[Tom Huckaby]

I'll bet that everyone here would have a hell of a good time playing a few rounds of golf, no matter their opinions.  There might be a bit of good nature razzing like all good golf groups and gathering, but you'd be surprised how everyone would ultimately accept the other, distance measuring, whatever,  or whatnot.

That has been proven many times over... but does bear repeating.
 

[TEPaul]

TomH:

I've got to know something from you. Have you never played golf with someone that really pissed you off and you let him know it? How about in a tournament? I've always been pretty easy going on the course with most everyone but there sure have been a few times when it didn't go so good that way.

I would like to hear some of yours, if you don't mind. That is if there have been some of course.

[C. Squier]

Now, that kid -maybe 20-30 years younger than you, rides in a cart, uses rangefinders or skycaddies, biggest most advanced headed drivers, long putters, hottest balls, etc, etc.   

Whether he is entitled to under the rules of that competition or not;
DOESN'T IT IRK YOU as inherently unfair or somehow skews the enjoyment you should get out of a presumably fair competition based on skill and handicap golf competition VS a competition of the most high tech equipment advances and aids?  I'd have to say that while it may be increased enjoyment if you beat the fellow competitor with all the aids, it still in my mind puts a stink on the match to that extent.   

You had me until you mentioned handicaps....why do we argue about rangefinders that at best have a negligible effect on our ability to play, but a 5 handicapper and a 20 become one in the same as we circle the 13 handicap holes on the scorecard before we ever tee off?  If we want fair and skill to enter the equation, play off scratch and add them up after 18.

Handicaps were born because we wanted matches that would be fun playing....not matches that are equitable.. 

(for the record, I'm just playing devil's advocate....but I think it raises a good point.  Also, a 10 handicap using hickories is the same as a 10 handicap using NASA's latest and greatest.)

As for Old Tom, the second that he used a landmark on a golf course (rock, tree, whatever) that spurred a past memory of what club he used is when he used a distance aid.  To me, no difference between knowing you hit a 5 iron from the big bush on the 10th or knowing you have exactly 187 yards to the pin from a yardage marker or gun.

[Bob_Huntley]

As for Old Tom, the second that he used a landmark on a golf course (rock, tree, whatever) that spurred a past memory of what club he used is when he used a distance aid.  To me, no difference between knowing you hit a 5 iron from the big bush on the 10th or knowing you have exactly 187 yards to the pin from a yardage marker or gun.

Clint,

Quite so.

Bob

[Melvyn Morrow]

Clearly you are missing the main point – today and since WW2 distance has become important to the latest generations of golfers. But distance was not to those in the 19th Century.

So Clint if distance was not an issue or for that matter known, how could they judge their distance from any given point. So Old Tom saw a tree, a stone boundary marker, a hedge but there were not distances shown, nor did any pace back from the pin, because distance information was not used nor did it exist back then.

The skill was judgement from within – this very thing that all you distance nuts need from outside sources so much to play a game of golf today.

The Pre WW2 generations have created this need for distance support because they are scared of loosing or not being seen to be on an equal par with others.

Perhaps now you understand what I am say in that golfers do not need distance markers to play golf, good golf or bloody good golf. How do you judge something that did not matter or existed, by all means use the modern markers, but your experience will be the poorer for it.

Support each other just like the junkies your are. Stay in denial, it is you that is the ultimate looser – you are the ones who need their distance fix. Yet you think it helps your game. The distance genie is out of the bottle, but you just don’t want to put in back – but why – well that’s your business and you play with your toys the way you want. I’ll play the way it has been in my family for years. 

Clint/Bob - landmark is fine but it was then just that a landmark with no connection to distance as you experience today.  Quite so indeed.

Melvyn 

[Pete Lavallee]

.

So Old Tom saw a tree, a stone boundary marker, a hedge but there were not distances shown, nor did any pace back from the pin, because distance information was not used nor did it exist back then.

Melvyn,

You have mentioned several times that distance information was NOT used back then. Short of taking a trip in "the Wayback Machine", how do you know this for a fact? Is there documented written evidence to back your claim?

[C. Squier]

Just because nobody had the distance boiled down to a numerical value (ie: 187 yards) doesn't mean that distance didn't exist.  

If I drive up on my golf cart while it is snowing, I guarantee you'll know if I'm too far away or close enough to hit with a snow ball.  There will even be a point where I am that you'll need 100% of your strength to hit me.  That is distance....but just a guesstimate.  Now if every day I drive past you and you keep throwing snow balls at me, you'll eventually learn EXACTLY where I need to be for you to hit me at 100% strength.  

Translated to golf, we have 14 different "arm strengths", but through experience we know how far they go.  Whether that is a numerical value, landmarks or even by how long it takes to walk to the green....all methods for gathering distance information.  

Distance is taught to young drivers the same way.  The safe following distance between cars (or golf carts, if you wish) is 3 seconds between landmarks.  Car in front passes a light pole, you shouldn't pass it for 3 seconds.  Assuming speed and velocity are the same, deriving distance is a given.  This isn't Newtonian physics, but real world stuff.  Numerical units aren't distances, simply placeholders for speed X time.

I will grant that Old Tom didn't have a scorecard with numbers on it, but you can't dismiss landmarks as distance guages.  

[Bob_Huntley]

Clearly you are missing the main point – today and since WW2 distance has become important to the latest generations of golfers. But distance was not to those in the 19th Century.

Melvyn,

I do not wish to appear to be perverse and argue with you ad nauseum, but I thought I would see if I could find something in my library that would assure me that length off the tee has always been of some importance.

I found this book by an Open winner during the lifetime of Old Tom. It speaks volumes to the joys of a cracking drive.

This section is from the book "The Game Of Golf", by William Park, Jun..


Chapter IV. The Long Game


The expression 'the long game' is applied to driving, or strokes off the tea, and to play through the green, or the intermediate strokes between the drive and the approach to the hole, with the exception of play out of hazards. It is fairly descriptive of the nature of this part of the game, in which the object is to propel the ball as far as possible with each stroke. It can hardly be denied by any one who has played golf, that of all the different parts of the game none gives greater pleasure than long driving, although accurate approaching and putting conduce more to the winning of matches and low scoring. The golfer who does not, feel a sensation of keen gratification, of superiority of power and skill, invest his whole body when he gets away a long straight drive, must indeed he unimpressionable. After years of play I still am able, and hope that I shall always be, to experience such feelings. One is told of miraculous drives of 800 yards and upwards; indeed, drives are spoken of as it' anything short of that figure were hardly worthy of notice.

Although I can drive 'as far as my neighbours, and whiles a bit further,' I frankly say that I cannot, and never could, drive 300 yards, and I am convinced that no man can, unless under exceptionally favourable circumstances. An extraordinarily long shot may be made now and again, but experience proves that 200 yards is about the average limit of really long driving; 170 or 180 yards may be considered first-class, and anything over 150 yards is fairly good.

There it is, from a contemporary of Old Tom telling us that indeed they were interested in distance.

Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

RJ,
I know you asked the question of Tom, but I just wanted to add that equipment rules mainly define the optimal level that can be used but they don't require the player to use that optimal equipment. Therefore, if you  play against 'me' in an event and are using your Eye-O-Matic woods and Colokrom irons I will not feel bad about trouncing you (if it worked out that way). Nor would I feel bad if a young whippersnapper using hi-tech stuff whupped up on me if I chose to play something less than optimal equipment.
On the other hand, If you challenge me to a 'duel' and you 'choose' this same dated equipment for the match, I will glady oblige the request. 

Melvyn,
Distance is distance, whether you are gauging what club to use by 'feel' or resorting to getting the number from a marker, a caddie, your partner, a yardage book, a GPS finder or God whispers it in your ear.

Your ideology is not realistic, aids or devices have little or no negative effect on the values of the game. You might say Old tom never knew his yardages, but OT surely knew what club to pull from any position on any particular hole after his second or third time 'round any course. It doesn't strain credulity to surmise that he may have had chats with his caddie, similar to those we see today from the top players during competition. Another totally believeable scenario is envisioning OT and Allan, standing over their featherie in a Four-Ball debating over the distance, windage, lie, hazards, leave, etc. and then choosing the appropriate club.
But please continue to follow your personal code but you should remember,  it's YOUR personal code, so lighten up on the rest of us, we can make our own decisions.

[RJ_Daley]

To me, no difference between knowing you hit a 5 iron from the big bush on the 10th or knowing you have exactly 187 yards to the pin from a yardage marker or gun

Well that makes sense on a course where you play there all the time and know that information.  But, what about the unknown or new course you haven't obtained the familiarity of what club gets to the green from what bush?  Then, your opponent pulls out the old rangefinder or skycaddie and has exact yardage.  Or, what of the guy that plays at a club with a regular  member who knows the course intimately, and who does or doesn't employ a yardage aid to boot, but knows the course like the back of his hand anyway.  There are all types of legitimate and within the rules ways to have a distinct advantage like familiarity or more information than the next fellow.  That's golf, I guess.  

But, I still think that there are acceptable natural learned distance, yardage, or specific features playing characteristics sort of knowledge advantage, and those that come by high tech artificial means.  

[C. Squier]

To me, no difference between knowing you hit a 5 iron from the big bush on the 10th or knowing you have exactly 187 yards to the pin from a yardage marker or gun

Well that makes sense on a course where you play there all the time and know that information.  But, what about the unknown or new course you haven't obtained the familiarity of what club gets to the green from what bush?  Then, your opponent pulls out the old rangefinder or skycaddie and has exact yardage.  Or, what of the guy that plays at a club with a regular  member who knows the course intimately, and who does or doesn't employ a yardage aid to boot, but knows the course like the back of his hand anyway.  There are all types of legitimate and within the rules ways to have a distinct advantage like familiarity or more information than the next fellow.  That's golf, I guess.  

But, I still think that there are acceptable natural learned distance, yardage, or specific features playing characteristics sort of knowledge advantage, and those that come by high tech artificial means.  

Totally agree.....though those advantages and disadvantages have been around forever.  And only on a course completely without markings, which few exist.  Add caddy expertise to the mix too, which negate some of the courses without other yardage markings.

I have a harder time with high tech clubs than yardage aids.  Clubs are at least involved with hitting the shot. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bob

There is a great difference in what is being discussed and driving from the Tee. Yardage books and rangefinders which is the basis of the original topic were not present in the 19th Century.  I can roughly judge my Tee shot but it give me very little real information. The real test of skill and the need for more co-ordination between eyes/brain come when within 150 or so yards from the pin. On this point have you found any yardage books, markers etc on the courses or in any of the match reports from the 19th Century?

I expect you will find reports that Young Tom was down in 3 on a 568 yard hole and long drives from the Tees but are you telling me that this proves they used distance information as we do so today?

There is a massive difference in what we have accepted in the last 50 years compared to the earlier game. They did not use distance in the way we do today.


Jim

Like Bob you have your opinions but then so do I. No distance is not distance in the way we are discussing it today. I don’t look at a hedge or stone working out yardage via markers, books or rangefinder – it may be 187 yards but what is does 187 yards mean to me or for that mater the average golfer?  I have been taught to concentrate on the pin and using my own ability (call it skill or whatever – but that comes from within) to select my club, but at no time have I equated that to a yardage figure.

If I was told it was 167 yards I would still ignore the information and prepare my shot in my way. So distance information does not play any part of my game. Now discuss club choice - then subject to your game, I can fully understand.

I certainly agree that windage, lie, hazards comes into the thought process

I don’t know how many times I have to say it but you play your game your way. But please note I did not start off this topic. You want or need to use distance aids in your game, do so if the rules allow, but stop judging past generations by the standards that are acceptable today.

I don’t have all the answers, I don’t know everything about golf, I try and pass on what I do know, but surprisingly not many even on here bother to say thank you. I accept that you may not agree with my opinions, but the point is that while I am a member of GCA.com I have a right to my post those opinions- read and/or ignore them is your choice.

It’s very late here so I’m of to bed.

Melvyn

[Bob_Huntley]

My dear Melvyn,

You wrote,

"I don’t have all the answers, I don’t know everything about golf, I try and pass on what I do know, but surprisingly not many even on here bother to say thank you."

Why on earth would someone say" thank you" for something they feel superfluous or  what they feel is of no importance or even the antithesis of their own opinion? If one expects thanks or needs approbation I suggest they get a dog.

Bob

 

[Craig Sweet]

Melvyn...I don't know if I buy the "distance was not important back then" theory....I think distance is the ESSENCE of golf.....so long as the ball is not in the hole golfers have been concerned with "how much further to the hole"....and golfers have been searching...since the beginning...for ways to hit the ball farther...straighter.... and to figure out that question..."how far to the hole from here"....to say other wise is to deny human nature.

[Jim_Kennedy]

If I was told it was 167 yards I would still ignore the information and prepare my shot in my way-MelvynMorrow

Horse hockey

 

[Craig Sweet]

Jim...you got that right...horse hockey.

[Bob_Huntley]

Craig,

The guy is an asshole.

Bob

[Craig Sweet]

He keeps saying people did not use distance the way we do today...what in hell does that mean?  Like I said, distance is the essence of golf....whether you are sizing up a putt or a tee shot, you are thinking distance....I use the same methods for figuring distance that have been used for years...landmarks, knowing how far I hit, past experience, etc...

Is Melvyn going to tell me old Tom Morris did not pace off his drives, that he did not know a bunker was 50 paces from the green and if he was 5 paces past the bunker he hit his niblick?  Is he going to tell me that is different than looking at a yardage marker or using a range finder to determine distance? 

Wind, playing conditions, human energy, all have to be factored in...Tom Morris takes his reading and then selects a club...hopefully with some skill he overcomes whatever obstacles the shot presented...I take a reading from the yardage marker, and do like wise...how we use distance is no different...

[RSLivingston_III]

Morris wasn't pacing off his drives or any of his approach shots. That's not how it was done.
You guys have to stop impressing a modern perspective on on earlier era golf.

[RJ_Daley]

I'd be interested to know from those of you who don't have any qualms about yardage aids, or cart use, or using a club caddy, if you feel you get the same full measure of appreciation of a new (to you) golf course's actual architecture or design merits with all the aids, or if you think that you would come to understand a particularly well designed new (to you) course better if you played it a number of times with no aids, walking, and really going commando out there, learning the ground and various intricacies of the design features more or less by feel, trial and error of various shots and observation? 

If you have exact yardages via use of aids, would you tend to ignore much of the ground architecture, and lean towards the aerial game by always focusing in on the flight to a target more than looking for all the ways including the ground or strategic positions offered as alternatives to merely the distance to the hole as your first and primary piece of information?

[Craig Sweet]

You're right Ralph...I'm sure Old Tom wasn't curious how far he hit the ball...

[RSLivingston_III]

You're right Ralph...I'm sure Old Tom wasn't curious how far he hit the ball...

I know I am right. He was interested in getting his ball in the hole in one less shot then his competitor.

I am not the best writer and don't know how to say what was going on then so you will understand. Maybe it can't be put across in words and requires your participation playing a competitive round of 19th century golf. Comparing 19th to 21st century golf is futile. There are no comparisons, and each decade of the 19th century was considerably different from the previous one. It has to be experienced, and that is exceptionally difficult to do. A mediocre version of 1890 golf can be had at Oakhurst.

Long driving didn't become important in the world of golf until the US got involved, and then all hell broke loose.

[RJ_Daley]

Ralph, it has been a while since I read the passage, but I believe MacKenzie wrote in "Spirit of St. Andrews" glowingly and admiringly about John Low's prodigious length, off the tee of course.    (I'm not all too good at writing either, but I trust you get my drift)   

[RSLivingston_III]

Ralph, it has been a while since I read the passage, but I believe MacKenzie wrote in "Spirit of St. Andrews" glowingly and admiringly about John Low's prodigious length, off the tee of course.    (I'm not all too good at writing either, but I trust you get my drift)   

Long driving first starts to be discussed about 1880. Low was primarily 1890-1930 in his contributions to golf. That's outside of the time period we are talking about.
Here lies another problem with talking history is people here don't know the changes that took place just from 1840-1930 and discuss the varies decades interchangeably.

[Rob Rigg]

Old Tom did not need distance aids - because he designed the courses and knew every bloody foot of it

I think we are talking about semantics here in terms of the value of range finders, and I have thought a lot about this because I respect the "traditionalist" view and do not necessarily agree that pace of play for ALL golfers is improved with range finders.

But, at the end of the day, if the reason NOT to use a range finder is because it makes the game too easy or you have to think less than I disagree.

1) Golf is hard - knowing it is 150 to the pin is helpful for most golfers, but it won't mean they are going to stick it two feet from the pin let alone on the green. Knowing distance is not bad, it is merciful.

2) If you play a course a few times then you will know what club to pull when you shoot. Whether it is instinctive, based on distance or whatever, it does not really matter. 150 = 8 iron, or I am in that range where I should hit an 8 iron. I'm not seeing a big deal here.

3) The type of golf you play has a massive relevance on distance. If you play the TOC or links golf all the time, then distance does not matter as much because you are not playing "target" golf you are playing "feel" golf. A 150 yard shot is an 8 iron one day, a SW the next and a driver the next. Your judgement is paramount depending on a myriad of factors including wind, set up of the hole, distance, undulations and hazards around the greens, etc.

If you play a course where you tee off across a lake and need to hit it 200 to 250 to be in play and then another 150 to 175 to clear the water in front of the lake then distance becomes much more relevant because the creative aspect is much less and you go into numbers mode just to survive.

I would be surprised if OT or anyone else from the 19th century played a target golf bonanza course and never asked, "How far to carry the lake" or "How far to cross the pond".

I could be wrong, but these guys from the past played matches and based on some of the interesting article MM has sent out, it certainly seems like they were pretty damn competitive. If Willie Park and OT were playing a series of new courses they had never seen and Willie was rocking his Sonocaddie, how many lost matches would it take for OT to run out and get one as well?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()