[Mark_Rowlinson]

In a conversation between Peter Alliss and Peter Thomson during TV coverage from Hoylake, Thomson was explaining how difficult the course was because it was so flat.  This made estimating distances much harder.  Alliss asked him if they paced off distances in those days.  Thomson replied that in the 50s they just relied on eyes.  He then suggested that he didn't think modern players were any more accurate for using yardage charts.  Any views?

[Doug Ralston]

On which of those olf courses has the course record not been broken since 1960?

Doug

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Doug, I hear what you are saying, but if you take out advances in equipment, physical prowess and so on are players any more accurate from say 150 yards?  Clearly a modern golfer who can get on a par 5 in two has a chance of an eagle which was a much rarer bird in the 50s.  I watched many players today approaching greens and a great many missed even from 150 yards.  It made me wonder if he had a point.

[Jon Wiggett]

Doug,
if the course is receptive yardage charts are a great help in club selection as with full shots tour players know with in a yard how far they hit each club in the bag with a full shot. However on any course which truely plays fast and firm the yardage charts become more of a guideline in selecting the club as there is always an element which must be judged on eyeing the terrain, looking at the elements and a bit of good old fashoined gut feeling. This is especially true for a course such as Hoylake.
In such a situation you eyeball the shot, decide what club to hit and use the yardage to confirm this. So what Peter Thompson is saying is probably correct and I can assure you there isn't a player in the field today the equal of Peter Thompson as links player.
There is a myth that tour pros can read a yardage and hit the ball that distance purely because of this knowledge. This is not the case they still eyeball the shot. Put a blindfold on Tiger and ask him to hit the ball to stop at 72 yards exactly and you know what? He can't do it. Without the blindfold and a target at that distance he can. I wonder why?
Oh incidently maybe course records are going lower because they are there to be broken and on that note the Open Championship record at Hoylake hasn't been broken since before 1960.

[Brent Hutto]

In a conversation between Peter Alliss and Peter Thomson during TV coverage from Hoylake, Thomson was explaining how difficult the course was because it was so flat.  This made estimating distances much harder.  Alliss asked him if they paced off distances in those days.  Thomson replied that in the 50s they just relied on eyes.  He then suggested that he didn't think modern players were any more accurate for using yardage charts.  Any views?

I think the estimable Mr. Thomson can't have it both ways. First he says that the flatness of Hoylake tends to make it harder to estimate distance. Then he claimed that knowing the exact distance immediately and in every situation does not help. Well, which is it?

If knowing the exact distance doesn't help you hit the ball closer to the hole then why would it matter if the course is flat and makes distance estimation harder?

Or if doing it by eye on a flat course can fool you, then why would it not be an advantage to have a fool-proof distance written down and avoid the eye-measuring altogether.

Peter Thomson is a bright and thoughtful guy in general but this time around he's just engaging in some old-curmudgeon b.s., I'm afraid.

[Jon Wiggett]

Brent,
I think you need to read what Thompson said one more tim and then think about it.

[Brent Hutto]

Well, I've read it a couple of times and he says that knowing the exact yardage does not make them more accurate. Do you think he was implying that the modern players are stupider or have poorer wedge technique than players did in his era? Because otherwise he seems to imply that knowing the distance is not of benefit for hitting it more accurately.

Or perhaps he's making a point that's way too subtle and complex for this little old Southern boy to get in his noggin...

[Bob_Huntley]

Brent,

Knowing the exact distance to the pin in the conditions under discussion, is really of not much use if the greens are as hard as the fairway in front of it.

It is doubtful that a player of Thomsons ilk was hitting greens on the fly when conditions were fast and firm.

Bob

[Jon Wiggett]

Congratulations Bob, you got the point. Brent is it clearer now?

[JESII]

It's still a matter of yardage for the "Americanized" player. They simply obtain all the relevant yardages (front, pin, back, carry over fronting bumkers etc...) and make determinations from there of how much to take off for bounce and roll. All of the natural elements (wind, humps and hollows etc...) weigh into the decision of club and shot style, but at the end of the day they are coming up with a number they want to hit the ball in the air. It may be as crazy as 6 iron, 142 yards carry, head high with a hint of a cut so it banks against that little mound, but very very few these days are just eye-balling it from the fairway and "feeling" their way around.

This is simply how they are programmed. They take the hard data and try to spit out a feel oriented shot. The same creativity is needed as in Thompson's day, and less reliance on figuring it all out yourself is a hurtful for today's players (in comparison), but it's just the way the game is played now.

[George Pazin]

Brent's point is still valid, you're simply saying that the total distance travelled instead of distance flown.

I think Thomson was probably better at playing the required shots, but it was because today's players aren't asked to do that much anymore, so there is no real need to learn the skill. It's not because he was better at estimating the distance when coupled with his desired shot.

[JESII]

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying George.

I think Thompson is saying that knowing the distance is no more important than thinking you know the distance. I don't think Brent read it that way.

I think Jon and Bob read his comments as "knowledge of the actual yardage is pretty irrelevant", and I think that is wrong as well. I think in Thompson's day yardages were determined as percentages of clubs (75% 7 iron, 80% 5 iron etc...) whereas today they are measured as actual numbers and then fitted into percentages of clubs. Is there a difference? Only when you get to the target golf they play most weeks on TV where a stock yardage is quite helpful to the players because the ball will generally stop where it lands on the greens.

[Doug Ralston]

This is just another 'like they did in the good ole days' thread. Course design like St Andrews, minimalist philosophy etc.

Do those who advocate all this live in thatched houses? No heat except perhaps a fireplace, with wood, or at Sand Hills buffalo patties? No medicine except leaches, I expect?

Welcome to 2006!!

We make courses the NEW fashioned way, ...... we bulldoze them! And yes, I DO like info on how far I am from certain points [Not the 'I' am able to do much about it, lol]. I have played on courses where 'bump and run' was common, but I still wanted to know approx how far I had to hit it, wether that was by guessing the distance, or using info for estimation. Then I had to guess how much force to attempt to get there, just them them 'good ole days'. I suspect it still gave me some help.

I certainly do not want to talk YOU into info gathering. Do not buy a 'sky caddie' on my account, or use any GPS. No written info should you carry because I like it. And don't go to a hospital when you are sick either, I am certain Doak can advise you!  

Doug

PS: Sorry Tom, not picking on you. You just happen to be a sort of representitive of a 'religion' here. And I'm not inclined to join.  

[George Pazin]

If I am reading you correctly, I'm trying to essentially say the same thing as you, I just didn't word it very well.

I think that Brent is saying the same thing as well.

Heck, I think everyone on this thread is saying the same thing, I just think Mr. Thomson didn't delineate the problem very well!

Bottom line: Thomson was superior at the shot because he needed to be to win. Tour pros today don't encounter the situation nearly frequently enough to learn the skill well.

Hope that helps.

[Wayne_Kozun]

How many course in North America, besides Merion, have no yardage markings at all?

[Doug Ralston]

Wayne;

Unfortunately, way too many low level ones are so poorly marked that it is impossible to find them. I have been there, seen that.

Doug

[Doug Siebert]

Distance is just an input into all the other factors you weigh.  Your eyes are the most important, but when your eyes and the yardage disagree, you have to think about what might be fooling your eyes, or if it is possible the yardage is inaccurate (the latter is probably not an issue for the pros, but it can be occasionally for us amateurs relying on sprinkler heads or yardage books)

If you are playing a shot with a lot of run, a lot of wind, a lot of elevation change, etc. the yardage becomes less important, but I don't think it is ever truly useless to know it.  If I'm in the trees and hitting a low hooking punch 2 iron, I want to know if I'm 130 or 150, just knowing the distance influences me to hit it harder.  I'm not thinking "oh 150, I need a 60% punch instead of 50%" but its in my head as I plan the shot and as I address the ball.  Its not nearly as important as knowing the difference between 130 and 150 when I'm in the fairway and hitting to a soft green on a windless day, but it still matters because the shot that would work perfectly from 130 in the trees may not even reach the green from 150.

I actually like to know how far I am on flop shots around the green.  Assuming I have time, I'll walk up to the hole and figure out where on the green I want the ball to land.  The hole is right there, I can see it just fine, but as I take my practice swings and hit the shot I'm thinking "OK, carry the ball 16 yards".  I don't know that this really helps, since I'm not sure I really do better on those shots than on those where I just walk up to the ball and hit it (obviously that's more likely on shots I've left short of the green)  I do know that occasionally I'll concentrate too much on the flag on a flop shot instead of thinking about where I want the ball to land -- with the result that I usually carry it just short or slightly beyond the flag, which isn't always going to produce the desired result!

I figure every little bit of information helps, so long as you don't overrate its importance.

[Tom_Doak]

Doug R:  I didn't even say anything on this thread!

But since you've drawn me into it, I think that once you get a course that's windy and hilly and firm and fast and has uneven stances, knowing the yardage down to the yard is not much help.  

Sure, there are lots of golfers now who can't estimate the distance within twenty yards -- there were always some, of course, but laziness breeds ignorance.  We've been playing matches in Scotland all summer without much yardage information, and it's fun to play where judgment is part of the equation.

[Doug Ralston]

Tom;

Never said we could not have courses as you describe; indeed, I am very glad we do.

I only said that is not the ONLY type of course, or the only possibility on the limits of information, that can make a golf venue enjoyable and worthwhile.

I love a cabin in the mountains, but also my apartment in the city. I love to walk on Kearney Hill GC, but also to ride my golfcart up and down the bobsled steep golf trails at Eagle Ridge. I love the austure beauty of Sand Hills, but also the elegant constructed beauty of Victoria National.

Golf should not be a a vision you expect and repeat with minor variance, it should be a series of surprises provided by the creative architect; IMHO. Cape Kidnappers looks awesome. Wish I could play Shadow Creek too.

I would be glad to try to play a course like St Andrews without yardage info in hand. I would also love to play it with the info.

Joy is in the infinite variety of life. Our growth has given us the opportunity to create variety for ourselves.

Please note Tom; that I recognize that there is quality in the World, and not all options are equal. Bad minimalist courses, and lousy 'maximalist' designs too. I too search for the quality. I am just too exclectic to limit the search to a single idea of where to look.

Doug

[peter_p]

     Watch a poker tournament and the best players can go back and remember hands, players and tendencies over their career, and use that in deciding a course of action. It is institutional recall. I used to marvel at how they can accomplish that feat, until I realized I go through the same thing when I am playing a bump and run shot.
    Sadly, many tours players today lack such recall, or imagination. Most players had it in Thomsen's day.

[Tommy Williamsen]

The course I grew up playing had no distance markers.  I can only remember a few times pacaing the distance off before I hit my shot.  To this day I will estimate the distance before I look at the sprinkler head.  Yet, if my head says five iron and the distance marker says six iron, I'll hit five.

I walked around The European club with Pat Ruddy and he told me that he placed mounds in particular places to confuse the player about the distance to the green.  Interesting conversation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()