[John Kavanaugh]

JK:

Well, we can chalk that up to about difference #5003 between us then.  I believe people can decide for themselves what's fun and it's not up to me to protect them or judge that one way or the other.

Not one iota of my fun is lost by other people using distance-finding devices.  In fact given it has the potential to speed up play for most of my golf, I see it as increasing my fun.

TH

I'm shocked.  I thought you were one of the good ones that get enjoyment from giving back to the game.  Me, me, me..Thomas of Huckaby.

[Tom Huckaby]

I'm certainly not shocked that you interpret my remarks that way, given your penchant for looking for the worst in everything and everyone....

If I give back to the game - and I believe I do - it's in actions, not idle words on a silly website.

In any case, what I meant was I do believe that people know best themselves what makes the game fun for them, and it's not up to me to correct them or protect them or anything of the sort.  If that makes me somehow selfish in your warped view, then so be it.

TH

[Ed Tilley]

How is a device that enables a player to find his ball in the rough immediately, rather than spending 5 minutes looking, bad for the game? You still lose a ball if you hit it in the pond, you still can't hit it if it's in a bush, you still have to play it as it lies. Maybe it would mean the end to 5 hour rounds, and if that's not good for the game I don't know what is.

[Michael Moore]

Because I find it eminently logical, and far from stupid, that GPS systems do anything but give information that's already available.

Mr. Huckaby -

When you fan one eighty yards off-line into the next fairway, what's "already available" that can give you a precise yardage to the middle of the green?

[Geoffrey Childs]

Because I find it eminently logical, and far from stupid, that GPS systems do anything but give information that's already available.

Mr. Huckaby -

When you fan one eighty yards off-line into the next fairway, what's "already available" that can give you a precise yardage to the middle of the green?

You or your caddie pacing it off yourself.  I see it almost weekly on TV.  Slow up the game if you want but information IS available.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mr. Moore:

Mr. Huckaby is my uncle, and only when I had him as a teacher.  My Dad doesn't even need or want to be called that.  Call me Tom, please.

And my answer to your question is this:  if one is bad enough to hit the ball to a place where absolutely no information is available as to distance, then he needs all the help he can get, techological or otherwise.

Obviously there are places one can hit the ball where a bushnell would be his only hope to get a distance (other than pacing it off, as Geoffrey says).  In these rare times, I'd say the help is only a benefit for one and all, wouldn't you?  Or do you advocate further punishment of those who are already punished enough?

[Mark Bourgeois]

John makes a very good point about technology throwing up a buffer between human beings.

Technology tends to strip out the richness of human interaction, and reduce it to transactions.

Skycaddies as he describes their use is one example.  This website is another. (Who would say the interactions here are richer than in KP or BUDA?)

When you look around, you see how technology strip mines richness from human interaction:
voice mail
email
card swipes at supermarket checkout lines

etc. etc. etc.

If Skycaddies make the game more "fun" because they speed up the game, then isn't that a depressing "fun"?

Mark

[John Kavanaugh]

How is a device that enables a player to find his ball in the rough immediately, rather than spending 5 minutes looking, bad for the game? You still lose a ball if you hit it in the pond, you still can't hit it if it's in a bush, you still have to play it as it lies. Maybe it would mean the end to 5 hour rounds, and if that's not good for the game I don't know what is.

Ed,

On the third hole at Victoria National the layup area of the par 5 has a lateral water hazard on the left and high fescue on the right.  I like to play more to the left because if I hit a terrible shot I only lose a stroke and not the distance I hit it into the hazard.  If I knew I could always locate my ball on the right in the fescue I would play away from the hazard because I would no longer have to worry about the stroke and distance penalty of a lost ball.  It would also make it less risky to go for the green in two ruining the thrill of the difficult lay up.  Why introduce an electronic device that changes the architectural strategy of a hole.

It is a private club anyway and none of the members look for balls anymore in the gunch.  It would not speed up play but instead possibly slow it down because now we know where the balls are.

[Michael Moore]

You or your caddie pacing it off yourself.  I see it almost weekly on TV.  Slow up the game if you want but information IS available.

Those caddies must be better than I thought at trigonometry and the "Shivas 36-inch gait" to be as good as SkyCaddie !

[Tom Huckaby]

Mark:

I'd agree that the use of skycaddies would be a depressing fun, and I like how you put that.  My point is I'd never argue with someone who says it adds to their fun without any qualification or other limitation... to each his own.

Of course, I'd also say there's a time and a place for human interaction and I kinda like being able to pick and choose it more -as many modern conveniences allow us.  If I want more human interaction, I can always call on the phone and keep calling until I get the human; walk over and talk to someone instead of sending email; or pay cash at the checkout line.  The fact I don't HAVE to do these things at times it's convenient for me not to have to do such is only a benefit as I see things.

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

What if one terrorist didn't blow himself up because we talked to his uncle when paying for gas instead of paying at the pump.  You can not underestimate the value of trusting a fellow human being.

[Ed Tilley]

How is a device that enables a player to find his ball in the rough immediately, rather than spending 5 minutes looking, bad for the game? You still lose a ball if you hit it in the pond, you still can't hit it if it's in a bush, you still have to play it as it lies. Maybe it would mean the end to 5 hour rounds, and if that's not good for the game I don't know what is.

Ed,

On the third hole at Victoria National the layup area of the par 5 has a lateral water hazard on the left and high fescue on the right.  I like to play more to the left because if I hit a terrible shot I only lose a stroke and not the distance I hit it into the hazard.  If I knew I could always locate my ball on the right in the fescue I would play away from the hazard because I would no longer have to worry about the stroke and distance penalty of a lost ball.  It would also make it less risky to go for the green in two ruining the thrill of the difficult lay up.  Why introduce an electronic device that changes the architectural strategy of a hole.

It is a private club anyway and none of the members look for balls anymore in the gunch.  It would not speed up play but instead possibly slow it down because now we know where the balls are.

John,

You've still got to hit your ball out of the c**p, probably at best a wedge out onto the fairway.

I realise it would change the approach on a number of holes - the driver would be used far more often, but for me the benefits far outweigh the negatives. The two things I hate most on a round of golf are slow play and looking for balls. Anything that eliminates one and reduces the other would be great in my book.

The pros have ball locators anyway in the form of ball spotters and crowds. How often do you see a pro hit it in the rough and lose it? Very rarely. What's wrong with helping everyone else?

Ed

[Tom Huckaby]

What if one terrorist didn't blow himself up because we talked to his uncle when paying for gas instead of paying at the pump.  You can not underestimate the value of trusting a fellow human being.

What if I push a pregnant mother out of the way of an onrushing comet rather than saving my son from the bus coming the other direction?

Your examples rather stretch the limits of reality, John.

I see no decrease in the trusting of human beings in any of this.  I'd also guess that the percentage of rounds played with caddie is way way way less than 1% in golf today, and that's not going to change much no matter what any of us say.  Thus we deal with reality.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

It's OK Mark - I work for a tech company, but I actually agree with darn near everything you say there.

I just also look at it on the overall and find that the positives outweigh these negatives; you call it a tossup - fair enough.

But perhaps this is not the forum to discuss these things - we're getting pretty far from golf course architecture.  Not that that ever bothers ME, but it does tend to bother lots of others here.

TH

[Geoffrey Childs]

On the third hole at Victoria National the layup area of the par 5 has a lateral water hazard on the left and high fescue on the right.  I like to play more to the left because if I hit a terrible shot I only lose a stroke and not the distance I hit it into the hazard.  

John-

The 3rd at Victoria is a really excellent par 5 and quite demanding even for the pitct to what I recall is a fallaway green with H2O over  

To play within the rules you would have to actually visualize your ball going into the hazard left or alternatively identify it in the hazard.  With a long 2nd shot I'd ask you how easy is it to positively see the ball go into the hazard?  Otherwise its a lost ball with stroke and distance.

[JESII]

Ed,

On the third hole at Victoria National the layup area of the par 5 has a lateral water hazard on the left and high fescue on the right.  I like to play more to the left because if I hit a terrible shot I only lose a stroke and not the distance I hit it into the hazard.  If I knew I could always locate my ball on the right in the fescue I would play away from the hazard because I would no longer have to worry about the stroke and distance penalty of a lost ball.  It would also make it less risky to go for the green in two ruining the thrill of the difficult lay up.  Why introduce an electronic device that changes the architectural strategy of a hole.

Now there is a concept I've never thought of...build a reachable par 5 with such an exciting lay up option that very few people actually try for the green due to the mindblowingly adrenaline pulsing 6 iron lay up out to the right...OK John, what happened...did your EZ Pass not work and the Indiana DoT sent the fine straight to your house?

[Tom Huckaby]

Mark:

OK, that works for me.

But of course you know, most Scots LOVE Myrtle Beach and are fascinated by golf carts... they flock to places like this and Orlando for their golf vacations, and we shake our heads wondering why.

There are many ways to find fun in this game, and it's a rather personal decision.

TH

[RSLivingston_III]

John,

I think the ultimate would be that driver with the .22 blank behind the face. Just set it down behind the ball, get your alignment set...push the button and KAPOW! 295 straight down the middle!

Actually, this was invented in the 1880's. Horace Hutchison talks about it in the Badminton Library.

[John Kavanaugh]

On the third at Victoria it is easy to see your ball enter the lateral hazard on the left.  One problem we have sometimes when going for the green in two (because it is a blind shot) is knowing if the ball is in the lateral hazard long or lost short in the gunch.

JESII...You need to see this shot to believe it.  If there ever was an example of a hole that could not survive on a public course this is it while remaining fair and challenging for the private player.  The six iron lay up you refer too is the easy cop out because it is a wide area with a blind shot to the green.  If you want to make birdie you need to hit it up the gut left surrounded by trouble.  Of course if you are any good you just go for the green with a 240 yd carry and water long.  note:  I prefer the driver off the deck bannana which rides the ground around all the trouble...but that is just for fun or match play situations.

note: Sprinkler heads only give distance to the center of the green so lack much vital information you may find on a Skycaddie such as layup distance and distance to hazards that can not be seen.

[Tom Huckaby]

note: Sprinkler heads only give distance to the center of the green so lack much vital information you may find on a Skycaddie such as layup distance and distance to hazards that can not be seen.

But all of that can certainly be ascertained; it just takes more work and effort... or not, depending on the quality of the markings and yardage guide or other current aids.

[Geoffrey Childs]

[quote author=John Kavanaugh note: Sprinkler heads only give distance to the center of the green so lack much vital information you may find on a Skycaddie such as layup distance and distance to hazards that can not be seen.

John

Are those yardage guides available for Victoria National? I'll check to see if I have one at home later.  But I'm sure they are especially given the tournaments it has hosted.  You already said in this discussion that the Oakmont guide if fine.  So, your layup distances and front/back measurements are available if you think they are useful to you.

Michael Moore- you need to put in a disclaimer to your argument against measurement devices that you are in the business of making yardage guides (using measurement devices I might add).  Don't fret, however, I'll still always buy one for most courses that I care to remember well.

[John Kavanaugh]

note: Sprinkler heads only give distance to the center of the green so lack much vital information you may find on a Skycaddie such as layup distance and distance to hazards that can not be seen.

But all of that can certainly be ascertained; it just takes more work and effort... or not, depending on the quality of the markings and yardage guide or other current aids.

Yes, if you have no concern for others on the course behind you.  Me, me, me..Thomas of Huckaby.  This is why we need private courses.

[Tom Huckaby]

How is that selfish in any way?  Where did I say one SHOULD show lack of concern for others behind you?

You do have a maddening way of interpreting the worst when such is not even close to present.

Wanting more private courses - now THAT'S selfish.

Me, Me, JackassB.

[John Kavanaugh]

Geoffrey,

I don't have a problem with hand written notes or yardage guides.  I use a GPS everywhere I drive a car.  When in Mexico I bought Viagra over the counter and had a ball.  Now I can't find or fight my way out of a paper bag without a crutch.  Life is easy until you start looking for every edge and eventually find yourself grasping to that very thing.

[Tony_Muldoon]

This discussion has moved on in 24hrs but yes Tom eliminate doubt and you kill golf. Have you ever seen darts on the TV?


What I want to know is if all the 'Computers On Course's' guys (that's Coc's between friends ) are so sure that they will speed the game up, why did no one take me up on my offer of a bet on the other thread?

To recap.  You might just convince me that they will speed up a swift player but I'm ready to buy you a bottle of house wine at any future GCA meet against a glass for me, that time will show they give the slow player more things to do that aren't finding the ball and hitting it.  Pace of play is dictated by the slow players, therefore the pain is going to get worse.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()