[Brent Hutto]

Brent, please - Do I need to anwer that one about "competing" a third time?

I think that was "A.G." who asked about it. Not me at any rate. But it's all right.

[Garland Bayley]

Wrong again Richard!

You can go argue with Pelz yourself.

I agree that comparison to throwing distance or car stopping distance is just silly. Those distances usually involve less than 100 feet. If all I was doing was hitting 100 feet shots, I wouldn't need know the yardage.

Maybe you haven't noticed but Pelz is not held in the highest regard on these matters.
Maybe you haven't noticed but many players at the US Open made comments about trying to throw the ball into the hole on #7. There is a caddy there that regularly makes "holes in one" there that way. I think we have now covered all distances in the "not a full shot" category.

PS. You drive too slow too!

[Garland Bayley]

...
Actually, the studies involving rangefinders HAVE been done, and discussed here.  They were quite conclusive, by the way.

Sorry, but they can't be conclusive unless they have the right control group.

My control group is a group of Scotsmen playing without the help of distance aids.

I believe the control group of the study you refer to was a bunch of people pacing off from sprinkler heads. (as if they could hit shots that accurately anyway.)

[Richard Choi]

I'll go with a guy with a scientific method every time, thanks.

[Garland Bayley]

I'll go with a guy with a scientific method every time, thanks.

Thanks, I'm glad you go with me.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Well,

I think I'll bow out after posting far too much in this thread... But the reason I kept going, is that it does appear that A.G. is coming from the angle of range finders versus yardage markers (even if that is just 150 yards) and Brent is coming from the angle of distance aids help you score better... Neither of which was the point I was failing to get across... Perhaps I'm misjudging what you are trying to say too...

I'm glad Garland managed to answer Mr.Crockett's last point for me... And Brent, when competing (which is rarely), I still only refer to a marker about 5 times a round when I'm unsure. It's only because they are there and available. I'd be much happier if the whole field was playing without them.

I hope I don't get tempted back in. Apologies Colin for leading it down this road.

[Brent Hutto]

Ally,

I wasn't the one who followed up on the "competing" comment. It was A.G. I believe.

[Garland Bayley]

My point is, there is nothing in the Rules of Golf that says you have to eyeball distances. If you want to play without looking at yardage markers or whatever, the Rules are silent. Likewise if I want to play while I'm looking at a Strokesaver or sprinkler head, the Rules are silent. So "golf" as defined by its Rules is defined without respect to whether you get the distance of your shot by eyeball or by some other means.

What you guys are proposing is a different game. You keep insisting that being able to eyeball a distance and know how far it happens to be is somehow fundamental to the game. OK, fine. That's a good game too. But it's not golf. Just like a one-club tournament or a Captains Choice or any other variation is not golf. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, I'm just saying it's not the game as defined by the Rules. It has a further restriction on the manner in which it is played.

If you tell me I can't look at a marked sprinkler, can't consult a Strokesaver, can't ask a caddie, can't use a laser and can't pace off the distance of my shots then that is exact analogous to telling me I have to use right-handed clubs (I'm a lefty) or play with a blindfold on. It means I will be playing the game in a way that does not attempt to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, in a manner allowed under the Rules of Golf. That is the definition of "golf" to me, trying my best to use the least strokes I can. Doing something other than that is fun once in a while (I've played a whole round with one club) but I don't claim a one-club round is a purer expression of the game than playing with a dozen clubs.

There's also no Rule that says I can insist you compute a yardage on every shot. If you feel that you can best attempt to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, in a manner allowed under the Rules of Golf by eyeballing everything then that is within your discretion. But doing so doesn't make you a better or purer or more accomplished golfer than Justin Rose who plays with full knowledge of his distances. It's just a personal preference.

I find these rule book arguments to be some of the most pathetic arguments offered up on this website.

Brent,

Do you want every nuance and tradition of the game written down in the rule book so you can determine if you are really playing golf?

Gives us all a break and drop that silly argument.

[Harvey Dickens]

Is it thought that the presence of distance markers ( and particularly range finders I suppose) by providing the distance to the centre of a green (or the exact distance to the pin) remove the element of deception on a golf hole and reduce (negate?) the golf course architect’s ability to fool or cloud the mind of the “average” golfer using distance perception tricks of the trade?

Colin,

I think it does take away a small part of the architects ability to fool you. Having said that, I still think the deception can be successful due to the fact that we have that doubt in our mind...."I know it says 145 but it doesn't look that far..." By the way, I use a laser and find its real value in shots less than a 100 yards.

[A.G._Crockett]

My point is, there is nothing in the Rules of Golf that says you have to eyeball distances. If you want to play without looking at yardage markers or whatever, the Rules are silent. Likewise if I want to play while I'm looking at a Strokesaver or sprinkler head, the Rules are silent. So "golf" as defined by its Rules is defined without respect to whether you get the distance of your shot by eyeball or by some other means.

What you guys are proposing is a different game. You keep insisting that being able to eyeball a distance and know how far it happens to be is somehow fundamental to the game. OK, fine. That's a good game too. But it's not golf. Just like a one-club tournament or a Captains Choice or any other variation is not golf. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, I'm just saying it's not the game as defined by the Rules. It has a further restriction on the manner in which it is played.

If you tell me I can't look at a marked sprinkler, can't consult a Strokesaver, can't ask a caddie, can't use a laser and can't pace off the distance of my shots then that is exact analogous to telling me I have to use right-handed clubs (I'm a lefty) or play with a blindfold on. It means I will be playing the game in a way that does not attempt to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, in a manner allowed under the Rules of Golf. That is the definition of "golf" to me, trying my best to use the least strokes I can. Doing something other than that is fun once in a while (I've played a whole round with one club) but I don't claim a one-club round is a purer expression of the game than playing with a dozen clubs.

There's also no Rule that says I can insist you compute a yardage on every shot. If you feel that you can best attempt to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, in a manner allowed under the Rules of Golf by eyeballing everything then that is within your discretion. But doing so doesn't make you a better or purer or more accomplished golfer than Justin Rose who plays with full knowledge of his distances. It's just a personal preference.

I find these rule book arguments to be some of the most pathetic arguments offered up on this website.

Brent,

Do you want every nuance and tradition of the game written down in the rule book so you can determine if you are really playing golf?

Gives us all a break and drop that silly argument.

Garland,
Brent's point, of course, is that those on this board who claim some sort of "purity" because they have arbitrarily stopped the Development of Golf Clock at a particular moment are claiming a purity that is unsupported by anything except their own very, very selective perception.  It certainly isn't supported by the Rules.

It doesn't seem to me to be a silly argument at all, and your wish that he drop it indicates that you have no real answer to it.  It is remarkable and revealing that you consider ANY argument based on the Rules of our game to be "pathetic".

I support your decision to play the game however you see fit.  If that includes titanium and graphite and hybrids and cavity backs and perimeter weighted putters and ProV's and soft spikes and tees and gloves and sand wedges, enjoy the game and all of those relatively recent additions to it.  But many here pick one issue and claim moral high ground; ONLY the Rules provide actual moral high ground, and Brent's point in that regard is spot on.

Of course, you probably don't use ANY of those devices or technologies that I just mentioned, so it is entirely possible that you really do have the moral high ground!

[Mac Plumart]

AG, you said: "Brent's point, of course, is that those on this board who claim some sort of "purity" because they have arbitrarily stopped the Development of Golf Clock at a particular moment are claiming a purity that is unsupported by anything except their own very, very selective perception."

On this particular thread, did anyone come close to saying anything like that?  I don't think so.

I wondered why you seemed so passionate about this thread and now I am thinking something has happened in the past that makes you react with such passion.  If that is the case, I get it.  Sorry if this brought up bad memories/feelings.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

AG, you said: "Brent's point, of course, is that those on this board who claim some sort of "purity" because they have arbitrarily stopped the Development of Golf Clock at a particular moment are claiming a purity that is unsupported by anything except their own very, very selective perception."

On this particular thread, did anyone come close to saying anything like that?  I don't think so.

I wondered why you seemed so passionate about this thread and now I am thinking something has happened in the past that makes you react with such passion.  If that is the case, I get it.  Sorry if this brought up bad memories/feelings.

 

No, Mac, nothing.  I just get weary of the moral certainty here by people who pick and choose what is and is not virtuous, and beat it to death in the process.  I rarely post anymore, and wish that I hadn't on this thread.  I've probably been on this board too long anyway.

[Garland Bayley]

My point is, there is nothing in the Rules of Golf that says you have to eyeball distances. If you want to play without looking at yardage markers or whatever, the Rules are silent. Likewise if I want to play while I'm looking at a Strokesaver or sprinkler head, the Rules are silent. So "golf" as defined by its Rules is defined without respect to whether you get the distance of your shot by eyeball or by some other means.

What you guys are proposing is a different game. You keep insisting that being able to eyeball a distance and know how far it happens to be is somehow fundamental to the game. OK, fine. That's a good game too. But it's not golf. Just like a one-club tournament or a Captains Choice or any other variation is not golf. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, I'm just saying it's not the game as defined by the Rules. It has a further restriction on the manner in which it is played.

If you tell me I can't look at a marked sprinkler, can't consult a Strokesaver, can't ask a caddie, can't use a laser and can't pace off the distance of my shots then that is exact analogous to telling me I have to use right-handed clubs (I'm a lefty) or play with a blindfold on. It means I will be playing the game in a way that does not attempt to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, in a manner allowed under the Rules of Golf. That is the definition of "golf" to me, trying my best to use the least strokes I can. Doing something other than that is fun once in a while (I've played a whole round with one club) but I don't claim a one-club round is a purer expression of the game than playing with a dozen clubs.

There's also no Rule that says I can insist you compute a yardage on every shot. If you feel that you can best attempt to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, in a manner allowed under the Rules of Golf by eyeballing everything then that is within your discretion. But doing so doesn't make you a better or purer or more accomplished golfer than Justin Rose who plays with full knowledge of his distances. It's just a personal preference.

I find these rule book arguments to be some of the most pathetic arguments offered up on this website.

Brent,

Do you want every nuance and tradition of the game written down in the rule book so you can determine if you are really playing golf?

Gives us all a break and drop that silly argument.

Garland,
Brent's point, of course, is that those on this board who claim some sort of "purity" because they have arbitrarily stopped the Development of Golf Clock at a particular moment are claiming a purity that is unsupported by anything except their own very, very selective perception.  It certainly isn't supported by the Rules.

It doesn't seem to me to be a silly argument at all, and your wish that he drop it indicates that you have no real answer to it.  It is remarkable and revealing that you consider ANY argument based on the Rules of our game to be "pathetic".

I support your decision to play the game however you see fit.  If that includes titanium and graphite and hybrids and cavity backs and perimeter weighted putters and ProV's and soft spikes and tees and gloves and sand wedges, enjoy the game and all of those relatively recent additions to it.  But many here pick one issue and claim moral high ground; ONLY the Rules provide actual moral high ground, and Brent's point in that regard is spot on.

Of course, you probably don't use ANY of those devices or technologies that I just mentioned, so it is entirely possible that you really do have the moral high ground!

The pathetic part is those people who confuse the role of rules vs. history and tradition.
You cannot say history and tradition are wrong, because they are not incorporated into the rules.
As I tried to indicate, if you try to incorporate history and tradition into the rules, you will have an unholy mess that no one (not even JVB) can apply reasonably.

The history of golf is to play without distance measuring devices. Some of you have mentioned caddies. However, they are simply a crutch for the rich. The vast majority of golfers play without them.

Furthermore, someone who says they cannot tell 120 yards from 160 yards apparently has a handicap and should be allowed to get distances. However, they are certainly aware that they are using a crutch that others find unnecessary. Perhaps that makes them a bit testy on the subject. Or, perhaps they are trying to adopt a six-sigma process for golf.

[A.G._Crockett]

My point is, there is nothing in the Rules of Golf that says you have to eyeball distances. If you want to play without looking at yardage markers or whatever, the Rules are silent. Likewise if I want to play while I'm looking at a Strokesaver or sprinkler head, the Rules are silent. So "golf" as defined by its Rules is defined without respect to whether you get the distance of your shot by eyeball or by some other means.

What you guys are proposing is a different game. You keep insisting that being able to eyeball a distance and know how far it happens to be is somehow fundamental to the game. OK, fine. That's a good game too. But it's not golf. Just like a one-club tournament or a Captains Choice or any other variation is not golf. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, I'm just saying it's not the game as defined by the Rules. It has a further restriction on the manner in which it is played.

If you tell me I can't look at a marked sprinkler, can't consult a Strokesaver, can't ask a caddie, can't use a laser and can't pace off the distance of my shots then that is exact analogous to telling me I have to use right-handed clubs (I'm a lefty) or play with a blindfold on. It means I will be playing the game in a way that does not attempt to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, in a manner allowed under the Rules of Golf. That is the definition of "golf" to me, trying my best to use the least strokes I can. Doing something other than that is fun once in a while (I've played a whole round with one club) but I don't claim a one-club round is a purer expression of the game than playing with a dozen clubs.

There's also no Rule that says I can insist you compute a yardage on every shot. If you feel that you can best attempt to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, in a manner allowed under the Rules of Golf by eyeballing everything then that is within your discretion. But doing so doesn't make you a better or purer or more accomplished golfer than Justin Rose who plays with full knowledge of his distances. It's just a personal preference.

I find these rule book arguments to be some of the most pathetic arguments offered up on this website.

Brent,

Do you want every nuance and tradition of the game written down in the rule book so you can determine if you are really playing golf?

Gives us all a break and drop that silly argument.

Garland,
Brent's point, of course, is that those on this board who claim some sort of "purity" because they have arbitrarily stopped the Development of Golf Clock at a particular moment are claiming a purity that is unsupported by anything except their own very, very selective perception.  It certainly isn't supported by the Rules.

It doesn't seem to me to be a silly argument at all, and your wish that he drop it indicates that you have no real answer to it.  It is remarkable and revealing that you consider ANY argument based on the Rules of our game to be "pathetic".

I support your decision to play the game however you see fit.  If that includes titanium and graphite and hybrids and cavity backs and perimeter weighted putters and ProV's and soft spikes and tees and gloves and sand wedges, enjoy the game and all of those relatively recent additions to it.  But many here pick one issue and claim moral high ground; ONLY the Rules provide actual moral high ground, and Brent's point in that regard is spot on.

Of course, you probably don't use ANY of those devices or technologies that I just mentioned, so it is entirely possible that you really do have the moral high ground!

The pathetic part is those people who confuse the role of rules vs. history and tradition.
You cannot say history and tradition are wrong, because they are not incorporated into the rules.
As I tried to indicate, if you try to incorporate history and tradition into the rules, you will have an unholy mess that no one (not even JVB) can apply reasonably.

The history of golf is to play without distance measuring devices. Some of you have mentioned caddies. However, they are simply a crutch for the rich. The vast majority of golfers play without them.

Furthermore, someone who says they cannot tell 120 yards from 160 yards apparently has a handicap and should be allowed to get distances. However, they are certainly aware that they are using a crutch that others find unnecessary. Perhaps that makes them a bit testy on the subject. Or, perhaps they are trying to adopt a six-sigma process for golf.

So, Garland, do you use a tee?  Soft spikes?  A glove?  Graphite shafts?  Titanium?  ProV's?  A sand wedge?  If the answer to even one of those is "yes", then you have arbitrarily decided to stop the clock in a particular place and at a particular time because somehow you think it elevates you.  Sickening, silly, tiresome and pathetic, and I am done with this.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,
I accept it as a given that the modern golfer can ascertain distances to the pin reasonably accurately if they so desire. I was more interested in what are the best tricks being deployed by golf architects to keep us off balance and had the aforesaid been actively finessing this deception since yardages were so accessible and, if so, how? Maybe I didn’t phrase my original question as clearly as I could have. I thought the responses might indicate the sort of terrain that GCA members find the most challenging and deceiving. I would find that interesting if a general consensus had emerged. I wonder......was that last sentence oxymoronic?!

Colin

[Ally Mcintosh]

Gentlemen,
I accept it as a given that the modern golfer can ascertain distances to the pin reasonably accurately if they so desire. I was more interested in what are the best tricks being deployed by golf architects to keep us off balance and had the aforesaid been actively finessing this deception since yardages were so accessible and, if so, how? Maybe I didn’t phrase my original question as clearly as I could have. I thought the responses might indicate the sort of terrain that GCA members find the most challenging and deceiving. I would find that interesting if a general consensus had emerged. I wonder......was that last sentence oxymoronic?!

Colin

Hi Colin,

I don't think anything has changed in that regard. The same techniques are used with or without yardage markers. Here are some:

- Unusually large or small greens
- Lack of defining bunkers around greens
- Lack of mounding or other backdrops around greens - in short, "framing"
- Use of folds in ground to provide a line that ties in with the green in the distance. i.e. the use of "dead" ground
- Aligning of bunker heights / lips to green lines in the distance
- Situating "approach" bunkers 30 or 40 yards short of green and tying in lines (see above two points)
- Semi-hiding landing areas or green surfaces
- Clever use of natural dips and mounds
- Lack of defined mowing lines on fairways

Back on topic - I'm relieved.

[Mark Pearce]

Sickening, silly, tiresome and pathetic, and I am done with this.

Wow.  What's pathetic (and sickening and silly and tiresome) is that a harmless debate like this should have been can elicit a response like that.  The world really is insane.

[Anthony Gray]

  In links golf exact distance is less important. But for many courses in the states the exact distance is important because of the design features. More target golf,less rub of the green,more greens protected by bunkers in front and the lack of oppertunities to bounce a ball into the green.

  Anthony

[Brent Hutto]

I hate to dip into the morass once more but as Anthony reminds us, common features of parkland style courses can give distances a certain degree of "step function" effect that is less common on links courses (or old-fashioned parkland layouts in the US).

Let's say you have no idea if the front of a green is 150 or 160 or 170 yards from where you stand and let's say the flag is only a few paces onto the front of the green. If it is a low-profile green, unprotected in front, on a reasonably firm spot of land the penalty for guessing "150" when the actual distance is "170" is minor. In fact, being 10-15 yards short of the green may be preferable to being 30+ feet beyond the hole and on the green. Call it maybe a quarter-stroke penalty for guessing wrong.

Instead of putting you will playing some sort of running shot that is straight forward. But put a sizable bunker in front of the green with a raised lip and that "150" shot will leave you with a delicate pitch over the bunker and no green to work with. For most club golfers that is pretty much a full stroke wasted.

[Anthony Gray]

I hate to dip into the morass once more but as Anthony reminds us, common features of parkland style courses can give distances a certain degree of "step function" effect that is less common on links courses (or old-fashioned parkland layouts in the US).

Let's say you have no idea if the front of a green is 150 or 160 or 170 yards from where you stand and let's say the flag is only a few paces onto the front of the green. If it is a low-profile green, unprotected in front, on a reasonably firm spot of land the penalty for guessing "150" when the actual distance is "170" is minor. In fact, being 10-15 yards short of the green may be preferable to being 30+ feet beyond the hole and on the green. Call it maybe a quarter-stroke penalty for guessing wrong.

Instead of putting you will playing some sort of running shot that is straight forward. But put a sizable bunker in front of the green with a raised lip and that "150" shot will leave you with a delicate pitch over the bunker and no green to work with. For most club golfers that is pretty much a full stroke wasted.

  Well stated Brent. Now lets focus on because there are greater distances betwwen the holes in most US courses than teeing it up two club lengths from the previous hole....we need carts.


  Anthony

[Brent Hutto]

Never!

[Pete Lavallee]

  In links golf exact distance is less important. But for many courses in the states the exact distance is important because of the design features. More target golf,less rub of the green,more greens protected by bunkers in front and the lack of oppertunities to bounce a ball into the green.

 

Anthony,

Are you willing to step up to the plate and argue this point with Melvin?

[Anthony Gray]

   This is ideal.


 

[Mac Plumart]

Great points...great points!!

And funny picture!

[Doug Siebert]

  In links golf exact distance is less important. But for many courses in the states the exact distance is important because of the design features. More target golf,less rub of the green,more greens protected by bunkers in front and the lack of oppertunities to bounce a ball into the green.

  Anthony

I don't think it has anything to do with links golf versus non-links golf but is more of a sliding scale where the more firmness of the turf or strong wind the lower the precision required for distance.

On a soft course by far the best option in normal circumstances is to fly the ball all the way to the hole.  For that, you need a fairly precise distance.  Whether you arrive at that distance via rangefinder, eyeballing it or having a caddy hand you a 7 iron is irrelevant.  Your chances of hitting it stiff drop the less accurate the distance you use.

In the same conditions but with a 30 mph wind, especially one that is gusty, you have ample incentive to try to find a way to play the shot more on the ground.  But even if you still play it in the air (due to a front bunker or whatever) the uncertainty created by the wind makes the difference between 150 and 170 yards less important.  I'd generally hit some sort of half or 3/4 shot with more club than I really need, so it becomes more about feel than anything.  I still prefer to know the distance as I feel the more information the better, but if I knew I was around 150 to the center of the green but had no idea whether the pin was front or back of a 40 yard deep green I wouldn't really care too much.

On a firm course it is much the same situation.  You can't necessarily predict whether the ball is going to bounce 25 feet or 25 yards upon landing, because it depends on exactly where it lands along with the quality of contact.  The firmer it is, the more like playing in gusty winds it is as it adds uncertainty to where your ball ends up.  Again, less need for precision in the initial distance.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()