Dick
“Are you saying the olden age golfers did not know how far they could hit each club?”
No I am not saying that what I am saying is that distance was not as important back then as it is to golfers today. Today many think in yardages, I do not nor do many others, we judge the next shot not distances or yardage be it book, markers or electronic aids. It’s just numbers that are not put into the modern distance terms.
I have never been taught to judge golfing distances by yardage, my next shot was judged by looking, selecting what I consider the right club for my build, the lie of the ball, the part of the course I find myself in and to where I want to go. Yardage/distance was a constant, the ball had to be hit just right to get where I wanted it to go. We never had time to waste measuring something which was in fact incidental to what we were trying to achieve.
As for your argument. Sorry it does not hold water because you are not understanding the 19th Century approach to distance, you are allowing 21st Century thinking which is not the same.
In all the research on reports on matches I have read, none have any reference to the yardage we use today. There is no reference to marker, to points worthy of note re distance or anything vaguely connected with distance as we use the word today. The Great Matches of the 1860/70’s have no equal to distance references to our yardage sickness. The later opening Matches when courses we declared open by playing match between professionals, thinking along the lines of North Berwick 1877, Braid Hills 1888, Machrie 1891. Not one reference to distance as we use the term today. I can go on and quote you even more reports on big and small matches but no mention of distance, or markers or yardage books etc.
I do not go along with you regards one club, but they certainly used their eyes to judge distances. AS for common sense, your argument may have some but you miss the most important point of all, you are basing your comments on your 21st century mind-set and not that which prevailed in the Victorian Age.
SL
No, your take is wrong on what I have said. If you have used aids and stop you game will fall away for a short time – that time depend upon how many games you play without aids. After a while (from a few days to two-three weeks depending upon the individual) ones game starts to recover as the eye tunes in again and you gain confidence in you own ability. Perhaps you may improve beyond your previous best, but that’s down to improving ones skill by practice. The problem here is that so many want to win and believe that yardage gives them that little advantage, yet in truth is actually restrict their game dulling it to a paper chase.
In the past on this site we have had one of two who use distance aids then decided to try not to use them. The result seems to mimic my findings above their game falls away for a short period before they recapture that which they have lost. The only real problem being that the test have not be run over say a 3, 6 or 12 month period for fear of losing money. And yes the game seem to be more fun for those who tried the old fashion way of letting your eyes judge distance via your body.
AS for purity, I also do not see it as purity, as I have played the game as I have always known it. There is nothing special, pure or fundamental in playing the game as it was taught to you, yet I see weakness all around me in that others wanting to have an advantage over the next player mainly due this need to win. What I see as unforgivable is making the game easier, trying to minimise the need for skill and just as importantly the need to understand how to use that skill (shown so clearly at The Opens with G Norman & T Watson proving that point in the poor conditions).
Michael
Again it’s down to mind-set and the difference to past great golfers approach to the game. Yes I do accept that clubs had a distance range they play to and the past golfers knew the rating of said clubs, but that is not promoting this need the modern player has for distance. Today we have an industry looking after distance material and devices compared with club makers of the past. The whole thing is totally different, due to our own weakness we have created a Cancer that is taking enjoyment out of the game as we do not need any distance aid to play golf. It’s now so deeply embedded that is part of the game yet of all the modern extras it’s worth is so very debatable. The proof is to seek a skilled player who has used aids agree not to play with them for a fixed give period to assess if they achieve what millions seem to believe or what the likes of myself and other believe that distance aids are the golfing equivalent as the humble poppy – a needy habit yet of not real advantage to the golfer.
If for no other reason why can’t players see that it’s an outside aid which should not be allowed as it may help the lesser skilled players. Let’s not forget that confidence is part of the skill process and so why accept help even outside help which will reflect certainly upon ones confidence.
60 years old and about 40 years in golf, you make that sound like a boast, yet I do hope it has been enjoyable and rewarding. Nevertheless without the freedom to think and walk the courses I wonder if the experiences would have been as good.
Michael they are outside aids and so should never have been considered let alone allowed in the first place.
I wish you all well in your games whatever you call it and with whatever help you need to play it.
As for my game and health yes I am now home bound unable to escape to the outside much these days, spending more time on my golfing research than I do on GCA.com. How I would love to be in my father home in St Andrews or suffer the same fate of passing away on a golf course. I will be lucky to see a course let alone play one again
So please excuse me if I do not respond to your comment- even for you I think that’s pushing it a bit
“When was the last time you actually played a round of golf? It's easy to preach from the safety of sitting in front of your computer... which is where you spend the majority of your time as best I can tell.”
It’s time to close my morning connection to this site.
Melvyn