what makes a course unique and interesting.
That said, it would be easy to find a sport that destroys more natural land. Ever see a football, baseball or soccer stadium… including all the parking. Then realize how many baseball fields their are in america (or soccer fields in other countries). They are several times the number of golf courses, and they all need more parking each than one golf course.
More than leveling the ground, watering it is the main environmental issue
it’s really not in a large part of the country. In a desert sure. But even there they take measures like using recycled water and not pottable water and such. And of course agriculture makes every other water use pale in comparison.
Agriculture is food. We need food. We don’t really need a way for a bunch of Wall Street bailouts queens to have a social activity.
sure we need food. But the way we water it is one of the more inefficient ways possible. But it is inexpensive. They could use almost 80% less water than they do. If you are worried about water use, start there. https://ag.umass.edu/vegetable/fact-sheets/irrigation-drip#:~:text=A properly installed drip system,subsurface%2C near the root zone.
Ok good. Start your own farm and do that. Golf isn’t suddenly good because some farmers suck
The vast majority of golfers are regular people. Teachers, and people who do shift work have free time during the normal workday are some. Retires from all sorts of jobs are the rest of the majority. Most golf courses aren’t as fancy as you see on tv, and they don’t actually cost that much to play on. Wall street bailouts would never be caught dead on the average golf course.
I don’t know a single regular person who can afford to spend 9 hours on a weekend golfing. The only people I know who can afford that are people who inherited millions of dollars.
My buddy is a teacher in a poor district. He joins a golf league every year. Plays weekly at least when the weather is decent. My uncle plays weekly. Several guys on my softball team play. Not one of them has a million dollars. I play every few years or so. With no equipment meant it runs me $30 to $50 depending on where it is. Would be less if I owned clubs, or had a membership… haven’t played since the pandemic, so I am sure the price has increased, but plenty of people spend more on drinks for one weekend.
Cool story bro
You don’t need to be a millionaire or need 9 hours to play golf. I used to have a game on an evening with my dad in the week, we were not at all wealthy.
Must be an incredible amazing coincidence that literally everyone I know who plays the game inherited piles of money. And all those greens being maintained and watered and cared for cost nothing so it’s super cheap to play.
Golf courses use a shit ton of water, especially in areas where grass isn’t supposed to fuckin grow
yes in the desert they do. But most courses aren’t in the desert. Plenty used to only water the greens in the middle of the summer in the northeast where I grew up. People usualy picture only the high end golf courses. Most are not that. Some used to just shut down for a while if it got too dry rather than water.
There are 15,500 golf courses in America.
There are just over 900 stadiums in America.
Removed by mod
I thought he was just saying there’s way more stadiums than there are golf courses and that would be incorrect. I don’t have a problem with golf courses except for the excessive amount of water they seem to waste.
Size of Old Trafford Football Stadium and all parking nearby: 20.8 hectares.
Size of my local small golf club: 53.3 hectares.
And that’s one of the largest stadiums in the country, vs one of many, many golf courses.
Edit: For decimal place fuckup.
That is an absurdly massive golf club. Nowhere near average.
https://asgca.org/faq-how-much-land-do-i-need-to-build-a-golf-course/
Hang on, I’ve got my decimal point one over. For some reason I thought a hectare was 1,000m², and it’s 10,000m².
So 20.8 vs 53.3 hectares.
But a basic bog-standard golf club is still over twice the size of one of the largest football stadiums in the country.
I guess having absolutely no idea what the fuck you’re talking about has benefits.
Nice job adding nothing to the discussion. Go back to reddit, they miss you.
This entire thread is a blight on Lemmy. One of the seriously most shitty and disturbing things I’ve seen on the system.
Las Vegas has something like 70 golf courses wasting inordinate amounts of water. Of course most houses also have outside private swimming pools too.
Vegas actually is a poor example, they have excellent water management policy even in spite of what is typically considered wasteful. Being so far down the Colorado River Basin kinda made being experts on the subject a necessity.
Of course it has excellent water management because otherwise they’d run out. Doesn’t mean that everyone having pools and so many golf courses is anyway defensible, or doesn’t put insane stress on the supply.
I don’t think they’re saying golf courses in the desert are defensible. I think they’re saying that Nevada does better water conservation job than other nearby states (I believe Utah is the worst per capita) and has not nearly as much impact on the colorado river, so there’s probably bigger fish to go after in terms of saving water than Las Vegas. When you get down to it like >80% of the water use out west is agriculture. If you’re going to make significant savings you have to tackle agriculture practices. Not that you shouldn’t clamp down on the golf courses too (I totally think they should, just deal with the artificial turf golfers if you want to golf in the middle of an arid desert and go golf in the scottish highlands if you want real grass), it just probably wouldn’t help all that much in the grand scheme of things even if golf courses didn’t exist at all. Surprisingly the best thing to do to conserve water would be to reduce meat consumption, most of what’s grown is for livestock feed not human consumption.
Right. Lake Mead is sure looking lovely these days.
Lake mead is being drained from the other direction into Utah and you’d have known that before commenting if you’d actually looked that shit up before going to say something that spectacularly unaware of what’s going on.
Vegas actually net zeros their allotment of the water share every year, as far as Mead is considered, Vegas almost doesn’t exist.
the whole “net-zero allotment of water shares” bit is about as accurate as “flint water is within regulation guidelines of lead”
Vegas got it’s “net zero” by appropriating the water shares of surrounding regions via the magic of lobbying
Removed by mod
The other commenter’s point is that Las Vegas returns almost all of the water it consumes cleaned and back to Lake Meade. As a municipality their net water consumption is close to zero.
It’s other municipalities and agricultural ventures that are draining Lake Meade not Las Vegas. Vegas pulls water from Meade, treats it and then returns it back to the reservoir.
If you’re going to pick on water wasters Vegas isn’t where you want to start. There’s plenty of other reasons to pick on Vegas, water isn’t one of them.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-water-conservation-grass/
That’s the first search result when I searched “Vegas water conversation” it wasn’t hard to find.
How is that possible, due to evaporation?
Elimiating lawns is a great idea, seeing as they live in a massive desert. I approve of that, for everyone who cares.
the famed fountains at the Bellagio Hotel use water from a private well — not the Colorado River. He also said the water that evaporates into the hot desert air is replaced with recycled water from a 1.5 million gallon pool.
so… they just drain groundwater?
As an environmentalist, fuck Kentucky bluegrass, fuck golf, and fuck lawns while we’re at it
I agree lawns are dumb but from an environmental perspective they can be net carbon sinks, which I found surprising. Though they are still bad for other environmental reasons.
Hey fuck environmental diversity, we’ve got carbon sinks. What a fucking joke.
Nothing can sink any more carbon than its weight plus any bits that fall or get taken and don’t rot. Worse, for most plants most of the weight is water, not carbon-containing organic compounds.
So lawns might be “net” carbon sinks only when compared to the extreme case of leaving the ground bare (or worse, asphalted), but only whilst they’re growing (they don’t really retain any additional carbon after grown and any grass mowned will just return the carbon back to the air when it rots and a lot of it will be Methane, a worse greehouse gas than CO2) and they’re a lot worse at it per unit of area than, say, trees or even just the natural ground cover in just about any land environment but desert.
Asphalt is definitely a carbon sink though since it’s a petroleum product!
It is if one does not count the heavy hydrocarbons taken from raw crude and used to make asphalt in the maths of carbon pulled out of the Earth originally when the oil is pumped out - in other words, if one blames the lighter stuff used in fuel for the actual oil extraction and then just goes with “well, now that we have this stuff out, might as well use the heavy stuff for asphalt”.
Otherwise its adds up to a carbon source because even though the fraction of crude oil that ends up used for asphalt has it’s extraction from underground sources offset by that stuff ending up back on the ground as asphalt, the various processes between it coming out of the ground and it ending back on the ground do emit CO2 and some light hydrocarbons.
Sure, nowhere as bad as fuel and gas, but still a net negative.
That’s why I dig up my lawn every year and bury it underground inside sealed plastic bags
I’m doing my part!
I mean if you want to talk about sequestering carbon, there’s all sorts of natural lawn options that aren’t actively planting an invasive species that has proven to be really bad at doing any sort of water filtration or absorption. In fact, I’d wager that planting (and letting grow) prairie or whatever your native biome supports probably sequesters more carbon, assuming your native ecosystems aren’t straight up desert. Even if they are, you’re now using so much less water that it’s a huge net win there.
BUT ITS SPORT BRO AND MY DAD PLAY D IT ONCE
Devil’s advocate, in a dense suburban setting it keeps that land from being paved over and turned into a commercial zone. But when it is in a rural setting, absolutely.
I don’t agree. It’s not like the land being used in that urban setting is home to wildlife. It’s not filled with trees. It’s a giant lawn that gets watered every day and if you want to be there, you have to pay. I don’t see that as being an improvement to anything else in a city.
Golf courses, at least the ones I’ve been to, have tons of trees. They’re usually densely forested in the areas between holes to make a sort of barrier. And I certainly see more wildlife on a golf course than in, say, the parking lot of a strip mall.
I found a squirrel’s nest on one course with about a hundred golf balls in it. And I’ve gotten chased off my tee shot by a bull elk.
Those animals are there despite the course, not because of the course. Golf courses are not wildlife habitats.
Take a look at New York City and tell me where the animals are.
The High Line Park for one. There’s also another huge park in central Manhattan you may have heard of, but the name escapes me.
I guess this is the internet and being deliberately obtuse is just to be expected. Pretty much every golf course in a highly urban area would just be more buildings if they didn’t exist.
You mean like those two parks I mentioned? Just more buildings?
First of all, this…
dense suburban
…is an oxymoron.
Second, in the hierarchy of urban greenspace, golf courses are only one step up from the very bottom (just above private lawns).
not all suburbia is north american ffs
So? Whether it’s North America or elsewhere, if it’s dense it’s “urban,” not “suburban.”
What if it is slightly less dense than what you call dense? Then it’s still the most dense suburban area possible. Clearly there are still varying levels of density within areas not dense enough to be urban.
Look at what people in NYC and north east NJ call suburban, then look at what someone in upstate NY calls suburban. Density is very different. Look at it as a scale. Dense Urban, Urban, light urban, dense suburban, suburban, etc. I am specifically pointing at places like in NJ where it would more likely be turned into a mall than a park.
If you want to preserve the land then make it a public park where everyone can enjoy it not just the rich jerks who can afford to pay to be there
Removed by mod
Ideally sure, but we are dealing with capitalism. In a high populated area people will want to find a way to profit over every inch.
I live in Indiana, so there’s (generally) no shortage of rain. The golf courses in this town still water the entire grass of the course every day. Even if it rained the day before. Even if it’s raining right then and there. There aren’t water shortages here, but what a waste.
Most courses use man made ponds as both hazards and as retention ponds so they can use that rain water.
You know what uses three times the amount of water per acre? Corn. And almonds use about ten times more water than corn. And people have only just started caring about lawns, that use two orders of magnitude more water, fertilizer, and land than golf courses.
Golf courses really aren’t that bad from an ecological point of view when compared acre per acre to other large man made structures. They’re generally pretty small when compared to other large landscaping projects at 30-80 acres. The issue is when a city has like twenty courses just for the purpose of driving up housing prices.
Would that land be better as a park? Probably, but this is the US, someone would see an unprofitable “empty” plot of land and throw million dollar houses on it.
You know what uses three times the amount of water per acre? Corn. And almonds use about ten times more water than corn.
And we get food out of that input, unlike a golf course where you get nothing of value.
And people have only just started caring about lawns, that use two orders of magnitude more water, fertilizer, and land than golf courses.
Have you seen a golf course before? They’re literally lawns.
Most of the US corn crop goes to animal feed, so no you don’t get food from it. At least not directly. If you totaled up all of the land used by golf courses, you’d be at .1% of just the amount of land used for animal feed. And about 1% of the land used by home lawns.
They’re not that bad, there are much worse enemies than golf courses in general. Again, courses that are in the middle of a city that do nothing but increase property value are terrible, but most are perfectly fine and use way less water than you think.
Wtf do you think happens to those animals who eat the corn stalks?
Well I admit I haven’t seen the entirety of those courses, but based on what I’ve seen, and considering they’re surrounded by either businesses, houses or, in one case, a hospital, I don’t know where those retention ponds would be. The hazards they have absolutely wouldn’t be big enough to cover the amount of water I see sprayed on them.
I have never seen a golf course next to a hospital… Maybe it’s regional, but near me, most courses have many made ponds that hold rain water and you can smell the pond water when the sprinklers come on. The ponds can hold several Olympic swimming pools worth of water.
You’re really comparing growing food to some entirely useless recreation activity?
I don’t care for golf and wish golf courses were better used spaces, but the thing about golf that makes it interesting is the meditative practice of being able to swing the club in just the right way to make the ball go where it needs to.
I like archery and you have the same sort of thing going on there. You have to have your positioning, movements, focus, and smoothness of action to hit the target. You can tell how you failed before the arrow hits the target. Working on fine tuning your actions is enjoyable.
They make driving ranges for that. They take up much less space.
It isn’t the same sort of thing though. Yes, you can pick a target and go for that, but having the topography and hazards makes for a different experience.
Driving ranges also don’t have the same sort of socialization and competition aspect.
I agree with the first thing you said, but there’s no reason why you can’t socialize or compete at a driving range. It would be the same sort of competition as an archery or shooting competition- how accurately can you hit your target? And driving ranges have all the people doing it parallel to each other, so there’s no reason why you can’t talk to the person next to you. Yes, it is not exactly the same as golf, but it’s more environmentally friendly and less of a barrier to people with lower income because you don’t have to pay country club fees.
archery
archery doesn’t carry a racist history and waste giant tracts of land. they can putt-putt or get fucked.
I shot in highschool and it was the same thing. I loved it. You get into this extreme zen state and.become hyper aware of your own body. It was a lot of fun.
deleted by creator
I hear nuclear armageddon is fun, too.
What kind of parties are you going to?
deleted by creator
I hear nuclear armageddon is fun, too.
What kind of parties are you going to?
They’ve been known to get pretty wild, I guess.
Well at least the radiation outfits come in very radiant party colors.
Louis Slotin’s place. Were you not invited?
…that’s probably for the best
Louis Slotin’s place.
Eh, the OP is the one that made it a ratio of destruction to fun. Would have had the same impact if it said “Lunatics leveling miles of nature to thwhack a ball with a stick.” but they chose to make a value judgment on the fun quotient of golf.
Uh… is nuclear armageddon fun?
How about a nice game of chess?
deleted by creator
Depends on how much of you survives the bombs I guess
Well, that would very much depend on whether is a Mad Max style future or something else with fewer muscle cars…
