What have other sports done?

[Jason Thurman]

Jason,

I'm going to take Lynn's assessment over yours if you don't mind.

I didn't make an assessment. I referred to quotes from Kevin Durant and Jalen Rose. 

Sounds like Lynn is alluding to a similar idea to what they've stated.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jason,

I'm going to take Lynn's assessment over yours if you don't mind.

I didn't make an assessment. I referred to quotes from Kevin Durant and Jalen Rose. 

Sounds like Lynn is alluding to a similar idea to what they've stated.

Jason,
Lynn is saying exactly what those guys were saying.  Garland is the only person that would read it otherwise, so don't worry about it.  His mind is made up; don't try to confuse him with the facts.

[Garland Bayley]

"Generally speaking you develop a sense for where you are by the markings on the court, which assist when you go up for a quick jumper before zeroing in on the rim."

So Lynn is saying you can get an assist from markings on the floor.

"Otherwise the brain measures the shot almost instantly when you look at the rim."

This is where the true determinant of high accuracy comes from. If someone tells you they made a shot with a hand in their face, because they knew where they were on the floor, they simply don't understand how quickly and efficiently the brain can measure a shot from a glimpse. As my college coach would tell us, no one can keep an hand in position to obscure your vision through the entire process of taking a shot. I know the shots I have made with a hand in my face were a result of a glimpse of the rim.

Bill Bradley demonstrated he could made shots without looking. Sometimes, that is necessary to get the ball past the defender by catching him off guard. Unfortunately, what Bill did not tell you is what percentage of those shots he would make, which would be a lower percentage than if he were to sight the rim.

So, the answer to the question remains no. By far the predominate factor in shooting a basketball is sighting the rim.
Sorry, if the question was worded poorly so as not to get at this intended meaning.

[David_Tepper]

"So, the answer to the question remains no. By far the predominate factor in shooting a basketball is sighting the rim.
Sorry, if the question was worded poorly so as not to get at this intended meaning."

Garland B. -

You are beautiful! I love how you twist Lynn Shackelford's  words to suit your purposes. I see nothing in his comments that implies sighting the rim is "by far the predominate factor in shooting a basketball. Then you confess your question may have been worded poorly, which of course resulted in getting answers you did not want to hear.  

I suppose a better question to ask is how is judging the distance in shooting a basket from 10' to 25' the least bit comparable to judging distances hitting a golf ball 150 to 250 yards from a target? It really isn't comparable at all. You could compare shooting a basketball to putting in terms of judging distance by eye, but that is about it.

DT     

[A.G._Crockett]

Original question:

"Do basketball players USE distance measuring devises to shoot?"

Lynn Shackelford's answer:

"Generally speaking you develop a sense for where you are by the markings on the court, which assist when you go up for a quick jumper before zeroing in on the rim."

Seems pretty simple.  All one can do is respond to the questions that are asked, no?


I'll even paraphrase to extend a silly analogy.

Generally speaking you develop a sense of where you are by the markings on the course, which assist you when you hit your shot.  Of course, the golfer also assesses wind, slope, pin position, firmness of the course, comfort level with the club being used, preferred shot shape, location of trouble/hazards, the competitive situation at hand, and on and on, before you zero in on the shot that you wish to execute.  Distance (and course markings) is but one factor in that process.

[Garland Bayley]

I have no intention of relating shooting a basketball to hitting shots 150 to 250 yards to a target. However, when it comes to the half wedge shots that until Pelz came along were done primarily by sight and feel, that is another matter.

It is also related to stroking putts the proper distance to the hole.

However, I would suggest that the human eye can discern distances accurately enough for the 20 handicapper for hitting shots 150 to 250 yards to a target, i.e., me. For those that play more than once a week, their eyes can probably do even better than that.

[Garland Bayley]

It seems that distance measuring devices in a golf discussion are either lasers or gps systems. Somehow that morphed into basketball lines and down markers. "I am so confused." Vinnie Barbarino.

[SL_Solow]

The real problem is that the tasks are not at all analagous.  Except for a free throw, where the distance is well known, the basketball shooter must react swiftly lest he risk having his shot blocked or interfered with.  Moreover, often he is shooting on the move and adjusting his body position so that feel is critical.  Finally, the basket is always the same height and if he is any good, he has probablu practiced the shot many times.  moreover, the difference in distance is only a few feet as most shots are in the 8 -22 foot range.

Golf on the other hand has a wider variety of distance and conditions including wind, elevation and lie changes.  The backdrop for the target changes for each shot.  The player has praciced his swing, but there is no rislk of being guarded so he has the time to consider his options.  Moreover, club selection is in large part dependent on distance and the fact that the player has choices also makes the process much different from basketball shooting.

Of course we can and in tournaments do bar distance measuring devices but we don't ban detailed yardage books.  if those were barred then everyone would play to their "eye" and experience.  would it be a better game?  That is a matter of taste.  Would the play be better?  I suspect not.  all of the players whose livlihood depends on their scores play with knowledge of yardage.  If they would play better without that knowledge, I suspect that they would choose to do so.

[Garland Bayley]

...

Of course we can and in tournaments do bar distance measuring devices but we don't ban detailed yardage books.  if those were barred then everyone would play to their "eye" and experience.  would it be a better game?  That is a matter of taste.  Would the play be better?  I suspect not.  all of the players whose livlihood depends on their scores play with knowledge of yardage.  If they would play better without that knowledge, I suspect that they would choose to do so.

Why wouldn't it be a better game? For spectators, it is still an unfolding drama contested between the best in the game. For players, those with more talent would win, perhaps over those with more bookkeeping skills. It would not matter whether they would play marginally better with detailed yardage, because they would all be playing without it.

[Michael Dugger]

I think it could be argued that more well-trained athletes (via technology,) especially football players, pose as much or more of a threat to fundamentally altering their sport, than the golf ball and golf club are ruining the game of golf.

But my premise forces us to compare/contrast the athlete with the equipment.

Everyone is keenly aware of the recent suicide of Junior Seau, the huge impending NFL lawsuit, bounty gate, etc...

Football players, via technology I.E. better training, better nutrition, lighter gear, better drugs, are bigger and faster than ever.  The collisions are becoming so violent, unsuspecting ball carriers are getting killed.

There have been dramatic changes in football rules over the last decade.  You can hardly lay a hand on the QB without getting a flag thrown.  The game has become far more passing oriented because defensive backs can hardly lay a glove on receivers anymore.  

While it use to be risky going across the middle for fear of Ronnie Lott taking your head off, now we have this ridiculous rule about hitting vulnerable players who don't have the ability to protect themselves.  You can't hit anyone anymore, borderline calls are ruining the essence of the game.

Furthermore, studies showed that a majority of NFL injuries came about via the kick off.  So, they moved the line from where they kick off and now pretty much every kick off is a touch back.  BORING

In conclusion, I say technology, manifest in a bigger, stronger, faster and more dangerous athletes, has fundamentally changed the game of NFL football for the worse.

  

[SL_Solow]

Garland;  Your reply is premised on the proposition that the ability to judge distance without the aid of any distance measuring device, including yardage books is an important skill.  Does that mean that all tournaments should be played on courses where none of the players have any familiarity?  If you have played a course numerous times you know what club works from a particular land mark so you might as well have a book.  That's in part is why your basketball analogy fails; all the courts are close to being the same size and at the highest levels, the dimensions are identical. so familiarity is unimportant. But your argument has devolved to your view that the "distance judgment " aspect of the game is a critical factor in how the game should be played and how the best player should be determined.  That is a matter of taste.  The game is no longer played that way at the highest level, the only argument is the degree to which we allow distance measurement.  But no one can say you are "wrong" in your preference, they can only suggest that with respect to the modern game, your views have become irrelevant.

[Doug Ralston]

I think golf has changed less over it's lifetime than most any other sport. And that is surprising, when you consider that, unlike other sports, the venue is constantly changing in golf. That is a huge blessing IMHO. I think, for example, if the PGA though it was better to just play every tourney are Augusta National, we would all get bored. If we decided that playing golf only at our local muni was satisfying, we would be ..... err, wait< I actually know people who do that! But it is sad to me. How much they miss through the bliss of ignorance.

Of course, all things must change over time and even conservatives cannot stop that in the long run. I think golf has become better for allowing people like me, who would not have played 50 years ago, to learn of it and grow into appreciation.

Beside golf, those others sports are mundane to boring [except college football, or course]. Wa bout dem Vols!!

Doug

[Garland Bayley]

Garland;  Your reply is premised on the proposition that the ability to judge distance without the aid of any distance measuring device, including yardage books is an important skill.  Does that mean that all tournaments should be played on courses where none of the players have any familiarity?  If you have played a course numerous times you know what club works from a particular land mark so you might as well have a book.  That's in part is why your basketball analogy fails; all the courts are close to being the same size and at the highest levels, the dimensions are identical. so familiarity is unimportant. But your argument has devolved to your view that the "distance judgment " aspect of the game is a critical factor in how the game should be played and how the best player should be determined.  That is a matter of taste.  The game is no longer played that way at the highest level, the only argument is the degree to which we allow distance measurement.  But no one can say you are "wrong" in your preference, they can only suggest that with respect to the modern game, your views have become irrelevant.

Shel,

Your premise fails in that you seem to dismiss the history of golf. Was not Bobby Jones able to travel to unknown courses and prevail without the distance aids against those that might have more local knowledge? Ben Hogan? And, others too numerous to list?

You seem to wish to do away with any "home court" advantage. Does not basketball have a home court advantage?

[SL_Solow]

Garland;  I am about to bow out as it is difficult to debate one who doesn't stop to consider the import of the other side's argument.  You do not dispute that certain others may have had an advantage of local knowledge.  You do not dispute that such knowledge is the functional equivalent of a yardage book or range finder.  accordingly, you must not believe that such aids provide an unfair advantage.  then why ban them other than for pace of play reasons.  Moreover, if there is no advantage, than why do all of the players who make their living playing the game utilize the aids.  I can understand if you think it is a better game without artificial measuring devices.  I understand it makes a certain form of judgment more important.  That is why I won't argue that point, it is a matter of preference.  But I don't think you advance your cause by suggesting that the great Jones could win without course familiarity.

As to home field advantage, in golf familiarity with the greens is a great advantage although it is amazing how quickly modern touring pros "learn" greens and how good they are at reading them.  the analogy with basketball is specious.  Most of the home court advantage in that game comes from the impact of the home crowd on the emotions of the players and upon the referees.  Sleeping in one's own bed helps, the familiarity with loose vs tight rims is overrated.  Sometimes in older arenas there are dead spots on the floor but that advantage is largely disappearing.  At the high school level, there are more frequent issues as there were when more colleges played in "bandbox" arenas.

[Garland Bayley]

Shel,

I stopped to consider your argument. I admitted there is some small advantage. However, for the pro tours it is marginal at best.

Does anyone do a scientific study to determine what that margin is? I'm guessing not. Here you are admitting that tour pros learn putting greens amazingly fast, but somehow think the margin lost to the locals on other aspects is highly significant. I think not. How can Bobby Jones got to the British Isles for a short time, and beat the people that play the local courses regularly? Because a top golfer can quickly overcome most of that margin.

Furthermore, you appear to make no consideration of my counter argument, and accuse of not giving your argument consideration.

What a load of BS.

[SL_Solow]

Garland;  It appears that we are going nowhere.  I will not characterize your contribution notwithstanding your throw away line..  However please consider the following.  First, your example regarding Bobby Jones utilizes a player who dominated an era unlike any other and posits that because he was able to overcome local knowledge of players who were for the most part vastly inferior to him, this proves that local knowledge and/or knowledge provided by distance measurements is overrated.  I suggest the conclusion you reach does not follow from the example given.  Moreover, as you are clearly a golf historian you must have read Jone's writings where he noted his initial lack of understanding of the Old Course and how grew to love it after he obtained additional knowledge.  His success was not instaneous although I will concede it also came as he matured as a player.  Finally, your argument flies in the face of the experience of the current great players who came after Nicklaus popularized playing to the yardage.  Those who play the game at the highest level and do so for a living insist on having as much information as possible.  If there was a better way to play, if less information increased the chance that they would post lower scores, they have every reason to choose less information   But to a man, including the "feel players', they choose more information.  Either they are irrational or  know less about posting scores than you do, or there is something wrong with your position.  Yours is a theoretical exercise, their livelihood depends on the scores they post.

Of course, that is not to suggest that the non-tournament amateur derives the same benefit.  Nor does it suggest that the game is more fun when the devices are used.  It does not address slow play.  All of these are fair subjects of debate and truly matters of preference until or unless the rules are changed.  But the evidence clearly suggests that a player with greater knowledge of the obstacles faced has a better chance for success than one who has less knowlege.

Finally, I am not sure which of your arguments I  failed to consider.  I addressed the local knowledge issue.  I considered Bob Jones, a hero of mine.  The home court advantage and particularly its relationship to that in basketball (as a former referee I am keenly aware of that issue) was discussed.

Finally, the biggest issue facing the game and in particular its architecture is the distance issue caused largely by the ball, particularly as it reacts synergitically with the new drivers.  At the professional level it fundamentally alters the challenge presented by some of our favorite courses.  It also separates the pros in adifferent way from amateurs than was previously the case.  distance measurement is just a sideshow.  Even if a player knows the distance to the inch, he has to decide what shot he wants to hit and then he must execute.  that part hasn't changed.  But the need to hit certain shots has diminished as distance has increased dramatically.

[Garland Bayley]

Shel,

You're not making any sense.

...
Of course we can and in tournaments do bar distance measuring devices but we don't ban detailed yardage books.  if those were barred then everyone would play to their "eye" and experience.  would it be a better game? ...

Is what we are discussing.

But you write.

... Those who play the game at the highest level and do so for a living insist on having as much information as possible.  If there was a better way to play, if less information increased the chance that they would post lower scores, they have every reason to choose less information   But to a man, including the "feel players', they choose more information.  ...

How does that even pertain to the discussion? They choose these because all of the other players choose these.

Finally, I am not sure which of your arguments I  failed to consider.  I addressed the local knowledge issue.  I considered Bob Jones, a hero of mine.  

Until now, you did not consider my examples of Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, and many others. Ben Hogan went to the British Isles once, and won under conditions that he hated. He even considered withdrawing because he felt he could not play to his standard there.

Another example. Gene Sarazen, in his prime, was unable to win the US Open on his "home course" (it had been his home course until the year before, as the course could not get the open if he as a player was based there, so he left it).

Finally
"The home court advantage and particularly its relationship to that in basketball (as a former referee I am keenly aware of that issue) was discussed."
But, you discussed it from the viewpoint of the referee. You didn't even mention the things as a player I felt were important. Lighting, background, colors, the confidence of having made thousands of shots in the building before.

[SL_Solow]

Ok.  I get it.  Anecdotal historical evidence trumps universal adoption of a procedure deemed to be better by the finest practitioners of the game.  I can't beat that.  As for the basketball examples, I simply suggested that except in rare instances the key home court factor is the crowd.  As for the other factors, i suggested that they are becoming less of a factor with the improvements and standardization of playing conditions.  i noted that in prior years the differences were greater abd that those differences still existed at the lower levels.  Nonetheless a 15 foot jumper in doors remains a 15 foot jumper.  But I'll defer to Lynn on that issue.

[Garland Bayley]

Ok.  I get it.  Anecdotal historical evidence trumps universal adoption of a procedure deemed to be better by the finest practitioners of the game.  I can't beat that.  As for the basketball examples, I simply suggested that except in rare instances the key home court factor is the crowd.  As for the other factors, i suggested that they are becoming less of a factor with the improvements and standardization of playing conditions.  i noted that in prior years the differences were greater abd that those differences still existed at the lower levels.  Nonetheless a 15 foot jumper in doors remains a 15 foot jumper.  But I'll defer to Lynn on that issue.

It doesn't seem to me you get it.

Your question was would it be a better game if the procedures adopted were not adopted.

My answer was it makes no difference to the spectators. Unless of course the spectators want to see faster play.
My answer was that better (more talented) players would win over better bookkeepers.

If your question was, would players score as well without the procedures adopted, then I guess I would have to agree with you that they would score better with the adopted procedures.

[SL_Solow]

Well, it seems we are talking past each other.  From the first i conceded that whether one believes the game is better or worse is a matter of taste.  I thinl golf is more than mature and strict limits on equipment "advances" should be put in place.  i would favor a ball rollback as well.  so if the question is, should we limit the technology to preserve/improve the game, I have always been in the "yes" camp from my entry on to this board some 10 years ago.  Incidentally, I think distance measuring devices are the least of our problems as yardage books serve the same purpose.

But your argument morphed into a discussion of the benefits of those devices and suggested numerous analogies to other sports.  there, we apparently disagree.  I thought I was reasonably clear on all these points from my first post forward.  Perhaps not.

[Garland Bayley]

Well, it seems we are talking past each other.  From the first i conceded that whether one believes the game is better or worse is a matter of taste. ...

And I was trying to influence taste.

It seems we are in agreement on many things.
I was trying to make the point that the eyes and brain are better distance measuring devices than many realize (especially those that have never tried to use them for golf given all the pre-measured distances available previously, and quickly measurable distances available now). However, that got absurdly sidetracked to first down markers for gosh sakes.