[RSLivingston_III]

Well Ralph, then I guess all the flap about equipment turning our courses into pitch and putts for the Pros is hogwash.  

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.

[JSlonis]

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]

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.

[Sean_A]

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]

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.

[JSlonis]

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.

[Melvyn Morrow]

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.

[Sean_A]

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

[C. Squier]

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.

[Sean_A]

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 

[JSlonis]

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.

[C. Squier]

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

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Sean_A]

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 

[Melvyn Morrow]

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.

[C. Squier]

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

[David Ober]

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.

[Jon Wiggett]

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.

[Doug Siebert]

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...

[Jon Wiggett]

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.

[Mark Pearce]

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.

[John Burzynski]

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

[Melvyn Morrow]

Hi John

Well said

Another true golfer, puts his faith in
his observations and ability

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Melvyn Morrow]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()