Standardizing Distance

[Melvyn Morrow]

Attached is a report from 1870 of one of the great matches played between Old Tom Morris and Willie Park. This report is the First of a series of 4 Matches played over four courses TOC, Prestwick , Berwick and Musselburgh.

This match was reported on the 12 of April 1870 and as you read the report not one mention of yardage as we understand it today.











Yardage was not an issue 100 years ago, they did not suffer from the weakness of the modern golfer. They knew their game their abilities and played the game and yardage knowledge was not part of the game back then. This is a modern sickness, it’s the requirement to trying to cover for every eventuality because of the modern drive to be a winner instead of playing the game.

[Duncan Cheslett]

As someone who quite frankly has little idea whether my next 7-iron shot will travel 120 or 160 yards, knowing the exact yardage to the pin is something of an irrelevence. If we're honest, I would think that 90% of golfers also fall into this category.

It does amuse me to see 16+ handicap guys wielding the most up to date range finders and GPS devices only to duff their approach shot into the nearest bunker or to see it dribble 20 yards along the ground. I know only too well that I am capable of shots like these so would not want to embarrass myself further by making such a visible fuss about calculating the distance first.

My thinking is this;  from 100 - 200 yards out I can judge the distance sufficiently by eye to know trhat if I hit it well and straight it is going to end up on or very near the green and I will be happy.  From less than 100 yards or so I can start thinking about aiming for the pin by feel. From more than 200 yards I'm just twatting the ball as far as I can anyway!

For elite golfers and pros I can understand that knowing the exact distance can be an advantage - for too many players however, it seems to be becoming an unhealthy obsession. When I know that every 7-iron I hit will fly exactly 152.864 yards with backspin I may well change my view...

[Jason Thurman]

Melvyn, I read at least 5 references to yardage in the article you posted. Most are in the context of describing the length of a putt or accuracy of an approach to the pin, but another refers to a player being "40 yards short of a bunker." That seems significant to this topic, as it sounds like yards were already the preferred unit of measurement in the day of Old Tom Morris, though perhaps players didn't need to know their exact yardage for every shot.

Perhaps if someone had handed Park a range finder, he wouldn't have come up short and hit his approach into that aforementioned bunker.

The article also gives a lot of reference to half-shots and quarter-shots, and describes the club used for each. It's interesting to read this and realize that players carried fewer clubs and thus controlled distance by fractional shots as opposed to just pulilng a different club. It makes me wonder just how "calibrated" those shots were.

For instance, I know exactly how far I hit half-shots with most clubs up to a 5 iron, and with quarter-wedges. Were Morris and Park truly just "playing by feel (which, to me, means they looked at their target and just let their subconscious swing the club, as most of us do when putting)," or did they have a keen idea of how far they hit the ball with different shots and actively choose between a half-cleek and quarter-mashie? To me, that's more like executing a "stock shot"  and more along the lines of what Dave Pelz started recommending to players in the 1970s.

[Garland Bayley]

...It makes me wonder just how "calibrated" those shots were.

For instance, I know exactly how far I hit half-shots with most clubs up to a 5 iron, and with quarter-wedges. Were Morris and Park truly just "playing by feel (which, to me, means they looked at their target and just let their subconscious swing the club, as most of us do when putting)," or did they have a keen idea of how far they hit the ball with different shots and actively choose between a half-cleek and quarter-mashie? To me, that's more like executing a "stock shot"  and more along the lines of what Dave Pelz started recommending to players in the 1970s.

Well there you have it Jason. None of the players were using distances for their half shots before Dave Pelz started recommending it. No one had done the measurement and statistical analysis that he had done and used to convince pros to start considering his methods. Playing those shots by feel had been a long tradition up until that time. Either that or Dave Pelz was lying in his book.

[David Harshbarger]

...It makes me wonder just how "calibrated" those shots were.

For instance, I know exactly how far I hit half-shots with most clubs up to a 5 iron, and with quarter-wedges. Were Morris and Park truly just "playing by feel (which, to me, means they looked at their target and just let their subconscious swing the club, as most of us do when putting)," or did they have a keen idea of how far they hit the ball with different shots and actively choose between a half-cleek and quarter-mashie? To me, that's more like executing a "stock shot"  and more along the lines of what Dave Pelz started recommending to players in the 1970s.

Well there you have it Jason. None of the players were using distances for their half shots before Dave Pelz started recommending it. No one had done the measurement and statistical analysis that he had done and used to convince pros to start considering his methods. Playing those shots by feel had been a long tradition up until that time. Either that or Dave Pelz was lying in his book.

There are two pieces to the precise distance puzzle:

1. Knowing the precise distance to features.
2. Mechanizing your swing to deliver the ball precise distances.

They operate independently.  My recollection of Dave Pelz's book is that he was addressing item 2, because up until then, players were feeling their way to deliver the ball precise distances.