[Dan King]

JWinick writes:
Lately, it's been Americans like C&C and Tom Doak who have been bringing the game back to its roots.

Would that be the roots from a couple weeks ago, or the Scottish game?

When you say roots, are you by any chance talking about the spirit of the game?

I just bristle how you keep acting as if Americans have screwed up your beloved game.

It's not an act.

Cheers,
Dan King

It was one of Scotland's greatest gifts to modern civilization.
 --Charles Mortimer, 1952

[JWinick]

Dan,

Perhaps you can explain where American golf lost his way.   I was just on the Tillinghast website and he was one of the pioneers in bringing the game over from Europe.   He was a friend of Old Tom Morris.   And, it seemed like he considered yardages to be quite important. 

http://www.tillinghast.net/cms/taxonomy/term/10

Was it professional golf?   The USGA?  It just seems like the USGA & R&A have marched to the same tune.   It's more modern v. traditionalist than American v. European. 

[Jeff Fortson]

Seriously guys...

I don't see any nastiness.  Maybe the language Melvyn used set me off to dig up some facts to prove my point but at no point did I have any malice or ill intent in my body when responding to Melvyn.  I was frustrated but not angry. 

What's really weird is that some people think that in my portion of the debate with Melvyn I was saying that rangefinders are great and people in the late 19th and early 20th Century would have embraced them.  I have never advocated that.  Matter of fact, I think Shivas and I agree on this topic which is scary because we have been debating it for a couple pages.

Look I have no problem with anyone in here and I honestly don't see how people think this has gotten personal.  I just don't see any personal blasts.  Like I said I feel the language used by Melvyn (i.e. those using any kind of distance aid are playing against the spirit of the game) could be insulting but not dangerous to my well being.  What's wrong with being passionate about a topic.  I see no similarity to the Merion thread.  I haven't attacked anyone and I don't feel attacked.  Maybe I feel a little bit "labeled" as a heathen in relation to the spirit of the game but far from truly hurt.

I will gladly take this discussion offline with Melvyn, Shivas or anyone else if it is really bothering people that much.


Sincerely,

Jeff F.

[Dan King]

JWinick writes:
Perhaps you can explain where American golf lost his way.   I was just on the Tillinghast website and he was one of the pioneers in bringing the game over from Europe.   He was a friend of Old Tom Morris.   And, it seemed like he considered yardages to be quite important. 

I think you are confusing my argument with others. I have never argued yardage isn't important.

My primary argument is that I liked the mixture of the mental and physical game inherent in golf. I think it makes it the best game in existence. These yardage devices detract from part of the mental game, and therefore, I believe they should be utterly cryde downe. I'm not saying they eliminate the mental game, or they will ruin the game. I just argue the game isn't as good with them as without them. By eliminating part ofthe mental game, they are screwing up the mixture of the game.

Was it professional golf?   The USGA?  It just seems like the USGA & R&A have marched to the same tune.   It's more modern v. traditionalist than American v. European.

My argument about the Americanization of golf is the same one C.B. Macodnald made 100 years ago. Americans have worked hard to eliminate the mental challenges of their sports. This is partially because Americans have an idea of fairness that is different than the European concept of fairness. To Americans, sports must start with a level playing field. Golf is about overcoming challenges. When you play a match against someone at their home course, you will be disadvantaged. That is something you attempt to overcome. If you take away the advantages of the home course, them what difference does it make where you play the match?

Having golf courses all over the world, with no two of them the same, conditions ever changing, means someone will begin any match with an advantage. This is what makes golf unique and Americans have tried from day one to take away the advantages inherent in the game. 

Shooting low scores can be fun, but they don't come near matching the thrill of using five clubs to beat someone with 14 clubs (IMHO). Overcoming obstacles is, and should remain a critical component of golf. Overcoming those obstacles with technology cheapens the game and turns it into more of just a physical challenge. I'm not in the least bit interested in golf as just a physical game.

Thinking more about this, golf for me has much of the same thrill as poker, but with a better mix of physical and mental. Poker is great because of the unfairness in the game. You succeed or fail at poker because of your ability to overcome the unfairness in poker. Try to make poker fair and you will ruin the game.

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is more exacting than racing, cards, speculation or matrimony. In almost all other games you pit yourself against a mortal foe; in golf it is yourself against the world: no human being stays your progress as you drive your ball over the face of the earth.
  --Arnold Haultain (The Mystery of Golf)

[Jeff Fortson]

 Matter of fact, I think Shivas and I agree on this topic which is scary because we have been debating it for a couple pages.

Good point.  I think we agree that the better players 100 years ago were not imbeciles and they certainly knew how far they hit their clubs.  Like I said, they'd have to have been rockheads not to.  You can only try to carry a bunker off the tee and fail so many times before you say to yourself "how frigging far is that thing....I'm going to pace it off!"  And they certainly knew how far they hit their irons if for no other reason than they hit them into par 3s where the distance was known.

Exactly.

And I don't doubt that the best players walked courses before playing tournaments either, and formulated game plans.

Agreed.

I will, however, say that these same guys would be appauled at the use of an artificial aid during a stipulated round to help them with gauging distance or line....I think that's where we disagree.

I don't disagree with that at all.  I think it may go that route eventually re: the tour allowing rangefinders.  I let guys use them on my tour because they can't afford caddies and it speeds up generally horrible pace of play issues.
 
BTW, going back to regulating how the club is swung....since we're talking about the old timers, Mr. Anti-Anchoring:

I concede to your argument that a player is allowed to swing anyway they see fit under the Rules and the Rules don't ban it.  However, I don't see how putters have been allowed to grow to a length totally inconsistent with their traditional length.  Why has the USGA not set a limit for the length of a putter when they limit every other club?  That doesn't seem equitable.

The Vardon Grip (which I should have mentioned yesterday) was basically the radical swing technique of ANCHORING the left forefinger and right pinky together, was it not?  Was there an outrage over that anchoring?  Was the Vardon grip banned?  I don't think so....  more evidence that historically, how you swing, how you grip, how you get the clubface to the ball has never been the subject of much angst or debate.

Agreed.  I hardly see the comparison between the Vardon grip and putting the butt end of a club up against your body but I a will give in to your argument re: swinging the club how you see fit under the Rules.

Jeff F.

[Brent Hutto]

Shooting low scores can be fun, but they don't come near matching the thrill of using five clubs to beat someone with 14 clubs (IMHO). Overcoming obstacles is, and should remain a critical component of golf. Overcoming those obstacles with technology cheapens the game and turns it into more of just a physical challenge. I'm not in the least bit interested in golf as just a physical game.

Yes, and beating someone with just a putter and a whiffle ball would be more satisfying yet. There's always an infinity of ways to make the game more or less challenging and in the end 14 clubs and the rest of the rulebook is just one arbitrary arrangement out of those endless variations.

I don't think any of the distance users or rangefinder users on this thread find it at all offensive for you to be out there playing with five clubs and refusing to look at scorecards, yardage markers or tee signage. Some might find it silly or ridiculous but speaking just for myself I don't even think it's even all that odd.

What some of us can't understand is why a guy who guesses his distances or plays with five clubs or wears a blindfold to play would feel the need to insist not that he enjoys the game more with those quirky limitations but that instead that his game is the only true version of the game. What causes that urge to denigrate and dismiss the game as played by the majority of Avid Golfers and a near unanimity of Elite Golfers as debased and morally suspect?

I feel no need to make fun of a guy who refuses any yardage information during his round. What the heck, I play darned near that way myself when I'm on vacation in the UK. So why would that guy feel a need to criticize me?

[JWinick]

I don't understand why making things fair eliminates the challenge of an activity.   And, what evidence do you have that Europeans value fairness less?  From watching the Olympic games, it seems that every event is a relatively fair competition in which each participant operates under similar conditions.  

Fairness makes an activity an equally difficult challenge for each partcipant.  What is wrong with that?   If I receive an invitation to play your home course, I'm not going to play you for money (or beer, or pride) if you are going to tilt the scale in your favor.   Would it be sporting of you if you eliminated yardage markers on the course so I would be clueless?   Would you then tell give me false readings on the distance?  I would hope not.  

For the record, I have always found your responses (while sometimes sarcastic and pointed) to be civil and I enjoy this dialogue.  While there have been excesses, this has been a great exposition on how people play the game.   I, for one, have learned to be sensitive to whether or not my range finder bothers someone.   Believe me, I can play without it.  

Was it professional golf?   The USGA?  It just seems like the USGA & R&A have marched to the same tune.   It's more modern v. traditionalist than American v. European.

My argument about the Americanization of golf is the same one C.B. Macodnald made 100 years ago. Americans have worked hard to eliminate the mental challenges of their sports. This is partially because Americans have an idea of fairness that is different than the European concept of fairness. To Americans, sports must start with a level playing field. Golf is about overcoming challenges. When you play a match against someone at their home course, you will be disadvantaged. That is something you attempt to overcome. If you take away the advantages of the home course, them what difference does it make where you play the match?

Having golf courses all over the world, with no two of them the same, conditions ever changing, means someone will begin any match with an advantage. This is what makes golf unique and Americans have tried from day one to take away the advantages inherent in the game. 

Shooting low scores can be fun, but they don't come near matching the thrill of using five clubs to beat someone with 14 clubs (IMHO). Overcoming obstacles is, and should remain a critical component of golf. Overcoming those obstacles with technology cheapens the game and turns it into more of just a physical challenge. I'm not in the least bit interested in golf as just a physical game.

Thinking more about this, golf for me has much of the same thrill as poker, but with a better mix of physical and mental. Poker is great because of the unfairness in the game. You succeed or fail at poker because of your ability to overcome the unfairness in poker. Try to make poker fair and you will ruin the game.

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is more exacting than racing, cards, speculation or matrimony. In almost all other games you pit yourself against a mortal foe; in golf it is yourself against the world: no human being stays your progress as you drive your ball over the face of the earth.
  --Arnold Haultain (The Mystery of Golf)

[Dan King]

Brent Hutto writes:
I feel no need to make fun of a guy who refuses any yardage information during his round. What the heck, I play darned near that way myself when I'm on vacation in the UK. So why would that guy feel a need to criticize me?

I believe I have made it clear my problem is not with the people using distance gadgets. My problem is with the custodians of the game who have failed in their job. I've argued numerous times the USGA R&A game is not the one and only way to play golf. But I think the USGA R&A game should be something special and should retain certain aspects of the game that are critical to what makes golf so special.

The USGA and R&A are not under any restriction from me or you to do what we want. They can change the game to make golfers use a square golf ball. I'm warning ahead of time, if they were to change to enforce a square golf ball I will criticize them. I will not switch to the square golf ball, nor will I criticize those that use the square golf ball, but I will criticize the custodians for having lost their way and doing poor jobs as custodians.

JWinick writes:
what evidence do you have that Europeans value fairness less?

I never said less. I said different. Have you ever read Scotland's Gift: Golf by C.B. Macdonald?

Fairness makes an activity an equally difficult challenge for each partcipant.  What is wrong with that?

The measures taken to force the game to start with a level playing field are excessive (IMHO.)

I'm not going to play you for money (or beer, or pride) if you are going to tilt the scale in your favor.

I would not tilt the scale in my favor. It will happen naturally. It's life.

Would it be sporting of you if you eliminated yardage markers on the course so I would be clueless?   Would you then tell give me false readings on the distance?  I would hope not.   

No.

I'm actually going to help you along, telling you about hidden hazards and aspects that might throw off your perspective. This is my choice to do this. I'm going to be less helpful if you show up and tell me I have to give you all the information I have about the course.

Cheers,
Dan King

Player's don't get relief from divots in fairways or footprints in bunkers. Why should they get relief from spike marks on greens?
 --Jeff Hall (USGA Spokesperson)

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jon, you posted the following

Meylvn:
Your argument comes down to romantic ignorance.   You celebrate a lack of knowledge.  It's as if you are so afraid of distance information cluttering your brain.  You seem like a bright fellow, so I'm not quite sure why you have such hostility to knowledge about distance.   The object of the game is to move the ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest amount of strokes.  Distance, lie, and the elements are critical components in achieving that goal. 
You're like a blind man who wishes to stay blind because he fears the world.


Thanks Jon, Over 40 years of playing golf and I lack knowledge, my argument is romantic ignorance, distance knowledge clutters my brain, but I'm a bright fellow, hostility to knowledge about distance, bemoans any advances in the game and I’m blind as I don’t feel the need for help in judging distance.

All because I don’t use or need any form of outside distance input to play my game of golf. I openly voice my opinion on what I thought was a discussion group, I have made it very clear that it’s legal to use distance aids and that I believe every golfer does not need that information.

It seems that you have done more than just think about it. Perhaps we may meet in St Andrews, then perhaps we won’t, but thanks for all your kind words and of course I will always remember your comment, “Melvyn knows that I respect him, his family, and the way he plays the game. “

There is really nothing else to say or worth saying. This site is following in the foosteps of our modern game of Golf.

Bill – thanks.

[John Moore II]

Melvyn--I hope this does not mean you are trying to leave the group. Many people here go way too far in attacking people personally. I will not say I have never crossed that line, and if you look at the exchanges that Pat Mucci and I have, you will see that those get heated as well, but never do they cross the line and begin to call the other one stupid. I really do not understand why people get as personal in the attacks as they do. That, my friends, is the foolish thing.

[Bill_McBride]

Jon, you posted the following

Meylvn:
Your argument comes down to romantic ignorance.   You celebrate a lack of knowledge.  It's as if you are so afraid of distance information cluttering your brain.  You seem like a bright fellow, so I'm not quite sure why you have such hostility to knowledge about distance.   The object of the game is to move the ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest amount of strokes.  Distance, lie, and the elements are critical components in achieving that goal. 
You're like a blind man who wishes to stay blind because he fears the world.


Thanks Jon, Over 40 years of playing golf and I lack knowledge, my argument is romantic ignorance, distance knowledge clutters my brain, but I'm a bright fellow, hostility to knowledge about distance, bemoans any advances in the game and I’m blind as I don’t feel the need for help in judging distance.

All because I don’t use or need any form of outside distance input to play my game of golf. I openly voice my opinion on what I thought was a discussion group, I have made it very clear that it’s legal to use distance aids and that I believe every golfer does not need that information.

It seems that you have done more than just think about it. Perhaps we may meet in St Andrews, then perhaps we won’t, but thanks for all your kind words and of course I will always remember your comment, “Melvyn knows that I respect him, his family, and the way he plays the game. “

There is really nothing else to say or worth saying. This site is following in the foosteps of our modern game of Golf.

Bill – thanks.

The good news, Melvyn, is there are lots of traditionalists who share your views and values.  Please stick around! 

[JWinick]

I sense you're getting weary of this.... I suppose we all are after possibly the longest thread I've seen on this site.   Not relying on any devices can be a fun way to play a round.  I wouldn't be opposed to it.  Moreover, I think you might find playing a new course more enjoyable if you knew the distances.  But, to each his own.   

I think the passion that both sides have expressed has generated some hurt feelings.  I'm sure we all agree that all of us care about the game and how it's played.   Sometimes in written form, pointed arguments can be taken personally. 

Handshake?

Thanks Jon, Over 40 years of playing golf and I lack knowledge, my argument is romantic ignorance, distance knowledge clutters my brain, but I'm a bright fellow, hostility to knowledge about distance, bemoans any advances in the game and I’m blind as I don’t feel the need for help in judging distance.

All because I don’t use or need any form of outside distance input to play my game of golf. I openly voice my opinion on what I thought was a discussion group, I have made it very clear that it’s legal to use distance aids and that I believe every golfer does not need that information.

It seems that you have done more than just think about it. Perhaps we may meet in St Andrews, then perhaps we won’t, but thanks for all your kind words and of course I will always remember your comment, “Melvyn knows that I respect him, his family, and the way he plays the game. “

There is really nothing else to say or worth saying. This site is following in the foosteps of our modern game of Golf.

Bill – thanks.

[Tim Bert]

Longest thread?  The range finder will never touch the Cheater Line...

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29286.0.html

[Jeff Fortson]

I still don't feel anything got nasty in regards to my part of the debate.  Nor do I feel anyone was nasty to me.  If I hurt Melvyn feelings at all I am truly sorry.  I said so in private correspondence with him and I think there are no hard feelings.  I think we have agreed to disagree.  I still don't think he is understanding my point but I'm done trying to convince him of something he doesn't want to be convinced of.    

I get the impression from recent posts that people think there has been a ton of name calling and the like and I just don't see much of it.  At least in my experience on the topic.  I think everyone must be reading a different thread.  Admittedly, I didn't get involved in the thread until Page 12 or 13 I think so maybe you guys are referring to pages prior to that.  

Anyway, I think we need to grow a thicker skin (me included).  There is nothing wrong with spirited debate.


Jeff F.

[Dan King]

I hate each and every one of you!

Cheers,
Dan King

Don't introduce me to that man! I want to go on hating him, and I can't hate a man whom I know.
 --Charles Lamb

[JWinick]

Well, last week, I played some golf courses for the first time.   No range finder as I left it in New York!    Medinah #3, quite a test.   On at least two holes the caddy was off by a full club in giving me a distance.   After that, I didn't trust him and I walked off every shot myself.   

The previous day I played Garden City Men's Club.  Played without the range finder.   Enjoyed it.   Had a great caddy.   Didn't need the range finder.   

Even at great golf courses, a good caddy is just a roll of the dice.  At least with a range finder, you don't need to rely on the luck of the draw.

[Ian_L]

I find that most of the time if I go with my gut instead of the posted yardage I do better.  But if a GPS comes with the cart I won't turn it off...

[Dan Herrmann]

Well it's been 6 years since this old thread.  Golf hasn't ended due to range finders (yet), and yes, I have one now.  Granted, as a 12, I'm nowhere near good enough to really take advantage of it, but it's a nice, occasional ingredient in a round of golf.

That said, have you changed your mind regarding distance aids?

[Dave Doxey]

Well it's been 6 years since this old thread.  Golf hasn't ended due to range finders (yet), and yes, I have one now.  Granted, as a 12, I'm nowhere near good enough to really take advantage of it, but it's a nice, occasional ingredient in a round of golf.

That said, have you changed your mind regarding distance aids?

Having not been here for the earlier discussion, I’ll add my opinion.

Unlike caddies, sprinkler heads and on-course yardage information, rangefinder yardage is available only to the player who bought the device, giving an unfair advantage.

That said, 95+% of golfers are not consistent enough for precise yardage to make a difference.

[Brent Hutto]

Well it's been 6 years since this old thread.  Golf hasn't ended due to range finders (yet), and yes, I have one now.  Granted, as a 12, I'm nowhere near good enough to really take advantage of it, but it's a nice, occasional ingredient in a round of golf.

That said, have you changed your mind regarding distance aids?

Having not been here for the earlier discussion, I’ll add my opinion.

Unlike caddies, sprinkler heads and on-course yardage information, rangefinder yardage is available only to the player who bought the device, giving an unfair advantage.

That said, 95+% of golfers are not consistent enough for precise yardage to make a difference.

Dave,

You are quite welcome to walk  all the way to the green and pace off the yardage while I'm using my rangefinder, if you can't be bothered to spring for the couple hundred bucks. Or even jog like Rickie's caddie. A couple thousand extra yards of pacing off distance will be good for your health, so it'll be YOU who gains the advantage.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Where is JWinick now? Has he posted lately?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()