If someone is off the scale better at something, playing becomes tedious and boring. That's not really fun to pass the time (or as a sport; when I go to kickboxing, I don't really expect the guy in our gym who won the EU championships a few times to KO me all day long like if he is competing to an equal). The reverse is true as well; unless teaching, why do they want to play with you. Boring for them too (unless they have gigantic ego's and get kicks of winning from anyone).
Steph Curry probably enjoys just being on a basketball court, even playing against people of much lower skill level. No reason he can't still work on perfecting his jumpshot for himself, even if it's only me guarding him. Lots of people practice shots by themselves.
I'm speculating here, but I think people who don't enjoy it on some level usually don't make it to that highest level in sport. Every top-level sportsman I can think of looks like they enjoy it.
It doesn't matter if you lose - what matters is that you feel like you have some involvement in the game. Good games are like conversations - you can enjoy a conversation with someone who's way more knowledgeable/smarter than you, but not one where you don't get a word in at all
If I was playing against Steph Curry, I would try to come up with achievable goals, such as trying to defend well enough to force him to take a jumpshot instead of a layup, trying to make one of my own shots, trying to get him to fall for a pump-fake, trying to get a steal, trying not to fall over, etc.
Winning may not be, but there's always an achievable goal you can strive for.
Doesn't seem like you are playing to pass the time, in that case. Seems like you are playing to win. The difference is in the former case the play is the reward in itself and in the latter case you need to feel victory over someone. Seems crypto-competitive and kind of weird for that reason.
Realistically, that game would be Steph Curry having ball all the time dancing around you while you dont touch ball except initially. It would also make Steph Curry score within 3 sec from gaining the ball.
Overall effect is that you do nothing. There is no strategy you can use or think about, no time to try trics with ball or even shoot or dribble.
One reason it is not fun is that the less good person don't actually get to be active in play - he will be effectively in much passive position and it wont even be challenge.
I would love to lose a game of basketball against Steph Curry, would certainly be a fun experience. But it would get old fast as he would certainly crush me every time.
If my goal is to get better at basketball, playing against Steph Curry is not useful. Learning happens most efficiently when the challenge is somewhat above your current skill level, but not enormously so.
If someone just recently started going to the gym, would you put a 300 pound barbell in front of them and tell them to lift that, and assume they're a loser if they don't get any enjoyment from failing to lift it?
That isn't a very good comparison. Lifting weights isn't a competition in the way that basketball is. I want to say the latter is more "zero-sum", but I'm not sure if that's correct terminology.
I would probably have fun shooting free throws with Steph Curry, even though I would be lucky to make as many as he missed.
That's more like the weight lifting you're comparing it to - the competition involves artificially choosing the other person as a benchmark, and I can work against whatever internal benchmark I want.
This is very different than a game of one-on-one, where it's his job to change how I interact with the ball (which he would, to the point of meaninglessness) and vice-versa (which I would fail at to the point of triviality).
It's not strange (or a personal failing) to find that less interesting.
" I would probably have fun shooting free throws with Steph Curry, even though I would be lucky to make as many as he missed." I think you're underselling yourself (or Steph) with it. He makes over 90% freethrows, which would mean - for the sake of your argument - that you'd be "lucky" to make more than 10% of your freethrows. I think you are better :) (sorry for this nitpick)
I had meant to restrict my weight lifting comments to the kind of weight lifting that goes on in gyms (what was being discussed upthread). And I have to confess I don't know much about those sports you named, but do the participants really interact with each other like they would in, say basketball or soccer? Maybe there really is a rule like "there are a finite number of weights, and each can be lifted by at most one person", which would be pretty similar to "there's only one ball, therefore only the player with the ball can score"? And therefore being paired with someone who vastly outclasses you wrt lifting weights will effectively render you unable to participate (by taking all the weights you can lift, similar to taking 100% of the possessions of the ball).
I think you are reading things into 'play' that aren't there. What you seem to suggest is that naming anything 'play' makes it impossible for you to not get enjoyment out of it, since there are no conditions for you to consider it play?
