Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Sean_A on March 17, 2008, 06:24:53 AM
-
"5th hole, 395 yards; A modern day architect has many tricks up his sleeve in order to challenge the golfer. Some ways aren't so subtle like forced carries over water (by the way, there are no water hazards at Hidden Creek) and others are subtle, like creating depth perception problems. In the case of the bunkerless 5th, rather than cutting a bunker into the slope at the right front of the green, Coore & Crenshaw brought in piles of dirt and built a hazard that obscures much of the green. The catch here is that the 5th green is the second deepest green on the course at 48 yards and without a good view of the hole, the author imagines that good players wll struggle in gauging the right distance for their approach shots, especially to the back hole locations."
Below is a pic which brings Ran's description to life.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000004821.jpg)
What is an archie to do if folks want to rob the thrill from the game? Isn't it time we all take a look at why we took up golf?
Ciao
-
Sean
As Tommy Armour once said, blind shots are only "blind" the first time you play them. So, the only person you really fool with a folly like #5 ar Hidden Creek is the first time player who has neither a distance finder, nor sprinkler head markings, nor Kirby discs, nor 150 yards bushes, nor a yardage guide, nor a caddie, nor a friendly fellow competitor who can advise him about the amount of "dead ground" between the folly and the middle of the green. Hitting the blind shot the first time IS one of the many fun things about golf, but what the game is really about is thinking about and executing golf shots. When the shot is blind and you have no information about the location of the pin, your brain is largely neutered and you only get a fraction of the pleasure. On the other hand, if you KNOW that you have (say) 163 to the pin, but your shot is obscured or otherwise camouflaged, your brain is stimulated and the total pleasure is enhanced.
Slainte
Rich
-
Sean
As Tommy Armour once said, blind shots are only "blind" the first time you play them. So, the only person you really fool with a folly like #5 ar Hidden Creek is the first time player who has neither a distance finder, nor sprinkler head markings, nor Kirby discs, nor 150 yards bushes, nor a yardage guide, nor a caddie, nor a friendly fellow competitor who can advise him about the amount of "dead ground" between the folly and the middle of the green. Hitting the blind shot the first time IS one of the many fun things about golf, but what the game is really about is thinking about and executing golf shots. When the shot is blind and you have no information about the location of the pin, your brain is largely neutered and you only get a fraction of the pleasure. On the other hand, if you KNOW that you have (say) 163 to the pin, but your shot is obscured or otherwise camouflaged, your brain is stimulated and the total pleasure is enhanced.
Slainte
Rich
Ah, Grasshopper, you forgot a few things. One, the archie may have provided an option where the player can gain a view of the pin if he takes the risk on. Two, Tommy Armour was wrong and has been every time you repeated his line. A blind shot is always blind. Experience helps, but anytime a guy plays an obscured/blind shot, there is the element of sensory deprivation which may effect the outcome of the shot. This lack of sensory input means the player has to be a bit more savy. Having said that, there are blind shots which are not terribly stimulating, but the best ones are. Three, I agree that executing golf shots is what playing the game at the highest level is about. However, this does not mean that the exact yardage to a hole has to be given to a golfer for him to execute.
Ciao
-
8)
Blind shot yes, but sensible, most definitely..
tell me why I can pull a club on many approach shots before even getting to my ball.. regardless of whether its 93 or 99 yards..
and some cannot
-
Sean,
Is it safe to assume that you do not use any type of yardage aid when you play golf? (whether that is a range finder, caddie, sprinkler heads, 150-yard markers, scorecard, tee-markers, etc ,etc)
Cheers
George
-
Sean,
Not sure what you are arguing against here. Are you saying that all yardage aids (lasers, sprinklers, cow skulls, caddies, etc.) should be done away with? Perhaps there are folks that think "eyeballing" shots is part of the test of golf. You are free to feel that way.
I, for one, think that the biggest difference between pros and amateurs is distance control, and that is the part of the game I work most on. Note: I'm not saying pros hit their 9i exactly 147 yards every time. I am saying pros can hit a 147 yard shot consistently with 6 different clubs. In order for me to learn that skill, I need to know how far away key architectural elements (and the flag, BTW) are.
I would argue that the shot in the picture is actually made more complicated when you have the distance. The conflict between what your eye sees and what the sprinkler head says is what will lead to a less than fully committed swing. I think that is what the archies intended.
Cheerio,
mjw
-
Sean
I forgot nothing, and understand everything. You need to try harder, even if your goal is just to get past the larval stage.... ;)
-
Sean,
Totally agree that the beautiful hole pictured loses almost all relavence startegically with modern yardages. As soon as a pro or excellent amateur knows his number and how far from the right edge of the green the hole is, it's a matter of a simple shot and the "deception" factor is non-existent.
Unfortunately, the "horse is way out of the barn" and golf will never go back to "eye-balling" days. The ability to determine how far you were was a huge skill that is unneccesary now >:( Much of the ground game, "keep it in front of you", conservative stratgey is gone. With exact yardages there is no need to play that way and I think that is one of the most fundamental changes in the way the game was played say prior to 1960.
BTW players have always tried to gain advantages when they could. A player used to be able to employ a caddie and as many forecaddies as he could afford to help prevent lost balls and who could presumabley indicate to the player hazards and other obstacles that were "blind" to the player.
The Rules of golf now specifies that forecaddies are only employable by The Committee to avoid the situation of a player having this advantage due to wealth.
On tour some players had their caddies walk the course to determine hole locations prior to The Committee handing out hole location sheets.
I'd love to see a return to sight/memory only. You or your caddie must only use info your senses can detect and/or your brain can remember--NOTHING written, shot, lasered etc....OR go ahead and say anything is fair game--allow books, lasers, wind devices--EVERYTHING.
ALL or NOTHING because this trying to split the baby in half stuff is nonsense.
-
Case against yardage aids, good question, I would go one step further, are we talking about golf as it was played for centuries or a new game based upon golf which allows all forms of aids.
Before going further I accept that there will be changes to clubs and balls as years go by to improve equipment reliability but certainly not for distance which, I believe should be firmly controlled. This has never really happened. Technology used to improve reliability of equipment but not distance, I happily endorse.
The introduction of Haskell changed the face or should I say the length of courses within a few years. Improved the reliability of the ball (minimising shatter/chipping), but alas it travelled further. No one in those days saw the consequences or understood the meaning of allowing the ball to travel longer distances. The game change overnight, poor golfers managed more distance. It was not until the course lengthened that some balance was gained. But at what cost, new longer courses, many old course abandoned as no more land available to expand. This was the start of evermore money being required to play and build courses.
To those who want their super clubs, Path finders GPS etc. etc., none of which I believe has been outlawed, go and enjoy you game. It’s your right and choice currently to play the game along these lines, but please don’t, just don’t tell me you are interested in GOLF or its future, you are just interested in your game.
I like many others believe that I don’t need anything more than my clubs/ball and scorecard. As for where I am on a course and to judge distance, nature provided me with a brain and eyes to work that out. If I screw it up, it’s my fault alone. To me the ultimate challenge is to using my brain and eyes, not some artificial aid, but hey guys, like you, I have the right to a choice.
A simple question, Do you think that in 10 years time after playing with all these aids, your game would have improved? Easy way to test that would be select a new course, play the first round without any aids then another with all your toys. Which would reflect your true score/ability?
Pro or amateur or aspiring Pro, whatever, enjoy your game but allow other to continue playing their real honest golf.
-
Fully agree, Chris.
Sean and Melvyn, while comfortably quirky, are really just being obstreperous.
Rich
-
A question Richard
When you started playing golf was it because you liked the
game as it was played or was it because of all the new aids
creeping in?
Obstreperous – how about being loyal to my original beliefs!!
-
Hi Melyvn
I started playing the game with cut off hickories probably before you were born, and the only new aid in those days were steel shafts, which I finally got when I was 22. Regardless of what new aids you play with today, the game is still the same--hit it, find it, hit it again...... It's quaintly obstreperous to rail against yardage aids, but they've been here for all of my lifetime and they are not going to go away. IMO, of course.
Cheers
rich
-
Yardage aids allow you to know exactly what you need to do, and to try and execute it.
There are golf course architects who attempt to do the same thing - show you exactly what you have to do, and then ask you to execute it.
Same thing?
-
With or without a yardage device, most golfers are going to make a point to get the yardage to the hole. These course design features are not compromised by knowing the yardage. When what you see and what you know don't seem to match up, the architect has succeeded in introducing some level of doubt and uncertainty.
-
Richard
‘hit it, find it, hit it again’ perhaps golf in a nutshell – all I am saying is that I can do that by just using my eyes and I am happier for it. My father never stopped to calculate yardage by using markers or any other means, he walked up to the ball, observed the ground, green and flag and surrounding area plus other players, all the time letting his brain and eyes advised him the choice of club and how to play the shot. That, to me is the only way to play golf.
But if you want, or feel you need aids to help your game – then they are not illegal, use them.
At your great age, I hope you enjoy your game. My father did and died on a golf course when 62 but his brother played until nearly 90.
PS A wise old man would keep his mobile on when he plays - with
emergency services numbers on standby - at his age time is critical.
Trust you are not that old but remember to charge the batteries!!
-
B,Richard writes:
When what you see and what you know don't seem to match up, the architect has succeeded in introducing some level of doubt and uncertainty.
Other than potentially hurting the pace of play, this would be my primary objection to yardage devices. In a case where your yardage doesn't match your visual perception, who are you going to believe? In the old days, when it was just 150 markers, kirby markers, sprinkler heads, yardage books, caddies, etc... you might doubt the yardage and rely on your visual perception. Or you would be conflicted which to believe. But now, with a device you carry with you and rely on constantly, you are going to ignore the architect's visual tricks and go with the yardage on your device. You don't have the uncertainty the architect tried to endow. The architects visual trick becomes less effective, and eventually golf will just be a bunch of clearly defined targets.
Cheers,
Dan King
Golf is deceptively simple, endlessly complicated. A child can play it well, and a grown man can never master it. Any single round if it is full of unexpected triumphs and seemingly perfect shots that end in disaster. It is almost a science, yet it is a puzzle without an answer. It is gratifying and tantalizing, precise and unpredictable. It requires complete concentration and total relaxation. It satisfies the soul and frustrates the intellect. It is at the same time rewarding and maddening - and it is without a doubt the greatest game mankind has ever invented.
--Robert Forgan
-
I agree with Matt....this issue has been settled a long time ago with yardage books, sprinkler heads, 150 markers, pin sheets ect. You can't "hide" distance from a golfer determined to get it. I've seen guys pace off 50, 80, 100 yards to get the exact distance to a flag. Pros and their caddies walk the course and keep books with exact numbers. The game has just evolved to the point where it's easier to get that precise number, but that hasn't dramatically changed the game.
People are different...some like "feel" and are comfortable hitting based on what they see. Others are more comfortable with the number. Nothing wrong with either...you've still got to hit the shot. And with elevation changes, wind and elements of visual confusion, even the precise number isn't that precise (how many times have you heard a golfer look at a sprinkler head and say 150! It looks a lot further than that!)
It's also important for golf to do things to keep the game appealing for folks that aren't hard core golfers. The number of golfers is declining, in part because it takes too long to play...and I think that on balance, yardage aids help pace of play.
As a "purist," if I could eliminate one technological "advance" from the game of golf, it wouldn't be yardage aids...it would be golf carts for able bodied players.
-
Melyvn
When we play I'll show you my combination Solar Powered GPS-WiFi-Defibrillator that also serves as a head cover. It's dead cool.
Rich
-
Richard
Dead Cool
I bring along some garlic, wooden stake, a cross and as much silver as possible (for the beer, of course) – when did you guys get Sun tolerant?
-
..."The architects visual trick becomes less effective, and eventually golf will just be a bunch of clearly defined targets" - Dan King
Possibly, but anytime there is a conflict between your eyes and the given number, there is doubt.
Throw in wind and yardage aids have even less meaning.
-
Lets go one set further
Looking forward to the debate on the best Night Vision Goggles
to complete the pack of modern aids GPS, Path Finder etc., etc.
Whose is going to be the first to say ‘Don’t be ridiculous’ or are
we so into aids that you really want to know? Also looking forward
to the explanation why anyone would want one on a course. Perhaps
for those dark overcast days, maybe helps confirm the yardage as you
can't read the GPS or Path Finder in the dark?
What about body armour - valid point because once you start hitting the distance you may be able to kill a hawk (with your first shot) or even hit that guy who moaned about your modern aids - a never ending story.
Enjoy your game!
-
Sean,
whilst agreeing with you that yardages have taken away some of suspence of the game and some the skill required. IMHO however, yardages are only of real assistance to players with 5-6 handicap and better, as higher handicappers don't usually have that sort of distance control on the course. All yardages have done for the average player is slow him down which is as good a reason to get rid of them as any.
-
All yardages have done for the average player is slow him down which is as good a reason to get rid of them as any.
But you can't get rid of players using yardage. The only question at hand is will you eliminate yardage aids and make them do it with yardage books and pacing or will you let them use things like posts, sprinklers, rangefinders, etc. that make it faster, easier and more accurate?
Once they've seen the city you can't keep them down on the farm.
-
All yardages have done for the average player is slow him down which is as good a reason to get rid of them as any.
It takes about 5 seconds to get a yardage with a Bushnell Pinseeker. How is this slow? I'm willing to bet that if there were no yardages on a golf course, the average player would take a lot longer than 5 seconds trying to figure out and guess how far he is away.
-
You have 2 options:
1. Make EVERY yardage aid illegal.
2. Make EVERY yardage aid legal.
You know how those sprinkler heads / bushes / posts / yardage books got their numbers? They didn't dig out Old Tom Morris and have him guess how far it is to the green. Instead, two guys with surveying equipment lasered exact yardages. Again, a simple 150 yard stake and the newest rangefinder will yield the exact same results.
Just because the eyes may play tricks on you doesn't mean that the markers are wrong.....that's why its called an optical illusion. If you take a situation where your mind and yardage plate don't sync up, trust the plate. The UV lights that are used to mark sprinkler heads don't care about principal nose bunkers.
-
It takes about 5 seconds to get a yardage with a Bushnell Pinseeker. How is this slow? I'm willing to bet that if there were no yardages on a golf course, the average player would take a lot longer than 5 seconds trying to figure out and guess how far he is away.
Not to mention the extra time playing the next shot after they guess the wrong yardage. And you can't say that that only affects low handicappers. Basic probabilty says that unless 100% of your shots are hit at completely random distances, taking out the extra variable (yardage) will yield more accurate golf over time.
CPS
-
Even some of the "old guard" golf associations are now allowing the Laser yardage gizmos. It was just recently announced that the Metropolitan Golf Assoc. has approved them for use in tournaments this year. We have been using them in the GAP for 2 years now.
-
All yardages have done for the average player is slow him down which is as good a reason to get rid of them as any.
It takes about 5 seconds to get a yardage with a Bushnell Pinseeker. How is this slow? I'm willing to bet that if there were no yardages on a golf course, the average player would take a lot longer than 5 seconds trying to figure out and guess how far he is away.
JS,
in days gone by (when the 3 hour round was a slow one) lots of golfers would already have eyed up the shot and selected their club before reaching the ball. A swift practice swing and the ball was on its way.
Nowadays, no thought is given till they reach the ball, then they have to unpack the range laser ajust it, check the yardage from another point, decide which club,.......
5 seconds ::)
-
Play golf where it is windy and dry and you will find that these little yardage gizmo's don't help so much. Play golf where it is soft and still, and then maybe a few of us are good enough to capitalize on the information available.
Joe
-
Clint
In My Opinion I would go for 1
But would accept distance markers for
those who can't play the game without
yardage.
-
"Sean
I forgot nothing, and understand everything. You need to try harder, even if your goal is just to get past the larval stage.... ;)"
Richard the Magnificent:
I may not agree with you that often but I wholeheartedly agree with you above. Sean Arble really hasn't gotten to even the larval stage.
It is a bit off-putting when some guy like that adamantly states Tommy Armour is just flat-ass wrong about something like that. Something tells me Tommy Armour may've known a bit more about all aspects of golf than Sean Arble.
I've been through that realization myself one time. Once I was hitting balls on the range down at Gulfstream and Betty Jameson (two time US Open winner) was right next to me. She was an Armour disciple if there ever was one and she told me Armour recommended playing the ball a bit farther back in the stance than I was. I told her I thought he was wrong about that and she just looked at me and said that Armour probably knew a little bit more about the game of golf than I did. I waited about a minute and then just said to her that on a certain amount of reflection she was probably right about that. ;)
Frankly, if Armour could say a shot isn't blind after the first time, particularly regarding depth perception, that is pretty cool because Armour played his entire competitive career with one eye and most everyone says gauging depth perception is very hard using only one eye.
-
Tom
Aren't you the knucklehead that insists the course is a competitor? I think I will stick with the low road definitions of competitor and blindness. You can have the high road.
Ciao
-
"5th hole, 395 yards; A modern day architect has many tricks up his sleeve in order to challenge the golfer. Some ways aren't so subtle like forced carries over water (by the way, there are no water hazards at Hidden Creek) and others are subtle, like creating depth perception problems. In the case of the bunkerless 5th, rather than cutting a bunker into the slope at the right front of the green, Coore & Crenshaw brought in piles of dirt and built a hazard that obscures much of the green. The catch here is that the 5th green is the second deepest green on the course at 48 yards and without a good view of the hole, the author imagines that good players wll struggle in gauging the right distance for their approach shots, especially to the back hole locations."
Below is a pic which brings Ran's description to life.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000004821.jpg)
What is an archie to do if folks want to rob the thrill from the game? Isn't it time we all take a look at why we took up golf?
Ciao
A case for yardage aids:
If I were playing this hole, and was trying to score, I would step off the distance by foot....counting all the way....1...2.....3.....123....124...125....145.....146.....multiply the time it takes to do that by 4, by the number of 4somes, and we have ourselves a horrible day of golf.
-
I really don't think that this type of technology really deprives from the game or the architecture. I'm not really sure how it makes people play slower? For me it makes it a lot quicker. For those who want absolutely no yardage aids at all, fine, it might be tough hitting a shot with your eyes closed, but then again maybe thats real GOLF. Melvin do you subscribe to the same playing attire as they did back in the day, I can see that being a real limitation? ;D The best way to sum up this issue is each to his own as long as it's legal. Once you have seen a course 10 plus times, a lot of times you know what club / shot is required no matter where you are anyway. That being said for the a go around on a course where you've never played and likely won't be back anytime soon, it's either a caddy or a yardage aid. I also believe that if your gonna pay a premium price at a great course, then any help whether it be a caddie, sprinkler head, yardage guide, laser will allow you to enjoy yourself.
If thats not your cup of tea, then hey I'm all for it. Sincerely,
DPN
-
"Tom
Aren't you the knucklehead that insists the course is a competitor? I think I will stick with the low road definitions of competitor and blindness. You can have the high road."
Why yes, Monsieur Arble, I am---me and at least Maxie Behr. MaxieB maintained that the golf course is the only actual "opponent" but only in the sense that the golf course is the only thing that ACTUALLY CAN OPPOSE the golfer and specifically the golfer's golf ball in a physical sense since in golf a golf ball is not vied for between human opponents so there is virtually no possible way that human opponents can be in actually physical opposition to one another in the game of golf.
Would you like me to make that more clear for you Monsieur Arble? Are you aware that in the game of golf a human opponent cannot exert influence on the golf ball of another golfer? Yes, I'm sure you probably are aware of that. For that reason a golfer cannot actually be in physical opposition with another golfer or his golf ball.
If you can understand that then you are on the high road Monsieur Arble. If you cannot understand that then confine yourself to the low road which you seem to be on and I will be in Scotland before Ye!
-
"In the case of the bunkerless 5th, rather than cutting a bunker into the slope at the right front of the green, Coore & Crenshaw brought in piles of dirt and built a hazard that obscures much of the green."
Monsieur Arble, you are wrong that Coore and Crenshaw brought in piles of dirt for that hazard that obscures much of the green. Coore and Crenshaw do not BRING IN piles of dirt in their projects. If they need dirt somewhere they invariably generate dirt and fill by essentially going down not up first when they start. In this way they generate their own dirt and do not have to bring it in, you dumb cluck! ;)
-
As far as speed of play goes, the Georgia State Golf Assoc. has allowed them and continues to allow them because our experience has been that rangefinders in our competitions have sped up play.
The decision/rule that allows fellow competitors to share information regarding yardage has also helped.
I hate the things but I now own and use one and have seen the positive effect on tournament speed of play. It is only a matter of time before you see them in USGA qualifiers and beyond.
-
It's clear that you don't read or understand what I write because you can't even get my name right - If you can't read my name how on earth can you read a rangefinder?
-
"In the case of the bunkerless 5th, rather than cutting a bunker into the slope at the right front of the green, Coore & Crenshaw brought in piles of dirt and built a hazard that obscures much of the green."
Monsieur Arble, you are wrong that Coore and Crenshaw brought in piles of dirt for that hazard that obscures much of the green. Coore and Crenshaw do not BRING IN piles of dirt in their projects. If they need dirt somewhere they invariably generate dirt and fill by essentially going down not up first when they start. In this way they generate their own dirt and do not have to bring it in, you dumb cluck! ;)
Tom
You are beefing with the wrong chap. Forward your comments to Ran.
BTW
I can walk the low to and from Scotland quicker than you can figure out how to work the sat nav in yer British 4x4.
Ciao
-
Ryan Potts writes:
If I were playing this hole, and was trying to score, I would step off the distance by foot....counting all the way....1...2.....3.....123....124...125....145.....146.....multiply the time it takes to do that by 4, by the number of 4somes, and we have ourselves a horrible day of golf.
One damn fine reason why marshals should have taser guns and the power to use them.
Your argument is strong. Either give us artificial distance aids or we will hold up the game for everyone else. But if it were up to me, I'd just kick you off the course and never let you back. Your business isn't worth other customers being inconvenienced.
Cheers,
Dan King
Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago. Golf courses are becoming far to long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken an interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it's not infrequently takes over three hours.
--Alister MacKenzie
-
"BTW
I can walk the low to and from Scotland quicker than you can figure out how to work the sat nav in yer British 4x4."
Monsieur Sean:
That's very likely. As a matter of fiction there's no question of it. That nav system in me British 4x4 is a piece of Liverpudlian ref-use. Every time I come back from NYC to Philly I test it in different ways and every time it tries to take me off the NJ Turnpike at every blinking exit no matter how I program it. Even the Range Rover service department can't figure the friggin' thing out. It's no danged wonder the lymmers couldn't conquer the continent of Afrika no matter how many ways they came at it or tried to get around in it----their louseeze Range Rovers weren't worth a pence and their nav systems still ain't. My Nav system's voice component has a whole bunch of language options and I have mine programmed to a Brit. I call him Alister Mackenzie. He's actually capable of having a fairly decent conversation with me on golf course architecture but as far as helping me get where I want to go he's a disaster. I really let him have it the other day and he actually told me to bugger off.
Oh, sorry old boy, I forgot----Ford owns Range Rover now. Ford will be lucky if the corporation is still in existence in 2009.
"Tom
You are beefing with the wrong chap. Forward your comments to Ran."
Ran Morrissett does have his good moments I will admit. But he also has unbelievably abysmal lapses in judgement. I've seen the best and the worst of him. He does do great course reviews---that is true but every now and again while analyzing golf architecture he falls flat on his face as he did with me once on the 15th fairway at Pacific Dunes and once on the 14th fairway at Sand Hills. And the night before at Sand Hills he actually left the screen door open in our room and let about 3/4 of the flies in Central Nebraska in. His pathetic excuse was that he thought perhaps 100,000 flies might actually drown out my snoring.
-
Then maybe a few of us are good enough to capitalize on the information available.
Joe
That is patently false. One can refute all things on GCA, but you can't dismiss the laws of calculus. Not knowing a yardage adds a variable, while knowing yardage takes one away. Like I added before, unless your shots are hit to completely random distances 100% of the time, one would find it impossible NOT to benefit by knowing yardages. In layman's terms, the sun will shine on a dog's rear once in his life.
As for weather/turf conditions, I don't see how that muddies the situation. One can easily guestimate how much they will affect the shot and add/subtract from their yardage. Knowing the yardage is still more accurate than guessing in any situation.
On a side note, I find it odd that even 150 yard "bushes" which often turn into giant conifers over time are preferred to a discreet handheld device that's not even needed on every shot. On every course that has them, there are 36 yellow ribbons that need to be purchased and put to good use.
CPS
-
If anyone ever had a scintilla of doubt that golfers were nothing much more than uber-odd ducks and super silly rabbits Clint Squier's last post has removed it. ;)
On the other hand I agree with everything he said.
-
If anyone ever had a scintilla of doubt that golfers were nothing much more than uber-odd ducks and super silly rabbits Clint Squier's last post has removed it. ;)
On the other hand I agree with everything he said.
My mother happened to be my high school calc teacher, I had no choice.....totally brainwashed.
CPS
-
"My mother happened to be my high school calc teacher, I had no choice....."
Jeeesus Clint, I'm sorry to hear that. Have you consulted with Sigmund Freud about that?
-
"My mother happened to be my high school calc teacher, I had no choice....."
Jeeesus Clint, I'm sorry to hear that. Have you consulted with Sigmund Freud about that?
I promise my id is perfectly inline with normalcy. Its the superego that will sometimes fly off on a tangent.
Plus, I got a lot of free lunches.....everyone has the answers to the odd questions in the back of their books. I had the ever-illusive evens.
CPS
-
"Its the superego that will sometimes fly off on a tangent."
Of course it will. That is the very reason most of us participants are on this website.
-
Ryan Potts writes:
If I were playing this hole, and was trying to score, I would step off the distance by foot....counting all the way....1...2.....3.....123....124...125....145.....146.....multiply the time it takes to do that by 4, by the number of 4somes, and we have ourselves a horrible day of golf.
One damn fine reason why marshals should have taser guns and the power to use them.
Your argument is strong. Either give us artificial distance aids or we will hold up the game for everyone else. But if it were up to me, I'd just kick you off the course and never let you back. Your business isn't worth other customers being inconvenienced.
Cheers,
Dan King
Something very drastic ought to have been done years and years ago. Golf courses are becoming far to long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we had taken an interminably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it's not infrequently takes over three hours.
--Alister MacKenzie
Truth be told, tournament or no tournament, I've never taken longer than 10 seconds to hit a shot...of any kind. However, I couldn't pass up the hypothetical as I can envision this happening while I hit and walk ahead to the green.
And, why are the marshals the only one with tasers?
-
If any of the 78.4% of Americans that doubt our sanity as golfers took any of these comments to court we'd be screwed for sure! As for yardage markers, I was taught (35+ years ago) they were for "speeding up"
play. There for I have and always will look at them as a "crutch" for a player that is not in a hurry. Busy courses need them, but making the game easier is sad. Self-reliance, a feel for what you are doing was and , still is important .
-
As far as speed of play goes, the Georgia State Golf Assoc. has allowed them and continues to allow them because our experience has been that rangefinders in our competitions have sped up play.
The decision/rule that allows fellow competitors to share information regarding yardage has also helped.
I hate the things but I now own and use one and have seen the positive effect on tournament speed of play. It is only a matter of time before you see them in USGA qualifiers and beyond.
Chris - We have authorized the use of range finders in SC Golf Association events and they have absolutely increased the pace of play.
Golf has always incorporated distance aids in the playing of the game.
When I began playing golf there were no yardage indicators of any kind on any of the locals courses I played, public or private. But, everyone I played with knew the distances from various landmarks to the center of the greens on these courses... 150 from the big oak on #6, 175 to clear the pond from the third fence post on the left of #13, etc, etc, etc. This information was collected from various sources (including personal experience) and often written down in little notebooks that we kept in our bags. This information could really give one player an advantage over another who had not played a given course often enough to work out the yardages. Sure, you were often faced with shots that required some serious "eyeballing," but if you played a course regularly you quickly figured out the distances of the most usually encountered shots.
When 150 yard "bushes" began to appear they lessened the advantage of "local knowledge." The same with the fairway discs that started to appear a few years later marking 200, 175, 150, 100, etc... these markers just provided the same information to everyone that had previously been known to only the regular locals.
I can appreciate the argument for "natural" golf without any artificial distance aids, but would that include my doing away with the little notebook filled with "local knowledge" that I use to carry? If not, what's the point of eliminating distance aids? What's the difference between my knowing that it is 150 yards from a tree or 150 yards from a disc in the ground... or 150 yards from a handheld device?
-
It takes about 5 seconds to get a yardage with a Bushnell Pinseeker. How is this slow? I'm willing to bet that if there were no yardages on a golf course, the average player would take a lot longer than 5 seconds trying to figure out and guess how far he is away.
Not to mention the extra time playing the next shot after they guess the wrong yardage. And you can't say that that only affects low handicappers. Basic probabilty says that unless 100% of your shots are hit at completely random distances, taking out the extra variable (yardage) will yield more accurate golf over time.
CPS
Clint,
you counter your own argument. In general double digit golfers do not have the required distance control for yardages to make a difference. I know that there are many who think they can but most of these are kidding themselves. Distance control requires an understanding of the effect of the wind, elevation change, temperature, humidity, ground conditions and the players daily form to calculate and even this doesn't mean you can carry it out.
-
It takes about 5 seconds to get a yardage with a Bushnell Pinseeker. How is this slow? I'm willing to bet that if there were no yardages on a golf course, the average player would take a lot longer than 5 seconds trying to figure out and guess how far he is away.
Not to mention the extra time playing the next shot after they guess the wrong yardage. And you can't say that that only affects low handicappers. Basic probabilty says that unless 100% of your shots are hit at completely random distances, taking out the extra variable (yardage) will yield more accurate golf over time.
CPS
Clint,
you counter your own argument. In general double digit golfers do not have the required distance control for yardages to make a difference. I know that there are many who think they can but most of these are kidding themselves. Distance control requires an understanding of the effect of the wind, elevation change, temperature, humidity, ground conditions and the players daily form to calculate and even this doesn't mean you can carry it out.
No. Clint's argument is absolutely, 100% valid. Just because the high handicapper, whose 7 iron might go anything from 100 yards to 140 yards on any particular shot, doesn't have the distance control of Tiger Woods doesn't mean he doesn't, on average, gain a benefit from knowing that the flag is 130 yards away rather than 145. His clubs will each have an average distance and a spread. By choosing the right club he can enhance his odds of hitting the green at all and/or avoiding particularly unpleasant hazards.
As to all the factors involved, my experience is that nearly every golfer understands this, even if they can't elucidate it. They have a natural understanding (not the same as being able to make the adjustment) that each of those factors affects the distance a shot will fly.
-
Mark, thanks.....exactly my thoughts.
-
Yardage
I am being serious, so please bear with me as I am just trying to understand the use of this aid.
Let’s get down to basics; yardage is the distance from the ball to the flag.
If you play the same course a few time you get to understand distance by measuring from certain markers, feature or natural items like trees, rocks etc. Do those that use yardage aids still use them on a familiar course or only occasionally if your ball rests on a different area to normal?
If it’s your first time on a new course, I expect you use your aid at each stroke to determine distance. Therefore the aid has helped you confirm distance and through that assisted in selecting your ideal club for the shot
What I don’t understand is that you still have to take the shot, your mind and body are not automatons, your brain controls your movement, grip, swing and I presume you re-check the route, lay of the land, position of flag, the direction of the wind, make allowance for the weather and surrounding area before starting your swing/shot. In other words you recheck the whole approach details prior to hitting the ball - the only difference is being aware that the distance is XXX yards because of a marker or yardage aid. The stroke is purely the result of mind/body combination confirmed from your final sight check of your ball and target and has nothing to do with the information obtained from your artificial aid otherwise you would just walk up to the ball and hit it it’s prescribed distance. You see my point; the final stroke is down to you sighting the target and sod all to do with the aid, so why use them. You have proved you don’t need them to play, why on earth use them. So the same must applies to all golfers, including the Pro’s, the re-check prior to taking the shot is done by brain/eye coordination taking in visual view of target. Are you telling me that you are all so uncertain that you need a distance aid – sorry what rubbish, your last actions determines the shot.
I just do not see the need for high tech aids, however if you need distance markers to play your golf, then, why not use the course markers?
If aids help that much, I keep wondering why, when teeing off the Rangefinder is not used, for that matter when putting on a large Green why again is the aid not used, surly the same argument applies measuring distance from the flag – or is it that you can judge it better with your eyes? Or could it be something to do with looking totally ridiculous and stupid.
Distance markers are only really needed by the commentators to advise those watching on TV or listening on the car radio.
Unless you tell me that the final shot is programmed direct into your brain from the artificial aid and that you do not re-check prior to taking your shot – No, no one is surly saying that, are you?
Guys you just don’t need them.
-
Melvyn,
I use mine all the time unless I'm given a hole location sheet and am almost next to a known yardage. Why? Because it is quicker and more accurate than any other way to do it. Yes, I could just use my eyes and guesstimate the distance. Do I get it right? Sometimes. Does that make me a better player? No, I'm a better player when I can get some accurate information rather than just by estimating the distance.
I assume you never look at the yardage on the scorecard or a sign at the tee when you walk onto the tee of a par 3? Or look at the location of the stone in the ground relative to the tee markers? Does your club use different colored flags to show front/middle/back locations? Do you somehow block the color of that from your mind? If playing with a caddie do you ever listen to him about the distance from the hole or do you tell him to just shut up?
When I played 100+ rounds a year at Pumpkin Ridge, I didn't need to look at the yardage markers much. Besides I had most them memorized.
There are dozens of things we can use to get information about yardage. Range finders are just one way to get distance, nothing more nothing less. Even with that, we do have to take all the other factors mentioned into consideration before making the stroke. Why does it matter so much to some that a quicker, more accurate and modern way to do that one task is used?
You may be holier than me, but I'm as quick a player as anyone. I am a little quicker with the laser than without.
As for using them from the tee, I have done that to see what a particular carry or the distance to a dogleg might be. Fortunately I rarely have the honor these days so I can do that before it is my turn to play. I've used them on the putting green, but only when setting hole locations for a tournament. ;) It is quicker and more accurate than pacing. I don't think they are much use inside of about 40 yards as feel and the decisions on how to play the shot take priority over the exact distance.
-
Melvyn,
I just don't get it.
There are numerous factors to consider when playing a golf shot to the green, are there not? The #1 factor above everything else is YARDAGE...the proper yardage. If I have a shot and determine it's slightly uphill, with a cross wind, the temp is a little cool, & I have the proper yardage from the get go, I can make a decision on the club and type of shot I want to hit and go. If I FIRST had to guess at the yardage and factored in all of the other stuff, what good is that, it is pretty easy to be off by 10-15 yards if you are 175 yards away. Indecision never helps my game.
I thought the idea of the game of golf was to get from the first tee to the 18th green in the fewest strokes possible. Having the proper yardage will help me do that. If someone wants to just stroll around the course guessing at distances and hitting shots, I guess that is up to them. You may disagree, but for me, that is not GOLF.
-
This all makes me wonder how the heck anyone ever took to the game back in the 19th century. There couldn't have been much to like about it until we discovered and invented a fun way to play.
Joe
-
This all makes me wonder how the heck anyone ever took to the game back in the 19th century. There couldn't have been much to like about it until we discovered and invented a fun way to play.
Joe
Joe
I know where you are coming from. Its as if the game was invented when the first yardage marker was placed. I still know two guys that don't think in terms of yards. They just eye up a shot and select a club and type of shot they think will work best. Nah, it couldn't be, they must have a yardage book up their sleeve.
With all the experience many people on here have with the game are you telling me you can't figure out the distance for most shots? For the ones you didn't get right, can't we chalk those up to the archie and try to get him next time? Is the score you acheive that important to take away an element of the game that is so intriguing? Aren't you ever pleasantly astounded when you airmail one or come up 25 yards short? Doesn't a mistake like that keep you coming back? Its all part of the ups and downs of a GAME of golf.
George F
I use aids when they are on my way to playing the game. I don't buy yardage books or go out of my way for yardage. I wish I could avoid the damn things altogether, but its tough to walk with my eyes closed. Perhaps its a toss up between a seeing eye dog and yardage gun.
Ciao
-
It is silly to argue that we should elminate yardage aids because of the architect's desire to cause confusion for the golfer.
Unless you are going to have a marshall on every one of these hole who do not allow you to advance past your ball position, I can just walk up to the mound to check out and see where the pin position is. Heck, I can just walk to the side of the fairway where I have a good view of the green and walk back.
All it would do is to slow the game down.
I don't understand the reasoning behind this "case".
-
Richard,
No need for concern, it's just a philosophical discussion.
Gadgets and markers and such are here to stay. Society says so.
Joe
-
As a traditionalist, I hate to say that I found an ad for yardage discs available for sale back in the middle of the golden age.
I thought I tagged it but can't find it now. It was in American Golfer or Golf Ill. and was amongst other items in the ad like hole cutters, mowers, sandboxes, etc.
As I remember the wording suggested the use of just the one disc per fairway.
If I can find it again I will post it.
-
It is silly to argue that we should elminate yardage aids because of the architect's desire to cause confusion for the golfer.
Unless you are going to have a marshall on every one of these hole who do not allow you to advance past your ball position, I can just walk up to the mound to check out and see where the pin position is. Heck, I can just walk to the side of the fairway where I have a good view of the green and walk back.
All it would do is to slow the game down.
I don't understand the reasoning behind this "case".
Richard
Are you really trying to make a case for guns based on pace of play? Are you telling me that the game is gonna be significantly quicker if everybody uses guns? I can see the game perhaps getting a bit quicker, but I don't think obtaining yardage is the main reason for slow play. It is my observation that people are generally slow because they choose to be. If they chose to be quicker they would be.
Ciao
-
I guess for those of you that like to play a game resembling golf, that would rather go out and eyeball things the old fashioned way, have at it. Golf should be fun, if it's fun for you to hit what you think are great shots and they airmail the green or come up 25 yards short, then go have fun.
I'll stick to my "fun" version of the game and try to shoot the lowest score I can for that particular round.
I think you are fooling yourselves if you don't think that guys who played 100 years ago didn't have some way to measure their way around a golf course even if there weren't yardage markers. I would place a sizable wager that players kept track of the clubs that they hit from particular spots on the course and had some sort of system in place.
-
There are numerous talents necessary to play the game of golf well. There are numerous variables inherent in each shot that must be taken into account by the golfer.
The science of playing golf is a process of simplification whereby as many variables as possible are taken off of the table. Robotic, repeating swing.....check. High quality, matched, balanced set of clubs......check. Pristine, consistent turf conditions.........check. Relentless, dogged practice regimen..........check. Exact knowlege of the distance of every shot on the course............check.
Mr. Slonis says "If I FIRST had to guess at the yardage and factored in all of the other stuff, what good is that, it is pretty easy to be off by 10-15 yards if you are 175 yards away. Indecision never helps my game." That, I think, is exactly the point that many are making regarding their disregard for yardage aids. The notion is that the ability to make that 10-15 yard decision on your own, independent of something that gives you the answer, is one of the talents necessary to play the game, and should be tested. The science of golf wants to remove that variable, and as has been said often on this thread, folks have been working at that since the beginnings of the game. Perhaps the first technology, then, that should never have been allowed on the course was the notebook and the pencil, with walked-off yardages. Once memory was out as the main method of keeping track of distances, the cat was out of the bag. At this point, what does it really matter? The game of golf is intrinsically bound with the science of golf now, and it's still fun to play.......even for luddites.
-
JSlonis,
It sounds almost as if you think there would be an advantage to a player who had superior mental abilities than one's opponent, according to your last statement about memorizing places on a course and remembering what they hit last time under similar conditions.
I bet those thinkers would be pissed about losing that advantage during competition.
Joe
-
No. Clint's argument is absolutely, 100% valid. Just because the high handicapper, whose 7 iron might go anything from 100 yards to 140 yards on any particular shot, doesn't have the distance control of Tiger Woods doesn't mean he doesn't, on average, gain a benefit from knowing that the flag is 130 yards away rather than 145. His clubs will each have an average distance and a spread. By choosing the right club he can enhance his odds of hitting the green at all and/or avoiding particularly unpleasant hazards.
As to all the factors involved, my experience is that nearly every golfer understands this, even if they can't elucidate it. They have a natural understanding (not the same as being able to make the adjustment) that each of those factors affects the distance a shot will fly.
Mark,
you mean knowing the exact yardage even though you can't hit and understanding about outside effects even though you can not compensate for them still will improve your game ??? If this is so then I guess your right but whats the point of knowing something you will never be able to use?
-
"Are you really trying to make a case for guns based on pace of play? Are you telling me that the game is gonna be significantly quicker if everybody uses guns?"
Definitely!
You know the trouble with you Sean Arble, is you seem completely incapable of seeing big picture in anything to do with architecture or golf.
The game will be significantly quicker if everybody just carried guns but if they actually used guns out on the course you're damn straight the game will be significantly quicker. Laser guns, .22s, .38s, .45s or even AK-47s. Would you really take close to five hours to play a round of golf if the group behind you all had AK-47s and they started using them on you?
If it were me I'd play my round faster than a red-assed rabbit.
-
I am just waiting for the next great "improvement" in the game, laser guided golf balls.
After that I expect some computer driven device to hit the ball for you.
Then everyone can achieve that holy grail of shooting the lowest score possible.
-
No one yet has ever done better than hitting 75.2% of his GIR for a full season on Tour (guess who) and no one is even within sniffing distance of 1 putt per GIR, something like 1.7 is usually right around the 'best'.
Yardage aids? A.E Neuman had it right.
-
No one yet has ever done better than hitting 75.2% of his GIR for a full season on Tour (guess who) and no one is even within sniffing distance of 1 putt per GIR, something like 1.7 is usually right around the 'best'.
Yardage aids? A.E Neuman had it right.
But isn't this because they keep lengthening the courses and narrowing the fairways every year?
-
I highly doubt it Ralph. The stat numbers stay fairly constant over a great number of years, even for the 'worst' player (about 56%), from 1980 forward. Conversely, clubs and balls have added distance, negating any additional course yardage.
-
I highly doubt it Ralph. The stat numbers stay fairly constant over a great number of years, even for the 'worst' player (about 56%), from 1980 forward. Conversely, clubs and balls have added distance, negating any additional course yardage.
But the increased distance increases inaccuracy.
-
I'm not much of a fan of these devices. I find it hilarious that guys playing at my club, who have played 50 rounds a year for 20 years on the same course, suddenly think they need a gps.
But, for those opposed to distance aids ---
Why do you care?
If they do not help, then they are harmless.
If they do help, what marginal benefit is there above a yardage book?
I have probably played 10-15 rounds with GCA people. In every instance, I believe my playing companions wanted to know the relevant yardages for their next shot.
-
Well Ralph, then I guess all the flap about equipment turning our courses into pitch and putts for the Pros is hogwash. ;D
My larger point is this: no matter what aid you might employ to help you make decisions, you still have to translate that into actions and there is no 'aid' that will ever be invented to do that.
-
JSlonis,
It sounds almost as if you think there would be an advantage to a player who had superior mental abilities than one's opponent, according to your last statement about memorizing places on a course and remembering what they hit last time under similar conditions.
I bet those thinkers would be pissed about losing that advantage during competition.
Joe
Joe
I guess the guys that take the game so seriously don't play practice rounds anymore. Doesn't seem like there is much point - just buy a book, a machine and perhaps a local caddie if there is any dosh left over.
To be fair, I could care less about the advantage or disadvantage from using a machine. I object because a machine is yet something else which separates a golfer from the discovery of the game. If folks can't see the difference between a player learning a course and a player using a machine, book or whatever aid to do the legwork, then there ain't much else to say.
Ciao
-
Well Ralph, then I guess all the flap about equipment turning our courses into pitch and putts for the Pros is hogwash. ;D
My larger point is this: no matter what aid you might employ to help you make decisions, you still have to translate that into actions and there is no 'aid' that will ever be invented to do that.
My point was that the difficulties in the courses are ramped up against the equipment to maintain the GIR & FIR stats.
Some of the difficulties are self inflicted as in accuracy in driving distances.
-
There are numerous talents necessary to play the game of golf well. There are numerous variables inherent in each shot that must be taken into account by the golfer.
The science of playing golf is a process of simplification whereby as many variables as possible are taken off of the table. Robotic, repeating swing.....check. High quality, matched, balanced set of clubs......check. Pristine, consistent turf conditions.........check. Relentless, dogged practice regimen..........check. Exact knowlege of the distance of every shot on the course............check.
Mr. Slonis says "If I FIRST had to guess at the yardage and factored in all of the other stuff, what good is that, it is pretty easy to be off by 10-15 yards if you are 175 yards away. Indecision never helps my game." That, I think, is exactly the point that many are making regarding their disregard for yardage aids. The notion is that the ability to make that 10-15 yard decision on your own, independent of something that gives you the answer, is one of the talents necessary to play the game, and should be tested. The science of golf wants to remove that variable, and as has been said often on this thread, folks have been working at that since the beginnings of the game. Perhaps the first technology, then, that should never have been allowed on the course was the notebook and the pencil, with walked-off yardages. Once memory was out as the main method of keeping track of distances, the cat was out of the bag. At this point, what does it really matter? The game of golf is intrinsically bound with the science of golf now, and it's still fun to play.......even for luddites.
Kirk,
Based on your view, I suppose there were no "Yardages" in golf 100 years ago. While there may not have been anything marked on the course, were there not Yardages posted for each individual hole? Even the very first couple of US Opens list a yardage for the course. Players had caddies then, do you not think that caddies had knowledge of distance back then. I doubt everyone just eyeballed it around the course. It certainly isn't a recent phenomenon that golfers are dependent on yardage, it's part of the game , but I don't think it is a talent of the game. Being able to make a decision based upon distance is a talent of the game if you want to call it one.
-
JSlonis,
It sounds almost as if you think there would be an advantage to a player who had superior mental abilities than one's opponent, according to your last statement about memorizing places on a course and remembering what they hit last time under similar conditions.
I bet those thinkers would be pissed about losing that advantage during competition.
Joe
Joe,
I really don't think it takes superior mental abilities to be able to write down information that they find. Why would someone have had to memorize everything, people could write couldn't they.
Now if you were talking about "superior mental abilities" like the ones that Tiger possesses then I'd agree with you. :)
-
There are numerous talents necessary to play the game of golf well. There are numerous variables inherent in each shot that must be taken into account by the golfer.
The science of playing golf is a process of simplification whereby as many variables as possible are taken off of the table. Robotic, repeating swing.....check. High quality, matched, balanced set of clubs......check. Pristine, consistent turf conditions.........check. Relentless, dogged practice regimen..........check. Exact knowlege of the distance of every shot on the course............check.
Mr. Slonis says "If I FIRST had to guess at the yardage and factored in all of the other stuff, what good is that, it is pretty easy to be off by 10-15 yards if you are 175 yards away. Indecision never helps my game." That, I think, is exactly the point that many are making regarding their disregard for yardage aids. The notion is that the ability to make that 10-15 yard decision on your own, independent of something that gives you the answer, is one of the talents necessary to play the game, and should be tested. The science of golf wants to remove that variable, and as has been said often on this thread, folks have been working at that since the beginnings of the game. Perhaps the first technology, then, that should never have been allowed on the course was the notebook and the pencil, with walked-off yardages. Once memory was out as the main method of keeping track of distances, the cat was out of the bag. At this point, what does it really matter? The game of golf is intrinsically bound with the science of golf now, and it's still fun to play.......even for luddites.
Kirk,
Based on your view, I suppose there were no "Yardages" in golf 100 years ago. While there may not have been anything marked on the course, were there not Yardages posted for each individual hole? Even the very first couple of US Opens list a yardage for the course. Players had caddies then, do you not think that caddies had knowledge of distance back then. I doubt everyone just eyeballed it around the course. It certainly isn't a recent phenomenon that golfers are dependent on yardage, it's part of the game , but I don't think it is a talent of the game. Being able to make a decision based upon distance is a talent of the game if you want to call it one.
J
Tell me this. You don't think figuring out yardage is a talent. How bout wind conditions? How bout the effects of uphill/downhill tearrain? I can't see how these three elements and others don't come together as part of decision making. Why should yardage be a freebie piece of info that isn't learned like the others are?
Ciao
-
JSlonis,
It sounds almost as if you think there would be an advantage to a player who had superior mental abilities than one's opponent, according to your last statement about memorizing places on a course and remembering what they hit last time under similar conditions.
I bet those thinkers would be pissed about losing that advantage during competition.
Joe
Joe
I guess the guys that take the game so seriously don't play practice rounds anymore. Doesn't seem like there is much point - just buy a book, a machine and perhaps a local caddie if there is any dosh left over.
To be fair, I could care less about the advantage or disadvantage from using a machine. I object because a machine is yet something else which separates a golfer from the discovery of the game. If folks can't see the difference between a player learning a course and a player using a machine, book or whatever aid to do the legwork, then there ain't much else to say.
Ciao
Frankly, that is a very silly statement. Of course practice rounds are helpful. There is a lot more to know about a golf course than just the correct distance from point A to point B. If you fail to see that beyond your dislike of a simple device, I don't know what to tell you. Honestly, having the proper distance quickly allows you time to take in all of the other factors that you need to see.
-
There are numerous talents necessary to play the game of golf well. There are numerous variables inherent in each shot that must be taken into account by the golfer.
The science of playing golf is a process of simplification whereby as many variables as possible are taken off of the table. Robotic, repeating swing.....check. High quality, matched, balanced set of clubs......check. Pristine, consistent turf conditions.........check. Relentless, dogged practice regimen..........check. Exact knowlege of the distance of every shot on the course............check.
Mr. Slonis says "If I FIRST had to guess at the yardage and factored in all of the other stuff, what good is that, it is pretty easy to be off by 10-15 yards if you are 175 yards away. Indecision never helps my game." That, I think, is exactly the point that many are making regarding their disregard for yardage aids. The notion is that the ability to make that 10-15 yard decision on your own, independent of something that gives you the answer, is one of the talents necessary to play the game, and should be tested. The science of golf wants to remove that variable, and as has been said often on this thread, folks have been working at that since the beginnings of the game. Perhaps the first technology, then, that should never have been allowed on the course was the notebook and the pencil, with walked-off yardages. Once memory was out as the main method of keeping track of distances, the cat was out of the bag. At this point, what does it really matter? The game of golf is intrinsically bound with the science of golf now, and it's still fun to play.......even for luddites.
Kirk,
Based on your view, I suppose there were no "Yardages" in golf 100 years ago. While there may not have been anything marked on the course, were there not Yardages posted for each individual hole? Even the very first couple of US Opens list a yardage for the course. Players had caddies then, do you not think that caddies had knowledge of distance back then. I doubt everyone just eyeballed it around the course. It certainly isn't a recent phenomenon that golfers are dependent on yardage, it's part of the game , but I don't think it is a talent of the game. Being able to make a decision based upon distance is a talent of the game if you want to call it one.
J
Tell me this. You don't think figuring out yardage is a talent. How bout wind conditions? How bout the effects of uphill/downhill tearrain? I can't see how these three elements and others don't come together as part of decision making. Why should yardage be a freebie piece of info that isn't learned like the others are?
Ciao
I guess you wouldn't want any yardage anywhere? In your scenario, there would be no yardage on scorecards on the tees, anywhere. Just the tee markers and flagsticks.
There is nothing talented about getting a RAW yardage. I suppose if someone had the ability to "accurately" determine yardage all of the time, it would a talent of sorts. There is talent and experience involved in using that raw yardage and factoring evreything else that goes into a golf shot. Anybody that knows how to count can get a raw yardage...and that is all a yardage marker or a device does...it finds a raw yardage. I don't see the inherent talent in that.
I really think you guys have your head in the sand if you don't think that golfer's from days gone by used precise yardages in one form or another.
-
Lets get one thing very, very clear if you can’t play golf on a new course without some sort of yardage information – then what are you doing playing golf?
So right, from whatever method you have acquired your yardage, distance. Now what do you do,
a)Walk up to the bloody ball and hit it without looking at ball
flag etc. ?
b)Walk up to the ball re-check the ball, flag, surroundings,
wind, then check ball and flag position with your eyes, when
you are ready hit the ball?
c)Walking up to the ball from your previous shot working out
distance, obstacles/hazards/bunkers, then decide which club to play.
By the time you have reached the ball you have selected your approach
shot then again gone through the final motions of re-checking ball, flag,
distance, correct stance, relaxed, final look keeping eye on the ball,
swing and hit the ball, like millions of people have done for around a
100 years.
Use whatever aids you need but don’t moan in years to come that the sport has gone to hell with the constant introduction of more and more high tech. aids. When courses will have artificial fairways and greens, mechanical arms to take your shots while you sit on you high tech carts at the club house using voice activation controls and watching thought HD IR screens at your virtual reality self (as you looked 30 years ago). I expect the carts would also be fitted with built under toilet facilities which you connect to as you are seated. Modern VR Golf.
I can imagine some saying, we should have listened to that guy Melvyn, perhaps he wasn’t talking crap after all. However unbeknown to you, the real golfers who care for our game and it’s traditions, will have hidden away one or two of Tom Doak’s course preserved in their natural form (if that’s possible) for the future benefit of real golf players. Boy will we be having fun whilst you monitor your screens and use the facilities provided.
Enjoy your toys – and enjoy playing your game of golf, before the next change is introduced.
-
There are numerous talents necessary to play the game of golf well. There are numerous variables inherent in each shot that must be taken into account by the golfer.
The science of playing golf is a process of simplification whereby as many variables as possible are taken off of the table. Robotic, repeating swing.....check. High quality, matched, balanced set of clubs......check. Pristine, consistent turf conditions.........check. Relentless, dogged practice regimen..........check. Exact knowlege of the distance of every shot on the course............check.
Mr. Slonis says "If I FIRST had to guess at the yardage and factored in all of the other stuff, what good is that, it is pretty easy to be off by 10-15 yards if you are 175 yards away. Indecision never helps my game." That, I think, is exactly the point that many are making regarding their disregard for yardage aids. The notion is that the ability to make that 10-15 yard decision on your own, independent of something that gives you the answer, is one of the talents necessary to play the game, and should be tested. The science of golf wants to remove that variable, and as has been said often on this thread, folks have been working at that since the beginnings of the game. Perhaps the first technology, then, that should never have been allowed on the course was the notebook and the pencil, with walked-off yardages. Once memory was out as the main method of keeping track of distances, the cat was out of the bag. At this point, what does it really matter? The game of golf is intrinsically bound with the science of golf now, and it's still fun to play.......even for luddites.
Kirk,
Based on your view, I suppose there were no "Yardages" in golf 100 years ago. While there may not have been anything marked on the course, were there not Yardages posted for each individual hole? Even the very first couple of US Opens list a yardage for the course. Players had caddies then, do you not think that caddies had knowledge of distance back then. I doubt everyone just eyeballed it around the course. It certainly isn't a recent phenomenon that golfers are dependent on yardage, it's part of the game , but I don't think it is a talent of the game. Being able to make a decision based upon distance is a talent of the game if you want to call it one.
J
Tell me this. You don't think figuring out yardage is a talent. How bout wind conditions? How bout the effects of uphill/downhill tearrain? I can't see how these three elements and others don't come together as part of decision making. Why should yardage be a freebie piece of info that isn't learned like the others are?
Ciao
There is nothing talented about getting a RAW yardage. There is talent and experience involved in using that raw yardage and factoring evreything else that goes into a golf shot. Anybody that knows how to count can get a raw yardage...and that is all a yardage marker or a device does...it finds a raw yardage. I don't see the inherent talent in that.
I really think you guys have your head in the sand if you don't think that golfer's from days gone by used precise yardages in one form or another.
J
I started this thread with an example of the architect trying to deceive the golfer and/or offer the golfer a choice. If its so easy to figure out the yardage, why do folks need/want a machine? Could it be just for the times when perhaps the archie would have succeeded in creating doubt? This is aprt of the discovery process I mentioned earlier. Personally, I do think eye balling does take skill and more importantly it takes experience. IMO architecture will suffer (and perhaps already has) because the time will come when archies won't bother with some of the subtleties and details which help to make courses special.
Ciao
-
Yardage
I am being serious, so please bear with me as I am just trying to understand the use of this aid.
Let’s get down to basics; yardage is the distance from the ball to the flag.
If you play the same course a few time you get to understand distance by measuring from certain markers, feature or natural items like trees, rocks etc. Do those that use yardage aids still use them on a familiar course or only occasionally if your ball rests on a different area to normal?
It gets much less use at familiar courses....sits in the trunk when I play at home. Like I said before, if my ball is near a plate, I'll just use that....I'm very utilitarian, I go with whatever is fastest
If it’s your first time on a new course, I expect you use your aid at each stroke to determine distance. Therefore the aid has helped you confirm distance and through that assisted in selecting your ideal club for the shot
What I don’t understand is that you still have to take the shot, your mind and body are not automatons, your brain controls your movement, grip, swing and I presume you re-check the route, lay of the land, position of flag, the direction of the wind, make allowance for the weather and surrounding area before starting your swing/shot. In other words you recheck the whole approach details prior to hitting the ball - the only difference is being aware that the distance is XXX yards because of a marker or yardage aid. The stroke is purely the result of mind/body combination confirmed from your final sight check of your ball and target and has nothing to do with the information obtained from your artificial aid otherwise you would just walk up to the ball and hit it it’s prescribed distance. You see my point; the final stroke is down to you sighting the target and sod all to do with the aid, so why use them. You have proved you don’t need them to play, why on earth use them. So the same must applies to all golfers, including the Pro’s, the re-check prior to taking the shot is done by brain/eye coordination taking in visual view of target. Are you telling me that you are all so uncertain that you need a distance aid – sorry what rubbish, your last actions determines the shot.
Lets try a non-golf analogy. In basketball, the free throw line is exactly 15 feet away from the goal. But suppose that in another universe, all courts were not the same. Who makes more free throws? The guy who is told that today the line is only 14 1/2 feet away, or the guy who has to guess? Both still have to physically shoot the ball, but the player who knows exactly what distance they have can adjust more precisely. All he has to do is stand 6 inches behind the shorter line and make his usual shot. The other guy is left guessing. All other variables being the same, the more informed player will make more shots over time.
I just do not see the need for high tech aids, however if you need distance markers to play your golf, then, why not use the course markers?
Speed. The time I don't spend looking for markers, walking off distances or figuring out what c-squared may be from the next fairway over, I can spend doing other things.....play quicker golf, take better notes about the course's architecture and conversing w/ playing partners come to mind. All are more enjoyable to me than running around finding a sprinkler head or guessing yardages. A wooden 150 yard pole and the lastest "gizmo" are just as accurate.
If aids help that much, I keep wondering why, when teeing off the Rangefinder is not used, for that matter when putting on a large Green why again is the aid not used, surly the same argument applies measuring distance from the flag – or is it that you can judge it better with your eyes? Or could it be something to do with looking totally ridiculous and stupid.
Not the same. I only have 1 club for putting, but 13 clubs through the green. Putting is certainly more feel based. Even though you may be able to hit other clubs softer or harder, there is a finite limit to how far you go.....you eventually say, "instead of killing a 7 iron, I'll just hit the 6." Plus its much easier to guage distances accurately on a putting green than from further away. If I could estimate 180 yards from the fairway as accurately as 20 feet on a green, I wouldn't use an aid.
Distance markers are only really needed by the commentators to advise those watching on TV or listening on the car radio.
Unless you tell me that the final shot is programmed direct into your brain from the artificial aid and that you do not re-check prior to taking your shot – No, no one is surly saying that, are you?
Why re-check? If the sprinkler head, yardage pole or rangefinder says 150yds, I take it on faith. Just like you take your mental 150yds on faith. The next step is trying to hit the club you think will make your ball travel 150yds. No need for you or I to double check.
Guys you just don’t need them.
Very true. Last year I trot out onto my home course (where I've now been a member for 2 years) to find no markers anywhere. Sprinkler heads were brand new and hadn't been marked yet and no signs on par 3s. Playing "blind" I played very well....walked off quite pleased on how I controlled my distances. What I don't understand is why it bothers others so much that I use a distance aid? I don't care if you bake a cake while we play, as long as you're quick, respectful and can carry a light-hearted conversation.
-
JSlonis,
It sounds almost as if you think there would be an advantage to a player who had superior mental abilities than one's opponent, according to your last statement about memorizing places on a course and remembering what they hit last time under similar conditions.
I bet those thinkers would be pissed about losing that advantage during competition.
Joe
Joe
I guess the guys that take the game so seriously don't play practice rounds anymore. Doesn't seem like there is much point - just buy a book, a machine and perhaps a local caddie if there is any dosh left over.
To be fair, I could care less about the advantage or disadvantage from using a machine. I object because a machine is yet something else which separates a golfer from the discovery of the game. If folks can't see the difference between a player learning a course and a player using a machine, book or whatever aid to do the legwork, then there ain't much else to say.
Ciao
Frankly, that is a very silly statement. Of course practice rounds are helpful. There is a lot more to know about a golf course than just the correct distance from point A to point B. If you fail to see that beyond your dislike of a simple device, I don't know what to tell you. Honestly, having the proper distance quickly allows you time to take in all of the other factors that you need to see.
J
Come on - you aren't taking all this that seriously that you can't have a laugh? As AwsHuckster is fond of saying, I know the genie is out of the bottle. Yardage aids, carts, drivers longer and bigger than a Lincoln, fancy balls, grooves an inch deep, greens running at 12, fairways too pretty to take a divot from etc etc etc etc are here to stay. More is the pity, but some folks gotta have it or they can't have fun.
Ciao
-
There are numerous talents necessary to play the game of golf well. There are numerous variables inherent in each shot that must be taken into account by the golfer.
The science of playing golf is a process of simplification whereby as many variables as possible are taken off of the table. Robotic, repeating swing.....check. High quality, matched, balanced set of clubs......check. Pristine, consistent turf conditions.........check. Relentless, dogged practice regimen..........check. Exact knowlege of the distance of every shot on the course............check.
Mr. Slonis says "If I FIRST had to guess at the yardage and factored in all of the other stuff, what good is that, it is pretty easy to be off by 10-15 yards if you are 175 yards away. Indecision never helps my game." That, I think, is exactly the point that many are making regarding their disregard for yardage aids. The notion is that the ability to make that 10-15 yard decision on your own, independent of something that gives you the answer, is one of the talents necessary to play the game, and should be tested. The science of golf wants to remove that variable, and as has been said often on this thread, folks have been working at that since the beginnings of the game. Perhaps the first technology, then, that should never have been allowed on the course was the notebook and the pencil, with walked-off yardages. Once memory was out as the main method of keeping track of distances, the cat was out of the bag. At this point, what does it really matter? The game of golf is intrinsically bound with the science of golf now, and it's still fun to play.......even for luddites.
Kirk,
Based on your view, I suppose there were no "Yardages" in golf 100 years ago. While there may not have been anything marked on the course, were there not Yardages posted for each individual hole? Even the very first couple of US Opens list a yardage for the course. Players had caddies then, do you not think that caddies had knowledge of distance back then. I doubt everyone just eyeballed it around the course. It certainly isn't a recent phenomenon that golfers are dependent on yardage, it's part of the game , but I don't think it is a talent of the game. Being able to make a decision based upon distance is a talent of the game if you want to call it one.
J
Tell me this. You don't think figuring out yardage is a talent. How bout wind conditions? How bout the effects of uphill/downhill tearrain? I can't see how these three elements and others don't come together as part of decision making. Why should yardage be a freebie piece of info that isn't learned like the others are?
Ciao
There is nothing talented about getting a RAW yardage. There is talent and experience involved in using that raw yardage and factoring evreything else that goes into a golf shot. Anybody that knows how to count can get a raw yardage...and that is all a yardage marker or a device does...it finds a raw yardage. I don't see the inherent talent in that.
I really think you guys have your head in the sand if you don't think that golfer's from days gone by used precise yardages in one form or another.
J
I started this thread with an example of the architect trying to deceive the golfer and/or offer the golfer a choice. If its so easy to figure out the yardage, why do folks need/want a machine? Could it be just for the times when perhaps the archie would have succeeded in creating doubt? This is aprt of the discovery process I mentioned earlier. Personally, I do think eye balling does take skill and more importantly it takes experience. IMO architecture will suffer (and perhaps already has) because the time will come when archies won't bother with some of the subtleties and details which help to make courses special.
Ciao
I think you are overblowing the idea that the architect will create doubt on more than just small basis. Once a golfer plays a course a couple of times, don't you think from "experience" he'll figure things out pretty quickly. You might be able to fool me the first trip around a course, but after that, due to experience, I think I'll get the hang of it. Even knowing exact yardages, I've seen many courses where architects create doubt because with whatever they have created, visually it doesn't sit well in your eye even though you know you have the exact distance.
-
Lets get one thing very, very clear if you can’t play golf on a new course without some sort of yardage information – then what are you doing playing golf?
So right, from whatever method you have acquired your yardage, distance. Now what do you do,
a)Walk up to the bloody ball and hit it without looking at ball
flag etc. ?
b)Walk up to the ball re-check the ball, flag, surroundings,
wind, then check ball and flag position with your eyes, when
you are ready hit the ball?
c)Walking up to the ball from your previous shot working out
distance, obstacles/hazards/bunkers, then decide which club to play.
By the time you have reached the ball you have selected your approach
shot then again gone through the final motions of re-checking ball, flag,
distance, correct stance, relaxed, final look keeping eye on the ball,
swing and hit the ball, like millions of people have done for around a
100 years.
Use whatever aids you need but don’t moan in years to come that the sport has gone to hell with the constant introduction of more and more high tech. aids. When courses will have artificial fairways and greens, mechanical arms to take your shots while you sit on you high tech carts at the club house using voice activation controls and watching thought HD IR screens at your virtual reality self (as you looked 30 years ago). I expect the carts would also be fitted with built under toilet facilities which you connect to as you are seated. Modern VR Golf.
I can imagine some saying, we should have listened to that guy Melvyn, perhaps he wasn’t talking crap after all. However unbeknown to you, the real golfers who care for our game and it’s traditions, will have hidden away one or two of Tom Doak’s course preserved in their natural form (if that’s possible) for the future benefit of real golf players. Boy will we be having fun whilst you monitor your screens and use the facilities provided.
Enjoy your toys – and enjoy playing your game of golf, before the next change is introduced.
Last time I checked, Pacific Dunes has marked sprinkler heads. Caddies at Ballyneal carry GPS. On the contrary, if I'm ever blessed with an invite to Friar's Head, you bet I'll play blind....when in Rome.
Melvyn, do you play steel shafts? Surlyn/Urethane/balata balls? Or do you play with a leather sack stuffed with feathers that was locally sewn together, hit with a flat piece of iron tethered to a hickory branch? If you don't, you play the same GOLF I do.....a game that has changed since its inception. In fact, the technology that you happen to use actually affects the flight of the ball.....what I and others use is merely prep-work.
Even though you're wrong about us ruining the game, you're dancing with the same devil too.
CPS
-
I believe MacKenzie wrote about various tricks and strategems to induce deception of the golfer. I do not believe he was stupid or naiive nor was he engaging in willful exaggeration. Upon ones first time playing a deceptive hole, there is a certain pleasure in trying to discern the trick and overcome it by reasoning or intuition. But that lasts once or at most a couple of times on any given hole.
The real pleasure comes when a golfer realizes he is being deceived and on future occasions uses his knowledge to overcome the deception. It's just like the pleasure given by presenting the golfer with hazard or obstacles which easier to overcome than they may appear. It is Fun! to see a shot that clearly is such-and-such a distance but to know the target well enough to take two extra clubs or one fewer or to aim away from the (apparently) obvious line of play and thereby avoid the temptation the architect presents.
At worst, users of yardage books or lasers or GPS units will skip over that first mystifying exposure and arrive at once in the pleasant state of being able to outsmart a deceptive feature. They are certainly not rendering the architect's skill for camoflage moot.
-
There are numerous talents necessary to play the game of golf well. There are numerous variables inherent in each shot that must be taken into account by the golfer.
The science of playing golf is a process of simplification whereby as many variables as possible are taken off of the table. Robotic, repeating swing.....check. High quality, matched, balanced set of clubs......check. Pristine, consistent turf conditions.........check. Relentless, dogged practice regimen..........check. Exact knowlege of the distance of every shot on the course............check.
Mr. Slonis says "If I FIRST had to guess at the yardage and factored in all of the other stuff, what good is that, it is pretty easy to be off by 10-15 yards if you are 175 yards away. Indecision never helps my game." That, I think, is exactly the point that many are making regarding their disregard for yardage aids. The notion is that the ability to make that 10-15 yard decision on your own, independent of something that gives you the answer, is one of the talents necessary to play the game, and should be tested. The science of golf wants to remove that variable, and as has been said often on this thread, folks have been working at that since the beginnings of the game. Perhaps the first technology, then, that should never have been allowed on the course was the notebook and the pencil, with walked-off yardages. Once memory was out as the main method of keeping track of distances, the cat was out of the bag. At this point, what does it really matter? The game of golf is intrinsically bound with the science of golf now, and it's still fun to play.......even for luddites.
Kirk,
Based on your view, I suppose there were no "Yardages" in golf 100 years ago. While there may not have been anything marked on the course, were there not Yardages posted for each individual hole? Even the very first couple of US Opens list a yardage for the course. Players had caddies then, do you not think that caddies had knowledge of distance back then. I doubt everyone just eyeballed it around the course. It certainly isn't a recent phenomenon that golfers are dependent on yardage, it's part of the game , but I don't think it is a talent of the game. Being able to make a decision based upon distance is a talent of the game if you want to call it one.
J
Tell me this. You don't think figuring out yardage is a talent. How bout wind conditions? How bout the effects of uphill/downhill tearrain? I can't see how these three elements and others don't come together as part of decision making. Why should yardage be a freebie piece of info that isn't learned like the others are?
Ciao
There is nothing talented about getting a RAW yardage. There is talent and experience involved in using that raw yardage and factoring evreything else that goes into a golf shot. Anybody that knows how to count can get a raw yardage...and that is all a yardage marker or a device does...it finds a raw yardage. I don't see the inherent talent in that.
I really think you guys have your head in the sand if you don't think that golfer's from days gone by used precise yardages in one form or another.
J
I started this thread with an example of the architect trying to deceive the golfer and/or offer the golfer a choice. If its so easy to figure out the yardage, why do folks need/want a machine? Could it be just for the times when perhaps the archie would have succeeded in creating doubt? This is aprt of the discovery process I mentioned earlier. Personally, I do think eye balling does take skill and more importantly it takes experience. IMO architecture will suffer (and perhaps already has) because the time will come when archies won't bother with some of the subtleties and details which help to make courses special.
Ciao
I think you are overblowing the idea that the architect will create doubt on more than just small basis. Once a golfer plays a course a couple of times, don't you think from "experience" he'll figure things out pretty quickly. You might be able to fool me the first trip around a course, but after that, due to experience, I think I'll get the hang of it. Even knowing exact yardages, I've seen many courses where architects create doubt because with whatever they have created, visually it doesn't sit well in your eye even though you know you have the exact distance.
J
Every person is different, every situation is different. Doubt creeps into athletes thoughts at inopportune moments. Sometimes, all the experience in the world won't get a player over the hump if he has even a bit of doubt. A machine helps to mitigate the doubt - that is why it is used. If I am right, that means some aspect of the game is taken away and made at least to some degree a neutral element. I personally don't think its good for competition or architecture, however minor it may be.
You disagree and thats fair enough. The powers that be are on your side, but the slippery slope continues. Everybody keeps saying that technology can only go so far. The truth is, technology will intrude on the game as much as we allow it to. We all have our limits to what is acceptable. Many drew the line with distance/ball problem. I admit to never really having a problem with this issue, but I also admit that I could never properly answer the question of what positive benefits came of the ball going so far. Carts are bad enough, but I am told again and again that they are a necessary evil. Now I am told that these yardage guns are a necessary evil. Is there anything we should get on the table while we are at it?
Ciao
-
Clint
You seem good at coping my post but unable to read or understand it.
From the start I have not been against technology re ball/club. I quote my earlier post.
‘Before going further I accept that there will be changes to clubs and ball as years go by to improve equipment reliability but certainly not for distance which, I believe should be firmly controlled. This has never really happened. Technology used to improve reliability of equipment but not distance, I happily endorse’.
So stop trying to pass the buck, you are changing the face of our sport. Make all the excuses you want but bottom line you feel you need it, it makes you feel good, but don’t kid yourself, you are using an artificial aid - period.
When I play I keep to the traditional methods, that, I expect is what got the majority of people interested in golf in the first place. Don’t group me with the toys for the boy’s brigade.
You don’t seem capable of understanding, pity.
-
Clint
You seem good at coping my post but unable to read or understand it.
From the start I have not been against technology re ball/club. I quote my earlier post.
‘Before going further I accept that there will be changes to clubs and ball as years go by to improve equipment reliability but certainly not for distance which, I believe should be firmly controlled. This has never really happened. Technology used to improve reliability of equipment but not distance, I happily endorse’.
So stop trying to pass the buck, you are changing the face of our sport. Make all the excuses you want but bottom line you feel you need it, it makes you feel good, but don’t kid yourself, you are using an artificial aid - period.
When I play I keep to the traditional methods, that, I expect is what got the majority of people interested in golf in the first place. Don’t group me with the toys for the boy’s brigade.
You don’t seem capable of understanding, pity.
The game changed the second someone threw a big rock in the spot they normally hit their ball so that they could remember what to do the next time they play. Decades, centuries of the use of yardage markers is being dumped on rangefinders. Something that many people who have run tournaments profess to making rounds quicker. You're right, golfers *may* pick up the game because of some intangible notion of nobility, but they quit because it takes too darn long. How dare we use something that may stem that tide.
You're right, I can't understand.
CPS
-
All yardages have done for the average player is slow him down which is as good a reason to get rid of them as any.
It takes about 5 seconds to get a yardage with a Bushnell Pinseeker. How is this slow? I'm willing to bet that if there were no yardages on a golf course, the average player would take a lot longer than 5 seconds trying to figure out and guess how far he is away.
JS,
in days gone by (when the 3 hour round was a slow one) lots of golfers would already have eyed up the shot and selected their club before reaching the ball. A swift practice swing and the ball was on its way.
Nowadays, no thought is given till they reach the ball, then they have to unpack the range laser ajust it, check the yardage from another point, decide which club,.......
5 seconds ::)
You should play with my buddies and me some time. We play a two-ball in two hours, and a three ball in two hours 20 minutes. And we use range finders on about half of our shots. We also ride, because we have to be to work by 9:00 a.m.
Most players who use range finders play FASTER, not slower. And that's a fact.
-
All yardages have done for the average player is slow him down which is as good a reason to get rid of them as any.
It takes about 5 seconds to get a yardage with a Bushnell Pinseeker. How is this slow? I'm willing to bet that if there were no yardages on a golf course, the average player would take a lot longer than 5 seconds trying to figure out and guess how far he is away.
JS,
in days gone by (when the 3 hour round was a slow one) lots of golfers would already have eyed up the shot and selected their club before reaching the ball. A swift practice swing and the ball was on its way.
Nowadays, no thought is given till they reach the ball, then they have to unpack the range laser ajust it, check the yardage from another point, decide which club,.......
5 seconds ::)
You should play with my buddies and me some time. We play a two-ball in two hours, and a three ball in two hours 20 minutes. And we use range finders on about half of our shots. We also ride, because we have to be to work by 9:00 a.m.
Most players who use range finders play FASTER, not slower. And that's a fact.
David,
How long do you have if you don't ride?Yardage
Lets try a non-golf analogy. In basketball, the free throw line is exactly 15 feet away from the goal. But suppose that in another universe, all courts were not the same. Who makes more free throws? The guy who is told that today the line is only 14 1/2 feet away, or the guy who has to guess? Both still have to physically shoot the ball, but the player who knows exactly what distance they have can adjust more precisely. All he has to do is stand 6 inches behind the shorter line and make his usual shot. The other guy is left guessing. All other variables being the same, the more informed player will make more shots over time.
Seems to me your making alot of assumptions. Firstly, a top player would notice if he was stood 6" closer where as a lesser player would feel something was not quite right but probably not what. A good player would also be able to make the adjustments and still hit the target with almost the same consistency as before from the start ditto with the lesser player, he also would continue to hit (or miss ::)) the target with the same consistency.
Also, your argument is heavily reliant on a mechanical ability to reproduce the same distance through pure strength of movement where as strength of movement comes through a visual assessment. i.e. when both players are blindfolded the better player would lose cosiderably more on his hits than the lesser player due to his to connect his movement to his visual. I am no basketball expert but would imagine that someone who can hit the basket from 20 feet is equally as good, in relation to others, from 30 feet and 15 feet, left or right side.
I agree that for a 20 handicapper knowing the distance is going to iliminate the 2 or 3 club error but it won't significantly improve his distance control nor his direction. He will still miss about as many GIR as before.
-
Isn't memory a yardage aid?
If I played a course that had no distance markers at all, and didn't even tell you how long holes were, wouldn't I figure out eventually that if I drive it near that half dead oak by the 1st fairway that its an 8 iron to the green, that the first par 3 is a 4 iron when it plays into the typical 15-20 mph wind and so on? You guys don't seriously think that the guys who played before yardage books, marked sprinkler heads and all that didn't remember what clubs and shots worked from certain spots for courses which they were familar with, do you?
I won't even get into how hypocritical this entire thread is for anyone who is pro-caddie but anti yardage aid...
-
Yes Doug, your right on all counts but that is local knowledge. I am not against yardages per se but don't believe it really helps the average golfer as much as they think.
-
No. Clint's argument is absolutely, 100% valid. Just because the high handicapper, whose 7 iron might go anything from 100 yards to 140 yards on any particular shot, doesn't have the distance control of Tiger Woods doesn't mean he doesn't, on average, gain a benefit from knowing that the flag is 130 yards away rather than 145. His clubs will each have an average distance and a spread. By choosing the right club he can enhance his odds of hitting the green at all and/or avoiding particularly unpleasant hazards.
As to all the factors involved, my experience is that nearly every golfer understands this, even if they can't elucidate it. They have a natural understanding (not the same as being able to make the adjustment) that each of those factors affects the distance a shot will fly.
Mark,
you mean knowing the exact yardage even though you can't hit and understanding about outside effects even though you can not compensate for them still will improve your game ??? If this is so then I guess your right but whats the point of knowing something you will never be able to use?
I assume you are being deliberately obtuse.
I'm a 12 handicap and I KNOW I will carry a decently hit 7 iron 145 yards and it has to be a REALLY bad strike not to carry 130. If the flag is at 155 and 8 yards over the front bunker, I'm going to hit 6 iron to be sure I'm over the bunker. If it's 15 yards over that bunker I'll go with my 7 iron.
As to being able to compensate for the other factors I have no idea what you are talking about. Of course I can compensate for a wind (and given how blowy it can be up here I wouldn't be much of a golfer if I couldn't), or firm green conditions, or soggy turf. Your assumption that I can't is, frankly, ridiculous arrogance.
-
Warning...newbie first post ahead...
I am not at all a fan of GPS, laser rangefinders, etc. Up until this point, golf has essentially been 'electronics free, technology free', in the sense that if I want to get away from it all on a golf course, I don't want to look at another little computer screen (GPS) or have to fool with a techno gadget (and believe me, I love technology outside of the golf course).
I have no problem with on course yardage markers in the form of 150 yard pine trees, sprinkler heads, etc., especially when playing a new course. The amount of time spent looking for sprinkler heads is 'overrated', it rarely takes one minute at the absolute longest to find one on most courses, and the closer you get to the green or a hazard, the easier it is or seems to be to judge distance.
We all know how long a hole is at the tee box, it is posted at the tee at every golf course in America. How difficult is it on most holes to know that if I hit my ball halfway through the hole on a 400 yard long hole that I am approximately 200 yards away from the center of the green? I can judge where my ball is on course based by comparing where it sits in comparison to overall stated length of the hole. Same with hazards...
We make this game too complicated. If I know that I am about 150 from the hole, historically, chances are my shot will land anywhere from 135-160 anyhow. Most golfers just aren't that consistently accurate to within a few yards on every shot.
Glad to be here on the board,
John
-
Hi John
Well said
Another true golfer, puts his faith in
his observations and ability
-
I am not at all a fan of GPS, laser rangefinders, etc. Up until this point, golf has essentially been 'electronics free, technology free', in the sense that if I want to get away from it all on a golf course, I don't want to look at another little computer screen (GPS) or have to fool with a techno gadget (and believe me, I love technology outside of the golf course).
And that's why I've pretty much quit using my GPS. It has clear advantages, including speeding up play. But when I dropped back from 14 club to 10-11 and mostly stopped using my three-wheeler I also stopped carrying the SkyCaddie. If I were to ever start playing in stroke-play events or trying to get my handicap significantly lower I would absolutely insist on playing with full knowledge of target, carry, hazard and over-the-green distances on every shot. Whether you get it from a yardage book, sprinkler or electronics it's you're just being bloody-minded to go out there pretending that knowing distances isn't an advantage. The 95% of my rounds at my home course are moot since I know most distance perfectly well by memory.
The amount of time spent looking for sprinkler heads is 'overrated', it rarely takes one minute at the absolute longest to find one on most courses
Maybe on most courses...but a minute here a minute there times eighteen holes times a foursome and that can be the difference between 3-1/2 hours versus 4.
We make this game too complicated. If I know that I am about 150 from the hole, historically, chances are my shot will land anywhere from 135-160 anyhow. Most golfers just aren't that consistently accurate to within a few yards on every shot.
Red herring. Saying that there is error in your distance control does not imply that knowing the true distance has no advantage. No many how many times you guys repeat it, it's still a non-sequiter.
In fact I would say having to eyeball the distance (which for my eyeball means plus or minus about 15 yards from 150 out on most holes) complicates the game needlessly. How is guessing a distance (with some error) and then trying to hit it the distance you guessed (with more error) in any way simpler than having the correct distance accurately in mind?
There is no conceivable mechanism by which aiming for the wrong distance or direction and then mishitting the ball is somehow better than aiming for the correct distance or direction. You think high handicappers come up short a lot? Let them club for 140 yards and hit it 125 when it's really 160 and they've got a terrible little ass distance for their recovery. How do you think knowing it was 160 (and therefore taking a couple extra clubs) is a bad thing? Really, now.
Glad to be here on the board,
John
Welcome, enjoy. BTW, you'll get to enjoy this entire conversation again in about two months. And two months again, etc.
-
Brent
As long as two months - no, 2 weeks perhaps!
But can't be certain because as I am not using my
electronic aid to look into the future. No, hold on,
something coming through, it's turned itself on
Wow, I'm going to beat you by 15 stokes, there
is more, hold on, without the need of marker aids,
must use my judgement , still there's more, oh,
well OK, I have been told that the stokes relate
to use of 'The Cat o' Nine Tails', for being a sinner
by using golfing aids. So, there is, indeed justice
out there.
-
It just seems that for all but the best of golfers, not knowing whether the hole is exactly 150 or 160 away has little difference in the shot result.
Most golfers just aren't even close to consistently accurate to within +/- 5 yards of an exact given distance found with a laser rangefinder. A close by sprinkler head or pine tree combined with a golfer's eyeballs and intuitive distance judgment will give most golfers all of the information that they need to choose a club and attempt to make a shot to a given distance. Would you really choose a different club or attempt a different shot if you were laying 15 feet to the right of a 150 yard sprinkler head and figured that you were maybe 155 ish out, or if you stood at the point of your shot and used a rangefinder to find that you were lasered at actually 148.3 away? In my case, it is a 5 iron either way, just maybe attempt a bit softer or harder on the swing.
Even optical illusions like in the picture that started this post can often be accounted for visually by a golfer, if a golfers takes the time to look at what the architect is trying to accomplish on a given hole.
-
John,
Thought experiment for you.
Someone take you out to the edge of field and tees a ball up for you. They say "I've marked a spot out there somewhere and if you hit the ball within a club length of it I'll give you $100. Heck, if you hit it within 5 paces I'll give you $20.
Are you saying you would not ask him how far and what direction to the mark? Do you think these three scenarios give a 20-handicapper exactly the same chance of winning the bet?
1) The guy says "I don't know where the spot is. More than 100 yards, maybe 125, maybe 150, maybe 160, it's hard to say. Just somewhere out there, it doesn't matter just hit the ball".
2) The guy says "Maybe 140, 150 yards and it's over toward the left side of the field".
3) The guy says "It's 145 yards and toward the telephone pole on the other side of the field".
Just where do you think the skill level might be where knowing how far you're trying to hit it matters? I'd say for anyone other than a rank beginner who can't get the ball in the air any golfer's chances are better knowing how far and what direction than not knowing. Your argument seems to be if the chances of getting within 5 yards of the target are too low (what's too low...50/50? 1 in 3? 1 in 10?) then you don't even need to try to hit it any particular distance. I'm pretty sure you don't play golf that way, I know I don't.
-
My point (maybe misstated) is that I question at exactly what decimal place do we need to know the yardage? Do we need to know the exact yardage to a tenth of a yard, the exact yardage to within one yard, is a close estimation via the closest sprinkler head to within 5 or less yards sufficient, etc.?
A rangefinder or GPS gives you the distance at a minimum to the exact yard, some will give you tenths of a yard, it depends on the resolution and +/- error of the device(and with GPS this can be a variance of a yard or two, anyhow, correct?). In reality is this any better for the golfer than estimating the yardage by what is already attainable with an old fashioned sprinkler head or concrete marker in a fairway? Most of us should be able to find a sprinkler head or traditional marker and eyeball or pace off the yardage from there. Is it that difficult to figure out that I am standing ten or 20 yards behind a 150 yard marker pine tree? Especially since there might be a sprinkler head reading 163 yards to my right and three yards ahead of me?
I do realize that some courses have few markers, and this is a challenge or could slow down play.
I am not against sprinkler heads or the ole pine tree markers, but the rangefinder or GPS unit seems to me to be overkill, along with an intrusion of electronic technology into a sport where previously none existed.
-
John,
+/- 5 yards will do for me, though I can see some shorter shots where +/- 3 yards might make a bit of a difference. BUt I don't see that having readily abvailable a more accurate measure is a problem.
-
John,
That's what I thought, we're quibbling about "how accurate" not over the fundamental need to know the distance.
I hit the ball more consistently than I can estimate distances. And believe me, I do not hit the ball at all consistently. But without experience on the course or a sprinkler or post I'm as likely to be ridiculously way off as somewhere in the neighborhood.
Frankly, my GPS is probably off by 3-4 yards quite often and I know for a fact it can (only very occasionally) tell you with a straight face that a 160-yard shot is 172 or something. But that 3-4 yards matches up real nicely with my wedge game and it's not terribly much overkill for hitting shots between 100-140 yards. Outside of six iron range my games a crap shoot but knowing to within a couple yards certainly ain't gonna hurt me.
If I needed distances to the actual flag and I needed accuracy that I could count on being closer than five yards or so every time that would have to be a laser rangefinder, I suppose. I think there are a lot of 6, 8, 9 handicappers who actually do benefit from that sort of accuracy although probably not many bogey golfers like myself.
But as I always say in these discussions, if I use a GPS it's for speed not accuracy. Yardage markers I can trust plus pacing off the distance from my ball to the nearest marker are undoubtedly sufficient for my game in the vast majority of situations but the GPS is faster without a doubt.
-
But as I always say in these discussions, if I use a GPS it's for speed not accuracy. Yardage markers I can trust plus pacing off the distance from my ball to the nearest marker are undoubtedly sufficient for my game in the vast majority of situations but the GPS is faster without a doubt.
Brent - My wife gave me a Bushnell for Christmas. I did not ask for one... she overheard a conversation that a had with a few friends who love their rangefinders and she decided it would be a good gift for me.
As you know, I have not been enamored with these devices, but I must admit that mine has come in very handy. I don't use it for every shot, just the ones that have me puzzled... when I'm trying to determine if I'm going to lay up on a hole, or try and clear a ditch, pond or bunker, for example. I probably use it 3-5 times a round and can assure you that it speeds up play... in the decision making process if nothing else.
I don't think these devices are used much by golfers who play the same course regularly. They are handy, however, for those of us who play a lot of new courses or ones that we do not see very often. They are primarily suited for the card & pencil golfers to whom score is all important. As we have discussed, I don't keep score much anymore. Thus... I have one, but I only use it sparingly.
How's that for riding the fence?
-
Well ridden, buckaroo!
All this just makes me want to go play golf somewhere that the fairways are firm, the greens are firmer and the wind blows every day.
-
Brent
A trip to Askernish is what you need
I would not be surprised to see a landing
tax on electronic golfing aids when golfer's
arrive on the island of South Uist. Say around
£50 should do, help them to their target of
£1,000,000.
Perhaps that is the answer, all using electronic
aids should have to pay a tax (valid for 18 holes
only) to use these aids, with the money going to
a good cause.
Mind you, how many of these guys who use these
aid would have the balls to play at Askernish as
not many markers either natural or man made,
just the odd sheep, but they move.
-
I would love to visit the Hebrides, generally speaking, as well as play at Askernish. Perhaps one day I'll free up some time on a UK trip and get Mike W or someone to come along so we can have a game or three.
This year I think Brora will be as close as I can come. Just 12 weeks from this very morning and counting!
-
If two golfers of essentially equal ability play a match at an unfamiliar course, and one uses a rangefinder for distances and the other has to rely on some 150 markers that were probably put out there 20 years ago by some guy walking off the distance, one player has a clear advantage that has nothing to do with his ability. Or, to put it another way, if neither of those golfers is carrying a rangefinder, and both are relying on the dubious direction of those 150-yard markers, then doesn't the golfer who has a better sense of distance perception then have a clear advantage? The question is, to what (if any) degree is the ability to perceive distance a golfing skill that needs to be tested (sorry, I know I mentioned this earlier). Is the inevitable next step golf carts equipped with wind detection devices so that the golfer can have an exact reading of wind direction and speed? Do these gps or yardage detection devices also give accurate readings as to how much higher or lower the intended target is than where the ball lies? Is it allowable to have a computer that takes into account shot distance, height differential, wind speed and direction, and the golfer's tested ability with each club and will tell the golfer which club they should be hitting? Or am I just being an ass?
That last bit is an all-too common occurrence.
-
All this just makes me want to go play golf somewhere that the fairways are firm, the greens are firmer and the wind blows every day.
You need to see the new Founders Club at Pawleys Island... it is exactly as you describe!
-
I don't think its relevant which golfers can benefit from knowing distance to what accuracy. Slow play is slow play, and that's true whether it is a 30 handicapper taking 30 seconds to get his distance to a half yard or a +3 taking 30 seconds to get his distance to the half yard. It may annoy some a bit more seeing a 30 handicapper do it because he can't benefit, but if he's not delaying me or his group is being held up in front so he's gotta do something to waste time, I might laugh at it but I'm not going to begrudge him his particular method of wasting time to reduce his time standing over the ball waiting for the green to clear.
As long as a golfer is capable of hitting a solid shot often enough to know how far that solid shot goes, knowing your yardage can be beneficial. Going long is generally a worse sin than leaving it short, especially on older courses with severely sloped greens. Even Tiger couldn't save par very often after flying 10 yards over a back pin on some holes at my home course, but there's probably nothing short of any green that would offer much challenge to the short game of wily veterans of GCA like Mucci or TEPaul.
I know how far I carry my 7 iron, and know that if I don't hit it square it will go shorter. But I always plan on hitting the ball square, the only difference between shots is how I calculate my yardage. For a normal shot I calculate the distance to the pin, or maybe play a few yards short of it if to avoid super slick downhillers. In cases where going long means penalty strokes or having to work for even a bogey, I work backwards by figuring out my distance to go long and select a club that I know "can't possibly go that far" (somehow I still hit that "impossible" iron shot a few times a season :-\)
-
I assume you are being deliberately obtuse.
I'm a 12 handicap and I KNOW I will carry a decently hit 7 iron 145 yards and it has to be a REALLY bad strike not to carry 130. If the flag is at 155 and 8 yards over the front bunker, I'm going to hit 6 iron to be sure I'm over the bunker. If it's 15 yards over that bunker I'll go with my 7 iron.
As to being able to compensate for the other factors I have no idea what you are talking about. Of course I can compensate for a wind (and given how blowy it can be up here I wouldn't be much of a golfer if I couldn't), or firm green conditions, or soggy turf. Your assumption that I can't is, frankly, ridiculous arrogance.
Mark,
I think its great that you are one the few people off 12 handicap that can hit one off shots to such a high degree of accuracy. Most players believe they can when infact they can't. I would however suggest that your example of flag at 155 and 15 over the bunker (140 carry) for a player who hits it 145 with the 7 iron leaving just 5 yards of leeway is something that even Tiger would not risk taking on if not necessary. It also puts your statement (which was a bit over the top)"Your assumption that I can't is, frankly, ridiculous arrogance" into perspective.
-
Jon,
You don't stop to think, even for a moment, do you. You've never met me, let alone seen me play and yet you see fit to doubt what I say about my own game. You must be full of it.
As to your questioning my example, let me explain further, since I clearly need to. I reckon that (assuming still conditions on a reasonably warm day) my 7 iron will make that 140 yard carry 80% of the time. 15% of the time I'm likely to be in the bunker and 5% I'll miss short. If I hit 6 iron and hit it well there's a risk I go through the back. I'd rather be in the bunker short.
Anyway, it isn't about my game. Even a 24 handicapper, whose distance control means that his 7 iron carries, say, an average 130 yards but might go 90 or 110 with 20% likelihood will, on average, benefit from knowing the yardage to, say, +/-5 yards. The fact that you don't understand that (or are unwilling to) suggests you are completely out of touch with the games of mid and high handicap golfers.
Still, what do I know? If you know my game better than I do I'm sure you understand everyone else's just as well.
-
Jon
I know Mark Pearce. I have played golf with him. He is a friend of mine. In relation to knowing him or his golf game (and probably another thing or two....) you are no Mark Pearce.
Rich
-
Mark,
Mark,
I realise I have never met or seen you play golf. I hope at some point we may have the opportunity to, I am sure we will get along better in person than over the internet. Maybe I am just not understanding what you are writing correctly and if so I apologise if you feel I am insulting you, it was not my intention. You will have to excuse me seeming to doubt your abilities to do what you claim and I am sure you fully believe what you are saying to be correct. It is possible we are talking about 2 different things all together so I will explain myself in more depth. I am sure when you have read it, wether you agree or not you will see that I did not wish to have a go at you.
With a 5 yard accuracy 80% of the time and I will make the assumption that direction is similar meaning that over 18 holes 32 of full shots hit within 15 feet of their target leading to between 11 and 12 birdie putts from within this distance. From these 11/12 putts it might be realistically expected to hole 3 and 2 putt the rest meaning a player would need to be 15/16 over par on the remaining 6 or 7 holes to play to a 12 handicap.
I have no doubt that you are able to play rounds to the standard you suggest although I do have difficulty in seeing it as an average round. Even on the PGA tour GIR are not 80% for the average pro.
Richard,
In reply to your statement. I am pleased for you that you are aquainted with Mark which is something I am not. You quite rightly say you know him as a person and a golfer which I can not say other than what I have read here on the GCA. I do however take exception to you comments directed at me which seem to me to be of a negative character. I would like to know where you have met me or know of my golfing game that you could make such a comparison. Case of the kettle calling the pot black, perhaps?
-
David Ober writes:
Most players who use range finders play FASTER, not slower. And that's a fact.
I'm interested in knowing where this fact comes from. All I've ever seen is anecdotal information. I think it would have been very easy for the USGA and/or R&A to run tests to see if these things truly speed up or slow down play, but I don't believe they ever did test. I think they just took the manufacturers word for it.
Cheers,
Dan King
Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training.
--Michael Shermer
-
Dan,
Do you have any evidence that they slow down play? Slow players are always going to play slow, no matter the technology.
-
Jon,
I have a tendency to an in to out swing which means I'm going to push or hook a proportion of shots, missing left or right. The hooks will also go long but then they're missing left anyway. There will be shots which miss short or long. In my example obove I suggested that perhaps 20% might be short. None of that changes the fact that knowing the yardage will help when I hit the shot well. And your figures completely ignore the fact that on someholes I won't be playing my approach in regulation or from a decent lie because of trouble off the tee. You appear to be assuming that wrong distance is the only reason I ever drop a shot. I don't know a 6 handicapper, let alone a 12, for whom that's the case.
It is simply not the case that to gain a benefit from knowing a yardage you have to be able to hit that yardage exactly every time.
-
I still don't understand what this argument of using guns to speed up play is all about. We can obviously point to times and places where guns weren't used and speed of play wasn't a problem. Its incredible that anyone would argue that guns are good because they speed up play. When has it ever been accepted that finding yardage is the reason for 5 hour rounds? Guns are not going to make a material difference either way.
Ciao
-
Craig Edgmand writes:
Do you have any evidence that they slow down play?
Nope, none, nada. My evidence is completely anecdotal. I am just naturally suspicious when the USGA comes out and says they okayed them because they speed up play, when they did nothing to collect such information. The USGA is just as clueless if they speed up play as all the people making claims in this thread.
Slow players are always going to play slow, no matter the technology.
Yeah, but for some reason the slow players are always in front of me on the golf course. Give them another piece of equipment to fiddle with, and I've seen them slow down to a crawl. I'm not saying these devil's devices slow down play, I'm just saying I've seen them make slow players slower on some occasions.
I don't think speeding up fast players is high on my list of needs. Speeding up slow players is.
Cheers,
Dan King
Technology... the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it.
--Max Frisch
-
But Dan, slow players don't think they are slow.
-
Guns speed up the game - of course, it can be done as you walk, what, no, can't get a correct reading, so you have to stop. Therefore playing a round (as described below) by yourself without a gun must be faster.
I was taught to play as follows (as I posted the other day)
c)Walking up to the ball from your previous shot working out
distance, obstacles/hazards/bunkers, then decide which club to play.
By the time you have reached the ball you have selected your approach
shot then go through the final motions of re-checking ball, flag,
distance, correct stance, relaxed, final look keeping eye on the ball,
swing and hit the ball, like millions of people have done for around a
100 years.
Thank God, the art of playing golf still survives in some of use. Its a simple basic skill to master and perhaps if its speed you want, this way could be quicker too.
-
Jon,
I have a tendency to an in to out swing which means I'm going to push or hook a proportion of shots, missing left or right. The hooks will also go long but then they're missing left anyway. There will be shots which miss short or long. In my example obove I suggested that perhaps 20% might be short. None of that changes the fact that knowing the yardage will help when I hit the shot well. And your figures completely ignore the fact that on someholes I won't be playing my approach in regulation or from a decent lie because of trouble off the tee. You appear to be assuming that wrong distance is the only reason I ever drop a shot. I don't know a 6 handicapper, let alone a 12, for whom that's the case.
It is simply not the case that to gain a benefit from knowing a yardage you have to be able to hit that yardage exactly every time.
Mark,
I understand what you are saying, I think. The ability to hit to a 5 yard consistancy 80% of the time requires the player to be able to repeat the same strike on each of these occasions. A hook will result not only in the ball going left but also going somewhat further due to the clubface being closed at impact and a push will be shorter. Shots travelling a consistant distance will generally have a very similar trajectory so long as the conditions are the same. Distance and direction are closely related to each other. I will concede that poor alignment will cause the ball to miss the target and is the main factor a pro misses the target.
A player capable of over 96% accuracy on a 145 yard shot (5 yard) for 4 out of 5 shots would be more than cable of using his longer clubs when teeing off. Indeed, one would expect him to miss only 3 tee shots on the par 4's and 5's. Although, as you point out, not all your shots to the green would be in regulation, if you do posses this degree of accuracy then 15 of them would be giving 12 GIR inside 15 foot.
The only way to develope a consistant distance is through a consistant strike which comes from a consistant swing and leads to the same shape of shot thus direction.
I had the pleasure of playing Elie 2 weeks ago shooting a four under 66. Although Elie is a fairly short course and I played quite well I came no where near the distance accuracy we are discussing which is why I questioned it in the first place.
I concur that knowing the distance of a hazard is helpful even to a higher handicap player in order to insure clearing or staying short of it by a considerable margin. In such a case yes, yardages do help. Does it help the player to be quicker or play less shots? As the time to play a round has increased in the last 30 years and despite better equipment the average players handicap has not then it wouldn't appear to be the case (I appr. that since the 1983 change handicaps are more realistic and have gone up due to the changes).
-
Guns speed up the game - of course, it can be done as you walk, what, no, can't get a correct reading, so you have to stop. Therefore playing a round (as described below) by yourself without a gun must be faster.
I was taught to play as follows (as I posted the other day)
c)Walking up to the ball from your previous shot working out
distance, obstacles/hazards/bunkers, then decide which club to play.
By the time you have reached the ball you have selected your approach
shot then go through the final motions of re-checking ball, flag,
distance, correct stance, relaxed, final look keeping eye on the ball,
swing and hit the ball, like millions of people have done for around a
100 years.
Thank God, the art of playing golf still survives in some of use. Its a simple basic skill to master and perhaps if its speed you want, this way could be quicker too.
Amen Melyvn,
When I'm walking up to my ball, I'm already surveying the next shot whether it be the green, bunkering, hazards or otherwise. So by the time I get to my ball, I only have to get a decent yardage figure and then I'm ready to go.
-
Richard,
In reply to your statement. I am pleased for you that you are aquainted with Mark which is something I am not. You quite rightly say you know him as a person and a golfer which I can not say other than what I have read here on the GCA. I do however take exception to you comments directed at me which seem to me to be of a negative character. I would like to know where you have met me or know of my golfing game that you could make such a comparison. Case of the kettle calling the pot black, perhaps?
Jon
No offense was intended. I was just having a Lloyd Bentsen moment. Sorry that you seem to have seen youself as Dan Quayle... ;)
The overall point that Mark (I think) and others are trying to make is that regardless of ability, improved knowledge about distances will be of value to every player. I don't see how you (or anybody) can disagree with that.
awra bes' fur the noo
Rich
-
Jon,
Hitting 80% of 7 irons at least 140 yards does not equate to 5 yard accuracy. Dave Pelz studied golfers full shots and found a bra-shaped dispersal. Generally good for length but missing one side or the other. Also, a really well struck 7 iron might go 155. I'm a good (people say a very good) ball striker for my handicap. My problem is direction, course management and short game.
I am not saying that 80% of my 7 irons fly between 140 and 145 yards. 80% fly more than 140 yards. And, of course, that's the 7 iron. Like most golfers (and certainly most high 'cappers) I'm less solid and consistent with longer clubs. Also, there's no point worrying about distance on mis-directed shots (other than that if, for instance, there's water long left I'm likely to take the option, if available, which means a hook won't reach). Frankly, your stats just don't work (where do you get 96% accuracy from, for instance).
In a round I might expect to hit 9 or ten rounds in regulation. I'm afraid I also expect to take 36 putts. Not all golfers are the same, you see.
-
Guns speed up the game - of course, it can be done as you walk, what, no, can't get a correct reading, so you have to stop. Therefore playing a round (as described below) by yourself without a gun must be faster.
I was taught to play as follows (as I posted the other day)
c)Walking up to the ball from your previous shot working out
distance, obstacles/hazards/bunkers, then decide which club to play.
By the time you have reached the ball you have selected your approach
shot then go through the final motions of re-checking ball, flag,
distance, correct stance, relaxed, final look keeping eye on the ball,
swing and hit the ball, like millions of people have done for around a
100 years.
Thank God, the art of playing golf still survives in some of use. Its a simple basic skill to master and perhaps if its speed you want, this way could be quicker too.
Melvyn, ever need glasses or other corrective lenses for near-sightedness?
-
Melvyn, ever need glasses or other corrective lenses for near-sightedness?
Better yet, us natural lefties who are right-brained have better depth perception. Lobotomies for everyone!
-
Kyle
Are you saying that those who use these aids do so because of sight problems, well then, fine, if there is a medical reason, would not want
to stop anyone playing golf.
Yes, your comments make sense, now I see why most use them.
Don’t tell me any more of your medical details, as none of my business.
Golf can be great fun, keep trying.
PS For the record I am ambidextrous, in Table Tennis I lead with my left.
In my youth I was kept in beer most night by playing Snooker with
alternative hands to the frustration of others. Check mate, Clint.
-
Kyle
Are you saying that those who use these aids do so because of sight problems, well then, fine, if there is a medical reason, would not want
to stop anyone playing golf.
Yes, your comments make sense, now I see why most use them.
Don’t tell me any more of your medical details, as none of my business.
Golf can be great fun, keep trying.
PS For the record I am ambidextrous, in Table Tennis I lead with my left.
In my youth I was kept in beer most night by playing Snooker with
alternative hands to the frustration of others. Check mate, Clint.
I'm sure you're both-eye dominant too. But I digress....my comment was made in jest, hope there is still room for that.
Let me ask 2 questions about what seems to be your 2 presumptions:
1. Golfers who use aids do so because they can't correctly guess yardages.
Is it possible that users of yardage aids could be BETTER at correctly guessing yardages than the person who never uses one? Sounds like behavioral conditioning to me, YAU (yardage aid users) have constant reinforcement of actual yardages. Take away the YA, but the mental pictures still exist. Not exactly a dog and a bell, I know, but in the same zip code.
2. YAU aren't having as much fun as you are.
Based on what evidence?
This discussion has definitely gotten the mouse on the wheel inside my head. I'll have an opportunity to play a semi-new course to me (I've played it twice) next month on back-to-back days. They'll be the first rounds of the year, so I can use my rusty swing as a fairly decent control group. One round w/ a rangefinder/sprinklers, the other blind. I'm eager to see what the results will be with as many variables controlled as possible.
-
Mark,
most golfers golfers miss the target short rather than long a majority of the time. Working on this and the fact that the error length short and long is generally the same says to me:
1. that hitting average 145, with 80% atleast 140 means that 80% of the shots are going to land between 140 and 150 or a 5 yard dispersal from the 145 mark. 5 yards is 3.45% of 145 yards giving a 96.55% target accuracy.
2. Although you might well be an exception to rule, and lets face every golfer is an exception to one generalism or another I was looking at the average. I don't believe I said you couldn't do it just it was stat. wise not the norm.
3. Accuracy of length and line are related to each other due to the reasons I have stated previously and although it is more than possible to hit balls of equal length both left and right generally a pull/hook will be longer and a push/slice will be shorter.
4. While with a push or a slice the timing of the swing is different there will be a diverence in result.
5. For the above reasons if you hit 80% of your shots atleast 140 with the 7 iron but the longest are 155 yards it would suggest to me that you hit the ball closer to 155 with a well struck shot and average nearer the 150.
(I am just going through my thoughts not trying to get cute :-\) This in turn means a doubling of the spread of shot leading to 30 feet not 15 feet. This, combined with a short game with potential to improve could explain the 36 putts around ;).
I have done stats with hundreds of golfers over the years and my
My experience is that player's image of their game and the reality is very often different. By addressing the correct points many shots can be saved.
Rich,
no probs. I do agree it is of value or atleast can't hurt but it is maybe not of as much value as many people think. I also am of the opinion that judging the distance by eye is one the skills that a golfer should be required to use and that local knowledge should be an advantage.
-
Jon,
Your point 5 is true. The putting's bad in any event. If I can sort that I'll be plenty of shots better than a 12.
Mark
-
Two words, Mark
THE CLAW(tm)
-
Clint
Answer to yesterday’s questions
1) I don’t know why golfers use electronic distance aids, maybe they can’t
read distance. I am saying I don’t, don’t want to and don’t feel the
need, whether for the competitive edge or for my ego. I get to the flag
in the time honoured way. If by using them you feel inferior that’s your
problem not mine.
2) As for fun, how can I tell if you are having any fun, all I can say is that I
am, and frankly that’s all that matters.
Use then, don’t use them, I just don care. I can only speak for myself. I am proud to play the game my father taught me, his father before him, my great grandfather before him and my great, great grandfather. If you can’t or don’t want to use brain/eye coordination and happy with an electronic aid. Well whatever you do behind closed door that’s your business, keep pumping the irons.
My family has been played golf for nearly two centuries, and I will continue honouring the way I was taught.
Surprise yourself, go and play a course you have never seen before without any electronic aids, then play a few more and see how you feel.
-
Clint
Answer to yesterday’s questions
1) I don’t know why golfers use electronic distance aids, maybe they can’t
read distance. I am saying I don’t, don’t want to and don’t feel the
need, whether for the competitive edge or for my ego. I get to the flag
in the time honoured way. If by using them you feel inferior that’s your
problem not mine.
2) As for fun, how can I tell if you are having any fun, all I can say is that I
am, and frankly that’s all that matters.
Use then, don’t use them, I just don care. I can only speak for myself. I am proud to play the game my father taught me, his father before him, my great grandfather before him and my great, great grandfather. If you can’t or don’t want to use brain/eye coordination and happy with an electronic aid. Well whatever you do behind closed door that’s your business, keep pumping the irons.
My family has been played golf for nearly two centuries, and I will continue honouring the way I was taught.
Surprise yourself, go and play a course you have never seen before without any electronic aids, then play a few more and see how you feel.
Totally agree with your posts.
I hope one day we might be able to play a round together.
-
Melvin,
I am exttremely interested in just how you play the game.
Do you use distance at all?
Are you aware of the yardage on par 3 holes?
Do you insist that the hole yardages be blacked out when looking at a scorecard from a new course?
Do you consider have a pin sheet with hole distances cheating also?
Thanks in advance.
-
Peter
My game is no different than most in the UK, I am armed with a score card and am aware of the length of each hole. As I have mentioned before I walking up to the ball from my previous shot working out distance, obstacles/hazards/bunkers, then decide which club to play. By the time I
have reached the ball I have selected my approach shot. Then the final motions of re-checking ball, flag, distance, correct stance, relaxed, final look keeping eye on the ball, swing and hit the ball. Nothing special, nothing out
of the ordinary, just for fun and pure enjoyment. I am an average guy, I don’t need to prove anything to anyone, least of all myself. To me this is what golf is all about and why over the years it has attracted millions to the sport. Also I prefer the fun of new courses (not new in the sense of just built, but ones I have never played), challenges unknown and only armed with a scorecard (if available – i.e. honesty box, 9 hole course – don’t tend to have any).
The large well known courses like The Old or New are great, but are busy,
So my preference is the smaller courses which give me the desired enjoyment I seek. Courses that I have mentioned before. Bridge of Allan, Cullen, Tarland, and Strathpeffer Spa to mention but a few.
Thanks Ralph, another true golfer
-
My family has been played golf for nearly two centuries, and I will continue honouring the way I was taught.
Good for you. I assume you are still using hickories and featheries also. ;)
You are welcome to play the game any way you feel like doing so. So am I. At least as long as we're both playing by the rules. If I play a course or in a tournament that doesn't allow range finders I won't use mine. Otherwise I will when I feel like it. That makes me no less a person or a golfer than you in my opinion.
-
John
‘That makes me no less a person or a golfer than you in my opinion’.
I agree John, but you are using an artificial electronic aid to help you.
What I don’t understand, if you play without them why do you feel the
need to use them on other courses?
Perhaps we should ask the designers to include multi-distance markers
in the form of features in their design. If that is not acceptable then the cheapest way is to mark a golf course out as a football field, with white
line across the fairway, every 10 yards up t, say 170-150- yards from the
flag then every 5 yards up to the green. On the greens, mark white circles
at 1 yard centres as per a dartboard around the flag. Problem solved!!
That’s what you guys want; clear, easy to read distance markers. Every
time I see a golfer with his books of distance notes or electronic aids, it
just reminds me of playing golf on a grid or dartboard. I wonder where the satisfaction comes from at the end of a round – from mastering the books/aids or from your own abilities.
In my humble opinion a course with painted grids would look like a joke and I would not be seen dead on it.
As for your comment ‘I assume you are still using hickories and featheries also’, it’s the usual type of comment I get when someone can’t find a good reason for their own stance/argument.
-
Melvin,
Thanks for answering my questions, although you missed one: Are yardage sheets wth the distance to the pin cheating also? All Tour Pros use them in conjunction with their caddies. Should these be allowed?
-
Pete
IMHO No - I believe we would all be better off without them.
I can see no problem with scorecards, the odd marker as you
progress down the course.
We all are meant to be playing golf, not driving in a car with
Sat. Nav.
Do you do things by the numbers at home or in the office - no
don't answer that one - I certainly do not wish to know.
-
Two words, Mark
THE CLAW(tm)
Those words send a shudder up my spine. In a world of many resorts, that's the last (well, not quite, the belly thing is after the CLAW).
-
Pete
Do you do things by the numbers at home or in the office - no
don't answer that one - I certainly do not wish to know.
This could cut to the crux of the problem; I'm an engineer, are you a poet or philosopher?