Don't be that guy....Part Deux

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ed

Fair points and on face value rather compelling, that is until you look at history. Searching the early days I have found no information on the acknowledgement of distance in the manner we interpret it today. Distance was only the gap between Tee and Flag. The eyes gave the golfer his distance and the appropriate club, a Caddie was just to carry the clubs, retrieve the ball, even if in water or out in the rough,  just general carrying and most certainly not heard unless spoken to. Now why would anyone in those days and quite frankly pre WW2 ask anyone for distance when it was not deemed as an important item being part of the golfer game and pleasure of working it out for himself. For the odd player not familiar with a course they may request directions but not yardage. This is a modern sickness that rose to the surface circa the invention of the cart to our courses. It’s was seen as a clever idea, totally pointless, but made certain players look serious, while others started pacing distance getting up his fellow players.

In my youth to use carts or even consider aids was just a total sign of weakness and desperation on behalf of the player. I was taught that it was unbecoming a golfer, by a man who had his local golf course at the bottom of the garden which also happened to be TOC. Now he was not alone, so how in hells name did the R&A give their blessing to such heinous crutches.

I can only pass on traditions from St Andrews and the people associated with my family. I doubt you will find anything in writing pre WW2 re these aids because I doubt if anyone had even though of them let along instigated them. So could you show me written records back to the 19th Century that gave distance the same importance as we use it today, because from my understanding even the Caddies never knew about them.

I am not trying to change things or introduce new ideas, I want the golfer to sample the same pleasure from the game that made the game go worldwide in the first case – and that had zero to do with distance aids, carts, long aerial drives, it was about facing the challenge, of raising ones game and testing ones resolve to the fullest. Today it’s easy, simple, tired ride, can’t be bothered thinking use an electronic aid. Look at what the golfer is missing within his game.

If these aids are going to be used, then fine, but let’s get the right rules to match the game. If it’s an aid then balance the game so the player not using aids is not penalised as he is playing golf, natural golf. Seems a fair way to balance the use of aids.

Melvyn   

[Sean_A]

It will forever perplex me why architecture junkies would use a yardage contraption.  However, I must admit that there is at least one brand which attaches to the bag and looks like a fairly old mobile phone that in the right hands takes all of about 5 seconds to use.  The info is displayed just about as fast as a guy can put a bag down.  I don't have a clue if it is the most accurate contraption on the market, but surely it must be good enough for the likes of just about everybody on the planet.

Tiger

Thank you for articulating the joy of walking off of yardage from a marker.  I never really thought about it before, but you are right.  While I never did this unless it was a dead easy walk to my ball in the fairway, it was still the start of "final" preparations to hit the shot which obviously began after placing the club in the bag after the last shot.  My eyes are not what they once were so I may begin to pay more attention to markers.  

If I used a gun I think guys stating their guess would annoy me after a while, but I think that phase of novelty is now over in my circles.  Folks have seen the contraptions enough to not take much notice.    

Ciao

Why do you think that mechanical devices are worse than numbers on sprinkler heads? i have my device in a little pocket just where i have my left hand when i carry the bag. that way i have it handy and get the yardage in 5-10sec when i get to my ball. I would be fine with no yardages what so ever (I just think that would take an ridicolous ammount of time for some) , but if they are on the sprinklers and in the yardage books i dont see why you shouldn't be able to shoot them yourselves?

Anders

I think lasers offer two advantages over markers.  First, from anywhere a player can get an accurate yardage.  That ability did not exist previously - even for  tour caddies.  Second, a laser adds an extra bit confidence for a player - a back-up set of data.  That said, I don't really care if folks want to use yardage aids, but I don't want to hear these same people bitch about uncreative, standardized architecture.  

Using yardage aids definitely dumbs down architecture and can create a situation where archies may think it a waste of time to use deception in their design.  I can think of some shots on Strantz courses in which knowing the yardage detracts from the purpose of the architecture.  The last really good deception techniques I saw was at Fowler's Blackwell.  There were two cool shots which were partially spoiled because I was able to ignore the architectural deception.  

A very poorly paced 150 marker on this tee shot gave the entire deception angle away.  The bunkers look easy to carry and I would have attempted it, but the marker told me it was about 40 yards more than I thought.
 


Below is another instance, but for the approach.  The 150 markers gave it away that there must be dead ground short of the green.  



I think a reasonable compromise is to have a marker well off the line of the play.   

Ciao

[Howard Riefs]

And don't be that guy who has his range finder hanging off the side of his bag in a flimsy holder who believes it won't fall out of the bag while on the course, only to require a search party to look for it. Like me last Sunday.

Thankfully, I found it on the same hole. It's kept inside the golf bag now.

Leupold GX-3. Great device. And a few hundred cheaper then when I purchased it last year.

http://www.golfsmith.com/product/30036156/leupold-gx-3-digital-rangefinder?scode=SPNG99VK&cm_mmc=Shopping%20Engines-_-GoogleBase-_-xx-_-xx&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=30036156%20N/A&tcode=fr_home

[Brian Potash]

When I use my laser for a yardage you feel the need to guess it for me anyways (I have been guilty of this on occasion)

I am that guy a few times a round if a fellow player or caddy is shooting my yardage.  It's fun for me.  Is it that annoying to the shooter?  Never really thought about it.

Brian

[Sven Nilsen]

For some reason I'm a little put off by the use of lasers. This is what I see at my club...guys that have been playing the course for years, guys that hit the ball pretty much the same distance day in and day out, guys that know every roll and dip in every fairway, guys that know exactly what a 'red pin" means from where they stand in the fairway.....STILL feel the need to pull out a laser and confirm that the shot they face is indeed about 155 yards....just as they KNEW it was before using the laser. My conclusion is they have the laser and they use the laser simply because they can. If it disappeared tomorrow nothing would change in how they play their round of golf...except the time it takes to pull out the laser...sight...and read the pre-known result.

+1. Craig, you're 100 percent on the money with this.

How many of those guys consistently hit it within 5 yards of the distance they want?  I'd guess they'd be just fine estimating a shot from 155 to 160, as opposed to having to know its 157 on the nose.   

[Dan Byrnes]

I carry one.  Don't use it that much.  I am not good enough to need prefect accuracy.  There are some times on large greens where I wan that exact number to choose one club over another.  Also in scrambles or two man best ball tournaments I tend to use it more as I can take more chances of pullingnthe exact club because I have a partner to bail me out.

Typically a sprinkler head, a yardage tree or 100-150-200 yard markers are more than sufficient.  I do prefer the laser to the GPS though.  A friend has the gps watch and that is kind of neat as your not fumbling around with a laser to gps device.

Dan

[John Kirk]

When I use my laser for a yardage you feel the need to guess it for me anyways (I have been guilty of this on occasion)

I do that a lot, especially with guys who have been members here at Pumpkin Ridge for 15-20 years.  I know most of the sprinkler heads by heart; I don't even need to read most of them.  I admit it's an intended, though gentle insult.  What I really fell like saying is "Put that stupid thing away, you've played this course hundreds of times."

I don't like them, and I'll never own one.  Don't be that guy.

 

[Ed Oden]

Melvyn, thanks for the reply.  I do not know of any pre-WWII commentary condoning the use of distance information.  I haven't researched the question, but I would not be surprised if there is anecdotal evidence that 19th century golfers did step off distances and ask caddies for distance advice, at least on occasion.  Regardless, that really isn't the point since I am not trying to convince you that distance aids are ok.  Rather, you have taken the position that the use of distance information is "morally indefensible".  If you want to convince me that position is right, then I would expect some evidence to support it and I'm not sure that the absence of 19th century commentary on the subject proves much one way or the other.  While your experience and the teachings of your youth are clearly relevant, so are mine.  I am 51 years old - not a relic by any stretch, but no spring chicken either.  The fact is, I am not aware of a single golf course that I have played during my lifetime where some form of distance information was not available to me.  In every single instance, I would have been in compliance with the rules of golf had I taken advantage of that information.  I am very much a traditionalist.  But at no time other than in discussions on this board have I ever heard anyone take the position that it is fundamentally contrary to the core principles of the game to avoid the use of all distance information notwithstanding its approval under the rules.  So my experience tells me that there is nothing wrong with doing so.  At the end of the day, our experiences are just different.  I have a hard time accepting that the product of those different experiences amounts to a "morally indefensible" practice in the absence of some evidence to the contrary.  I am very open to arguments that playing without distance aids makes for a more enjoyable game.  I just don't think those that feel otherwise are doing anything wrong.

[Tim Martin]

It will forever perplex me why architecture junkies would use a yardage contraption.  However, I must admit that there is at least one brand which attaches to the bag and looks like a fairly old mobile phone that in the right hands takes all of about 5 seconds to use.  The info is displayed just about as fast as a guy can put a bag down.  I don't have a clue if it is the most accurate contraption on the market, but surely it must be good enough for the likes of just about everybody on the planet.

Tiger

Thank you for articulating the joy of walking off of yardage from a marker.  I never really thought about it before, but you are right.  While I never did this unless it was a dead easy walk to my ball in the fairway, it was still the start of "final" preparations to hit the shot which obviously began after placing the club in the bag after the last shot.  My eyes are not what they once were so I may begin to pay more attention to markers.  

If I used a gun I think guys stating their guess would annoy me after a while, but I think that phase of novelty is now over in my circles.  Folks have seen the contraptions enough to not take much notice.    

Ciao

Why do you think that mechanical devices are worse than numbers on sprinkler heads? i have my device in a little pocket just where i have my left hand when i carry the bag. that way i have it handy and get the yardage in 5-10sec when i get to my ball. I would be fine with no yardages what so ever (I just think that would take an ridicolous ammount of time for some) , but if they are on the sprinklers and in the yardage books i dont see why you shouldn't be able to shoot them yourselves?

Anders

I think lasers offer two advantages over markers.  First, from anywhere a player can get an accurate yardage.  That ability did not exist previously - even for  tour caddies.  Second, a laser adds an extra bit confidence for a player - a back-up set of data.  That said, I don't really care if folks want to use yardage aids, but I don't want to hear these same people bitch about uncreative, standardized architecture.  

Using yardage aids definitely dumbs down architecture and can create a situation where archies may think it a waste of time to use deception in their design.  I can think of some shots on Strantz courses in which knowing the yardage detracts from the purpose of the architecture.  The last really good deception techniques I saw was at Fowler's Blackwell.  There were two cool shots which were partially spoiled because I was able to ignore the architectural deception.  

A very poorly paced 150 marker on this tee shot gave the entire deception angle away.  The bunkers look easy to carry and I would have attempted it, but the marker told me it was about 40 yards more than I thought.
 


Below is another instance, but for the approach.  The 150 markers gave it away that there must be dead ground short of the green.  



I think a reasonable compromise is to have a marker well off the line of the play.  

Ciao

Sean-We had a discussion today out on the course about distance aids. The group thought that although you will get a more accurate reading with the laser you still need a line of sight to the pin which you wont get on some uphill shots,through clusters of trees or anything blind. One of the guys had this tiny little gadget that can be clipped to your hat or carried easily in your pocket. You get center of the green and with a push of the button get a front reading and another push get a back reading. With each push of the button it can also be set to give you a voice activated yardage. Very cool and seemed to be really accurate. $179 which is on the lower end of these things. Probably 2 inches by two inches as far as dimensions.

[Phil McDade]

"The fact is, I am not aware of a single golf course that I have played during my lifetime where some form of distance information was not available to me.  In every single instance, I would have been in compliance with the rules of golf had I taken advantage of that information.  I am very much a traditionalist.  But at no time other than in discussions on this board have I ever heard anyone take the position that it is fundamentally contrary to the core principles of the game to avoid the use of all distance information notwithstanding its approval under the rules.  So my experience tells me that there is nothing wrong with doing so."

Ed:

50-year-old here. Do you see a difference between yardage indicators used by a player that are part of the course (say, the traditional white stakes, sprinkler heads, and red/white/blue flags) vs. yardage indicators introduced on to the course of play by the golfer.

I do, and to me it's a pretty big difference.

Curious re. your thoughts.

[Scott Warren]

Phil,

In which of the two camps would you put yardage books and caddies?

If it's the latter for either/both, do you feel the same way about them as you do about range finders?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ed

So its my use of the words “morally indefensible” that you do not agree with. Sorry but to this guy it is indeed morally indefensible if you are a golfer. Now what is separating us is probably the definition of golf, so let’s take a look at where we are both come from.

Your age of just being in your early 50’s. I am in my 60’s. Not certain where you live or come from but clearly you carts and aids where around when you started playing the game, so perhaps you  perceived them as normal. Well for me and many in Scotland the idea of a cart let alone distance aids had not really been heard of or encountered in Scotland until the 70’s. My memory in the 60’s does not recall either. The first encounter for me seems to be the latter part of the 70’s so totally alien to me and mine game of golf.

The game of golf for me was simple the golfer played his game unaided. Yes, some used a caddie, my father and great uncles but never to advice on distance or shot advice just plain carrying. Golf was a serious game in my family, if you were going to play it you walked (there was no other option even if we wanted one), distance was never an issue because the only item partly related to distance was the club selection which was done by judgement through our eyes. Golf was man against the elements, the terrain, the design and himself, that’s golf, our golf, played that way for centuries.

You from the sound of it found carts and distance markers standard perhaps, so you would think standard to be part and parcel of the game of golf.  Yes, you are right in the place you live but not at the Home of Golf, nor Dundee, Dornoch, Aberdeen Prestwick Glasgow or Edinburgh. I did not grow up with them. Yes of course I have dabbled with them but they change the game for me, they take the fun out of the game, they clog up the mind forcing the mind to waste valuable moments on information it will automatically reject once the eyes check the ball before that final swing to hit the ball.

I can see why you do not agree, but do you understanding where I am coming from and why I consider them morally indefensible to a golfer. What has not helped is the acceptance of these modern aids without real adjustment to the Rules. If you use carts and aids then they are  or should IMHO be regarded as aids and carry a penalty if played in a mixed group of walkers/riders, aid users or traditional golfers.   Which way that penalty should go is subject to a series of studies that the ruling bodies should instigate to settle the matter once and for all. It’s just plain wrong having one set of rules for all the different variations of the game of golf.  Having said all that I still do not understand why you would want to ruin your game by seeking outside help. The pleasure must be in achieving your goal by your own means, where is the reward otherwise. My cart save me walking and I paced or used an electronic device to think for me, just where is the challenge, the test, even the skill or the chance to improve one’s skill. Lastly where is the commitment to the game and most importantly to oneself?

The game to you includes aids, the game to me does not include aids otherwise I cannot see how I can call it golf. So I hope you now see why I believe it is morally indefensible, although you will no doubt disagree.

One point that does need resolving, that is distance was not an issue or part of the game as it has only been around about 30-40 years. Caddies nor Old Tom talked about distance. Reports from the old days never raises the issue, because we have turned natural observation into a chore, so some seem to seek outside help for what is simply little faith in their own natural abilities.

Melvyn       

[John Kirk]

It's a matter of total enjoyment, and my belief that one should try to play by instinct, because it's more fun.  In addition, I'd suggest time spent looking at electronic devices of any kind changes the social nature of the game.

Here's an example.  I had a very nice day of golf.  I woke up at 5:30 full of energy, so I ate and drove down to Pumpkin Ridge to see if I could latch on with the jackrabbits.  Our course has a natural hierachy; those who wish to play in three hours go first.  The weather is very nice this weekend.  Oregon is finally drier, but they just aerated, so greens are rolling about 5-6 feet.  Only six showed, the others were probably over at Ghost.  Most common word heard this morning: "harder."

Went first around 7:00.  Two old friends, have known them for years.  I don't always play fast, so I need to shift gears into fast play mode.  Jim and I are die hard traditionalists, but Boyce had one of those GPS distance thingies strapped to his bag.  And so Boyce is a bit more precise than me and Jim, but he also plays in three hours.  He never offered distances off his nice GPS thingie, and took over the task of announcing plusses and minuses on the greens, though neither of us really needs that.

To play in three hours, given the luxury of going first, one must make decisions quickly.  Inbetween there is plenty of time for good social friendship, while no excess time is taken for decision making.

This style of play allows me to play my home course by instinct.   As long as you know a course, doesn't everybody think about how to play the shots presented?  It's a game of shots, so when you know what you're playing, then just play.

We played the whites, about 6200 yards, didn't try too hard.  On the greens, pounded the ball at the hole and laughed about it.  Boyce had it going early, but couldn't keep it going.  Jim and I shot stress free 76s as we walked in at 9:50.  Subway sandwich and feet kicked up well in advance of golf tournament.

[John Kirk]

Oh yeah, and I played the mighty 14th driver, putter, pitching wedge, two putts par.  First time used the putter for the second shot there.

[Ed Oden]

Phil, that is a good question.  My initial reaction was "yes", there is a difference.  But the more I think about, I'm not so sure there is.  The stakes, signs, posts, flags and sprinkler heads that provide distance information on a course are put there intentionally by the clubs/owners.  Similarly, yardage books, pin sheets and caddies with yardage information are intentionally made available by clubs/owners.  I have been to several places that make a concerted effort to remove all yardage information from the course, not because they don't want the golfer to have it, but because they prefer the clean look of an uncluttered course.  They make the information available through other means.  So I'm not sure it make sense to distinguish between information that is on the ground and information that is in the pro shop.  My personal view is that distance information is pretty close to an all or nothing proposition.  While I would have absolutely no problem if all distance information of any kind were banned, as long as some is available, I think it is very difficult to make meaningful distinctions in type or degree.

Melvyn, I do understand your perspective even though I don't necessarily agree with all of it.  I actually never said whether I use available distance information (yes) and I didn't mention carts at all (given a choice, I always walk).  Contrary to what you may have assumed, I am not an advocate for either one.  I would be fine if neither were a part of the game.  You are correct, it is the "morally indefensible" statement that I take issue with.  I could understand if your position was that the failure of golf's governing bodies to ban distance aids is morally indefensible.  But to extend that notion to individual golfers playing within the rules without historical support other than your own personal experience misses the mark with me.  Not a big deal and certainly not worthy of further debate. 

[Mark Steffey]

kinda funny reading this...   i like technology.  it makes the game fun, which is why i play.  i have fun playing.  i have fun with my friends.  i hit the fall farther now in my mid 40s than i did when i was 20, and it's not because i stay in shape!

funny too is i don't know how far i hit any of my clubs.  (i am currently 6.9 and have been as low as 4.1 in the past 12 months)  i get my yardage with the laser, and process that information along with wind, elevation, temp, whatever.  all quickly (i'm always the guy behind you in the fairway or tee box waiting if you turn around) in my mind.  i think two things drew me to playing golf when i was young.  it's individual (no team), and it is cerebral.   the ball is stationary.  it is probably the least athletic event for athletic competition imaginable.  it is all mind.  one knows how to shape a shot when needed, but you have to have your body cooperate.  

so last week on my 17th hole (par 3, over water, green surrounded by bunkers) into a stiff breeze i shot 155 with the laser and hooded a little 5 iron pin high to sweep the greenies and win us $80.  today same hole the wind was with us but not as strong, and i shot 135.  i took extra club and worked an easy 8 iron below the hole to get par.  i think i hit a 9 iron 135 if i hit it flush, but that never happens!!  so it's always a guess what you need, what you can do, & what you should do.  whether it's a tee marker, or a white circle, or a caddie, or a laser - information is good.  use it!  have fun!  don't hold up the course!

[Eric_Terhorst]

one should try to play by instinct, because it's more fun. 

+1  I've played with guys who want to read my yardage as well as theirs--aargh.

Even without a device, I find I'm always right about the yardage.  Of course, more often than I'd like, wrong about the swing...

[Craig Sweet]

We have a nice practice area with multiple targets and I used a laser to get some yardage from various locations to various targets....I like to practice "nine o'clock" and full swings with my wedges...the laser was helpful for getting some distance data...other than that i think they should stay at home.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ed

Rather silly of me but I believe that it’s not just the Governing Body that has a duty of care but also each individual golfer. My belief comes from golf’s Etiquette Rules hence my comment morally indefensible. The golfer is the first line of defence IMHO, if that fails then golf is not worthy of being called a game.

[Anders Rytter]

It will forever perplex me why architecture junkies would use a yardage contraption.  However, I must admit that there is at least one brand which attaches to the bag and looks like a fairly old mobile phone that in the right hands takes all of about 5 seconds to use.  The info is displayed just about as fast as a guy can put a bag down.  I don't have a clue if it is the most accurate contraption on the market, but surely it must be good enough for the likes of just about everybody on the planet.

Tiger

Thank you for articulating the joy of walking off of yardage from a marker.  I never really thought about it before, but you are right.  While I never did this unless it was a dead easy walk to my ball in the fairway, it was still the start of "final" preparations to hit the shot which obviously began after placing the club in the bag after the last shot.  My eyes are not what they once were so I may begin to pay more attention to markers.  

If I used a gun I think guys stating their guess would annoy me after a while, but I think that phase of novelty is now over in my circles.  Folks have seen the contraptions enough to not take much notice.    

Ciao

Why do you think that mechanical devices are worse than numbers on sprinkler heads? i have my device in a little pocket just where i have my left hand when i carry the bag. that way i have it handy and get the yardage in 5-10sec when i get to my ball. I would be fine with no yardages what so ever (I just think that would take an ridicolous ammount of time for some) , but if they are on the sprinklers and in the yardage books i dont see why you shouldn't be able to shoot them yourselves?

Anders

I think lasers offer two advantages over markers.  First, from anywhere a player can get an accurate yardage.  That ability did not exist previously - even for  tour caddies.  Second, a laser adds an extra bit confidence for a player - a back-up set of data.  That said, I don't really care if folks want to use yardage aids, but I don't want to hear these same people bitch about uncreative, standardized architecture.  

Using yardage aids definitely dumbs down architecture and can create a situation where archies may think it a waste of time to use deception in their design.  I can think of some shots on Strantz courses in which knowing the yardage detracts from the purpose of the architecture.  The last really good deception techniques I saw was at Fowler's Blackwell.  There were two cool shots which were partially spoiled because I was able to ignore the architectural deception.  

A very poorly paced 150 marker on this tee shot gave the entire deception angle away.  The bunkers look easy to carry and I would have attempted it, but the marker told me it was about 40 yards more than I thought.
 


Below is another instance, but for the approach.  The 150 markers gave it away that there must be dead ground short of the green.  



I think a reasonable compromise is to have a marker well off the line of the play.   

Ciao

Agree. If we only had markers, deception in design would have more impact. but caddies or yardage books would squeell. I might be weak mentally, but i still dont feel  completely secure when standing over the ball despite knowing the exact yardages etc if it looks different.

[David_Elvins]

I think if you are a rater, you are obligated to use a laser.  Quite often you are playing private courses and you are obligated to obtain as much knowledge about the course as possible, before each shot, to make up for the fact that you lack the local knowledge that members have.  It will help you to assess the course to the best of your abilities.

[Melvyn Morrow]

You have just got to love it. Of all the excuses to use distance aids.

How we ever managed before the 1960-70 I just do not know, but then perhaps we had real Father’s  real men back then.

Rate a course, you need electronic devices, love it, just love it. Thanks David.

[Phil McDade]

one should try to play by instinct, because it's more fun. 

+1  I've played with guys who want to read my yardage as well as theirs--aargh.

Even without a device, I find I'm always right about the yardage.  Of course, more often than I'd like, wrong about the swing...

Good to see GCA's fastest golfer weigh in on this.

Scott:

I'd ban most caddies, particularly at the professional level. I admire clubs/courses that have strong caddie programs, but moreso from the standpoint of: a) it encourages walking (ala the Bandon model); and b) it provides gainful and worthwhile employment for youngsters in a healthy, positive manner.

I find the use of caddies on the pro tours particularly silly. No other professional sport provides for such immediately available advice on the field of play. When I think of the most exhilarating moments in sport (Phelps' last stroke to win the 100 fly at the 2008 Olympics; Jordan's mid-air switch with the ball, from right to left, in the NBA playoffs; Eruzione wrong-footing the winning goal against the Soviets in 1980 at Lake Placed), all were great examples of instinctive acts nurtured by years of training, developing talent, and, yes, coaching. But all were done in an instant by the athlete himself. Golf has had its share of great moments (Watson's chip-in at Pebble, Tiger's at Augusta, Hogan's 1-iron), but to me the role that caddies play in the game always makes the great golf feats lesser accomplishments than those in other sports. I've never understood why the sport of golf, at its highest levels, allows such immediate access to advice on all manner of things; it's unlike any other sport in that regard, and lesser for it.

Ed:

I admit to occasionally using yardage books, carts with GPS, pin sheets, forecaddies, and -- yes, once -- a yardage finder. But I've always regretted it the morning after.

But in general, I usually try to simply use what the course provides. I've played on courses with extensive yardage information, and those with none at all, and I find the latter more interesting to play. Partly that's due to how I view this issue (traditionalist), but also because of my game (thus my handicap question), which isn't very good, and thus exact yardage information means less to me than most who post here (a guess, but an educated one, I think). To me, with fewer days of golf ahead of me than behind me, I've come to care more about the journey than the score when playing a round of golf.

[Carson Pilcher]

I use one.  When "that guy" states his yardage confidently.."153 yards"!  It is a little amuzing when I laser the flag and say, "141".  Very, very few are within 5 yards of the laser distance.  Some are, but they are few and far between.  It is also funny when my ball is laying next to a guy who says he doesn't use a laser, but then always asks, "What is the distance"? after I laser the flag.

Myself, I like the pace of play it allows to not have to walk around and find a sprinkler head and then pace, etc.  I walk up to my ball, and as the bag is leaving my shoulder to the ground, the V2 is out and up to my eye.  Mere seconds, and I'm ready to hit my shot.

As far as those that say call it an "unfair aid, or cheating, etc.", I point to the fact that one player can tell another player the knowledge to a fellow competitor in a USGA or R&A event.  The knowledge gained from a laser gun is considered factual information, not subjective.

All in all, I could care not what other people choose to do in regards to hitting their shot as long as they keep up the pace.

[David Ober]

I really don't understand you "anti-laser" guys. Either remove lasered yardages from ALL sprinkler heads so that we all play the game the same way at every golf course, or just accept the fact that part of playing the game is knowing yardages. I have no problem using sprinkler heads for yardages, but not all golf courses have them, and many of them are off by up to 10 to 15 yards in some places, and many are missing.

Bottom line for me: I'll play the game in whatever way is legal -- as long as we're all playing the same game.

Finally, for those of you that think it takes LONGER to play using a laser than pacing off distances, all I can say is: Come play a round with me some time....

With due respect to those who use or feel the need to use distance aids, you have at a stroke taken
the heart and spirit out of playing golf. Worst still in my experience are the Pacers who without care
or consideration for fellow players or others on a course disrupt the pace and pleasure of the game
for others.  This I consider a heinous act against a fellow players and a clear breach of Course
Etiquette which IMHO should result in the immediate removal of the player from a course.  Now
before others jump to Tigers defence, I do not believe that Tiger said he paced the distance before
his shot but as a confirmation of his distance judged by his eyes after the shot was taken and while
on his way to the next shot.   

Distance aids are legal but forgetting the legality of the issue, what about the quality of the game
experienced by the player. This must surely suffer as clearly the plays confidence is questionable re
his/her own ability (whatever level). To play with the premise that one’s game is perhaps suspect in
the first place is to start with a massive mental handicap, sending ones state of calm confidence into
a cocked hat.

The game of golf should be a pleasure, the efforts should come naturally to the golfer allowing
him/her the ultimate joy of knowing they did it on your own, unaided and if their score improved a
deep warm feeling of inner contentment.  So I am totally baffled as to why any golfer feels the need
to seek outside help. For goodness sake all I know is that all this outside information corrupts the
mind making ones brain first absorb the information then delete it as the eyes and brain final takes
over and re calculates the who distance thing in a millisecond as the golfer finally address the ball at
the start of the swing.

It’s all legal, use your aids, but that very need to use these aids must cry out a desperation in the
minds of the players, who knows are they mentally really to play golf. Yet the worst crime in
my eyes is that their game if flawed before it starts, even if they do well they have had to resort to
outside help, defined legal by the governing Body but inwardly the player knows it’s morally
indefensible certainly if they do love the game of golf.

I beseech you all who use aids to leave them in the club house and face the challenge using mind
and body only. In the long run your game will benefit but you will immediately feel the satisfaction
of knowing that was all down to your own efforts.