There is an inherent weakness in the game of those who need to rely on distance aids, worst still those most selfish of player The Pacers.
To say by using aids that it allows you open to new discoveries, is to this guy stating that you never understood the course or for that matter the GCA in the first place.
Freeing your game of all pointless aids, allows the golfer to concentrate upon his game, the Hole and the combination of weather, environment, GCA with design intent. The freedom to check out the course uncluttered by the need for a distance fix gives the golfer clarity as to his intentions (at times altered due to lack of skill on the pervious shot). The golfer is then free to continuing trying to understand the design constraints without that additional burden of yardage. The real sadness is this is the way the game was and in some areas is still played, be it in groups or by a lone golfer.
This drive to be perfect, to be the best, to constantly improve is a reflection of one’s working life. Leave work associated crap at the office, play with a free and open mind will soon see the golfer relaxed and able to rise to the challenge of the course and its environment.
Why can’t people accept that distance - yardage is a new thing, that distance was not measured as we do it today, that it was seen as helping in an unfair way a suspect golfer only bent on winning. Its not about winning, if you do, it’s a bonus, but it’s the way you play that counts, the ability to take the rough with the smooth, it’s the taking part that really matters. The real winners are not always the winners but those who entered for the fun, the enjoyment, the sportsmanship and the general thrill of being there. Remember not everyone can win, without the mass of ‘also ran’ our sports would be a dreary and boring spectacles of just the cream of the elite.
We are still talking of distance aids but how many have ever really tested if they work, that indeed you need the measured unit to play well? I surmise none, that you did what the R&A do followed the lead of others accepted the bull and purchased the product without fully testing your own ability to judge the measured unit. Having said that why are so many bent on using aids when clearly they are aids and assist the golfer. Why has there not been a moral outcry? Has winning or the need to win become more important that our own self-respect, clearly in many case it has as is fiercely defended with the word ‘they are legal’. Perhaps that proves just how badly handled the game of golf has been while the R&A have been in charge. If the R&A see no duty of care then why shouldn’t those that stoop to these measures not also do so. But then are we not golfers with a moral code of our own?
Melvyn