Are some golfers oblivious

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

If you wete playing a competition or a $$$ match on a course you had never played, would you avail yourself of any and all (legal)aids?

David,

Is this your oblique defense for using said devices/aids.

Whom might my opponent be ?

And, what have we agree to in terms of the match.

As to a competition, you know the answer.

But, again, your question seems like an attempt to justify your use of devices/aids

Here's a question for you.

What if we were asked to replicate the match at CPC between, Ward, Venturi, Hogan and Nelson.

What devices/aids would you employ ?

[Ronald Montesano]

Ron,

If I'm not mistaken, light travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second, thus the tactical signals sent to the golfer's eye are instantaneous. 

They're discernible the moment the golfer steps upon the tee, unless the player's golfing IQ is on the very low side.

Oh,  Patrick...you flirtatious tease.

You are never mistaken, only misinterpreted.

I know how difficult it is for men and women of your intellectual altitude to comprehend that some of us do have golfing IQs of a lesser elevation. Nevertheless, I must assure you that it is thus.

You see, don Patricio, even though those signals are sent at the pace you indicate above, the receptors given to we children of a lesser golfing IQ are not equipped to instantaneously interpret them as one of, oh, let me think, yes, I've got it...one of your stature might.

Hope this helps.

vr,

rm

[David Ober]

Patrick,

If you wete playing a competition or a $$$ match on a course you had never played, would you avail yourself of any and all (legal)aids?

David,

Is this your oblique defense for using said devices/aids.

Whom might my opponent be ?

And, what have we agree to in terms of the match.

As to a competition, you know the answer.

But, again, your question seems like an attempt to justify your use of devices/aids

Here's a question for you.

What if we were asked to replicate the match at CPC between, Ward, Venturi, Hogan and Nelson.

What devices/aids would you employ ?

"Oblique defense"? Not at all. Merely a question.

As to your question: The only aid I would use that day would be a caddie -- if one were available. If they played that day without caddies (I can't remember, as I read the story a few years ago), then I would play without a caddie. And caddie or no, I would have a blast re-creating that day.

I love the thrill of hitting golf shots, "aids" or no. I will, however, use whatever aids are available when I'm playing a $$$ match or a competition. Since I almost always have $$$ on the line when I play or am playing in a competition, then I play the overwhelming number of my rounds using "aids."

Back when I first played the game, there were no aids at my home course other than markers at 100, 150, and 200. I believe we started marking sprinklers some time after I first started playing. I loved golf then. I love it now.

I'm pretty sure I'll love it in the future, regardless of what new "aids" are developed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ron,

If I'm not mistaken, light travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second, thus the tactical signals sent to the golfer's eye are instantaneous. 

They're discernible the moment the golfer steps upon the tee, unless the player's golfing IQ is on the very low side.

Oh,  Patrick...you flirtatious tease.

You are never mistaken, only misinterpreted.

I know how difficult it is for men and women of your intellectual altitude to comprehend that some of us do have golfing IQs of a lesser elevation. Nevertheless, I must assure you that it is thus.

You see, don Patricio, even though those signals are sent at the pace you indicate above, the receptors given to we children of a lesser golfing IQ are not equipped to instantaneously interpret them as one of, oh, let me think, yes, I've got it...one of your stature might.

Hope this helps.

Ron,

What's next for you, signs on the tee that say: Aim Here[/color]

vr,

rm

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I'm pretty sure that we'll continue to love the game as it evolves.

But, that's not the point.

As Tom Doak stated, providing all this information is akin to providing the answers before the test.

Isn't golf a test, an examination of the player's skills.

His ability to observe, recognize, plan and execute.

Shouldn't he be solely responsible for the first two or three parts of that exam, along with the last ?

[Bill_McBride]

Ron,

If I'm not mistaken, light travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second, thus the tactical signals sent to the golfer's eye are instantaneous. 

They're discernible the moment the golfer steps upon the tee, unless the player's golfing IQ is on the very low side.

Oh,  Patrick...you flirtatious tease.

You are never mistaken, only misinterpreted.

I know how difficult it is for men and women of your intellectual altitude to comprehend that some of us do have golfing IQs of a lesser elevation. Nevertheless, I must assure you that it is thus.

You see, don Patricio, even though those signals are sent at the pace you indicate above, the receptors given to we children of a lesser golfing IQ are not equipped to instantaneously interpret them as one of, oh, let me think, yes, I've got it...one of your stature might.

Hope this helps.

Ron,

What's next for you, signs on the tee that say: Aim Here[/color]

vr,

rm

Pat, do you aim at the pole when you come to a blind tee shot the first time?

[David Ober]

David,

I'm pretty sure that we'll continue to love the game as it evolves.

But, that's not the point.

As Tom Doak stated, providing all this information is akin to providing the answers before the test.

Isn't golf a test, an examination of the player's skills.

His ability to observe, recognize, plan and execute.

Shouldn't he be solely responsible for the first two or three parts of that exam, along with the last ?

I certainly would not be averse to playing golf that way. And I do believe it might actually heighten the experience a bit. But, again, if I were playing a match or a competition, I would want every advantage. And if that meant that I went out and created my own yardage book in the week before the tournament, then I would do that.

And that's how we got where we are today. Because many years ago some players started to employ caddies that will pace off all yardages and create a "book," many others started to use them. It's like an arms race, actually.

While I'm fine with golf without aids, I do I love the books. They are a great keepsake, and also a great reminder of the best holes on a course. I have collected over 150 yardage books from the courses I've played all over the world, and I love looking at them from time to time.

[David Ober]

By the way, if your point, Patrick, is that golf "loses something" when we use range finders, etc., I would definitely agree with you.

That said, I still will use them when playing a round that "matters" to me.

[ward peyronnin]

Pat

I would agree that a many tactical considerations, particularly with experience and practice, are readily apparent. And thus another argument develops for not relying on artificial aids if we are to keep those abilities sharp.
 
However a blanket "read" the course and pull the trigger does not account for those holes where the designer introduces optical confusion that requires more lengthy consideration or forced penal carries or blind shots where some more precise information to proceed intelligently is in order.

Your original question causes me to wonder whether those golfers who seem unwilling to read a course suffer from an inability to frame their shots by not trying to hit it straight. I almost always pick a spot somewhere off target and I therefore hafta read where that I think that needs to be so every shot preperation requires that course assessment process.

[Patrick_Mucci]

By the way, if your point, Patrick, is that golf "loses something" when we use range finders, etc., I would definitely agree with you.

That said, I still will use them when playing a round that "matters" to me.

Dave,

You can't put yourself at a competitive disadvantage, I get that, but, I dislike what Tom Doak alluded to, the providing of the architectural answers before being subjected to the examination.

[Rob Marshall]

If I'm playing a challenging course for the first time I want a yardage book. I'm not looking for someone to tell me how to play the hole. I just want to know if there are a blind hazards. There is nothing more frustrating than thinking you hit a great shot and finding you hit it OB, in the heather, or a hazard. The second time around is when you have the opportunity to tactically take on the course. 

How could you play a course like Royal County Down without some guidance the first time around?

[Mark Pavy]

In the last few months I've played with a number of golfers who had to ask the caddy where to hit their drives.

Other than distance, directionally, it seemed obvious.

Can you please clarify the context of this statement?

Had the golfers played the course before?

[Sean_A]

Pat

Golf takes all sorts.  I will forever find it difficult to know why a recreational golfer would want to know much of the info they require.  Most of the time its a waste of time and money to even bother, but its their time and money.  If I had it my way there would be no caddies as an info guide or yardage books or yardage markers allowed, but that is a dream world.  Remember, we are talking about a lot of the same folks who want to curb the ball back, but get in line for the newest balls and drivers.  None of it makes much sense for the recreational golfer, but it seems to be human nature to codify everything.  In the long run, I think archies will stop trying to be clever because there isn't much point. 

BTW - I do think many golfers pick up on visual clues, but don't care...its just a game.

Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

Golf Architecture appeals to the "dreamers." The ones that define their game by the best shot they ever hit but barely have a chance of repeating in the same round. These are the ones that see the risk, but just can't help themselves and are always compelled to give it a go anyway. They are fun to play with and laugh at themselves a lot.

Those who play "successfully" for a living generally are far to calculated to be drawn into unwarranted risk. They measure the game for success and know as much about where not to be as where they should go. There are exceptions, but the vast majority are calculated.

Pat, the first group wants to be told not to go the stupid route (by the caddy, by you) because they know better but can't help themselves from themselves. Their not oblivious, they are far more adventurous than their game allows them to be. And more adventurous than even your game would allow you to be. They live for the single miracle shot.

[Tom_Doak]

At least, its doubtful that they will ever come up with some app that will read greens for golfers.

Jeff:

There already is one, or close enough to one.  The best yardage books available to the ladies at Sebonack last year had detailed topo for the greens and lots of numbers to help them figure out the breaks of the putts and how much borrow to give them.  For a putt with only one break, I think it was pretty simple math.  Obviously with multiple breaks it gets much harder ... thank God I am the master of the triple-breaking putt.

[jeffwarne]

At least, its doubtful that they will ever come up with some app that will read greens for golfers.

Jeff:

There already is one, or close enough to one.  The best yardage books available to the ladies at Sebonack last year had detailed topo for the greens and lots of numbers to help them figure out the breaks of the putts and how much borrow to give them.  For a putt with only one break, I think it was pretty simple math.  Obviously with multiple breaks it gets much harder ... thank God I am the master of the triple-breaking putt.

so does the daily stimp get posted along with a factor telling them how much more or less borrow to play based on different green speeds.
Yardage books give me a headache-the ONLY time I've ever used one is this summer in several UK events where the ONLY markers anywhere were painted on the fairways by........the yardage book makers for the week's event.

[Tommy Williamsen]

to the tactical signals that the architect and architectural features send to the eye ?

In the last few months I've played with a number of golfers who had to ask the caddy where to hit their drives.

Other than distance, directionally, it seemed obvious.

Do golfers lose strokes because they're blind to these signals, causing them to mismanage their games ?


 

Pat directionality is not always obvious. I normally can read a hole the first time in play it and usually can determine on my own which side of the fairway gives me the angle I want.  There are, however, more things to take into consideration before hitting the tee shot that will give you the best shot into the green.   What is the slope on the green? Is there a false front I should avoid and what is the best way to make sure I can avoid it?  Not all of these are readily gleaned from standing on the tee. For instance, the first hole at Ballyhack is an uphill short par four with a severe false front on the left side of the green.  When the pin is back left the best angle to the pin is from the right side of the fairway.  If, however you mishit your second shot you have a tough up and down. After playing the hole a bunch of timesI prefer hitting the tee shot to the left side of the fairway and hit my second shot to the right side of the green regardless of where the pin is.  I'd rather have a twenty-five foot put than risk the false front. 

 However, I agree with you main point that most golfers mismanage their games.  Some just think hit it hard of the tee then ami at the green.  Some try to bit shots of which they are incapable.  Some guys just don't even know that from an uphill lie you may hit it left or how any uneven lie affects a golf shot.  They don't know that you can hit a sand wedge low, high, with spin or without.  It makes me crazy to play with folks who have absolutely do idea how to play the game.

[Brent Hutto]

Isn't this thread just yet another instance of rich guys telling us to play golf the way God intended it to be played...by employing caddies to hand us clubs and feed us yardages on every shot? We are to believe that anything less just completely spoils the pure enjoyment of the game, as well as apparently rendering the course architect's art irrelevant.

[JC Jones]

I like estimating distances, I like hitting choked down punched 4-irons from 150 yards.

How did you know it was from 150 yards?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't this thread just yet another instance of rich guys telling us to play golf the way God intended it to be played...by employing caddies to hand us clubs and feed us yardages on every shot?

Brent,

Who said anything about caddies.
Certainly not me.

And, who are the rich guys you're refering to ?

We are to believe that anything less just completely spoils the pure enjoyment of the game, as well as apparently rendering the course architect's art irrelevant.

Who stated that artificial devices/aids "completely spoils the pure enjoyment of the game" ?

And, who stated that the architect's work was rendered irrelevant ?

Please elaborate for us.

[Bruce Wellmon]

Should yardage booklets with hole schematics be banned ?

Who drew these "schematics? " How do we know they were authentic?

[Bill_McBride]

I like estimating distances, I like hitting choked down punched 4-irons from 150 yards.

How did you know it was from 150 yards?

Standing on a sprinkler head.