News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #25 on: April 13, 2011, 10:01:42 PM »


Jim

Its a Game not a F#@kin* war.

Why not have a causality list too, but I suppose if you use carts then you expect to measure distance. It was a game of thinking and walking nothing more.

Melvyn

The Masters has a casualty list...it's called the cut....Top 44 and ties or 10 off the lead.

Bruce Wellmon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #26 on: April 13, 2011, 10:54:30 PM »
Its simple mate you are not playing Golf if you use these aids.  If you cannot read distance what the hell are you doing on a golf course?
Melvyn


So, no one in the entire field used a yardage book in the 2010 Open at TOC?

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2011, 02:56:39 AM »

Bruce

Who knows?

It’s not about TOC or Scotland, it’s about HONOURING THE GAME and being true to yourself in the process.

If you can’t do that, then  just admit you are not playing golf, although you should not be blamed as The Governing Body has betrayed the very principal at the heart of the Game, that of walking and thinking.  Yet they are not finished yet they want to destroy our great old courses by refusing to control technology – These modern Nero’s fiddling while Rome (The Royal & Ancient Game of Golf ) is burnt and totally undermined.

As I said if you need distance aids to play the game and to help select your clubs, then you should IMHO not be on a golf course.

Melvyn


Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2011, 11:50:26 AM »
Melvyn - would you please identify what exactly you consider to be a distance aid. I've looked through some of your old posts, but I can't find a list. I'm just trying to pin down where you draw the line.

Also, you mention "technology" as being a problem, but I'm not sure of everything you include in that category. If you could just make a list of the technological improvements you take issue with it might help some of us understand the foundation of your stance on these issues. For example, the "hot" ball and driver I understand, but do you also take issue with the sand wedge or modern turf equipment? What's in and what's out?

Thank you, in advance, for helping me understand.

By the way... if you decide to answer it might be best to start a new thread so that we don't butcher this one more than it already has been.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 02:45:34 PM by Michael Whitaker »
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2011, 03:56:05 PM »
Melvyn - would you please identify what exactly you consider to be a distance aid. I've looked through some of your old posts, but I can't find a list. I'm just trying to pin down where you draw the line.

Also, you mention "technology" as being a problem, but I'm not sure of everything you include in that category. If you could just make a list of the technological improvements you take issue with it might help some of us understand the foundation of your stance on these issues. For example, the "hot" ball and driver I understand, but do you also take issue with the sand wedge or modern turf equipment? What's in and what's out?

Thank you, in advance, for helping me understand.

By the way... if you decide to answer it might be best to start a new thread so that we don't butcher this one more than it already has been.

Anything and everything.

--- Melvyn

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #30 on: April 15, 2011, 09:27:50 AM »
Melvyn,

Were the experienced TOC caddies in Old Tom's day not distance aids?  Directional aids in some cases?

Just a new twist on an old idea.

BTW, would anyone wager that the question "How far am I?" was uttered somewhere in the first round of golf way back when?  Its just so natural to want to know.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Brent Hutto

Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2011, 09:41:23 AM »
Jeff,

And whether the answer to "How far am I?" is "140 front, 147 pin" or simply handing you a 7-iron, that is still distance information. It's just a matter of format, precision and accuracy.

Anyone who has played the game with a caddie is the same as someone who has played the game with a yardage book. It's like the old parable that ends "...we've already established what you are, now we're just negociating a price".

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2011, 10:08:39 AM »
Michael - wouldn't an experienced caddy be a "distance aid"?

PS - How was your first Masters as a Patron?

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2011, 12:03:07 PM »
Michael - wouldn't an experienced caddy be a "distance aid"?

PS - How was your first Masters as a Patron?


Dan,

I really would like to get some feedback from Melvyn on this. I know he thinks I'm just poking at him, but that is not the case. I can see where someone might be turned off by the "electronic" means of judging distance while accepting the use of a caddy for the same information. I'd just like to understand where Melvyn draws the line on acceptable technical improvements and distance aids. As Brent mentions above, we no longer use the feathery ball... and, was the feathery the FIRST ball used or was it an improvement on something else?

My first year as a Patron found me in NYC. I gave the use of my tickets on Thursday to my accountant who had invited me to attend with him a few years back... my nephew (who has only been once) used them on Friday... my sister-in-law (who has not attended in many years) used them on Saturday... and, I donated the Sunday tickets to a local charity auction. The thrill of their post-Masters phone calls more than offset my not being there!

"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #34 on: April 15, 2011, 12:16:12 PM »
Someone mentioned the military battle comparison, and I agree.

How can you have strategy without information?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2011, 01:20:31 PM »
Maybe we should eliminate the wooden tee?   ;D

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2011, 05:36:03 PM »
Maybe we should eliminate the wooden tee?   ;D

Don't laugh... that is exactly what Melvyn wants.

Melvyn has sent me a long IM detailing his thoughts on the game and how it should be played. Simply put, he feels the "game" matured in the late 1800's and anything that has altered how the game is played from around 1900 on has been a detriment. For example, any ball introduced after the Haskell is out.

Accepting his premise, wooden tees would be out.

"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2011, 06:11:04 PM »

Michael

No, you know that is not what I said. I knew I would be wasting my time and clearly I have.

Reaching out to you as you requested was a mistake

Melvyn

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2011, 06:40:28 PM »
Melvyn,

That is exactly what you said. How have I misquoted you?

You specifically stated that you wanted golf to be played as it was around the turn of the century and specifically mentioned the Haskell ball. I don't believe wooden tees were in use at that time, were they?

I'm sorry you feel I have slighted you, as that was not my intent. You are easy man to offend as you are of the opinion there is only one "true" answer to any of your questions. I grew up in the southern United States in a very religiously conservative area. The hardliners were called Fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalists believe there is only one way to interpret the Bible... and, only one set of answers and rules for how individuals should live their lives. In their minds any variance dooms one to Hell for all time.

I would consider your stance on golf as Fundamentalist. Which explains why you are so at odds with so many.
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2011, 08:31:40 PM »

Michael

I do not want to live in the 19th Century nor go back to the 1860’s I live in the current age. If you can get that so wrong then there is no little hope of you understanding me, be it re golf or any other subject.

I look at history and try to learn from it, not ignore it. As for technology I have never been against it but I have always believed it should be controlled.

As for a roll back of equipment I said that if I had to decide a period it would be after the introduction of the Haskell at the turn of the 20thCentury – I do not wish to travel back to that period either.

You have not slighted me, but I thought that we might get to understand each other, alas I see that’s not possible.

As for golf, there is only one game called golf but many variations which allows many weak and lazy options. I prefer to stay true to the game as it was taught to me which revolves around walking and thinking and not riding and letting outside aids do my thinking for me. Call it or me what you will but Fundamentalist, no I think not, just because you and others do not want to play the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf don’t go calling me names.

You and others are at odds with me because you do not like to be reminded how golf is played.

I wish you well, I certainly do not dislike you, just feel sorry for lost opportunities.

Melvyn

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2011, 01:18:48 AM »
Quote: I do not want to live in the 19th Century nor go back to the 1860’s I live in the current age. If you can get that so wrong then there is no little hope of you understanding me, be it re golf or any other subject.

Melvyn, in your letter to me you said (and I quote): I would like to re start from the turn of the 20th Century. Engineer clubs and equipment to that periods of play so that we see golf at its best, we are able to see some of the great old courses come to life. To play the courses of our forefathers as they once had and perhaps try to emulate their scores (if only) remembering that many a report of these can be found in the archives.

What did I misinterpret in that statement? If anything it is that you only want the game to return to the beginning of the 20th Century, not the middle of the 19th... for that I stand corrected.  

Quote: I look at history and try to learn from it, not ignore it. As for technology I have never been against it but I have always believed it should be controlled.

As for a roll back of equipment I said that if I had to decide a period it would be after the introduction of the Haskell at the turn of the 20th Century – I do not wish to travel back to that period either.

You have not slighted me, but I thought that we might get to understand each other, alas I see that’s not possible.

Melvyn, I do understand you and can accept that you prefer the older archaic form of the game. As I said in my letter to you:  I think you are someone who has focused on a point in time when the game he loves was played on courses (and with equipment) that he prefers to those offered today. Marry that with the grand performance and recognition of your family during this time and it is easy to understand why you love the turn of the century so much.

I get it, Melvyn, you love golf of the Old Tom Morris era. I accept that and also believe it would be fun to play golf in that manner.

The problem I have with your argument is you choose to employ selective memory when dealing with the historical facts of technological improvements in the game of golf. You contend that the yearn for increased "distance" is a modern phenomenon and did not occur in the past. I contend that the ONLY reason for the development of clubs with various lengths and lofts was to propel the ball varying distances with varying trajectory. In my mind to suggest anything else is blindly ignoring history.

You sing the praises of the Gutty, but initially the Gutty had a smooth surface and didn't travel as far as a featherie. So what happened? Ball makers, like those in your family, discovered that used balls with a scored surface tended to TRAVEL FARTHER and began experimenting with different design patterns to enhance the performance of the ball. This is a FACT. Would you have blocked your family and the other ball makers from scoring their balls in the name of more DISTANCE... as that was the ONLY reason for marking the balls.

As for the Haskell... what made the Haskell popular? Here is a excerpt from Golf Europe's history of the golf ball:  In 1898, Coburn Haskell introduced the one-piece rubber cored ball which was universally adopted by 1901 after it proved so effective in the British and US Opens. These balls looked just like Gutties but gave the average golfer an extra 20 yards from the tee. These balls were constructed from a solid rubber core wrapped in rubber thread encased in a gutta percha sphere. Once W. Millison developed a thread winding machine, Haskell balls were mass-produced and therefore more affordable.

Just like today, golfers at the turn of century were seeking more DISTANCE... which made the Haskell a huge success and eliminated the production of gutties within a very short time.


Quote: As for golf, there is only one game called golf but many variations which allows many weak and lazy options. I prefer to stay true to the game as it was taught to me which revolves around walking and thinking and not riding and letting outside aids do my thinking for me. Call it or me what you will but Fundamentalist, no I think not, just because you and others do not want to play the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf don’t go calling me names.

You and others are at odds with me because you do not like to be reminded how golf is played.

I wish you well, I certainly do not dislike you, just feel sorry for lost opportunities.

Describing your philosophy on golf as fundamentalist is not "calling you names." It is simply defining your argument style. Consider this:  A primary tenet of religious fundamentalism contends that only "true believers" are righteous and understand the way to Heaven. Fundamentalists consider their scripture the word of God and believe that no person is right to change it or disagree with it. Fundamentalists believe their cause to have grave and even cosmic importance. They see themselves as protecting not only a distinctive doctrine, but also a vital principle, and a way of life and of salvation.

You project yourself as a protector of the old doctrine and "way of life" that the "true" form of golf represents. According to you no other person or organization is right to change this form of golf or disagree with it.

Does that not accurately describe your argument style for the archaic version of golf? Is that not fundamentalism?

« Last Edit: April 17, 2011, 01:29:21 AM by Michael Whitaker »
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2011, 06:26:32 AM »
By the way - the yardage book was a VERY COOL find!

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2011, 07:27:31 AM »

It is a nice book but IMHO wasted and pointless if dedicated to yardage details. I suppose these Yardage Books could be described as starter books for beginners or what they are, unworthy aids for the undisciplined trainee golfer.

Melvyn

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2011, 11:46:38 AM »

It is a nice book but IMHO wasted and pointless if dedicated to yardage details. I suppose these Yardage Books could be described as starter books for beginners or what they are, unworthy aids for the undisciplined trainee golfer.

Melvyn

So basically all the pros and best golfers on the planet are "beginners" and "undisciplined trainees"?

I think you may have a bit of a problem selling that poo-poo platter....  just sayin'   ;)

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #44 on: April 17, 2011, 12:01:27 PM »

Kalen

Can’t judge distance without assistance, so presume you can’t select your club or organise your shot so I question if you should be on a golf course at all.

Seems a fair comment, if you need a book or outside aids to help you. I am not selling anything, but I do question commitment to oneself and of course the game by using outside aids.

Melvyn

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #45 on: April 18, 2011, 07:05:54 AM »
Melvyn,
Is it OK to get yardage from a caddy?

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #46 on: April 18, 2011, 07:46:17 AM »

Dan

No, how can it be its an outside aids.  Problem you guys have forgotten why Caddies are there because you have so many carts to carry your clubs, Caddies are there to just carry you clubs. :o

Boy have we forgotten the basis of the game. Gentlemen do not carry their clubs, that’s why caddies came into being. ::)

But then what do I know about the game ???

Melvyn

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2011, 08:09:33 AM »
Melvyn,
Is it OK to get yardage from a caddy?

Dan-Have you conspired with Melvin to be his straight man? ;) Talk about serving one up on a platter.

Bruce Wellmon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2011, 08:19:38 AM »

Caddies are there to just carry you clubs.
Melvyn


Talamore in the Pinehurst area has already taken care of this with their Llama "caddies."
I am sorry I don't have a photo.
http://www.talamoregolfresort.com/talamore_llamas.html

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Masters Yardage Book
« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2011, 10:42:22 AM »
Melvyn,
May a caddy provide assistance such as distance or helping to read a putt?