How do distance measuring devices change perception of architecture?

[Brent Hutto]

Question - anyone just use their see-through rangefinder to get distances to pins? Or do you also use it to focus in on things like bunker lips, bridges, trees etc?

Atb

I do use mine to get the distance to a greenside bunker lip, assuming it's a bunker whose lip stands high enough to get a reliable reading.

The courses I play don't typically have any bridges or trees or such that I'd want to use the laser. And things like the boundary or water hazards or other low-profile features don't really admit a reliable laser distance reading.

But quite often it's easy enough to get the exact distance to a flag and a fairly good estimate of the distance to carry a bunker and figure out whether there's enough space between the bunker and flag to land the ball.

[Paul Gray]

In terms of perception, I would suggest it depends entirely on the course in question.

If the course allows you to Pelz everything to a certain yardage, with each wedge effectively being three different wedges, the architecture can all but be ignored.

Conversely, there are windy days on my home links where any kind of GPS is a genuine hindrance, typically such days involve firm and fast conditions and a fair bit of wind. I concluded long ago that such conditions require me to switch my senses on, recognise the architecture in front of me and play the course on instinct. It's far better that I don't have it in my head that the exact yardage is only 138 yards so surely I shouldn't be seriously thinking about hitting a 5 iron. If my senses tell me it's a 5 iron and that bunker I've never really thought about before is seriously in play, better that I just go with that without thinking one jot about actual length. 

[Brent Hutto]

So Paul it sounds like a windy day at your home course and you're totally screwed. After 500 or so rounds, if you drive the ball to your usual spot in the fairway you're going to know the distance without needing a rangefinder. Does that knowledge of distance render you stone-handed and unable to execute the needed 5-iron shot into the wind?

[Paul Gray]

So Paul it sounds like a windy day at your home course and you're totally screwed. After 500 or so rounds, if you drive the ball to your usual spot in the fairway you're going to know the distance without needing a rangefinder. Does that knowledge of distance render you stone-handed and unable to execute the needed 5-iron shot into the wind?

Not screwed at all. The point is to NOT think about yardages. Sure, I've got a good approximation of the yardage in my head, but the trick is to NOT focus on that. Obviously a rangefinder simply negates my ability to ignore actual yardages. I'm sure you've played enough golf over here to relate to that. 

[A.G._Crockett]

So again, though they are much lamented here, I can't see how measuring devices change the PERCEPTION of architecture in any significant way.

A.G.:  Knowing the yardages clearly makes good players better, as Jack Nicklaus and Deane Beman proved after taking the idea from Dr. Gene Andrews.

What I don't understand though is why it took so long for that to become universal.  If, as you argue, camouflage is ineffective after a few plays and local knowledge makes things obvious, then why did it take a hundred years for knowing the yardage to become commonplace? 

Could it be that up until recently, most people didn't have such big egos about their own ability to hit a shot precise distances?

Tom,
I have no way of knowing what golfers in days gone by did about knowing yardage.  My guess is that they were VERY good at estimating; Lewis and Clark paced off distances on their trip west and were later found to have been off by only a fraction of a percent.  But I DO know that the idea that knowing yardages to a precise number means that the golfer believes he or she has the ability to hit the ball that exact distance is another popular myth on GCA.com that has no basis in fact.  I've never heard ANYBODY say that, and I play with some pretty strong sticks.  

I was fine for many decades pacing off yardage and knowing that it was about 160 +/- to the pin; I'm a decent player, but I ain't fooling myself.  That my GPS watch, or a laser, gives precise yardages is just the way the devices are configured.  I get a distance quicker than I used to, and it also happens to be more precise.  The precision isn't necessary; it's just the way the devices work.  Can you imagine a laser that read any other way?

Kind of like the speedometer on my car, which gives an exact mph instead of reading "You're going about 45 mph, give or take."

[Brent Hutto]

A.G.

I sometimes wonder if the anti-rangefinder guys around here would be happier with a GPS or laser that just read out to the nearest 10 yards instead of 1 yard. Then at least they'd shut the hell up with the "you're delusional if you think you can hit a shot an exact yardage".

Or maybe even a programmable setting on the rangefinder. If you're scratch it'll read out to the nearest five yards. Single-digit handicap, nearest ten. Double-digit, nearest twenty.

When I first joined my club there was a rather motor-mouthed guy in the weekend dogfight (and yes, I realize that me calling someone a motor-mouth is like Mick Jagger saying someone has big lips). He took exception to my walking up to the front of the green to see how much green I had to work with before hitting a 20-yard pitch shot over a bunker. Told me I was wasting time when I was probably going to dump it in the bunker anyway. And this guy was my partner for the day in the dogfight!

[Jim_Coleman]

   I don't see how they make any difference on shots to the green if there are distance markers in the fairway - either at 150, 175 etc. or on sprinkler heads.  They just speed things along so one doesn't have to pace things off.  Where they do make a difference is if one wants to lay up short of something - a bunker, the edge of the fairway, a hazard, etc., as there is no readily available information other than one's machine.  How that affects the architecture is beyond me.  I can't see why someone would design a hole differently because that information is now available to the players, although it may inhibit the architect's ability to fool the player.

[Peter Pallotta]

Some nice very exchanges and posts here. Somehow, the anti-RF guys (as I will soon show myself to be) come off looking a bit dictatorial and black and white-ish, while guys like AG and Brent come off looking sane, measured, and well-balanced -- hale fellows well met, with wise and healthy live-and-let-live attitudes. And yet, something still doesn't seem to sit right with this, this looking through a computerized lens for information that the golfer's eye can gather pretty well all on its own. Binoculars for bird-watching make great sense; I'm out there to try to see birds, so my goal is to see them (and as many of them) as clearly as possible, and in this binoculars help. Is there an analogy? On a golf course, what is the goal? Are we out there to hit golf shots, or to measure distances? If the former (and we all agree that it is indeed the former), the 'architecture' is designed to serve as a challenge to doing this successfully, and to present 'problems' that need to be solved -- therein lies the joys of playing the game, i.e. the thrills of participating in/with these problems and challenges and coming out victorious (or at least, not too badly bruised in defeat). Why use a device that, unlike binoculars in bird-watching, actually lessens those thrills and moves us further away from one of the hobby's main purpose/goals? If there are no challenges presented by the architecture (or, better, less challenges -- in this case, the need to figure out yardages with our eyes in the face of an architect's tricks/deceptions) is not the goal of the game, the reason we play, somehow muted? Why ask the birds to leave the area before showing up to watch them?

Well, that's the theory anyway    Happy New Year, gents!

Peter

[Brent Hutto]

For my part, the goal is to get the ball in the hole using as few shots as possible within the Rules of Golf. Over the course of many holes, many rounds, there isn't a golfer in the world who will use fewer strokes by never knowing how far his ball is from the hole.

There's no reason other than "few shots as possible" to carry 14 clubs instead of just hitting a putter 150 times to play a round. For that matter you could add immensely to the challenge by playing blindfolded or in the dark at midnight. The restrictions in the Rules of Golf are mostly arbitrary. As in any game, you make up some rules and stick to them.

There's no possible way for the Rules to legislate that every golfer play every shot without knowing its distance. To do that you'd have to eliminate all yardage markings, all caddies, forbid golfers from talking to anyone who has played the course before and you'd have to make a rule that any course can only be played once to ensure the golfer is well and truly guessing on each shot.

Given that golfers do use distance information (even those who play by "feel" are still guessing how far to hit the ball, they just don't assign a number to it) it's only a question of what means to that end will be allowed. Currently the Rules seem to be pretty much allowing the golfer to decide where to gather distance information within very broad bounds. There are still competitions with silly hold-over restrictions on certain distance-information sources but hey, golf has always been a game full of silly hold-over thinking.

To more directly answer Peter's question, there are many problems a golf course can present. A "problem" comprised of asking a golfer who has never seen a course before to guess "How far do you think it is to carry that bunker over there" just doesn't interest the vast majority of golfers as much as the other challenges posed by a golf course.

Hey, some people think golf is inextricably linked to riding in a golf cart. Others wouldn't dream of playing golf without smoking a couple good cigars, Still others believe the presence of a caddie is absolutely needed for the game to be enjoyed to its fullest. No surprise that some people think that choosing their shot because they remember how far it is over that bunker is way, way more fun than choosing their shot because someone or something told them it's 175 yards. We've each got to pursue our own bliss out there, so go for it!

[Ally Mcintosh]

I like Peter's answer. I also happen to agree fully with the way Paul described it. I look upon it the same way myself. Yardages are nothing but a safety rope and you are most alive when flirting unharnessed with death.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

AG
My comments were not related to what happens at my home course that I have played numerous times,but more as that of a competitor that  usually is playing a tournament after a single practice round.
Then the art of camouflage is alive and well and the difference of having a rangefinder or not is HUGE.
Home course play is practically irrelevant to this discussion

[Brent Hutto]

MWP,

So where do you draw the line for non-home-course play? No lasers? No caddies? No yardage books? No playing a practice round?

I do wonder what proportion of golfers in the world are such thrill-seekers looking for mystery and excitement as the typical GCA participant.

In my more cynical moments I suspect that the heavy representation of people who play courses once and then issue detailed ratings on each element of their quality is related to the number of people who want golf to consist of a series of Pop Up Books where unanticipated hazards jump up and say "Gotcha!" at random points during the round.

But I'm not being cynical today so I'll just observe that this forum has the worlds largest extant collection of golfers who find the plain old game played my most of us far too unchallenging and boring. Whether needing hickory shafted clubs, advocating for all distance measurement to be outlawed or wishing for bunkers that are more penal than water hazards there's a strong strain of More Purist Than Thou here.

[Sean_A]

Brent

Purity has nothing to do with my stance.  My stance is about preserving the importance of certain types of architecture...and that means the guy with more experience has a certain advantage.  Being gifted yardage which aids the golfer is a bit OTT imo.  I understand some golfers can't live without their yardages...and its sad.  To each is own I guess.  Competition, even among complete hacks, rules all.  It would be grand if golfers could put it all in perspective.

Ciao

[Steve Lang]

I like Peter's answer. I also happen to agree fully with the way Paul described it. I look upon it the same way myself. Yardages are nothing but a safety rope and you are most alive when flirting unharnessed with death.

Ally,  

I like to call that flirting with death thing: " I never met a sucker pin I didn't like!"   That's a perception of the architecture and one I hope I never give up.   The perceptions or synoptics are what originally drew me to gca study.. & to figure out how to play smarter.

So I'm in the camp with no perception impact difference than yardage books or 2nd plays or a caddy, the devices are quicker for those who need the "aid".  I would suggest taking half the clubs out of a bag would speed up club selection even more.

Its a game, and sure, one wants to do well if there's any competitive spark, but face it, 25,000,000 golfers give or take, say 2500 actually make some money playing professionally, that's 0.01%;  no one will ever pay 99.99% of the golfer population to play golf.   Taking some money out of your buddies pocket or winning a few drinks  or bragging rights at whatever scale is what give most their thrill and brings em back.

Play On.

p.s.  and haven't folks been using yardages ever since score cards started defining them for holes???

[Jim Tang]

It really is a matter of, "to each his own."

For those who are anti-device, what is your opinion on directional poles?  How about a yardage plate on a par 3?  Would you look at it to aid in club selection?  How about a putt that is on a similar line to your own?  Would you watch it before playing your own ball?

It's an interesting debate, because, unlike almost every other sport, there is a lot of downtime in golf to think about and analyze what is going on.  I think many golfers get information overload and can become paralyzed before playing a shot.  In almost every other sport, athletes don't want to think, they want to react.  They want to be fluid and do what comes naturally, to be free flowing and let their body do what they've trained it to do.

I always play best when I think less and just hit shots.  As stated earlier, I do use a device to provide front, middle and back distances.  I find this helps me play quicker.

In the end, guys should do what makes the game of golf most fun for them, because, really, that's what golf is all about; fun.

[Chris DeToro]

For those that are anti range finder, are you also anti yardage books and guys pacing yardages off?  I'd love to hear the difference between these three.  Do you also not use a GPS or map when you're driving? 

[Joe Hancock]

Chris,

I think the number of times I've confused playing the game of golf and, say, getting to a meeting in a town I'm not familiar with is pretty close to zero.

This seems one of those debates that have no winner. Either you like to feel the distance, or know the distance. There doesn't appear to be much in between.

p.s. I rarely want to know yardage, and I seldom use maps or directions, but I don't see how one could compare the two.

Joe

[Chris DeToro]

I was exaggerating to make a point, but the concept of getting from point A to B is the same to me.  I'm still curious to hear other anti range finder  opinions.  I think you can still feel a shot even when knowing the distance--there's still feel to dialing in the right distance and type of shot regardless

[A.G._Crockett]

For those that are anti range finder, are you also anti yardage books and guys pacing yardages off?  I'd love to hear the difference between these three.  Do you also not use a GPS or map when you're driving? 

Chris,
There is, of course, zero difference between pacing, yardage books, marked sprinkler heads, 150 plates/poles, and GPS/laser devices.  None.  Zilch.  Nada.  Those that make reference to the very precise yardage give by the devices are introducing a red herring of the first magnitude.  Only in ease of use and speed are there variations, and those are positives, IMO.

I played 167 rounds of golf in 2014, and my first round of 2015 today.  I play lots of courses with lots of different people, and I'd put the percentage of golfers who don't use a device at well less than 10%.  More importantly, the ones that don't have a device are either pacing yardages or asking those with a device for a yardage.  Apparently, GCA.com is the world's largest (and maybe ONLY) collection of golfers who don't want to know their yardages.

And I'm sure that all that profess such here abide by it in their rounds with a few dollars at stake, and laugh uproariously when they misclub. 

And if somehow, Tom Huckaby happens to read this, I apologize for arguing against the devices all those years ago.  I was wrong, Tom, and I wish you were still on GCA.com!

[Sean_A]

AG

I might be mistaken, but I don't think folks are saying they don't want to know yardages.  Folks are saying that they don't want machines spitting out yardages, thus eliminating the advantage of the well trained and experienced eye and negating the ever present element of doubt...which helps keep architecture rich and meaningful.  Its two very different things and one reason I have long been against caddie advice. Esssentially, we are advocating the advantage of money over skill by sanctioning yardage guns.    

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Let me just say, contrary to what some might assume, that I in no way oppose rangefinders.

I would however like to address this assumption that modern technology is no different to a yardage book. I've yet to find a yardage book which sipplied me with much more than rudimentary figures about bunker yardages and the like. That's quite a different think to being able to home in on each and every minor feature which might catch the eye. Of course, if you happen to have your own gentleman's gentleman......

[Chris DeToro]

To get back to the original post and tying back to architecture, I guess I just don't see enough of the distinction of a range finder compared to any other past method of distance measuring to say that range finders have had a significant impact on the perception of architecture.  Perhaps those who are less trained at distance measuring are less fooled now, but that would have been the case had they walked the length of the hole or played it multiple times anyway

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

AG
I was not aware that I ever advocated the non use of any yardage information,perhaps I missed where Iwrote that??
I would be foolish to tee it up in my events at such a disadvantage by not using all means that the rest of the field is using,but the influence that has on how the field plays is directly related to the thread title.

I was also not aware that the thread title asked whether one thought they were a good or bad idea but what difference they make on perception of a golf course.
I believe you are discussing a totally separate issue.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG

I might be mistaken, but I don't think folks are saying they don't want to know yardages.  Folks are saying that they don't want machines spitting out yardages, thus eliminating the advantage of the well trained and experienced eye and negating the ever present element of doubt...which helps keep architecture rich and meaningful.  Its two very different things and one reason I have long been against caddie advice. Esssentially, we are advocating the advantage of money over skill by sanctioning yardage guns.    

Ciao

Sean,
The METHOD by which a player determines yardage is a distinction without a difference, and you have now introduced yet another red herring by bringing up money.  My god, of all the money spent on golf, are you seriously saying that a $200 watch or laser is the breaking point at which the rich and famous have an advantage?  You can't walk 9 at Pebble for that money...

I have yet to read a single argument that in any way convinces me that there is any connection whatsoever between knowing a particular yardage and either A) appreciating the richness and meaningfulness of the architecture and/or B) reducing skill in playing a particular shot.  My home course has two of the best, as well as one of the worst, crossing bunkers that I have ever encountered;  I appreciate the richness and meaningfulness of all three EVERY time I play those three holes!  Knowing how far to hit the ball is completely irrelevant to that appreciation. 

Unless I'm missing something, many are saying that guessing at the distance somehow improves the appreciation, which puzzles me endlessly.  You have now added the horror of the poor being at a disadvantage as they roam the world's top 100 courses desperately trying to acquire yardages for their next shot, balanced by their enhanced appreciation for what they are seeing.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG
I was not aware that I ever advocated the non use of any yardage information,perhaps I missed where Iwrote that??
I would be foolish to tee it up in my events at such a disadvantage by not using all means that the rest of the field is using,but the influence that has on how the field plays is directly related to the thread title.

I was also not aware that the thread title asked whether one thought they were a good or bad idea but what difference they make on perception of a golf course.
I believe you are discussing a totally separate issue.

I don't think I accused you of anything, did I?  And I didn't bring up the general question of knowing a yardage vs. not knowing. 

I'll reiterate my answer to the thread's original question:  minimally.  All the rest are side issues that the Flat Earth Society members continually trot out.