Originally Posted by
Spoonrobot
The problem with your categories is that, in real life, they're all based on fitness, not skill. Which is illustrative in itself.
Ok, let's work with that then.
So, for tennis instead of golf, fitness WILL matter. Let's change it to tennis. How many sets we playing? One? Best of three? Best of five? A rec tennis player probably won't make it best of five, they'd die.
So, best of three? Average schmuck playing with friends at the community center for a bit each week probably won't play more than one set. Especially if it goes 7-6. I'd bet.
So we need an over-head serve. We need a forehand and a backhand also (one or two handed, whatever). None of that at a low fitness level is very difficult. Just clearing the net and in the lines? Cake. With some zing and able to chase it? Fitness.
Can this tennis player run a 5k in under 1/2 hour? They workout a bit? Arms? Core? They sending a serve at me like a fart in the wind or are they zinging it?
I think in all these comparisons we're struggling with agreeing about how fitness and skills merge to form an overall competency level.
Our old creepo neighbor dude took lessons from some hot Russian chick in a group of other creepy guys for like two years. He was about 230 lbs. I only ever played with him for his practice. No lessons.
I could smoke his ass.
Skills have a depth. Assigning a competency in a sport requires having a depth of skills and a fitness level combined.
I'm not seeing yet how the skills gap for "rec" people is that vast.
We call it fitness on the bike, but it's different enough sometimes I dare call it a skill. It's a skill to know how many matches you've got and how to burn them.