[Tim Bert]

Shivas

If you make Titleist remove the line then shouldn't all manufacturers be required to print their brand name in a non-linear fashion?

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm not even in favor of putting yardage on the scorecard!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Reef

When I started playing in the early 1960 I was taught by my father. Distance was never in the equation. The starting point was the Tees to the flag on the Green, distance was what it was and it was addressed accordingly.

The modern golfer is far to occupied with worrying about yardage. Perhaps it's the intensity of competition or of the amount of money available. Whatever, this has created a mad craven for knowledge on yardage.

Clearly the modern player needs to know distance, he is not confident until someone or thing has told him the yardage. But the ridicules part of all this is once armed with the knowledge the golfer still has to convert in into a shot. He still has to prepare, concentrate, aim, steady himself then take the swing and shot – were does all this come from another artificial aid, booklet, caddie, no, from within the player. His own body takes over and re calculates it all over again so when the ball is hit, it’s the eye/brain/ body that is responsible not just for the stroke but the direction and strength the ball is hit which is then measured in distance. Sorry but the player is responsible for the shot, his eye/mind co-ordination cancelled out any outside input and thus controlled his own swing. So to me yardage is a modern crutch, as for caddies as I said before they should not give any info to a player in a competition but only to Visitors there to enjoy a game of golf. 

My game is not alien, it was the norm for hundreds of years, it’s you guys that have gone mad over distance information and let it rule your game.

[Dean Stokes]

Tim, they can have their logos.  That's fine.

It's the act of placing it to indicate a line for putting that's the issue. 

If the USGA would just reverse their decision that using the logo to line up putts is no longer OK, nobody would draw lines on their balls, Titleist would take the lines off their balls and nobody would do it anymore, speeding up the game and, just as importantly, bringing over-the-ball alignment skills back into putting.

I'm certain that part of the thinking that went into the ban on croquet style putting was that aligning yourself over the ball is a skill of the game, and that it was too easy from a position over and behind the ball. 

Well, with every putter having a line on it these days, and every ball having a line on it these days, the simple fact is that once you line up your cheater line on your intended line, creating a contiguous line between the ball line and the putter line is practically impossible NOT to do - and thus, you no longer have to align yourself from beside the ball because you've already done so from behind the ball.

That's not the spirit of the game...the spirit of the game is that it's you, you and you.  You're on your own to hit the shot, including lining yourself up.  And you can get help from a caddie or partner, but they'd better be the hell out of the way before you hit the shot!

[Tim Bert]

I'm not even in favor of putting yardage on the scorecard!

Big Deal.

I'm not in favor of scorecards at all.

I wonder:  for how many hundreds of years was golf played at match play exclusively without scorecards at all? 

Big deal.

My wife is not in favor of golf at all.

And I'm not sure why you think the cheater line users wouldn't continue to line their putts up with the logo.  I'd love to see the rules official that tries to prove intent on that one.  Talk about slowing down the round.  Why not make all the manufacturers print their logo in circular fashion on the ball.

[Dean Stokes]

Tim, they can have their logos.  That's fine.

It's the act of placing it to indicate a line for putting that's the issue. 

If the USGA would just reverse their decision that using the logo to line up putts is no longer OK, nobody would draw lines on their balls, Titleist would take the lines off their balls and nobody would do it anymore, speeding up the game and, just as importantly, bringing over-the-ball alignment skills back into putting.

I'm certain that part of the thinking that went into the ban on croquet style putting was that aligning yourself over the ball is a skill of the game, and that it was too easy from a position over and behind the ball. 

Well, with every putter having a line on it these days, and every ball having a line on it these days, the simple fact is that once you line up your cheater line on your intended line, creating a contiguous line between the ball line and the putter line is practically impossible NOT to do - and thus, you no longer have to align yourself from beside the ball because you've already done so from behind the ball.

That's not the spirit of the game...the spirit of the game is that it's you, you and you.  You're on your own to hit the shot, including lining yourself up.  And you can get help from a caddie or partner, but they'd better be the hell out of the way before you hit the shot!

Shivas, the one reason I would never use the cheater line is that I do not believe you can consistently line it up correctly. Having worked with a golf coach/pshyco. for several months on my putting, he proved matter of factly that setting up correctly or lining up correctly and stroking the ball where you want it to go have nothing to do with one another.

I actually enjoy seeing my opposition using the cheater line as it usually means they have putting problems!

What I would really like to hear is your views on the bigger 'cheater tool'  to aid on the greens IMHO - the belly/long putter. Any opinion?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike, Shivas -

you guys sound like the two Yorkshiremen from the Monty Python sketch, talking about who was poorer as a kid:

"There were a hundred and fifty us living in a shoebox in the middle of the road..."

"Luxury! We lived in a paper bag at the bottom of a lake. Every morning we had to get up and lick the lake clean with our tongues..."

No offence intended, of course. Me? I worked 27 hours a day in the mines for no pay -- had to pay the mine owner for the right to work -- and when I got home my mum and dad would cut me in two with a bread knife and dance about on my grave...

Peter

[C. Squier]

Who here hasn't seen a 152 sprinklerhead and said to themselves "it looks shorter than that"  or "it looks longer than that" and overridden the sprinklerhead?  Or worse, trusted the sprinklerhead in choosing the club, but then overrode it during the downswing?  Doubt is as important an element of the game as confidence, is it not?  And who would deny that confidence is important?

Sprinkler heads have been lasered for much, much longer than golfers have had GPS at their disposal.  If it didn't look like 152 yards, don't blame the sprinkler head, thank the architect for creating a great illusion that introduces doubt.  

I think you need to fall into one of two camps....no yardages from ANY source, or anything goes.  But to say that GPS is somehow different from sprinkler heads/150 poles/tee markers is a losing battle, IMO.

CPS

[John Kavanaugh]

But to say that GPS is somehow different from sprinkler heads/150 poles/tee markers is a losing battle, IMO.

Why lie to yourself when you know it is a huge difference.  If you say that getting within 5 yds of accurate is the same as exact because of your skill level than why spend the money for a rangefinder.  We can all agree that if you take any size sample and in one case ask them to read a number on a device and in the other ask them to pace a distance from a sprinkler head you are going to get more different and many wrong answers from the pacing test.  Have you ever measured your pace using a scientific method...I'm 6'3'' tall and have a 2.71' average pace...Funny how most people think they pace a 3' and very few are out taking giant steps.

[Bill Satterfield]

Carts or push carts?

When I play it is either in a cart or I carry my bag.  I used a push cart briefly a couple of years ago, but once I purchased a lighter bag I preferred carrying it rather than using the push cart.  Whether I walk or ride depends on the situation.  If I'm golfing at 6:00 AM then I prefer a cart because I can play all 18 holes in less than 2 hours and still get to work on time.  If it is going to be a slower round then I'll just walk and enjoy that.

[John Kavanaugh]

Carts or push carts?

When I play it is either in a cart or I carry my bag.  I used a push cart briefly a couple of years ago, but once I purchased a lighter bag I preferred carrying it rather than using the push cart.  Whether I walk or ride depends on the situation.  If I'm golfing at 6:00 AM then I prefer a cart because I can play all 18 holes in less than 2 hours and still get to work on time.  If it is going to be a slower round then I'll just walk and enjoy that.

Now there is an honest man admitting that playing in a cart with no one in front of you is faster than walking.

[Brent Hutto]

Hmm, nobody in the cart with you, driving down the middle of the fairway, nobody else on the course...how the hell could that not be faster than walking. Unless the cart runs out of gas it's going to be moving faster than a walker.

That's a little like saying an airplane can cover the distance from my house to my mom's house ten miles away faster than I can in a car...if the airplane is already at 25,000 feet and flying at cruising speed. Sure it will but that don't mean it's faster to fly to visit my mom than drive.

[John Kavanaugh]

The big difference between rangegrinders, cartballers and goosesteppers is that goosesteppers are guaranteed cheap skates.  I'm looking forward to a whole new series of lies justifying walking at all or no cost.

[Mike_Cirba]

The first couple of courses I played, not a one had yardage markers of any sort.    The first one with anything had posts set in the rough on one side indicating 150 yards.   Perhaps I was just trained to not expect them, so now they seem a bit of an irritant and obviously artificial so it's tough to make them look good in any way, shape, or form.

And apologies to my friends who use them, but do you realize that it's impossible to look even remotely cool looking through a range-finder?   They should come with pocket protectors.  

One of the most memorable days of my life was playing NGLA in a twosome on a brilliant, clear-blue, 10-15 mph breeze, 70-degree day in November, with the course basically closed (no caddies).

There are no yardage markers, and it was my first time playing.    Once again I was transported to the adventure of my youth, where you had to "feel" the yardage, figuring wind, visuals, firmness of turf, etc., and it was more fun than humans should be allowed to have.

I don't know why we try to turn adventure into statistics.

[Brent Hutto]

Mike,

With or without a rangefinder I'll never look as cool as you. So it's not worth even trying.

Just like I'll never have as much money as John. So I'm cool with being a cheap skate (sic).

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

With or without a rangefinder I'll never look as cool as you. So it's not worth even trying.

Just like I'll never have as much money as John. So I'm cool with being a cheap skate (sic).

Brent,

I've seen your pics.   You are a stud!

You just don't look cool with a rangefinder...nobody does. 

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't know why we try to turn adventure into statistics.

It goes back to Viagra and vibrators.  The society of the can't miss orgasm.

[C. Squier]

Why lie to yourself when you know it is a huge difference.  If you say that getting within 5 yds of accurate is the same as exact because of your skill level than why spend the money for a rangefinder.  We can all agree that if you take any size sample and in one case ask them to read a number on a device and in the other ask them to pace a distance from a sprinkler head you are going to get more different and many wrong answers from the pacing test.  Have you ever measured your pace using a scientific method...I'm 6'3'' tall and have a 2.71' average pace...Funny how most people think they pace a 3' and very few are out taking giant steps.

I could care less what others do, I know how far I need to stride to hit a yard.  Don't quote others and point your finger at me....doesn't do very well to prove a point.  At least not an all-encompassing one.

Not all rangefinder users are clueless.  Some are, no doubt.  I have all the neccessary brain bandwidth to throw the pythagoreon theorem on an opponent from the next fairway over if I need.....I'll be within a yard or two within 30 seconds doing that.  

MY point is, I derive my enjoyment from the game not from how well I calculated yardages on my own, but from other aspects.  The great drive on 4, the chip to a foot on 12 and the double bogey on 18 to shoot 81.  This thread isn't about electronics or yardages....its about how different golfers find different parts of the game enjoyable.  To me, this is as dumb as arguing that ALL golfers should play in competitions to win versus ALL golfers shouldn't worry about who wins and should play just for "fun".  Its personal taste, something a message board pissing match will never solve.  

Al Czervik and Melvyn Morrow both smile on the course.  While they may not make the best member-guest partners, I believe they are both equally important to the game.  And who's to say that if Dr. Emmett Brown jumped into his Delorean and dropped a Pinseeker off to some Scottish guy in his time travels, the golfer wouldn't have gotten a pull from it.  Hard to say they wouldn't have used it, had the technology existed.  

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

Point well spoken.  

Reducing risk of failure...hmmm...food for thought in many areas of life.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

With or without a rangefinder I'll never look as cool as you. So it's not worth even trying.

Just like I'll never have as much money as John. So I'm cool with being a cheap skate (sic).

It's hard to be cool when you point out a perceived misspelling. It's sic..

Cheap Skate

No one knows for certain where the "skate" in "cheapskate" (meaning a very stingy person) came from, although we do know that "cheapskate" first appeared in English around 1896. Authorities are also fairly certain that this kind of "skate" is not related to the "skate" fish, which resembles a ray and takes its name from the Old Norse word "skata." The other common kind of "skate" (as in roller-skate or ice-skate) is also not related to "cheapskate," and comes from an Old French word ("eschasse") meaning "stilts."

The most plausible theory about the "skate" in "cheapskate" traces it to the Scots word "skate," a term of contempt which apparently also crops up in a slightly different form in the archaic term "blatherskite," meaning a person who blathers, or babbles nonsense. If this theory is true, "cheapskate" would thus translate as essentially "stingy creep," which makes sense.

[John Kavanaugh]

Why lie to yourself when you know it is a huge difference.  If you say that getting within 5 yds of accurate is the same as exact because of your skill level than why spend the money for a rangefinder.  We can all agree that if you take any size sample and in one case ask them to read a number on a device and in the other ask them to pace a distance from a sprinkler head you are going to get more different and many wrong answers from the pacing test.  Have you ever measured your pace using a scientific method...I'm 6'3'' tall and have a 2.71' average pace...Funny how most people think they pace a 3' and very few are out taking giant steps.

I could care less what others do, I know how far I need to stride to hit a yard.  Don't quote others and point your finger at me....doesn't do very well to prove a point.  At least not an all-encompassing one.

Not all rangefinder users are clueless.  Some are, no doubt.  I have all the neccessary brain bandwidth to throw the pythagoreon theorem on an opponent from the next fairway over if I need.....I'll be within a yard or two within 30 seconds doing that.  

MY point is, I derive my enjoyment from the game not from how well I calculated yardages on my own, but from other aspects.  The great drive on 4, the chip to a foot on 12 and the double bogey on 18 to shoot 81.  This thread isn't about electronics or yardages....its about how different golfers find different parts of the game enjoyable.  To me, this is as dumb as arguing that ALL golfers should play in competitions to win versus ALL golfers shouldn't worry about who wins and should play just for "fun".  Its personal taste, something a message board pissing match will never solve.  

Al Czervik and Melvyn Morrow both smile on the course.  While they may not make the best member-guest partners, I believe they are both equally important to the game.  And who's to say that if Dr. Emmett Brown jumped into his Delorean and dropped a Pinseeker off to some Scottish guy in his time travels, the golfer wouldn't have gotten a pull from it.  Hard to say they wouldn't have used it, had the technology existed.  

No doubt that if it was free the Scot would have used it.  All technology eventually gets used which explains people paying $50,000 to clone their pets and my brother paying four figures in 1972 for a digital Pulsar watch.  This thread is about waking up golfers to the fact that we are not done dumbing down the game and may never be until there is no game at all.  btw...If all golfers were equally important to the game Nike wouldn't pay Tiger Woods 20 million or so per year.

[Dan King]

JWinick writes:
My main beef with the anti-technologists is the fact that: they subtly accuse us of cheating; their moral superiority; their intent to stop our fun (we are "pro-choice" if you will); and the denigration of the need to know.

Funny, I wasn't trying to be subtle.

If others have caddies, or other ways to get yardage, then it is only fair golfers should get to use whatever means necessary to get yardage.

If others have caddies that can read greens, then it is only fair all golfers get electronic devices to read greens.

If Mickelson has a caddy who keeps track of every shot he hits, then it is only fair golfers should have palm pilots that keep track of every aspect of their game.

If Tiger Woods is so good at making eight-footers, it is only fair golfers should get the Einstein putter to help them know when to pull the trigger.

If Bubba Watson can average 315 yards off the tee, it is only fair golfers should be able to buy equipment that allows them to average 315 yards off the tee.

Why should anyone ever have to work at anything? Golf is suppose to be a game, not work.

Shivas writes:
Compared to the examples I've given, calling a cheater line is a piece of CAKE because the guy who uses it actually has one on his ball!  What the heck else is it there for?

There is an easy solution that retains the spirit of the game. Keep your bluidy hands off the golf ball. The USGA and R&A failed miserably when they started allowing golfers to touch the ball just for the heck of it. It ain't golf.

John Kavanaugh writes:
Now there is an honest man admitting that playing in a cart with no one in front of you is faster than walking.

I think I said it a few hundred posts ago in this thread: under optimal conditions, buggies and rangefinders can be quicker than not using them. But most of the time, they slow down the game. The objective is not to make fast golfers faster, but to figure out how to speed up slow golfers. Giving them more gadgets is not the answer.

Cheers,
Dan King

I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it.
 --Thomas Jefferson

[Brent Hutto]

I think I said it a few hundred posts ago in this thread: under optimal conditions, buggies and rangefinders can be quicker than not using them. But most of the time, they slow down the game. The objective is not to make fast golfers faster, but to figure out how to speed up slow golfers. Giving them more gadgets is not the answer.

Except that speeding up a golfer who wants to play slow is impossible. Absent any actual, explicit penalty for taking too long they're either going to decide to play faster or they are going to continue to be slow. Ain't a rule or a piece of technology that will keep someone who thinks a round of golf "should" take 4-1/2 to 5 hours from taking five hour or a little over to play a round.

[SL_Solow]

I get a kick out of the periodic debates over the use of distance measuring devices and other technology.  I do not dispute that certain skills were removed from the game as soon as players began measuring distances.  But the slippery slope started when players like Nicklaus began charting courses from every possible angle so that they wouldn't have to guess (I would say use judgment) as to the club they needed.  Perhaps Jack's well known problems with seeing far away objects contributed to this method or maybe it was just a search for precision.  But for whatever reason, it started.  It is no coincidence that Jack was also a very slow player early in his career, although in fairness, Hogan, who played by "eye" was no speed merchant.  In any event, playing by yardage became the norm.  Individual yardage books begat 150 poles (or trees) begat mass produced yardage books begat sprinkler heads begat range finders.  Once the idea of playing by yardage and consulting something other than one's eyes and/or one's local knowledge (who doesn't know what club he needs for virtually every shot on his home course?) then the only difference among the methods is personal taste and/or pocketbook considerations.

I agree the hand carried devices have potential to speed up play.  I was given a GPS device and it is quicker than looking for a sprinkler head.  But I also agree that slow play is a state of mind and that the devices will likely only make very marginal differences.  Most slow play occurs around the green and that will not be altered.

Finally, the saddest effect of  playing by yardage is that it tends to stifle creativity; a 150 yard shot becomes a stock item and alternate methods of play are not developed.  Then when conditions change, or a course favors the ground game, the player is unable to adapt.  Often he'll blame the course rather than thinking about his own limitations.

That being said, the genie is out of the bottle.  I have no problem if a club wants to ban the devices and yardage markers etc a la Friars Head.  But I doubt that such a movement will ever gain much traction.  If we are going to fight technology, I would rather try to roll back the ball.

[Dan King]

Brent Hutton writes:
Except that speeding up a golfer who wants to play slow is impossible. Absent any actual, explicit penalty for taking too long they're either going to decide to play faster or they are going to continue to be slow. Ain't a rule or a piece of technology that will keep someone who thinks a round of golf "should" take 4-1/2 to 5 hours from taking five hour or a little over to play a round.

If I were King of the World (what a wonderful world it would be) the pros would have a 15 second shot clock. Every fifteen second they take beyond their limit would result in a two-shot penalty. I'd also arm marshals with tasers, and anyone at a public course taking too long would be tasered. I'm not unreasonable, golfers could take their time. If they want to slow down to a 2½-course pace, as long as they stand aside for faster golfers.

But until they give me my well-deserved crown, then I am opposed to giving inconsiderate slow golfers more gadgets to slow them down. Solve the first problem, with getting golfers around courses in 2½-hour pace, then we can discuss if they should be allowed more gadgets.

Cheers,
Dan King

You can't be truly rude until you understand good manners.
 --Rita Mae Brown

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()