Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jason Thurman on December 30, 2014, 09:41:01 PM
-
Discuss
-
The most valuable thing to me a about a rangefinder is the binocular effect allowing one to zoom in and note features not normally evident without the device.
Not sure how I feel about that, but is very useful when competing without a practice round.
Like modern equipment, I'm not for it , but I'm not willing to surrender that advantage to the rest of the field.
-
I've been using less and less of them this year. However on many courses they are necessary with the way greens are protected in the front and/or back by sand/water. If the middle of the green is 130yds and your approach has to be done in the air and has to go at least 120yds but no more than 140yds it's hard to play by "feel". And there's only a couple different clubs you have the option of playing. But if the green entrance is relatively open you could take any number of clubs and hit a variety of approach shots from all distances, and you're not penalized excessively for being wrong.
-
Jason
As you know I am ardently against yardage guns because of how architecture is dumbed down. As Jeff says, golfers are selfish enough not to give up any goodies...all in the name of competition. Beyond that philosophical point and the concept that a machine backs up what the eye tells the brain (or offers different info than the eye offers), YGs will I believe, eventually dumb down architecture
1. to the point where archies will no longer try to be clever with dead ground and other subtle features...whats the point?
2. for the guy who is well out of position it is no longer a guessing game...why bother offering width?
3. YGs simply make the aerial game more viable and courses will eventually be built toward the use of these gadgets.
I don't see any positive upside to architecture with the use of YGs.
Ciao
-
I'm not sure I want to go here because I've documented in the past how much I am against all distance devices including yardage markers. My compromises are for the reasons Philip mention but I still think most to all courses should get by with only 150 yard markers for people to glance at before they pull out a club.
-
To me, the main way distance measuring has changed architecture is by giving the architect in the field an easy check on whether a feature is at "the right distance" ... which means that he is more likely to reposition his tees, etc. to make sure his features are always at "the right distance".
The problem is that designing around a "right" distance is inherently flawed, favoring a guy who hits ten yards more than that distance instead of ten yards less. It's true that the guy who hits ten yards more is the better player, but when you pick an arbitrary cut-off [say 260 yards] and continually reinforce the same number, you are choosing particular players over others, and not rewarding the guy who hits it 250 for being better than the guy who hits it 240, etc.
When we don't know what the exact yardage is to a feature, we do the same thing golfers do ... we judge it by eye, and sometimes we are fooled into playing away from something we could easily carry, into trouble on the other side of the fairway. We are losing that now ... not just because the players use their rangefinders, but because they can assume we designed to a certain distance in mind, and if they can't carry our other features than they won't be able to carry this one, either.
-
Distance measuring devices seem to me to be less helpful when it comes too playing partial/half shots into greens so situations where more of these are needed, especially when accompanied with the use of dead ground, may still have some effect. And sometimes with no obvious reference points a pretty flat pitch to a pretty flat ground/grade level green can be surprisingly tricky, a shot from say 40 yds short of the 7th at Burnham & Berrow would be an example that comes immediately to mind.
Atb
-
I've never used a rangefinder and never will... That was pretty much sealed up the first time I watched a guy in the group ahead of me pull his out for a 70 yard pitch shot.
I can think of plenty of times over the years where I've had severe doubt about which club to hit often thanks to a bunker positioned well short of the green. I may be standing on the 150 marker, but because it appears far closer there's a great deal of indecision and then a poor shot usually follows. That's totally lost when one can simply whip out a pair of binoculars.
-
I've often wondered if range finders give players a too exact number for which they seemingly can't hit to resulting in more mis-clubs, indecision, and uncertainty.
But we've had distance measuring devices since the beginning of the game whether it be stepping it off, measuring sticks, yardage books, etc. so what makes the range finder different from these other methods?
-
I've often wondered if range finders give players a too exact number for which they seemingly can't hit to resulting in more mis-clubs, indecision, and uncertainty.
But we've had distance measuring devices since the beginning of the game whether it be stepping it off, measuring sticks, yardage books, etc. so what makes the range finder different from these other methods?
It's quicker and easier. That's the only difference.
But to answer your first question, yes I have seen people for whom the GPS/laser number gives them mental-game difficulties. Generally they are guys who already are filled with doubt and second-guessing. Adding an exact number can befuddle them completely.
There's one guy I play with often who is the most squirrelly, second-guessing, indecisive golfer you'll ever see. Here was an recent exchange between him and his better-ball partner while standing over a 10-foot downhill putt.
Guy: "Does this putt break more than I think it does?"
Partner: "Ummm, how do I know how much you think it breaks?"
Guy: "Yeah, that's what I'm thinking".
Then he tapped the putt and left it five feet short.
He has a rangefinder but I'm pretty sure he only looks through it to give him something to do while he waffles over what club to hit. Then he usually announced, right as he's standing over the ball "I'm pretty sure this isn't the right club".
-
Brent, your friend needs professional analysis of the mental sort. Be there for him.
To cobble from that point, "how do you know how much architecture I'm perceiving?"
Does Mona Lisa being small verse Guernica being enormous matter? Even if we know how large they are?
For me, DMDs of mass destruction have no impact on my perception of architecture. Long before I know my distance, I've determined what type of shot I can play (versus what type of shot I'd like to play). The yardage gives me a sense of backswing length.
I know a guy who knows a guy who will give swing yardages to the yard. He'll tell you that you need to hit a baby cut precisely 186.4 yards in length and you have that shot. On the putting surface, he wants no part of knowing how long a putt is, as it's all feel and no measurement. Great guy, really enjoyable golfer, to each his own. I'll pace off my putts to know the precise footage, but from the fairway, I typically need a ballpark figure, as I'm all about the center of the green.
-
Brent, your friend needs professional analysis of the mental sort. Be there for him.
Alas, with the group I've been playing with most often we're far more often actually winding him up with swing tips rather than offering any real help in being more decisive. He's a good-hearted fellow, always a pleasure to be around and yet we all get great entertainment from his mental gyrations.
Golfers can be cruel.
P.S. The real hell of it (for him) is with all this he still fairly consistently shoots in the high 70's to around 80. I'm a mental-game giant compared to him but he'd beat me like a drum every time if I didn't get strokes...
-
To answer the original question: Minimally, I think, with one exception.
On a course with which a player is very familiar, devices simply speed up the process of club selection and line of play. I know that the edge of the water on #4 at my club is 160 out, and that the fairway bunker is 120 out, and so on. I've played nearly a thousand rounds there, and I have layup distances and club adjustments for pin positions memorized; my GPS watch just makes the math simple vs. pacing, etc. At ALL cost, I'm going to stay out of the fairway bunkers on #10 and #18, so my appreciation and perception of the architecture hasn't changed one iota because of a GPS watch.
The one exception is on an unfamiliar course, and I suppose if one believes that one of the points of the game is to be unaware of how far to hit the ball, the perception of architecture does change. I don't believe that at all, but I can accept that others do.
For those of you that like to rant and rail against distance measuring devices by providing an anecdote about somebody you know who lasers 35 yd. shots, maybe you could stipulate that the real problem has zero to do with the measuring device and everything to do with the golfer. You have only to recall Harrington pacing off 100' shots while in possession of a yardage book, pin sheet, and a professional caddy to understand that.
-
I've told the story before about a guy who used to be a member at my club. About a 2.something handicap even though he played like once a week, used to be a really good golfer back when he played a lot.
Anyway, his routine involved lasering any shot that was going to be hit through the air. Unless he was putting from the fringe, he'd laser even little pitch-and-run shots from 22 yards, 31 yards, whatever.
I only played less than a dozen rounds with this guy but in that time he holed out more of those 20-60 yard in-between shots than I would make in a year. Maybe four or five hole-outs in 30-odd attempts when we were playing together?
So after initially thinking he was getting carried away with the laser, I've got to say if you can hole out that often and if you can leave the ball within a yard or less of the hole absolutely routinely then go for it.
-
I've told the story before about a guy who used to be a member at my club. About a 2.something handicap even though he played like once a week, used to be a really good golfer back when he played a lot.
Anyway, his routine involved lasering any shot that was going to be hit through the air. Unless he was putting from the fringe, he'd laser even little pitch-and-run shots from 22 yards, 31 yards, whatever.
I only played less than a dozen rounds with this guy but in that time he holed out more of those 20-60 yard in-between shots than I would make in a year. Maybe four or five hole-outs in 30-odd attempts when we were playing together?
So after initially thinking he was getting carried away with the laser, I've got to say if you can hole out that often and if you can leave the ball within a yard or less of the hole absolutely routinely then go for it.
Brent,
I'd be willing to bet that this guy was using a Pelz-type method for partial shots; three different swings with various clubs for different carry-roll distances.
It gets made fun of a lot here, but I absolutely guarantee you the pros are using their yardage book and pin sheets to do exactly the same thing on those partial shots. I've never understood how the game is MORE fun when you know LESS about the shot you are about to play, whatever that shot might be. By that logic, playing blindfolded might be the way to go.
And btw, IMO doing this in no way reduces one's appreciation for or perception of the GCA; it could even be argued that it is enhanced.
-
It lessens the ability to "camouflage" the golf course ala Mr Mackenzie.
As Jeff said the binocular effect of the range finder dimishes that wonderful optical illusion effect hat can be so well used by a good architect.
It takes nearly all the guessing fun out of a hole, which I would imagine makes things alot more difficult for the course desginer.
I tend to limit my use to tournaments only to maximise my enjoyment of allowing the architect to fool me.....that has alwyas been one of the joys of the game to me, to be chalenged by what I see and not knowing the exact yardage.
-
I used a device that gives me front, middle and back distances for the green. I find the device helps to sped up play since I don't have to look for a yardage plate before each approach shot or pace yardages. I realize there are other devices that provide distances to bunkers, water, carry distances, etc. For me, I find using those devices slow my pace down and I don't play freely. It's information overload.
In terms of architecture, I think the biggest effect of distance measuring devices is they can remove a lot of doubt from a golfer's mind. Obviously, a good architect wants to create doubt in the golfer's mind, make them a bit uncomfortable or even uncertain on specific shots. Yardage devices help to eliminate this aspect of architecture.
-
To me, the main way distance measuring has changed architecture is by giving the architect in the field an easy check on whether a feature is at "the right distance" ... which means that he is more likely to reposition his tees, etc. to make sure his features are always at "the right distance".
The problem is that designing around a "right" distance is inherently flawed, favoring a guy who hits ten yards more than that distance instead of ten yards less. It's true that the guy who hits ten yards more is the better player, but when you pick an arbitrary cut-off [say 260 yards] and continually reinforce the same number, you are choosing particular players over others, and not rewarding the guy who hits it 250 for being better than the guy who hits it 240, etc.
When we don't know what the exact yardage is to a feature, we do the same thing golfers do ... we judge it by eye, and sometimes we are fooled into playing away from something we could easily carry, into trouble on the other side of the fairway. We are losing that now ... not just because the players use their rangefinders, but because they can assume we designed to a certain distance in mind, and if they can't carry our other features than they won't be able to carry this one, either.
A-flippin'MEN, Tom.
I'm a short-hitting competitive amateur, and so many courses nowadays have carries from the back tees that are 255 to 275, and I just can't carry those bunkers. EVER. I have to constantly steer my ball AROUND hazards, while my longer opponents and fellow competitors fly right OVER them.
I played the SCGA Mid-Am years ago at a course where I felt like every par four had bunkers on both sides of the fairway, one that was a 250 carry and the other being a 260-270 carry. I was completely scr#wed! LOL
-
I'm not sure I want to go here because I've documented in the past how much I am against all distance devices including yardage markers. My compromises are for the reasons Philip mention but I still think most to all courses should get by with only 150 yard markers for people to glance at before they pull out a club.
Are you against them for yourself or for everybody?
If the latter...
What about getting distances from google? What about pacing off distances during a practice round? Make them illegal?
-
Not much unless, as Tom mentions, the architect relies on them too religiously. I use them as other players like them, but I can play just as easily without them. When the breeze is up, I don't use them; it's more about what shot I want hit than the yardage.
-
It lessens the ability to "camouflage" the golf course ala Mr Mackenzie.
As Jeff said the binocular effect of the range finder dimishes that wonderful optical illusion effect hat can be so well used by a good architect.
It takes nearly all the guessing fun out of a hole, which I would imagine makes things alot more difficult for the course desginer.
I tend to limit my use to tournaments only to maximise my enjoyment of allowing the architect to fool me.....that has alwyas been one of the joys of the game to me, to be chalenged by what I see and not knowing the exact yardage.
How effective or important is camouflage anyway, though, after the feature has been seen repeatedly? Unless you are advocating NO course markings of ANY sort and NO yardage books, then players know pretty quickly that the bunker that appears to be greenside is actually set back from the green. Or that there is a small pot bunker that they can't see and can't carry just past the big bunker they can see and can carry. We have both of those features at my club, but they only fooled me the first time I played the course; for the other 699 rounds, I've remembered...
Architectural features are there, for the most part, to catch errant, poorly struck golf shots, or to provide the risk in a risk-reward shot, or to frame the hole visually. Those functions don't change by knowing the distance QUICKLY, which measuring devices allow. I see NO difference between a GPS watch and a yardage book and/or pacing, except that pacing and the yardage book take a lot longer to use.
So again, though they are much lamented here, I can't see how measuring devices change the PERCEPTION of architecture in any significant way.
-
So again, though they are much lamented here, I can't see how measuring devices change the PERCEPTION of architecture in any significant way.
A.G.: Knowing the yardages clearly makes good players better, as Jack Nicklaus and Deane Beman proved after taking the idea from Dr. Gene Andrews.
What I don't understand though is why it took so long for that to become universal. If, as you argue, camouflage is ineffective after a few plays and local knowledge makes things obvious, then why did it take a hundred years for knowing the yardage to become commonplace?
Could it be that up until recently, most people didn't have such big egos about their own ability to hit a shot precise distances?
-
Tom,
Golf would not be the first human endeavor to experience a surprisingly long period of inertia during which what in retrospect was a clearly superior process, technique or way of thinking remained untapped. Often once the first visible adoption of a new paradigm takes place, it becomes almost universally adopted so quickly that everyone asks "Why didn't someone think of this years ago?'.
This has happened in warfare where one war after another for decades is fought under a certain paradigm and then some overwhelmingly superior technology or tactic comes along and makes everything obsolete overnight. The yardage revolution in golf is somewhat unique in not being brought about by a technological change. Pacing off distances and making a yardage book could have been done as easily by Young Tom Morris and by Deane Beaman.
My theory is, only golfers extremely hidebound and traditionalist nature can explain why such a simple yet advantageous technique did not come about a century or two earlier.
-
I'm not sure I want to go here because I've documented in the past how much I am against all distance devices including yardage markers. My compromises are for the reasons Philip mention but I still think most to all courses should get by with only 150 yard markers for people to glance at before they pull out a club.
Are you against them for yourself or for everybody?
If the latter...
What about getting distances from google? What about pacing off distances during a practice round? Make them illegal?
I'm against them for everybody but I have no problem if people want to pace off the course before a game or measure something off google earth. Personally, I can't imagine ever taking the game so seriously that I'd want to do that but I'd be happy with as much preparation by the golfer as he wishes. On the course, that info just shouldn't be available.
-
Question - anyone just use their see-through rangefinder to get distances to pins? Or do you also use it to focus in on things like bunker lips, bridges, trees etc?
Atb
-
Question - anyone just use their see-through rangefinder to get distances to pins? Or do you also use it to focus in on things like bunker lips, bridges, trees etc?
Atb
I do use mine to get the distance to a greenside bunker lip, assuming it's a bunker whose lip stands high enough to get a reliable reading.
The courses I play don't typically have any bridges or trees or such that I'd want to use the laser. And things like the boundary or water hazards or other low-profile features don't really admit a reliable laser distance reading.
But quite often it's easy enough to get the exact distance to a flag and a fairly good estimate of the distance to carry a bunker and figure out whether there's enough space between the bunker and flag to land the ball.
-
In terms of perception, I would suggest it depends entirely on the course in question.
If the course allows you to Pelz everything to a certain yardage, with each wedge effectively being three different wedges, the architecture can all but be ignored.
Conversely, there are windy days on my home links where any kind of GPS is a genuine hindrance, typically such days involve firm and fast conditions and a fair bit of wind. I concluded long ago that such conditions require me to switch my senses on, recognise the architecture in front of me and play the course on instinct. It's far better that I don't have it in my head that the exact yardage is only 138 yards so surely I shouldn't be seriously thinking about hitting a 5 iron. If my senses tell me it's a 5 iron and that bunker I've never really thought about before is seriously in play, better that I just go with that without thinking one jot about actual length.
-
So Paul it sounds like a windy day at your home course and you're totally screwed. After 500 or so rounds, if you drive the ball to your usual spot in the fairway you're going to know the distance without needing a rangefinder. Does that knowledge of distance render you stone-handed and unable to execute the needed 5-iron shot into the wind?
-
So Paul it sounds like a windy day at your home course and you're totally screwed. After 500 or so rounds, if you drive the ball to your usual spot in the fairway you're going to know the distance without needing a rangefinder. Does that knowledge of distance render you stone-handed and unable to execute the needed 5-iron shot into the wind?
Not screwed at all. The point is to NOT think about yardages. Sure, I've got a good approximation of the yardage in my head, but the trick is to NOT focus on that. Obviously a rangefinder simply negates my ability to ignore actual yardages. I'm sure you've played enough golf over here to relate to that.
-
So again, though they are much lamented here, I can't see how measuring devices change the PERCEPTION of architecture in any significant way.
A.G.: Knowing the yardages clearly makes good players better, as Jack Nicklaus and Deane Beman proved after taking the idea from Dr. Gene Andrews.
What I don't understand though is why it took so long for that to become universal. If, as you argue, camouflage is ineffective after a few plays and local knowledge makes things obvious, then why did it take a hundred years for knowing the yardage to become commonplace?
Could it be that up until recently, most people didn't have such big egos about their own ability to hit a shot precise distances?
Tom,
I have no way of knowing what golfers in days gone by did about knowing yardage. My guess is that they were VERY good at estimating; Lewis and Clark paced off distances on their trip west and were later found to have been off by only a fraction of a percent. But I DO know that the idea that knowing yardages to a precise number means that the golfer believes he or she has the ability to hit the ball that exact distance is another popular myth on GCA.com that has no basis in fact. I've never heard ANYBODY say that, and I play with some pretty strong sticks.
I was fine for many decades pacing off yardage and knowing that it was about 160 +/- to the pin; I'm a decent player, but I ain't fooling myself. That my GPS watch, or a laser, gives precise yardages is just the way the devices are configured. I get a distance quicker than I used to, and it also happens to be more precise. The precision isn't necessary; it's just the way the devices work. Can you imagine a laser that read any other way?
Kind of like the speedometer on my car, which gives an exact mph instead of reading "You're going about 45 mph, give or take."
-
A.G.
I sometimes wonder if the anti-rangefinder guys around here would be happier with a GPS or laser that just read out to the nearest 10 yards instead of 1 yard. Then at least they'd shut the hell up with the "you're delusional if you think you can hit a shot an exact yardage".
Or maybe even a programmable setting on the rangefinder. If you're scratch it'll read out to the nearest five yards. Single-digit handicap, nearest ten. Double-digit, nearest twenty.
When I first joined my club there was a rather motor-mouthed guy in the weekend dogfight (and yes, I realize that me calling someone a motor-mouth is like Mick Jagger saying someone has big lips). He took exception to my walking up to the front of the green to see how much green I had to work with before hitting a 20-yard pitch shot over a bunker. Told me I was wasting time when I was probably going to dump it in the bunker anyway. And this guy was my partner for the day in the dogfight!
-
I don't see how they make any difference on shots to the green if there are distance markers in the fairway - either at 150, 175 etc. or on sprinkler heads. They just speed things along so one doesn't have to pace things off. Where they do make a difference is if one wants to lay up short of something - a bunker, the edge of the fairway, a hazard, etc., as there is no readily available information other than one's machine. How that affects the architecture is beyond me. I can't see why someone would design a hole differently because that information is now available to the players, although it may inhibit the architect's ability to fool the player.
-
Some nice very exchanges and posts here. Somehow, the anti-RF guys (as I will soon show myself to be) come off looking a bit dictatorial and black and white-ish, while guys like AG and Brent come off looking sane, measured, and well-balanced -- hale fellows well met, with wise and healthy live-and-let-live attitudes. And yet, something still doesn't seem to sit right with this, this looking through a computerized lens for information that the golfer's eye can gather pretty well all on its own. Binoculars for bird-watching make great sense; I'm out there to try to see birds, so my goal is to see them (and as many of them) as clearly as possible, and in this binoculars help. Is there an analogy? On a golf course, what is the goal? Are we out there to hit golf shots, or to measure distances? If the former (and we all agree that it is indeed the former), the 'architecture' is designed to serve as a challenge to doing this successfully, and to present 'problems' that need to be solved -- therein lies the joys of playing the game, i.e. the thrills of participating in/with these problems and challenges and coming out victorious (or at least, not too badly bruised in defeat). Why use a device that, unlike binoculars in bird-watching, actually lessens those thrills and moves us further away from one of the hobby's main purpose/goals? If there are no challenges presented by the architecture (or, better, less challenges -- in this case, the need to figure out yardages with our eyes in the face of an architect's tricks/deceptions) is not the goal of the game, the reason we play, somehow muted? Why ask the birds to leave the area before showing up to watch them?
Well, that's the theory anyway :D Happy New Year, gents!
Peter
-
For my part, the goal is to get the ball in the hole using as few shots as possible within the Rules of Golf. Over the course of many holes, many rounds, there isn't a golfer in the world who will use fewer strokes by never knowing how far his ball is from the hole.
There's no reason other than "few shots as possible" to carry 14 clubs instead of just hitting a putter 150 times to play a round. For that matter you could add immensely to the challenge by playing blindfolded or in the dark at midnight. The restrictions in the Rules of Golf are mostly arbitrary. As in any game, you make up some rules and stick to them.
There's no possible way for the Rules to legislate that every golfer play every shot without knowing its distance. To do that you'd have to eliminate all yardage markings, all caddies, forbid golfers from talking to anyone who has played the course before and you'd have to make a rule that any course can only be played once to ensure the golfer is well and truly guessing on each shot.
Given that golfers do use distance information (even those who play by "feel" are still guessing how far to hit the ball, they just don't assign a number to it) it's only a question of what means to that end will be allowed. Currently the Rules seem to be pretty much allowing the golfer to decide where to gather distance information within very broad bounds. There are still competitions with silly hold-over restrictions on certain distance-information sources but hey, golf has always been a game full of silly hold-over thinking.
To more directly answer Peter's question, there are many problems a golf course can present. A "problem" comprised of asking a golfer who has never seen a course before to guess "How far do you think it is to carry that bunker over there" just doesn't interest the vast majority of golfers as much as the other challenges posed by a golf course.
Hey, some people think golf is inextricably linked to riding in a golf cart. Others wouldn't dream of playing golf without smoking a couple good cigars, Still others believe the presence of a caddie is absolutely needed for the game to be enjoyed to its fullest. No surprise that some people think that choosing their shot because they remember how far it is over that bunker is way, way more fun than choosing their shot because someone or something told them it's 175 yards. We've each got to pursue our own bliss out there, so go for it!
-
I like Peter's answer. I also happen to agree fully with the way Paul described it. I look upon it the same way myself. Yardages are nothing but a safety rope and you are most alive when flirting unharnessed with death.
-
AG
My comments were not related to what happens at my home course that I have played numerous times,but more as that of a competitor that usually is playing a tournament after a single practice round.
Then the art of camouflage is alive and well and the difference of having a rangefinder or not is HUGE.
Home course play is practically irrelevant to this discussion
-
MWP,
So where do you draw the line for non-home-course play? No lasers? No caddies? No yardage books? No playing a practice round?
I do wonder what proportion of golfers in the world are such thrill-seekers looking for mystery and excitement as the typical GCA participant.
In my more cynical moments I suspect that the heavy representation of people who play courses once and then issue detailed ratings on each element of their quality is related to the number of people who want golf to consist of a series of Pop Up Books where unanticipated hazards jump up and say "Gotcha!" at random points during the round.
But I'm not being cynical today so I'll just observe that this forum has the worlds largest extant collection of golfers who find the plain old game played my most of us far too unchallenging and boring. Whether needing hickory shafted clubs, advocating for all distance measurement to be outlawed or wishing for bunkers that are more penal than water hazards there's a strong strain of More Purist Than Thou here.
-
Brent
Purity has nothing to do with my stance. My stance is about preserving the importance of certain types of architecture...and that means the guy with more experience has a certain advantage. Being gifted yardage which aids the golfer is a bit OTT imo. I understand some golfers can't live without their yardages...and its sad. To each is own I guess. Competition, even among complete hacks, rules all. It would be grand if golfers could put it all in perspective.
Ciao
-
I like Peter's answer. I also happen to agree fully with the way Paul described it. I look upon it the same way myself. Yardages are nothing but a safety rope and you are most alive when flirting unharnessed with death.
Ally,
I like to call that flirting with death thing: " I never met a sucker pin I didn't like!" That's a perception of the architecture and one I hope I never give up. The perceptions or synoptics are what originally drew me to gca study.. & to figure out how to play smarter.
So I'm in the camp with no perception impact difference than yardage books or 2nd plays or a caddy, the devices are quicker for those who need the "aid". I would suggest taking half the clubs out of a bag would speed up club selection even more.
Its a game, and sure, one wants to do well if there's any competitive spark, but face it, 25,000,000 golfers give or take, say 2500 actually make some money playing professionally, that's 0.01%; no one will ever pay 99.99% of the golfer population to play golf. Taking some money out of your buddies pocket or winning a few drinks or bragging rights at whatever scale is what give most their thrill and brings em back.
Play On.
p.s. and haven't folks been using yardages ever since score cards started defining them for holes???
-
It really is a matter of, "to each his own."
For those who are anti-device, what is your opinion on directional poles? How about a yardage plate on a par 3? Would you look at it to aid in club selection? How about a putt that is on a similar line to your own? Would you watch it before playing your own ball?
It's an interesting debate, because, unlike almost every other sport, there is a lot of downtime in golf to think about and analyze what is going on. I think many golfers get information overload and can become paralyzed before playing a shot. In almost every other sport, athletes don't want to think, they want to react. They want to be fluid and do what comes naturally, to be free flowing and let their body do what they've trained it to do.
I always play best when I think less and just hit shots. As stated earlier, I do use a device to provide front, middle and back distances. I find this helps me play quicker.
In the end, guys should do what makes the game of golf most fun for them, because, really, that's what golf is all about; fun.
-
For those that are anti range finder, are you also anti yardage books and guys pacing yardages off? I'd love to hear the difference between these three. Do you also not use a GPS or map when you're driving?
-
Chris,
I think the number of times I've confused playing the game of golf and, say, getting to a meeting in a town I'm not familiar with is pretty close to zero.
This seems one of those debates that have no winner. Either you like to feel the distance, or know the distance. There doesn't appear to be much in between.
p.s. I rarely want to know yardage, and I seldom use maps or directions, but I don't see how one could compare the two.
Joe
-
I was exaggerating to make a point, but the concept of getting from point A to B is the same to me. I'm still curious to hear other anti range finder opinions. I think you can still feel a shot even when knowing the distance--there's still feel to dialing in the right distance and type of shot regardless
-
For those that are anti range finder, are you also anti yardage books and guys pacing yardages off? I'd love to hear the difference between these three. Do you also not use a GPS or map when you're driving?
Chris,
There is, of course, zero difference between pacing, yardage books, marked sprinkler heads, 150 plates/poles, and GPS/laser devices. None. Zilch. Nada. Those that make reference to the very precise yardage give by the devices are introducing a red herring of the first magnitude. Only in ease of use and speed are there variations, and those are positives, IMO.
I played 167 rounds of golf in 2014, and my first round of 2015 today. I play lots of courses with lots of different people, and I'd put the percentage of golfers who don't use a device at well less than 10%. More importantly, the ones that don't have a device are either pacing yardages or asking those with a device for a yardage. Apparently, GCA.com is the world's largest (and maybe ONLY) collection of golfers who don't want to know their yardages.
And I'm sure that all that profess such here abide by it in their rounds with a few dollars at stake, and laugh uproariously when they misclub.
And if somehow, Tom Huckaby happens to read this, I apologize for arguing against the devices all those years ago. I was wrong, Tom, and I wish you were still on GCA.com!
-
AG
I might be mistaken, but I don't think folks are saying they don't want to know yardages. Folks are saying that they don't want machines spitting out yardages, thus eliminating the advantage of the well trained and experienced eye and negating the ever present element of doubt...which helps keep architecture rich and meaningful. Its two very different things and one reason I have long been against caddie advice. Esssentially, we are advocating the advantage of money over skill by sanctioning yardage guns.
Ciao
-
Let me just say, contrary to what some might assume, that I in no way oppose rangefinders.
I would however like to address this assumption that modern technology is no different to a yardage book. I've yet to find a yardage book which sipplied me with much more than rudimentary figures about bunker yardages and the like. That's quite a different think to being able to home in on each and every minor feature which might catch the eye. Of course, if you happen to have your own gentleman's gentleman......
-
To get back to the original post and tying back to architecture, I guess I just don't see enough of the distinction of a range finder compared to any other past method of distance measuring to say that range finders have had a significant impact on the perception of architecture. Perhaps those who are less trained at distance measuring are less fooled now, but that would have been the case had they walked the length of the hole or played it multiple times anyway
-
AG
I was not aware that I ever advocated the non use of any yardage information,perhaps I missed where Iwrote that?????
I would be foolish to tee it up in my events at such a disadvantage by not using all means that the rest of the field is using,but the influence that has on how the field plays is directly related to the thread title.
I was also not aware that the thread title asked whether one thought they were a good or bad idea but what difference they make on perception of a golf course.
I believe you are discussing a totally separate issue.
-
AG
I might be mistaken, but I don't think folks are saying they don't want to know yardages. Folks are saying that they don't want machines spitting out yardages, thus eliminating the advantage of the well trained and experienced eye and negating the ever present element of doubt...which helps keep architecture rich and meaningful. Its two very different things and one reason I have long been against caddie advice. Esssentially, we are advocating the advantage of money over skill by sanctioning yardage guns.
Ciao
Sean,
The METHOD by which a player determines yardage is a distinction without a difference, and you have now introduced yet another red herring by bringing up money. My god, of all the money spent on golf, are you seriously saying that a $200 watch or laser is the breaking point at which the rich and famous have an advantage? You can't walk 9 at Pebble for that money...
I have yet to read a single argument that in any way convinces me that there is any connection whatsoever between knowing a particular yardage and either A) appreciating the richness and meaningfulness of the architecture and/or B) reducing skill in playing a particular shot. My home course has two of the best, as well as one of the worst, crossing bunkers that I have ever encountered; I appreciate the richness and meaningfulness of all three EVERY time I play those three holes! Knowing how far to hit the ball is completely irrelevant to that appreciation.
Unless I'm missing something, many are saying that guessing at the distance somehow improves the appreciation, which puzzles me endlessly. You have now added the horror of the poor being at a disadvantage as they roam the world's top 100 courses desperately trying to acquire yardages for their next shot, balanced by their enhanced appreciation for what they are seeing.
-
AG
I was not aware that I ever advocated the non use of any yardage information,perhaps I missed where Iwrote that?????
I would be foolish to tee it up in my events at such a disadvantage by not using all means that the rest of the field is using,but the influence that has on how the field plays is directly related to the thread title.
I was also not aware that the thread title asked whether one thought they were a good or bad idea but what difference they make on perception of a golf course.
I believe you are discussing a totally separate issue.
I don't think I accused you of anything, did I? And I didn't bring up the general question of knowing a yardage vs. not knowing.
I'll reiterate my answer to the thread's original question: minimally. All the rest are side issues that the Flat Earth Society members continually trot out.
-
I'll reiterate my answer to the thread's original question: minimally. All the rest are side issues that the Flat Earth Society members continually trot out.
My own answer is a slight elaboration on this.
For someone seeing a course for the first and perhaps only time, not having a distance measuring device could possibly lead to a few moments of uncertainty or surprise. But only very occasionally.
Once that first round has been played, no difference at all.
-
I always wondered if the invention and wide use of prescription glasses changed the game long ago?
How did semi blind folks like me play the game? Did you get a caddy with good eyesight? Lose alot of featheries?
Did the invention of corrective lenses have any impact upon the game? Did it make the game easier? Did it open the game up to those who had poor eyesight and could finally afford or have access to this new technology? Was it viewed as a " new tech" thing?
Dumb question but I always wondered.
-
As usual, the USGA dropped the ball on this. What part of artificial device do those folks not get? Electronics have no place in Golf. Never did. Still don't. Gauging distance is every bit as much a skill of the game as getting your clubface squared at impact.
Again, does that outlaw pacing off distance? Caddies? Yardage books? Sprinkler heads? Asking your partner who's a member of the course?
In future, when this topic comes up every four months or so, I'm just going to make one comment.
In a game where your caddie is allowed to:
1) give you distances
2) make your club selection
3) give you wind
4) tell you about slopes
5) read putts
6) carry your bag
7) basically do everything short of swinging a club or wiping your ass for you
Then OF COURSE using a laser to see how far it is to the flag should be allowed. A rangefinder isn't 10% as much a "aid" as a PGA Tour caddie. So why not go off and tilt at that windmill instead.
-
I'll reiterate my answer to the thread's original question: minimally. All the rest are side issues that the Flat Earth Society members continually trot out.
My own answer is a slight elaboration on this.
For someone seeing a course for the first and perhaps only time, not having a distance measuring device could possibly lead to a few moments of uncertainty or surprise. But only very occasionally.
Once that first round has been played, no difference at all.
Disagree. Its always beneficial to have another person in the camp validating your best guess....and that is what a YG provides. Why else use a YD if not for confidence?
AG
Well, I don't have a response for you if you don't believe YGs make it easier (and therefore mitigate the advantage of experience) to deal with yardage questions and therefore architectural questions. We see it differently, but I know I am right ;D
Ciao
-
I'll reiterate my answer to the thread's original question: minimally. All the rest are side issues that the Flat Earth Society members continually trot out.
My own answer is a slight elaboration on this.
For someone seeing a course for the first and perhaps only time, not having a distance measuring device could possibly lead to a few moments of uncertainty or surprise. But only very occasionally.
Once that first round has been played, no difference at all.
Disagree. Its always beneficial to have another person in the camp validating your best guess....and that is what a YG provides. Why else use a YD if not for confidence?
AG
Well, I don't have a response for you if you don't believe YGs make it easier (and therefore mitigate the advantage of experience) to deal with yardage questions and therefore architectural questions. We see it differently, but I know I am right ;D
Ciao
Sean,
I agree 100% that a device makes it easier to determine yardage; that's why I have one! I'm not sure where experience comes in to the equation when we're comparing devices to yardage books, sprinkler head, etc., though. I can manage rudimentary math and get the correct answer without a calculator, but it takes me a LOT longer and to no benefit. I can read a sundial as opposed to my wristwatch, but it takes me a lot longer and to no great benefit. I could go on, but it would take a lot longer and to no great benefit...
But in any event, none of this has the least bit of impact on the perception of architecture, does it? Whether or not one should know accurate yardage before playing a shot is one question. HOW one acquires that information is a second question. The third question is the one at hand, and for the life of me I just cannot see how they are directly related EXCEPT, perhaps, on the first few plays of a particular golf course.
-
Jack Fleck used to memorize every feature of a hole's landscape, something he learned from Ben Hogan. Unlike Hogan, Fleck would also pace off his own yardages and compile notebooks for the courses he played, or so says James Dodson in his Hogan book.
We wouldn't care much about knowing yardage if we were playing on courses where the ground and the greens were firm, the wind had a tendency to blow, many of the green sites were approachable via the ground as well as the air, and our 'sets' were still made up of 10 or so clubs that only had spoon, cleek, mashie, mid-mashie, niblick, etc. stamped on their soles instead of a number...
...but we don't.
-
BTW, in school, I always hated open book tests for the same reason. If you're too lazy to learn the stuff, then you should pay the price.
You know the USGA's Rules of Golf test is open book? Figured I toss you a batting practice fastball to start the new year.
-
What I don't understand though is why it took so long for that to become universal. If, as you argue, camouflage is ineffective after a few plays and local knowledge makes things obvious, then why did it take a hundred years for knowing the yardage to become commonplace?
Could it be that up until recently, most people didn't have such big egos about their own ability to hit a shot precise distances?
No, I think it took so long because equipment had to become standardized before distances were. I remember reading that back in Nicklaus' day a dozen balls might have one or two 'hot' balls and one or two 'dead' balls, and only a couple of the balls in the dozen might be properly round and centered. Going back further, there was no such thing as a standard set of irons, so if you broke one you couldn't get an exact replacement. The more precise your equipment, the greater the chance that a "good swing" will have a reduced standard deviation of distance.
I don't think people have big egos about being able to hit their shots a precise distance, but maybe they do about being able to hit their good shots a precise distance. I have a pretty good idea how far I hit all my clubs with a good swing. Whether it actually travels that far depends on the quality of swing I actually make. My own (possibly flawed) assessment of the likelihood of making a quality swing enters into my decision making on what club to take. i.e., if I'm aiming at a green that has ordinary fairway in front of it I'm more likely to take the club that depends on a good shot than if there's water in front of the green and short grass behind the green. If I'm playing well that day and my confidence is high, I'll take that 'right' club even hitting over water. Made a hole in one that way once, so it isn't always a terrible strategy for us inconsistent amateurs :)