[Adam Clayman]

Melvyn appears to be differentiating between the sport and the game mind Behr warned about. His comments about the joy and satisfaction that come from personal achievement, without anyones help, is one pinnacle of this sport.
 In the game minders mind it's the good score and/or winning the tournament that tops the chart.

They are different and only exemplify how Golf is too multi faceted to pigeonhole.

I honestly believe Melvyn is trying to share his experience with the sport and the joys it has given him for many years. He must feel the need to preach the joys because of the way the game has changed away form the auld sod.

As for the topic at hand. I believe David M. covered the design aspects at RC that can help confuse the non-thinking unaware golfer.

 

[Kalen Braley]

Quick and dirty answer....NO!

[Alex Miller]

I'm always hesitant to jump into one of Melvyn's threads, especially after he has declared the answers he got garbage, however...

I think the better question is, "Is it really necessary to eliminate the ability to measure distance with anything other than our eyes and intuition?"

Is there any proof that there weren't yardage books made up of the TOC back in the 18th century? How do we know they didn't have their own guides?

I also think the technology today makes distance aids more necessary, as we hit the ball much farther than the founders of the sport, so we have to judge targets much farther away than they did. Is that fair, is that true to the game? I don't really care cause I love the version I'm playing.

Miller out!

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

I tend to agree with David M.. I'm not sure if distance aids help the golfer as much as he thinks.

The course I grew up playing had some rudimentary distance information printed on the scorecard which was tied to a feature on the hole. A par four for example might say "from rear edge of left bunker 180 yards, from front edge 150 yards" or perhaps a ditch was "x" number of yards from the center of the green. Rarely were there more than one or two references  per hole and I learned to eyeball the references, make a mental calculation of where I laid respective of those references and then select a club. Later the club planted Bradford Pear Trees at the 150 yard distance in the rough. Again not a lot of references per hole. Finally came the advent of sprinkler systems and eventually the sprinkler heads were marked.

Sorry Mel, but I do look at the sprinkler heads while playing these days. However, my scores on the same golf course have not significantly improved over my lifetime. In fact my handicap has stayed pretty much the same, if anything only a few strokes lower. Yet, I would tend to say that I consider myself a much more skilled player today with a far greater arsenal of shotmaking skills than when I was as a teenager.

How could this be?

It can't be that the additional information is convoluting my mind since distance calculations whether estimated or paced off with certainty were always a factor before striking the ball. Fact is, I don't know why I do not score far better today. The only answer I can fathom is that my estimations of the past were pretty accurate.

One thing I am certain of, however. Those formative years of playing as a teenager with far fewer references instilled an ability to eyeball distances to a fairly accurate degree. I'm not sure that todays teens acquire that skill as they maneuver today's yardage studded golf courses. Much as a pilot can tell on final approach to a runway whether he is above or below the glide slope a golfer, properly experienced, can ascertain distance on a familiar course pretty damn well.

[Tim Martin]

One thing I am certain of, however. Those formative years of playing as a teenager with far fewer references instilled an ability to eyeball distances to fairly accurate degree. I'm not sure that todays teens acquire that skill as they maneuver today's yardage studded golf courses. Much as a pilot can tell on final approach to a runway whether he is above or below the glide slope a golfer, properly experienced, can ascertain distance on a familiar course pretty damn well.

Malcolm-I don`t disagree with with your statement but as far as teenagers needing to eyeball distances that ship has sailed. Between yardage books,sprinkler heads,GPS`S and laser`s etc. it would not dawn on them to "eyeball" anything. The culture has changed and our generation thankfully is somewhat resistant which makes the game a helluva lot more fun.

[Scott Warren]

In my experience to design a course that negated distance aids you'd want to have some combinations of:

1. Steep hills.
2. Hard playing surfaces.
3. Wind.

With those three factors present, the benefit/usefulness of knowing you are X metres from another object (be it your target, a drive bunker etc etc) is greatly reduced.

[RSLivingston_III]

I think a directed EM pulse would be the hot ticket. And it would have the added bonus of frying any cell phones that are on.

[archie_struthers]

 

Brent Hutto was right on with his analysis .  Firm conditions , elevation can negate the aids.  Particularly downhill shots to the green .

[Melvyn Morrow]

All your comments and opinions are interesting, some I find difficult in understanding if you are being serious or just trying to take the preverbal P. As no smiley I take them at face value.

My opinion is that Distance in all its forms from markers, books, Caddie or electronic aids are nothing but a Red Herring. It is just another ways to get money from a golfer who is so desperate to improve his/her score that he will try anything. These aids are IMHO the equivalent to a drug addict seeking out his fix before every shot, to the point that distance has taken over the Game.

My point from the start has been that we do not need theses aids. Our bodies, well mind and body overrule the information gained from pacing, booklets, caddies or electronic devices as soon as we take our final look prior to taking our shot. At That moment like our hearts which are involuntary muscles (working totally independently), our mind takes over, recalculating the distance but this time through our eyes, thus minimising the previous information from those outside souses. The shot is controlled automatically from the last feed of information passed to our brain from our eyes and not from the latest gadget available in the Pro Shop.

In fact you are not even cheating, because you mind has acted like your involuntary heart and set the action in motion from information lastly generated from your eyes – not your toys.

So again I say we do not need theses aids, they are nothing more than a con, a hindrance and waste of time and money for the golfer. If you use them you do so due to your own lack of confidence and to play golf you certainly need to have an abundance of confidence. Your Catch 22 situation, not mine- real inward confidence or outward display of toy confidence – that is the conundrum.

The proof is for you guys to persevere, first to get use to not using the distance aids, slowly letting the eye/brain the freedom to adjust and then trust your own abilities. Mark my words in time (weeks not months) your game will be back to your previous standard and if you continue to use your eyes,  you may find it far more enjoyable.  Be aware that the grass is not always greener on the other side but you might be tempted to take up your toys again  hoping to find a little more in your game, alas you will just revert back to yet another golfer suffering a loss of confidence in his/her own ability.     

David

Caddies have always been there to carry lose individual clubs as the bag did not appear until the end of the 19th Century. The big Matches of the 1832 when two Gentlemen played for a £500 bet  (Approx £500,000 to £750,000 in today’s money) used Caddies who just carried the individual clubs. Back then they did not have Pro Golfers, nor was distance even a consideration. The first Professional Golfer is regarded as Allan followed by Old Tom but that was not until the mid to late 1840’s. I have no record of Allan acting as a Caddie but I have of Old Tom who would Caddie for Col. J O Fairlie.



 

Again I have found no records or articles on Distance as we discuss it today.  I even checked the records of when Young Tommy in 1870 downed the ball in 3 on the First Hole 578 yards at Prestwick in The Open of that year. Not one mention to the distance he took or the length still outstanding. So todate and using my own family connection, I firmly believe that distance is a 20th Century sickness. Please remember that it’s our game that has become easy, their game was with Hickory and Gutty and they judged a course by its hazards.

AS for my position re Caddies, I feel I have made it rather clear that I would only use them to carry my clubs and discuss the shot AFTER it was taken as I feel that’s the best way to learn and understand by having experienced the shot . As for distance, as I said there is no record of distance as we refer to it today.


Jamie

My thought a few weeks ago went back to TOC when I was young and the weather made you look forward to that brandy in the warm pub afterwards. Alternatively, I would select Askernish as my model (http://www.askernishgolfclub.com/)  or see Steve Salem report  dated August 28 2009  Titled the Soul of Golf…. Askernish, hopefully you will see what I believe would combat distance aids, certainly is the wind got up a little.

I have played on many a new course for me but not to my friends. Yes they have the advantage, but so does height, weight and confidence, I attending for the Game. Not forgetting I’m there to enjoy myself, so why would I even ask you a distance question when in truth yardage means zero to me. You could say 160 yards, but it does not register because my eyes do the judging for me through my brain down to my body, all else is a total waste of time as I mentioned above. It’s like telling me when in a car that 160 yards ahead is a set of traffic lights, shout a distance is meaningless, as my eyes and brain are already working on the action required. Instinctively vs. inappropriate information than might lead to confusion, so give me instinctively every time.

Regards making up your own yardage book, my first thought when reading that’s was how sad I am for this guy, he’s lost sight of the reason he started play golf in the first place.  Jamie if I had to resort to doing that to play golf, I would never set foot on a course again. The passion dead, the spirit gone, fun, what fun if you have to delve that low for something that is meaningless and pointless in the first place – because we do not need distance information to play golf, be good at it or enjoy it.   

Perhaps some of you guys need to take a step back and re look at the game you play. I play the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf.

In all honesty I have never really wanted to stop you playing your game, but I have always asked that you call it by its appropriate name. Be it Cart Ball, fine then ride your carts ten abreast if that your thing, play your game in the mountains or on a computer, have someone Caddie for you while someone else plays for you while you watch via a video link from the club house. Fine but just do not call it golf. By all means call it American Golf, Mountain Golf, Hi Tech Golf but not Golf. In other words do as you wish but please honour the real game by being true to it.

Using Distance information as we do today cheats you the golfer of the real fun and enjoyment that only comes from testing yourself unaided. Get it right or wrong you will still come away satisfied knowing that it was all down to your own efforts and tomorrow is another day.

I hope I have answered all the questions directed at me.

Melvyn

[David_Elvins]

Melvyn,

This is a great example that I think perfectly exemplifies what you are thinking of.



It is the 1th hole at Wimbledon Common mini-golf. 

The design of the course has completely negated the use of distance aides, there are no yardages on sprinkler heads, no trees 1.5m from the hole and I have never seen any use of laser pointers.

[Scott Warren]

Having played at Wimbledon Common GC, David, there's a good chance that's the best hole on the Common!

About as straight and narrow as the rest, though!

[Ross Tuddenham]

Melvyn

I totally agree that distance aids are a red herring unless the player has spent many hours honing and learning how far they hit each club in different conditions. I should also have stated before that I believe you are probably correct in saying the game is more fun without the use of distance aids.

I am still not sure whether you can separate an obsession with using distance as the major factor in shot choice and scoring when there is such a focus on par and scoring.  You talk about using judgements to play the game, but the problem is that they are only your judgement and not a known quantity, which distance is.  People are more willing to trust a measurement rather than their feelings, and when par is the focus and you 'need' to reach the green in a prescribed number of shots distance becomes an important factor.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ross

If we were robots then I would agree but being human it is difficult noting that our eyes/brain/body takes the final measurement, just how much of the outside aid information is downloaded into our human bodies when we take our shot – I suspect just about zero. Questioning the validity of the whole distance Aids thing in the first place.

Melvyn

[Ross Tuddenham]

Melvyn

As I said without knowing how far you hit the club does it matter if you know the distance needed for your shot. Or as you say can your knowledge of the distance override your brains natural assessment of the shot?  However, given the prevalence of use of all types of distance aids this is clearly not the basis on which people decide to use them.  As long as the general thinking remains that distance aids improve scores they will continue to be used.

People see pro's fire at pins using precise yardages and it therefore becomes a reasonable conclusion that in order to improve scores you need to get distances judged accurately.  This is why I think that in answer to your topic title's question, it is getting people to try the game without aids and not a change of course design.

[Pete Lavallee]

Melvyn,

I am still curious how you play the shot to the green on the Alps hole at Prestwick? Your eyes can't see the flag, how did you judge the distance to the hole the very first time you hit that shot? How did you decide what club to hit on subsequent rounds?

[Brent Hutto]

Ross,

And just how do you propose I know how far I hit a 6-iron if I never measure the distance? It's like the chicken or the egg without the egg.

Let's say I'm faced with 152 yards on a shot, take a 6-iron and come up ten yards short. Then another day I have a 145 yard shot and come up four yards short with the 6-iron. Then a few holes later I have a 140 yard shot and hit the 6-iron pin high. After a while I start to conclude that I must be hitting that 6-iron about 140, 141, 142 yards a lot of the time.

Your proposal seems to be that since I came up 10 yards short on that 152 yard shot I say "Oh well, I suck. Screw it. I'll just hit whatever club I like. The distance doesn't matter". That approach would lead to your never have a clue how far you hit a 6-iron.

How do you suppose those tour pros learned exactly what shot and club to use on a 152 shot? Probably by hitting shots and measuring distances.

[Adrian_Stiff]

No a course cant be designed to negate distance aids.

[Tim Nugent]

To expound on what I posted earlier (yes Melvyn - I am an Architect) I don't readily use many distance aids aside from those listed on the scorecard having grown up on a F&F public course. I don't use a caddy as I see a course as a puzzle for me to decifer (without crib notes).  That said, I still believe that distance aids are a mental crutch forthose who don't have the ability or the confidence in their ability to accurately gauge distances. (Same could be said for needing help/confirming reads on greens).  So, while I personally don't have any use for them, I will not be grudge those who do.  In my earlier post, I gave some examples of how an architect can negate distance.  The one I left off was Blindness as todays GPS can see over hills

Adrian - is that a double negative? So it can be done?    Just messing with ya

[Melvyn Morrow]

Peter

That’s an easy one, it’s in the blood mate, in the blood or perhaps I do not take myself too serious and enjoy the whole experience each time.  However if in doubt always hit a provisional.

Melvyn


Tim

Thanks, I too am happy for others to us aids as long as they say they are playing Assisted Golf or Aids R Golf or whatever they want to call what they are playing but mate it is not GOLF (can Range Finder/GPS be used at The Open?)

Melvyn

[Ross Tuddenham]

Ross,

And just how do you propose I know how far I hit a 6-iron if I never measure the distance? It's like the chicken or the egg without the egg.

Let's say I'm faced with 152 yards on a shot, take a 6-iron and come up ten yards short. Then another day I have a 145 yard shot and come up four yards short with the 6-iron. Then a few holes later I have a 140 yard shot and hit the 6-iron pin high. After a while I start to conclude that I must be hitting that 6-iron about 140, 141, 142 yards a lot of the time.

Your proposal seems to be that since I came up 10 yards short on that 152 yard shot I say "Oh well, I suck. Screw it. I'll just hit whatever club I like. The distance doesn't matter". That approach would lead to your never have a clue how far you hit a 6-iron.

How do you suppose those tour pros learned exactly what shot and club to use on a 152 shot? Probably by hitting shots and measuring distances.

My point is that a distance aid is of little use if you have not gone through the bag at the range and calculated how far each clubs goes. How many people do you see with a rangefinder on the practice ground?  I have yet to see that.  All I am saying is that in order to get the full advantage of these aids you have to put the work in on the range.  There is just no way you can hit enough balls on the course to make the necessary calculations.

The other option is to adopt melvyns proposal and abandon all aids and play with feel.


Pete

The first time you play the hole you have to just go with what you feel is the correct shot.  Maybe just play to the top of the hillock and hope the ball rolls as close to the green as you would like.  Or take a gamble.

[Pete Lavallee]

Peter

That’s an easy one, it’s in the blood mate, in the blood or perhaps I do not take myself too serious and enjoy the whole experience each time.  However if in doubt always hit a provisional.

Melvyn

Melvyn,

Since you continue to not reasonably discuss this with me, I can only infer that your real answer does not nicely fit into your dogma.

Let me take a guess as to what happened. On your first play you estimated that a 7 iron would clear the hill and land upon the green. Upon rounding the hill you found your ball to be short, in the bunker. The next time you played the hole you found yourself in roughly the same spot in the fairway and decided that a 6 iron would get the job done. This time when you rounded the hill you were exstatic to see your ball on the green pin high. So you did not use blood, you used distance, not your eyes. Please tell me how this scenario is in error?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Peter

Errr YES

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian - is that a double negative? So it can be done?    Just messing with ya
[/quote] Dont know Tim !!! TBH its a question you can read in a number of ways, as an architect I look at creating a hollow in front of a green to fool the golfer or a bunker as BM said 40 yards short of a green to falsely portray the distance but my work is compromised if someone has THAT DISTANCE by GPS, marker, planner, caddie or indeed YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF PLAYING MULTIPLE TIMES.

If a player knows the distance how can I fool him? Yes wind, hard ground might but thats not design.

So... I think it cant the way I read the question.

I think DISTANCE AIDS are merely a route of balancing the first time player to the man who has played the course lots of times. I know when I play a new course I like to 'reasonably' know the distance. My enjoyment is compromised when I hit a nice 7 iron and I was a club too many or less, or I think I can carry a bunker and I can't. I do know my yardages and from 195 yards I know i need lotz.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Mr. Morrow I am not sure I understand the reference to Young Tom Morris on the first hole at Prestwick, or other references in your passage to Old Tom; are you related to them or something?

Regardless of what research might have shown, those two gentlemen were Professional Golfers, I can promise they used whatever aids that were available and legal. That may have only been memory of a course played 50 times, it may have been a personally sketched book or whatever. But I'll bet $10,000 that they used EVERY single aid available to them on the course.

I personally don't use electronic aids and such, but I do use other aids.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jamie

I use Young Tommy as he is well reported back in the 19th Century, yet when he achieve that 3 on a 578 yards Hole, no report ever mentioned the distance of each of his shots. It was an achievement that even today would be hard to match certainly if using Hickory and Gutty.
As for my ref to Old Tom and Allan Robertson it was to again related to distance not being a factor even for the Caddies back then.

If we are to look to this period we need to at it from their eyes, their lives and not how many think today. Also many reports circulated by the turn of the 20th Century on how the American Golfer was different in that they were very competitive and played golf utilising the aerial game assisted by the new rubber Haskell ball.

Back home in GB we played the game, as we always have, the winning was a bonus.

Melvyn

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()