OK, so this argument is never going to end. But my oh my, my friend Sean has seem to have gone astray - at least as it pertains to how golf is played in the USA. Perhaps you've been gone too long Sean? Apologies in advance but this requires the Mucci.
FIRST, SOME CAVEATS HOWEVER:
a) I think the game would be better with no distance information at all. I've explained this many times before.
b) I never use a bushnell or the like myself. Approximations are fine by me.
c) I AM NOT SAYING ANY OF THESE ELECTRONIC DEVICES ARE A GOOD THING. I AM SAYING THAT IN THE REALITIES OF USA GOLF - WITH COURSES OVER-MARKED AS IT IS, GPS ON CARTS EVERYWHERE - THEY HAVE BECOME A NECESSARY EVIL.
So...gotta take Sean's contentions point by point:
First, I would say that walking off yardages is as you say, an approximation to a certain predetermined point - often the centre of the green. Many guys like myself don't walk yardages - we eye them up if a marker is available and often times even if they are available.
As do I. But you and I are far from the issue. The vast majority of US golfers are indeed slaves to distance information and want it exact, and will do whatever it takes to get it. Second, I would say the gun can give exact distances to cover hazards and help greatly with visual deception such as dead ground.
Ever hear of a yardage guide? Satellite GPS on carts? Each do the same thing. Sorry Sean, the genie is out as much as you don't want to admit it... Third, the gun gives distances when a player is hopelessly out of position.
Same answer - GPS on carts does the same thing. And again, most golfers are such slaves to distance that when this happens, they will spend FOREVER trying to figure out a distance in the absence of GPS or other electronic device... thus meaning such save time in these instances. Finally, guns may increase the speed of play in the right hands and only in the context of accepting yardage aids. If we are talking about speed of play, it is my contention that the game would move faster if no aids were available. So I don't buy speed of play argument in the least.
That's a very unrealistic view of things. Yes the game would move faster if no aids were available - including the markings on the ground, yardage guides, bushes, poles, etc. But that's not how it is here. The vast vast majority of courses are clearly marked, or overmarked. In this reality, electronic devices assist players in finding what they otherwise have to search for. And damn near all are slaves to the information, so in the end, whether you buy it or not, the speed of play argument is correct. All that said, my biggest beef with guns is how they mitigate the effectiveness of architecture.I don't play many matches friendly or not with a caddy nor do I suspect the vast majority of golfers out there do. The gun changes this scenario big time and is just another gizmo that gives folks a leg up if they are willing to PAY.
guns don't mitigate the effectiveness of the architecture Sean - the other distance information already available does so. Guns just make it quicker to obtain.Now change the reality to Scotland or the UK - where distance information is not so readily available - and the argument changes. Thus I can understand Melyvn's take here and sympathize - he's never played here and really doesn't understand how it is. But you have and do, Sean. You ought to know better.
