This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
If searching for balls delays the playing of the game, then why not reverse yourself on the following issue?"The use of a ball with a small transmitter inside, to allow a player to use a radio receiver to locate his ball, was invented in 1973 and the use of such a receiver was promptly banned from competition use by both authorities."Garland,And would each ball have it's own frequency or would you be looking for every lost ball in the universe on a given hole.Think of the compression issue and cost of each ball.Bad idea Fast play is a cultural issue not a hi- tech issue
Quote from: GJ Bailey on February 25, 2014, 10:35:30 PMIf searching for balls delays the playing of the game, then why not reverse yourself on the following issue?"The use of a ball with a small transmitter inside, to allow a player to use a radio receiver to locate his ball, was invented in 1973 and the use of such a receiver was promptly banned from competition use by both authorities."Garland,And would each ball have it's own frequency or would you be looking for every lost ball in the universe on a given hole.Think of the compression issue and cost of each ball.Bad idea Fast play is a cultural issue not a hi- tech issue
This is one slow play issue that can be resolved by technology.However, perhaps the issue for this web site is that it might give golf courses free reign to grow hay for rough.
At Deal you don't want to go e.g. left off the first tee, or right off the 11th. Having that in your mind is part of the game of golf. Not having to worry about it would change things so I think greens committees would feel the need to 'maintain the challenge.' Perhaps it would just be as Garland suggests make the rough tougher, after all it will take no longer to find a ball in 8" rough than it does in 2". But a fundamental change like never losing a ball would definitely impact on the game we paly and I'm just trying to foresee how?
Quote from: Tony_Muldoon on February 26, 2014, 11:39:17 AMAt Deal you don't want to go e.g. left off the first tee, or right off the 11th. Having that in your mind is part of the game of golf. Not having to worry about it would change things so I think greens committees would feel the need to 'maintain the challenge.' Perhaps it would just be as Garland suggests make the rough tougher, after all it will take no longer to find a ball in 8" rough than it does in 2". But a fundamental change like never losing a ball would definitely impact on the game we paly and I'm just trying to foresee how?That right side of the 11th at Deal is the damnedest place I've ever seen. It's like the Bermuda Triangle. You can watch your ball land and bounce and swear it's six inches off the fairway. But it's never found.That hole can eat more balls with one inch of rough than most can with hay.
Garland,What about the golfers who can't afford the technology?A simpler solution would be to lower the amount of time allowed in the search for the ball, maybe from five minutes down to three minutes,
Quote from: Pete_Pittock on February 26, 2014, 12:56:35 PMGarland,What about the golfers who can't afford the technology?A simpler solution would be to lower the amount of time allowed in the search for the ball, maybe from five minutes down to three minutes, Pete,That's no fun. It addresses the actual issue rather than uses the issue as an excuse to further complicate and ultimately slow down the game (not to mention making it more expensive).It is less expensive than losing sleeves of Pro V1s in a single round It's like the guy who says he has a drinking problem. So he's going to buy a really top-shelf bottle of single malt and once he's finished that he can quit drinking. Yeah, right.
I think most would agree slow players will stay slow even with this technology, so time saving is irrelevant to what interest me....
Quote from: Tony_Muldoon on February 26, 2014, 02:12:59 PMI think most would agree slow players will stay slow even with this technology, so time saving is irrelevant to what interest me....But Tony, you are ignoring all the disparaging remarks on this web site about having to play behind high handicappers that hit it all over the place and slowing up the players behind them as they search for their balls. Are there courses out there now that pride themselves with thick rough, and resulting lost balls? That's the kind of vibe that came across from the proshop at Elk Ridge in the Columbia River Gorge. If they lose this ploy, would they mow the rough and let people play away.I happen to think Elk Ridge would be an amazingly fun golf course if they mowed everything fairway height or perhaps just a little longer.
Quote from: Tony_Muldoon on February 26, 2014, 02:12:59 PMI think most would agree slow players will stay slow even with this technology, so time saving is irrelevant to what interest me....Are there courses out there now that pride themselves with thick rough, and resulting lost balls?
The way technology is going it is probably negligible cost. Better than having Titleist gouge you for multipiece balls.
Jim,Nobody is buying that (after all it's against the rules) so the price is high. Besides, it is far to complicated. If my credit card can be read without it leaving my wallet in my pants, then it should be possible to do a much cheaper technology. If the USGA and R&A made it legal, someone would come up with a technology that would be cheap.
If searching for balls delays the playing of the game, then why not reverse yourself on the following issue?"The use of a ball with a small transmitter inside, to allow a player to use a radio receiver to locate his ball, was invented in 1973 and the use of such a receiver was promptly banned from competition use by both authorities."
...and what if your opponent decide to use a transmitter to find your ball you don't want found