How do distance measuring devices change perception of architecture?

[Jason Thurman]

Discuss

[jeffwarne]

The most valuable thing to me a about a rangefinder is the binocular effect allowing one to zoom in and note features not normally evident without the device.
Not sure how I feel about that, but is very useful when competing without a practice round.
Like modern equipment, I'm not for it , but I'm not willing to surrender that advantage to the rest of the field.

[Philip Hensley]

I've been using less and less of them this year. However on many courses they are necessary with the way greens are protected in the front and/or back by sand/water. If the middle of the green is 130yds and your approach has to be done in the air and has to go at least 120yds but no more than 140yds it's hard to play by "feel". And there's only a couple different clubs you have the option of playing. But if the green entrance is relatively open you could take any number of clubs and hit a variety of approach shots from all distances, and you're not penalized excessively for being wrong.

[Sean_A]

Jason

As you know I am ardently against yardage guns because of how architecture is dumbed down.  As Jeff says, golfers are selfish enough not to give up any goodies...all in the name of competition.  Beyond that philosophical point and the concept that a machine backs up what the eye tells the brain (or offers different info than the eye offers), YGs will I believe, eventually dumb down architecture

1. to the point where archies will no longer try to be clever with dead ground and other subtle features...whats the point?

2. for the guy who is well out of position it is no longer a guessing game...why bother offering width? 

3. YGs simply make the aerial game more viable and courses will eventually be built toward the use of these gadgets. 

I don't see any positive upside to architecture with the use of YGs. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'm not sure I want to go here because I've documented in the past how much I am against all distance devices including yardage markers. My compromises are for the reasons Philip mention but I still think most to all courses should get by with only 150 yard markers for people to glance at before they pull out a club.

[Tom_Doak]

To me, the main way distance measuring has changed architecture is by giving the architect in the field an easy check on whether a feature is at "the right distance" ... which means that he is more likely to reposition his tees, etc. to make sure his features are always at "the right distance".

The problem is that designing around a "right" distance is inherently flawed, favoring a guy who hits ten yards more than that distance instead of ten yards less.  It's true that the guy who hits ten yards more is the better player, but when you pick an arbitrary cut-off [say 260 yards] and continually reinforce the same number, you are choosing particular players over others, and not rewarding the guy who hits it 250 for being better than the guy who hits it 240, etc.

When we don't know what the exact yardage is to a feature, we do the same thing golfers do ... we judge it by eye, and sometimes we are fooled into playing away from something we could easily carry, into trouble on the other side of the fairway.  We are losing that now ... not just because the players use their rangefinders, but because they can assume we designed to a certain distance in mind, and if they can't carry our other features than they won't be able to carry this one, either.

[Thomas Dai]

Distance measuring devices seem to me to be less helpful when it comes too playing partial/half shots into greens so situations where more of these are needed, especially when accompanied with the use of dead ground, may still have some effect. And sometimes with no obvious reference points a pretty flat pitch to a pretty flat ground/grade level green can be surprisingly tricky, a shot from say 40 yds short of the 7th at Burnham & Berrow would be an example that comes immediately to mind.

Atb

[Daniel Jones]

I've never used a rangefinder and never will... That was pretty much sealed up the first time I watched a guy in the group ahead of me pull his out for a 70 yard pitch shot.

I can think of plenty of times over the years where I've had severe doubt about which club to hit often thanks to a bunker positioned well short of the green. I may be standing on the 150 marker, but because it appears far closer there's a great deal of indecision and then a poor shot usually follows. That's totally lost when one can simply whip out a pair of binoculars.

[Chris DeToro]

I've often wondered if range finders give players a too exact number for which they seemingly can't hit to resulting in more mis-clubs, indecision, and uncertainty. 

But we've had distance measuring devices since the beginning of the game whether it be stepping it off, measuring sticks, yardage books, etc. so what makes the range finder different from these other methods? 

[Brent Hutto]

I've often wondered if range finders give players a too exact number for which they seemingly can't hit to resulting in more mis-clubs, indecision, and uncertainty. 

But we've had distance measuring devices since the beginning of the game whether it be stepping it off, measuring sticks, yardage books, etc. so what makes the range finder different from these other methods? 

It's quicker and easier. That's the only difference.

But to answer your first question, yes I have seen people for whom the GPS/laser number gives them mental-game difficulties. Generally they are guys who already are filled with doubt and second-guessing. Adding an exact number can befuddle them completely.

There's one guy I play with often who is the most squirrelly, second-guessing, indecisive golfer you'll ever see. Here was an recent exchange between him and his better-ball partner while standing over a 10-foot downhill putt.

Guy: "Does this putt break more than I think it does?"

Partner: "Ummm, how do I know how much you think it breaks?"

Guy: "Yeah, that's what I'm thinking".

Then he tapped the putt and left it five feet short.

He has a rangefinder but I'm pretty sure he only looks through it to give him something to do while he waffles over what club to hit. Then he usually announced, right as he's standing over the ball "I'm pretty sure this isn't the right club".

[Ronald Montesano]

Brent, your friend needs professional analysis of the mental sort. Be there for him.

To cobble from that point, "how do you know how much architecture I'm perceiving?"

Does Mona Lisa being small verse Guernica being enormous matter? Even if we know how large they are?

For me, DMDs of mass destruction have no impact on my perception of architecture. Long before I know my distance, I've determined what type of shot I can play (versus what type of shot I'd like to play). The yardage gives me a sense of backswing length.

I know a guy who knows a guy who will give swing yardages to the yard. He'll tell you that you need to hit a baby cut precisely 186.4 yards in length and you have that shot. On the putting surface, he wants no part of knowing how long a putt is, as it's all feel and no measurement. Great guy, really enjoyable golfer, to each his own. I'll pace off my putts to know the precise footage, but from the fairway, I typically need a ballpark figure, as I'm all about the center of the green.

[Brent Hutto]

Brent, your friend needs professional analysis of the mental sort. Be there for him.

Alas, with the group I've been playing with most often we're far more often actually winding him up with swing tips rather than offering any real help in being more decisive. He's a good-hearted fellow, always a pleasure to be around and yet we all get great entertainment from his mental gyrations.

Golfers can be cruel.

P.S. The real hell of it (for him) is with all this he still fairly consistently shoots in the high 70's to around 80. I'm a mental-game giant compared to him but he'd beat me like a drum every time if I didn't get strokes...

[A.G._Crockett]

To answer the original question: Minimally, I think, with one exception.

On a course with which a player is very familiar, devices simply speed up the process of club selection and line of play.  I know that the edge of the water on #4 at my club is 160 out, and that the fairway bunker is 120 out, and so on.  I've played nearly a thousand rounds there, and I have layup distances and club adjustments for pin positions memorized; my GPS watch just makes the math simple vs. pacing, etc.  At ALL cost, I'm going to stay out of the fairway bunkers on #10 and #18, so my appreciation and perception of the architecture hasn't changed one iota because of a GPS watch.

The one exception is on an unfamiliar course, and I suppose if one believes that one of the points of the game is to be unaware of how far to hit the ball, the perception of architecture does change.  I don't believe that at all, but I can accept that others do.

For those of you that like to rant and rail against distance measuring devices by providing an anecdote about somebody you know who lasers 35 yd. shots, maybe you could stipulate that the real problem has zero to do with the measuring device and everything to do with the golfer.  You have only to recall Harrington pacing off 100' shots while in possession of a yardage book, pin sheet, and a professional caddy to understand that.

[Brent Hutto]

I've told the story before about a guy who used to be a member at my club. About a 2.something handicap even though he played like once a week, used to be a really good golfer back when he played a lot.

Anyway, his routine involved lasering any shot that was going to be hit through the air. Unless he was putting from the fringe, he'd laser even little pitch-and-run shots from 22 yards, 31 yards, whatever.

I only played less than a dozen rounds with this guy but in that time he holed out more of those 20-60 yard in-between shots than I would make in a year. Maybe four or five hole-outs in 30-odd attempts when we were playing together?

So after initially thinking he was getting carried away with the laser, I've got to say if you can hole out that often and if you can leave the ball within a yard or less of the hole absolutely routinely then go for it.

[A.G._Crockett]

I've told the story before about a guy who used to be a member at my club. About a 2.something handicap even though he played like once a week, used to be a really good golfer back when he played a lot.

Anyway, his routine involved lasering any shot that was going to be hit through the air. Unless he was putting from the fringe, he'd laser even little pitch-and-run shots from 22 yards, 31 yards, whatever.

I only played less than a dozen rounds with this guy but in that time he holed out more of those 20-60 yard in-between shots than I would make in a year. Maybe four or five hole-outs in 30-odd attempts when we were playing together?

So after initially thinking he was getting carried away with the laser, I've got to say if you can hole out that often and if you can leave the ball within a yard or less of the hole absolutely routinely then go for it.

Brent,
I'd be willing to bet that this guy was using a Pelz-type method for partial shots; three different swings with various clubs for different carry-roll distances. 

It gets made fun of a lot here, but I absolutely guarantee you the pros are using their yardage book and pin sheets to do exactly the same thing on those partial shots.  I've never understood how the game is MORE fun when you know LESS about the shot you are about to play, whatever that shot might be.  By that logic, playing blindfolded might be the way to go.

And btw, IMO doing this in no way reduces one's appreciation for or perception of the GCA; it could even be argued that it is enhanced.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

It lessens the ability to "camouflage" the golf course ala Mr Mackenzie.
As Jeff said the binocular effect of the range finder dimishes that wonderful optical illusion effect hat can be so well used by a good architect.
It takes nearly all the guessing fun out of a hole, which I would imagine makes things alot more difficult for the course desginer.

I tend to limit my use to tournaments only to maximise my enjoyment of allowing the architect to fool me.....that has alwyas been one of the joys of the game to me, to be chalenged by what I see and not knowing the exact yardage.

[Jim Tang]

I used a device that gives me front, middle and back distances for the green.  I find the device helps to sped up play since I don't have to look for a yardage plate before each approach shot or pace yardages.  I realize there are other devices that provide distances to bunkers, water, carry distances, etc.  For me, I find using those devices slow my pace down and I don't play freely.  It's information overload.

In terms of architecture, I think the biggest effect of distance measuring devices is they can remove a lot of doubt from a golfer's mind.  Obviously, a good architect wants to create doubt in the golfer's mind, make them a bit uncomfortable or even uncertain on specific shots.  Yardage devices help to eliminate this aspect of architecture.

[David Ober]

To me, the main way distance measuring has changed architecture is by giving the architect in the field an easy check on whether a feature is at "the right distance" ... which means that he is more likely to reposition his tees, etc. to make sure his features are always at "the right distance".

The problem is that designing around a "right" distance is inherently flawed, favoring a guy who hits ten yards more than that distance instead of ten yards less.  It's true that the guy who hits ten yards more is the better player, but when you pick an arbitrary cut-off [say 260 yards] and continually reinforce the same number, you are choosing particular players over others, and not rewarding the guy who hits it 250 for being better than the guy who hits it 240, etc.

When we don't know what the exact yardage is to a feature, we do the same thing golfers do ... we judge it by eye, and sometimes we are fooled into playing away from something we could easily carry, into trouble on the other side of the fairway.  We are losing that now ... not just because the players use their rangefinders, but because they can assume we designed to a certain distance in mind, and if they can't carry our other features than they won't be able to carry this one, either.

A-flippin'MEN, Tom.

I'm a short-hitting competitive amateur, and so many courses nowadays have carries from the back tees that are 255 to 275, and I just can't carry those bunkers. EVER. I have to constantly steer my ball AROUND hazards, while my longer opponents and fellow competitors fly right OVER them.

I played the SCGA Mid-Am years ago at a course where I felt like every par four had bunkers on both sides of the fairway, one that was a 250 carry and the other being a 260-270 carry. I was completely scr#wed! LOL

[astavrides]

I'm not sure I want to go here because I've documented in the past how much I am against all distance devices including yardage markers. My compromises are for the reasons Philip mention but I still think most to all courses should get by with only 150 yard markers for people to glance at before they pull out a club.

Are you against them for yourself or for everybody?
If the latter...
What about getting distances from google? What about pacing off distances during a practice round? Make them illegal?

[Dave McCollum]

Not much unless, as Tom mentions, the architect relies on them too religiously.  I use them as other players like them, but I can play just as easily without them.  When the breeze is up, I don't use them; it's more about what shot I want hit than the yardage.

[A.G._Crockett]

It lessens the ability to "camouflage" the golf course ala Mr Mackenzie.
As Jeff said the binocular effect of the range finder dimishes that wonderful optical illusion effect hat can be so well used by a good architect.
It takes nearly all the guessing fun out of a hole, which I would imagine makes things alot more difficult for the course desginer.

I tend to limit my use to tournaments only to maximise my enjoyment of allowing the architect to fool me.....that has alwyas been one of the joys of the game to me, to be chalenged by what I see and not knowing the exact yardage.

How effective or important is camouflage anyway, though, after the feature has been seen repeatedly?  Unless you are advocating NO course markings of ANY sort and NO yardage books, then players know pretty quickly that the bunker that appears to be greenside is actually set back from the green.  Or that there is a small pot bunker that they can't see and can't carry just past the big bunker they can see and can carry.  We have both of those features at my club, but they only fooled me the first time I played the course; for the other 699 rounds, I've remembered...

Architectural features are there, for the most part, to catch errant, poorly struck golf shots, or to provide the risk in a risk-reward shot, or to frame the hole visually.  Those functions don't change by knowing the distance QUICKLY, which measuring devices allow.  I see NO difference between a GPS watch and a yardage book and/or pacing, except that pacing and the yardage book take a lot longer to use.

So again, though they are much lamented here, I can't see how measuring devices change the PERCEPTION of architecture in any significant way.

[Tom_Doak]

So again, though they are much lamented here, I can't see how measuring devices change the PERCEPTION of architecture in any significant way.

A.G.:  Knowing the yardages clearly makes good players better, as Jack Nicklaus and Deane Beman proved after taking the idea from Dr. Gene Andrews.

What I don't understand though is why it took so long for that to become universal.  If, as you argue, camouflage is ineffective after a few plays and local knowledge makes things obvious, then why did it take a hundred years for knowing the yardage to become commonplace? 

Could it be that up until recently, most people didn't have such big egos about their own ability to hit a shot precise distances?

[Brent Hutto]

Tom,

Golf would not be the first human endeavor to experience a surprisingly long period of inertia during which what in retrospect was a clearly superior process, technique or way of thinking remained untapped. Often once the first visible adoption of a new paradigm takes place, it becomes almost universally adopted so quickly that everyone asks "Why didn't someone think of this years ago?'.

This has happened in warfare where one war after another for decades is fought under a certain paradigm and then some overwhelmingly superior technology or tactic comes along and makes everything obsolete overnight. The yardage revolution in golf is somewhat unique in not being brought about by a technological change. Pacing off distances and making a yardage book could have been done as easily by Young Tom Morris and by Deane Beaman.

My theory is, only golfers extremely hidebound and traditionalist nature can explain why such a simple yet advantageous technique did not come about a century or two earlier.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'm not sure I want to go here because I've documented in the past how much I am against all distance devices including yardage markers. My compromises are for the reasons Philip mention but I still think most to all courses should get by with only 150 yard markers for people to glance at before they pull out a club.

Are you against them for yourself or for everybody?
If the latter...
What about getting distances from google? What about pacing off distances during a practice round? Make them illegal?

I'm against them for everybody but I have no problem if people want to pace off the course before a game or measure something off google earth. Personally, I can't imagine ever taking the game so seriously that I'd want to do that but I'd be happy with as much preparation by the golfer as he wishes. On the course, that info just shouldn't be available.

[Thomas Dai]

Question - anyone just use their see-through rangefinder to get distances to pins? Or do you also use it to focus in on things like bunker lips, bridges, trees etc?

Atb