[John Burzynski]

It just seems that for all but the best of golfers, not knowing whether the hole is exactly 150 or 160 away has little difference in the shot result.   

Most golfers just aren't even close to consistently accurate to within +/- 5 yards of an exact given distance found with a laser rangefinder.   A close by sprinkler head or pine tree combined with a golfer's eyeballs and intuitive distance judgment will give most golfers all of the information that they need to choose a club and attempt to make a shot to a given distance.     Would you really choose a different club or attempt a different shot if you were laying  15 feet to the right of a 150 yard sprinkler head and figured that you were maybe 155 ish out, or if you stood at the point of your shot and used a rangefinder to find that you were lasered at actually 148.3 away?  In my case, it is a 5 iron either way, just maybe attempt a bit softer or harder on the swing. 

Even optical illusions like in the picture that started this post can often be accounted for visually by a golfer, if a golfers takes the time to look at what the architect is trying to accomplish on a given hole.

[Brent Hutto]

John,

Thought experiment for you.

Someone take you out to the edge of field and tees a ball up for you. They say "I've marked a spot out there somewhere and if you hit the ball within a club length of it I'll give you $100. Heck, if you hit it within 5 paces I'll give you $20.

Are you saying you would not ask him how far and what direction to the mark? Do you think these three scenarios give a 20-handicapper exactly the same chance of winning the bet?

1) The guy says "I don't know where the spot is. More than 100 yards, maybe 125, maybe 150, maybe 160, it's hard to say. Just somewhere out there, it doesn't matter just hit the ball".

2) The guy says "Maybe 140, 150 yards and it's over toward the left side of the field".

3) The guy says "It's 145 yards and toward the telephone pole on the other side of the field".

Just where do you think the skill level might be where knowing how far you're trying to hit it matters? I'd say for anyone other than a rank beginner who can't get the ball in the air any golfer's chances are better knowing how far and what direction than not knowing. Your argument seems to be if the chances of getting within 5 yards of the target are too low (what's too low...50/50? 1 in 3? 1 in 10?) then you don't even need to try to hit it any particular distance. I'm pretty sure you don't play golf that way, I know I don't.

[John Burzynski]

My point (maybe misstated) is that I question at exactly what decimal place do we need to know the yardage?  Do we need to know the exact yardage to a tenth of a yard, the exact yardage to within one yard, is a close  estimation via the closest sprinkler head to within 5 or less yards sufficient, etc.? 

A rangefinder or GPS gives you the distance at a minimum to the exact yard, some will give you tenths of a yard, it depends on the resolution and +/- error of the device(and with GPS this can be a variance of a yard or two, anyhow, correct?).  In reality is this any better for the golfer than estimating the yardage by what is already attainable with an old fashioned sprinkler head or concrete marker in a fairway?   Most of us should be able to find a sprinkler head or traditional marker and eyeball or pace off the yardage from there.  Is it that difficult to figure out that I am standing ten or 20 yards behind a 150 yard marker pine tree?  Especially since there might be a sprinkler head reading 163 yards to my right and three yards ahead of me?

I do realize that some courses have few markers, and this is a challenge or could slow down play.

I am not against sprinkler heads or the ole pine tree markers, but the rangefinder or GPS unit seems to me to be overkill, along with an intrusion of electronic technology into a sport where previously none existed.

[Mark Pearce]

John,

+/- 5 yards will do for me, though I can see some shorter shots where +/- 3 yards might make a bit of a difference.  BUt I don't see that having readily abvailable a more accurate measure is a problem.

[Brent Hutto]

John,

That's what I thought, we're quibbling about "how accurate" not over the fundamental need to know the distance.

I hit the ball more consistently than I can estimate distances. And believe me, I do not hit the ball at all consistently. But without experience on the course or a sprinkler or post I'm as likely to be ridiculously way off as somewhere in the neighborhood.

Frankly, my GPS is probably off by 3-4 yards quite often and I know for a fact it can (only very occasionally) tell you with a straight face that a 160-yard shot is 172 or something. But that 3-4 yards matches up real nicely with my wedge game and it's not terribly much overkill for hitting shots between 100-140 yards. Outside of six iron range my games a crap shoot but knowing to within a couple yards certainly ain't gonna hurt me.

If I needed distances to the actual flag and I needed accuracy that I could count on being closer than five yards or so every time that would have to be a laser rangefinder, I suppose. I think there are a lot of 6, 8, 9 handicappers who actually do benefit from that sort of accuracy although probably not many bogey golfers like myself.

But as I always say in these discussions, if I use a GPS it's for speed not accuracy. Yardage markers I can trust plus pacing off the distance from my ball to the nearest marker are undoubtedly sufficient for my game in the vast majority of situations but the GPS is faster without a doubt.

[Michael Whitaker]

But as I always say in these discussions, if I use a GPS it's for speed not accuracy. Yardage markers I can trust plus pacing off the distance from my ball to the nearest marker are undoubtedly sufficient for my game in the vast majority of situations but the GPS is faster without a doubt.

Brent - My wife gave me a Bushnell for Christmas. I did not ask for one... she overheard a conversation that a had with a few friends who love their rangefinders and she decided it would be a good gift for me.

As you know, I have not been enamored with these devices, but I must admit that mine has come in very handy. I don't use it for every shot, just the ones that have me puzzled... when I'm trying to determine if I'm going to lay up on a hole, or try and clear a ditch, pond or bunker, for example. I probably use it 3-5 times a round and can assure you that it speeds up play... in the decision making process if nothing else.

I don't think these devices are used much by golfers who play the same course regularly. They are handy, however, for those of us who play a lot of new courses or ones that we do not see very often. They are primarily suited for the card & pencil golfers to whom score is all important. As we have discussed, I don't keep score much anymore. Thus... I have one, but I only use it sparingly.

How's that for riding the fence?

[Brent Hutto]

Well ridden, buckaroo!

All this just makes me want to go play golf somewhere that the fairways are firm, the greens are firmer and the wind blows every day.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Brent

A trip to Askernish is what you need

I would not be surprised to see a landing
tax on electronic golfing aids when golfer's
arrive on the island of South Uist. Say around
£50 should do, help them to their target of
£1,000,000.

Perhaps that is the answer, all using electronic
aids should have to pay a tax (valid for 18 holes
only) to use these aids, with the money going to
a good cause.

Mind you, how many of these guys who use these
aid would have the balls to play at Askernish as
not many markers either natural or man made,
just the odd sheep, but they move.

[Brent Hutto]

I would love to visit the Hebrides, generally speaking, as well as play at Askernish. Perhaps one day I'll free up some time on a UK trip and get Mike W or someone to come along so we can have a game or three.

This year I think Brora will be as close as I can come. Just 12 weeks from this very morning and counting!

[Kirk Gill]

If two golfers of essentially equal ability play a match at an unfamiliar course, and one uses a rangefinder for distances and the other has to rely on some 150 markers that were probably put out there 20 years ago by some guy walking off the distance, one player has a clear advantage that has nothing to do with his ability. Or, to put it another way, if neither of those golfers is carrying a rangefinder, and both are relying on the dubious direction of those 150-yard markers, then doesn't the golfer who has a better sense of distance perception then have a clear advantage? The question is, to what (if any) degree is the ability to perceive distance a golfing skill that needs to be tested (sorry, I know I mentioned this earlier). Is the inevitable next step golf carts equipped with wind detection devices so that the golfer can have an exact reading of wind direction and speed? Do these gps or yardage detection devices also give accurate readings as to how much higher or lower the intended target is than where the ball lies? Is it allowable to have a computer that takes into account shot distance, height differential, wind speed and direction, and the golfer's tested ability with each club and will tell the golfer which club they should be hitting? Or am I just being an ass?

That last bit is an all-too common occurrence.

[Michael Whitaker]

All this just makes me want to go play golf somewhere that the fairways are firm, the greens are firmer and the wind blows every day.

You need to see the new Founders Club at Pawleys Island... it is exactly as you describe!

[Doug Siebert]

I don't think its relevant which golfers can benefit from knowing distance to what accuracy.  Slow play is slow play, and that's true whether it is a 30 handicapper taking 30 seconds to get his distance to a half yard or a +3 taking 30 seconds to get his distance to the half yard.  It may annoy some a bit more seeing a 30 handicapper do it because he can't benefit, but if he's not delaying me or his group is being held up in front so he's gotta do something to waste time, I might laugh at it but I'm not going to begrudge him his particular method of wasting time to reduce his time standing over the ball waiting for the green to clear.

As long as a golfer is capable of hitting a solid shot often enough to know how far that solid shot goes, knowing your yardage can be beneficial.  Going long is generally a worse sin than leaving it short, especially on older courses with severely sloped greens.  Even Tiger couldn't save par very often after flying 10 yards over a back pin on some holes at my home course, but there's probably nothing short of any green that would offer much challenge to the short game of wily veterans of GCA like Mucci or TEPaul.

I know how far I carry my 7 iron, and know that if I don't hit it square it will go shorter.  But I always plan on hitting the ball square, the only difference between shots is how I calculate my yardage.  For a normal shot I calculate the distance to the pin, or maybe play a few yards short of it if to avoid super slick downhillers.  In cases where going long means penalty strokes or having to work for even a bogey, I work backwards by figuring out my distance to go long and select a club that I know "can't possibly go that far" (somehow I still hit that "impossible" iron shot a few times a season )

[Jon Wiggett]

I assume you are being deliberately obtuse.

I'm a 12 handicap and I KNOW I will carry a decently hit 7 iron 145 yards and it has to be a REALLY bad strike not to carry 130.  If the flag is at 155 and 8 yards over the front bunker, I'm going to hit 6 iron to be sure I'm over the bunker.  If it's 15 yards over that bunker I'll go with my 7 iron.

As to being able to compensate for the other factors I have no idea what you are talking about.  Of course I can compensate for a wind (and given how blowy it can be up here I wouldn't be much of a golfer if I couldn't), or firm green conditions, or soggy turf.  Your assumption that I can't is, frankly, ridiculous arrogance.

Mark,

I think its great that you are one the few people off 12 handicap that can hit one off shots to such a high degree of accuracy. Most players believe they can when infact they can't. I would however suggest that your example of flag at 155 and 15 over the bunker (140 carry) for a player who hits it 145 with the 7 iron leaving just 5 yards of leeway is something that even Tiger would not risk taking on if not necessary. It also puts your statement (which was a bit over the top)"Your assumption that I can't is, frankly, ridiculous arrogance" into perspective.

[Mark Pearce]

Jon,

You don't stop to think, even for a moment, do you.  You've never met me, let alone seen me play and yet you see fit to doubt what I say about my own game.  You must be full of it. 

As to your questioning my example, let me explain further, since I clearly need to.  I reckon that (assuming still conditions on a reasonably warm day) my 7 iron will make that 140 yard carry 80% of the time.  15% of the time I'm likely to be in the bunker and 5% I'll miss short.  If I hit 6 iron and hit it well there's a risk I go through the back.  I'd rather be in the bunker short.

Anyway, it isn't about my game.  Even a 24 handicapper, whose distance control means that his 7 iron carries, say, an average 130 yards but might go 90 or 110 with 20% likelihood will, on average, benefit from knowing the yardage to, say, +/-5 yards.  The fact that you don't understand that (or are unwilling to) suggests you are completely out of touch with the games of mid and high handicap golfers.

Still, what do I know?  If you know my game better than I do I'm sure you understand everyone else's just as well.

[Rich Goodale]

Jon

I know Mark Pearce.  I have played golf with him.  He is a friend of mine.  In relation to knowing him or his golf game (and probably another thing or two....) you are no Mark Pearce.

Rich

[Jon Wiggett]

Mark,

Mark,

I realise I have never met or seen you play golf. I hope at some point we may have the opportunity to, I am sure we will get along better in person than over the internet. Maybe I am just not understanding what you are writing correctly and if so I apologise if you feel I am insulting you, it was not my intention. You will have to excuse me seeming to doubt your abilities to do what you claim and I am sure you fully believe what you are saying to be correct. It is possible we are talking about 2 different things all together so I will explain myself in more depth. I am sure when you have read it, wether you agree or not you will see that I did not wish to have a go at you.

With a 5 yard accuracy 80% of the time and I will make the assumption that direction is similar meaning that over 18 holes 32 of full shots hit within 15 feet of their target leading to between 11 and 12 birdie putts from within this distance. From these 11/12 putts it might be realistically expected to hole 3 and 2 putt the rest meaning a player would need to be 15/16 over par on the remaining 6 or 7 holes to play to a 12 handicap.

I have no doubt that you are able to play rounds to the standard you suggest although I do have difficulty in seeing it as an average round. Even on the PGA tour GIR are not 80% for the average pro.

Richard,

In reply to your statement. I am pleased for you that you are aquainted with Mark which is something I am not. You quite rightly say you know him as a person and a golfer which I can not say other than what I have read here on the GCA. I do however take exception to you comments directed at me which seem to me to be of a negative character. I would like to know where you have met me or know of my golfing game that you could make such a comparison. Case of the kettle calling the pot black, perhaps?

[Dan King]

David Ober writes:
Most players who use range finders play FASTER, not slower. And that's a fact.

I'm interested in knowing where this fact comes from. All I've ever seen is anecdotal information. I think it would have been very easy for the USGA and/or R&A to run tests to see if these things truly speed up or slow down play, but I don't believe they ever did test. I think they just took the manufacturers word for it.

Cheers,
Dan King

Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training.
 --Michael Shermer

[Craig Van Egmond]

Dan,

          Do you have any evidence that they slow down play?  Slow players are always going to play slow, no matter the technology.

[Mark Pearce]

Jon,

I have a tendency to an in to out swing which means I'm going to push or hook a proportion of shots, missing left or right.  The hooks will also go long but then they're missing left anyway.  There will be shots which miss short or long.  In my example obove I suggested that perhaps 20% might be short.  None of that changes the fact that knowing the yardage will help when I hit the shot well.  And your figures completely ignore the fact that on someholes I won't be playing my approach in regulation or from a decent lie because of trouble off the tee.  You appear to be assuming that wrong distance is the only reason I ever drop a shot.  I don't know a 6 handicapper, let alone a 12, for whom that's the case.

It is simply not the case that to gain a benefit from knowing a yardage you have to be able to hit that yardage exactly every time.

[Sean_A]

I still don't understand what this argument of using guns to speed up play is all about.  We can obviously point to times and places where guns weren't used and speed of play wasn't a problem.  Its incredible that anyone would argue that guns are good because they speed up play.  When has it ever been accepted that finding yardage is the reason for 5 hour rounds?  Guns are not going to make a material difference either way. 

Ciao

[Dan King]

Craig Edgmand writes:
Do you have any evidence that they slow down play?

Nope, none, nada. My evidence is completely anecdotal. I am just naturally suspicious when the USGA comes out and says they okayed them because they speed up play, when they did nothing to collect such information. The USGA is just as clueless if they speed up play as all the people making claims in this thread. 

Slow players are always going to play slow, no matter the technology.

Yeah, but for some reason the slow players are always in front of me on the golf course. Give them another piece of equipment to fiddle with, and I've seen them slow down to a crawl. I'm not saying these devil's devices slow down play, I'm just saying I've seen them make slow players slower on some occasions.

I don't think speeding up fast players is high on my list of needs. Speeding up slow players is.

Cheers,
Dan King

Technology... the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it. 
 --Max Frisch

[Craig Van Egmond]

But Dan, slow players don't think they are slow.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Guns speed up the game - of course, it can be done as you walk, what, no, can't get a correct reading, so you have to stop. Therefore playing a round (as described below) by yourself without a gun must be faster.

I was taught to play as follows (as I posted the other day)
 
c)Walking up to the ball from your previous shot working out
   distance, obstacles/hazards/bunkers, then decide which club to play.
   By the time you have reached the ball you have selected your approach
   shot then go through the final motions of re-checking ball, flag,
   distance, correct stance, relaxed, final look keeping eye on the ball,
   swing and hit the ball, like millions of people have done for around a
   100 years.

Thank God, the art of playing golf still survives in some of use. Its a simple basic skill to master and perhaps if its speed you want, this way could be quicker too.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

I have a tendency to an in to out swing which means I'm going to push or hook a proportion of shots, missing left or right.  The hooks will also go long but then they're missing left anyway.  There will be shots which miss short or long.  In my example obove I suggested that perhaps 20% might be short.  None of that changes the fact that knowing the yardage will help when I hit the shot well.  And your figures completely ignore the fact that on someholes I won't be playing my approach in regulation or from a decent lie because of trouble off the tee.  You appear to be assuming that wrong distance is the only reason I ever drop a shot.  I don't know a 6 handicapper, let alone a 12, for whom that's the case.

It is simply not the case that to gain a benefit from knowing a yardage you have to be able to hit that yardage exactly every time.

Mark,

I understand what you are saying, I think. The ability to hit to a 5 yard consistancy 80% of the time requires the player to be able to repeat the same strike on each of these occasions. A hook will result not only in the ball going left but also going somewhat further due to the clubface being closed at impact and a push will be shorter. Shots travelling a consistant distance will generally have a very similar trajectory so long as the conditions are the same. Distance and direction are closely related to each other. I will concede that poor alignment will cause the ball to miss the target and is the main factor a pro misses the target.

A player capable of over 96% accuracy on a 145 yard shot (5 yard) for 4 out of 5 shots would be more than cable of using his longer clubs when teeing off. Indeed, one would expect him to miss only 3 tee shots on the par 4's and 5's. Although, as you point out, not all your shots to the green would be in regulation, if you do posses this degree of accuracy then 15 of them would be giving 12 GIR inside 15 foot.

The only way to develope a consistant distance is through a consistant strike which comes from a consistant swing and leads to the same shape of shot thus direction.

I had the pleasure of playing Elie 2 weeks ago shooting a four under 66. Although Elie is a fairly short course and I played quite well I came no where near the distance accuracy we are discussing which is why I questioned it in the first place.

I concur that knowing the distance of a hazard is helpful even to a higher handicap player in order to insure clearing or staying short of it by a considerable margin. In such a case yes, yardages do help. Does it help the player to be quicker or play less shots? As the time to play a round has increased in the last 30 years and despite better equipment the average players handicap has not then it wouldn't appear to be the case (I appr. that since the 1983 change handicaps are more realistic and have gone up due to the changes).

[Kalen Braley]

Guns speed up the game - of course, it can be done as you walk, what, no, can't get a correct reading, so you have to stop. Therefore playing a round (as described below) by yourself without a gun must be faster.

I was taught to play as follows (as I posted the other day)
 
c)Walking up to the ball from your previous shot working out
   distance, obstacles/hazards/bunkers, then decide which club to play.
   By the time you have reached the ball you have selected your approach
   shot then go through the final motions of re-checking ball, flag,
   distance, correct stance, relaxed, final look keeping eye on the ball,
   swing and hit the ball, like millions of people have done for around a
   100 years.

Thank God, the art of playing golf still survives in some of use. Its a simple basic skill to master and perhaps if its speed you want, this way could be quicker too.

Amen Melyvn,

When I'm walking up to my ball, I'm already surveying the next shot whether it be the green, bunkering, hazards or otherwise.  So by the time I get to my ball, I only have to get a decent yardage figure and then I'm ready to go.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()