[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

Are you going to somehow outlaw counting ones steps? Are you going to make it against the Rules to take notes when you're playing to use the next time you play that course?

People who want to score well in medal play tend to believe that knowing how far they need to hit the ball is an advantage leading to lower scores. They will inevitably find ways to ascertain distance as exactly as possible for as many shots as possible since they believe that information leads to lower scores (which it does BTW).

So don't folks think there is any difference between gaining information and knowledge through experience is any different than being gifted the information and knowledge of experience?  

Ciao

Well that's rather what I was getting at, Sean.. and Dave too....

If it CAN BE DONE, I can't see why it shouldn't be.  My issue prior to today assumed it couldn't be done.  Maybe it can't.  And if it can't, then I remain in favor of getting the information as efficiently as possible.

TH

[PCCraig]

Pat:

Your post is the backlash I'd expect if the rules-makers changed things as per what I posted.

Many would be up in arms... many would scream... legal implications would have to be considered (sadly)....

But try to look beyond that.

Picture a golf world with no distance information.  No one would have it, at all.  The skill in judging just what club to hit on any given shot would be fundamental.

Wouldn't this be more fun?  Wouldn't it re-introduce a complexity and skill to the game that would be just one more way to separate the great players from the poorer?  Wouldn't it add more shotmaking to a game some complain has gotten too easy?  Wouldn't it lead to greater chances being taken in architecture... wilder holes being built...

I don't know.  Maybe I am reaching too far.  Heck I've been a slave to distance my entire golf life and it would be one hell of an adjustment to me.

I just can't think of any reasons why this would be a bad thing.... can you?  Can anyone?

TH

Tom-

I agree with you. I have said all along in my posts that I really don't use that many distance aides. All I need is a 150 yard pole and I can go from there. I have always played as fast as possible, if I am on any course playing alone, a round over 3 hours would mean I must of broke my leg along the way.

However the problem I personally have is when people tell me that looking at that 150 pole is somehow not playing real and "pure" golf. Somehow in my (apparently very short) life I never understood that I wasn't really playing golf.

I would bet I use less distance aid than Ralph, Melvyn, and Shivas combined. That being said at least I admit that I do use some sort of distance estimation and that in the end "feel" is a product of distance.

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat:

Oh believe me, I share your offense at that... Melvyn and I have certainly had our battles, and that's the main reason why.

But let's try to get past that too....

I think this new/old game would be a lot of fun and better for the game and us all.  The key question is could it happen?

TH

[PCCraig]

Pat:

Oh believe me, I share your offense at that... Melvyn and I have certainly had our battles, and that's the main reason why.

But let's try to get past that too....

I think this new/old game would be a lot of fun and better for the game and us all.  The key question is could it happen?

TH

Tom-

I think it is a good idea for a select group like the GCA.com board. However in the grand scheme of things it is doubtful. The Melvyns and Ralphs of the world actually consists of about 0.000001% of the entire golfing population.

[Sean_A]

Tom,

Are you going to somehow outlaw counting ones steps? Are you going to make it against the Rules to take notes when you're playing to use the next time you play that course?

People who want to score well in medal play tend to believe that knowing how far they need to hit the ball is an advantage leading to lower scores. They will inevitably find ways to ascertain distance as exactly as possible for as many shots as possible since they believe that information leads to lower scores (which it does BTW).

Well that's rather what I was getting at, Sean.. and Dave....

If it CAN BE DONE, I can't see why it shouldn't be.  My issue prior to today assumed it couldn't be done.  Maybe it can't.  And if it can't, then I remain in favor of getting the information as efficiently as possible.

TH

So don't folks think there is any difference between gaining information and knowledge through experience is any different than being gifted the information and knowledge of experience?  

Ciao

Huckabilly

Other than my main objection to archies being partially hamstrung by distance graffiti, I suspect this is the second area where I part company with the lot advocating all and more.  I want to see the thinking part of the game be more utilized and players who can out-think opponents be rewarded.  

Ciao  

[Brent Hutto]

So don't folks think there is any difference between gaining information and knowledge through experience is any different than being gifted the information and knowledge of experience?  

Of course there's a difference. And the former is better than the latter.

But that's not the choice on offer. Tom is proposing that those without information and knowledge gained through experience have various (attempted) nuisances and barriers erected to prevent them from being "gifted" any information about the course. Which of course is typical Treehouse wish-fulfillment wankery masquerading as a thought experiment.

The best players I know prefer to learn about a course over multiple practice rounds, rangefinder in hand, making their own notes about the course and attempting various shots from situations they may encounter in a competitive round. If that is not available, they will settle for one practice round and a detailed yardage book. If that is not available they will settle for whatever markers are on the course plus pacing around until they've gained as much distance information as possible without causing an uprising on the part of their fellow competitors or officials.

If a skilled player looks at the hole before he hits the shot, on average he will hit it closer than if he wears a blindfold. If a skilled player knows how far his ball lies from the hole he will hit it closer on average than if he has to guess the distance. If a skilled player has played the hole twenty times before he will hit it closer on average than if he's just off the boat playing the course for the first time. All of these are simply, empirical facts. Wishing them not to be so has no effect on objective reality.

I'm not a skilled player. I play many rounds where my knowledge of distance on most shots is vague at best. In all likelihood even an unskilled player like myself hits the ball slightly less close to the hole and therefore shoots slightly higher scores than I could do by measuring distances but frankly many times I'm not out there to shoot the lowest score possible (if I were I would trade in about a third of my rounds for practice-range sessions).

But you guys aren't talking about people playing like Sean prefers to play (and Melvyn and Ralph and ostensibly Tom H. although I don't believe that for a moment). What you're talking about is trying to come up with Rules to [expletive deleted] with the heads of the guys who actually are trying to shoot the lowest scores possible. And that is a fool's errand.

[PCCraig]

Pat:

But let's try to get past that too....

TH

The problem is others can't understand that this is a discussion board and not a lecture hall. Dismissing someone's comments and ideas because age and a lack of posts is completly uncalled for and unacceptable.

[Kalen Braley]

As good as Toms suggestion is and I agree with it in principle, I still don't see this being effective in deterring anyone from using yardages in the game even if it were introduced.

At the organized level, specifically the pro level, caddies can still pace yardages and take notes during practice rounds and study/memorize these at night to regurgitate the next day to thier player.  So while they may not have every last carry distance, they would still have decent yardages for most of the shots required.

And at the local weekend warrior level, guys would still use thier bushnells, pre-owned yardage books, GPS and otherwise....because they are just playing for fun.  As it is, alot already break/inproperly enforce many rules on the course as well as use non-conforming balls, clubs, etc....this would just be another item to add to the list.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:

I think you misunderstand me.

I am not advocating fucking with anyone's head.  I just suggested one means to an end.  That is, we can get to a game I think would be better via these rules changes.  I am VERY open to other suggestions as to how to get to this end.

Because you see, I am just quite sincerely advocating that we go back to a game in which distance information (if one has to have it) is earned rather than given.  I think it's a skill that some will be great at, some won't, but in any case something in which hard work will be rewarded.   I think Sean phrased it well:

I want to see the thinking part of the game be more utilized and players who can out-think opponents be rewarded.  

That's what I want as well.  This would be a way in which we make that happen.

TH

ps - regarding note taking, that can be done in practice rounds only.  As shivas says, "there should be no note taking, note making or note use during a stipulated round."

[Brent Hutto]

Whatever might ail the Game of Golf, it won't be improved by a bunch of lawyers packing layer upon layer of fanatical nitpicking into the Rules.

[Tom Huckaby]

Whatever might ail the Game of Golf, it won't be improved by a bunch of lawyers packing layer upon layer of fanatical nitpicking into the Rules.

But Brent, I am not a lawyer - not even close - and that's sure as hell not what I am doing.

Read my last post... I really think you misunderstand me.

If you don't think the game would be better without distance information, fine.  I can definitely accept the different viewpoint.

But if you can accept that... then the rules change just remains the best way I can think of to make it happen.

BTW...I really don't see much chance of this gaining much traction, as in the end I think there are not even that many in the governing bodies who would agree with those who say it's a better or more fundamental way to play the game.   So perhaps I ought to go back to my previous stance.  This is more of a "what if", as I initially posted.

TH

[PCCraig]

Whatever might ail the Game of Golf, it won't be improved by a bunch of lawyers packing layer upon layer of fanatical nitpicking into the Rules.

Lawyers don't add much. 

[Sean_A]

So don't folks think there is any difference between gaining information and knowledge through experience is any different than being gifted the information and knowledge of experience?  

wankery

I'm not a skilled player. I play many rounds where my knowledge of distance on most shots is vague at best. In all likelihood even an unskilled player like myself hits the ball slightly less close to the hole and therefore shoots slightly higher scores than I could do by measuring distances but frankly many times I'm not out there to shoot the lowest score possible (if I were I would trade in about a third of my rounds for practice-range sessions).

But you guys aren't talking about people playing like Sean prefers to play (and Melvyn and Ralph and ostensibly Tom H. although I don't believe that for a moment). What you're talking about is trying to come up with Rules to fuck with the heads of the guys who actually are trying to shoot the lowest scores possible. And that is a fool's errand.

Brent

Well, your imaginative use of a word derived from wanker made me laugh.  

I am not trying to fuck with anybody.  My goal in eliminating yardage graffiti is to enable archies to be more creative, or rather allow their creativity to impact the game more.   Lord knows there is a serious dearth of architectural creativity out there and when an archie does come up with some clever ploy, players just whip out a gun.  This sort of thinking makes no sense to me and eventually, more and more archies will stop wasting time trying to design in deceiving features because there is little point.  Secondly, I want to see experience properly and fully rewarded.  When a guy can even the odds with a machine or by looking at a disc then the advantage of experience is reduced - this is a shame imo.  

Ciao  

[Andy Troeger]

Golf, like everything else in our dynamic world, has changed. Whether or not you like yardage markers, they exist on the vast majority of courses and the vast majority of golfers (including myself) approve of their existence. Thus it appears that most people see this as progress, but if individuals prefer not to use them they certainly have that right. I think the chances of yardage markers disappearing is about as likely as elimination of e-mail so that we can go back to sending letters by post for communication.

[Brent Hutto]

Well, your imaginative use of a word derived from wanker made me laugh.  

I was trying to connote a certain grudging respect for the skill with which some people have developed a rather prosaic pursuit into something akin to a art form.

Tom H,

I would never mean to accuse yourself of being a lawyer...let's see, could that be "lawyerie"...naah, doesn't work.

[Tom Huckaby]

Golf, like everything else in our dynamic world, has changed. Whether or not you like yardage markers, they exist on the vast majority of courses and the vast majority of golfers (including myself) approve of their existence. Thus it appears that most people see this as progress, but if individuals prefer not to use them they certainly have that right. I think the chances of yardage markers disappearing is about as likely as elimination of e-mail so that we can go back to sending letters by post for communication.

Andy:  I don't wholly disagree.  Change is difficult and there do seem to be very very few behind this issue.  But let's play more "what if"... say the rulesmakers made these changes.  Do you see such as a bad thing?

Brent - LOL - no offense taken.  I yam what I yam.  But I yammnot is a lawyer, that's all.   And come on... you know this kind of prosaic wankering is not normally my style... I just think this is an interesting what if.

One more thing - hell no, I don't play this way NOW. Why should I?  I have been a slave to distance my whole life, I know no other way to play.  But change the rules and hell yes I comply.  And I think it would be a more fun game.

TH

[Andy Troeger]

Golf, like everything else in our dynamic world, has changed. Whether or not you like yardage markers, they exist on the vast majority of courses and the vast majority of golfers (including myself) approve of their existence. Thus it appears that most people see this as progress, but if individuals prefer not to use them they certainly have that right. I think the chances of yardage markers disappearing is about as likely as elimination of e-mail so that we can go back to sending letters by post for communication.

Andy:  I don't wholly disagree.  Change is difficult and there do seem to be very very few behind this issue.  But let's play more "what if"... say the rulesmakers made these changes.  Do you see such as a bad thing?

I don't see any benefit to taking away yardage markers so that I can guess yardages over cross hazards--so yes I would see the change as a bad thing personally. If yardage markers had never been included on courses I'm sure I'd see it differently, but I've used them for 99.9 percent of the rounds I've ever played and have no desire to eliminate them. Modern American courses (and perhaps others) are often designed with the expectation that players will know yardages--they're too hard as it is let alone if one had to guess how far it would be to carry the water (with some kind of other death on the other side most likely).

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy:

It would be a difficult transition.  And it would make the game a lot tougher on courses such as you describe... at least initially.

Because... just how deceiving can ANY forced carry be?  Oh sure some might fool you... but over time as your how far this club ought to go and how far away is something skills increased, I think you wouldn't be fooled very often.  And if you were, well.... it's your own lack of skill....

Oh I know I would suffer at first... but as everyone else played this way, misery would be company.. but I really believe a light bulb would go on eventually... and this would be a really cool way to play, more how the game is SUPPOSED to be.


TH

[Brent Hutto]

Modern American courses (and perhaps others) are often designed with the expectation that players will know yardages--they're too hard as it is let alone if one had to guess how far it would be to carry the water (with some kind of other death on the other side most likely).

Good point. Any course designed in the last few decades, at least those of quality and thoughtfulness, was built in an environment where knowing the distance of obstacles and targets (to one degree of accuracy or another) is part of the background assumptions under which the architect is working. It would be nuts to play a typical Florida resort course---where one, two or three shots on every hole have water in play either as a cross hazard or a lateral one---with absolutely no idea of the distances involved. Many such watery courses have multiple shots per round where the margin for error in a shot is comparable to the margin of error in even a trained eyeball unfamiliar with the hole in question.

That said, the flip side of this is Sean's point that certain architectural features are no longer worth the time and effort to design into a course in an era of ubiquitous near-exact distance information. I think it's easy to oversell that drawback by overlooking the ability of good players to "know" their distances after a handful of times playing a given shot but it is an influence on the practice of architecture no doubt.

As I always point out in these discussions, courses designed for "links" or other windy low-profile environments have to be built in a way that accommodates shots in which nothing like certainty as to carry and/or rolling distances is possible due to the conditions. I'd like to add that such accommodation would seem to result in courses both more challenging to eyeball distance estimation (some links ground I have seen is a very visual-target-poor environment) and simultaneously more forgiving of errors in distance knowledge/estimation/guessing with a more finely graduated scale of error and recovery than stereotypical "target golf" setups.

P.S. That last comment could be taken to mean that if I played as many round on links-like terrain as friend Sean perhaps I would share his preferences for how the game is best to be played.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - the same reply to Andy goes to you as well.... that is:

It would be a difficult transition.  And it would make the game a lot tougher on courses such as you describe... at least initially.

Because... just how deceiving can ANY forced carry be?  Oh sure some might fool you... but over time as your how far this club ought to go and how far away is something skills increased, I think you wouldn't be fooled very often.  And if you were, well.... it's your own lack of skill....

Oh I know I would suffer at first... but as everyone else played this way, misery would be company.. but I really believe a light bulb would go on eventually... and this would be a really cool way to play, more how the game is SUPPOSED to be.

And then in the end, the gains in architecture that Sean mentions (and I had alluded to earlier) to me outweigh the short-term pain.

TH

[Kirk Gill]

My goal in eliminating yardage graffiti is to enable archies to be more creative, or rather allow their creativity to impact the game more.   Lord knows there is a serious dearth of architectural creativity out there and when an archie does come up with some clever ploy, players just whip out a gun.  This sort of thinking makes no sense to me and eventually, more and more archies will stop wasting time trying to design in deceiving features because there is little point.  Secondly, I want to see experience properly and fully rewarded.  When a guy can even the odds with a machine or by looking at a disc then the advantage of experience is reduced - this is a shame imo.

Sean, I really agree with this statement. While there are obviously too many distance markers out there in the world to ever remove them (the genie mentioned earlier), it seems like there's a richness to the game that is added when the player has to think more for himself, or enrich himself with experience. And the role of the architect is made more important when every distance isn't a known quantity?

For you historians out there, would it be safe to say that in the past there were a lot more players who played only a small number of courses in their lifetimes, and tended to play those courses many more times, as opposed to now where it seems like there are LOTS of people who play LOTS of courses? And has this "play it once" mentality helped to fuel the proliferation of distance graffiti, since there's no desire or opportunity to obtain distance experience on a given course?

And Andy, I feel your pain regarding cross hazards. From an architectural perspective, would lack of knowledge of precise distance tend to make you as a golfer over-club when faced with such a hazard, allowing the architect to mess with your head more when placing hazards beyond your target area?

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
I'm sure we would all adjust eventually--and probably avoid courses where judging distances made them difficult beyond reason.

I really don't care how people think the game is "supposed" to be played though--everyone is entitled to their opinions but we obviously won't come to a consensus. I'm not much of a traditionalist by this groups standards and would have to say I'm more interested in how the game is ACTUALLY played today. There are a heck of lot of other things in golf more concerning to me than whether we mark the sprinklers with yardages.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,
I'm sure we would all adjust eventually--and probably avoid courses where judging distances made them difficult beyond reason.

I really don't care how people think the game is "supposed" to be played though--everyone is entitled to their opinions but we obviously won't come to a consensus. I'm not much of a traditionalist by this groups standards and would have to say I'm more interested in how the game is ACTUALLY played today. There are a heck of lot of other things in golf more concerning to me than whether we mark the sprinklers with yardages.

Well, you and me both there also.  I don't tend to care much either how the game is supposed to be played; of more concern to me is how the game would be more fun.  And I really do think it would be more fun sans distance information.

Of course also, this is somewhat trivial in the greater scheme of things.  But hey, absent trivialities where would this site be?

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Kirk:

Regarding this:

While there are obviously too many distance markers out there in the world to ever remove them (the genie mentioned earlier,

I used to think this way as well; oh my, just ask Melvyn.

BUT... if the rules changed... it wouldn't be THAT HARD to remove distance info.

The genie problem to me remains in people's attitudes.   That genie is gonna be really tough to corral.

Think it can be done?

TH

[Anthony Gray]

  Does anybody have a picture of this genie?

   Anthony

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()