[Mike Golden]

Andy:

Here's the difference.  You actually tried playing this way and enjoyed it.   I would do the same.   It would be fun to see how I'd play without modern tools.   I'd join you, or Melvyn, or Shivas in a fun foursome.   

But, they wouldn't have us if we had a range finder.  Nor would they play a round with one.   To my knowledge, they have never used one (Meylvn, Shivas, Mike in particular) and have no basis of comparison.   

We're inclusive, they are exclusive.  That's the difference.   

Inspired by this thread (and being a yardage marker guy) I played 9 holes at a top level course yesterday with 4 clubs (3W, 7I, SW, Putter) and no yardage markers other than knowing the length of the holes from the tee.

I shot my best 9 hole score of the year...36. I shot 78 with all my clubs and a caddie using a rangefinder in the morning on the same course. Admittedly too...I've hacked all year and just recently started practicing which is why my game is showing some improvement, however, count that as a point for the traditionalists (even if I'm not sure I consider myself a member!).

bullshit, I play with people all the time who use them, all I ever said is that I wouldn't have a significant bet with anyone who uses it.  Friendly wager, fine, serious bet, no fucking way.  So get your facts straight and cut the bullshit out already, it's getting annoying.

[John Burzynski]

How many golfers who have rangefinders use them repeatedly on the same course?

I mean, if you play a course anywhere near regularly, after a round or two or three, you know that a shot from a certain area is normally a 5 iron shot (a 4 iron with wind, etc.), or from a tee it is such and such a club.    You just KNOW what club you will be using, based on previous experience.

I can see the benefit of a range finder if you are new to a course, but if youhave played the course once or twice, your eyeballs and experience seem, at least in my experience, to be more valuable, and accurate.

[Sean_A]

So with all due respect I must ask why the fuck would any rational person not want to know that it's 113 yards to the flag? Instead of 103 or 123 or 150 or 85 or some other number.

Brent

I am not asking that you shouldn't know the distance to the flag.  What I am asking is that you do it by eye.  There is a big difference between the two.  You seem to constantly fall back on a caddie or yardage marker.  How often do you play with a caddie? I bet it is so rare that you internally question a caddie's yardage more than makes you comfortable.  Either that or you are completely clueless about your surroundings and what your eye is telling you.  How often have you looked at a yardage disk (not that I am for them) and really questioned the info?  If a yardage gun merely gives the same info as a marker why would you buy one?  I believe there is a difference and that difference is that you can eventually learn to trust your yardage gun because you shot it - not some pimply face kid volunteering for a state association. 

The difference is trust and I can't believe you are trying to tell me that you have the same degree of trust in your gun as the marker.  Again, if so, why buy the gun?  There is no doubt in my mind that you are trying to gain an advantage and what a huge advantage it is - especially when well offline.  Again, I don't mind if you use the contraption, but don't try to peddle some nonsense about it making no difference.  As they say, its not cricket.

Ciao

[Tim Bert]

Brent -

Thanks for flying off the handle and apparently not reading my post - just reacting to it emotionally.  I'm talking yardage distances of 2 to 5 yards.  You don't strike the ball with that type of consistency.  Nor do I.  If you need a range finder to help you differentiate between 80 and 150, then you need more help than this thread can provide.  I don't think you do either, but never let a giant overstatement get in the way of a rational discussion.

I'm not opposed to rangefinders.  I simply don't think they provide a tangible advantage, and find it humorous to see the increasing number of peeping golfers that can't hit their clubs with any consistent precision yet insist on knowing their exact distance.

Bill -

I wouldn't see why the "anti" group would be so up in arms about the purity of the game if they didn't think it was an advantage.  No one is asking the "anti" crowd to use them.  If you don't think they help, then just snicker along with me.

John (or Jon - sorry I haven't seen your name spelled) -

My pace of play thoughts align closely with Shivas.  You can see them in reply #133, bullet point #5 of this thread.   In summary, I think you can effectively find a yardage before you get to your ball, pace it off, and not lose any time.  I think slow players find reasons to be slow, and will continue to do so with or without a rangefinder, just as a they do with or without a cart.

I don't have the same issue with you using the rangefinder that others do.  If it gives you a sense of security or precision that doesn't bother me.  I don't feel like it gives an opponent an advantage over me in a match.  At the end of the day if I strike the ball better than my opponent and execute on shots I will win.  If I don't, I won't.  It won't be because my opponent had yardages that were 2 yards more precise than mine.  And my opponent won't play any faster than me simply because he had a gadget that provides yardage.  I'll have fun stepping off my approximate distance.  My opponent will have fun zapping distances.  Why can't we co-exist?

[Kalen Braley]

I don't have a dog in this fight.  But this is the way things stand more or less at this moment.  Both sides have some very legitimate arguements:

The Pro-Range Finder Crowd:

1)  Technology abounds in the game, Range Finders, GPS, its just all apart of getting more information.  They can't tell you wind, tempature, which club to hit, etc.  Its only 1 small piece of information.  Perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on how much they are percieved to actually help the player from the eyes of those who don't use them.

2)  They can speed up play.  I played a round this past weekend with a caddie using one of these.  It was great, no looking around for plates, got to the ball and he already had the yardage..to the pin no less.  Even better when I was off in the shit to get a distance to the flag, it saved a bunch of time.

3)  Who makes anyone an authority on what golf is "supposed to be".  If geeks want to bring thier gadgets to the course, whats the harm? This is done in almost every other aspect of our lives, why not in golf.  If its just a weekend diversion to have a bit of fun, none of these guys will be making a living off golf, then why be a Luddite buzz-kill?  Let people have thier own fun in thier own way.  No different than guys who want to play Hickories....its not my cup of tea, but if it turns thier crank, then let em have at it.

4)  Even being armed with the exact yardage doesn't mean squat for 99% of the hacks out there, including me, because you still have to swing the club and make the shot.  Why do you care if I know its 107 to the pin, as opposed to 110?


The Anti-Range Finder Camp:

1)  First and foremost....if any of you really think you have the game to need to know a shot is 122, vs 125, then why are you here, you need to be on tour.  The exact yardage arguement for anything more than 40-50 yards is wishful thinking at best.

1a)  This is related to arugement 1 in the Pro side.  Distance is just one of many pieces to the puzzle.  Try taking that bad boy to a links course with F&F conditions, 20 MPH winds, and cold weather.  The range finder will be about as useful as a Air Conditionor in the Siberia in pulling off a good shot.

2)  How hard is it look at the plates when walking up the fairway?  I do this all the time and by the time I get to my ball I already have a pretty good idea of what I've got.  Just do a basic promixation from the nearest plate and I've got my yardage....simple as that.

3)  Are there really that many guys out there who don't know how far away they are when a yarage marker is only 10-15 yards away?  If the marker says 125 and you think your about 10 yards behind it, even if your off by a whopping 20-30%, this means your approach calculation is still only a couple of yards off.  And if you still think this is a problem, please see #1.

4)  Isn't it nice to get away from it all on the course?  Leave all that crap and baggage back in the car....both physical and mental baggage?  Just leave it all behind and let your instincts do the work.

4a)  For the same reasons, #4 in the previous section also applies here.  Even if you got the exact yardage, you still gotta hit the damn ball so knowing your 167 instead of 165 doesn't really get you much.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen: you forgot noise pollution and looking like one of those dorks from Sixteen Candles:

"Score...a direct hit"

Shiv,

I left off noise pollution because I don't recall ever having heard them making beeps or so forth when my playing partners had them....but this could be the case.

As for looking like a nerd or dork, I suspect those who use them don't have a problem with this and don't care about the potential image issue.

PS.  You must admit, Molly was kinda hot in that movie!! 

[Brent Hutto]

I am not asking that you shouldn't know the distance to the flag.  What I am asking is that you do it by eye.  There is a big difference between the two.  You seem to constantly fall back on a caddie or yardage marker.  How often do you play with a caddie? I bet it is so rare that you internally question a caddie's yardage more than makes you comfortable.  Either that or you are completely clueless about your surroundings and what your eye is telling you.  How often have you looked at a yardage disk (not that I am for them) and really questioned the info?  If a yardage gun merely gives the same info as a marker why would you buy one?  I believe there is a difference and that difference is that you can eventually learn to trust your yardage gun because you shot it - not some pimply face kid volunteering for a state association. 

OK, you want me to guess the distance and I want to know it. If you always guess the yardage then your handicap will reflect your skill level at all the other facets of the game as well as your skill at guessing right. I want to know the yardage. If I always play that way my handicap will reflect my skill level at all the other facets of the game but not including guessing distances. And since yardage markers and caddies and whatnot have always been allowable within the Rules of Golf neither of us is cheating or ruining the game.

Imagine if you played with a guy who for whatever quirky reason insisted on wearing a blindfold every time he hit a shot. Maybe he has a knack for still hitting the ball pretty much where he wants to wearing a blindfold. Neat circus trick but not something you or I would care to try whenever we play with him.

How would you react if he not only insisted that you ought to be wearing the blindfold but further claimed at the game played blindfolded was better in every way and morally superior to the game played with your eyes open? I think guessing yardages is less silly than playing blindfolded but still pretty silly.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm not opposed to rangefinders.  I simply don't think they provide a tangible advantage, and find it humorous to see the increasing number of peeping golfers that can't hit their clubs with any consistent precision yet insist on knowing their exact distance.

And I know with absolute certainty that knowledge of how far it is to where I want the ball to go is a tangible advantage. Does it need to be plus or minus one yard? As I said before of course not. The salient question is does it need to be more accurate than I can eyeball?

Yes, under many circumstances it does. With perfect visibility and a straight angle to the hole I can probably guess plus or minus 15 yards almost every time on an approach shot of typical length. But I doubt I'll get it much closer than that more than occasionally and if it's an obstructed or unusual angle it's easy to be fooled by 20 yards or more from time to time. That's not good enough for me and it certainly isn't good enough for most single-digit handicappers with a good iron swing. I play golf every weekend with guys who hit it plus or minus 10 yards on the majority of their approach shots and for my part, I can't guess the distance that well unless it's my home course.

Does it need to be a rangefinder? Absolutely not. That's why I don't use a rangefinder for all my rounds or even for all my shots in a round when I am carrying it. For an awful lot of circumstances my guess as to the distance is plenty good enough given the precision of my swing. But I do look at the 150 post and I do note the number on the sprinklers as I walk by. That's why I don't need the rangefinder but for a shot here or there most rounds.

So to be even more clear about what I'm saying...I have no argument against someone who does like using rangefinders. And I am not claiming that the game is impossibly difficult or unfair without a rangefinder. I do believe two things: 1) I believe a rangefinder is no different than a caddie or a yardage book and 2) I call bullshit on the claim that nobody less skilled than a Tour player gains any benefit from knowing how far they are from their shot's target.

[Brent Hutto]

You want to know that yardage so that you don't have to master all of the skills of the game.  That's the only logical conclusion.

No, the logical conclusion is that eyeballing the distance to the hole is not a part of the game. It may have been a part of the game before anyone thought to start pacing off yardages and marking them down in a little book. But as soon as that method was invented it became the normative approach adopted nigh universally by the best players in the game. And when it became the normal way the game was played and yet the Rules of Golf remained silent, anyone believing that playing from yardages is cheating lost the argument.

Guessing distances may be part of your game. And congratulations if you have great skill at it. I'm sure it impresses your friends. But if Jack Nicklaus can win 18 majors without ever, ever under any circumstance hitting a shot without knowing the exact distance to the nearest yard then don't tell me he somehow avoided having to demonstrate a skill that is integral to the game. Your saying it don't make it so.

[Kalen Braley]

[ I call bullshit on the claim that nobody less skilled than a Tour player gains any benefit from knowing how far they are from their shot's target.

Brent,

By the techincal definition of it, I can't argue against "gains any benefit" as you used it in the statement.  I just question whether that benefit to you is even noticeable.  Are you really that good enough to have any measurable benefit from a 132 yard shot as compared to a 135 yard shot?

Especially when you hit two shots from the same exact spot with the same exact club with the same conditions and one shot goes 137 and the next goes 131?  Doesn't it seem reasonable that unless your a + capper or something, that the variance will be so great as to negate that extra 3 yards you've gained in preciseness? 

Seems to me a bit like a framer building a house who insists that all his 2X4 measurements be to the nearest 16th of an inch when 6 and 3/4 is close enough.

[Brent Hutto]

Let me say this about the "exact distance" thing. I thought I had made it clear but I'll be explicit...

If I'm standing within spitting distance of a sprinkler head that says 155 I do not pull out the rangefinder and get "157" to be exact. I pull out the club that I think will work from about 155-160 and I hit the ball. But if I'm standing over in the trees with a clear shot to the green and I know that somewhere along about even with me in the fairway there's a marker than says 100, rather than going over and locating it and doing some trigonometry I just pull out the laser (if I have it with me) and get my "111" and go with that. If the laser had said "about 110-115" that would be OK but it says an exact yardage and that's great.

[Kalen Braley]

Let me say this about the "exact distance" thing. I thought I had made it clear but I'll be explicit...

If I'm standing within spitting distance of a sprinkler head that says 155 I do not pull out the rangefinder and get "157" to be exact. I pull out the club that I think will work from about 155-160 and I hit the ball. But if I'm standing over in the trees with a clear shot to the green and I know that somewhere along about even with me in the fairway there's a marker than says 100, rather than going over and locating it and doing some trigonometry I just pull out the laser (if I have it with me) and get my "111" and go with that. If the laser had said "about 110-115" that would be OK but it says an exact yardage and that's great.

Brent,

Fair enough...thats a really good arguement in favor of the Bushie.  Although it never hurt to try using the Pythagorean Theory in your head to calculate the yardage

[Dan King]

I thought I was done with this thread. Once I start repeating myself, I figure I'd said all I'm gonna say and washed my hands of it.

But then Kalen posts his summary of anti-range finding arguments and it doesn't include my arguments over the previous 10 pages. Either I did a crappy job of getting my point across, or it got lost in lots of noise.

I think golf is a great game because it had a healthy mixture of physical and mental games. It doesn't have a fixed arena, so the mental game during golf's history was just as important as the physical game.

Here in America, we have allowed the pros to modify the game, and then we follow along, because, after all they are the best. They have a stake in reducing the importance of the mental game. They practice so much at the physical game, it is a rare pro whose mental game is as strong as their physical game. The PGA Tour® have developed course setups and procedures to do everything they can to reduce the influence of the mental game, more so than other ruling bodies.

One of the key mental aspects of the game is doubt. The golf swing is destroyed by doubt. These distant gadgets reduce the amount of doubt while swinging the club. I'd rather see golfers earn the ability to reduce this doubt rather than buying the ability.

Other yardage devices -- caddies, course markings, yardage books -- do not eliminate doubt as much as these gadgets. Use this gadget enough, and you will believe the gadget rather than your own perspective. I don't want it that easy to reduce doubt. I believe it is a good thing when a caddy tells you it is 150 yards and your perspective tells you it isn't.

I'm sure my own game would benefit from a distance gadget. I don't play or practice enough any more to have confidence I earned. My game would be helped if I could buy confidence.

I don't cheer when I hit the 8-iron of my life and fly the green by 10 yards, but the game is better that occasionally this happens. Can you recover from hitting the 8-iron of your life and being screwed? This is a test I want golf to retain. I personally don't want the test, but golf was a better game because that was part of the test.

The distance gadgets aren't the nail in the coffin of golf. Golf will survive (it will be diminished but survive.) It is just more of the slippery slope of Americans trying to turn all their sports into video games. My problem is not necessarily with the people who use these devices, but with the custodians of the game who said it was okay.

Cheers,
Dan King

Cracking under pressure, or "choking" starts as a mental process and negative thoughts inevitably have a physically hampering effect on performance.
 --Mac O'Grady

[Dan King]

Brent Hutto writes:
If I'm standing within spitting distance of a sprinkler head that says 155 I do not pull out the rangefinder and get "157" to be exact.

What if you are standing within spitting distance of a sprinkler that says 155, but you look and you think it looks much shorter than that. Do you then pull out your gadgets to determine if the sprinkler or your perspective are right?

Cheers,
Dan King

Humor is perhaps a sense of intellectual perspective: an awareness that some things are really important, others not; and that the two kinds are most oddly jumbled in everyday affairs.
 --Christopher Morley

[Kalen Braley]

In these cases such as Brent has described, I like to use a slightly different method sans the Bushnell.

I take the yardage plate and imagine it connected to the center of the green with a piece of rope.  I then move that yardage plate and imagine a semi circle being drawn around the green.  From there I extrapolate a spot on the circle in my direct line and approximate how far I am from that spot and go with that.  I'd like to think I can guess correctly within 5-6 yards up to 180 yards out or so. 

[C. Squier]

I thought I was done with this thread. Once I start repeating myself, I figure I'd said all I'm gonna say and washed my hands of it.

But then Kalen posts his summary of anti-range finding arguments and it doesn't include my arguments over the previous 10 pages. Either I did a crappy job of getting my point across, or it got lost in lots of noise.

I think golf is a great game because it had a healthy mixture of physical and mental games. It doesn't have a fixed arena, so the mental game during golf's history was just as important as the physical game.

Here in America, we have allowed the pros to modify the game, and then we follow along, because, after all they are the best. They have a stake in reducing the importance of the mental game. They practice so much at the physical game, it is a rare pro whose mental game is as strong as their physical game. The PGA Tour® have developed course setups and procedures to do everything they can to reduce the influence of the mental game, more so than other ruling bodies.

One of the key mental aspects of the game is doubt. The golf swing is destroyed by doubt. These distant gadgets reduce the amount of doubt while swinging the club. I'd rather see golfers earn the ability to reduce this doubt rather than buying the ability.

Other yardage devices -- caddies, course markings, yardage books -- do not eliminate doubt as much as these gadgets. Use this gadget enough, and you will believe the gadget rather than your own perspective. I don't want it that easy to reduce doubt. I believe it is a good thing when a caddy tells you it is 150 yards and your perspective tells you it isn't.

I'm sure my own game would benefit from a distance gadget. I don't play or practice enough any more to have confidence I earned. My game would be helped if I could buy confidence.

I don't cheer when I hit the 8-iron of my life and fly the green by 10 yards, but the game is better that occasionally this happens. Can you recover from hitting the 8-iron of your life and being screwed? This is a test I want golf to retain. I personally don't want the test, but golf was a better game because that was part of the test.

The distance gadgets aren't the nail in the coffin of golf. Golf will survive (it will be diminished but survive.) It is just more of the slippery slope of Americans trying to turn all their sports into video games. My problem is not necessarily with the people who use these devices, but with the custodians of the game who said it was okay.

Cheers,
Dan King

Cracking under pressure, or "choking" starts as a mental process and negative thoughts inevitably have a physically hampering effect on performance.
 --Mac O'Grady

Dan, thanks.....that's the most civil response I've seen yet.  And I completely understand it and respect it.  

[JWinick]

Shivas:

If you want to be consistent, then ban yardage books as a form of cheating.   Force people to memorize the distances.   Isn't a pad and paper an artificial device?  

Remember, Jack Nicklaus was a professional golfer.  With unlimited time to chart a golf course.    How much more time of the golfer are you going to demand?  Where does it end?  Now, we have to chart the entire course out beforehand?

You want to know that yardage so that you don't have to master all of the skills of the game.  That's the only logical conclusion.

No, the logical conclusion is that eyeballing the distance to the hole is not a part of the game. It may have been a part of the game before anyone thought to start pacing off yardages and marking them down in a little book. But as soon as that method was invented it became the normative approach adopted nigh universally by the best players in the game. And when it became the normal way the game was played and yet the Rules of Golf remained silent, anyone believing that playing from yardages is cheating lost the argument.

Guessing distances may be part of your game. And congratulations if you have great skill at it. I'm sure it impresses your friends. But if Jack Nicklaus can win 18 majors without ever, ever under any circumstance hitting a shot without knowing the exact distance to the nearest yard then don't tell me he somehow avoided having to demonstrate a skill that is integral to the game. Your saying it don't make it so.

OK, I'll say it.  Nicklaus did not play the entire game either.  Oh, wait, hang on a second....he got his information from.... a caddie. 

And caddies have always been part of the game. 
I take it back. 

Nicklaus played the entire game because his caddie gave him advice as to distance, and that's always been considered part of the game.

And when was Nicklaus's information derived?  NOT DURING THE STIPULATED ROUND.  It was derived before then, and then conveyed in the form of advice during the round.  Now, Brent, you may not consider this difference to be a big deal, but to me it's huge and here's why:

Allowing a rangefinder to give advice DURING THE STIPULATED ROUND is the same thing as allowing David Leadbetter to come in during the round and give Michelle Wie swing advice or club selection advice.

The point of the game is that you do your preparation first.  Then you play.  And while you're playing, you don't take outside assistance, except from your caddie.  This is why I disagree with rangefinder, cheater lines, and other erosions of the advice rule, such as allowing "distance on matters of public information" (like "how far is it from here to that bunker") to be shared.  The erosion never ends.   In my view, if you wanna know distances, do it the Nicklaus way - do your preparation first, but not during the STIPULATED ROUND.

[Bill_McBride]

[ I call bullshit on the claim that nobody less skilled than a Tour player gains any benefit from knowing how far they are from their shot's target.

Brent,

By the techincal definition of it, I can't argue against "gains any benefit" as you used it in the statement.  I just question whether that benefit to you is even noticeable.  Are you really that good enough to have any measurable benefit from a 132 yard shot as compared to a 135 yard shot?

Especially when you hit two shots from the same exact spot with the same exact club with the same conditions and one shot goes 137 and the next goes 131?  Doesn't it seem reasonable that unless your a + capper or something, that the variance will be so great as to negate that extra 3 yards you've gained in preciseness? 

Seems to me a bit like a framer building a house who insists that all his 2X4 measurements be to the nearest 16th of an inch when 6 and 3/4 is close enough.

Kalen, remind me to never buy a house from your homebuilding company! 

[C. Squier]

Brent: didn't you see those 2008 Chinese dudes form a perfect circle Friday night?

Trig? 

Try geometry. 

With math like that, it's little wonder America will be a Chinese colony by the time my grandchildren get married - assuming the Chinese allow them to. 

Shivas, everything's not always black or white.  

The Pythagorean Theorem is both Geometry and Trigonometry.  

CPS

[Tom Huckaby]

Though I participated in this the first 10 times we discussed this exact issue, here the 11th time I stayed out of it, figuring as Dan says I'd just be repeating myself, and reading the repetitions of the previous players.  This has served me very well so far.

But a few new things have come out this go-round... one of which particularly intrigued me.

Primarily, I like Dan's take (and that of JK, who said the same thing pages and pages ago) about DOUBT.  We do need that in the game for sure and removal of it for any reason is not a good thing.  I just have to ask Dan and JK:  do you really think these devices remove all doubt?  I have seen them produce some wildly "off" results - particularly the skycaddie.  And the bushnell also does require a certain amount of skill to produce the right result.  In all seriousness I do believe these devices are generally accurate; I just would never say they remove all doubt.

So if you are basing your take on removal of doubt, well... methinks you need to see these things in action a bit more.

All of the rest is fine and dandy, though, pretty much the same as previous go-rounds.  Kalen summarized it well, as did others before him.  This is a pretty binary issue, and the two sides will never convince each other.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Dan,

Sorry about the recap job, I was sure I was going to leave some very good points out and you explained it much more thoroughly than I ever could have.

But in my defense...I was thinking your view of things fit in the "golf as it is supposed to" mention that I put in my list.     I understand your take, I respect it, but as you duly pointed out, you have not yet been crowned master of the golf domain...although i'll bet Melyvn is actively working on that one for you. 

Bill, Bill, Bill...

What are we going to do with you, always the rabble rouser.  I've worked in the construction biz and when your rough framing, 1/4 inch is almost always good enough damn it!!! That being said, I would never even make an attempt at finish work that does require much more refined specifications.  A man has to know his limitations!! 

[Brent Hutto]

Brent Hutto writes:
If I'm standing within spitting distance of a sprinkler head that says 155 I do not pull out the rangefinder and get "157" to be exact.

What if you are standing within spitting distance of a sprinkler that says 155, but you look and you think it looks much shorter than that. Do you then pull out your gadgets to determine if the sprinkler or your perspective are right?

Depends on the course and the situation. Unless I had some reason to think the sprinkler head might be wrong I'd just go with it. As I've mentioned I am acutely aware of the limitations of my distance-guessing prowess so if it comes down to believing the sprinkler or my lyin' eyes I'm not inclined to go with the eyes.

An exception would be if the green were ridiculously shallow with water in front and scary rough behind. If the penalty for being off by 8-10 yards is a double or triple bogey from the middle of the fairway I'd want to be as certain as possible.

Especially when you hit two shots from the same exact spot with the same exact club with the same conditions and one shot goes 137 and the next goes 131?  Doesn't it seem reasonable that unless your a + capper or something, that the variance will be so great as to negate that extra 3 yards you've gained in preciseness?

Seems to me a bit like a framer building a house who insists that all his 2X4 measurements be to the nearest 16th of an inch when 6 and 3/4 is close enough.

Kalen,

If one goes 137 and the next goes 131 and the hole happens to be 134 that's two damned fine shots by my standards. To my mind, I'm talking about a framer measuring to the nearest half-inch when some of you guys are talking about settling for half a foot. If I could know every distance I face in a round by magically calibrated eyeball and never be off by more than five yards I would not own a rangefinder. Obviously. But I don't have that eyeball and I'm not sure anyone else does either.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Brent

You want or need or have to know yardage/distance. I can understand that, but when you started playing did you look for distance marker the first day, did you pace out distance? Or is this craven something that has developed over the years?

You also say
“No, the logical conclusion is that eyeballing the distance to the hole is not a part of the game”.  So all of a sudden you are the Six Million Dollar Man, with your Range Finder GPS hard wired into your bionic brain allowing total control of your bionic arm (as I expect that with these aids you modern golfers do not need two arm).

Sorry Brent what is the name of the Game you play? Has it got 18 holes? When in your cart do you need to eyeball your route to the ball or is that automatic via GPS – we certainly play a totally different game or have you
had too much in the 19th.
 
Yardage, pacing off markers, range finders are not part of my game neither is getting distance info from a caddie, so I need to eyeball the distance to the hole because it is ALL PART OF MY GAME

I hope you enjoy your game as I do mine, from your language it does not look that you do - but that’s your choice, be miserable and dependent on artificial aids (on a Golf  Course).

[Bill_McBride]

Bill, Bill, Bill...

What are we going to do with you, always the rabble rouser.  I've worked in the construction biz and when your rough framing, 1/4 inch is almost always good enough damn it!!! That being said, I would never even make an attempt at finish work that does require much more refined specifications.  A man has to know his limitations!! 

As a general contractor, I know enough to buy a laser to check the layout of all framing operations.  It's okay for business but for golf.    go figure.

Sorry, I thought you said 6 3/4" tolerance rather than 1/16" tolerance.  Big difference.

And yes, I do love to rouse the rabble. 

[JWinick]

Melvyn,

Why do you think we're miserable because we have a need for knowledge?  I'm not stopping you from having your fun.  Why are you stopping us?   You're the one who is trying to ban a device that is effectively legal.    

Dan,

Not sure why you keep going on an anti-American rant.   The American way is about using increasing productivity.    You dismiss people as being lazy because they wish to use a legal device.  

Brent

You want or need or have to know yardage/distance. I can understand that, but when you started playing did you look for distance marker the first day, did you pace out distance? Or is this craven something that has developed over the years?

You also say
“No, the logical conclusion is that eyeballing the distance to the hole is not a part of the game”.  So all of a sudden you are the Six Million Dollar Man, with your Range Finder GPS hard wired into your bionic brain allowing total control of your bionic arm (as I expect that with these aids you modern golfers do not need two arm).

Sorry Brent what is the name of the Game you play? Has it got 18 holes? When in your cart do you need to eyeball your route to the ball or is that automatic via GPS – we certainly play a totally different game or have you
had too much in the 19th.
 
Yardage, pacing off markers, range finders are not part of my game neither is getting distance info from a caddie, so I need to eyeball the distance to the hole because it is ALL PART OF MY GAME

I hope you enjoy your game as I do mine, from your language it does not look that you do - but that’s your choice, be miserable and dependent on artificial aids (on a Golf  Course).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()