Slightly OT: PROVEN!!! GPS devices make players play faster

[Garland Bayley]

Firstly there should be a requirement for people to play in under 3.5 hours or maybe even 3.

And what happens to golfers who take longer?

Sarah Palin gets to shoot and field dress them.

Then there was that Iowa woman who wasn't impressed with Sarah, because she spends her time neutering (not her word ) bulls.

[Philippe Binette]

Wow less than 5 hours

They play golf in 3h30 in Scotland...

[Richard Choi]

Rob, just because you say it is a "FACT" does not mean it is one unless you have some data to back it up.

John K, I am going to rat on you and state that he used a GPS device early and often in his rounds with me (not his own, but course provided)

I cannot think of a reason how anyone can argue that a GPS device slows down a game. If you are not the kind of guy looking for a sprinkler head, you are not going to own one. If you are the kind looking for the sprinkler head, this device will most definitely speed up your game.

Only argument I see repeated is that you should not be looking for the sprinkler head in the first place. To me, that is just burying your head in the sand.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rob, just because you say it is a "FACT" does not mean it is one unless you have some data to back it up.

John K, I am going to rat on you and state that he used a GPS device early and often in his rounds with me (not his own, but course provided)

I cannot think of a reason how anyone can argue that a GPS device slows down a game. If you are not the kind of guy looking for a sprinkler head, you are not going to own one. If you are the kind looking for the sprinkler head, this device will most definitely speed up your game.

Only argument I see repeated is that you should not be looking for the sprinkler head in the first place. To me, that is just burying your head in the sand.

Perfectly summarized.

I think those who don't understand this just choose not to... it's pretty simple logic....

TH

[Garland Bayley]

Rob, just because you say it is a "FACT" does not mean it is one unless you have some data to back it up.

John K, I am going to rat on you and state that he used a GPS device early and often in his rounds with me (not his own, but course provided)

I cannot think of a reason how anyone can argue that a GPS device slows down a game. If you are not the kind of guy looking for a sprinkler head, you are not going to own one. If you are the kind looking for the sprinkler head, this device will most definitely speed up your game.

Only argument I see repeated is that you should not be looking for the sprinkler head in the first place. To me, that is just burying your head in the sand.

Richard,

What about the guys that I see that are constantly comparing the GPS to the sprinkler head?

[Tom Huckaby]

Garland:

Those types would have tended to deliberate painfully long before; the GPS helps them get some final resolution they wouldn't have otherwise achieved.  These are surely not the types to just trust their eyes.  In fact these have to be the worst of the "pacers."

Pray you don't play behind them now; but be even more thankful you didn't play behind them before.

TH

[Rob Rigg]

Richard,

I went out and played 18 this morning.

I played the front nine twice.

I was 10 minutes faster for the nine walking down the fairway, looking at sprinkler heads, pulling my club and hitting than I was walking down the fairway to my ball, getting out the laser thingy, pulling my club and hitting my ball.

FACT - It is faster to look at sprinkler heads or yardage markers on the way to your ball and hit the club than it is to use a laser thingy.

[Richard Choi]

Rob,

I can guarantee you I can go out tomorrow play 18 with GPS and play 18 without GPS and one with GPS will be faster.

That is also a FACT.

Does that prove ANYTHING?

No...

The fact mentioned in the original thread, however, was done with many people with historical data. Not just by single person why wants to prove something.

[Tom Huckaby]

Richard,

I went out and played 18 this morning.

I played the front nine twice.

I was 10 minutes faster for the nine walking down the fairway, looking at sprinkler heads, pulling my club and hitting than I was walking down the fairway to my ball, getting out the laser thingy, pulling my club and hitting my ball.

FACT - It is faster to look at sprinkler heads or yardage markers on the way to your ball and hit the club than it is to use a laser thingy.

Rob:

You keep missing the point.  Of course it's faster to look at sprinkler heads, get a rough yardage, and just hit the ball, then it is to laser it from any particular point.  Done, given, granted.  I don't think anyone's argued that, even Richard.  Shoot, make me use one of these things and I have zero doubt I'd slow down considerably - I just tend to eyeball distances from whatever marker is available, step things off only if I have some doubt (which is rare).

But those who would play that way are NOT the ones who would tend to use an electronic device.  It's been explained many times already.   Really the simplest explanation is that given by Richard a few posts ago:

If you are not the kind of guy looking for a sprinkler head, you are not going to own one. If you are the kind looking for the sprinkler head, this device will most definitely speed up your game.

You just have to understand that what he means by "looking for a sprinkler head" are the painfully slow ones who will search such out and pace it off, to get the exact distance, every time.  THOSE are the ones who will buy and use a GPS device - not a guy like you (or me) who takes note of it as he goes by and accepts approximations.  And those guys WILL go faster using a GPS device.

TH

[Melvyn Morrow]

Richard

I have done no tests but which would be quicker IYHO someone using a GPS/electronic aid or a golfer using the time honoured way of working out distance as he approaches his ball without the aid of any distance markers?

I understand why golfers use these aids, their insecurity linked with the total lack of selfconfidence in their own ability and the fear of loosing to someone with an artificial aid. Some may go as far as saying these guys just don’t have the balls to play and are just plain scared of being disadvantaged – of course you would not catch me saying that on GCA.com as I have not conducted any test, nor will I.

The final decision must be down to the individual golfer, but I believe I can hold my head up high, good or bad shot and say I did it my way unaided by gadgets – does not make me a better man, but at least I have shown that I have the balls to play the game using my God given abilities.
   
A humble Melvyn (with balls – Titleist/Dunlop)

[A.G._Crockett]

Richard,

I went out and played 18 this morning.

I played the front nine twice.

I was 10 minutes faster for the nine walking down the fairway, looking at sprinkler heads, pulling my club and hitting than I was walking down the fairway to my ball, getting out the laser thingy, pulling my club and hitting my ball.

FACT - It is faster to look at sprinkler heads or yardage markers on the way to your ball and hit the club than it is to use a laser thingy.

Rob:

You keep missing the point.  Of course it's faster to look at sprinkler heads, get a rough yardage, and just hit the ball, then it is to laser it from any particular point.  Done, given, granted.  I don't think anyone's argued that, even Richard.  Shoot, make me use one of these things and I have zero doubt I'd slow down considerably - I just tend to eyeball distances from whatever marker is available, step things off only if I have some doubt (which is rare).

But those who would play that way are NOT the ones who would tend to use an electronic device.  It's been explained many times already.   Really the simplest explanation is that given by Richard a few posts ago:

If you are not the kind of guy looking for a sprinkler head, you are not going to own one. If you are the kind looking for the sprinkler head, this device will most definitely speed up your game.

You just have to understand that what he means by "looking for a sprinkler head" are the painfully slow ones who will search such out and pace it off, to get the exact distance, every time.  THOSE are the ones who will buy and use a GPS device - not a guy like you (or me) who takes note of it as he goes by and accepts approximations.  And those guys WILL go faster using a GPS device.

TH

Huckaby is, of course, completely correct in all of this.  (Read entire post, please...)

To go one step beyond what Tom has correctly stated above, since the majority of players do NOT walk, the majority of players will NOT be walking in a direct line to their ball and pacing as they go.  They will be driving, getting out, finding a sprinkler head, and then pacing.

As opposed to point and shoot?  Not even close in terms of time elapsed.

Guys, it's faster to use a device IF you are getting yardages.  There is no way around it.  If you don't want to use one, and/or you don't want to know yardages, then don't.  But don't say it is slower; that's silly.  There isn't a scintilla of evidence that backs you.

One other note to all those who continually post in these discussions that 90% of the golfing public has no need to know 163 as opposed to 160 yds.;  of course they don't!  But the devices are exact; they'd be pretty dopey you looked at it and the reading was "about 160, but you aren't good enough to know more than that!"  SO QUIT WRITING THAT CRITICISM; it is completely irrelevant.

Finally, I am again publicly apologizing to Tom Huckaby for skewering him in some of the early discussions this topic.  I WAS WRONG!  Devices are faster for the golfer who wants yardages than pacing.  They have NOT slowed down play, and under the right circumstances can speed it up significantly.

[Garland Bayley]

...since the majority of players do NOT walk, ...

On what authority do you know this? If it is indeed true for the US, then you must consider the US is not the only place golf is played. And you must consider, that the US will be soon shipping our golf carts to China to pay the national debt.     

[Rob Rigg]

Tom,

I will concede that for certain people using GPS will make their round faster. Especially those who are taking carts with GPS in them.

I do not believe that someone who plays quickly will benefit from GPS which you seem to agree with as well. I don't think Richard is there yet.

Is GPS going away - no - is it more garbage technology in golf - yes. At least it will contribute to the economy via consumer spending.

Chacon son gout.

[John Kirk]

Rob, just because you say it is a "FACT" does not mean it is one unless you have some data to back it up.

John K, I am going to rat on you and state that he used a GPS device early and often in his rounds with me (not his own, but course provided)

I cannot think of a reason how anyone can argue that a GPS device slows down a game. If you are not the kind of guy looking for a sprinkler head, you are not going to own one. If you are the kind looking for the sprinkler head, this device will most definitely speed up your game.

Only argument I see repeated is that you should not be looking for the sprinkler head in the first place. To me, that is just burying your head in the sand.

Guilty as charged.  You need a GPS to know distances a the course in question, since they do not have yardages on the sprinklers.

Melvyn,

What if you can't see very well anymore.  Should older myopic men just wing it and play far below their true abilities because they can't see distances accurately?

In general, I think Richard is right.

[Joe Hancock]

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other on this. When I played Ballyneal this summer, I played alone (first off in the a.m) I played two balls and tried a variety of shots on every hole. I checked the total length of the hole before teeing off, but then relied solely on judgment skills the rest of the way. Even with messing around with different shots, I shot 79/ 80.

The only reason I mention this is this; before technology, the ability to use judgment of distance, just as we still have to do with the wind, was a skill set that enabled the best all around player to win, not just the best ball striker. The same skill set used to matter when one had to estimate the grains' effect on putts as well, but that is pretty much a non-issue these days.

It's fun to defeat an opponent on several levels, not just the ball striking aspect. Not like that opportunity comes around very often, unfortunately.

Joe

[Rob Rigg]

Who does GPS benefit in terms of speed:

1) Melvyn who doesn't use yardage - No (.01% of golf population)

2) Rob and Tom who glance as they walk past sprinkler heads as they walk to their ball, then pull a stick and hit it - No (15% of golf population(wishful thinking?))

3) People who run around the fairway like chickens with their heads cut off trying to find a sprinkler head and then pacing distance to their ball  - Yes (20% of population)

4) Anyone who plays in a cart because they are hopeless anyways  - Yes (64.9% of golf population)

FACT -  - GPS does NOT help 15.01% of the golf population play faster and it does help 84.9% of the golf population play faster.

[A.G._Crockett]

...since the majority of players do NOT walk, ...

On what authority do you know this? If it is indeed true for the US, then you must consider the US is not the only place golf is played. And you must consider, that the US will be soon shipping our golf carts to China to pay the national debt.     

Garland,
Yes, I was speaking of the U.S.  It's where you and I both live, and it seemed pertinent.  Sorry to be ethnocentric.

I read an article on PGATour.com that said that in 2006, only one-third of the rounds in the U.S. were walked.  I can't believe that you find that to be a surprise, and I'm surprised you would even question it.

Disclaimer: I walk 75% of my rounds, and most of the ones that I ride are at carts-only courses.  The simple fact is that, since I do NOT always hit my ball in the fairway, a laser is still faster than pacing when you walk IF you want yardages.  It's just a fact, unfortunate though it may be.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rob:  that works for me, and is more or less what I've been trying to get people to see for quite some time.. that is that these devices will make a majority of golfers play the game faster.  Not sure your percentages work, but close enough.
 

[Rob Rigg]

So we agree to essentially agree - splendid! 

[Jon Wiggett]

One other note to all those who continually post in these discussions that 90% of the golfing public has no need to know 163 as opposed to 160 yds.;  of course they don't!  But the devices are exact; they'd be pretty dopey you looked at it and the reading was "about 160, but you aren't good enough to know more than that!"  SO QUIT WRITING THAT CRITICISM; it is completely irrelevant.

Finally, I am again publicly apologizing to Tom Huckaby for skewering him in some of the early discussions this topic.  I WAS WRONG!  Devices are faster for the golfer who wants yardages than pacing.  They have NOT slowed down play, and under the right circumstances can speed it up significantly.

A.G.,

It is relevant. Fact: 50 years ago there were no distance devises and it rounds of 2.5 to 3 hours were the norm. I do not say thyt GPS are the only reason for the slower play that is now accepted by many as being unavoidable but they sure don't help. Are GPS's quicker than sprinkler heads or yardage charts? I don't know though, I can imagine they are quicker than a chart.

As to your point of critism not being relevant. Firstly, I live in a land where we are afforded the right to free speech and are encouraged to use this right. That you obviously do not have this right does in part excuse your desire to stop people making opinions that don't fit in your scheme of how the world should be .

Secondly, that a majority of players are not of a standard to benifit from the knowledge of how far away they are is relevant. They are slowing everyone down by collecting information of little or no value to them. In a tounament it might be excused, in a normal round it is not IMHO.

[A.G._Crockett]

One other note to all those who continually post in these discussions that 90% of the golfing public has no need to know 163 as opposed to 160 yds.;  of course they don't!  But the devices are exact; they'd be pretty dopey you looked at it and the reading was "about 160, but you aren't good enough to know more than that!"  SO QUIT WRITING THAT CRITICISM; it is completely irrelevant.

Finally, I am again publicly apologizing to Tom Huckaby for skewering him in some of the early discussions this topic.  I WAS WRONG!  Devices are faster for the golfer who wants yardages than pacing.  They have NOT slowed down play, and under the right circumstances can speed it up significantly.

A.G.,

It is relevant. Fact: 50 years ago there were no distance devises and it rounds of 2.5 to 3 hours were the norm. I do not say thyt GPS are the only reason for the slower play that is now accepted by many as being unavoidable but they sure don't help. Are GPS's quicker than sprinkler heads or yardage charts? I don't know though, I can imagine they are quicker than a chart.

As to your point of critism not being relevant. Firstly, I live in a land where we are afforded the right to free speech and are encouraged to use this right. That you obviously do not have this right does in part excuse your desire to stop people making opinions that don't fit in your scheme of how the world should be .

Secondly, that a majority of players are not of a standard to benifit from the knowledge of how far away they are is relevant. They are slowing everyone down by collecting information of little or no value to them. In a tounament it might be excused, in a normal round it is not IMHO.

Jon,
The last thing I want to do is restrict your free speech; I'd just like you to use it on criticisms that are relevant.  That lasers and skycaddies give precise yardages to golfers who only need approximate yardages is NOT relevant; the issue is slow play.

Surely you do not mean to contend that players who have no idea what club to hit because they do not have any idea of distance will play faster, do you?  Standing there in the fairway guessing?  Going back to a cart for a different club?  Looking for sprinkler heads and then pacing back and forth?  Missing more greens, and missing more greens by larger margins?  Come on...

So IF we accept the idea that yardage info MIGHT just speed up play (better info, fewer shots) then the ONLY question becomes "What is THE quickest way to get a yardage?"  It matters not one iota whether that yardage is expressed in exact yards or to the center of the green or to the front of the green or is approximate.  WHAT IS THE QUICKEST WAY TO GET A YARDAGE?

[Steve Lang]

  Ms Sheila & I have walked/played our 5 WCC courses all in less than 3 hours.. when no or little traffic was ahead of us.. we don't like slower play but we get over it.. reality siometimes sucks or we leave an do something else with our time..

so what is fast in a dynamic world of course play at country, state, county, metro, city, CC, CCFAD, cowpasture and dogtrack venues?   it is all relative to transit horsepower and gca-topography too.. and this whole amorphous discussion with time of play arguements relative to gps is irrelevent..

a little information can go a long way to doing anything smarter.

[Jon Wiggett]

AG,

most players are not any more accurate when they know the distance (exact or not) or if they just eyeball the shot. The FACT is (and it is a fact proven inmany studies) that most players (in sports in general) have a higher degree of accuracy with their first instinct and a quick play than when they take time and think about it. It is really only the very accomplished player where this is not the case most of the time.

What does this mean?

Most players would be better in the long run NOT having the yardage and just hitting the shot. It is only vanity that allows us to believe otherwise. The accomplished player can hit the ball to a distance but he/she then uses pre-shot routine to switch off active thinking. The average player's thinking becomes more negative the longer he/she thinks and so becomes worse on average the more he/she knows.

I am afraid I can't agree with you. The problem in golf is not to know what yardage you have, nor the quickest way to find this. It is to play the course in as few shots as possible.

One last thing. It is interesting that whilst the length of time to play a round of golf has increased in the last 30 years the standard of the average player has not gotten better, its actually worse! This despite or maybe because of things such as distance finders.

The best distance tool is a caddie as it adjusts to the player's actual game and not the player's ego

[Tom Huckaby]

AG - you remain a very good egg - and Mucci has so much to learn from you.

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Right Guys, having just read over the whole topic again, its clear that most do not understand percentages or how to conduct a survey to obtain real TRUE results. I don’t use distance markers so I am 0.01% - based upon what, the USA, The UK, GB or the rest of the world.

Most of my friends don’t agree with distance aids, it just how we were taught. Not many guys at the courses I have been at use distance aids either, so I assume that that 0.01% is one hell of a lot of golfers.

Clearly as this subject is causing so much debate I believe the only solution is to make it a FAIR PLAYING FIELD so we must ban all distance aid. Watch the performance of the good players fall away for a while until they get their eyes back in focus. If performance is in fact affected then they are an unfair aid and should not be allowed, if no real difference then I see no reason for all the fuss – but reports on GCA.com alone have confirmed a falling off of performance when not used so they constitute an unfair advantage so should be banned.

If it appear to be unfair thus forcing others to buy these toys then they should be banned IMHO.  Perhaps I do make some sense at times, what do you think Tom? But I only representing 0.01%, but then looking at political circles it could be adequate to win the vote.

Come on guys if you can’t agree, joint the program.  ‘Vote Melvyn Ban the Toys’ or how some like to put it VMBTT.

Melvyn