Future cheating devices...ie: They make good architecture boring.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tony:

I have seen but the bare minimum of darts on TV.  It seems painfully boring to me because they never miss their intended target.  But I gather that's your point...  

As for the rest, I didn't see the bet you offered.

My feeling as for speeding up play is this:  those who are new to using them or are over-enamored with them will go slower.  In the short-run the effect will not be good.  But in the long-term two things will happen:

a) users will become more proficient;
b) other users will give them up if they do not become proficient.

With the result being that pace of play will get speedier, as those enamored with exact yardage will be able to quickly find such - and those will be the only people using the things.

In my experience this is already happening with rangefinders.  I fully expect it to occur this way also with Skycaddies and the like.

You have to admit that a proficient user can get his yardage a LOT quicker with these things than by pacing off from a sprinkler head or other marking on a yardage guide... Our difference will be how we foresee the percentages of proficient users v. clueless abusers.

I can't see how we'd settle this bet... but I am sticking by my stance.

TH

[Kirk Gill]

I don't think that the majority of the golfers I know have the ability to reliably hit their golf ball to ANY exact yardage. Even if they know that the pin is EXACTLY 177 yard away, and that to clear the bunker is EXACTLY 169 yards, and that the angle of deflection of the green surface is EXACTLY two degrees at 171 yards, where they want to land their approach..............then they still have to hit the fricking ball 171 yards. And they probably can't do that. And knowing all that data really amounts to just noise.

It's almost like an analog vs. digital discussion. The analog guy says it's "about ten to two." The digital guy says "it's 1:48." The analog guy thinks the old LP's sound best, while the digital guy can clearly discern the difference between a 44.1 khz and a 96 khz sampling rate.

Most of us straddle the fence. Sure, all kinds of technology provide a buffer/barrier between a human and the world, but some technologies seem to make the world a more jagged, pointy-er, colder and less welcoming place. Put me in the camp of folks that are attracted to the notion of using instinct and memory to guage distance and figure out the best approach on a golf shot. In my world, I think less of hitting a 171 yard shot than I do about hitting a decent five-iron. Like I said earlier, all that data amounts to noise for me, and it seems like a preoccupation with that noise is what accounts for slow play, not the method used to provide the noise.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kirk:

I tend to agree.

That's why I find these arguments amusing... it really is much ado about not much, if not nothing.

If some want to listen to the noise, then god love them, why should we care so long as they don't hold up play?

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

Much like smoking, there is second hand noise from these devices.  My friend who I play the most golf with during the summer and is a partner of mine in several tournaments bought a range finder this year.  He annoys the hell out of me with this thing.  It hurts my rhythm we he insists on giving me perfect yardage.  He sits it on the cart seat and it pops on the ground when I sit down.  If I don't ask for the yardage and come up short or long he gives me the you should have asked look.  It slows down play by at least 15 minutes a round.  He knows I hate it and the real kicker is the guy is Amish so it is a sin to boot.

[Tom Huckaby]

"The guy is Amish so it is a sin to boot..."

 

You're really reaching for ways to find these things to be bad, my friend.

Methinks the problem is your friend to some extent and you to a large extent - far more than the device.  I continue to believe - and have seen with my own eyes - that they can be used with absolutely no second hand noise effect.

[Kirk Gill]

To answer the title of this thread, I don't believe that distance-measuring devices, gps, skycaddy, etc. make good architecture boring, but I think they attempt to make it less relevant, and for me that diminishes the enjoyment of the game. If what you want is to get joy out of hitting a shot exactly 182.48 yards, then go to the range, pick a spot and hit to it. Bet with your friends. I'm sure all kinds of range games could be created for such a purpose.

But golf itself is a lot more than that, should be more than that. Improvements in club or ball technology seem like a different kettle of fish entirely, as they don't preclude someone from actually having to hit the ball and get it in the hole. Given how many strokes I'm capable of giving up when actually ON the green, advances in club and ball technology aren't going to change the fundamental nature of golf for me (or for lots of other people). Let the people who are much better at the game than I worry about such things.

Mr. Kavanaugh, your Amish friend is already sliding hard down the slippery slope, without even considering the rangefinder. He should be walking, and using hickories.

But seriously, my understanding is that the Amish don't believe that using technology is a sin, but they fear that by using every bit of new technology the comes along, they risk the destruction of a culture that they value and wish to preserve.

Sound familiar?

[Bryan Drennon]

X-Ray glasses the eliminate blind shots.  It is only fair for the first time player.

There's no way I would waste my time on the golf course if I owned a pair of x-ray glasses.

[Mike_Cirba]

There's no way I would waste my time on the golf course if I owned a pair of x-ray glasses.

Bryan,

I'd say that's the post of the year to date.

Can you come over to the Merion thread where we could all use a little perspective and humor?