[PCCraig]

Hey Melvyn-

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Old and Young Tom used the internet to discuss golf. So if we were to be true "pure" golfers, maybe we should log off?

[TEPaul]

Clint:

Is the 19th century scientist any less virtuous or love science less than the the 21st century scientist? I have absolutely zero idea.

Belay that, it's not that accurate and the formula has almost no elegance. Raise that zero to a power of 11 and it would probably be more accurate and certainly more elegant, and very likely more virtuous and lovable too.

As for the truth of some of this scientific stuff all I can tell you is my world-class mathematical genius cousin tells me string theory is no more than mental masturbation and makes about as much sense as most of Pat Mucci's posts.



Pat Craig:

Correct you if you're wrong?

Ok, you're corrected!

If we have Old Tom on video-tape playing the ultra-distance Titleist NXT I think there is every reason to believe that Old Tom used the Internet too.

[TEPaul]

Dave:

What you say there is all true but the Rules of Golf never made it a violation of the Rules for a golfer to know the distance of any of his shots, it was just that he couldn't use a mechanical device to do it during a round.

My father played a lot of good tournament golf beginning in the late '40s and '50s and on and it seems he knew the yardage of most all his shots. He didn't refer to yardages on sprinkler heads either, he did his own yardages during practice rounds or just walking the courses. When he died I found a couple of medium sizes boxes of seemingly a hundred or more little flip note books of the yardages from various points on all the holes of probably a hundred or more courses.

Unfortunately, I threw them all out. But the point is he knew his yardages and that was within the Rules.

[PCCraig]

After growing up with all things golf, either playing or caddying, I can spot distances within a few yards with my eye. I don't and never will use a rangefinder. However do I care one freaking bit if the guy I'm playing with using any artificial aid? Hell no.

Shivas- I understand your point about athletics and an athlete's reflexes. However Golf really isn't a reflex sport. What really sets it apart is that there is time and build up before execution. The thinking and calculating are what makes Golf, Golf. I don't think looking at a sprinkler head takes anything way from golf, mostly because even if you know exactly how far the shot is, it is still only half of the game.

Has anyone mentioned the difference between yardage on the courses in the US and Ireland/Scotland? There are so many different variables playing golf in the UK that knowing the distance to the flag really does you no good, so when there I have always played with more feel. However in the US and its more target style golf "playing by feel" is pointless and only makes the game harder. Maybe if Melvyn would come out of his land for a week trip to the US, try his fashion of game on the courses here and not use any sort of yardage.

TEPaul-
 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave,
The proponents in your examples know their 'yardages'.
The QB tells the receiver to cut at a specific yardage, the BB player knows exactly where he is and how far from the rim that puts him when he turns to make his jumper, and in the case of the third baseman, he like all the other athletes in your examples, has practiced that move to death.

Even Ralph admits that the 19th century guys knew the few courses they played on as well as they knew the back of their hands, and that means they knew how far it what was to their targets and they chose clubs that corresponded to that distance.  Plus, there is no ignoring the fact that everyone knew just how far away from the green they were on par 3 holes.
  
Melvyn and Ralph are right for the way they like to play golf, but that doesn't mean it's right for everyone else.

 

[C. Squier]

The third baseman must gauge the hop of the scalding grounder as it approaches him -- to avoid getting handcuffed.

He does not consult a physics or geometry primer.

While in the air, the basketball forward must instantaneously judge the distance of his turnaround jumper -- or he throws up an airball.

But he does not break out a tape measure.

The quarterback must throw his out patterns and post routes by gauging the timing and distance of his passes -- or else the pass gets picked off.

Yet, he does not whip out a rangefinder.

These are fundamental skills that determine the success or failure of the sporting endeavour.

Melvyn and Ralph are right.

Judging distance is a fundamental skill of the game.  We have subverted a fundamental skill of the game with all the distance gauges we use.  And the game is worse for it. 
 

All those sports are played on field that have standardized sizes.  If every golf course had identical length holes with the same architectural features, I'd suggest that nobody would have the use for distance aids at all.  

That's all besides the point.  The larger issue is that once you allow one type of distance guage, allow them all.  There is no difference between a 150 yard post and a rangefinder.  Either allow everything or ban every single one.  

I will agree with those that say the game is much more romantic without distance aids.  If I were to build a course with imaginary money, the Friar's Head model would be my pick.  I don't mind using golf as a time warp, but won't begrudge those who do.

CPS

[Rob Rigg]

Guys,

Again, this is just semantics.

OT, YT, Willie Park, etc. knew all the distances of the courses they played if Ralph's comments are accurate because they only played a few courses. These guys did not need a sprinkler head because they had played the courses hundreds of times and knew what club to play depending on distance and conditions.

To say that OT would have used a range finder if he had been allowed is no more ridiculous than saying he would not. If these guys were competing then they would just as likely use technology as not if that was the status quo in competition.

I think this distance debate is the same as any equipment debate.

If the ruling bodies had made a decision to keep the playing field level by prohibiting the use of distance, prohibiting the use of metal woods, prohibiting the use of modern golf balls, etc. etc. then the game may have been better of, but it also may have attracted fewer participants because it is so difficult in those conditions.

I would have to agree with Tom, Ralph and Melvyn in terms of the deterioration of mental faculties on the course with the use of distance aids. However, many would probably argue that the game is difficult already and it does not violate the rules.

Chacon son gout - to each his own (even if you play cart golf . . .  )

[RSLivingston_III]

I think I have another way to describe gutty golf, hopefully without ending up writing a small book.
In general, from 1850-1880 better players carried 4-7 clubs. Most were woods and only a couple were irons. A utility iron or two might have been included depending on the players preference. The use of irons as primary approaching and pitching clubs was developed during this time.
There were no graduated sets of irons. That didn't happen until the 20th century.
Putters were wood. Long approaches were done with woods. Shorter pitch "approaches" were done with either a wood or one of the early irons, possibly a Lofter (about 40 degrees) or an Iron (around 28 degrees). Pitching with a more lofted club wasn't done, and didn't need to be done by the majority of players. Tom Jr. is credited with developing the Niblick pitch sometime around 1870. That did become somewhat more popular towards the later part of the century. It really wasn't needed as a gutty ball would drop dead anyway. Until the 20th century when the rubber ball was developed, more lofted clubs weren't necessary except as utility clubs for extricating balls from very poor situations.
Nothing stated here is an absolute. There were no established standards with clubs and set make-up. Every decade from 1850-1900 was different, the game was changing rapidly.

The game was played like we putt, or at least the way I putt, look at the hole, FEEL the distance, swing away.

I know it's a huge jump for many to make, but they FELT the distance and swung the club to accomplish it. Most of these guys only used 1 or 2 clubs for all shots attempting to hit the green. No distance measurements except for what their eyes told them and what they felt.

Think of it in terms of playing a one club event.

[Craig Sweet]

Ralph..so you are saying they had no interests in knowing that the shot they "felt", and hit, was 20 paces?  I find that a bit difficult to belief.  A HUGE part of programing that "feel" in the brain comes form a curiosity of knowing the distance...using your eyes...sizing up the distance, and giving it your best 20 paces swing.... 

[Sean_A]

The third baseman must gauge the hop of the scalding grounder as it approaches him -- to avoid getting handcuffed.

He does not consult a physics or geometry primer.

While in the air, the basketball forward must instantaneously judge the distance of his turnaround jumper -- or he throws up an airball.

But he does not break out a tape measure.

The quarterback must throw his out patterns and post routes by gauging the timing and distance of his passes -- or else the pass gets picked off.

Yet, he does not whip out a rangefinder.

These are fundamental skills that determine the success or failure of the sporting endeavour.

Melvyn and Ralph are right.

Judging distance is a fundamental skill of the game.  We have subverted a fundamental skill of the game with all the distance gauges we use.  And the game is worse for it. 
 

Of course Shivas is correct.  All those that think knowing that a ball near a rock (or whatever) is a certain club in certain conditions is the same as whipping out a machine to measure the distance are in coo coo land.  It takes experience to learn the landmarks and as we all know experience is an advantage in every endeavour.  Why should it be reasonable for a man's experience on the playing field to be negated by someone else using aids?  Why has this sort of thinking crept into the game and seen as reasonable?  Furthermore, I don't think guys knew distances in the way we think of it.  I think the old timers knew shots and which clubs were best to pull off those shots.  The more the game, courses and conditions (read the US becoming much more influential in the game became standardized and codified the more distance became an issue in the sense of certain clubs going certain distances and folks needing to know distance.  I don't blame US style of golf for this because I think this sort of thinking would have come sooner or later once guys were able to make a living week to week playing golf.  It truly is a slippery slope from yardage on the tee to yardage markers to more modern aids.  They are in essence all in one and the same.  I would like to see them all eliminated not so much because of what I perceive as experience and the knowledge gained from that experience being negated (though it does irk me), but because I believe archies would then be fully able to practice their craft to the highest order.  In essence, what these aids to is limit the effect of creative design and I can't understand why the amateur golfer with no pretensions of titles or fame would want creativity taken out of the playing fields. 

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

I think at last some of you are starting to understand that Golf is a challenge. It should not be made easy or overly hard but just a challenge

The Architect/Designer sets down the challenge in his design, his creativity is the starting point, how he utilises the contours and natural shape of the landscape gives that need to want to step up and accept the unknown. One reason why I love playing virgin (never previously played by me) courses. Most hazards are there to be seen but some traps are well hidden showing the Designer is skilled in catch out the over confident player time and again in his different approaches he may be forced to use.

The course also needs to convey harmony with its surrounding to attract me to even considering taking on the challenge in the first place. Golf is not meant to be easy, why the hell bother if it is easy, just what is the point? If you want easy stay at your home course for years and never try other courses.

As for knowing distance, because so many are so hooked on thinking distance at every turn they just can’t understand how others play without the need for this knowledge.  Never wanting to take the easy route, many of us use the good old fashion ways of playing golf with our instincts, selecting the right club by just looking at the course as we approach the ball. I have never thought that its 160 yards so I will use X club, I know from my ability, I know my clubs and so choose accordingly. For me to know its 175 yards is meaningless and actually distracts me from my train of thought. 175 yards tells me nothing about the course, the weather or wind conditions which will have more influence on your shot than knowing its 175 yards. My eyes have already told me the distance and I have already chosen my club, why waste more time with additional meaningless information, but then that how I look at it, you of course may not.

But why is it so hard for some to accept that – pre WW2 golf has become fixated with this desire to eat, sleep and dream distance using markers, yardage books and now electronic aids. That everyone right back to the first golfer needs the exact distance to play. Is it due to some insecurity within individuals or has it become a lemming like reaction. Has the natural ability to choose your clubs by just using your eyes been lost or do some need the confirmation to know distance as the new status symbol – of keeping up with the Jones. Perhaps it is just a simple combination all with some little insecurity linked with the need to win thrown in for good measure.

Whatever it is that drives you to want to know the distance, please do not tarnish others with the same brush. I accept you don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, but perhaps it’s down to strength of character or maybe its just that some of use look at the game and accept it is a challenge. Only the individual golfer can actually answer that question.

To attract more to golf IMHO requires the game to be a challenge. Not to convey its bloody difficult and hard, nor easy as a ride in the part but it’s a challenge that can be repeated time after time and is also repeated every time he/she plays on different courses.

I suppose the best analogy is that of learning a new language. Whilst you think in your native tongue, you have to translate what is said to you in say English, work out your reply again in English then translate it into the spoken language. Yet those fully at home with the new language are able to think in it so respond instinctively without that split second double translation, perhaps that the difference between some of us, we just feel totally at easy with ourselves and our game so have no need for outside assistance. But golf is not there to be easy, if it was easy why play it in the first place. No Golf IMHO is all about The Challenge and it is way more interesting than yardage books etc.

Melvyn 

PS  I do not play the IF game of Golf, if Old Tom did this or If Old Tom did that, he did what he did and you are playing the result of some of his endeavours, so just enjoy it. – Don’t agree then that your right. But take the piss out of my long dead family you will rekindle a flame that you will not like. The dead cannot defend themselves and Old Tom for one does not deserve this type of treatment from those who profess to love the game. Don’t like what I say OK then be a man and come after me as only cowards hide behind the dead.

[Sam Morrow]

Sorry Sam, but I just did an Ancestry.com and a ship passenger manifest dot.com search on you and your Texas family. You sure as shootin' are related to Melvyn. His grandfather's cousin once removed married your grandmother.

You've got some explaining to do to Melvyn, Scotland, golf, golf architecture and golf maintenance and the memory of Old Tom. Carts are a good place for you to begin the explaining Cowboy. Cuz iffin' you don't then that old adage that you can never go home again will turn out to be true!

Wow, what a small world! Which grandmother did he marry I wonder, the one from East Texas who considered Bonnie and Clyde the greatest Americans of the 20th century or my Jewish grandmother from Philly who worked in a sweatshop!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sam

I don’t have either of those lines in my family tree. It must be further back, but once a Morrow always a Morrow, and lets not forget we can trace our name back to the Bible in which it is mentioned on many occasions i.e. ‘On the Morrow’. How many can go that far back

We must excuse these guys because they do not know what they are really saying.

Melvyn

PS Will e-mail you a half complete Family tree to see if any connections

[Sam Morrow]

Sam

I don’t have either of those lines in my family tree. It must be further back, but once a Morrow always a Morrow, and lets not forget we can trace our name back to the Bible in which it is mentioned on many occasions i.e. ‘On the Morrow’. How many can go that far back

We must excuse these guys because they do not know what they are really saying.

Melvyn

PS Will e-mail you a half complete Family tree to see if any connections

So true Melvyn! Sadly my side of the family tree doesn't fork, I have a cousin with 13 toes.

[Kalen Braley]

I disagree in principle with Shiv's analogy.  I see this more as an issue of information, which players in every sport get.

In golf, before taking a shot they assess yardage, wind, weather, etc....but they still have to make the muscluar movements to swing the club for the shot whether it be a low cut, high draw, etc, etc.

In football, before running a down, a play is called in both offensivly and defensivly. Assigments, are made, QBs and Linebackers make thier reads, receivers eye the defensive package, etc.  Then when the ball is snapped they do the physical part.

In baseball, both pitcher and batter are given instructions. What pitch to throw, what pitch to look for, make a pitchout, lay down a bunt, etc, etc. All that is left is to execute whats they practiced again and again and again.

In Basketball, same thing.  They run set plays dictated by the coach...they have thier man coverage assignments, floor formation, whose going to take the shot, defensive schemes, etc.  All that is left is running the plays.


All of these sports have thier equivilant "pre-shot" routines just like golf.  The prepration part is the same, the execution part is the same.  But in the end, the player must still make the swing and execute the shot.  Someone like me can have the best caddy in the world, all the finest equipment, the most capable swing coach, and the best information.  Yet it won't make one bit of difference...because i'm still the one has to make the swing in the end. I'm the one who has to have the fine muscle movement to get the club in perfect position, keep the elbow tucked, keep the swing on plane, keep the body parts working in unison, make crisp contact, keep my head down, and hit the ball. Just like the QB still must make the throw, the batter swing the bat, and the point guard make the pass.

So no, I disagree that information gathering only happens in golf...

[Kalen Braley]

Shiv,

I disagree with your inference that there is no judgement left in golf.  Last I checked they still must judge...

- Wind
- Course firmness
- Lies in bunkers
- Green speed
- How much a ball will release
- If it will jump from the rough
- If the ball will check up on a chip
- Influence of temp on shot distance
etc, etc, etc.

Golf is full of these judgement calls or "estimations" to use your words.  If anything in Basketball, Football, and Baseball there are far less variables to be factored in when making plays.

[Kalen Braley]

I didn't say that. 

I said that the fundamental skill of estimating distance has been eviscerated. 

And, in fact, it has.  Completely, in fact.

And you're wrong about other sports having fewer variables because they have this little thing called defense, which provides an infinite number of variables.

My point about the other sports is that estimation of the distance to a target is fundamental to the notion of sport - and that golf is the outlier in this regard. 

 

I still disagree Shiv,

In basketball, players know the rim is 10 feet high, the foul line is 15 feet, the top of the key is 21 feet, 3 point line is 23-25 feet.  And they have practiced enough where they know within 12 inches of how far they are to the basket at any point on the floor.

In baseball, they know the pitcher is 60'6" away, 1st base is 90 feet away, how far the throw is to 1st, and the distance to the fences is printed on the wall for pets sake.

In football, they know what yard line they are on, how far to go for a 1st down, when they need to make thier cut on a 5 yard slant, where the line of scrimmage is etc, etc.

[TEPaul]

Hey Pat Craig, your post #81 is a good one particularly the part about different yardages/different courses etc.

This is an old one told on here before but in case you've never heard it here it is again:

Raymond Flyod and his old longtime caddie, Golfball, are looking at the second shot on the first hole at a tour tournament.

Raymond says: "What've I got Golfball?"

Golfball says: "It's 185 yards Ray, it's your 5 iron."

Raymond takes out his 5 iron puts a good swing on it and flies the green by about 40 yards.

Raymond turns to Golfball and says; "What in the hell was that Golfball?"

Golfball says: "You've got me Ray, it says right here it's 185 yards from here on the first hole at Memphis."

Ray says: "Golfball, for Chriiist Sakes, Memphis was last week, we're in Houston this week."

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I know it's all within the Rules, but don't you think the game would be a better game if the guys who write the Rules had just banned it all in the first place?"


Dave:

Had just banned IT all in the first place? Banned all of WHAT in the first place?

[PCCraig]

The thinking and calculating are what makes Golf, Golf. I don't think looking at a sprinkler head takes anything way from golf, mostly because even if you know exactly how far the shot is, it is still only half of the game.

Pat, do you realize how utterly innane what you just said is?

For a guy who professes to know all things golf from your extensive lifetime in the game  , it's pretty amazing that you're willing to throw "half of the game" into the refuse recepticle so thoughtlessly.

Shivas-

If it wasn't half the game we would all still be walking around with three clubs whacking the hell out of the ball in every direction. Quite frankly if you were playing with 14 clubs and no yardages you would be a complete hypocrite because yardage calculation is the reason people carry so many clubs in the first place.

Of course it is half the game, yardage is just part of the greater strategy of the game.

Playing with no yardages, either at St. Andrews or Butler National, does a great disservice to the golf course architecture. I could play 18 holes at the Old Course with just a 7 iron, but I really wouldn't be playing the golf course.

Let me remind everyone that I don't use a rangefinder, but I hardly think looking at a 150 yard post in the fairway or knowing the yardage on the tee is ruining the game of golf.

[Craig Sweet]

Well, I'm convinced!  That's it!! The game has been ruined!!!

I'm not going to play golf any longer....

My clubs have ruined the game...those damn yardage markers have ruined the game....my golf ball goes too far and has ruined the game....and every where I look I see beer drinking, cigar smoking golfers riding around in carts, and they have ruined the game...and my $400 high tech rain suit, designed to protect me from the elements, has ruined the game....

Maybe someday I'll buy three or four wood shafted clubs and find some old nerf balls and play again...but I doubt it.  It's over...ruined!

[C. Squier]

I didn't say that. 

I said that the fundamental skill of estimating distance has been eviscerated. 

And, in fact, it has.  Completely, in fact.

And you're wrong about other sports having fewer variables because they have this little thing called defense, which provides an infinite number of variables.

My point about the other sports is that estimation of the distance to a target is fundamental to the notion of sport - and that golf is the outlier in this regard. 

 

I still disagree Shiv,

In basketball, players know the rim is 10 feet high, the foul line is 15 feet, the top of the key is 21 feet, 3 point line is 23-25 feet.  And they have practiced enough where they know within 12 inches of how far they are to the basket at any point on the floor.

In baseball, they know the pitcher is 60'6" away, 1st base is 90 feet away, how far the throw is to 1st, and the distance to the fences is printed on the wall for pets sake.

In football, they know what yard line they are on, how far to go for a 1st down, when they need to make thier cut on a 5 yard slant, where the line of scrimmage is etc, etc.

Exactly.  There is a reason the right fielder runs out to the exact same spot every time without needing a distance guage.....because they've done it thousands of times on identical fields. 

[TEPaul]

Craig Sweet:

I love your post #104! I really do. It does seem sometimes like there are so many naysayers and doomsdayist about golf on here that it might become a self-fulling prophecy, doesn't it? 

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

Getting back to your original post, Old Tom was in fact the (or at least "a") Standard Bearer for Range-Finders as to my knowledge he allowed yardages to be placed on the cards of every course he designed.  In doing so, he gave exact yardages to a centrally placed pin for every hole, including short holes, where such information was tantamount to giving every player a clue as to what club to hit, assuming normal conditions.

This just started the slippery slope which later included:  150-yard bushes; caddies with paced out course guides; markings on sprinkler heads; laser measurement and GPS-aided devices.

As to what Old Tom might or might not have thought about today's game, we are all just speculating, and as this is so, the getting of knickers into twists which is occuring on this thread is particularly unseemly.

Rich

[Kyle Harris]

Has it been proven in a statistically significant manner that distance estimation beyond a certain point is a skill and not just luck?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()