[Tom Huckaby]

Melvyn:

As I said to Rob, I agreed with the principles, but not exactly with his percentages.  Again though, he was not including you in a group that does not USE these, but rather in the group that ignores distance information completely.  And while I don't know that to be true about how you play, well... I'd guess his estimate isn't that far off there in terms of all golfers - that is, very very few ignore distance information completely.  Again you have to remember we're also talking about USA golf.  So your inclusion was likely meant only to be humorous.

So again, keeping this just to the USA - if you are going to try to push your vote here - mine remains no.  These devices remain to me a good thing over here.

I would stay out of a vote involving your world, because I have no place telling you what to do.  But if I had a say, I'd prefer that your world remain as pure as it has remained. 

TH

[Mike Benham]

Clearly as this subject is causing so much debate I believe the only solution is to make it a FAIR PLAYING FIELD so we must ban all distance aid.

All distance aids or just GPS devices?

[Rob Rigg]

Tom,

Well summarized.

The percentages were not supposed to be absolute - I was just conceding that most people probably would benefit from these things while a smaller percentage of the population would not.

The estimates were based on, well nothing they are just estimates, but are meant for golf in the US, not GBI.

There are the Melvyns of the world who do not use distance so GPS is a non-starter.
There are those of us who "sort of" use distance but are not beholden to it, so GPS would not speed up our play.
Then there is everyone else who would probably benefit as Tom, Richard, et al. have discussed already.

[Lou_Duran]

Being a conservative in most things puts me on the side of tradition.  My first instinct is to stay away from the technology which dumbs down the game.  A quick look in my bag would reveal that I compare favorably with the average GCAer who attends the various site-inspired outings.

Being a libertarian in nearly all things, if someone wishes to use GPS and perfectly fitted high tech clubs to enjoy the game, go for it.  After all, we extol the virtues of diversity in most cultural and some political things, so why not a little tolerance for those who enjoy the best that modern science can provide?

As to the speed of play 50 years ago and all these studies which purport to show that first instincts are best, by all means please provide the citations.  I have vivid memories of playing golf in the early 1970s, long before GPS, and being terribly annoyed with five plus hour rounds.  I also remember pictures and film of Hogan sizing his approach shots, gazing at the target while drawing on his cigarrete for what seemed to be an eternity.  But we do romanticize when we select our perceptions to satisfy our emotions and "prove" our version of "the TRUTH".

I played a course a couple of weeks ago without a single reference to yardages- no mention on the tees, card, or sprinkler heads.  My host and I walked in three hours, talking up a storm, hitting a few extra shots and putts, and me consulting with a GPS device on every long stroke.  Had I relied on my instincts, we wouldn't have finished before dark.

Anyone who thinks that he can play better and faster not knowing approximate distances is either kidding himself or talented on the outmost reachest of the right side of the Bell Curve.  Of course, if score is not an issue, then perhaps I am wrong.  Is whacking a ball around on the clock without regard to the number of strokes really golf?  Did Old Tom promulgate the rule that golf is to be played in two to two and a half hours?

And even if the speed of play was a primary objective of golf's founders during much simpler times, it would seem that the game, its rules, and its customs should be elastic and maleable to meet the needs of modern times.  At least this is the concept of the "living" Constitution that is so much in vogue today.

If golf is a microcosm of society, and if flexibility in interpreting our laws and customs is a good thing in order to promote "fairness" and "justice", why are we being so harsh on the folks who wish to save time by looking at a screen vs. pacing off yardages and doing the arithmetic in their heads?  Personally, I think the government as part of the stimulus package (or the USGA) should send all golfers a $100 voucher toward a GPS device of our choice.  Imagine the multiplier effect with jobs created in retail, manufacturing, telecommunications, and the golf industry.  Oh, for those who have an honest, heart-felt disagreement with technology, the vouchers could also be used to purchase pre-ProV1 balata balls or a new ultra-portable, adjustable sensory deprivation device.  Imagine the joy of hitting a mush ball while experimenting with various degrees of dimished sight, feel, and sound.     

   

[Melvyn Morrow]

Oopps I must promise not to talk about American Golf –although I did not realise I was only referring to American golf. The GCA.com censors are at work again and I therefore must only talk about golf.

So let’s be very clear, if a golfer uses aids and if removed his performance falls away for a while then those aids are UNFAIR and actually help his performance. I therefore cannot understand why honest and fair-minded golfers believe they are acceptable or have our standards actually dropped down that far that cheating is now the order of the day when it comes to playing golf.

The fundamental point, is do they enhance the golfers performance – there is after all an easy test, remove said aids and replay the hole or course – if  performance diminishes then they are an artificial aid.  So should be banned. If these are banned then all distance aids should also be removed from the course, perhaps with the exception of the hole length.

I see this as interlinked with course etiquette. But as only representing 0.01% of GB golfers I am in the minority.

Melvyn     

[Kalen Braley]

Melyvn,

Not trying to sound contratrian..

But If I didn't wear shoes, or failed to wear a jacket on a cold day...I'm pretty sure my performance would significantly worsen.

Using this same logic, does this mean shoes and jackets should be banned on the golf course?

[Tom Huckaby]

Melvyn:

You remain quite witty, but your continued missing of the point makes you less so.  

You are certainly allowed to opine on American golf - just be clear that when we are talking about these devices making play speed up, it is in the context of American golf, and it works how Richard, Rob and I have explained several times.  I for one was just trying to clarify that.

It's a totally different question as to whether these should be utterly cryit downe.

But that too has been covered too many times already.  I get your position.  It does make some sense.

My position however does remain that so long as courses are so clearly marked - and clearly marked they are, nearly everywhere here in the US (and dare I say worldwide), I for one do not find the harm in allowing devices which give information available elswhere available in a more speedy manner.   Either remove all markings or allow these.

And since I also believe it will be a cold day in hell or the day you ride a cart before all markings are removed from golf courses, I continue to say let those who would use these devices go ahead and do so.

To me this reality trumps how it affects performance, or any other etiquette issues.

But again, we've beaten this to death already.  I for one thought this go-round we were just limiting it to the question as to whether the devices speed up play here in America.  It's pretty clear that they do so.

TH

[Pat Burke]

One of my favorite things is to watch players with their GPS or laser when it goes dead
They'll open the cover, take the battery out, shake it, hit it, turn it back on in the hope of
receiving a divine number, all while standing on top of a marked sprinkler head on a course they have played for ten years.  Frozen in technological limbo

[Tom Huckaby]

One of my favorite things is to watch players with their GPS or laser when it goes dead
They'll open the cover, take the battery out, shake it, hit it, turn it back on in the hope of
receiving a divine number, all while standing on top of a marked sprinkler head on a course they have played for ten years.  Frozen in technological limbo

LOL! Hey, can't trust a sprinkler-head, right?

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kalen

Do Nudist play golf, if so poor argument but I expected better form you than that crap

We all don’t use GPS/Range Finders/Distance Booklets/ Course Markers, some of us play golf the normal way by using our own senses. Some of us feel it’s the only way to play which does not give us an unfair advantage against others, expect that sounds stupid to some, but not to us. Golf is ultimately you against the course. Your performance should be just that and should not be about relying on artificial information.

The current system allows these aids, nothing I can do about it but I have my own standard I honour, others clearly have very little self control or respect for their own abilities, but that their choice.   


Lou

I have never used distance or yardage aids it was not part of my learning curve, so I just don’t need them. I have eyes and a brain that has the ability to judge distances so does everyone else otherwise driving a car would be bloody dangerous with millions killed on a daily basis.


Tom 

Melvyn

[Kyle Harris]

Melvyn,

How's your eyesight? I wear glasses to correct mine to 20/20. Should I wear special, less precise lenses to have my eyesight fit some mean in order to even out the field?

Are those born with less or more perfect vision required to wear such lenses as well?

Where do sunglasses fit into your system of artificial aids? Polarized lenses?

Seriously, when you word things like "some of us play golf the normal way" or "I have eyes and a brain that has the ability to judge distances so does everyone else otherwise driving a car would be bloody dangerous" you come across as elitist, arrogant and extremely condescending.

If your brain is so good, you can pull the speedometer out of your car then too.

In my heart of hearts, I know you're not this way - but your continued tone suggest you are not in the least bit interested in considering others ideas of enjoying the game. We get it, you're old school - now move on and contribute more articles like the one you wrote on Old Tom Morris.

For what it's worth - I don't see how GPS make players play faster. Players knowing how to play quickly play faster. The information is just given in a different form.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I read an article on PGATour.com that said that in 2006, only one-third of the rounds in the U.S. were walked.  I can't believe that you find that to be a surprise, and I'm surprised you would even question it.
...

I generally play two places. My club where a high percentage use a cart, and a public course near work where almost no one uses a cart.

From this small sample size, one could conclude that more walk than ride. Throw in the rest of the world and it is overwhelmingly in favor of walkers.

Glad you had data from an "authority". Your data matches my suspicions, not my inadequate sample.

[Mike Benham]

I have never used distance or yardage aids it was not part of my learning curve, so I just don’t need them.

How about a scorecard - with yardages printed on them, ever look at one for the course you are playing?


This is a fascinating discussion, what other aspects of life are you so traditional?

[Garland Bayley]

IMHO we have a winner!

...
Most players would be better in the long run NOT having the yardage and just hitting the shot. It is only vanity that allows us to believe otherwise. The accomplished player can hit the ball to a distance but he/she then uses pre-shot routine to switch off active thinking. The average player's thinking becomes more negative the longer he/she thinks and so becomes worse on average the more he/she knows.
...

[Garland Bayley]

Oopps I must promise not to talk about American Golf –although I did not realise I was only referring to American golf. The GCA.com censors are at work again and I therefore must only talk about golf.

So let’s be very clear, if a golfer uses aids and if removed his performance falls away for a while then those aids are UNFAIR and actually help his performance. I therefore cannot understand why honest and fair-minded golfers believe they are acceptable or have our standards actually dropped down that far that cheating is now the order of the day when it comes to playing golf.

The fundamental point, is do they enhance the golfers performance – there is after all an easy test, remove said aids and replay the hole or course – if  performance diminishes then they are an artificial aid.  So should be banned. If these are banned then all distance aids should also be removed from the course, perhaps with the exception of the hole length.

I see this as interlinked with course etiquette. But as only representing 0.01% of GB golfers I am in the minority.

Melvyn     

Melvyn,

I am sure that golfers could play to the same level without the GPS as with the GPS. The GPS is a time saver, but not in the way that it has been discussed here. It is a time saver in the way that hiring a caddy is. It lets you know the distances without knowing the course. Before there was GPS, Ben Hogan and Jack Nicklaus had the time and inclination to go to the course where they would complete and measure everything they would need to know and certainly in Jack's case make maps of it all. After doing so, they could play  the course to their utmost ability without the aid of our current day technology.

As I wrote earlier, there are no Ben Hogans on this board!

However, there are some very good golfers here where this technology begins to become relevant.

For the rest of the greater than 90% of golfers, an approximation is good enough. If they would admit that, they could play as well without distance measureing as with distance measuring. The teaching pros know that. They will tell most golfers to aim for the center of the green. There was even an experiment where a club removed the flag sticks from the greens and did not provide pin sheets. The scores posted did not change one iota, because everyone was forced to shoot for the center of the green, and that was just as good as playing to the pin location.

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland:

That's all well and good, but again misses the point.

I agree with every word you say there.

I just don't see a reality where you get enough golfers to accept this; not here in the USA anyway.  It's true, for sure.  Most would do just as well without exact distance information - agreed. 

But sadly, given how well courses are marked, plus the presence of carts with GPS, now these devices, plus the tradition of caddies... exact distance information is just plain expected in today's golf.

Thus to me it makes little sense to argue that we should do away with it all... yes, we should.  But it's just plain not going to happen.

And again in that reality, give me GPS devices, as at least it will make things move more quickly; both as you say (able to get around an unknown course more quickly) and as we have stated (gives information more quickly to those who must have it).

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Melyvn,

Forget about shoes then...lets go to other things?

Do you use a modern golf ball?  Surely your game would suffer returning to the older balls and anything made in the last 130 yr or so....so ban them.

Do you use clubs with modern shafts?  If so, your game would also suffer without these, so ban everything made there in the same time period.

Do you use wedges?  Yada, yada

Do you use wooden tees?  Yada, yada

Do you wear any synthetic fibers to make life less miserable in the wet and cold?  Yada, yada

And on it goes Melyvn.....

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

You don’t agree with my opinion - that I can accept.

You want to put up an alternative view point - please do so

But don’t talk crap you are better than that.

You must have a brain so you should have worked out that your glasses are to correct an imperfection in you or should I say your vision. It does not give you an advantage over others with 20/20 vision. It levels the playing field, it corrects an in-balance for an equal opportunity in life. It has no comparison with artificial golfing aids, surely even you can understand that.

Seems that I have hit a nerve with you and others, because you don’t half come up with total rubbish at times.

So in your opinion I come across as elitist, arrogant and extremely condescending, but I can say the same about others who seem more than happy to try and win by using these aids.

Why is it that you try to ridicule me for playing the game in the time honoured way but don’t say much about those who just want to win at all costs and will use any method to gain an advantage. Starting to believe that the reason is that I am not American.

Your condescending attitude toward me is totally unfair and unjust. This is a Discussion Group which I believe is about debating items and issues relating to golf.  You tried before to minimise my Natural/Nature opinion and for the sake of the site I stepped back, but not this time. If you want it I’ll take my gloves off and we can start with your experience outside the USA and in particular your opinion of the GB game.

Kyle, you talk about me, perhaps you need to look in the mirror and examine your posts aimed at me. I am not seeking a confrontation with you but will not walk away if you start one, the choice is totally yours.

For me the fundamental point is do these electronic aids help the golfer and if removed does it affect his game, if the answer is yes they do not level the playing field but give an direct advantage to those that use them therefore can be termed as unsporting.


Mike

I use my score card to write down my score. I also breath, eat and sleep in the traditional way – I expect that is also regarded by many on here as elitist, arrogant and extremely condescending, but sorry I will not give it up for either of you or anyone else.

You don’t concur with my opinion, fine, put up a reason, not pathetic questions.   


Kalen

Just get real and show you can debate a serious golfing subject with some intelligence. Your comments do not do you justice.


Garland

Just because other have gone overboard with distance info still does not make it right.

Melvyn

[Kyle Harris]

The only nerve you've hit with me on this one Melvyn is your statement about your game being "normal" as compared to others. Call it an opinion, but it is a bit elitist considering the content of this thread. I am not ridiculing your game, but the logic you use to make your methods seem morally superior to others. It is a certain fact that I agree with your way to play the game in most ways, but the way you present them totally turns me, and others, off at times.

I think most on the site here would prefer if you used non-subjective terms and a bit more rhetorical appeal (other than your own ethos) to further your side of the discussion.

The ability to perceive distance through depth perception is also tied to one's natural sight abilities. Pretty well every eye exam I've ever had includes a depth perception test and I can tell you for certain that my depth perception changes with contact lenses, glasses and without any aid.

[Tom Huckaby]

Melvyn:

Your positions certainly have some merit; I have said many times a golf world as you see it would be pretty darn fun.  I just do wonder where you draw the line..  Your forebear strove to improve golf clubs and conditions of courses, did he not? 

I read this:

For me the fundamental point is do these electronic aids help the golfer and if removed does it affect his game, if the answer is yes they do not level the playing field but give an direct advantage to those that use them therefore can be termed as unsporting.

And it makes me wonder - what things do you consider an unsporting aid, and what things do you consider OK to use?  Obviously we can't base your standards on the rules of golf, given they have declared electronic aids legal (given local rule imposition).

This is an honest, non-confrontational question, by the way.

TH

[Mike Benham]

Mike

I use my score card to write down my score. I also breath, eat and sleep in the traditional way – I expect that is also regarded by many on here as elitist, arrogant and extremely condescending, but sorry I will not give it up for either of you or anyone else.

You don’t concur with my opinion, fine, put up a reason, not pathetic questions.   

I have nothing against your opinion, I applaud you for being so passionate about it. 

The question about the scorecard was simple in that most scorecards have yardages for each hole printed on them, which would then be providing information to the reader of the card.  Likewise, knowing the par of the hole would also provide a rudimentary form of distance.  Visually, you may be able to tell the difference between a par-3 and a par-4, and then have information that you use to pick your club but looking at the scorecard with hole distance provides more specific information.

I do agree that the more you play a course, the less one uses yardage aids.  Although I haven't read every single post on these topics, I was curious if you play tournaments or money games against golfers other then your friends?

As for the other traditional aspects of life, you were the one who brought up driving a car, using your eyes and brain, and based on this topic, one might make the connection that you do so without any artificial aids such as a speedometer, rear view mirrors, headlights, etc.  The question was only an extension of your comment.

Have an enjoyable weekend.

Mike

[Pete Lavallee]

For me the fundamental point is do these electronic aids help the golfer and if removed does it affect his game, if the answer is yes they do not level the playing field but give an direct advantage to those that use them therefore can be termed as unsporting.

I do find it interesting that you see them as a distinct advantage.

They still are not allowed in top level competions like the Open Championship for instance. The only reason that the rule makers have allowed them, just recently in lower level competions, was that in experiments it was found that they do greatly improve the pace of play in said competitions; where everyone is trying to win and not compete against nature. The only caviot is that you must share that information with everyone in your group, if they ask; so it is actually very gentlemenly and not at all unsporting.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

When did this craven for detailed distance information become normal?

Was it roughly 50 years ago, 100, 150 or 200 years ago – depending upon your answer will give you the normal way of play golf with or without these aids. If your answer if roughly 50 years then my way is normal and the time honoured way. If it is 100 years or more then it is not. That’s my definition of normal/time honoured golf.

I claim no moral superiority at all. I have just stated that my family has played golf for well over 200 years, most of that on TOC. I am no better or worse than most and in truth just an average guy. As for turning you guys on or off that is not my intention, I just put forward my point of view. Like or dislike, agree or disagree that is your choice.

To debate a subject one needs to put forward ones opinion – that is what I always try to do. Because I don’t recognise or agree with the way some play the game does not make my opinions wrong. I have time and again said that I am not anti technology, but I am against changing the game because technology has not been controlled, more out of pure ignorance (and not understanding the consequences) on behalf of our Governing Bodies.

I am keen on courses being built on the correct sections of land. You can build anything if you have enough money, but that does not make it right or suitable for golf. The selection process is important, perhaps with the current recession looming over us, more care will be taken not just on construction costs but on going maintenance cost, something I believe may well be close to your heart. Because there maybe a need for a course in certain areas which has limited potential, makes it even more important to select the right location. Natural and Nature is important to me and my game, not just for the course but how it ties in with the general surroundings. But I have always said that I am realistic and certain compromised may well have to be made. The question is how many before the wholes project is flawed or compromised. 

As for distance aids, I just do not see the need for them, that is how I was taught and how I play. I don’t agree with allowing this information on a course and I can’t understand why some want to minimise the challenge and fun factor by using them. I see it as negating the responsibility of your own actions and allowing outside aids to assist. I can only speak for myself, but to resort to playing this way would totally compromise my game and perhaps ultimately question my commitment to golf. Some may well understand but I expect may will not but it comes from within.   

Distance aids are first and foremost there to give advantage to the golfer, to feed the craven for distance knowledge – to the point that the golfer becomes reliant on it. It’s a modern phenomenon and IMHO not worth the hassle.

Tom

I think you have totally missed the point, but I hope that my comments to Kyle may again enlighten you.

Mike

As I don't work on distance information, so yardage does not register as such, but yes I see and note the par. My eyes judge the distance telling my poor old brain to pass on the relevant info to my arms - real basic stuff but most enjoyable, I just do not work on yards and feet.

Peter

I do see them as an advantage as has been reported on here, some have played without using distance markers of any type and have not had a great round.


Melvyn   

[Tom Huckaby]

Melvyn:

I do not believe I have missed any point; however, your post to Kyle does elucidate things a little, but not much.

As most of us here see it, you strive for an ideal that has no basis in modern reality.  Courses DO get built on land unsuited for golf.  Courses ARE nearly all very clearly marked with distance information.  So it's very cool and quite admirable you strive for this ideal; some of us just don't get the point, and find you quite out of touch with the real golf world, at least how it is here in the USA.  That's not meant to be a knock; it just explains some of the frustration.

And no one is daring suggest YOU use one of these distance aids; oh my far from it! 

What some of us remain having a difficult time grasping is your insistence that your way is the only way.  I don't know how many different ways we can explain it.   These devices are legal under the rules, and speed up play here, the way golf IS.  I just still can't see how if people use them that is either wrong or unsporting. 

So I guess we shall just have to remain at loggerheads again about that.  No harm.

But in all sincerity, I would really like an answer to my questions in my previous post.  It truly is an attempt to move beyond this particular issue about distance devices (which good Lord has been beaten to a death the worst criminal does not deserve), and perhaps get into more wide-ranging issues about how you treat the game in general and how one ought to treat it in this day and age... from which I really believe I can learn.

So I shall repeat it:

Your positions certainly have some merit; I have said many times a golf world as you see it would be pretty darn fun.  I just do wonder where you draw the line..  Your forebear strove to improve golf clubs and conditions of courses, did he not? 

I read this:

For me the fundamental point is do these electronic aids help the golfer and if removed does it affect his game, if the answer is yes they do not level the playing field but give an direct advantage to those that use them therefore can be termed as unsporting.

And it makes me wonder - what things do you consider an unsporting aid, and what things do you consider OK to use?  Obviously we can't base your standards on the rules of golf, given they have declared electronic aids legal (given local rule imposition).

This is an honest, non-confrontational question, by the way.

And an answer to this would be most appreciated.  If it simplifies things, perhaps you could just list the implements you'd advise for golfers to use to make the game the most sporting, and best experience, TODAY.  I shall not guess nor put words in your mouth.  I just do remain genuinely curious how far you take this.

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

Melvyn,
To each his own, and I applaud you for following your conscience, but you did say:   "Distance aids are first and foremost there to give advantage to the golfer, to feed the craven for distance knowledge – to the point that the golfer becomes reliant on it. It’s a modern phenomenon and IMHO not worth the hassle".

If I was to differ with you it would be on these grounds: the cravenly modern golfer is little different than the model you choose to follow. He has only replaced his desire to know yardages with an electronic instrument, whereas such an advantage existed at the birth (or at least the childhood) of the game, and was called The Caddie. Actually, The Caddie offered the craven golfer the advantage of carrying his burden (the original golf car), giving his man distance advice (the original yardage finder) keeping the equipment clean and in good order (the original ball washer/asst.) , offering his sage advice as to the proper way to advance the ball ( the original golf coach), aided in finding any wayward shot, and generally was ten times the help of the modern piece of equipment you rail on about.

GPS is just the poor man's caddie.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()