Will distance measuring devices

[Patrick_Mucci]

force the architect to move more dirt in an effort to deceive the golfer ?

[Neil White]

It possibly depends on which type of measuring device the golfer uses.

A sat-nav type which shows a graphic of the hole lesser so.  Those who use the laser devices would probably have more trouble if there was something in their line of sight.

As with anything though - the shot needs to be hit - neither of these types of devices can ultimately help with that.

[A.G._Crockett]

Now THAT is a complicated question!

I don't know that the golfer can be "fooled" except on a course they haven't seen before; I know about the well-hidden centerline pot bunker on #13 at my club.  Or that the front bunker on #16 sits back from the green much more than it appears. That isn't to say that I can always execute the shot to avoid them...

So if we're talking about a player on an unfamiliar course, my sense of it is that the answer to your question is "Yes".  But I'll even qualify that by saying that pin sheets, or a good yardage book (or caddy) could provide this sort of info before measuring devices became available.

[BHoover]

Maybe. But then again, possibly not.

[Bill_McBride]

Isn't it possible that knowing the absolute distance to the hole can lead many golfers to take the wrong club?   Sometimes a 150 yard shot can be a 9 iron, sometimes a 5 iron, depending on a lot of variables the experienced golfer will take into account.  Wind, elevation, firmness, lots of variables. 

[Paul Gray]

Bill,

Funny you should mention that.

At my last club, a mediocre faux links which played less like a links than most parkland courses, the device was useful. Now that I've returned 'home' to a real links course, I've decided my senses do a far better job in club selection.

When however I play an unfamiliar course, I'll always stick it on my wrist though. In that sense, no amount of earth moving is going to affect how I perceive the shot as the device is going to tell me the distance anyway and, on an alien course, I'll trust that before I trust my perception.

[A.G._Crockett]

Isn't it possible that knowing the absolute distance to the hole can lead many golfers to take the wrong club?   Sometimes a 150 yard shot can be a 9 iron, sometimes a 5 iron, depending on a lot of variables the experienced golfer will take into account.  Wind, elevation, firmness, lots of variables. 

I remember when a 150 shot was a 9 iron; now I'd have to hitting off Mt. McKinley for that to be the right club!

I don't think KNOWING the absolute distance can lead to the wrong club; I think that, as you point out, ONLY taking that one variable does.

But that's really a separate question from the deception issue.  I think Pat is referring to features like a front bunker that sits back from the green and has a raised lip to make it appear closer than it is, so that when the player focuses only on carrying the bunker they find themselves in the fringe/rough rather than having the ball release to the hole.

And in that regard, the answer to Pat's question is yes.  But that sort of deception couldn't work indefinitely anyway with or without distance devices.  To a certainty I KNOW that there is more room to the left over the bunkers than there appears to be on #5 at my club not because I've measured it, but because I've played 500+ rounds there.

[A.G._Crockett]

Bill,

Funny you should mention that.

At my last club, a mediocre faux links which played less like a links than most parkland courses, the device was useful. Now that I've returned 'home' to a real links course, I've decided my senses do a far better job in club selection.

When however I play an unfamiliar course, I'll always stick it on my wrist though. In that sense, no amount of earth moving is going to affect how I perceive the shot as the device is going to tell me the distance anyway and, on an alien course, I'll trust that before I trust my perception.

Paul,
My version of this is that I rarely use a laser on my home course, and I use the GPS watch there primarily to know my layup distances on three par 5's with crossing bunkers and to play more quickly in general.  On unfamiliar courses, I don't especially trust the watch and feel it is limited anyway, so I wear out a laser battery there.

[Thomas Dai]

Sometimes with rangefinders where you look through a lens, flatness or near-flatness is the hardest feature when it comes to judging distances, ie no bunkers or mounds or trees or whatever to key in on and give an alternative to just the distance to the top of the pin, which to me is an aspect important within course management. And this can be made even harder if the wind is blowing hard when holding the rangefinder steady enough to get a proper focus point becomes difficult.

As to architectural aspects, distance measuring devices have certainly diminished the skill needed in sizing up and hopefully overcoming the use of dead-ground (or other similarly deliberate features), an aspect that IMO has always been one of the great joys of the great puzzle that is golf.

atb

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lasers may be easier to thwart than GPS systems, but, by introducing blind shots, a GPS system won't tell the golfer where the hole is located.

The 3rd, 11th and 16th holes at NGLA would seem to be century old holes that impede the golfer's ability to determine where the green and hole are located.

Even the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 7th can be blind to the golfer.

Will modern architects begin to introduce blind holes for the purpose of preventing the golfer from zeroing in on the yardage to the hole ?

Prestwick, Old Marsh and Hidden Creek come to mind as having holes where lasers and GPS systems are useless in determining hole location, hence blindness isn't regarded as taboo.

How many blind shot would be acceptable to the modern golfer ?

[Philip Caccamise]

Lasers may be easier to thwart than GPS systems, but, by introducing blind shots, a GPS system won't tell the golfer where the hole is located.

The 3rd, 11th and 16th holes at NGLA would seem to be century old holes that impede the golfer's ability to determine where the green and hole are located.

Even the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 7th can be blind to the golfer.

Will modern architects begin to introduce blind holes for the purpose of preventing the golfer from zeroing in on the yardage to the hole ?

Prestwick, Old Marsh and Hidden Creek come to mind as having holes where lasers and GPS systems are useless in determining hole location, hence blindness isn't regarded as taboo.

How many blind shot would be acceptable to the modern golfer ?

Nonscientific survey says 3-4. Seems like when it's 5+ holes with blind shots players start saying "that course has a lot of blind shots"

[Jim_Coleman]

   Those distances on sprinkler heads were really confusing.

[Carl Johnson]

I call BS.  Just kidding, sort of.  How many golfers (average player) when given 149 vs. 154, can actually hit it 149?  In their own minds?  In reality?  At my home course we've a par three, e.g., that from the second back tees plays about 170 yds. (my tees).  I hit a hybrid 22 degrees (as a 22, age 72).  I play normally with guys, same HC more or less 20%, who are concerned about whether it's 173 or 169 on a particular day.  Really!  I go with the 22 regardless and hope I just get it on the green (and not in the fronting water).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

I had a debate with a fellow, who claimed, that on a 180-190 par 3 that it was critical for him to know if the hole was cut in the front, back or middle of the green, on a green that was slightly uphill but completely visible from the tee.

He wanted colored flags on the flag sticks and I was against that practice

I asked him why ?  What difference would it make ?

He replied that it affected his club selection.

As a mid to high single digit handicapper I asked him why he wouldn't aim for the middle of the green every time and leave himself a 20 foot putt at the very most.

But, that's a separate issue from impeding the golfers ability to "sight in" on the hole location.

I've seen some neat techniques, including a fronting bunker in a raised footpad and mounds well short of the green. 

No matter how much information golfers obtain from devices, they're still prone to being influenced by their eye, and that's where the architect can deceive them.

[Mark Pavy]

To answer the question you first need to answer this one:

A golfer is faced with a shot of x distance, which equates to 7 iron, but feels like the shot is an 8 iron.

Will he produce a better shot with the 7 or 8?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't think so.

The best deception I know of on golf courses comes with very subtle, natural ridges on flatter sites that tie directly with the font of the green... No earth moving required.

Also, I agree with Bill McBride that on occasion, knowing the absolute distance on a links course in normal (i.e. windy) conditions can make people choose the wrong club... The very good players (5 and below) can usually keep their ego in check but the number of high single / low double figure guys I play with who can't quite bring themselves to hit a 5-iron in to a hole that says it is 130 yards to the front is quite astounding...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Your question presumes most architects use distance distortion constantly.  I can only think of a handful of deliberate uses of that in my own work, and really don't see it in others...(although, that would kind of be the point.......)

That said, when it is done, it is usually by oversizing or under sizing bunkers to force or distort perspective, or perhaps building them in well out in front of greens with lips just high enough to hide the gap in between to give the impression it is a green side bunker, so I doubt a lot of extra earthmoving would be required.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your question presumes most architects use distance distortion constantly. 


I don't know how you could come to that conclusion.

I can only think of a handful of deliberate uses of that in my own work, and really don't see it in others...(although, that would kind of be the point.......)

Range finders are relatively new in terms of approved usage.
Surely, in the black recesses of the architect's heart, there has to be a desire that seeks to deceive the golfer.
A desire to now thwart the golfer's hi-tech attempt to counter the architect's rudimentary design which was meant to deceive the golfer.

That said, when it is done, it is usually by oversizing or under sizing bunkers to force or distort perspective, or perhaps building them in well out in front of greens with lips just high enough to hide the gap in between to give the impression it is a green side bunker, so I doubt a lot of extra earthmoving would be required.

I didn't say " a lot of extra dirt", I said, "more dirt".

Why wouldn't the architect want the visual presentation to create an intellectual conflict within the golfer ?

The golfer gets his readout from his laser or his GPS, yet, his eyes convey a different message.

CONFLICT

UNCERTAINTY

DOUBT

All cause the golfer to pause and attempt to resolve the conflict.
Failure to resolve the conflict, even if he's got the distance to the milimeter, can alter the golfer's swing, ergo score.

Architect is one up.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

With all the emphasis on fixing slow play, I'm not sure the majority of courses are seeking to deceive golfers into hitting extra shots.  I know my owners would find it counter productive, and feel like its more suited to clubs and high end courses. 

Even then, if we agree that a shot is only blind once, it follows that a distorted vision shot is only distorted once, as well.  Not sure there is any one up over technology.....

Best distortion I can recall is Faz Shadow Creek where the small size green and bunkers make a 130 yard approach look like 160.  But, I wouldn't make the same mistake again, of figuring the sprinkler just HAD to be wrong!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

With all the emphasis on fixing slow play, I'm not sure the majority of courses are seeking to deceive golfers into hitting extra shots. 
I know my owners would find it counter productive, and feel like its more suited to clubs and high end courses. 


NGLA might be exhibit "A" in terms of blind shots.
On the great majority of holes, blind shots can be a certainty.
Yet, the course does not suffer from slow play...

I tend to agree that courses open to the public tend to suffer from a lack of "community", and that many golfers have no concern for the golfers behind them.

But, if fast play is the primary objective of the owners, mundane design is almost a mandate.

I now present TOC as Exhibit "B"
Certainly those bunkers don't promote fast play nor does the element of blindness that's present on the course.
Yet, TOC seems to function more than adequately when it comes to pace of play.

When an owner indirectly dictates design it can be harmful to the creative process.
So, you have to ask yourself, what's more important, "interest" or "pace of play" ?
Sure, there's a blend that can be achieved, but stripping the design of deceiving and/or blind shots seems counter productive to creating interest.

Even then, if we agree that a shot is only blind once, it follows that a distorted vision shot is only distorted once, as well. 

I don't agree with that "catchy" phrase.
I think it's flawed in that it assumes that the approach shot comes from the exact same location every time and that the hole is cut in the exact same location every time and that conditions (wind, temperature, etc. etc.) are the exact same every time.

I can tell you from playing the 6th hole at Old Marsh, dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times, that I always feel uncomfortable and uncertain when playing my approach into that green, each and every time.  It was blind the first time I played it and it was blind the 100th time I played it.
And while I understand the general nature of the area that's blind to me, I can't zero in on a specific target.

Not sure there is any one up over technology.....

Knowing the distance but being unable to see the target is still unsettling.

Best distortion I can recall is Faz Shadow Creek where the small size green and bunkers make a 130 yard approach look like 160.  But, I wouldn't make the same mistake again, of figuring the sprinkler just HAD to be wrong!

Repeat play can be educational in itself, but, when the eye comes into conflict with raw data, uncertainty creeps into the golfer's swing.

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick, I think both NGLA and TOC would play more slowly if the players didn't typically have caddies hustling them along!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I think both NGLA and TOC would play more slowly if the players didn't typically have caddies hustling them along!

Bill,

There are NO caddies at NGLA that are "hustling them along".

If they try "hustling them along" they'll be caddying at a nearby course the following week.

A good caddy is cognizant of pace of play and that sense of awareness isn't restricted to Southampton or St Andrews, it's universal.

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick, I think both NGLA and TOC would play more slowly if the players didn't typically have caddies hustling them along!

Bill,

There are NO caddies at NGLA that are "hustling them along".

If they try "hustling them along" they'll be caddying at a nearby course the following week.

A good caddy is cognizant of pace of play and that sense of awareness isn't restricted to Southampton or St Andrews, it's universal.

By "hustling them along" I meant being aware of the pace and doing whatever is necessary to try to keep the round moving. 

Or perhaps I'm just a moron.  I have certainly seen the St Andrews caddies expediting play. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I think both NGLA and TOC would play more slowly if the players didn't typically have caddies hustling them along!

Bill,

There are NO caddies at NGLA that are "hustling them along".

If they try "hustling them along" they'll be caddying at a nearby course the following week.

A good caddy is cognizant of pace of play and that sense of awareness isn't restricted to Southampton or St Andrews, it's universal.

By "hustling them along" I meant being aware of the pace and doing whatever is necessary to try to keep the round moving. 

Or perhaps I'm just a moron. 

Why did you insert the words "Or perhaps" ?

I have certainly seen the St Andrews caddies expediting play. 

I'd agree, at TOC, a public course with more tourists than members, I can see the caddies taking liberties and "hustling them along"