[JohnV]

I'm certain that part of the thinking that went into the ban on croquet style putting was that aligning yourself over the ball is a skill of the game, and that it was too easy from a position over and behind the ball. 

It was banned because the croquet style allows a pendulum stroke, particularly when combined with a putter that had a center shaft that was straight up and down.  A pure pendulum stroke will make it much easier to start the ball on line.  The 10 degree minimum shaft angle is there for a similar reason.

If I had one change I'd like to see, I would like to see the rule on putters changed so that the bottom of the putter must be be flat.  When you see a putter with a bottom like \_/  (exaggerated, but I think you know what I mean) and a player can tilt it so that the outside part of the bottom is flat, he is effectively nullifying the 10 degree angle.  With a long putter, he can probably get the putter straight up and down and the pendulum style stroke working.  At least make the player put it on the tip to do that.

[Brent Hutto]

Dan,

Perhaps leaving out the taser, you've described the only thing I can think of that would help reduce the poke-ass factor at every course every weekend. People here tend to downplay it but how those guys on TV act does filter down into the behavior of hackers. After a few years of seeing that 15-seconds-and-out norm applied on TV it would become received wisdom that it "ought" to take less than 15 seconds to hit the ball.

Finally, the saddest effect of  playing by yardage is that it tends to stifle creativity; a 150 yard shot becomes a stock item and alternate methods of play are not developed.  Then when conditions change, or a course favors the ground game, the player is unable to adapt.  Often he'll blame the course rather than thinking about his own limitations.

I see this point made either explicitly or implied quite frequently here and I'm afraid I just don't see the connection. Whether you read a laser that says "150 yards" and hit your stock 7-iron shot or pace off "150 yards" from the nearest sprinkler head and hit your stock 7-iron shot or look at the flag and think "That looks like 7-iron distance" one way or another you are estimating the distance. Choosing a stock 7-iron from that distance versus hitting a chippy 5-iron or trying to sling an 8-iron that rides the wind is a choice that is made after establishing how far you believe the distance to be.

So is your thinking that some residual uncertainty causes the "eyeball" player to be more likely to choose a "creative" shot? And that if he sees "150" in flashing numbers he is therefore more sure that the stock shot will work?

I say this because I know very good players who would sooner play with one arm in a sling than hit a shot for which they don't an absolutely certain, exact distance...and yet who very rarely play iron or wedge shots that are just stock full swings for the corresponding distance. Some of the most creative (or should I say "usefully creative") players of my acquaintance are also exact-distance believers. Of course I also know at least one highly skilled and creative player who disdains any distance numbers whatsoever.

There are two things that many self-professed purists on this site detest which arose in approximately the same time frame. One is the adoption of the standardized modern golf swing and the hit-it-high-and-straight mentality in which repeatability and simplicity are the hallmarks of effective play. The other is the preparation of detailed yardage information for every conceivable shot. The two tend have a certain synergy when used together, of course. But if anything the standardization and simplification of striking the shots led to the adoption of detailed yardage information and not vice versa.

Or at least that's how I see it.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Clint

I don’t understand your comment “Al Czervik and Melvyn Morrow both smile on the course”, but I do understand when you say “While they may not make the best member-guest partners”.

To be totally honest with you I do not believe I will ever play in the USA, so I will not be in a position to potentially embarrass you when playing with my hickory set, faithful gutty plus wearing my tweed suite, cap and brown brogues. My kilt would be reserved for the pleasure and entertainment of the Ladies in the 19th afterwards. Please be advised that each full blooded Scotsman guarantees total satisfaction at least twice over with no rest breaks – something to do with oats for breakfast and of course we do not need to use toys or talk about yardage.   

As for going back in time you seem to have a low opinion of the early golfers in Scotland. I believe your conclusion is totally wrong – those guys, would have labelled the device as useless as yardage was not a factor in those days. What mattered was playing the game. They would not have regarded it as cheating just an unhelpful toy of no consequence. It’s only some of the modern golfers that thing it’s great.

 

[John Kavanaugh]

My kilt would be reserved for the pleasure and entertainment of the Ladies in the 19th afterwards. Please be advised that each full blooded Scotsman guarantees total satisfaction at least twice over with no rest breaks – something to do with oats for breakfast and of course we do not need to use toys or talk about yardage.   

Melvyn,

Just when I was going to call Bravo Sierra on the above I did some research and found the following:   Funny cause it leads me to believe that Scottish women are the only satisfied women in the world who can't cook.  Can you expalin that connection?

myth:  Most white guys are geeky, lame, pathetic, incompetent losers in bed since they don't know how to sexually satisfy women because they're not passionate, affectionate & talented enough like Latin lovers

reality:  "This stereotype was created by some Latinos as well.  White men are equally talented & passionate in bed & know how to satisfy women as good as other races.     Italian men for example are known to be excellent lovers & Scottish men are known to be talented, passionate lovers that know how to satisfy a woman fantastically  (think Mel Gibson;  Brave Heart), Scandinavian men are known to be good at sex.",  according to clinical sex therapists, Dr.Frolicz, Dr.Kotzer, Dr.Sabata, Dr.Frieberg-Verrie & Dr.Kelpren of Harvard Medical School on the Meyers-Briggs & Masters & Johnson Sex Statistics Boards associated with Cosmopolitan Magazine.

[John Burzynski]

Reef

When I started playing in the early 1960 I was taught by my father. Distance was never in the equation. The starting point was the Tees to the flag on the Green, distance was what it was and it was addressed accordingly.

The modern golfer is far to occupied with worrying about yardage. Perhaps it's the intensity of competition or of the amount of money available. Whatever, this has created a mad craven for knowledge on yardage.

Clearly the modern player needs to know distance, he is not confident until someone or thing has told him the yardage. But the ridicules part of all this is once armed with the knowledge the golfer still has to convert in into a shot. He still has to prepare, concentrate, aim, steady himself then take the swing and shot – were does all this come from another artificial aid, booklet, caddie, no, from within the player. His own body takes over and re calculates it all over again so when the ball is hit, it’s the eye/brain/ body that is responsible not just for the stroke but the direction and strength the ball is hit which is then measured in distance. Sorry but the player is responsible for the shot, his eye/mind co-ordination cancelled out any outside input and thus controlled his own swing. So to me yardage is a modern crutch, as for caddies as I said before they should not give any info to a player in a competition but only to Visitors there to enjoy a game of golf. 

My game is not alien, it was the norm for hundreds of years, it’s you guys that have gone mad over distance information and let it rule your game.

I really would like to see some statistics some day, over a wide range of handicaps and playing talent, stats stating just how consistently a player can hit a ball to within x% of a specific yardage under 150 or even 100 yards.  We won't even worry about what happens when a golfer sweats over what club to use for a 200 yard approach...

For instance, if it is 150 to the hole (no wind or other major factors affecting yardage), how often does a 15 handicap stick it to within 10 yards (5 yards either side in a radius around the hole) of 150?  How about a 25 handicap, 5 handicap, etc.?  How often even from 100 yards is the ball within 5-10 yards of the hole? 

I'll bet that the yardage is much less consistent than golfers think it is.

[Melvyn Morrow]

John

Scottish men are hardy because we bath in the mountain lakes, swim in the sea, wear kilts open to the elements, eat oats with a drop of the Single Malt, when the hell have our women got time to cook.

Mel Gibson is an Aussie, they like make-up and I can never remember if it’s the men they love and the women they drinks with – sorry Paul 
 
Italians are slim and like their cars fast but there is a question if they are actually totally satisfying.

Scandinavians – good perhaps but take your pick, it was said they raped all the men and killed all the women 

But the big question is are they any good at GCA?

[JWinick]

Once nice benefit of the range finder is, unlike other technologies, it doesn't disproportionately benefit the stronger player.   Everyone receives the same benefit.   For example, the advances in ball technology have far helped the pro players than the club player.

With my range finder, I have Steve Williams telling me how far to the pin.   Of course, when I shank it to the right, I'm on my own.   No professional ever attempts a shot over 50 yards without knowing the precise distance.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWinick,

So then, those who can afford range finders have a distinct advantage over those that can't afford them.

Isn't that at odds with your position on Ken Bakst and his home course  advantage at Friar's Head ?

[SL_Solow]

Brent;  I said playing by yardage had reduced creativity; I did not refer to range finders.  i thought I was clear in suggesting that I saw very little difference between the use of a range finder and other forms of yardage measuring devices be they sprinkler heads or yardage books.  I think those who draw the distinction have a visceral reaction to the look of the technology in the game.   But the practical impact is the same.  Personally, I can take them or leave them.

[Dan King]

JWonick writes:
Once nice benefit of the range finder is, unlike other technologies, it doesn't disproportionately benefit the stronger player.

It does disproportionately benefit the weaker mental player.

With my range finder, I have Steve Williams telling me how far to the pin.

Without actually having to do the work that Tiger Woods did to get where he is. Al lthe benefit, none of the work. What could be more American?

Cheers,
Dan King

In golf, humiliations are the essence of the game.
  --Alistair Cooke

[Brent Hutto]

But as long as the guy without a clue who can't eyeball distances can pace around until he finds a yardage marker there is no disadvantage. A rangefinder benefits anyone who wants to know the distance before he hits a shot. He benefits by not having to screw around looking for yardage markers and pacing off and he benefits by it being less mistake prone that pacing off from a sprinkler head 20+ yards away.

I'll give a clue to you guys who think you have achieved some great moral or tactical advantage by your vaunted ability to eyeball distances. Unless the rules change your admirable skill at guessing distance is akin to being able to make the world's best buggy whips. It's a fine thing that has no tangible benefit in today's world. Tiger is allowed to have a yardage book and Stevie. I am allowed to pace off the distance to the nearest marker. Nobody is going to hold a gun to the head of our opponent and make them try and match eyeballs with you.

The vast majority of golfers today want to know how far they are from the hole before they hit a shot. Maybe some want to know plus or minus a yard and others are happy knowing plus or minus ten yards but hitting shots to known distances is the normative way of playing the game. Limit it to the elite players and it's not the "vast majority" it is virtually every single one of them, probably on the order of 99% or more.

I sometimes wonder what it is that makes me hang around on this forum. The constant insistence on moral superiority of this or that dinosaur attitude really wears on my nerves at times.

[Bill_McBride]

Interesting that this argument boils down to those who prefer golf in the F&F UK vs those who play on this side of the pond with our overwatered, target golf courses.  Knowing the exact distance to the target - the pin - can  be a lot less important on a links course than having the ability to envision what the ball is going to do after you hit.

To me it's a lot more satisfying to hit a 140 yard punched 5-iron under the wind, curved around a bunker and off a slope to the hole, than to flush an 8-iron that lands at 139 yards and stops 6" from its divot.

The difference in the golf style means less reliance on absolute knowledge of the distance.  I think that distinction is why some of us, a minority apparently, don't really have much interest in range finders, SkyCaddies, etc.

Hang in there, Melvyn, I'm with you. 

Not too sure about that swimming in the North Sea though......

[Dan King]

Brent Hutto writes:
But as long as the guy without a clue who can't eyeball distances can pace around until he finds a yardage marker there is no disadvantage.

Au contraire, mi amigo. How often have you been playing a course, and not believed the yardage on the course? Have you ever stood on a 150 yard plate, and thought, "damn, that sure looks a lot shorter than 150 yards." Perhaps you buy into the 150 yard marker, but when you pull the trigger, you have that doubt, and you try to ease up on your 150 yard club. Your doubt causes you to decelerate and make a mess of the shot.

If you have a gadget, the HXF34676-s5, that you have used over and over again, you are going to develop a trust in the gadget. The more you use it, the more confidence you are going to have in it. You are going to believe your gadget over your perception.

No doubt you gadget heads are going to see this as a good thing. Me, I see it as just part of the never ending death of golf. But neither of us should say it doesn't give the weaker mental player an advantage they didn't have without the gadget.

I sometimes wonder what it is that makes me hang around on this forum. The constant insistence on moral superiority of this or that dinosaur attitude really wears on my nerves at times.

There is a very simple solution, Brent. Stop trying to destroy golf for your own personal gain.

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is a game to teach you about the message from within, about the subtle voices of the body-mind. And once you understand them you can more clearly see your hamartia, the ways in which you approach to the game reflects your entire life. Nowhere does a man go so naked.
  --Michael Murphy

[Melvyn Morrow]

Brent

Just what are you implying? Who is claiming the moral high ground?

Yardage is am modern crutch, aid, call it what you will, it is infecting golf courses around the world like the locus plagues from Biblical Times.

Early golf did not use yardage, 19th Century golfers did not scurry around trying to work out yardage it slowly crept in from the mid to late period in the 20th Century. It has become a must know piece of information for the modern golfer, he needs his yardage fix before playing his shot. It is spoiling Golf, from the Pro Game through to the day to day games we see on most courses today.

I have never claimed the high moral ground, all I have continued to say is that Golfers just do not need it because the golfers brain re assesses all the information prior to taking the shot. That would suggest to me that yardage info is just a total distraction. Who is trying to kid who or perhaps in truth players think they look cool, cleaver and appear more competent with yardage books, path finders etc – the real proof is simple by using your aids go and achieve the marked distance time after time after time in any or all conditions. Produce the evidence, I may then accept that they could have some input but until such times they are IMHO an artificial aid to try and enhance the image of the golfer.

Moral High Ground – tactical advantage sorry but that is crap as I have always said that the golfer has it within him/herself to play just as well without theses crutches – sorry aids.

I repeat yardage is in real terms irrelevant, the modern golfer has forgotten how to play natural golf. So if you want to put labels on people aim your comments at those who can’t play without help form yardage information.

IMHO yardage is one of the biggest cons of all times, but if you feel you need to know the distance you have the right under the rules.


Thanks, Bill

The swim in the sea apparently is good for your vision not to mention
sex life  

[JWinick]

Shivas,

How can you be pro-long putter, and anti-range finder & anti-putter line?   You really need to get your priorities straight.   The long putter gives a player a steadier base and prevents yips.   Other improvement devices give benefits (such as game improvement clubs) but have corresponding trade-offs such as reduced feel & control.   

As for the putter line, are you opposed to a player drawing a line themselves?  If you're not, what's the difference to the manufacturer doing it?  After all, the vast majority of people don't use this so-called "cheater line."

As far your contention that walking it off takes less time, you are really off your rocker.   I know you have an opinion, but don't jettison your credibility and concede the point: it's faster.   It takes about 10 seconds FROM ANY POINT ON THE GOLF COURSE to zap the range finder.   Walking it off assumes you're right near a sprinkler head.   It will never take less time unless you're ball is sitting right next to the 150 mark with a pin in the middle position.   

[Reef Wilson]

I have been thinking more about this "natural golf" idea and I am intrigued.

Centuries ago I am pretty certain that a majority of golfers played all of their golf at the same course throughout their entire lives as travel was expensive and difficult and there were so few courses. Were they really "natural" golfers?? Did they not know these courses like the back of their hands after hundreds of plays? Isn't knowing what club you usually hit from a certain spot the same as knowing the yardage? Do "natural" golfers actively ignore their past experiences when playing?

Golfers centuries ago still used trial and error to improve. Isn't it natural that over the years humans are going to naturally improve their methods of trial and error? Humans evolve, is the game not allowed to evolve also?

I'm curious to see if anyone in the anti-yardage camp can directly answer these questions rather than responding with the same recycled lecture. Yes, of course knowing the yardage is an aid. We get that, but what about the above points? How many true "natural" golfers were there back then? I'm not saying there weren't, I'm just wondering if the past isn't being romanticized a bit.

Reef

[Dan King]

There was plenty of travel between golfing areas in centuries past. The traveling golfer would need to overcome the challenge of playing a course their opponent was familiar with. This was part of the challenge of golf.

In the past golfers had to earn their knowledge. Americans, believing more in fairness than hard work (finding some special hidden clause in the Declaration of Independence) determined it is wrong to give any advantage to someone who worked hard or was smarter, so they create gadgets to give advantage to the lazy and weak.

And they called it progress.

Cheers,
Dan King

America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization.
 --George Clemenceau

[Melvyn Morrow]

Reef

Please talk about something you know about and stop romanticizing.
Just read the early history of golf and check out the courses, read about the competitions from those days and then tell me about yardage. In fact show me exactly where and when it was mentioned, let alone measured.

If you do not use yardage you don’t need markers on the course to tell
you the yardage as it would mean absolutely nothing to you.

Sorry but yardage was not part of the game. Natural is based upon the generations playing the game in a specific way – and that way had nothing
to do with yardage.

It’s the modern curse that is infecting our courses today. 

If you need to use them, it’s not against the rules - which goes to show how well our governing bodies respect the history of golf.

[Reef Wilson]

Reef

Please talk about something you know about and stop romanticizing.
Just read the early history of golf and check out the courses, read about the competitions from those days and then tell me about yardage. In fact show me exactly where and when it was mentioned, let alone measured.

If you do not use yardage you don’t need markers on the course to tell
you the yardage as it would mean absolutely nothing to you.

Sorry but yardage was not part of the game. Natural is based upon the generations playing the game in a specific way – and that way had nothing
to do with yardage.

It’s the modern curse that is infecting our courses today. 

If you need to use them, it’s not against the rules - which goes to show how well our governing bodies respect the history of golf.

Melvyn,

OK, so I am wrong. I said I was "pretty certain." I didn't profess to be an expert. Don't just call me an idiot and tell me to read some books. Which books? If you know better, please enlighten me! Give me some specifics. Answer some questions. That's how a discussion works and this is a discussion group. If you asked questions of me I would do my best to answer them. If you can't answers people's questions directly what does that say about the strength of your position?

[Brent Hutto]

Just what are you implying? Who is claiming the moral high ground?

I claim moral equivalence between the playing of golf with and without knowledge of the distance to the target. There is no honor or ethical superiority to either approach, the decision is values-neutral.

And I further claim that if it were even possible for the way a person chooses to play to ruin or damage the game (which I frankly can not imagine), it certainly won't be by choosing to use or not use knowledge of the distance to the hole. Or by using or not using an electronic rangefinder.

And finally, I claim that there is a perfectly valid and rational reason virtually every elite (or even highly accomplished) player now uses:

a) a golf swing which produces known and repeatable carry distances and
b) knowledge of the distance to his target.

That reason is simply because it works better. I define "better" as producing lower scores more consistently under a wide range of circumstances.If you wish to define "better" as "makes Melvyn happy" or "floats Dan's boat" or "is a throwback to how your Great Grandad played" by all means do so. But don't act surprised or dismayed that the vast majority of golfers prefer the approach that gets the ball in the hole in the least number of strokes (while keeping to the spirit and the letter of the Rules).

Believe it or not, it is a perfectly normal thing for superior methods to arise in any human endeavor over a period of decades or centuries.

[Dan King]

Brent Hutto writes:
And finally, I claim that there is a perfectly valid and rational reason virtually every elite (or even highly accomplished) player now uses:

a) a golf swing which produces known and repeatable carry distances and
b) knowledge of the distance to his target.

That's a cute trick. Redefine Americanized golf as golf. Then point to the experts at Americanized golf to demonstrate why Americanized golf is superior to real golf. It's a cute trick, but hardly a compelling argument.

Americanized golfers have been trained in the physical game. They will do whatever it takes to avoid any mental challenges. This is how they have been trained.

Just because they prefer a physical game over a balanced game of physical and mental challenges is no reason to give in to their demands.

That reason is simply because it works better. I define "better" as producing lower scores more consistently under a wide range of circumstances.

And eventually the game will lose its challenge? When will you look back and wonder what happened to the great game your forefathers left you? You can easily enough create a game where a good score is 18. Bowling has reduced the challenge so a perfect game is no longer much of a rarity. I'm guessing you see that as a good thing.

(while keeping to the spirit and the letter of the Rules).

The USGA and R&A lost the spirit of the game ages ago.

Believe it or not, it is a perfectly normal thing for superior methods to arise in any human endeavor over a period of decades or centuries.

As well as inferior methods. New ain't always better.

Cheers,
Dan King

A cynic might suggest as the motto of modern life this simple legend - "just as good as the real."
 --Charles Dudley Warner

[Brent Hutto]

Believe it or not, it is a perfectly normal thing for superior methods to arise in any human endeavor over a period of decades or centuries.

As well as inferior methods. New ain't always better.

As I defined it, lower scores more consistently over a wide range of conditions is what I mean by "better". Since that is the goal of the best players in the world and since they have adopted what you choose to refer to as "Americanized" golf then what you refer to as "Americanized" golf is in fact better than the alternatives or else the best players would not be doing it.

If you insist on some other vague and artsy-fartsy definition of "better" there's nothing I can contribute to the discussion. If it ain't about getting the ball in the hole in the least number of strokes while adhering to the spirit and letter of the Rules then there is no criterion for "better" other than the personal quirks of any self-styled purist who comes along. That and repeated references to earlier stages in the evolution of the game as being preferable purely because they are earlier.

[Dan King]

Brent Hutto writes:
As I defined it, lower scores more consistently over a wide range of conditions is what I mean by "better". Since that is the goal of the best players in the world and since they have adopted what you choose to refer to as "Americanized" golf then what you refer to as "Americanized" golf is in fact better than the alternatives or else the best players would not be doing it.

There would be two ways to get better at golf. You could either work hard and improve, or you can change the rules so that the part of the game you don't want to work at or you just aren't very good at loses its importance. Many members of the PGA Tour® prefer the latter method and the governing bodies of golf have gone along with them.

While it is understandable the best players would try and change the rules to better fit what they are good at, it is hardly the job of the governing bodies to attempt to make the game easier for the elite players or any players. I have no problem with lower scores being the objective of golfers, I object to lower scores being the objective to the so-called custodians of the game.

That and repeated references to earlier stages in the evolution of the game as being preferable purely because they are earlier.

I don't believe I ever said that.

Cheers,
Dan King

For every theory ye propose about the improvement o' the game, I'll show ye how the game is fadin' away, losin' its old charm, becomin' mechanized by the Americans and the rest o' the world that blindly follows them. 
 --Julian Lang (Golf in the Kingdom)

[Melvyn Morrow]

Reef

I did not call you an idiot - as for books just read about books on golfers from the 19th Century and see how much the subject of yardage comes up.

I’ve answered every question, I have explained my opinion, mentioned some history and why yardage is not important to me and that it is only a recent requirement – no sorry, need for the majority of modern golfers.

I have never claimed the moral high ground, a moral superiority nor do I believe that I have a dinosaur attitude. Try and put words in my mouth, accuse me of name calling, it still does not change the fact that yardage is modern.

I don’t know what else you want from me.


Brent

Claim what you want, I have just mentioned my opinion

a)  Golfers do not need yardage aids of any sort to play golf
b)  It’s all in the mind, those that feel they need help use yardage aids
c)  The game is being damage because we are encouraging yardage aids
instead of thinking it through ourselves
d)  The Pro’s use them just in case with all the money in golf they feel they might be missing something
e)  Works better – perhaps in the mind – no player in the world is yet consistent enough to hit the target time after time in any weather condition
f )  Sorry you have to resort to the use of Dan’s name or that of my family
including me.
g)  I’m not surprised by what golfers do, but yes I am at times disappointed
that they feel that they cannot trust their own senses and resort to outside aids to help them play
h)  Hell of a long way to go before proving anything regards yardage, feeling good is not scientific proof.

But then, after all, this is just a discussion group with friendly, open, honest and un-bigoted debate.

[Mike Golden]

I have a personal opinion that range finders don't belong in competition but there is nothing I can do to change that so just have to accept it.  I played in our club's match play championship today against a really nice guy (and good player) who used a range finder and it most likely helped him beat me (I was 3 down after 3-he birdied 2 and 3) and eventually lost on 18 (I was 1 down going in) after we both reached the green in 2 (it is a severely uphill approach shot to a two tiered green and you are basically dead if you are above the hole, which is exactly where my 9 iron wound up).  I had no way of knowing exactly how far the pin was cut from the front edge (I didn't have the pin location sheet with me) and would have hit a wedge if I knew the exact location).  There is nothing I can do about it and, in fact, I find myself avoiding anyone else in the group who mentions the exact distance because it actually makes me unsure of distance since my own judgement is most likely based on inexact measurements-I actually tell playing partners not to give me distances from the range finders.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()