Anemometers, Lasers, GPS etc.

[Matthew Mollica]

Years and years ago when the Rules of Golf were formalised, one could measure the strength and direction of the wind with fairly rudementary tools. For as long as the Rules have been written (as far as I know) using an instrument / aide to gauge the strength and direction of the wind has been contrary to the Rules.

Now we have laser guided range finders, and GPS units. (I don't want to revisit the thread on this topic from earlier in the year).

I know the Rules are reviewed consistently, but it seems that guidance from an outside source of information has been contrary to the spirit and Rules of Golf from the word go.

Noone in the 1800s (and earlier) would have imagined that one could stand 189 yards (for example) from the flag and use a laser guided range finder (or GPS unit) to accurately measure distance to the pin.

My suspicion is that if it were possible years ago to determine distance with simple tools that this practice would also have been deemed illegal at or near the time our Rules were first written.

Is this reasonable?

MM

[Ian_L]

Interesting topic.  One thing to consider is that exact yardage likely wasn't as important to them back then.  Less consistent clubs and balls, windier conditions on the links, more shot shaping, and more ground game might have made an exact yardage less necessary, even for the best players.

If you had a 178-yard shot in the mid-1800's with a 15mph wind quartering from the right into a green with a mound in front, I'm guessing the direction/speed of the first bounce would probably be more important than the 5 yards or so of accuracy gained.

Now with the aerial game, more consistent equipment, and inland courses with little wind, I would guess exact distances are more important, at least to the elite players.

To answer your question, though, I think you're probably right that this kind of equipment would not have been allowed.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Matthew

Very interesting post and I think you have a strong point.

Ian

I think you need to re-look at the records – since my involvement with GCA.com I have tried to get all to re-look and understand the early designers and golfers because most seem to dismiss them simply because they do not fully understand the history of their own sport. There are many documented cases of games and scores which would push even Tiger and the top professionals today. One example is Young Tom in 1870 on the 1st hole at Prestwick which was 578 yards long – he was down in three with a gutta-percha ball and hickory club winning with a score of 149 for 36holes. Also lets not forget that the fairways and greens of those day were not to the standard our golfers would accept today. So to ignore history, you diminish their actual achievements and to a certain extent debase the modern game. Golf has a magnificent history and record both on players and designers.

[John Kavanaugh]

Noone in the 1800s (and earlier) would have imagined that one could stand 189 yards (for example) from the flag and use a laser guided range finder (or GPS unit) to accurately measure distance to the pin.

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) invented the principle of the doubly reflecting navigation instrument (a reflecting quadrant - see Octant (instrument)), but never published it. Two men independently developed the octant around 1730: John Hadley (1682-1744), an English mathematician, and Thomas Godfrey (1704-1749), a glazier in Philadelphia. The octant and later the sextant, replaced the Davis quadrant as the main instrument for navigation.

What is the lag time between imagination and invention?  Your point is not only wrong it is insulting to the great minds of science and the weak spines of the ruling bodies of golf.  99% of all decisions and rules of golf have been implemented to make the game more fair, more easier and more popular.  How can you know of the advancement of balls and clubs and possibly conceive that a measuring device would be disallowed.  I could even go so far to say that the golfs ruling bodies have time and again ruled against craftsmen and labor in favor a mechanization.  First the ball makers, then hickory shaft craftsmen and now caddies.  Newsflash:  Golfers hate labor.

[Bob_Huntley]

Noone in the 1800s (and earlier) would have imagined that one could stand 189 yards (for example) from the flag and use a laser guided range finder (or GPS unit) to accurately measure distance to the pin.

 How can you know of the advancement of balls and clubs and possibly conceive that a measuring device would be disallowed.  I could even go so far to say that the golfs ruling bodies have time and again ruled against craftsmen and labor in favor a mechanization.  First the ball makers, then hickory shaft craftsmen and now caddies.  Newsflash:  Golfers hate labor.

John,

Golfers hate labor? A sweeping statement. Had you said Golfers hate the cost of labor I might agree. Gutta Percha reduced the cost of the ball, the Haskell accelerated the decline and the mass production of clubs reduced the cost of playing the game even more. It was Ely Callaway who reversed the trend with Big Bertha and some of the prices demanded these days seem to me to be quite insane.

Very few clubs today can equal the beauty of an Izett or Orlimar persimmon.

Bob

[Matthew Mollica]

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) invented the principle of the doubly reflecting navigation instrument (a reflecting quadrant - see Octant (instrument)), but never published it. Two men independently developed the octant around 1730: John Hadley (1682-1744), an English mathematician, and Thomas Godfrey (1704-1749), a glazier in Philadelphia. The octant and later the sextant, replaced the Davis quadrant as the main instrument for navigation.

Thanks for the post John. Despite appearing contrary to the thought behind my initial post, I enjoyed reading it.

In the first post I used the term "fairly rudementary tools" when measuring wind strength and direction while playing golf. I had something like a feather or handkerchief in mind. I doubt such a comparably simple yet effective method of distance determination was on offer at the time we're considering in this exchange.

I wonder if a sextant and an octant was an easily purchased item, readily affordable, available to the masses, reliable to the yard, and easily portable while playing golf. If they were, that would indeed undermine my assumption. Somehow I doubt it.

If you're able to give me more information on the earlier models of these instruments (which by the way are not really "fairly rudementary tools" in the context of this discussion, but do provide the data), I'd be quite appreiciative.

MM

[Ian_L]

Matthew

Very interesting post and I think you have a strong point.

Ian

I think you need to re-look at the records – since my involvement with GCA.com I have tried to get all to re-look and understand the early designers and golfers because most seem to dismiss them simply because they do not fully understand the history of their own sport. There are many documented cases of games and scores which would push even Tiger and the top professionals today. One example is Young Tom in 1870 on the 1st hole at Prestwick which was 578 yards long – he was down in three with a gutta-percha ball and hickory club winning with a score of 149 for 36holes. Also lets not forget that the fairways and greens of those day were not to the standard our golfers would accept today. So to ignore history, you diminish their actual achievements and to a certain extent debase the modern game. Golf has a magnificent history and record both on players and designers.

Melvyn,  it looks like my first  post wasn't quite clear.  I was not trying to say golfers were unskilled back in the day, rather I was suggesting that perhaps randomness was more of a factor on the old links than it is today.  The erratic nature of the wind, firm conditions, and small-scale undulations that are no longer as prominent on newer inland courses I think added some unpredictability to golf that made exact numbers less relevant.  Wouldn't you agree that knowing the exact yardage on a calm day is much more helpful than on a day with a 40mph wind?  Again, I am not trying to belittle the skill of the 19th century golfer, rather I'm remarking on the nature of the game in that time. 

P.S.  Thanks for the informative post.

[JohnV]

Years and years ago when the Rules of Golf were formalised, one could measure the strength and direction of the wind with fairly rudementary tools. For as long as the Rules have been written (as far as I know) using an instrument / aide to gauge the strength and direction of the wind has been contrary to the Rules.

The first wording banning the use of artificial devices for measuring conditions or distance was put in the Rules in 1960.  Until then there was no official ruling that I can find.