[Kalen Braley]

As Dan says, it'd be great if they actually tested this thing out first....

I still suspect as has been said before that one of these devices will make a fast player faster and a slow player slower.  The extra time it takes for them to hit the ball is whats going on in between thier ears, not what is or isn't available to them in thier exterior environment.

And the PGATour could certainly help this situation out by starting to slap penalties on guys like JB Holmes for the tortorous amount of time he takes to hit the ball.  Maintaince practices aren't the only monkey-see monkey-do aspects being copied by the masses.

[Jeff Fortson]

Jeff:


Can we change that to "there is very little skill involved in aiming..."


TH

Duly noted and accepted. 


Jeff F.

[Tom Huckaby]

As Dan says, it'd be great if they actually tested this thing out first....

I still suspect as has been said before that one of these devices will make a fast player faster and a slow player slower.  The extra time it takes for them to hit the ball is whats going on in between thier ears, not what is or isn't available to them in thier exterior environment.

And the PGATour could certainly help this situation out by starting to slap penalties on guys like JB Holmes for the tortorous amount of time he takes to hit the ball.  Maintaince practices aren't the only monkey-see monkey-do aspects being copied by the masses.

Yes, a test would have been wonderful - still would be.  It's odd to me also that they did not have such done.

But I do remain convinced - from what I have seen, experienced, and heard, as well as what I believe - that on the whole these do speed up play.  Again, remember just WHO is going to spend the relatively large amount to purchase and use these devices:

a) competitive players - who are generally the slowest players on earth anyway - and Jeff has shown how it speeds up play for them;
b) techno-philes - who one has to believe wanted the most accurate distance before they got these, and would have been more of the ones painstakingly perusing their yardage books, stepping off distances from sprinkler heads, etc.  One has to believe point and shoot speeds things up for them also.  I have seen this play out in several instances.

I have to believe this accounts for the vast majority of users of the devices.  Oh, Dan could still get stuck behind a rich golf geek who just likes to play with the thing, and yes, that guy will make things slower.  But man he sure has to be the exception in this.

SO... perhaps the USGA just looked at is as I just did, and figured a test was unnecessary.  That's still really not good enough, but at least I can understand it.

TH

ps to Jeff - thanks.   

[JWinick]

See, I think the pre-shot routine isn't that big of a deal.  It's getting to your pre-shot routine.  I take two practice swings (ok, condemn now!), but I am very quick to get to my ball and grab a club.   The actual routine takes 30 seconds - doing it in 10 doesn't save that much time. 

While we're at, let's ban cigar smoking on golf courses to speed up play.   I've never played with a cigar smoker that played quickly.

Let me pose this question to the anti-range finder crowd:

If range finders are proven to speed up the pace of the play by an average of 20 minutes, would you drop your opposition to the device?  Let's assume the predicate is correct.   

I still wouldn't.  I'd speed up the game by that 20 minutes, and raise you another 20 by banning the practice swing (thus, eviscerating Plblic Enemy Number One of fast play:  the pre-shot routine) and the cheater line instead. 

Actually, make it an hour.

I'd get fast play AND no electronics in golf. 

There's no crying in baseball.......... 

[Tom Huckaby]

JW - I'm gonna disagree with you slightly - like my friend shivas I would love to find a way to speed up pre-shot routines.

The difference between 30 seconds and 10 for such IS a big deal.

Figure 90 shots (average golfer)... 20 seconds per shot... 1800 seconds... 30 minutes.  That matters to me.  And of course that's just one golfer... put it over the foursome and wow....

But beyond that it's annoying as hell to play with or behind.  Personal bias there.

I am with you for sure though also re getting to the ball.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I know I'm not nearly as traveled or have played with a broad range of players like you have...

But in my experience, its the pre-shot routine that was the biggest time killer, not the counting off yards and calculating the distance.  And of these its the time spent prancing around the green, plumb bobbing, looking at it from every possible angle, etc.  I'm not sure how a range finder would really help in this case.

Other big time killers have been looking for balls hit in the gunch, players who hit the ball 50-60 yards down the fairway at a time (even with a decent pre-shot routine, it still adds up).

But in the end, we both have our opinions and it would be very interesting to see what is actually happening on the course thru empirical objective case studies as opposed to more limited personal experiences.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

I know I'm not nearly as traveled or have played with a broad range of players like you have...

But in my experience, its the pre-shot routine that was the biggest time killer, not the counting off yards and calculating the distance.  And of these its the time spent prancing around the green, plumb bobbing, looking at it from every possible angle, etc.  I'm not sure how a range finder would really help in this case.

Other big time killers have been looking for balls hit in the gunch, players who hit the ball 50-60 yards down the fairway at a time (even with a decent pre-shot routine, it still adds up).

But in the end, we both have our opinions and it would be very interesting to see what is actually happening on the course thru empirical objective case studies as opposed to more limited personal experiences.

Kalen:

And just where did I opine as to what the BIGGEST time-wasters are?  I did not.  I am with you about what you say above.

But it's not the point. 

It's a simple question:  do these speed up or slow down play.

And to me, for the reasons I stated, they fairly obviously do speed up play.  Oh sure, I too would love some empirical evidence from a test.  But for me it would be confirmation of something that one can fairly assume to be true.

This is way less about my personal experiences than it is simple logic.  My personal experiences only serve to confirm what I believe to be logically true to begin with.

And like I say, if the USGA looked at it that way as well, well... it's not perfect, but I have no great gripe against it. 

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

See, I think the pre-shot routine isn't that big of a deal.  It's getting to your pre-shot routine.  I take two practice swings (ok, condemn now!), but I am very quick to get to my ball and grab a club.   The actual routine takes 30 seconds - doing it in 10 doesn't save that much time. 

30 seconds!  Holy moly!  30 seconds X 4 guys X 40 pre-shot routines each (and that's just shots, not even the big time waster - putts)  = 4,800 seconds =  one hour and twenty minutes!!  The "extra ten seconds" equals 26 2/3 minutes. 

Now add putts to the equasion:  24 putts each (assume the rest are tap ins) X 4 X 30 = 2,880 seconds = 48 MORE minutes.  The extra 10 seconds = 16 MORE minutes.

26 2/3 minutes + 16 minutes = 42 minutes wasted by that "extra 10 seconds". 

You might want to re-think this one.... 

While we're at, let's ban cigar smoking on golf courses to speed up play.   I've never played with a cigar smoker that played quickly.

You've obviously never played with Da Coach... that guy's so fast, he should wear a cape when he plays.

Wait, nevermind.  The lit cigar ashes would light it on fire...  

shivas - see above - see we can agree on some things.
Of course my statement is way less fun than yours though.  I humbly bow.
 

[Jeff Fortson]

Few have brought up the fact that one of the biggest contributors to slow play is poor shots and poor decision making.  Taking the time to hit an extra shot or two takes more time (i.e. walking to the new location, pre-shot routine, etc.).  I agree with Tom that range finders speed up play for the better player.  I have actual proof of this on my tour.  The debate on whether or not it speeds up play for the 20 handicapper is a completely different debate, IMO.  I think it's probably a wash for the bogey golfer.  

The biggest argument against range finders is against the better player having to do less research.  I think that is a debatable topic.  It certainly takes math out of the equation, but is math the essential skill of playing golf?  I think not.  Having to do less homework is the true Achilles Heel of range finders.  But, to counter that, a range finder rarely helps in getting VERY 'accurate' distances to carry objects or to stay short of them.  I think range finders are beneficial at the mini-tour and high level amateur level for pace of play issues, but make little sense on the big tours as caddies are some of the best cartographers you'll ever meet.  George Lucas (no not the Star Wars George Lucas; the one who makes all the yardage books on tour) is unbelievable.  If you ever get a chance to look at a tour player's yardage book, take a good look at it.  You will be amazed at the information these players have access to.


Jeff F.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff - that's all very well said and works for me for the most part.  Particularly in terms of how this plays out regarding high-level competitive players, I am right with you.

I just think that when we consider this OUTSIDE of those players, it's not based on skill but rather tendencies.  That is, one has to consider who's gonna buy and use one of these outside of high-level competitive play.  And when one thinks of it this way, it's not a wash.

I really do believe that of this group, the vast majority will be techo-philes, as I described before.  And it will make things go faster for them.  They were going darn slow before in their painstaking efforts for accurate distance.  These will get such for them much faster.

Again, there will be another subgroup who will go slower, also as I described before - rich guys who just like to play with toys.  Nothing can be done about them - they are slow to begin with and while these sure don't help, their numbers are pretty darn small, I think.

So one adds it all up and... on the whole these devices do speed up play.   The key is that not ALL golfers use these devices; in fact I have to believe it remains a very small percentage any day on any given course (outside of competitive play).  If you gave them to ALL golfers, then yes, the equation changes, and in the end things might go slower (but then again they might not... that may be the wash you describe).  But that's not how it works.  A small number of people buy and use them, and it works for them as I have described.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I should have included Jwinicks name at the start of my last post as well.  I read your post, then his, and then made my post so I guess I jumbled it up there a bit on who said what. 

All that being said, I still think it would be great for the USGA to perform some kind of test because I don't think its conventional wisdom that they will logically speed things up.  Certainly if one is off the fairways all day long, then it sure seems it could help!

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

I should have included Jwinicks name at the start of my last post as well.  I read your post, then his, and then made my post so I guess I jumbled it up there a bit on who said what. 

All that being said, I still think it would be great for the USGA to perform some kind of test because I don't think its conventional wisdom that they will logically speed things up.  Certainly if one is off the fairways all day long, then it sure seems it could help!

Again, it would be wonderful if such tests were performed.
I just don't find them to be absolutely necessary.  I sincerely do believe the logic is strong enough; that is plays out as I have stated. Others will certainly disagree.  I just would hope they consider this in the reality of who is buying and using the devices, and not based on everyone using them.  Because everyone sure as hell does not! 

TH 

[Jeff Fortson]

Jeff - that's all very well said and works for me for the most part.  Particularly in terms of how this plays out regarding high-level competitive players, I am right with you.

I just think that when we consider this OUTSIDE of those players, it's not based on skill but rather tendencies.  That is, one has to consider who's gonna buy and use one of these outside of high-level competitive play.  And when one thinks of it this way, it's not a wash.

I really do believe that of this group, the vast majority will be techo-philes, as I described before.  And it will make things go faster for them.  They were going darn slow before in their painstaking efforts for accurate distance.  These will get such for them much faster.

Again, there will be another subgroup who will go slower, also as I described before - rich guys who just like to play with toys.  Nothing can be done about them - they are slow to begin with and while these sure don't help, their numbers are pretty darn small, I think.

So one adds it all up and... on the whole these devices do speed up play.

TH

I agree..... mostly.  

My dad, a 1-handicap, uses one and it speeds him up by at least 10-20 seconds a shot.  For the tech-ophiles I don't know.  Let me explain...

Let's assume that the average "techo-phile" without a range finder looks for an accurate yardage to the flag.  It is unlikely he will have access to information of other objects of interest (i.e. bunkers, hazards, etc.) to get accurate yardage for.  By letting him use a range finder he may shoot 10 different objects to get yardages to not only the flag but maybe bunkers, hazards, doglegs, trees, golf carts, houses, topless women sunbathing, etc.  Catch my drift?  He could spend more time accumulating useless information by using one which in turn slows him down to at least wash out the time he would save by using a range finder.  

I hope that makes sense.


Jeff F.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff:

That does make sense.  I just put the guy you just described in my "rich guy playing with toys" category.  I really do believe they are the minority in this; and that the majority are guys who just plain want ultra-accurate yardage and will do what it takes to obtain such.  "Techno-philes" was very poorly used by me.  Call the rich guys the techo-philes; call this second group "accuracy-obssessed."  The accuracy-obssessed will go faster as all they care about is the distance for the shot; the techo-philes (as I have switched it here) will have some go slower for sure... but again, think about it... some will even go faster as they are playing with these instead of manipulating the GPS, getting the cart into exact position, etc.  In fact I'd say it's a wash for this group.

Bottom line remains also that even if you put these two groups together, they make up a small portion of players on any given day at any given course (obviously outside of competitive play).  So the point is a rather esoteric one in the end.

I just do continue to believe that for most, it will make things faster.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Great point, Jeff.

You guys just wait.

Within 2 years, as these gizmos evolve and guys get bored with the boring, "plain vanilla" yardage to the pin, new guns will come out and guys will start gunning to the front of the green, the back of the green, the pin, the carry distances over the lips of bunkers, and the carry distances over swales and to depressions in the green.

Multiply that four-fold and you've got a cluster f**k of epic proportions on the horizon. 

shivas - such devices exist now - Bushnells.

And I most definitely consider them in my assessment.  Yes, there will be some who shoot everything just because they can.  But I really believe that they will be a small minority of users... and beyond that, the thrill of doing such will end quickly.

I have to ask - have you ever used one, or even seen it in use?

I have to use them for course rating purposes.  I play with a lot of guys who have them.  Yes, my experience remains anecdotal... but let's just say it absolutely confirms what I am calling plain logic in my posts to Kalen.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

OK, I made that last part up...

...but you believed it, didn't you, Huck?

Almost, not quite.

 

Come do a course rating with us, and ye shall see how they can be quickly and properly used.  Then compare that to the last time you watched someone pace off yardage from a sprinkler head.  Herein lies the key.

TH

[Jeff Fortson]

Huck, I agree:

From a static starting point at your ball:

1. one guy zaps.

2.  another guy finds a head and paces.

Unless the head is so close he really doesn't need to pace at all, the former is faster than the latter.

BUT...it's not static.  As you walk to your ball, you can get distance while simultaneously doing something you need to do anyway (walking forward).  Thus, it's not static and done properly, pacing yardage wastes ZERO time.  Therefore, rangecheaters result in a net increase in pace of play IF the players know what they're doing in the first place.  It has to be.

Fuc*ing lawyers.   


Jeff F.

[Tom Huckaby]

shivas:

That works of course only if the pacing goes forward, walking along the fairway, noting all markers.  Obviously the pacers move backward also; it's all gonna depend on the closest sprinkler head or other marker and obviously they miss some as they walk - that is IF they walk - many users will be in carts, some staying on paths, and thus will not see the closest marker until they get to their ball.  So this is relatively unimportant. On top of this I also believe the time spent pacing is SO much more than the time spent shooting a distance that it negates the gain you mention by moving forward (if it did exist, about which I remain dubious).

In any case, obviously the rangefinders (sorry, these are in no way cheating, by any any possible reading) only make things faster for those who use them properly.  My point remains that those remain the majority of users.  And I do rather strongly believe this.

TH


Jeff:  they only need be dealt with on their own terms.  I do this for a living.  Doesn't mean I like them any more than you, but I also don't kow-tow to them.  Too many have quit the profession to become pastry chefs for me to give them much respect. 

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
And to me, for the reasons I stated, they fairly obviously do speed up play.  Oh sure, I too would love some empirical evidence from a test.  But for me it would be confirmation of something that one can fairly assume to be true.

Sort of like buggies.

In theory, buggies should speed up play. They don't.

Cheers,
Dan King

I think golf carts take a little piece of golf's quality away. The tradition of the game is being passed by because revenue is the number one consideration. There's money in carts.
 --Richard Zokol

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

As I mentioned earlier, no mention of yardage in the early rules as no one needed or wanting to know yardage distance, it’s a modern sickness.

It always amuses me how with one breath people say they don’t know much about the past then go on to say that ,“they are sure” of this or that.

Jeff, I like your comment about sheepherder, in the 18th century most playing golf came from the nobility, the poor old sheepherder could not afford a club let alone a ball.  But good try.

I believe you have totally misread all my comments or just not understood them  -  I am not hardcore, I just want the game to continue in the manner
of the late 19th & up to the mid 20th Century. I want a player to be responsible for his game, for his shots, for winning. I am not against technology, but we must control it so it does not change the game we are all meant to love.

Changes are lead by the manufacturers and our Governing Bodies seem to rubber stamp just about every change – the old story of money lead sport, instead a sport for all at sensible prices. What about 4 -6 hours to play a round of golf, do you not consider that obscene because I do, someone is taking the piss and not caring about US, the ordinary golfer.

I recently tried to get the courtesy of the course for Ernie Payne at TOC, regards Old Tom Morris Centenary Challenge of playing a selected list of courses connected with Old Tom (in this his centenary year) but was advised that it was not possible but allowed to use the New Course instead. That only one in recent times has been given that honour - it was Clinton. The man that lied whilst in office, cheated on his wife in front of the world is given a free round at the Old Course – tell me standards have not dropped through the floor, but then money talks.

I don’t want distance info on the course or in books etc because I believe the game would be better all round.

I am not stopping you using distance info, but I hope that I am making you think about it.

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
I don't buy the premise.  They only speed play to the extent there's nobody in a walking group in front of you.  Increased horsepower, in theory, makes a car go faster.  But not on I-5 at rush hour stuck in traffic.

Buggies have slowed down the game of golf. It shouldn't be true, but it is. Similarly, these new gadgets should cause the game to be played faster, but they won't.

Give slow, inconsiderate golfers more toys, and you will slow the game down. It has happened with everything else, and it will happen with these new gadgets. It just the way it is. If you want to speed up the game you have two choices. Get rid of slow golfers or make them speed up. Giving them more gadgets will slow the game down.

Cheers,
Dan King

I hasten to say to snobs from the Surrey pine-and-sand country that no invention since the corn plaster or the electric toothbrush has brought greater balm to the extremities of the senior golfer than the golfmobile, a word that will have to do for want of a better.
 --Alister Cooke

[George Pazin]

I am not stopping you using distance info, but I hope that I am making you think about it.

Beautifully said.

[Tom Huckaby]

Shivas writes:
I don't buy the premise.  They only speed play to the extent there's nobody in a walking group in front of you.  Increased horsepower, in theory, makes a car go faster.  But not on I-5 at rush hour stuck in traffic.

Buggies have slowed down the game of golf. It shouldn't be true, but it is. Similarly, these new gadgets should cause the game to be played faster, but they won't.

Give slow, inconsiderate golfers more toys, and you will slow the game down. It has happened with everything else, and it will happen with these new gadgets. It just the way it is. If you want to speed up the game you have two choices. Get rid of slow golfers or make them speed up. Giving them more gadgets will slow the game down.

Cheers,
Dan King

I hasten to say to snobs from the Surrey pine-and-sand country that no invention since the corn plaster or the electric toothbrush has brought greater balm to the extremities of the senior golfer than the golfmobile, a word that will have to do for want of a better.
 --Alister Cooke

What theory ever said that carts should speed up play, other than with no one in front of you?

On a crowded course one can only go as fast as the group in front.   People also screw around a lot with carts more than they do so walking.  I agree that on crowded courses, carts work to slow down play in general.  I just don't agree with the premise that "carts should speed up play."

In any case I guess you are saying Dan that if one logical theory is wrong than others might be also... I just don't buy that anyone would ever state the simple "carts make play go faster always" as a statement with much logical basis.

I am saying "use of rangefinders on the whole will make play go faster", for all the reasons stated.  And I think for these reasons my statement is logically sound.  I also have seen it play out this way, but yes, that is anecdotal.  And once again yes it would be great to have a test that proves my logic, but again I find the logic strong enough as to make the test nice, but unnecessary.

I like your "Giving them more gadgets will slow the game down."  I agree.  But what I continue to believe you miss is that the "them" in that statement are just a small portion of the users of these devices, and  the vast majority will actually go faster using such - as I have explained.  So again, it's bad luck if you get stuck behind such a group... but you're pretty happy if a group that was pacing off yardages is now shooting and moving along.  And there are far more of the latter than the former.

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
What theory ever said that carts should speed up play, other than with no one in front of you?

The exact same theory that you gadget people are proposing now. If you make part of golf faster -- searching for yardage -- there will be a gain in pace of play. With carts, if you make the travel time between shots faster, pace of play will be improved. Both are lies.

Tell me all you want about how this gadget or that gadget made some golfer play faster. That is not the issue.

The problem with pace of play has never been fast golfers. They are only a problem for John Kavanaugh. As I said before, speeding up faster golfers is not going to speed up the pace of play. You have to speed up slow golfers. Your newest gadget in a long line of gadgets will do nothing to speed up the pace of play, and just like buggies will have a negative effect on pace.

Tell me how your gadget is going to speed up the slow, inconsiderate golfer.

Cheers,
Dan King

[Golfers] are a special kind of moral relist who nips the normal romantic and idealistic yearnings in the bud by proving once or twice a week that life is unconquerable but endurable.
 --Alister Cooke

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
Dan, that's faulty logic.  Yes, the game has slowed down at the same time that buggies have risen in prominence.  But you gotta show a causal connection to conclude that the game slowed down because of buggies.

Have buggies done anything to make the overall pace of a round of golfer faster?

We've been told for decades buggies will make the game faster. We are now being told these distance gadgets will make the game faster. Why should I suddenly believe the same people who were so wrong about buggies?

Cheers,
Dan King

The emblem on the necktie reserved for the members of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews -- The Vatican of golf -- is of St. Andrew himself bearing the slatier cross on which, once he was captured at Patras, he was to be stretched before he was crucified. Only the Scots would have thought of celebrating a national game with the figure of a tortured saint.
 --Alister Cooke

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()