Caddies, Range Finders & Directional Aids

[Melvyn Morrow]

As golfers we do not need electronic aids to judge distance, we have natural equipment gifted by the Gods that already does that for us.

If we can judge distance using these gifts why do we need outside aids, surely that must be considered as cheating if not generated by the golfer through natural evolution. Or have some of us mutated sufficiently to have Range Finders protruding from our bodies?

Of course these are aids, so why in Hells name have the Governing Bodies approved them as legal on our Golf Courses?

I see no need for the extent of yardage information or the crap that is associated around this unbelievable quest for distance knowledge. Its become the new Search for the Holy Grail, the search for the all Seeing Eye and produces reams and reams of yardage information to the point that the average golfer is mentally drowning under the weight and thirst for obscure distance knowledge.

Distance aids are the modern equivalent of the Golfers status symbol. Its as if they are saying “Look at me I don’t have to think anymore as this little machine does it for me and its cost me £XX”  hoping perhaps for Wows and even more wows, but those of us who know the game know its not about toys but the golfer own ability to compute all information within that gives the greatest pleasure and satisfaction at the end of the day.

Don’t believe me then leave your toys at home and play a few rounds without them letting your eyes slowly adjust to doing the work your distance aids ones did.  Your mind will start to free up, you will surprisingly seem to have more time to mentally calculate your progress around the course and you will not be wasting the day on the course outwardly discussing or working out information provided by outside source. The positive side is that you might notice the GCA and the course itself. Its not easy, like drinking or smoking the distance crap has you hooked. It will take time to break away without the yearning to double check, but like all addictions once broken you remember the real quality of life and the pleasure that golf once gave you.

Its all in your hands (or mind I suppose I should say), yet how easy it is to say that I’m not hooked, ‘I can play without distance aids’, yet how many do. See them for what they are ‘aids’. Therefore, they should not be allowed and more importantly is your game so weak that you have to keep using them and feeding yourself with every excuse under the Sun why you want to keep them. That in my book would seem to put in into the realms of being a ‘Aid Junkie’

How could the R&A have made these legal on our golf course, they IMHO take the focus of the quality and enjoyment of the game and worst still these Junkies are not normally quiet so all in the vicinity are aware of distance, if we like it or not. Damn the distance and artificial aids.

There are still many who are believers in the true faith. Who honour the Game of Golf but reading this topic alone one can see how many have been tempted by the Dark Side.

Melvyn

PS To those who have defected to The Dark Lord, I say that there is a path back to the Light, but only you can take the first steps by selling your toys. Boy, are you lucky that you cannot be Excommunicated from the Church of Golf.

[Dan Herrmann]

Melvyn,
You wrote, "There are still many who are believers in the true faith. Who honour the Game of Golf but reading this topic alone one can see how many have been tempted by the Dark Side."

That really made me smile and chuckle.  Well written, sir.

I don't agree with you, but I do appreciate good writing

[Kirk Gill]

I like re-reading all of these arguments on a semi-annual basis.

I think Sean, that you make an interesting point about the different approaches taken by golfers of different economic capability. Perhaps my own penury then explains why I agree with you that all of the yardage aids, including caddies, take something away from what the architect is trying to do. Why, for example, create a bunker 50 yards short of a green while working it's surrounds so that it appears to be greenside if the player is just going to whip out a device that removes all doubt?  And please don't respond that this sort of visual deception is still effective, playing on some minute part of the player's psyche even when there is no doubt about the distances? I can't imaging buying one of those things, but I be po' folks, at least when it comes to owning something like that. Green fees and clubs and gloves and balls are enough to pay for, thank you very much.

Bill Hyde - to take your computer analogy further, my sister uses a voice-recognition system to "type" her emails and such. No "gymnastic" involvement at all. Why not then carry a machine that you tell how far to hit and what kind of trajectory you want, and it does it for you?

Understand I don't care at all what other folks do. It's a free country. Life is too short to even contemplate robbing someone of something that they use to create enjoyment for themselves. I can agree with Melvyn and say that by using distance aids, or carts, something in the game is lost - and still think that there's plenty of meat on the bone for folks to enjoy, including myself.

I'm interested, though in this question. How many folks who use the distance aids are completely onboard in condemning those who ride in carts? And if you feel that way, is your opinion based on the notion that walking (or just carrying your own clubs) is integral to the core value of the game while figuring out how far to hit your shots is not?

[Brent Hutto]

Why, for example, create a bunker 50 yards short of a green while working it's surrounds so that it appears to be greenside if the player is just going to whip out a device that removes all doubt?

How about the second time you play the course? You'll have no doubt that the bunker is 50 yards short of a the green after you've seen it once.

How many folks who use the distance aids are completely onboard in condemning those who ride in carts? And if you feel that way, is your opinion based on the notion that walking (or just carrying your own clubs) is integral to the core value of the game while figuring out how far to hit your shots is not?

I don't condemn anyone for riding in a cart. I condemn the courses which won't let me play because I walk. For me walking is certainly an integral part of the game. And BTW, the damage done to the course and the unsightliness of carts and their concrete paths detracts much more from the quality of the experience than looking around and noticing someone consulting a yardage book or GPS unit.

Knowing that the hole is 164 yards from the spot where I'm standing does not tell me how far to hit the shot. That depends on wind, lie, slope, temperature, firmness of the ground, quality of contact, what trajectory the ball travels and possibly other factors on any given shot. It simply tells me how far I am standing from the hole. Once again, if I've played the course a few times and happen to know that this spot is about 164 from the hole then I have the same information as given by a yardage book or caddie or sprinkler head or GPS or laser. It's a pretty poor course if it ceases to offer an interesting shot just because I know I'm 164 yards from the hole and not 148 or 176 instead.

Honestly some of you guys makes golf course architecture seem like creating a pop-up book to make a baby go "Ooooh" with surprise. It must be quite a burden to lose your enjoyment for a good golf course after playing it a few times and learning your way around.

[Kirk Gill]

I get where you're coming from Brent, totally. And while I've never owned or carried one of those rangefinders, I HAVE played a course where they had the gps built into the carts and found it all a bit of a hoot. Pretty much unnecessary, in my opinion, but fun for one round, anyway.

But everything you say seems to diminish your need for that device. In the same way that I know from repeat play that the bunker's appearance is a deception, you would also learn your distances, and feel your shots. Dude, use the thing ! Go for it ! I'm not on a high horse about it, I just don't happen to use one. I sort of feel the same way about using distance aids as I do about getting tattoos. When I was a kid, people like me didn't do that (distance aids back then equaled "using a caddie," and they didn't have them on the courses I was playing, and tattoos were for guys who had been in prison or in the Armed Services). And now that they are ubiquitous I still find myself uninterested.

What I think I'm talking about Brent, is not some sort of pop-up-book quality to architecture, I'm just talking about what I enjoy doing. How many times do I have to say "Do whatever you want?" I'm not making fun of you, I'm not calling you out. I don't care at ALL what you do. On a given day, I might do the same, if the opportunity beckons. I'm just stating my opinion, and having a conversation. And as to your scenario regarding the placement of a pin either in front of or behind a ridge......would binoculars do the trick? I wonder where Melvyn comes down on this whole "binocular" issue. Is he a Phillies fan?

[Brent Hutto]

Most time a spotting scope or binocular would answer the question just fine. But the laser is more obvious.

I'm not trying to start a fight, there's a deeper philosophical difference than I'm trying to illuminate. From the first time I read through a bunch of stuff on this site about courses I was interested in I've never understood the love affair with deception or visual trickery. Like you say, different strokes and all that. But a feature that depends on fooling or deceiving the golfer is inferior to one to that presents a challenge even after you know exactly what you're facing.

You're right that my reason diminish the utility of a rangefinder. At the very most it provides a handful of times per round when I may or may not use that information to save a stroke. So the average effect on my score is probably on the order of a stroke a round on a course I know well, maybe higher on one I've never seen before. But what the heck, it still makes a difference. I know I'd rather win a game two up than one up or shoot an 88 rather than an 89 given a chance.

[Tony_Muldoon]

But a feature that depends on fooling or deceiving the golfer is inferior to one to that presents a challenge even after you know exactly what you're facing.

Brent whooa, I say whooa.  Whatever happened to respecting the other guy’s choices? Inferior?   I think you've got that one 100% wrong and you haven’t made any attempt to justify your case.  

Do you really prefer?

155 over water to a green that's designed to receive a shot.  (This is all part of the same target golf mindset).

Over,

170 to the centre of  a green that you know has a front to back slope but the landing area is obscured by a fairway bunker that actually looks like it’s part of the green, but is in fact  well short.  You know this because you’ve played it before yet you’ve still got to have faith that you judge where to land the ball in this minefield and to overcome the DOUBT of what will happen next.  



Guys if you want one, buy one. They’re legal.


Yesterday I played with a guy off 1, on his home course where he’s been a member for nearly 30 years. He plays a lot of golf so I think he’d laugh if I suggested he’d only played the course 2000 times.  He looked at his SkyCaddie before every shot,  and until I saw that I had no idea how addictive this approach is.  He’s welcome to do that but I still think he’d have more fun if he had his head up looking ahead instead of buried on the collar of his bag.

[Brent Hutto]

Tony,

In your second example, the challenge of hitting a shot to a not-visible target does not by my reckoning rely on deception. Putting an obstacle to make a semi-blind shot (hills can work as well as bunkers) is a perfectly valid testing feature of a golf course.

But it's not spoiled by a SkyCaddie or yardage guide saying "170" any more than it's spoiled by having played the hole a dozen times before. If the deception is successful my first time around then I'll casually hit whatever shot looks obvious and get screwed. Probably cost me a stroke or two. I don't see that as fun. It wasn't an interesting shot because I didn't know it was interesting.

The supposed interest comes when I walk up to the green and see that I ended up nowhere near the proper spot. Ha ha, what a lark.

Next time around I'll have to trust my knowledge (whether by yardage aid or because I paced the thing off the first time) and hit my semi-blind shot. That's an interesting shot. A shot that looks difficult and is difficult is more interesting to me than one that looks bog simple and turns out to be totally different than it looked.

P.S. As for the "target golf" jape, there is a target on every hole and they stick a flagstick in it. Wouldn't it be the (il)logical extreme of surprise golf architecture to do away with those flagsticks?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Brent I look forward to continuing this discussion on a golf course near me soon.

Hiding the landing area and making it look like there isn’t one is not deception?

IN my example 170 is mostly  irrelevant other than giving a general idea  and it can quickly be approximated by either figuring how far you hit it off the tee on this 400 Par 4, or a glance at the nearest sprinkler head.

Surely the most interesting shot is one that looks more difficult than it is?  Why use a computer to reassure you that your standard 8 iron is just the thing?  I do think the technological distance finder is just the latest wrong step that golf has taken.   Still if it lights your fire.

Let’s take this up again on the 5th hole at Deal.  It’s a Par 5 with 4 bunkers that are pretty much blind as you stand over your second shot. What to do next? Well it all depends on how straight you’re hitting that day, the wind, the roll of the ball etc, etc.

Tbc.... (btw let's have a Match!)

[Bill_McBride]

Tbc.... (btw let's have a Match!)

Just don't get in those cross bunkers at #17!   

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tbc.... (btw let's have a Match!)

Just don't get in those cross bunkers at #17!   

I have put a lay up club in the bag, for shots like 17.  I am now guaranteed to be nowhere near the bunkers!

[Sean_A]

Like Tony and Kirk point out, I too am not attacking you or anybody.  I fully understand that my way of thinking about the game is totally outdated and will likely become more outdated as time rolls on.  However, just as I have no time for the guy who complains about courses being too easy yet buys bomb and gouge equipment in the name of having to keep an edge in some virtually meaningless comp; I have no sympathy for guys on an architecture kick yet buy yardage guns.  It makes absolutely no sense to me, but then I never claimed to be terribly bright.  To me, the yardage gun is firmly in the camp of "fair" golf thinking - something I don't think does architecture any good.  But these are my opinions and luckily I can play pretty near (near enough to call it a decent compromise) how I want at the moment at nearly all of the courses I choose to patronize. Yes, I know my world picture of golf is crumbling, but hopefully it will be a slow crumble; slow enough to last out my years in the game.  Until then, point and shoot my friend.  I don't begrudge you your choice.  Live and let live.

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Tbc.... (btw let's have a Match!)

Just don't get in those cross bunkers at #17!   

I have put a lay up club in the bag, for shots like 17.  I am now guaranteed to be nowhere near the bunkers!

I'm okay, can't hit it that far!

I love that flat area to the right, "Vardon's Kitchen."

[Brent Hutto]

Tony,

You're on!

Sean and Tony,

One reason I spend a month's pay every summer to come play links and heathland courses in the UK is because I don't need to know yardages to have fun there. For the majority of shots I play at courses near home, there are two ways that a shot can go awry. I can hit it badly or I can hit it well but at the wrong target. But the key is, for almost every shot of every round there is most certainly a correct target and if I get the distance and line correct it's just a matter of executing the swing.

I'm sorry that I can't seem to describe why playing that sort of golf without knowing the distance is such a poor imitation (to me) of the more fun version of the game I'd rather be playing. It's one thing to be uncertain as to just what shot landing in what spot will work out to get the ball somewhere near a front pin placement when it's downwind 15mph and the ground ball bounces shoulder high when it hits the turf. If I knew the distance to the inch between me and hole that's like 1% of the information I need to hit the right shot, the rest is a judgment call.

Contrast that with the same distance shot at home. Yeah, if it's downwind I need to adjust and maybe even land it 3-4 paces short of the green. But the downwind will be 10mph and the turf will almost kill the shot when it lands to a pretty good reliability. So I see that it's 155 to the hole and I move the landing point back to about 145-148 and it'll work out most times.

For my part, blindfolding myself (so to speak) by refusing to acquire the distance information just doesn't cut it. I don't wish for uncertainty that is completely avoidable. I want it to be inherent to the situation. A downwind 5-iron at Royal Birkdale to a front pin has enough inherent uncertainty to make the shot all about that uncertainty. Not bothering to find out the distance doesn't really matter because it doesn't influence (perceptibly) the odds of success. At my home course under typical conditions knowing the distance makes success a entirely probably outcome hence I would feel foolish not taking that factor into account.

What's the old prayer about accepting what you can't control and knowing the difference? I can totally control my knowledge of whether it is 150, 155 or 160 yards to the hole so if that creates a situation that I can control, I know the difference. Hope that's a bit more clear. If not, Tom Paul says golf is a big tent...

[Tony_Muldoon]

To me, the yardage gun is firmly in the camp of "fair" golf thinking - something I don't think does architecture any good.  

Ciao

Areed, and it's the little part of me that still thinks Golf should be fair that gets ticked of when an opponent hits it two fields over and can still get all the info he wants from his on board computer.  tee hee.


See you soon Brent.

[Jeff_Brauer]

If there was a way to force golfers to turn these things back to the tee and measure how short they drove the ball, it might have some benefit in getting them to move up a tee.  (Most golfers overestimate how far they hit the ball by at least 10%, and probably more)

[Anthony Gray]

If there was a way to force golfers to turn these things back to the tee and measure how short they drove the ball, it might have some benefit in getting them to move up a tee.  (Most golfers overestimate how far they hit the ball by at least 10%, and probably more)

  This is so true. We have GPS on our carts that shows your driving distance and I'm always saying "I only drove it that far".

  Anthony

[Brent Hutto]

Well I play 100 times a year on a course with yardage plates on most tee boxes and a good number of marked sprinkler heads. A few times a year it rains heavily enough that drives plug in the fairway. That's when you lose all self-delusions about driving distance. You just walked away from a tee in front of the plate that says "374" and that drive you thought you pured didn't quite fly as far as the sprinkler than say "182". A lot of 220 yard drives actually get 30+ yards of that on the ground.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In general, I think golf ought to evolve with the times.  I think it has always resmembled the drama and struggle that is life itself, and if the struggle has reduced, so should the struggle in golf. If we live in the information age, why should golf remain the one activity we pursue sans information?

There is absolutely no reason golf should remain static.  For that matter, it wasn't static back in Old Tom's day either. He took quite a bit of heat for turfing the fairways and removing heather to make the game easier.  Where would we draw the line?  Gutties, Clubs of the Hogan era, etc.

Besides, the average handicap doesn't drop, because the ultimate test is getting the ball in the hole and in the end, there isn't much you can do (I hope)  to help sink putts, save put a microchip in the ball that self corrects roll.  That may be coming, and what would the price of a Pro V be then?  (OF course, it would be offset somewhat by the fact that it would be hard to lose a self correcting golf ball)

[Tim Martin]

Many of the participants here have expressed their opposition to the use of electronic distance aids, like range finders and GPS devices.

A number of these same individuals embrace the use of caddies and encourage fellow golfers to take a caddy whenever possible.

I played recently at one of the UK's top private clubs and took a caddy. The caddy used a Bushnell range finder to help advise the players in our group on which club to use for a given shot. I must say that this made for a pleasant day on the links.

I had no problem with my caddy using a range finder. Do you?

Yes.  Last weekend, a caddy in the group buzzed the distance to the pin on the 1st hole.  I heard the beep.  Before he could tell me a number, I asked him "hold up a sec...I'd prefer not to receive distances from those things.  I'd rather estimate." 

I do that every time as soon as I see those guns coming out of the caddie bibs...

Shiv-Are you ok with the caddie giving you the number without the gadget?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Caddies, Range Finders & Directional Aids
 
All are the Devils work and the true golfer should refrain from worshiping at these alters on penalty of excommunication. Fear drives men to rely upon false idols which weakens their mental resolve forcing the necessity to increase their usage.

Be warned its not only your physical fitness that may be at stake but also your mental health due to lack of use (particularly if your golfing buddies are also followers of the same idols)

Melvyn   

[Colin Macqueen]

Melvyn,

The Fundamentals of Golf take on a new meaning!

The Hielander

[Matt OBrien]

Many of the participants here have expressed their opposition to the use of electronic distance aids, like range finders and GPS devices.

A number of these same individuals embrace the use of caddies and encourage fellow golfers to take a caddy whenever possible.

I played recently at one of the UK's top private clubs and took a caddy. The caddy used a Bushnell range finder to help advise the players in our group on which club to use for a given shot. I must say that this made for a pleasant day on the links.

I had no problem with my caddy using a range finder. Do you?

Yes.  Last weekend, a caddy in the group buzzed the distance to the pin on the 1st hole.  I heard the beep.  Before he could tell me a number, I asked him "hold up a sec...I'd prefer not to receive distances from those things.  I'd rather estimate." 

I do that every time as soon as I see those guns coming out of the caddie bibs...

I was in that group with you and I would have to say that those caddies needed a little work. As a former caddy it really bothers me when I see caddies being lazy. I don't mind the use of yardage devices when you are in spots that you dont normally see to speed up play but when you are in the middle of the fairway and there is a sprinkler head next to you I think a good caddy will be able to figure it out. I also do not like when a caddy tells you what club to play or what club they would play. How do they know how far I hit it if they only say me play for one or two holes. A good caddy will tell you raw information that is important to that shot and they will let the player figure out the rest unless asked for help.