Ed
So its my use of the words “morally indefensible” that you do not agree with. Sorry but to this guy it is indeed morally indefensible if you are a golfer. Now what is separating us is probably the definition of golf, so let’s take a look at where we are both come from.
Your age of just being in your early 50’s. I am in my 60’s. Not certain where you live or come from but clearly you carts and aids where around when you started playing the game, so perhaps you perceived them as normal. Well for me and many in Scotland the idea of a cart let alone distance aids had not really been heard of or encountered in Scotland until the 70’s. My memory in the 60’s does not recall either. The first encounter for me seems to be the latter part of the 70’s so totally alien to me and mine game of golf.
The game of golf for me was simple the golfer played his game unaided. Yes, some used a caddie, my father and great uncles but never to advice on distance or shot advice just plain carrying. Golf was a serious game in my family, if you were going to play it you walked (there was no other option even if we wanted one), distance was never an issue because the only item partly related to distance was the club selection which was done by judgement through our eyes. Golf was man against the elements, the terrain, the design and himself, that’s golf, our golf, played that way for centuries.
You from the sound of it found carts and distance markers standard perhaps, so you would think standard to be part and parcel of the game of golf. Yes, you are right in the place you live but not at the Home of Golf, nor Dundee, Dornoch, Aberdeen Prestwick Glasgow or Edinburgh. I did not grow up with them. Yes of course I have dabbled with them but they change the game for me, they take the fun out of the game, they clog up the mind forcing the mind to waste valuable moments on information it will automatically reject once the eyes check the ball before that final swing to hit the ball.
I can see why you do not agree, but do you understanding where I am coming from and why I consider them morally indefensible to a golfer. What has not helped is the acceptance of these modern aids without real adjustment to the Rules. If you use carts and aids then they are or should IMHO be regarded as aids and carry a penalty if played in a mixed group of walkers/riders, aid users or traditional golfers. Which way that penalty should go is subject to a series of studies that the ruling bodies should instigate to settle the matter once and for all. It’s just plain wrong having one set of rules for all the different variations of the game of golf. Having said all that I still do not understand why you would want to ruin your game by seeking outside help. The pleasure must be in achieving your goal by your own means, where is the reward otherwise. My cart save me walking and I paced or used an electronic device to think for me, just where is the challenge, the test, even the skill or the chance to improve one’s skill. Lastly where is the commitment to the game and most importantly to oneself?
The game to you includes aids, the game to me does not include aids otherwise I cannot see how I can call it golf. So I hope you now see why I believe it is morally indefensible, although you will no doubt disagree.
One point that does need resolving, that is distance was not an issue or part of the game as it has only been around about 30-40 years. Caddies nor Old Tom talked about distance. Reports from the old days never raises the issue, because we have turned natural observation into a chore, so some seem to seek outside help for what is simply little faith in their own natural abilities.
Melvyn