USGA limiting green books. What about yardage books?

[A.G._Crockett]

It seems to me the reasoning behind this was to eliminate information that is not easily deduced.


In a practice round a caddy can easily pace off carry yardage to fairway bunkers or hazards, distance from various points of the fairway to the center of the green, how far bunkers are from green edges, etc, etc.


But ask that caddy to draw a mapped green showing all of the intricate breaks in topo map fashion down to the foot....no way in hell they are getting anything meaningful on paper for even one green... much less all 18.


In my opinion, I suspect this kind of information (relying on outside sources) is what they had in mind to ban...and I agree with it.


It follows the same logic of why they aren't allowed to use wind gauges or apps that show temperature.

Kalen,This is a really good take on what should and should not be allowable; it's a reasonable standard.
My only problem with what you have written is that you are crediting the USGA with a far more measured, rational, and even wise response that we typically see from them.  But who knows?

[Tom_Doak]

Well, it's also a practical issue.  The cat is out of the bag regarding yardage books, and several companies that specialize in them would sue the USGA over the viability of their business.


Maybe they can just pay off whomever it is that's compiling the green books.

[Thomas Dai]

Well, it's also a practical issue.  The cat is out of the bag regarding yardage books, and several companies that specialize in them would sue the USGA over the viability of their business.
Maybe they can just pay off whomever it is that's compiling the green books.

+1
Money talks, even more so in the claim culture that is life these days.
atb

[Jeff Schley]

Another way to handle this is during your competitive rounds you are handed an approved yardage book with only allowable information along with your scorecard from the tournament official at the 1st tee.  Then everyone has the same.  You can use whatever you want for practice rounds, but in competitive rounds you have to use the same yardage book.
I remember on the mini tours one of my friends who played the old Nike/Nationwide/Gateway had some guy named "Fuk" (yes it did sound similar) who would come to the course the week before and laser the whole course and produce a yardage book that had everything and sell them to the players.  Anyone remember this?

[Dave Doxey]

Near impossible to write an effective rule that avoids loopholes.  Difference between green books, yardage books, hand drawn notes?


They tried & failed to get rid of long putters.


It will likely go the other way, with electronic devices such as range finders becoming legal and with those getting more detailed information.


As long as one doesn't use a protractor

[Michael Felton]

Michael

As a matter of interest what was the length of Mark Roes longest approach ? I'd imagine he got his drives well down the fairway and maybe was coming in from what was mid iron length for us normal people ? Don't get me wrong I'm all for not using yardage books or gizmo's and even try to walk the walk most of the time (sadly not always), but I'm not hitting a precision shot in from say 240 yards. Given the lengths these guys hit it, is it practical for them to eyeball it ?

Niall

Mostly around 100-175 or so. Course is about 6,550 yards and was playing relatively long at the time (i.e. not a lot of roll).

[Garland Bayley]

...Seeing Dustin Johnson think he's 170 when hes actually only 150 would be funny once then it wouldn't...

Maybe only once for highly skilled like you, but we hacks would find a continued perverse pleasure in it.

Actually, it seems top players played pretty well before yardage books, and you would seldom if ever see someone mistaking 150 for 170.

And, to quote Bobby Jones in 1928, "What's a yardage book?"

[A.G._Crockett]

Near impossible to write an effective rule that avoids loopholes.  Difference between green books, yardage books, hand drawn notes?


They tried & failed to get rid of long putters.


It will likely go the other way, with electronic devices such as range finders becoming legal and with those getting more detailed information.


As long as one doesn't use a protractor

Dave,We might disagree on this, but there was NO effort made to get rid of long putters; only of anchoring.  To wit, the maximum allowable length for a golf club is 48", but this still does not apply to putters.  It would seem that the anchoring ban might have been accompanied by a new rule regulating putter length had the USGA wished to start down that road, but no such rule was made.

[David_Tepper]

John Wood, Matt Kuchar's caddie, on green reading books:
https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/08/06/an-open-letter-to-the-usga-and-ra-new-green-reading-restrictions-are-a-misguided-mistake/

[Kalen Braley]

John Wood, Matt Kuchar's caddie, on green reading books:
https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/08/06/an-open-letter-to-the-usga-and-ra-new-green-reading-restrictions-are-a-misguided-mistake/

His Caddie isn't much of a poker player....


If he's going to collect green data anyways, and he can do it competently...why would he bother to submit this letter?


Squirm away....

[Garland Bayley]

...
Squirm away....

Yes, the USGA should squirm, because golf architects, golf legends, current top players, and now even caddies are calling on them to do something about distance. Gotta feel for the caddies. Carrying those bags 6800 yards is plenty. Why force them into another 1000 yards or more?

[V. Kmetz]

John Wood, Matt Kuchar's caddie, on green reading books:
https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/08/06/an-open-letter-to-the-usga-and-ra-new-green-reading-restrictions-are-a-misguided-mistake/

His Caddie isn't much of a poker player....

If he's going to collect green data anyways, and he can do it competently...why would he bother to submit this letter?

Squirm away....

I don't know what the Poker and "squirm away" reference mean, but I think the reason he's writing this letter is because:

• he forecasts/worries that this will cause enforcement imbroglios that cast the players/their reputation into disrepute.
• he wishes to advance that such information is the extended result of the same legitimate hard work that goes into all of the player-caddie preparation for a course.
• he wants to announce both the anecdotal and empirical evidence that these books don't change outcomes, are not even used by some players on the top of the relevant putting stats, and are not a cheat against the spirit of the game.
• he wants to voice his opinion (that many here share on the same basis) that this is all a red herring and a temporary straw man to distract from the gross disfigurements of what the ruling bodies have done nothing about...412 yard drives and 225 yard 6 -irons.

His hair isn't on fire and he's talking reasonable points on all of it...precisely the letter that we should be hearing a lot more of.


cheers  vk

[Kalen Braley]

That's a different issue, of which I agree needs to be addressed as well.


But on topic, if the USGA said no more detailed yardage books, the caddies would laugh cause it wouldn't matter, wouldn't even hear a peep from em, cause they getting that info either way.  But detailed green books...they can't replace that.

[V. Kmetz]

That's a different issue, of which I agree needs to be addressed as well.


But on topic, if the USGA said no more detailed yardage books, the caddies would laugh cause it wouldn't matter, wouldn't even hear a peep from em, cause they getting that info either way.  But detailed green books...they can't replace that.

But Kalen WHY...WHY has/would a ruling body do this to yardage books/done this for green books...?  They made statements in announcing the rule about judgement-this, and integral parts of-that...on WHAT damn evidence?!! Their emotions? Their memories of the old days? Their legal authority to do it may be one thing, but the "moral/ethical" soundness that underpins the legal authority is quite another...and here it's just a willy-nilly eyeball of it...this caddie has, in this letter, much more evidence of why its ill-conceived to do than they have that its a proper evolution.


Again, everyone has the right to their own opinion about it and this board is for that, but where is the underpinning, the foundation of the new rule/this opinion in any presentable/reasonable fact?


I mean I've seen no data offered that shows the better the green book, the better the performance... I've seen nothing offered about tertiary issues of slow play on greens... I've seen nothing offered that says with authority that the historical record indicates a deleterious trend on any such pre-gathered info... as the Tour caddie says, you think a 59 is being shot on the Old Course because of arrows in a book?  What planet are you on?


"I just like/don't like it" is the real thing here... a pandering to some percentage of people who agree with it...no facts, no evidence, no comparisons, no seasons of study, no long deliberation... sound familiar?


And no, it can't be segregated from the red-herring concept of what they are really not addressing.


cheers   vk

[Mark Fedeli]

Again, everyone has the right to their own opinion about it and this board is for that, but where is the underpinning, the foundation of the new rule/this opinion in any presentable/reasonable fact?

I hear you, but some of these things (yardage books, long putters, etc) simply didn't exist for hundreds of years of the game. No one had even dreamt of them. Why are they allowed in without any underpinning or presentable/reasonable fact other than one guy figuring out a loophole to make things easier for himself?


I certainly don't begrudge anyone who thinks yardage books are perfectly within the spirit of the game and should be 100% legal for all-time, but my opinion is that a point could just as equally be made that they aren't and they shouldn't be.

[Garland Bayley]

Or, the USGA could be working on getting a string of controversial rules implemented and accepted before they deal with distance so they can point to a track record of acceptance when people object to the latest.

[David_Tepper]

"I hear you, but some of these things (yardage books, long putters, etc) simply didn't exist for hundreds of years of the game"


Mark F. -

Golf was also played for many, many years without sand wedges, steel or graphite shafts, composite clubheads, balata/urethane covered golf balls, etc.

The fact is, golf has constantly change/evolved over the years in how it is played, what it is played with and what it is played on. That is the history and tradition of the game.

DT

[Kalen Braley]

VK,


I understand the frustration, but are you going to take one Caddies word as gospel? You'd be  making the mistake of where's the multiple points of data, the evidence, etc.


- As I see it, if this was a non issue, why did he even bother writing this to begin with?
- If the green books are so hard to use and often counter productive with as many made putts as missed, then why does nearly everyone on tour use them at every tourney?
- He even admits trying to map every green would be difficult. tedious work (of which I agree) and then has the audacity to say getting rid of them will level the playing field.
- He also gets the using information part wrong...of course they can't block what they've learned from past play and informal scribbles on notes somewhere....or even using a green book in practice rounds


He played a lousy poker hand....


P.S.  I don't dispute distance is the bigger issue, but if you think the whining is bad on this, wait for the crying on that one.. 

[V. Kmetz]

I hear you, but some of these things (yardage books, long putters, etc) simply didn't exist for hundreds of years of the game. No one had even dreamt of them. Why are they allowed in without any underpinning or presentable/reasonable fact other than one guy figuring out a loophole to make things easier for himself?

I certainly don't begrudge anyone who thinks yardage books are perfectly within the spirit of the game and should be 100% legal for all-time, but my opinion is that a point could just as equally be made that they aren't and they shouldn't be.

Mark, I can't answer why something was allowed in before/since our time...why steel shafts, why gloves, sunglasses, why rain gear, why massive scoreboards that allow the competitors to know their position on the leaderboard (which Vardon didn't get), why (when) was the course/hole yardage ever known, why identifying numbers on the irons... but yardage books, even green books, are part of that flotsam...


The game has never had a pure essence, it's been about the better mousetrap since its birth, in fact, perhaps the most seminal rules/plays contretemps is the break between Old Tom and Alain Robertson, when Robertson had the monopoly on the featherie ball and discovered Tom was using the guttie....off to Prestwick with ya then laddie!


So, no Mark, and your last sentence is what I resist the most, there isn't (IN CONTEXT) a legit 50/50 or even 90-10 split of pure opinion available here...you either recognize/challenge the empirical truth Kuchar's caddie speaks (no discernible advantage) or you have to examine any/every evolution of playing the game in such a light. Neither side gets to claim rightful purity.


"Progress has never been a bargain, you have to pay for it. I think somewhere there's a man who says 'Mister, you want the telephone? Ok, but you lose the charm of distance and privacy...Madam, you may vote, but at a price - you can no longer retreat behind the powderpuff and your petticoat...Mister you may conquer the air, but the clouds will smell of gasoline and the birds will lose their wonder.'"


cheers   vk

[Kalen Braley]

VK,


No discernible advantage??....while he throws a snowflake-like tantrum at the thought of not being able to use them?


Right.    I'm not buying that crap cake..

[V. Kmetz]

VK,


No discernible advantage??....while he throws a snowflake-like tantrum at the thought of not being able to use them?


Right.    I'm not buying that crap cake..

KB, c'mon, stop it, you're making my brief summary and his direct quotes one and the same and adding a spirit (snoflake-like tantrum/crap cake) that is unavailable/undue in the actual letter. To the extent and purposes he writes this letter, it is because they have already put a lot of work and time into the books creation, and they believe, competitively, that their individual work and creation of THEIR book, with THEIR notes and appraisal is more effective than the next guys.... kind of an arms race mentality, where you already have enough firepower to nuke each other nine times over, when ironically once is enough."


I'll talk about it soberly, but not if the ad-hominem digs are going to be the weapon.


cheers  vk

[Peter Pallotta]

Great speech from 'Inherit the Wind'. Ah, were only the braintrusts of golf minor Clarence Darrows instead of major HL Menckens....

[JMEvensky]

Great speech from 'Inherit the Wind'. Ah, were only the braintrusts of golf minor Clarence Darrows instead of major HL Menckens....

Should've guessed you would catch that reference. Great movie,great scene.

[Kalen Braley]

VK,


My last post was just a bit tongue in cheek, see the one before that for a more direct response.


P.S.  I don't dispute the caddies have put an amazing amount of work and detail into thier notes, and I don't begrudge them for doing it.  But I think what the powers that be are trying to do, is restore golfer intutition and judgement into shot making and putting, instead of having it all worked out for them and then just have to get the ball started on the right line. 


Just like the big bombers have an advantage of going 40-50 yards by their opponents, why not also encourage competitive balance to let the guys who are good at reading greens and putting have thier advantage?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It seems to me the reasoning behind this was to eliminate information that is not easily deduced.

In a practice round a caddy can easily pace off carry yardage to fairway bunkers or hazards, distance from various points of the fairway to the center of the green, how far bunkers are from green edges, etc, etc.

But ask that caddy to draw a mapped green showing all of the intricate breaks in topo map fashion down to the foot....no way in hell they are getting anything meaningful on paper for even one green... much less all 18.

Agreed.

Heck, they don't even have to do that - they could use Google Earth to measure the distances if they wanted to. And distances are considered "common knowledge." Whether a piece of the green is 2.8% slope or 3.5% is not.

They tried & failed to get rid of long putters.

No, they wanted to get rid of an anchored stroke. If they wanted to ban the equipment itself, they could have done that.

No discernible advantage??....while he throws a snowflake-like tantrum at the thought of not being able to use them?Right.    I'm not buying that crap cake..

Yup.