Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Bob_Huntley on February 12, 2009, 05:10:51 PM
-
In recent months, I have heard much gnashing of teeth about the ruination of the ancient game by the use of all sorts of gadgets that make the game simpler. A great deal of it has come from our friend in Fife, Melvyn Morrow.
Yet when one comes to think of it, his consanguinity to Old Tom Morris should, quite possibly, put him in the other camp. His great-great uncle, surely made the greatest stride in modernizing and making the game easier to play by breaking with his partner and championing the use of the gutta percha ball.
I could go on, but all in all, I think Old Tom was a futurist at heart.
Bob
-
Bob,
Interesting take.
I suspect Melvyn never gave a thought to this, ideologues never acknowledge ideas that challenge their way of thinking.
-
Blasphemy!!!!
From what I heard from a friend was that Old Tom actually commissioned the gutta percha so that he could install some new elevated back tees at the Old Course.
-
Dearest Sir Robert de Huntley (nice ring!)
firstly, two minor factual errors:
great, great grandfather
and
Melvyn not in Fife, but rather more Home Counties-ish?!
Notwithstanding, what a brilliant thought. OTM - Arch enemy of the traditional, secret (not much!) user of the new-fangled implement, industrial espionage in his employers house. What a Revolutionary.
Old Fidel Morris. I like it...
best,
FBD.
-
When you think about it, there is a hell of a lot more future in the...well, future, than there is in the past!
-
Dearest Sir Robert de Huntley (nice ring!)
firstly, two minor factual errors:
great, great grandfather
and
Melvyn not in Fife, but rather more Home Counties-ish?!
Notwithstanding, what a brilliant thought. OTM - Arch enemy of the traditional, secret (not much!) user of the new-fangled implement, industrial espionage in his employers house. What a Revolutionary.
Old Fidel Morris. I like it...
best,
FBD.
Martin,
Thanks for correcting me, great-great- grandfather it is. My apologies to Melvyn.
Bob
-
Thank you Bob for your informative opinion.
However there a few points I would just like to confirm:-
I am not guilty of ‘gnashing of teeth about the ruination of the ancient game by using all sorts of gadgets’. If you had bothered to read my words I have always said golfers do not need artificial gadgets to play the game. Each golfer has it within himself to judge distances and play accordingly. Distance aids diminish that eye/brain co-ordination, so it will take a few rounds without them to acclimatise again. Some months ago one of GCA Members deliberately went out without his gadget and his game suffered. As for making it easy, I would prefer to say that gadgets focus the mind in the wrong direction and not on the course where it should be. Old Tom, my great grandfather James, T.G. my father James and I have never used distance aids. I suspect at times neither do you. I see nothing in the above that requires ‘garnishing of teeth’.
As for technology I am all for it albeit in a controlled manner to enable the continuation of the game, but not at the expense of having to keep modifying and lengthening our courses. If architects are not allowed to designs courses to combat the long drive which I believe would not only resolve most of the problems but IMHO would also make them more challenging. But our governing bodies slowly take minimal action allowing confusion to reign.
As for Old Tom, he was happy to see his game grow but not at the expense of the golfer. I most sincerely believe that he would be horrified to see how dependent the majority of golfers have become on distance information. That instinctive ability we human have to coordinate our mind and bodies is part of the secrets of a good golfer – I believe your gadgets as you call them takes a chunk out of that natural harmony.
The Feathery vs. the Gutta Percha golf ball is actually much deeper than perhaps you believe. The feathery was a very expensive ball that had the ability to change its form during play. The gutta in comparison was much cheaper and more reliable although it could shatter from time to time. Old Tom involvement was initially by accident in that he had no more feathery balls on a round having lost them, so was offered a gutta to finish his round. Although this lead to a major disagreement between Old Tom and Allan, it never stopped Allan from playing high profile money matches with Old Tom as his partner – it is reported they never lost a money match.
As for my connection to Old Tom, Martin I believe set you straight, as for where I live, you would not have known unless you had read my posts.
I think that you have proved the point I was making about some of the R&A Members. Had you been a little more informed or kept abreast of the subject you decided to mention then I doubt if you would have made these errors.
In closing I would say that I have never posted with the initial point of causing a problem just submitting my opinions and observations. Perhaps it’s my way of writing which at times gets me into trouble on GCA.com – the problem when responding to what I believe to be a discussion/debating group is that the written word cannot express the tone of ones voice which conveys so much unsaid information. Being a weak human being I certainly do respond to what I consider unfair attacks.
I wise you a pleasant week-end of golf
Melvyn
PS Pat Craig.
In my last topic you mentioned “What doesn't help the matter is when our token Scotsman sends 3 e-mails trying to flex his GCA muscles from 3000 miles away”. First I don’t remember 3 e-mails and please be my guest and post my e-mails so other members can judge if I am “flex his GCA Muscles”. I believe they are what they are trying to pour oil on trouble waters and not flex anything, yet you last reply was very informative it reads as follows
“Melvyn-
I don't give a rat's ass about Old Tom Morris. Give it a fucking break and stop e-mailing me.”
The only spirit I can ever see Pat getting will be out of a bottle. As he matures I trust he will calm down.
My, Pat thanks for the hand of fellowship at GCA.com – if this is what this site now represents then I for one just do not want to know.
-
BobH:
You ask if Old Tom would've been a standard Bearer for Range Finders?
I don't know about that specifically but obviously he was a proponent of the ultra-distance NXT Titleist. Haven't you seen those fairly recent ads where they actually caught him using them on video tape? That's irrefutable evidence that should hold up in any court of law even though I'm not sure how he vanished so quickly when John Cleese tried to admonish him but I'm quite sure a good lawyer like OJ Simpson's Johnny Cochran could very easily explain that.
As for Old Tom being a futurist or a proponent of technologies, here's a little tidbit that might put the lie to that, at least in one sense.
He was once asked what he thought of the idea of actually using mowers on a golf course and he said something like this:
"Oh God no, where would you ever stop?"
Quite an interesting thought, don't you think?
;)
-
PS Pat Craig.
In my last topic you mentioned “What doesn't help the matter is when our token Scotsman sends 3 e-mails trying to flex his GCA muscles from 3000 miles away”. First I don’t remember 3 e-mails and please be my guest and post my e-mails so other members can judge if I am “flex his GCA Muscles”. I believe they are what they are trying to pour oil on trouble waters and not flex anything, yet you last reply was very informative it reads as follows
“Melvyn-
I don't give a rat's ass about Old Tom Morris. Give it a fucking break and stop e-mailing me.”
The only spirit I can ever see Pat getting will be out of a bottle. As he matures I trust he will calm down.
My, Pat thanks for the hand of fellowship at GCA.com – if this is what this site now represents then I for one just do not want to know.
Great great grandson of Old Tom Morris-
That is exactly what I said in response to your totally unprovoked personal e-mails to me. Maturity is far more than age, perhaps the older you get and the more times you toot your own horn you may understand that.
-
Melvyn,
You remind me of Frank Klausz (that’s a compliment). He's a famous (for a woodworker anyway) cabinetmaker and woodworking teacher who advocates the use of hand tools for fast, accurate work. What’s more, he eschews lots of measuring and marking in favor of trusting the eye. And he’s absolutely 100% sure that his way is the right way. Woodworking, and especially hand-tool woodworking, is undergoing a renaissance right now and he is one of the responsible parties. I personally like his way of doing it, not because it’s faster or better or more pure, but because it’s more fun.
Perhaps golf could undergo a similar renaissance in the simpler version of the game. Not because it’s faster or better or more pure, but because it’s more fun.
Charlie
P.S. I say this as a fairly regular cart-rider and user of yardage markers on the course. The game is played many ways, but rethinking some of our choices may lead to more fun.
-
Charlie:
I've always agreed with that sentiment, and stated such in conversations with Melvyn. That is, that rethinking some of our choices can indeed lead to more fun - well phrased.
HOWEVER... do you really think the genie of course marking and need for distance information is going back into the bottle?
That's the part I can't get past.
TH
-
The Feathery vs. the Gutta Percha golf ball is actually much deeper than perhaps you believe. The feathery was a very expensive ball that had the ability to change its form during play. The gutta in comparison was much cheaper and more reliable although it could shatter from time to time. Old Tom involvement was initially by accident in that he had no more feathery balls on a round having lost them, so was offered a gutta to finish his round. Although this lead to a major disagreement between Old Tom and Allan, it never stopped Allan from playing high profile money matches with Old Tom as his partner – it is reported they never lost a money match.
As for my connection to Old Tom, Martin I believe set you straight, as for where I live, you would not have known unless you had read my posts.
I think that you have proved the point I was making about some of the R&A Members. Had you been a little more informed or kept abreast of the subject you decided to mention then I doubt if you would have made these errors.
Melvyn,
I am well aware of the cost and fragility of the feathery and made mention of it in my post, but thank you for pointing out that although Old Tom disappointed Allan with his use of the guttie, that they continued to play as a team in money matches. I thought the move to Prestwick ended that partnership.
I shall be polite about this, unlike you, with your snide remark ,"Had you been a little more informed or kept abreast of the subject you decided to mention then I doubt if you would have made these errors." The bit about R&A Members puzzles me; I made no reference to the subject. I think you may be confusing me with Mike Benham.
As a conservative and keeper of the flame, you must admit that the introduction of the gutta percha ball required that golf courses became longer, not much different for what has gone on for these past few decades. Change is everywhere, not always for the best.
Bob
-
DRINKS ARE ON ME!!!!
Anthony
-
Charlie
My way is the way I was taught, to many it may not be better, that’s down to them to decide.
I play in the time honoured way and yes I do believe it is fun.
There are times when you have to put in the effort to achieve the objective – for me that is the fun and enjoyment of golf.
Its ones body against the elements, I feel a failure if I have to resort to electronic aids or wheels to get me round a course. Others have a different opinion and all these things are not against the rules.
My way is not necessary the better way for others but it is for me as well as being the original way. If its not broke, don’t need to mend it, but again others must think it is broken and have decided to play using these aids.
Is it progress – not for me.
Melvyn
-
Charlie:
I've always agreed with that sentiment, and stated such in conversations with Melvyn. That is, that rethinking some of our choices can indeed lead to more fun - well phrased.
HOWEVER... do you really think the genie of course marking and need for distance information is going back into the bottle?
That's the part I can't get past.
TH
Tom,
I don't want to put the Genie back in the bottle. Mostly because it would cost more money to do so, but also because I use the markers. It's more about player attitudes. For me, when I'm walking, I won't go out of my way to go find distance markers because it is more work, especially when I'm tired. If I try to walk more often, I'll use distance markers less, and my ability to eye the distance will improve. If my golf experience mirrors my woodworking experience, I'll be in for more fun. That is a big IF which will only be proven/disproven by trying it. BTW, I have to give it a try if I'm going to be in sufficient physical condition to handle a trip to Ballyneal this summer.
Melvyn,
Both you and Frank do your chosen activities the way you do because that is the way you were taught (in fact, most/all of us do). I admire your convictions (and Frank's), but your convictions aren't what convinced me to try your way on a more regular basis. I'm convinced because it is/will be a greater source of fun, exercise, joy for ME. If you want someone to try your way of doing something (doesn't matter what the activity is), don't say something like "I feel a failure if I have to resort to electronic aids or wheels to get me round a course". Even if it is true for you. Keep the negative feelings out of it, make it about the positives.
-
Melvyn,
You almost get it when you say: "My way is not necessary the better way for others, but it is for me as well as being the original way"
....but then you blow it by adding: "If its not broke, don’t need to mend it, but again others must think it is broken and have decided to play using these aids".
What you fail to take into consideration is that the 'others' want no say in how you approach the game, and they expect the same treatment in kind.
-
Charlie:
I have no issues with trying to change attitudes; places like Bandon are great for that, and great for the golfing soul. May they long thrive and prosper.
My issue remains with those who think that complete removal of all distance information is the ONLY WAY TO GO... and that those who use it are somehow playing an inferior game, or missing the spirit of it.
I have to believe the vast majority of golfers - here, there, everywhere - have always used distance information to play the game. To me, electronic aids are just a simpler (and dare I say faster - as you allude to) means to achieve the same end. Thus while I don't personally use them, I'll take the information from those who do... and in the end more importantly continue to see no reason why they ought to be utterly cryit downe.
But we've danced this dance with Melvyn way too many times before. My feeling is Jim Kennedy's words are wise and he ought to take them to heart.
However, I also believe we are each somewhat interfering with what could be a classic discussion between some master wordsmiths, namely Melvyn and Bob. So I feel sheeping posting this.... but it's my own fault, I started it in replying to you.
TH
-
I could care less how anyone else plays the game...so long as they respect the course...don't slow me down...respect other that are on the course...and keep their shirts on....unless they are female. ;D
Golf is an individual sport , and thus, I do not see any one way to "honor" the sport nor the "spirit" of the game...it is what each of us makes it...and hopefully everyone has fun!
Me: I ride in a cart sometimes...mostly walk.
No range finder...and little use for yardage makers.
I love modern equipment for playing, and old equipment for viewing.
-
Craig: exceedingly well said. I tend to look at this pretty darn close to how you do....
Thus my difficulty understanding Melvyn. But maybe this time we get closer....
TH
-
Guys:
When it comes to this dynamic or whatever it's been on here between Melyvn and TomH or whomever else why don't you just embrace the essence of my "Big World Theory"----ie "Golf and golf course architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."
The message is there are a lot of different tastes in this world and golf and golf course architecture can accommodate them all----although certainly not on the same golf course! ;)
-
Guys:
When it comes to this dynamic or whatever it's been on here between Melyvn and TomH or whomever else why don't you just embrace the essence of my "Big World Theory"----ie "Golf and golf course architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."
The message is there are a lot of different tastes in this world and golf and golf course architecture can accommodate them all----although certainly not on the same golf course! ;)
Tom - appreciate the thought, but "big world" was tried almost immediately... and it failed miserably.
;)
-
I think you may be confusing me with Mike Benham.
Bob - I am honored to be mistaken for you, you on the other hand, may not be so ...
-
The message is there are a lot of different tastes in this world and golf and golf course architecture can accommodate them all----although certainly not on the same golf course!
TEP, I'd add to that, 'and not in the same match.' I mean that there is something unpleasant and at its core 'not in the spirit of the game' in my opinion when you are actually in the midst of a golf competition, be it amatuer, pro, or amatuer with a bet going. Let's just say you are somewhere in your middle years or older, have played the game all your life, have hung on or even improved your game over the years, and can play it traditionally, walking, using just the 'on course' yardages plates provided, and can even play to a skill level that you are pleased with if no yardage aids and other gadgets are available. Now, you are in your club 3rd flight championship, you are competitive, you play the game by the rules (which sometimes do and don't allow carts and aids depending on venue, governing body, tournament organizers etc) and you are playing with a perfectly healthy young competitor, with a similar handicap skill as you, and you are playing on a walkable course, but perhaps a warmer day.
Now, that kid -maybe 20-30 years younger than you, rides in a cart, uses rangefinders or skycaddies, biggest most advanced headed drivers, long putters, hottest balls, etc, etc.
Whether he is entitled to under the rules of that competition or not;
DOESN'T IT IRK YOU as inherently unfair or somehow skews the enjoyment you should get out of a presumably fair competition based on skill and handicap golf competition VS a competition of the most high tech equipment advances and aids? I'd have to say that while it may be increased enjoyment if you beat the fellow competitor with all the aids, it still in my mind puts a stink on the match to that extent. :-\
-
I have a problem with the transition from feather ball to gutty being portrayed as Hi-teching the game. Everything I have come across in my study of that era is the gutty gained popularity because of it's durability. The info out there suggests there was a negligable difference in distance between the balls for the following decade or two. The full transition to gutty took a number of years as many players still prefered how the feather ball played. The two balls had entirely different playing characteristics. The feather ball was played on the ground with run, where as the gutty was an airborne game with considerably less run. I can't find any references until the 1870's/80's for attempts at long driving, assuming that's what everyone here is using as a standard for teching the equipment.
Morris didn't even design and patent a club until around 1890. I have examples of both of his patents and they are hardly revolution compared to some of the new designs that had been developed in previous years. All the clubs I know of that he made were very traditional in design up until about 1890.
I think that characterization of him being a proponent of tech is grossly inaccurate.
The only exception might be with regards to putters, but thats another story...
-
I'll bet that everyone here would have a hell of a good time playing a few rounds of golf, no matter their opinions. There might be a bit of good nature razzing like all good golf groups and gathering, but you'd be surprised how everyone would ultimately accept the other, distance measuring, whatever, or whatnot.
-
I'll bet that everyone here would have a hell of a good time playing a few rounds of golf, no matter their opinions. There might be a bit of good nature razzing like all good golf groups and gathering, but you'd be surprised how everyone would ultimately accept the other, distance measuring, whatever, or whatnot.
That has been proven many times over... but does bear repeating.
;D
-
TomH:
I've got to know something from you. Have you never played golf with someone that really pissed you off and you let him know it? How about in a tournament? I've always been pretty easy going on the course with most everyone but there sure have been a few times when it didn't go so good that way.
I would like to hear some of yours, if you don't mind. That is if there have been some of course.
-
Now, that kid -maybe 20-30 years younger than you, rides in a cart, uses rangefinders or skycaddies, biggest most advanced headed drivers, long putters, hottest balls, etc, etc.
Whether he is entitled to under the rules of that competition or not;
DOESN'T IT IRK YOU as inherently unfair or somehow skews the enjoyment you should get out of a presumably fair competition based on skill and handicap golf competition VS a competition of the most high tech equipment advances and aids? I'd have to say that while it may be increased enjoyment if you beat the fellow competitor with all the aids, it still in my mind puts a stink on the match to that extent. :-\
You had me until you mentioned handicaps....why do we argue about rangefinders that at best have a negligible effect on our ability to play, but a 5 handicapper and a 20 become one in the same as we circle the 13 handicap holes on the scorecard before we ever tee off? If we want fair and skill to enter the equation, play off scratch and add them up after 18.
Handicaps were born because we wanted matches that would be fun playing....not matches that are equitable..
(for the record, I'm just playing devil's advocate....but I think it raises a good point. Also, a 10 handicap using hickories is the same as a 10 handicap using NASA's latest and greatest.)
As for Old Tom, the second that he used a landmark on a golf course (rock, tree, whatever) that spurred a past memory of what club he used is when he used a distance aid. To me, no difference between knowing you hit a 5 iron from the big bush on the 10th or knowing you have exactly 187 yards to the pin from a yardage marker or gun.
-
As for Old Tom, the second that he used a landmark on a golf course (rock, tree, whatever) that spurred a past memory of what club he used is when he used a distance aid. To me, no difference between knowing you hit a 5 iron from the big bush on the 10th or knowing you have exactly 187 yards to the pin from a yardage marker or gun.
Clint,
Quite so.
Bob
-
Clearly you are missing the main point – today and since WW2 distance has become important to the latest generations of golfers. But distance was not to those in the 19th Century.
So Clint if distance was not an issue or for that matter known, how could they judge their distance from any given point. So Old Tom saw a tree, a stone boundary marker, a hedge but there were not distances shown, nor did any pace back from the pin, because distance information was not used nor did it exist back then.
The skill was judgement from within – this very thing that all you distance nuts need from outside sources so much to play a game of golf today.
The Pre WW2 generations have created this need for distance support because they are scared of loosing or not being seen to be on an equal par with others.
Perhaps now you understand what I am say in that golfers do not need distance markers to play golf, good golf or bloody good golf. How do you judge something that did not matter or existed, by all means use the modern markers, but your experience will be the poorer for it.
Support each other just like the junkies your are. Stay in denial, it is you that is the ultimate looser – you are the ones who need their distance fix. Yet you think it helps your game. The distance genie is out of the bottle, but you just don’t want to put in back – but why – well that’s your business and you play with your toys the way you want. I’ll play the way it has been in my family for years.
Clint/Bob - landmark is fine but it was then just that a landmark with no connection to distance as you experience today. Quite so indeed.
Melvyn
-
.
So Old Tom saw a tree, a stone boundary marker, a hedge but there were not distances shown, nor did any pace back from the pin, because distance information was not used nor did it exist back then.
Melvyn,
You have mentioned several times that distance information was NOT used back then. Short of taking a trip in "the Wayback Machine", how do you know this for a fact? Is there documented written evidence to back your claim?
-
Just because nobody had the distance boiled down to a numerical value (ie: 187 yards) doesn't mean that distance didn't exist.
If I drive up on my golf cart while it is snowing, I guarantee you'll know if I'm too far away or close enough to hit with a snow ball. There will even be a point where I am that you'll need 100% of your strength to hit me. That is distance....but just a guesstimate. Now if every day I drive past you and you keep throwing snow balls at me, you'll eventually learn EXACTLY where I need to be for you to hit me at 100% strength.
Translated to golf, we have 14 different "arm strengths", but through experience we know how far they go. Whether that is a numerical value, landmarks or even by how long it takes to walk to the green....all methods for gathering distance information.
Distance is taught to young drivers the same way. The safe following distance between cars (or golf carts, if you wish) is 3 seconds between landmarks. Car in front passes a light pole, you shouldn't pass it for 3 seconds. Assuming speed and velocity are the same, deriving distance is a given. This isn't Newtonian physics, but real world stuff. Numerical units aren't distances, simply placeholders for speed X time.
I will grant that Old Tom didn't have a scorecard with numbers on it, but you can't dismiss landmarks as distance guages.
-
Clearly you are missing the main point – today and since WW2 distance has become important to the latest generations of golfers. But distance was not to those in the 19th Century.
Melvyn,
I do not wish to appear to be perverse and argue with you ad nauseum, but I thought I would see if I could find something in my library that would assure me that length off the tee has always been of some importance.
I found this book by an Open winner during the lifetime of Old Tom. It speaks volumes to the joys of a cracking drive.
This section is from the book "The Game Of Golf", by William Park, Jun..
Chapter IV. The Long Game
The expression 'the long game' is applied to driving, or strokes off the tea, and to play through the green, or the intermediate strokes between the drive and the approach to the hole, with the exception of play out of hazards. It is fairly descriptive of the nature of this part of the game, in which the object is to propel the ball as far as possible with each stroke. It can hardly be denied by any one who has played golf, that of all the different parts of the game none gives greater pleasure than long driving, although accurate approaching and putting conduce more to the winning of matches and low scoring. The golfer who does not, feel a sensation of keen gratification, of superiority of power and skill, invest his whole body when he gets away a long straight drive, must indeed he unimpressionable. After years of play I still am able, and hope that I shall always be, to experience such feelings. One is told of miraculous drives of 800 yards and upwards; indeed, drives are spoken of as it' anything short of that figure were hardly worthy of notice.
Although I can drive 'as far as my neighbours, and whiles a bit further,' I frankly say that I cannot, and never could, drive 300 yards, and I am convinced that no man can, unless under exceptionally favourable circumstances. An extraordinarily long shot may be made now and again, but experience proves that 200 yards is about the average limit of really long driving; 170 or 180 yards may be considered first-class, and anything over 150 yards is fairly good.
There it is, from a contemporary of Old Tom telling us that indeed they were interested in distance.
Bob
-
RJ,
I know you asked the question of Tom, but I just wanted to add that equipment rules mainly define the optimal level that can be used but they don't require the player to use that optimal equipment. Therefore, if you play against 'me' in an event and are using your Eye-O-Matic woods and Colokrom irons I will not feel bad about trouncing you (if it worked out that way). Nor would I feel bad if a young whippersnapper using hi-tech stuff whupped up on me if I chose to play something less than optimal equipment.
On the other hand, If you challenge me to a 'duel' and you 'choose' this same dated equipment for the match, I will glady oblige the request.
Melvyn,
Distance is distance, whether you are gauging what club to use by 'feel' or resorting to getting the number from a marker, a caddie, your partner, a yardage book, a GPS finder or God whispers it in your ear.
Your ideology is not realistic, aids or devices have little or no negative effect on the values of the game. You might say Old tom never knew his yardages, but OT surely knew what club to pull from any position on any particular hole after his second or third time 'round any course. It doesn't strain credulity to surmise that he may have had chats with his caddie, similar to those we see today from the top players during competition. Another totally believeable scenario is envisioning OT and Allan, standing over their featherie in a Four-Ball debating over the distance, windage, lie, hazards, leave, etc. and then choosing the appropriate club.
But please continue to follow your personal code but you should remember, it's YOUR personal code, so lighten up on the rest of us, we can make our own decisions.
-
To me, no difference between knowing you hit a 5 iron from the big bush on the 10th or knowing you have exactly 187 yards to the pin from a yardage marker or gun
Well that makes sense on a course where you play there all the time and know that information. But, what about the unknown or new course you haven't obtained the familiarity of what club gets to the green from what bush? Then, your opponent pulls out the old rangefinder or skycaddie and has exact yardage. Or, what of the guy that plays at a club with a regular member who knows the course intimately, and who does or doesn't employ a yardage aid to boot, but knows the course like the back of his hand anyway. There are all types of legitimate and within the rules ways to have a distinct advantage like familiarity or more information than the next fellow. That's golf, I guess.
But, I still think that there are acceptable natural learned distance, yardage, or specific features playing characteristics sort of knowledge advantage, and those that come by high tech artificial means. :D
-
To me, no difference between knowing you hit a 5 iron from the big bush on the 10th or knowing you have exactly 187 yards to the pin from a yardage marker or gun
Well that makes sense on a course where you play there all the time and know that information. But, what about the unknown or new course you haven't obtained the familiarity of what club gets to the green from what bush? Then, your opponent pulls out the old rangefinder or skycaddie and has exact yardage. Or, what of the guy that plays at a club with a regular member who knows the course intimately, and who does or doesn't employ a yardage aid to boot, but knows the course like the back of his hand anyway. There are all types of legitimate and within the rules ways to have a distinct advantage like familiarity or more information than the next fellow. That's golf, I guess.
But, I still think that there are acceptable natural learned distance, yardage, or specific features playing characteristics sort of knowledge advantage, and those that come by high tech artificial means. :D
Totally agree.....though those advantages and disadvantages have been around forever. And only on a course completely without markings, which few exist. Add caddy expertise to the mix too, which negate some of the courses without other yardage markings.
I have a harder time with high tech clubs than yardage aids. Clubs are at least involved with hitting the shot.
-
Bob
There is a great difference in what is being discussed and driving from the Tee. Yardage books and rangefinders which is the basis of the original topic were not present in the 19th Century. I can roughly judge my Tee shot but it give me very little real information. The real test of skill and the need for more co-ordination between eyes/brain come when within 150 or so yards from the pin. On this point have you found any yardage books, markers etc on the courses or in any of the match reports from the 19th Century?
I expect you will find reports that Young Tom was down in 3 on a 568 yard hole and long drives from the Tees but are you telling me that this proves they used distance information as we do so today?
There is a massive difference in what we have accepted in the last 50 years compared to the earlier game. They did not use distance in the way we do today.
Jim
Like Bob you have your opinions but then so do I. No distance is not distance in the way we are discussing it today. I don’t look at a hedge or stone working out yardage via markers, books or rangefinder – it may be 187 yards but what is does 187 yards mean to me or for that mater the average golfer? I have been taught to concentrate on the pin and using my own ability (call it skill or whatever – but that comes from within) to select my club, but at no time have I equated that to a yardage figure.
If I was told it was 167 yards I would still ignore the information and prepare my shot in my way. So distance information does not play any part of my game. Now discuss club choice - then subject to your game, I can fully understand.
I certainly agree that windage, lie, hazards comes into the thought process
I don’t know how many times I have to say it but you play your game your way. But please note I did not start off this topic. You want or need to use distance aids in your game, do so if the rules allow, but stop judging past generations by the standards that are acceptable today.
I don’t have all the answers, I don’t know everything about golf, I try and pass on what I do know, but surprisingly not many even on here bother to say thank you. I accept that you may not agree with my opinions, but the point is that while I am a member of GCA.com I have a right to my post those opinions- read and/or ignore them is your choice.
It’s very late here so I’m of to bed.
Melvyn
-
My dear Melvyn,
You wrote,
"I don’t have all the answers, I don’t know everything about golf, I try and pass on what I do know, but surprisingly not many even on here bother to say thank you."
Why on earth would someone say" thank you" for something they feel superfluous or what they feel is of no importance or even the antithesis of their own opinion? If one expects thanks or needs approbation I suggest they get a dog.
Bob
-
Melvyn...I don't know if I buy the "distance was not important back then" theory....I think distance is the ESSENCE of golf.....so long as the ball is not in the hole golfers have been concerned with "how much further to the hole"....and golfers have been searching...since the beginning...for ways to hit the ball farther...straighter.... and to figure out that question..."how far to the hole from here"....to say other wise is to deny human nature.
-
If I was told it was 167 yards I would still ignore the information and prepare my shot in my way-MelvynMorrow
Horse hockey
-
Jim...you got that right...horse hockey.
-
Craig,
The guy is an asshole.
Bob
-
He keeps saying people did not use distance the way we do today...what in hell does that mean? Like I said, distance is the essence of golf....whether you are sizing up a putt or a tee shot, you are thinking distance....I use the same methods for figuring distance that have been used for years...landmarks, knowing how far I hit, past experience, etc...
Is Melvyn going to tell me old Tom Morris did not pace off his drives, that he did not know a bunker was 50 paces from the green and if he was 5 paces past the bunker he hit his niblick? Is he going to tell me that is different than looking at a yardage marker or using a range finder to determine distance?
Wind, playing conditions, human energy, all have to be factored in...Tom Morris takes his reading and then selects a club...hopefully with some skill he overcomes whatever obstacles the shot presented...I take a reading from the yardage marker, and do like wise...how we use distance is no different...
-
Morris wasn't pacing off his drives or any of his approach shots. That's not how it was done.
You guys have to stop impressing a modern perspective on on earlier era golf.
-
I'd be interested to know from those of you who don't have any qualms about yardage aids, or cart use, or using a club caddy, if you feel you get the same full measure of appreciation of a new (to you) golf course's actual architecture or design merits with all the aids, or if you think that you would come to understand a particularly well designed new (to you) course better if you played it a number of times with no aids, walking, and really going commando out there, learning the ground and various intricacies of the design features more or less by feel, trial and error of various shots and observation?
If you have exact yardages via use of aids, would you tend to ignore much of the ground architecture, and lean towards the aerial game by always focusing in on the flight to a target more than looking for all the ways including the ground or strategic positions offered as alternatives to merely the distance to the hole as your first and primary piece of information?
-
You're right Ralph...I'm sure Old Tom wasn't curious how far he hit the ball... ;D
-
You're right Ralph...I'm sure Old Tom wasn't curious how far he hit the ball... ;D
I know I am right. He was interested in getting his ball in the hole in one less shot then his competitor.
I am not the best writer and don't know how to say what was going on then so you will understand. Maybe it can't be put across in words and requires your participation playing a competitive round of 19th century golf. Comparing 19th to 21st century golf is futile. There are no comparisons, and each decade of the 19th century was considerably different from the previous one. It has to be experienced, and that is exceptionally difficult to do. A mediocre version of 1890 golf can be had at Oakhurst.
Long driving didn't become important in the world of golf until the US got involved, and then all hell broke loose.
-
Ralph, it has been a while since I read the passage, but I believe MacKenzie wrote in "Spirit of St. Andrews" glowingly and admiringly about John Low's prodigious length, off the tee of course. ;) (I'm not all too good at writing either, but I trust you get my drift) ::) ;D
-
Ralph, it has been a while since I read the passage, but I believe MacKenzie wrote in "Spirit of St. Andrews" glowingly and admiringly about John Low's prodigious length, off the tee of course. ;) (I'm not all too good at writing either, but I trust you get my drift) ::) ;D
Long driving first starts to be discussed about 1880. Low was primarily 1890-1930 in his contributions to golf. That's outside of the time period we are talking about.
Here lies another problem with talking history is people here don't know the changes that took place just from 1840-1930 and discuss the varies decades interchangeably.
-
Old Tom did not need distance aids - because he designed the courses and knew every bloody foot of it ;D
I think we are talking about semantics here in terms of the value of range finders, and I have thought a lot about this because I respect the "traditionalist" view and do not necessarily agree that pace of play for ALL golfers is improved with range finders.
But, at the end of the day, if the reason NOT to use a range finder is because it makes the game too easy or you have to think less than I disagree.
1) Golf is hard - knowing it is 150 to the pin is helpful for most golfers, but it won't mean they are going to stick it two feet from the pin let alone on the green. Knowing distance is not bad, it is merciful.
2) If you play a course a few times then you will know what club to pull when you shoot. Whether it is instinctive, based on distance or whatever, it does not really matter. 150 = 8 iron, or I am in that range where I should hit an 8 iron. I'm not seeing a big deal here.
3) The type of golf you play has a massive relevance on distance. If you play the TOC or links golf all the time, then distance does not matter as much because you are not playing "target" golf you are playing "feel" golf. A 150 yard shot is an 8 iron one day, a SW the next and a driver the next. Your judgement is paramount depending on a myriad of factors including wind, set up of the hole, distance, undulations and hazards around the greens, etc.
If you play a course where you tee off across a lake and need to hit it 200 to 250 to be in play and then another 150 to 175 to clear the water in front of the lake then distance becomes much more relevant because the creative aspect is much less and you go into numbers mode just to survive.
I would be surprised if OT or anyone else from the 19th century played a target golf bonanza course and never asked, "How far to carry the lake" or "How far to cross the pond".
I could be wrong, but these guys from the past played matches and based on some of the interesting article MM has sent out, it certainly seems like they were pretty damn competitive. If Willie Park and OT were playing a series of new courses they had never seen and Willie was rocking his Sonocaddie, how many lost matches would it take for OT to run out and get one as well?
-
I assume a sonocaddie is a distance device?
There weren't any "target" courses like what you are describing. That isn't an aspect of 19th century game. Again another example of impressing modern concepts on golf 100+ years ago.
These guys played on courses they were familiar with. It might be best described as home-home matches. There weren't that many courses then (1830-1880). And the matches typically were played across multiple courses, not on a single course.
-
Ralph,
It's easy to see that in 19th century golf it wasn't as necessary to know that the carry over a greenside bunker was 195 yards, how many folks were making that shot?, and even if they could it would be with such a long club that there'd be no stopping the ball on the green. It's also understandable that when more than a few of your shots in a given round are played to drop early and bounce onto the green, that there is less of a need to know precisely how far you are from the flag....and think of how useless yardages become when playing on the windy links. Even today you may as well keep the yardage book tucked away or the radar gun neatly stored in its case when playing in any kind of strong wind, on any course.
On the other hand, I don't believe that OT and his contemporaries didn't have a good idea of distance, especially when it came to the par 3 holes, where club choice would have been as standard then as it is now, given a placid environment.
I think it's ridiculous to disdain, as Melvyn does, one form of play over another. Neither is superior and both show the adaptability of the game.
You can forgo all modern conveniences and have a great time on foot, or have just as much fun cartballin' it with your big headed driver and your bubble headed buddies.
-
Ralph,
It's easy to see that in 19th century golf it wasn't as necessary to know that the carry over a greenside bunker was 195 yards, how many folks were making that shot?, and even if they could it would be with such a long club that there'd be no stopping the ball on the green. It's also understandable that when more than a few of your shots in a given round are played to drop early and bounce onto the green, that there is less of a need to know precisely how far you are from the flag....and think of how useless yardages become when playing on the windy links. Even today you may as well keep the yardage book tucked away or the radar gun neatly stored in its case when playing in any kind of strong wind, on any course.
On the other hand, I don't believe that OT and his contemporaries didn't have a good idea of distance, especially when it came to the par 3 holes, where club choice would have been as standard then as it is now, given a placid environment.
I think it's ridiculous to disdain, as Melvyn does, one form of play over another. Neither is superior and both show the adaptability of the game.
You can forgo all modern conveniences and have a great time on foot, or have just as much fun cartballin' it with your big headed driver and your bubble headed buddies.
Of course they knew the distances, these were their courses. If your state only had 5-6 courses and you played weekly matches over them, don't you think you would come to know them fairly well?
The problem is that all these new toys are wiping out the option to play the traditional game. You have forecaadiies yelling you the yardage when you tell them you don't want it, I had to threaten whacking one with a Mashie Niblick if he didn't shut up. Cart only courses, no walking and carrying. Great old courses getting mutilated beyond recognition because of the drivers developed this past decade, and all for the sake of ego.
Yes, the genii is probably out of the bottle.
I saw it coming over a decade ago and my answer was to play pre-1930 clubs full time.
Needless to say I have a very different perspective on the modern game and spend much time studying the early game.
-
This thread reminds me of the history story my old teacher told me, it describes information on a pending attack on some large harbour out in the middle of the sea. The information was ignored and many people died. I wonder if those guys back then called the guys who passed on the information names?
Thank God this is only Golf we are talking about.
But of course you know better, don’t invite me to the book burning parties.
Melvyn
PS Bob, I don’t expect thanks for posting a comment, but I do expect a courtesy nod when I e-mail pages of information. But then a so called gentleman would know that, regrettable your last thread proves you certainly are not one.
-
Speaking of how golfers deal with yardage, here's a trivia question for you:
Who was the last man to win on tour (and when) who did not rely on yardage? He just eyeballed everything. There's actually a young player on tour who they say doesn't use yardage. He won the US Amateur a few years ago.
-
Speaking of how golfers deal with yardage, here's a trivia question for you:
Who was the last man to win on tour (and when) who did not rely on yardage? He just eyeballed everything. There's actually a young player on tour who they say doesn't use yardage. He won the US Amateur a few years ago.
I think Ryan Moore doesn't use yardages.
-
That's right Sam. That's the guy. Do you know the last guy to win on tour who didn't use yardage?
-
That's right Sam. That's the guy. Do you know the last guy to win on tour who didn't use yardage?
I don't know that, can we have a year?
-
Sam:
Definitely. Take a couple if you need to.
By the way, Sam, are you related to Melvyn Morrow?
-
What year was the last winner not using yardages?
-
Ralph...of course Tom Morris wanted to get the ball in the hole...and I think it's safe to say before every shot he gauged in his head how far away that hole was, and how he would have to hit the shot to get it closer to the hole...whether he paced the distance, looked at a near by landmark, or knew where he was on the course from experience...he made a calculation before his shot...
How is that any different than pulling out the range finder or looking at a sprinkler head?
-
That's a BIG hint Sam---REALLY BIG!
It was 1972.
-
That's a BIG hint Sam---REALLY BIG!
It was 1972.
Bert Yancey?
-
Traditionalist? Good God...look, if I played at a course that required me to take a fore caddy and I told him to STFU and he continued to yell out yardage etc. I'd either fire him on the spot...play my next round elsewhere, demand a new FC....or something...but I wouldn't use that example of what's wrong with the modern game....
The other thing...if I was going to be a traditionalist I would expect certain clashes at the intersection of old and new...
However...when I play there are all sorts of "aids" I could utilize...pin sheets, sprinkler heads with yardage, color coded flags on the pins, etc....but I choose not to use them....these "modern" intrusions don't bother me...they don't enter into my thought process when I'm playing the hole.
-
"How is that any different than pulling out the range finder or looking at a sprinkler head?"
Craig:
The difference is they probably did it by using their eyes and brain to calculate the distance of the shot rather than finding that distance on a sprinkler head or via a mechanical (what the Rules call "artifical") device.
Obviously what the two bodies that administer to the Rules of Golf here have done is separate out distance "information" that is generated in a particular way (with an artifical device) that was once banned so that it no longer is. Now what's left in the ban on artifical devices in the context of distance is anything that could actually artificially assist a golfer in actually making a stroke.
As you know it is still banned in the Rules for artifical devices to calculate anything OTHER than distance.
I also believe I now understand why the former ban on distance measuring devices was lifted when it was.
-
TPaul...agreed...and I bet 99% of golfers, regardless of whether they use a range finder or not, still use their brains and eyes....my experience with golfer using range finders is they have calculated the distance as they approach their ball and the range finder or sprinkler head is a confirmation of what they already decided.
-
Craig:
In considering your answer would it be appropriate to say that someone who uses a fork to eat is eating with his hands? ;)
Do you realize, Craig, that just before or just during the teens Albert Einenstein essentially changed the world and that at first he did it all via his Special Theory of Relativity entirely in his head?
-
TPaul...I think some would argue the immediate acceptance of Einstein's Theory of Relativity..and whether it was his work, or the work of another physicist (perhaps Max Planck?) that "changed" the world.
-
This thread reminds me of the history story my old teacher told me, it describes information on a pending attack on some large harbour out in the middle of the sea. The information was ignored and many people died. I wonder if those guys back then called the guys who passed on the information names?
Thank God this is only Golf we are talking about. -Melvyn
You ought to be happy that someone ignored that info or you'd be typing your reply while sitting around in your lederhausen and nibbling on some schnitzel 'n chips.
But of course you know better, don’t invite me to the book burning parties.
-Melvyn
If it wasn't for golf in the US you probably wouldn't even know any of the 12 guys who comprised the whole field for your Open Championship this year.
Get real.
-
Sam:
Definitely. Take a couple if you need to.
By the way, Sam, are you related to Melvyn Morrow?
No relation, I'm from Texas and thank God for carts. :D
-
Sorry Sam, but I just did an Ancestry.com and a ship passenger manifest dot.com search on you and your Texas family. You sure as shootin' are related to Melvyn. His grandfather's cousin once removed married your grandmother.
You've got some explaining to do to Melvyn, Scotland, golf, golf architecture and golf maintenance and the memory of Old Tom. Carts are a good place for you to begin the explaining Cowboy. Cuz iffin' you don't then that old adage that you can never go home again will turn out to be true!
-
So Jim
You are the Golf Professional at The Hotchkiss School. I trust you are keeping up the standards of your school and are a first class ambassador for them. So I hope you have collated all our threads and presented them to your Governors showing how you represent them in public
Your vile comments are not going to reflect on me but on you and I trust that you may want to reconsider what you say in public when attaching their web details.
You are indeed an ambassador for your school and country, others can judge how good you really are.
You are lucky that I am not vindictive and believe you have a right to voice your opinion no matter how base it is. You disrespect your country, school and this site.
You don’t agree then fine, but keep taking it further is a reflection on you.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
Your examination of golf in America is totally flawed.
Good day
-
Jim
I will again say I do not have a problem with the game in America. Of course I am not keen on Carts etc, etc but that is just my opinion, I do not know how many times I have to keep repeating myself. This site does not make the rules its just a debating forum and hopefully a source to learn the history of the game – well that my opinion.
If I believe in free speech then I must also believe in the rights of playing the game the way you want.
But and it is a BIG BUT I don’t agree that it is good for the game, yet that is my right to voice that belief as it is your and the rest to counter.
As for information I pass on via posting on this site I do not do it to create an argument but to convey how it was explained to me.
By all means disagree, but I have records and copies of many articles that do not mention distance as being important as we know treat it. Everywhere you look someone is fiddling with distance info, yet again I say it is not actually required – many feel that they can’t play good golf without it – that is just plain daft.
I hope this cools the problem and allows all parties time to calm down.
I know some will not withdraw their comments but that’s their choice.
Melvyn
-
Craig:
In considering your answer would it be appropriate to say that someone who uses a fork to eat is eating with his hands? ;)
Do you realize, Craig, that just before or just during the teens Albert Einenstein essentially changed the world and that at first he did it all via his Special Theory of Relativity entirely in his head?
Is the 19th century scientist any more virtuous than the 21st century scientist who solves problems with the aid of a computer? Does the 21st century scientist love the science any less because they are able to apply it easier?
The science isn't about the equation or math. It's about the application of the math.
-
Hey Melvyn-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Old and Young Tom used the internet to discuss golf. So if we were to be true "pure" golfers, maybe we should log off?
-
Clint:
Is the 19th century scientist any less virtuous or love science less than the the 21st century scientist? I have absolutely zero idea.
Belay that, it's not that accurate and the formula has almost no elegance. Raise that zero to a power of 11 and it would probably be more accurate and certainly more elegant, and very likely more virtuous and lovable too.
As for the truth of some of this scientific stuff all I can tell you is my world-class mathematical genius cousin tells me string theory is no more than mental masturbation and makes about as much sense as most of Pat Mucci's posts.
Pat Craig:
Correct you if you're wrong?
Ok, you're corrected!
If we have Old Tom on video-tape playing the ultra-distance Titleist NXT I think there is every reason to believe that Old Tom used the Internet too.
-
Dave:
What you say there is all true but the Rules of Golf never made it a violation of the Rules for a golfer to know the distance of any of his shots, it was just that he couldn't use a mechanical device to do it during a round.
My father played a lot of good tournament golf beginning in the late '40s and '50s and on and it seems he knew the yardage of most all his shots. He didn't refer to yardages on sprinkler heads either, he did his own yardages during practice rounds or just walking the courses. When he died I found a couple of medium sizes boxes of seemingly a hundred or more little flip note books of the yardages from various points on all the holes of probably a hundred or more courses.
Unfortunately, I threw them all out. But the point is he knew his yardages and that was within the Rules.
-
After growing up with all things golf, either playing or caddying, I can spot distances within a few yards with my eye. I don't and never will use a rangefinder. However do I care one freaking bit if the guy I'm playing with using any artificial aid? Hell no.
Shivas- I understand your point about athletics and an athlete's reflexes. However Golf really isn't a reflex sport. What really sets it apart is that there is time and build up before execution. The thinking and calculating are what makes Golf, Golf. I don't think looking at a sprinkler head takes anything way from golf, mostly because even if you know exactly how far the shot is, it is still only half of the game.
Has anyone mentioned the difference between yardage on the courses in the US and Ireland/Scotland? There are so many different variables playing golf in the UK that knowing the distance to the flag really does you no good, so when there I have always played with more feel. However in the US and its more target style golf "playing by feel" is pointless and only makes the game harder. Maybe if Melvyn would come out of his land for a week trip to the US, try his fashion of game on the courses here and not use any sort of yardage.
TEPaul-
::)
-
Dave,
The proponents in your examples know their 'yardages'.
The QB tells the receiver to cut at a specific yardage, the BB player knows exactly where he is and how far from the rim that puts him when he turns to make his jumper, and in the case of the third baseman, he like all the other athletes in your examples, has practiced that move to death.
Even Ralph admits that the 19th century guys knew the few courses they played on as well as they knew the back of their hands, and that means they knew how far it what was to their targets and they chose clubs that corresponded to that distance. Plus, there is no ignoring the fact that everyone knew just how far away from the green they were on par 3 holes.
Melvyn and Ralph are right for the way they like to play golf, but that doesn't mean it's right for everyone else.
-
The third baseman must gauge the hop of the scalding grounder as it approaches him -- to avoid getting handcuffed.
He does not consult a physics or geometry primer.
While in the air, the basketball forward must instantaneously judge the distance of his turnaround jumper -- or he throws up an airball.
But he does not break out a tape measure.
The quarterback must throw his out patterns and post routes by gauging the timing and distance of his passes -- or else the pass gets picked off.
Yet, he does not whip out a rangefinder.
These are fundamental skills that determine the success or failure of the sporting endeavour.
Melvyn and Ralph are right.
Judging distance is a fundamental skill of the game. We have subverted a fundamental skill of the game with all the distance gauges we use. And the game is worse for it.
All those sports are played on field that have standardized sizes. If every golf course had identical length holes with the same architectural features, I'd suggest that nobody would have the use for distance aids at all.
That's all besides the point. The larger issue is that once you allow one type of distance guage, allow them all. There is no difference between a 150 yard post and a rangefinder. Either allow everything or ban every single one.
I will agree with those that say the game is much more romantic without distance aids. If I were to build a course with imaginary money, the Friar's Head model would be my pick. I don't mind using golf as a time warp, but won't begrudge those who do.
CPS
-
Guys,
Again, this is just semantics.
OT, YT, Willie Park, etc. knew all the distances of the courses they played if Ralph's comments are accurate because they only played a few courses. These guys did not need a sprinkler head because they had played the courses hundreds of times and knew what club to play depending on distance and conditions.
To say that OT would have used a range finder if he had been allowed is no more ridiculous than saying he would not. If these guys were competing then they would just as likely use technology as not if that was the status quo in competition.
I think this distance debate is the same as any equipment debate.
If the ruling bodies had made a decision to keep the playing field level by prohibiting the use of distance, prohibiting the use of metal woods, prohibiting the use of modern golf balls, etc. etc. then the game may have been better of, but it also may have attracted fewer participants because it is so difficult in those conditions.
I would have to agree with Tom, Ralph and Melvyn in terms of the deterioration of mental faculties on the course with the use of distance aids. However, many would probably argue that the game is difficult already and it does not violate the rules.
Chacon son gout - to each his own (even if you play cart golf . . . ;D )
-
I think I have another way to describe gutty golf, hopefully without ending up writing a small book.
In general, from 1850-1880 better players carried 4-7 clubs. Most were woods and only a couple were irons. A utility iron or two might have been included depending on the players preference. The use of irons as primary approaching and pitching clubs was developed during this time.
There were no graduated sets of irons. That didn't happen until the 20th century.
Putters were wood. Long approaches were done with woods. Shorter pitch "approaches" were done with either a wood or one of the early irons, possibly a Lofter (about 40 degrees) or an Iron (around 28 degrees). Pitching with a more lofted club wasn't done, and didn't need to be done by the majority of players. Tom Jr. is credited with developing the Niblick pitch sometime around 1870. That did become somewhat more popular towards the later part of the century. It really wasn't needed as a gutty ball would drop dead anyway. Until the 20th century when the rubber ball was developed, more lofted clubs weren't necessary except as utility clubs for extricating balls from very poor situations.
Nothing stated here is an absolute. There were no established standards with clubs and set make-up. Every decade from 1850-1900 was different, the game was changing rapidly.
The game was played like we putt, or at least the way I putt, look at the hole, FEEL the distance, swing away.
I know it's a huge jump for many to make, but they FELT the distance and swung the club to accomplish it. Most of these guys only used 1 or 2 clubs for all shots attempting to hit the green. No distance measurements except for what their eyes told them and what they felt.
Think of it in terms of playing a one club event.
-
Ralph..so you are saying they had no interests in knowing that the shot they "felt", and hit, was 20 paces? I find that a bit difficult to belief. A HUGE part of programing that "feel" in the brain comes form a curiosity of knowing the distance...using your eyes...sizing up the distance, and giving it your best 20 paces swing....
-
The third baseman must gauge the hop of the scalding grounder as it approaches him -- to avoid getting handcuffed.
He does not consult a physics or geometry primer.
While in the air, the basketball forward must instantaneously judge the distance of his turnaround jumper -- or he throws up an airball.
But he does not break out a tape measure.
The quarterback must throw his out patterns and post routes by gauging the timing and distance of his passes -- or else the pass gets picked off.
Yet, he does not whip out a rangefinder.
These are fundamental skills that determine the success or failure of the sporting endeavour.
Melvyn and Ralph are right.
Judging distance is a fundamental skill of the game. We have subverted a fundamental skill of the game with all the distance gauges we use. And the game is worse for it.
Of course Shivas is correct. All those that think knowing that a ball near a rock (or whatever) is a certain club in certain conditions is the same as whipping out a machine to measure the distance are in coo coo land. It takes experience to learn the landmarks and as we all know experience is an advantage in every endeavour. Why should it be reasonable for a man's experience on the playing field to be negated by someone else using aids? Why has this sort of thinking crept into the game and seen as reasonable? Furthermore, I don't think guys knew distances in the way we think of it. I think the old timers knew shots and which clubs were best to pull off those shots. The more the game, courses and conditions (read the US becoming much more influential in the game became standardized and codified the more distance became an issue in the sense of certain clubs going certain distances and folks needing to know distance. I don't blame US style of golf for this because I think this sort of thinking would have come sooner or later once guys were able to make a living week to week playing golf. It truly is a slippery slope from yardage on the tee to yardage markers to more modern aids. They are in essence all in one and the same. I would like to see them all eliminated not so much because of what I perceive as experience and the knowledge gained from that experience being negated (though it does irk me), but because I believe archies would then be fully able to practice their craft to the highest order. In essence, what these aids to is limit the effect of creative design and I can't understand why the amateur golfer with no pretensions of titles or fame would want creativity taken out of the playing fields.
Ciao
-
I think at last some of you are starting to understand that Golf is a challenge. It should not be made easy or overly hard but just a challenge
The Architect/Designer sets down the challenge in his design, his creativity is the starting point, how he utilises the contours and natural shape of the landscape gives that need to want to step up and accept the unknown. One reason why I love playing virgin (never previously played by me) courses. Most hazards are there to be seen but some traps are well hidden showing the Designer is skilled in catch out the over confident player time and again in his different approaches he may be forced to use.
The course also needs to convey harmony with its surrounding to attract me to even considering taking on the challenge in the first place. Golf is not meant to be easy, why the hell bother if it is easy, just what is the point? If you want easy stay at your home course for years and never try other courses.
As for knowing distance, because so many are so hooked on thinking distance at every turn they just can’t understand how others play without the need for this knowledge. Never wanting to take the easy route, many of us use the good old fashion ways of playing golf with our instincts, selecting the right club by just looking at the course as we approach the ball. I have never thought that its 160 yards so I will use X club, I know from my ability, I know my clubs and so choose accordingly. For me to know its 175 yards is meaningless and actually distracts me from my train of thought. 175 yards tells me nothing about the course, the weather or wind conditions which will have more influence on your shot than knowing its 175 yards. My eyes have already told me the distance and I have already chosen my club, why waste more time with additional meaningless information, but then that how I look at it, you of course may not.
But why is it so hard for some to accept that – pre WW2 golf has become fixated with this desire to eat, sleep and dream distance using markers, yardage books and now electronic aids. That everyone right back to the first golfer needs the exact distance to play. Is it due to some insecurity within individuals or has it become a lemming like reaction. Has the natural ability to choose your clubs by just using your eyes been lost or do some need the confirmation to know distance as the new status symbol – of keeping up with the Jones. Perhaps it is just a simple combination all with some little insecurity linked with the need to win thrown in for good measure.
Whatever it is that drives you to want to know the distance, please do not tarnish others with the same brush. I accept you don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, but perhaps it’s down to strength of character or maybe its just that some of use look at the game and accept it is a challenge. Only the individual golfer can actually answer that question.
To attract more to golf IMHO requires the game to be a challenge. Not to convey its bloody difficult and hard, nor easy as a ride in the part but it’s a challenge that can be repeated time after time and is also repeated every time he/she plays on different courses.
I suppose the best analogy is that of learning a new language. Whilst you think in your native tongue, you have to translate what is said to you in say English, work out your reply again in English then translate it into the spoken language. Yet those fully at home with the new language are able to think in it so respond instinctively without that split second double translation, perhaps that the difference between some of us, we just feel totally at easy with ourselves and our game so have no need for outside assistance. But golf is not there to be easy, if it was easy why play it in the first place. No Golf IMHO is all about The Challenge and it is way more interesting than yardage books etc.
Melvyn
PS I do not play the IF game of Golf, if Old Tom did this or If Old Tom did that, he did what he did and you are playing the result of some of his endeavours, so just enjoy it. – Don’t agree then that your right. But take the piss out of my long dead family you will rekindle a flame that you will not like. The dead cannot defend themselves and Old Tom for one does not deserve this type of treatment from those who profess to love the game. Don’t like what I say OK then be a man and come after me as only cowards hide behind the dead.
-
Sorry Sam, but I just did an Ancestry.com and a ship passenger manifest dot.com search on you and your Texas family. You sure as shootin' are related to Melvyn. His grandfather's cousin once removed married your grandmother.
You've got some explaining to do to Melvyn, Scotland, golf, golf architecture and golf maintenance and the memory of Old Tom. Carts are a good place for you to begin the explaining Cowboy. Cuz iffin' you don't then that old adage that you can never go home again will turn out to be true!
Wow, what a small world! Which grandmother did he marry I wonder, the one from East Texas who considered Bonnie and Clyde the greatest Americans of the 20th century or my Jewish grandmother from Philly who worked in a sweatshop!
-
Sam
I don’t have either of those lines in my family tree. It must be further back, but once a Morrow always a Morrow, and lets not forget we can trace our name back to the Bible in which it is mentioned on many occasions i.e. ‘On the Morrow’. How many can go that far back ;)
We must excuse these guys because they do not know what they are really saying. ::)
Melvyn
PS Will e-mail you a half complete Family tree to see if any connections
-
Sam
I don’t have either of those lines in my family tree. It must be further back, but once a Morrow always a Morrow, and lets not forget we can trace our name back to the Bible in which it is mentioned on many occasions i.e. ‘On the Morrow’. How many can go that far back ;)
We must excuse these guys because they do not know what they are really saying. ::)
Melvyn
PS Will e-mail you a half complete Family tree to see if any connections
So true Melvyn! Sadly my side of the family tree doesn't fork, I have a cousin with 13 toes. :o
-
I disagree in principle with Shiv's analogy. I see this more as an issue of information, which players in every sport get.
In golf, before taking a shot they assess yardage, wind, weather, etc....but they still have to make the muscluar movements to swing the club for the shot whether it be a low cut, high draw, etc, etc.
In football, before running a down, a play is called in both offensivly and defensivly. Assigments, are made, QBs and Linebackers make thier reads, receivers eye the defensive package, etc. Then when the ball is snapped they do the physical part.
In baseball, both pitcher and batter are given instructions. What pitch to throw, what pitch to look for, make a pitchout, lay down a bunt, etc, etc. All that is left is to execute whats they practiced again and again and again.
In Basketball, same thing. They run set plays dictated by the coach...they have thier man coverage assignments, floor formation, whose going to take the shot, defensive schemes, etc. All that is left is running the plays.
All of these sports have thier equivilant "pre-shot" routines just like golf. The prepration part is the same, the execution part is the same. But in the end, the player must still make the swing and execute the shot. Someone like me can have the best caddy in the world, all the finest equipment, the most capable swing coach, and the best information. Yet it won't make one bit of difference...because i'm still the one has to make the swing in the end. I'm the one who has to have the fine muscle movement to get the club in perfect position, keep the elbow tucked, keep the swing on plane, keep the body parts working in unison, make crisp contact, keep my head down, and hit the ball. Just like the QB still must make the throw, the batter swing the bat, and the point guard make the pass.
So no, I disagree that information gathering only happens in golf...
-
Shiv,
I disagree with your inference that there is no judgement left in golf. Last I checked they still must judge...
- Wind
- Course firmness
- Lies in bunkers
- Green speed
- How much a ball will release
- If it will jump from the rough
- If the ball will check up on a chip
- Influence of temp on shot distance
etc, etc, etc.
Golf is full of these judgement calls or "estimations" to use your words. If anything in Basketball, Football, and Baseball there are far less variables to be factored in when making plays.
-
I didn't say that.
I said that the fundamental skill of estimating distance has been eviscerated.
And, in fact, it has. Completely, in fact.
And you're wrong about other sports having fewer variables because they have this little thing called defense, which provides an infinite number of variables.
My point about the other sports is that estimation of the distance to a target is fundamental to the notion of sport - and that golf is the outlier in this regard.
I still disagree Shiv,
In basketball, players know the rim is 10 feet high, the foul line is 15 feet, the top of the key is 21 feet, 3 point line is 23-25 feet. And they have practiced enough where they know within 12 inches of how far they are to the basket at any point on the floor.
In baseball, they know the pitcher is 60'6" away, 1st base is 90 feet away, how far the throw is to 1st, and the distance to the fences is printed on the wall for pets sake.
In football, they know what yard line they are on, how far to go for a 1st down, when they need to make thier cut on a 5 yard slant, where the line of scrimmage is etc, etc.
-
Hey Pat Craig, your post #81 is a good one particularly the part about different yardages/different courses etc.
This is an old one told on here before but in case you've never heard it here it is again:
Raymond Flyod and his old longtime caddie, Golfball, are looking at the second shot on the first hole at a tour tournament.
Raymond says: "What've I got Golfball?"
Golfball says: "It's 185 yards Ray, it's your 5 iron."
Raymond takes out his 5 iron puts a good swing on it and flies the green by about 40 yards.
Raymond turns to Golfball and says; "What in the hell was that Golfball?"
Golfball says: "You've got me Ray, it says right here it's 185 yards from here on the first hole at Memphis."
Ray says: "Golfball, for Chriiist Sakes, Memphis was last week, we're in Houston this week."
-
"Tom, I know it's all within the Rules, but don't you think the game would be a better game if the guys who write the Rules had just banned it all in the first place?"
Dave:
Had just banned IT all in the first place? Banned all of WHAT in the first place?
-
The thinking and calculating are what makes Golf, Golf. I don't think looking at a sprinkler head takes anything way from golf, mostly because even if you know exactly how far the shot is, it is still only half of the game.
Pat, do you realize how utterly innane what you just said is?
For a guy who professes to know all things golf from your extensive lifetime in the game ;) , it's pretty amazing that you're willing to throw "half of the game" into the refuse recepticle so thoughtlessly.
Shivas-
If it wasn't half the game we would all still be walking around with three clubs whacking the hell out of the ball in every direction. Quite frankly if you were playing with 14 clubs and no yardages you would be a complete hypocrite because yardage calculation is the reason people carry so many clubs in the first place.
Of course it is half the game, yardage is just part of the greater strategy of the game.
Playing with no yardages, either at St. Andrews or Butler National, does a great disservice to the golf course architecture. I could play 18 holes at the Old Course with just a 7 iron, but I really wouldn't be playing the golf course.
Let me remind everyone that I don't use a rangefinder, but I hardly think looking at a 150 yard post in the fairway or knowing the yardage on the tee is ruining the game of golf.
-
Well, I'm convinced! That's it!! The game has been ruined!!!
I'm not going to play golf any longer....
My clubs have ruined the game...those damn yardage markers have ruined the game....my golf ball goes too far and has ruined the game....and every where I look I see beer drinking, cigar smoking golfers riding around in carts, and they have ruined the game...and my $400 high tech rain suit, designed to protect me from the elements, has ruined the game....
Maybe someday I'll buy three or four wood shafted clubs and find some old nerf balls and play again...but I doubt it. It's over...ruined!
-
I didn't say that.
I said that the fundamental skill of estimating distance has been eviscerated.
And, in fact, it has. Completely, in fact.
And you're wrong about other sports having fewer variables because they have this little thing called defense, which provides an infinite number of variables.
My point about the other sports is that estimation of the distance to a target is fundamental to the notion of sport - and that golf is the outlier in this regard.
I still disagree Shiv,
In basketball, players know the rim is 10 feet high, the foul line is 15 feet, the top of the key is 21 feet, 3 point line is 23-25 feet. And they have practiced enough where they know within 12 inches of how far they are to the basket at any point on the floor.
In baseball, they know the pitcher is 60'6" away, 1st base is 90 feet away, how far the throw is to 1st, and the distance to the fences is printed on the wall for pets sake.
In football, they know what yard line they are on, how far to go for a 1st down, when they need to make thier cut on a 5 yard slant, where the line of scrimmage is etc, etc.
Exactly. There is a reason the right fielder runs out to the exact same spot every time without needing a distance guage.....because they've done it thousands of times on identical fields.
-
Craig Sweet:
I love your post #104! I really do. It does seem sometimes like there are so many naysayers and doomsdayist about golf on here that it might become a self-fulling prophecy, doesn't it? ;)
-
Bob
Getting back to your original post, Old Tom was in fact the (or at least "a") Standard Bearer for Range-Finders as to my knowledge he allowed yardages to be placed on the cards of every course he designed. In doing so, he gave exact yardages to a centrally placed pin for every hole, including short holes, where such information was tantamount to giving every player a clue as to what club to hit, assuming normal conditions.
This just started the slippery slope which later included: 150-yard bushes; caddies with paced out course guides; markings on sprinkler heads; laser measurement and GPS-aided devices.
As to what Old Tom might or might not have thought about today's game, we are all just speculating, and as this is so, the getting of knickers into twists which is occuring on this thread is particularly unseemly.
Rich
-
Has it been proven in a statistically significant manner that distance estimation beyond a certain point is a skill and not just luck?
-
The argument that most players don't need to know the yardage 'cause they can't hit to it anyway has made frequent appearances on this site. What's the worry?
Through all of golf's evolutionary changes the conversation between the player and the course still remains the same, after 400 +- years.
-
Has it been proven in a statistically significant manner that distance estimation beyond a certain point is a skill and not just luck?
No. It hasn't.
-
Dave - too bad it's on this thread, cause it may get lost, because I think this your latest set of analogies/examples of why judgement is a fundamental part of the game is the most appealing of all, and to me very convincing, especially as I'd never thought of it before. I get an image of why someone like Joe Montana was a great quarterback despite lacking a gun for an arm -- his ability to perfectly and consistently time Rice's crossing routes...it's like a golfer being a terrific wind player.
Peter
-
Kyle: That's because people don't bother to prove the obvious. Are you honestly suggesting that if you take Golfer A and Golfer B to a variety of places on a golf course and ask them "how far to this?" and "how far to that?", and A is consnstently better than B, that's it's luck?
C'mon, man, that's beyond belief, and certainly beyond the waste of time required to study and prove it false.
Congratulations David, you've proven a coin flip.
The fact is, and this HAS been studied is that people can't deal with number much outside the first combination of simple primes - 2 and 3. Think of the orientation of dots on a die.
2x3 = 6. People can look at those dots and think six. Get much more outside of that and it's 1-6 in various combinations. A 3x3 square is not seen as a discrete "9" but instead as three 3s, for example.
On the golf course, the only standardized size is the cup and for the most part, the flagstick, be it 7 feet or 5 feet. We can easily estimate a 3 foot putt, and even up to 10 feet based on the size of the flagstick and relational. Get outside that, and the distance estimation becomes more and more varied until it's statistically insignificant.
As for your baseball and basketball analogies. Again, we are given discrete distances by which to gauge distance. The bases are 90 feet apart and most humans are able to double and triple that distance to gauge something up to 270 feet. We are then given the confines of the outfield as an outer limit. Same goes for Basketball... do you think that announcers constantly mentioning 17 foot shots are using the floor markings or their own skill at estimation.
Humans are wired to be able to divide and conquer given and upper and lower limit. And they'll divide into the fundamental primes: 1, 2 and 3.
This is the artilleryman's dilemma, and you better believe those guys were using math, calculation and distance gauging equipment back in the 18th century.
Familiarity with a golf course allows us to construct upper and lower bounds for distance gauging, but it's not a skill so much as rote memorization.
Stick the same golfers in an empty field and ask them to gauge distances and you'll see.
-
IDEA:
At the Kingsley event this summer, let's do an informal, non-scientific study. Using 30-50 GCA.com players, we'll play the first round using zero yardage info, to the extent possible. No pacing off...nothing. The second round we'll play using all the gadgets known to man. Then, we'll compare:
1) Enjoyment of the round
2)Pace of play
3)Scores
Then, we'll drink and fight about the results afterward.
Joe
-
Kyle: That's because people don't bother to prove the obvious. Are you honestly suggesting that if you take Golfer A and Golfer B to a variety of places on a golf course and ask them "how far to this?" and "how far to that?", and A is consnstently better than B, that's it's luck?
C'mon, man, that's beyond belief, and certainly beyond the waste of time required to study and prove it false.
Congratulations David, you've proven a coin flip.
The fact is, and this HAS been studied is that people can't deal with number much outside the first combination of simple primes - 2 and 3. Think of the orientation of dots on a die.
2x3 = 6. People can look at those dots and think six. Get much more outside of that and it's 1-6 in various combinations. A 3x3 square is not seen as a discrete "9" but instead as three 3s, for example.
On the golf course, the only standardized size is the cup and for the most part, the flagstick, be it 7 feet or 5 feet. We can easily estimate a 3 foot putt, and even up to 10 feet based on the size of the flagstick and relational. Get outside that, and the distance estimation becomes more and more varied until it's statistically insignificant.
As for your baseball and basketball analogies. Again, we are given discrete distances by which to gauge distance. The bases are 90 feet apart and most humans are able to double and triple that distance to gauge something up to 270 feet. We are then given the confines of the outfield as an outer limit. Same goes for Basketball... do you think that announcers constantly mentioning 17 foot shots are using the floor markings or their own skill at estimation.
Humans are wired to be able to divide and conquer given and upper and lower limit. And they'll divide into the fundamental primes: 1, 2 and 3.
This is the artilleryman's dilemma, and you better believe those guys were using math, calculation and distance gauging equipment back in the 18th century.
Familiarity with a golf course allows us to construct upper and lower bounds for distance gauging, but it's not a skill so much as rote memorization.
Stick the same golfers in an empty field and ask them to gauge distances and you'll see.
Kyle, what are you smoking my good man?
What does any of this have to do with the skill of gauging distance? If you really think it's luck, I take it you also think green reading is all luck, too?
Burn that Strawman right now.
Green reading is explicitly within the bounds I explained above. Too bad you slept through your psych and stat courses in undergrad on your way to Law School. ;-)
-
Shivas-
If it wasn't half the game we would all still be walking around with three clubs whacking the hell out of the ball in every direction. Quite frankly if you were playing with 14 clubs and no yardages you would be a complete hypocrite because yardage calculation is the reason people carry so many clubs in the first place.
Of course it is half the game, yardage is just part of the greater strategy of the game.
Playing with no yardages, either at St. Andrews or Butler National, does a great disservice to the golf course architecture. I could play 18 holes at the Old Course with just a 7 iron, but I really wouldn't be playing the golf course.
Let me remind everyone that I don't use a rangefinder, but I hardly think looking at a 150 yard post in the fairway or knowing the yardage on the tee is ruining the game of golf.
You still don't realize how innane what you're saying is, do you?
No.
You acknowledge that having the correct distance is half the game. Yet you want that half of the game to a non-skill. So what is that half of the game once you take the skill out of it? I'll tell you: it's no longer part of the game.
As I stated STRATEGY is half of the game, the other half would be the actual physical hitting of the golf ball, yardage is just one part of strategy, not all 50%.
As to this ridiculous notion that 14 clubs is related to distance, are you aware that players were carrying 20 and 30 clubs WELL BEFORE people started marking yardage on golf courses? Yes, that's correct. People were carrying tons of clubs for reasons that had nothing to do with distance.
You didn't know that, did you? I doubt it or you couldn't have made that comment.
Yes Shivas I did know that golfers once used bags full of clubs for specific reasons, one of the reasons they carried so many clubs was DISTANCE difference. It's hard to imagine that no golfer on a links course in the land of wonderment never decided to take a little extra club because he noticed he didn't hit it far enough off the tee to reach a specific landmark.
Also, while you're looking up the history of the 14 club limit, you might want to look up what hypocrisy means. There is no way carrying 14 clubs is hypocritical unless that person has either criticized doing so or espoused carrying fewer.
It is hypocritical because the more clubs you carry in your bag the more standardized your swing becomes and the less you "feel" a golf shot. If I decided to go play any course with just a 7-iron and no yardage (which I have) I would play shots with different swings for different results. However the more clubs you carry the more it allows a player to use almost the same default swing to hit the ball longer or shorter yardage. Do you understand my arguement? If you were to play blind of yardages why in the hell do you need 14 clubs?
And where do you get this silly example of playing TOC or Butler with one club if yardage markers disappeared? Please explain where that came from.
Playing St. Andrews (random links course) and Butler (random parkland course) with no yardage markers would be vastly different because of their specific environments. Due to the wind, firm soil, ran, etc yardage means far less. If someone tells you its 187 yards to X grean on The Old Course in a rain storm what would that mean? Nothing, you would need to create and feel a shot. However if someone told you it was 187 yards on a soft parkland course it would be a safe bet that you would want to hit a 187 yard shot. In short the same club changes with your environment.
Pat, you're young. You've probably never played a course where there is simply no access to distance knowledge (and if you did, I take it you played SFGC with only your 7 iron!) ;) ...
I have, and no I didn't play it with just a seven iron. The fact that I'm "young" hardly means I haven't seen many different golf courses.
Let me tell you, it's a much different and better game when you have to use your own distance estimation skills to pull a club. It's a far better game and the guy who knows what he's doing has a gigantic advantage.
For the last time, I 10000000000% agree with you, however you and raplh and melvyn don't understand that knowing a yardage doesn't ruin the game. You can tell me 100 times that a hole is 143 yard but unless it is dead flat, soft, and no wind, I am not going to actually play the shot 143 yards. Once again yardage is only a small part of the strategy of the game. Again I never have and never will have a yardage gun, and I use my eyes to gauge distance most of the time, however if I have never played a course I'm not going to stand there looking at a green trying to guess the distance, that is freaking crazy...just walk twenty feet and get a yardage to give you an idea!!!
And let me tell you this, also: you've got the relation to architecture 180 degrees backwards. When you have no yardage markers, things like false fronts and horizon greens and raised bunker lips disguising greens and other optical illusions mean something and the architect can use them to fool you. But whether you're zapping a rangefinder or checking a sprinklerhead and a pin sheet, the connection to the architecture is actually disconnected, and becomes less relevant, if not irrelevant, in terms of distance-related club choice. So basically, you've got it backwards, grasshopper... ;)
I 90* dissagree ;D because while I agree you may be fooled by false fronts and the such, even if you know the exact yardage, there is far more strategy to a golf shot, would you not agree? Don't you still need to actually hit a golf ball??
Finally, I don't fault you for looking at the game from only one perspective, but what you need to realize is that people played this game in a very different manner for centuries before some dope decided marking up their golf courses like football fields. And if you tried it (which, BTW, his hard to do because yardage marking litter is everywhere and unavoidable!), you'd know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, you have to go to SFGC or Friars Head, not to mention telling your caddy to stifel himself, to do so...
Once again I have played golf w/o any sort of yardage and I don't have nearly as much trouble doing it as others. It really isn't that hard on courses you have already played, because you generally know what clubs you hit from the tees. Remember that most of the time I play golf now (and get out of work) I'm trying to get in as many holes as possible, so I really don't care what the yardage is because I just like hitting golf shots.
I'm on the side of not using all that much yardage...in fact I HATE rangefinders, but perhaps I don't understand how someone can be so freaking against it.
-
IDEA:
At the Kingsley event this summer, let's do an informal, non-scientific study. Using 30-50 GCA.com players, we'll play the first round using zero yardage info, to the extent possible. No pacing off...nothing. The second round we'll play using all the gadgets known to man. Then, we'll compare:
1) Enjoyment of the round
2)Pace of play
3)Scores
Then, we'll drink and fight about the results afterward.
Joe
Joe, it'll never work. Everybody will cheat. They're so hooked on having yardage handed to them on a silver platter, they'd go into convulsions having to play pure eyeball golf. I'll bet you 90%+ of this board simply cannot play 18 holes without searching for their their yardage fix at least once or twice in a round no matter how hard they try not to.
I bet half the group has seizure's in the first fairway...
-
Ralph..so you are saying they had no interests in knowing that the shot they "felt", and hit, was 20 paces? I find that a bit difficult to belief. A HUGE part of programing that "feel" in the brain comes form a curiosity of knowing the distance...using your eyes...sizing up the distance, and giving it your best 20 paces swing....
Do you feel the need to pace off all your putts? I assume you putt by feel...
Why is it such a giant leap to understand that people played all their shots by feel?
-
Ralph..so you are saying they had no interests in knowing that the shot they "felt", and hit, was 20 paces? I find that a bit difficult to belief. A HUGE part of programing that "feel" in the brain comes form a curiosity of knowing the distance...using your eyes...sizing up the distance, and giving it your best 20 paces swing....
Do you feel the need to pace off all your putts? I assume you putt by feel...
Why is it such a giant leap to understand that people played all their shots by feel?
Because they didn't???? :-\
-
Ralph..so you are saying they had no interests in knowing that the shot they "felt", and hit, was 20 paces? I find that a bit difficult to belief. A HUGE part of programing that "feel" in the brain comes form a curiosity of knowing the distance...using your eyes...sizing up the distance, and giving it your best 20 paces swing....
Do you feel the need to pace off all your putts? I assume you putt by feel...
Why is it such a giant leap to understand that people played all their shots by feel?
Because they didn't???? :-\
I don't even know how to answer that.
??Pig headed belief??
-
Ralph..so you are saying they had no interests in knowing that the shot they "felt", and hit, was 20 paces? I find that a bit difficult to belief. A HUGE part of programing that "feel" in the brain comes form a curiosity of knowing the distance...using your eyes...sizing up the distance, and giving it your best 20 paces swing....
Do you feel the need to pace off all your putts? I assume you putt by feel...
Why is it such a giant leap to understand that people played all their shots by feel?
Because they didn't???? :-\
I don't even know how to answer that.
??Pig headed belief??
You're right...the idea that golfers of yore played every single shot by feel is 100% a "pig headed" belief.
-
Ralph,
You've said this about 'feel' and I don't doubt it, but, you also said that much of the golf played in 'those' days was limited to a few courses and that the players got very familiar with the courses. So, for them familiarity was their yardage aid.
That way of playing still occurs today and I probably am not the only person here who can give you examples(in my case, quite a few) of guys who know their home course and a few others like the back of their hand, negating the need for help with yardage just as in OT's era.
Range finders or other yardage aids might take the guesswork out of the figuring, but that's not much different than learning a course over time. Actually, they're really just little hand held time machines for players of this very mobile era.
-
Ralph,
You've said this about 'feel' and I don't doubt it, but, you also said that much of the golf played in 'those' days was limited to a few courses and that the players got very familiar with the courses. So, for them familiarity was their yardage aid.
That way of playing still occurs today and I probably am not the only person here who can give you examples(in my case, quite a few) of guys who know their home course and a few others like the back of their hand, negating the need for help with yardage just as in OT's era.
Range finders or other yardage aids might take the guesswork out of the figuring, but that's not much different than learning a course over time. Actually, they're really just little hand held time machines for players of this very mobile era.
You are making poor assumptions.
Without a number of you guys reading, and comprehending, a few books from pre-1900 (even pre-1930) I am just beating my head against the wall. There are no real parallels between golf in the 19th and the 21st centuries. You continue to impress concepts developed in the last half decade on golf 150 years ago. The most written about game of all time and this is all you guys think there is to the game. Open your minds, you might learn something.
I guess I am done, I don't know how to explain it to you.
-
The thing that Dave, Melvyn and a number of other people on this thread are neglecting is that the concept of the human ability to calculate and measure distance accurately has been studied for as long as projectile weapons have been used in warfare, such usage predates golf by over 1000 years. Artillery has long used trigonometry and outside measuring aides to determine the distance and necessary trajectory for a shot. If it were able to be done without, you better believe that the military would have trained and used that skill as the enemy is not going to kindly sit around while someone measures a distance.
The fact of the matter is that what we confuse for an innate skill in determining distance is actually a product of rote memorization. Binocular vision and our height limits our ability to calculate distances beyond 30 yards or so, even on a golf course. In fact, the less visual clues their are, the more inaccurate we are. We NEED things to help us determine distances. No wonder it is easier for us to use *skill* on the short game than the long game because those distances are hardwired for us. Golf is the only game where the scale is taken beyond the ability of our brains to come up with the distance without other cues. Any scientifically sound experiment will show this, especially as compared to those claiming to possess such "skill."
A golfer's so-called ability to calculate distance is very much based in experience and memorization and is not a skill transferable from golf course to golf course.
-
OK, raise your hand if this is one of your assumptions:
"The ball will come to rest somewhere reasonably close to where it lands"
and then ask yourself if that was the normal expectation 100 or more years ago.
Just thinking out loud....
-
Ralph
I thought my last post was mostly in agreement with what YOU wrote earlier:
I know it's a huge jump for many to make, but they FELT the distance and swung the club to accomplish it.
These guys played on courses they were familiar with. It might be best described as home-home matches. There weren't that many courses then (1830-1880). And the matches typically were played across multiple courses, not on a single course
Of course they knew the distances, these were their courses. If your state only had 5-6 courses and you played weekly matches over them, don't you think you would come to know them fairly well?
..but I guess you are stuck where you are, and as you seem to think I am stuck where I am, we're done.
-
Sundance: You just keep thinking, Butch. That's what you're good at.
Butch: Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals.
Peter
-
Kyle's above response makes a lot of sense. 3D stereovision is created by visual parallax...light rays coming from more than 20 ft away are mostly parallel and, therefore, don't create much, if any, parallax. Distance judgement of far away objects would then be reliant only on "monocular clues" which are very inexact. Looking at objects in the distance in an unfamiliar setting would certainly not allow for consistent precise distance estimation, no matter one's talent for it.
Bart
-
As well as the distance guage we need wind speed and direction measurements, air pressure, humidity and temperature. The GPS mounted on our head can compute the topography of our lie.
With our personalised swing weight, morphology and the courses characteristics and pin positions already programmed into the on-board computer our caddy car can read out exactly which club and which direction, we should play.
In fact the computer depending on our score and handicap can suggest a strategy of play.
Our computer caddy reads out.
“This is your caddy speaking - the next shot is 135yard 2 feet and 3 inches to the hole. Taking into account topographic and climatic conditions I suggest a layup with a sand wedge gripped down with a 3/4 swing at 12.5 degrees to the right of the line to the flag.
I cannot be held responsible for any mishits or damage to any property or persons, you must look for your own balls - this advice has just cost you $1.75 your credit is $12.50”. ::)
-
For anyone arguing that even a "sense" of distance is something that 19th century golfers did not use, because they were 100% feel - c'mon!!!
Any shot you ever take on the golf golf takes into account the myriad of factors that have been brought up repeatedly. Distance IS one of them.
Whether you know a shot is 147 yards or not your brain is certainly using distance as one factor of how you feel the shot.
Whether you have 3 clubs or 20 clubs you factor in distance plus a bunch of other factors into a shot.
We can debate whether knowing distance is good/bad for the game, but it seems ridiculous to debate whether or not knowing or judging distance is important.
It is.
That is why, if you ever play a course without distance info (which I have done and actually find quite enjoyable), you will get better with time as you build experience and a "distance" database (along with a myriad of other factors database).
I would welcome the opp to play in competition on a new course where nobody knew distance for any of the rounds, never mind just the first. I think it brings an entirely different skillset into the equation. I would also imagine that everyones score would improve over 4 rounds - whether that was Melvyn, Tom, Ralph, Kyle, or anyone else - because the experience database would grow and knowing the actual yardage would become less important.
-
OK, raise your hand if this is one of your assumptions:
"The ball will come to rest somewhere reasonably close to where it lands"
and then ask yourself if that was the normal expectation 100 or more years ago.
Just thinking out loud....
Joe
This is exactly why I don't buy that knowing distance back in the day was anything like as important as today. It would seem that many folks don't seem able to place themselves back in time to get a real flavour of golf was like. This is why I think Ralph is saying that folks need to hit old balls and clubs on old courses - then a taste of the game will truly be apparent. Those guys knew shots, not yardages.
Ciao
-
Sean...
I think you are assuming that the modern golfer does not know shots...only yardage. Today's golfer knows how far he hits a certain club...just as a golfer did 150 years ago....knowing how far to hit the ball is the essence of hitting shots...how that distance is derived, measured, whatever is, is totally beside the point.
-
Sean...
I think you are assuming that the modern golfer does not know shots...only yardage. Today's golfer knows how far he hits a certain club...just as a golfer did 150 years ago....knowing how far to hit the ball is the essence of hitting shots...how that distance is derived, measured, whatever is, is totally beside the point.
Craig
Stick me on a course which is properly firm and I can't tell how far my pitching wedge will go let alone a driver. I am apt to bounce a an 8 iron 100 yards if I can rather than throw a wedge in the air. This is the reason angles and f&f go like a hand in a glove. One without the other is largely pointless. As I said before, distance became paramount once courses became codified and standardized in terms of maintenance and yardage. You need to place yourself back in the day to get any perspective on the matter. This is why I say through experience the ODGs learned shots, the yardage didn't matter nearly as much as giving oneself a play. I don't know how this isn't apparent to anyone who has played in firm conditions. Perhaps you are confusing the issue with knowing how far one carries the ball with a certain club rather than knowing a fairly precise yardage for how far a ball goes with that same club. I recall reading that Vardon struggled like mad on a few courses during his 1900 tour of the US because courses were wetter than he was used to and he kept coming up short with approaches.
Ciao
-
The third baseman must gauge the hop of the scalding grounder as it approaches him -- to avoid getting handcuffed.
He does not consult a physics or geometry primer.
While in the air, the basketball forward must instantaneously judge the distance of his turnaround jumper -- or he throws up an airball.
But he does not break out a tape measure.
The quarterback must throw his out patterns and post routes by gauging the timing and distance of his passes -- or else the pass gets picked off.
Yet, he does not whip out a rangefinder.
These are fundamental skills that determine the success or failure of the sporting endeavour.
Melvyn and Ralph are right.
Judging distance is a fundamental skill of the game. We have subverted a fundamental skill of the game with all the distance gauges we use. And the game is worse for it.
All those sports are played on field that have standardized sizes. If every golf course had identical length holes with the same architectural features, I'd suggest that nobody would have the use for distance aids at all.
That's all besides the point. The larger issue is that once you allow one type of distance guage, allow them all. There is no difference between a 150 yard post and a rangefinder. Either allow everything or ban every single one.
I will agree with those that say the game is much more romantic without distance aids. If I were to build a course with imaginary money, the Friar's Head model would be my pick. I don't mind using golf as a time warp, but won't begrudge those who do.
CPS
yes, compare it to your own experiences on courses. On my home course, I know when I get to a certain position on a hole it is a '5 iron shot', or whatever. Through experience and hundreds of rounds on the same course, i know what needs to be hit from where, all other atmospheric conditions being equal. This is much like the athlete pulling up for a 15 ft. jumper or whatever, you know what type of shot you are taking based on where you are on the court.
But on a new-to-me course, a shot might look like a 5 iron shot but actually be deceiving due to architectural features or other unknown factors. Until I play the hole a few times I need to know what yardage I am playing from, at least within +/- 10 yards, which course markings more than amply provide.
-
The skill of visually estimating distances is a heck of a lot easier to master then the ability to hit a golf that exact distance time and time again.
-
Sean...
So distance will not figure into your shot at all?
-
Sean...
I am not confusing any issue...firm or slow it does not matter, what club used does not matter....at some point I have to figure out where I want the ball to land so it comes to rest where I want it to...hopefully closer to the hole.
What part of figuring out what that distance is is not "measuring" distance? You don't need a range finder or a sprinkler head, to calculate how you will hit the shot to make the ball travel the "distance" you think it should travel to give you the desired result.
-
John
I understand you position on a well know course and experience on new, un-played before courses. However, I just need to look and observe then decide my club, no input is wanted or needed re yardage information. I still look at golf as a challenge so I want to step up to the mark, yardage is just not in my mind at all as I trust in myself. Of course I get it wrong, from a poor shoot, not taking into account the course, conditions, weather, state of fairways and greens, etc but is that not part of the game and its challenges?
The point is that while you and many others are in need of this information many of us believe it is part of the game and challenge of golf to decide for ourselves what club we use and play the shot accordingly.
Is it skill or just call it an eye for the game. That which comes naturally is why I have played golf.
Tell me, if I called out different yardage on say ten times will your ball each time come to rest on or within a few inches of that spot or will you pepper the area. Then of course let’s not forget on a new course you may not notice the lay or conditions of the Greens – does this not also have a bearing on how your ball reacts? In other words can you honestly tell me that the majority of times with your yardage information you can hit the sweet spot time after time?
Who is having the most fun? I don’t know but I am certainly playing golf by using my eyes, body and senses thus achieving some feeling of inner satisfaction. Again a good enough reason for playing it in the first place. Also this is how the game was taught to me, noting I have a long line of golfers in my family.
Can’t get your mind around not using yardage, then don’t bother clearly its not your way of playing golf. If you feel you or your game needs some help, if it’s legal and available it’s down to you to use it or not. I, like many do not think in yardage so see no need for it so don’t use it. My mind is on getting that ball in the hole - the ground you have to cover to do that is just ground - distance is all in the mind (for some).
The point is that if we don’t need it why do you. There must be a reason, but that you business.
Yardage has no validity in my game, but it does perhaps in yours and others.
Melvyn
-
Correctomundo, Craig
Fast and firm has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, and even if it did, there is little evidence that golf courses were faster and firmer in ye olden days--in fact, the opposite was probably true.
Rich
-
John
I understand you position on a well know course and experience on new, un-played before courses. However, I just need to look and observe then decide my club, no input is wanted or needed re yardage information. I still look at golf as a challenge so I want to step up to the mark, yardage is just not in my mind at all as I trust in myself. Of course I get it wrong, from a poor shoot, not taking into account the course, conditions, weather, state of fairways and greens, etc but is that not part of the game and its challenges?
The point is that while you and many others are in need of this information many of us believe it is part of the game and challenge of golf to decide for ourselves what club we use and play the shot accordingly.
Is it skill or just call it an eye for the game. That which comes naturally is why I have played golf.
Tell me, if I called out different yardage on say ten times will your ball each time come to rest on or within a few inches of that spot or will you pepper the area. Then of course let’s not forget on a new course you may not notice the lay or conditions of the Greens – does this not also have a bearing on how your ball reacts? In other words can you honestly tell me that the majority of times with your yardage information you can hit the sweet spot time after time?
Who is having the most fun? I don’t know but I am certainly playing golf by using my eyes, body and senses thus achieving some feeling of inner satisfaction. Again a good enough reason for playing it in the first place. Also this is how the game was taught to me, noting I have a long line of golfers in my family.
Can’t get your mind around not using yardage, then don’t bother clearly its not your way of playing golf. If you feel you or your game needs some help, if it’s legal and available it’s down to you to use it or not. I, like many do not think in yardage so see no need for it so don’t use it. My mind is on getting that ball in the hole - the ground you have to cover to do that is just ground - distance is all in the mind (for some).
The point is that if we don’t need it why do you. There must be a reason, but that you business.
Yardage has no validity in my game, but it does perhaps in yours and others.
Melvyn
Yardage adds a general validity to my game. I don't seem to be able to perceive differences in yardage very well outside of say 100 or so yards. Frankly, 160 and 180 look the same to me.
Now granted, I am probably not accurate from there to within +/- 10 yards even on my best days, but it is helpful to know that if I am 160 out I am using my 5 iron and 180 my hybrid. Granted I might still skull it 130, and knowing I am 153 or 157 out makes me no difference as I am not that accurate, but it does help plus or minus 10 or 20 yards.
-
Dave,
You have every right to see yourself as playing the 'Cliff's Notes' version of the game, but the real 'pig-headed' belief that's been expressed here is that your 'vision' (one expressed by a couple others) is somehow superior to those held by others.
It's an exercise in egotistical and arrogant nonsense
-
Sean...
So distance will not figure into your shot at all?
I never said anything like distance wasn't important. Of course hitting the ball the right distance is and was important. The question is how does one ascertain what the right distance is? This would include the flight and the roll - which imo takes a lot of skill to judge accurately. With aerial and yardage dominated game of today golfers just look up the yardage and pick their club to match the yardage. They are not often required to figure out how that distance is effected by the roll. In the old days, golfers had to read the land and come up with a distance which included the effect of the roll or even if there would be an effect. So from this PoV f&f conditions make a huge difference on the ascertaining distance because much of that distance is achieved after the ball lands. The advent of consistent playing conditions as fed directly into the aerial & yardage game that so many folks on this site find boring to watch. It is much easier to hit the right yardage if roll isn't involved. This is why watching the Open is usually far more entertaining than other events.
Rich, if you think courses were slower back in the day before irrigation than you just haven't played enough non irrigation golf.
Ciao
-
I don't use anything more than sprinkler heads or 150 yard bushes provided by the course. Lasers or GPS, while nice and techie (and I LOVE HI-TECH), would do nothing for me; my iron game is not accurate to plus or minus 1 yard or even 5 or 10 yards most days. If I know I am 160 out and use my 5 iron, I might hit is 150 or 170 depending on my swing (of course not counting variables like wind and such). Just from a traditional standpoint, GPS and laser seem to be where I draw the line for myself.
I suppose it may be viewed as the Cliff's Notes version using even sprinkler heads, but even the pros use and have for years used yardage books and the like. It is not pure like the 17th century shepherds played golf, but the next closest thing to it.
-
But we all ought to know that when we rely on artificial aids to help us play the game, we're not really "playing the Game." We're playing the Cliff's Notes version.
Come on Dave, how many people have you met that have said "man, I really had fun guessing those yardages out there today, what a great time!" I will concede all day long that playing sans yardage help is a higher level of golf. However, it's just slightly higher. My first few rounds as a member at OFCC were after they replaced the sprinkler heads on the North, I flew solo for 2 months or so. Was it satisfying hitting shots pin high all day? Absolutely, very satisfying. But once the heads were finally remarked, if you're going to peek on purpose or accidentally just once in the round, might as well do it the entire time. If you don't, it's like using a calculator for just half a math test.
I'd cherish the opportunity to play a course (great or not) without ANY yardage help. None at all. But going out pretending the barber pole in the middle of the fairway means nothing doesn't do it for me. All or nothing.
Ralph - I hear your argument, the game IS certainly different. From what I have read (and I could be wrong!) the clubs used weren't specially suited for 10 yard distance gaps like they are today. The specialization came from within 130 yards or so. At that distance, it is much easier to eyeball a distance or feel than it is from 230 yards. 150 years ago, nobody was really concerned about getting home from 230 yards, much as we don't care what club we hit from 330 today. I think it's fair to say that less aid was needed from 130 yards than 230 yards.
-
Shiv,
Agreed.
Just like all those lawyers who think they are doing good in the world by sueing everyone right? ;D
-
Dave,
The "game" as you call it is about maneuvering a golf ball from point A to B in the fewest possible strokes.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Cue: Argument from the absurd followed by Slippery Slope. Dave Schmidt!
-
Jim, it's not a question of superiority............Folks who want to play half the game are free to play half the game.-Shivas
I rest my case.
-
Dave,
The "game" as you call it is about maneuvering a golf ball from point A to B in the fewest possible strokes.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Cue: Argument from the absurd followed by Slippery Slope. Dave Schmidt!
Actually, Kyle, it there weren't plenty more, we wouldn't have 30 some odd rules about how - so there actually is something more.
Why oh why did I immediately bring up the rules book when I posted that. But you get my point.
Your argument is that the game is somehow broken because of the presence of distance information, right?
I propose we have a Point/Counterpoint In My Opinion write-off. I'll take the pro distance information, and you take the con, or we can switch. I don't typically use yardages unless it's my first go with the course and I probably won't be back.
-
No Dave, it doesn't matter who said it first, you gained ownership of it when you included it in the body of your reply, sans quotation marks, as any fair reading of your post would imply.
edit: It'd be hard for me to answer that with my head over the railing.
-
Right, John.
In other words, you're not relying on your own distance-judging skills to pull a club. You're relying on artificial aids to assist you. And IMO, not to mention noted authority Pat Craig ;), you're therefore only playing half the game...
Look, we all do it, except for maybe Melvyn. Heck, I ever remember a conversation with Ralph a few years ago on the course in which he told me the distance he hits a couple of his hickory shafted clubs. This is no put down on anybody. I've certainly paced off my share of yardage over the years, or at least spotted a 150 and guessed from there...
But we all ought to know that when we rely on artificial aids to help us play the game, we're not really "playing the Game." We're playing the Cliff's Notes version.
You just agreed with all of my previous posts.
-
This whole argument is silly....taken to the extreme perhaps we should graze sheep and forget the mowers...no "artificial aids"...etc.
Sean..
The game has ALWAYS been yardage dominated....whether Old Tom or Young Tom called it "yardage"..whether you call it yardage...."sizing up" (aka measuring) the proper yardage to hit a shot has ALWAYS been part of the game...
Where you are getting confused is assuming "measuring" means using an artificial device...we make measurement all day long (how far is a safe distance between me and the car in front).....
Ralph and Melvin can argue all they want that these guys 150 years ago did not consider distance and I will call BS....they can argue that Old Tom NEVER paced a single shot...and I will call BS...
Maybe one of our golf historians can shed some light, but I would think sometime around the 1930's people got tired of waiting for someone to pace off a shot, and the "yardage marker" was born in an effort to speed up the game..
-
Shivas....
"a truly great fisherman finds his own fish"
and a truly great golfer finds his own yardage?
Personally, I think still water (lake) fishing sucks...and I believe the Bass Tournament guys are banned from using fish finders..
Fly fishing, on the other hand is a different ball game and finding your own fish is 1/2 the game....maybe even 90% of the game. ;D
-
Craig
As you seem to know so much about my family, I have always wondered what Old Tom had for breakfast when he last won The Open in 1867. And while you are at it can you confirm which side of the table Young Tom sat that morning. Just in case you need some help I give you a clue it was in Leith and the name of the place was…. No, as you seem to know everything else you can tell me. ;)
Failure to divulge this full information will prove just who is producing all this BS. ???
I await your answer.
Melvyn
-
So has anyone considered any of the following:
How far did the modal gutta percha ball fly?
How good were the lies and how frequently did golfers encounter a lie that allowed for the maximum gutty distance to be achieved?
At what distance was it practical to aim for the flag?
-
Craig
As you seem to know so much about my family, I have always wondered what Old Tom had for breakfast when he last won The Open in 1867. And while you are at it can you confirm which side of the table Young Tom sat that morning. Just in case you need some help I give you a clue it was in Leith and the name of the place was…. No, as you seem to know everything else you can tell me. ;)
Failure to divulge this full information will prove just who is producing all this BS. ???
I await your answer.
Melvyn
Insult deleted.
-
Kyle
Look at the early reports of the matches from the late 1850 onwards, which will give you a good break down. The tests between to rubber ball and gutty undertake on I believe three if not four occasions. Also it may be worth repeating Young Tom’s 1st hole at Prestwick in 1870 which was the longest hole in golf at that time, something like 560 yards (and tees area still marked at the club today) when he was down in 3. Gives you an idea of ball play in those days.
What appears important to us today may not even have been considered by those 50-75 years ago let alone 100-150 years. We must consider the world they lived in and what was important to them. If yardage as we use it was important then why is it not covered in reports from that era. What matter to them were the course and the hazards, yes they knew the length of each hole but there is no mention of markers. In fact if you read a recent post of mine you will have noticed that I mentioned Inch Markers, these are just simple boundary markers and that was all that appeared on courses in those days. Elie and TOC have them and are now within the course.
If yardage was as important to them as it is to many today, I believe it would have been passed on to me, but it was never mentioned, which IMHO proves to me it was not considered and certainly not in the way we do today.
Melvyn
-
Kyle
Look at the early reports of the matches from the late 1850 onwards, which will give you a good break down. The tests between to rubber ball and gutty undertake on I believe three if not four occasions. Also it may be worth repeating Young Tom’s 1st hole at Prestwick in 1870 which was the longest hole in golf at that time, something like 560 yards (and tees area still marked at the club today) when he was down in 3. Gives you an idea of ball play in those days.
What appears important to us today may not even have been considered by those 50-75 years ago let alone 100-150 years. We must consider the world they lived in and what was important to them. If yardage as we use it was important then why is it not covered in reports from that era. What matter to them were the course and the hazards, yes they knew the length of each hole but there is no mention of markers. In fact if you read a recent post of mine you will have noticed that I mentioned Inch Markers, these are just simple boundary markers and that was all that appeared on courses in those days. Elie and TOC have them and are now within the course.
If yardage was as important to them as it is to many today, I believe it would have been passed on to me, but it was never mentioned, which IMHO proves to me it was not considered and certainly not in the way we do today.
Melvyn
That is a rather light burden of proof, Melvyn - surely you can admit that.
That's why I asked for the modal figures. What yardages were most frequently achieved. One match is not going to provide near enough data - especially a match between the elites. This is like picking some PGA Tour event played this year in 100 years to determine the state of the game in 2009.
My point is, if it were practical and frequently possible for the players to reach the target at distances greater than those perceptible to the human eye, that information would have been readily available. However, the nature of the game at the time including conditioning, equipment and athleticism precluded achieving great distances.
When did putting become as we know it today?
-
We have got some good material for future GCA spoofs on this thread. I'm looking forward to seeing a few in the coming days/weeks/months!
-
Kyle
The days of me passing on information on this site has come to an end, but I gave you some suggestions to search out and just mentioned the Prestwick 1st hole as a single example.
I thought I was helping, apparently not.
Melvyn
PS Pat - No insult from me - but why do you bother, trying to be the big man, its a discussion group for God's sake.
-
Kyle
The days of me passing on information on this site has come to an end, but I gave you some suggestions to search out and just mentioned the Prestwick 1st hole as a single example.
I thought I was helping, apparently not.
Melvyn
PS Pat - No insult from me - but why do you bother, trying to be the big man, its a discussion group for God's sake.
Melvyn,
I'm rereading the accounts now, actually. However, I can tell you there is rather frequent mention of balls landing within 5-10 yards of the flag, and bunkers needing 40-60 yard carries to be overcome....
The prose is certainly much more elegant. I'm fond of hearing how players, "achieve the hillock and secure the hole with two fine putts from there."
-
Maybe one of our golf historians can shed some light,
What do you think Melvin and I are?
For my part, the history of play pre-1931 has been my life for the last couple of decades.
-
Kyle
I am not just talking about a few matches I sent out, there are hundreds of reports from the mid 1850 onwards. Every time a new club opened a game was arranged and reported plus weekly reports in papers plus the big matches. The latter years of the 19th Century even more reports published.
As for the mention of yards from the pin or the length of a long Tee shot is in no way what we have been talking about. If you are 9 yards or feet from the pin do you need a tape measure of rangefinder to select your club? Well I’ll let you answer that.
Why do some people use Irons on a Tee when most use drivers? Does the rangefinder or yardage books give the answer to that?
Melvyn
-
Kyle
I am not just talking about a few matches I sent out, there are hundreds of reports from the mid 1850 onwards. Every time a new club opened a game was arranged and reported plus weekly reports in papers plus the big matches. The latter years of the 19th Century even more reports published.
As for the mention of yards from the pin or the length of a long Tee shot is in no way what we have been talking about. If you are 9 yards or feet from the pin do you need a tape measure of rangefinder to select your club? Well I’ll let you answer that.
Why do some people use Irons on a Tee when most use drivers? Does the rangefinder or yardage books give the answer to that?
Melvyn
No Melvyn, you don't. But at the same time, if you're in a squirrely lie and your play is more than likely dictated by overcoming the lie than it is based on distance - especially if the ball is not very likely to fly further than 150 yards or so - club selection is not likely to be based on distance at all, but on the ability to advance the ball to a position where the flag could be attacked (and the distance more easily calculated). That is one aspect of the matches between Park and Morris that screams to me - these guys took what the course gave them and attacked when the lie dictated. However, I don't think any of us could be so certain that when the opportunity presented itself for a ranged attack at the flag, they weren't looking for numbers. Such occurrences just didn't present themselves all that frequently.
I'll definitely pursue the other accounts, but one thing I am deeming from reading the account you sent out is that the standard of success was much lower than it would become in the next few decades.
I would love to see how Tom Morris, Willie Park and gang would attack a course presented in today's conditioning.
-
Gee Melvyn...when I'm on the green I look at the putt and estimate how far away it is and stroke it...when I'm in the fairway I estimate how far the ball is from where I want it to go and stroke it...and maybe...just maybe...I'll pace it off to see how "accurate" my estimate was...and the next time, I might adjust accordingly...
But you are saying you never do that?
-
Shivas...those Bass guys are using "artificial" aids, with several sets of hooks, to catch the damn fish! ;D
Is knowing a tree on the side of the fairway is 100 paces from the green, an artificial aid?
Melvyn claims these old guys never gave that any consideration...personally, I think it's all part of the equation for striking the ball.
-
Sean...
So distance will not figure into your shot at all?
Rich, if you think courses were slower back in the day before irrigation than you just haven't played enough non irrigation golf.
Ciao
Sean
I was playing non-irrigated golf decades before you could even speak "fast" or "firm" much less spell either one of them. And don't forget that most of your golf was played during the age of global warming. When the planet was heading for a mini-ice age in the mid-70's you can't imagine how slow and soft most golf courses were. And ask Melvyn what greens stimped at in Old Tom Morris's day, when any putt over 30 feet required a mashie niblick to get it to the hole. Ah, those were the days, but they were anything but fast and firm.........
Rich
-
Sean...
So distance will not figure into your shot at all?
Rich, if you think courses were slower back in the day before irrigation than you just haven't played enough non irrigation golf.
Ciao
Sean
I was playing non-irrigated golf decades before you could even speak "fast" or "firm" much less spell either one of them. And don't forget that most of your golf was played during the age of global warming. When the planet was heading for a mini-ice age in the mid-70's you can't imagine how slow and soft most golf courses were. And ask Melvyn what greens stimped at in Old Tom Morris's day, when any putt over 30 feet required a mashie niblick to get it to the hole. Ah, those were the days, but they were anything but fast and firm.........
Rich
Rihc
I have played enough golf on hard baked, crusty courses in the summer to know a course can be fast and firm even if the the mower hasn't been out in a month. In fact, the fastest greens I have ever come across were at Brora and those greens were down right shaggy. It is more a question of dryness than shaving greens. If there is no water, then there is f&f. You needn't try to make it anymore complicated than that. Unfortunately, it is very much a rarity these days to play a proper f&f course. Now that nearly every course has water, supers can't resist turning it on. It must be some sort of natural routine. Get up, have a cup of coffee and turn on the water. Its used in maintenance like antibiotics are used in medicine.
Ciao
-
Sean
If Brora is your standard for fast greens, you are sorely underexperienced. I've played Brora regularly for over 25 years and have never seen it close to being as fast as Dornoch, at the same times, and in fact I have rarely found Brora fast at all.
Confused in Fife ???
Oh, and PS--except in 100-year (non)flood conditions (e.g. 2003) Dornoch greens are not particularly fast.
j-p p
-
Shivas...
Jimmy Houston? Have you been watching? ;)
-
I haven't slogged through all of this thread, as it reminded me of another thread. I searched a bit, and found these, for those who are interested:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35861.0.html
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,37803.0.html
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36831.0.html
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33762.0.html
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,19968.0.html
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32848.0.html
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27624.0.html
Forgive me for re-posting this comment, as I didn't remember it, and I liked it:
Why is it so hard for the pro-rangefinder contingent to understand that for some, the ability to make distance judgements is one of the many skills that golf tests? That uncertainty about distance, and the ability to make decisions based on one's own perception is part of what makes up the challenge of the game? And that if you aren't good at it than a price will be paid on the scorecard, just like if you're a weak putter or can't seem to hit the long irons.
Obviously some of the anti-RF folks aren't willing to concede that there are some whose joy in golf comes from a place where the rangefinder fits in perfectly. To quote myself from many pages ago - some are in love with the science of golf, and for them knowing EXACTLY how far they have to hit it is just part of their fun in being able to EXECUTE a shot of precisely that distance. For others, figuring out how far to hit it and then executing a shot based on that judgement is more enjoyable.
I get the notion that we all can't agree on the issue, but what stuns me is the inablility of some to even see what attraction there is in playing the game in a way differently than their own, and the desire amongst people to chastise or demean those who see things differently.
That said I think that long putters are crap.
-
Sean
If Brora is your standard for fast greens, you are sorely underexperienced. I've played Brora regularly for over 25 years and have never seen it close to being as fast as Dornoch, at the same times, and in fact I have rarely found Brora fast at all.
Confused in Fife ???
Oh, and PS--except in 100-year (non)flood conditions (e.g. 2003) Dornoch greens are not particularly fast.
j-p p
Rich
For some odd reason that weekend some 10 years ago the greens at Brora were the fastest I ever saw anywhere. They were a strange combination of crusty and shiny and they never looked as though they would be fast. In fact, they were miles quicker than Dornoch's that same week. Balls just didn't stop. I had never seen anything remotely close to those speeds over here until I played North Wales a few years ago. It was once again the same situation - lack of water - not short grass. Never mind Rich, I don't expect you to be everywhere at once despite your tendency to think of yerself in a godlike manner - tee hee.
Ciao
-
I am chuckling that this thread is still going on. Some things do never change on this site.
But what has me chuckling most is the stupidity behind most of this.
It seems to me fundamental and obvious that IF all distance information was removed, and we all had to then rely on our senses, that would be another skill that could be taken advantage of, used, etc. The game would be more pure, and that would be just great.
But is there a snowball's chance in hell that this is EVER going to happen? That all distance information will be removed, and all golfers revert to this form of play?
I sure don't see it. So one can pine away for this pure game all he wants... and denigrate those who have strayed from a purity they likely have never seen in their lives....
I just don't get the point. Distance information is readily available on 99.9% of the world's golf courses. So why argue about playing a superior game which doesn't exist, and almost certainly never will?
The next point is obvious to me also.... given it all does exist, what's the problem of using it via more efficient means?
TH
ps to TEP - you asked me a question last Friday, not sure if it's relevant now..but sure I have come across a few a'holes in my years of play. Did I let them know it? Not more than a handful of times. It's jut not in my nature to do so.
-
Huck...
I agree with everything you posted and will add...that I for one find it difficult to believe that 100-150 years ago nobody cared about "distance"......you have to size up the distance to the hole to play this game, and in some cases I would think even 150 years ago they paced off how far a shot went or needed to go...for future reference when "sizing up" a shot.
But hey, our resident golf historians say it was all "feel"....so lets go with that....but last night I was outside tossing snowballs and really "feeling" it...yet my first toss was short...so I figured maybe the toss was further than I "felt"...so I tossed harder...and this time the snowball went sailing past the street light (yeah I know...) eventually, I got it dialed in...and figured out how much "feel" I needed to cover the distance from the ground to the street light...
-
Well I don't particuarly care what golfers did way back when...
My point remains that the genie is not going back in the bottle, so a better argument might be about what to do NOW rather than pine away for a game that really never was in all lifetimes here.
-
You don't get multiple attempts at a golf shot while you're honing in on it. The conditions change from day to day. It's not an "everybody/ nobody, all or nothing" discussion.
I don't know how any of us alive today can truly understand what the game was like with those old clubs and balls on courses that were maintained quite primitively by today's standards.
Joe
-
I am 100% certain that had they been invented in his day, Old Tom would have used a range finder, titanium heads, graphite shafts, cavity backs, the hot ball, a 60 degree wedge, hybrids and even a long putter, and he'd probably have been willing to ride in a fiberglass horse....
At the risk of offending my good friend Melvyn, I fully suspect that not only would Old Tom be using all the new technology, he would proabably be manufacturing and selling it as well !
Not sure about the horse though......
-
A question for Melvyn, one that I simply can't get an understanding for:
Melvyn, you say:
Support each other just like the junkies your are. Stay in denial, it is you that is the ultimate looser – you are the ones who need their distance fix. Yet you think it helps your game. The distance genie is out of the bottle, but you just don’t want to put in back – but why – well that’s your business and you play with your toys the way you want. I’ll play the way it has been in my family for years.
Perceptions and attacks aside, one simple question: do you really think the genie CAN be put back in the bottle?
Because that is where I think we have the greatest disconnect, and misunderstanding. I'd LOVE IT if the genie of distance information was put back in the bottle. I'd LOVE IT if all distance information were removed from golf courses....then of course electronic devices for ascertaining such would also be necessarily banned... I'd LOVE IT if judgment of distance became a fundamental skill for this game we all love.
I just don't see a snowball's chance in hell for that happening. And thus my arguments deal with a world in which such is readily available to all golfers.
So I ask: do you see the genie going back in? And if so, how is this going to occur?
TH
-
Tom
I am surprised to see you adding to this topic, for someone who moans about this on going debate you are still happy to add your two pennyworth to it. Well good for you.
You work and play to your standards.
As for you not seeing or playing without yardages I expect this is true and would not have the impertinence or arrogance to say so, but clearly its one rule for you and another for me.
Lets me not advise you but tell you that my father and great uncles never used yardage/distance information as we have been discussing on this topic. My father was born in St Andrews and was very well accomplished golfer and swimmer, he taught me golf, so why did he never mention it to me or for that matter to my brother. For something that apparently, well according to you and your friends has been around for a couple of centuries, yet it never was mentioned to me and I have yet to uncover yardage books, old distance markers or anything that relates to this modern idea of yardage information.
Please tell me why they have not been found, why the reports in all the newspapers and magazines did not report this information or publish their own distance guide to give away to golfers way back in the 19th Century if it was so much part of the game then? If there is evidence that they did exist then I will happily accept it but with all my searches I still have not uncovered one yardage book. That might be the reason why my father & uncles left out yardage in their teaching.
As for superior, I don’t think I ever said that. I believe my comment were that we just don’t need distance aids as each golfer has it within him/herself to eyeball the pin and select accordingly. I do not see anything superior in that as we all have that ability. I have said that I for one would feel it unfair to use outside aids and that I would be cheating myself.
Golf has changed over the years, because many want to make it easier,also to accommodate the climate, yet there are still those who play golf in the tropics in the conventional way – no carts etc – I have, my father, my brother as well.
Fine you want to play it your way please do so but to those who believe that golf should be played in the original way, let them do so without doubting or chuckling at their comments. This time Tom it’s you who are out of order, you just could not resist so decided to throw in your little remarks, but why? Actually I’m not interested, because I’m not going to continue this post.
Superior – no, that is in your mind because of some reason or other to assist your argument or distain. As I said how can it be superior if all golfers have the ability to play without aids.
What all of you have totally forgotten is that this is a Discussion Group, which in my view means it’s open to total honest debate – that means freedom to voice ones opinions even if it goes against the majority.
Have fun and enjoy your golf.
Melvyn
PS Tom, There is very little we cannot do if we all work together and want to achieve a certain goal, so as I believe in Man I must believe that we can.
It’s a question of understanding and accepting that there is a problem, before we can all move on to correct it. But can we call yardage a problem - that is the real question. Being totally honest I would say I feel that any outside information should not be allowed in the first place, but now its here all we can do in the short term is to encourage courses to remove all yardage/distance information and lets the individual golfer asset it over say a 6-12 month period.
But yes if there is a will there is certainly a way.
-
Melvyn:
I added to this because I genuinely want to come to some resolution, and genuinely do remain curious and interested in your perspective. Let's try to get past the slights and the like, shall we?
And we do seem to be making some progress.
So you do see this as a problem that needs to be fixed.
I somewhat sadly believe that very very few share this stance with you.
And as long as that is the case, well... sure where there's a will there's a way - I just don't see a will, and thus can't see a way.
Thus my preference is to live and let live, and try to deal with issues that can be fixed, where needed.
Thank you for your answer in any case. Fight the fight.
Tom Huckaby
-
Ok - Let's add getting rid of distance aids to the list of other improvements necessary to return golf to a more pure form:
1) No carts and no cart paths - walking only
2) No 460cc drivers - 250cc max club head
3) No crazy distance golf balls - not sure what the standard should be here
4) No long putters - the max club length is 55 inches
5) No distance aids on the course
Feel free to add.
I have chosen trying to get people to walk as the first step in returning to a more traditional game because I think, hope, it is the easiest to implement.
Not sure if we can get any traction on these items, but it is worth a try
-
Rob...we need a return to sans-a-belt pants...and stiff collared shirts!
-
To all the distance Luddites out there I pose this simple question:
When you play a par 3 (especially for the first time), do you reference the yardage for the hole on the scorecard or tee box and why?
-
I am 100% certain that had they been invented in his day, Old Tom would have used a range finder, titanium heads, graphite shafts, cavity backs, the hot ball, a 60 degree wedge, hybrids and even a long putter, and he'd probably have been willing to ride in a fiberglass horse....
At the risk of offending my good friend Melvyn, I fully suspect that not only would Old Tom be using all the new technology, he would proabably be manufacturing and selling it as well !
Not sure about the horse though......
Borrowing from my old marketing text, I guess the question should be "was Old Tom and early-adopter?"
In reading this thread one thing kept popping back into my head. Old Tom was a caddie, and from reading Tommy's Honour, my impression was he was a good one. Why?
-
I take back what I said about the range finder. I think Old Tom would have abhored the range finder and the cheater line for retarding the mental acuity and judgment necessary to play the Game, but would have embraced B&I advances because B&I advances have been part of the Game for as long as there's been the Game-Dave Schmidt, AKA Shivas
Good for you Dave. Gentlemen, mark this day on your calendars! ;D
-
I take back what I said about the range finder. I think Old Tom would have abhored the range finder and the cheater line for retarding the mental acuity and judgment necessary to play the Game, but would have embraced B&I advances because B&I advances have been part of the Game for as long as there's been the Game.
So Dave, assuming given your vociferous stances in this thread you shall be from this point forward eschewing all distance information as you play the game, can you enlighten us as to:
a) how you will manage to not notice any of it - please give self-blinding techniques; and
b) from what slush fund shall you derive the means to cover your expected losses to your opponents?
Or is this a case of... no, can't be... do as I say, not as I do?
;D
TH
ps - Jim - he deserves no credit for any of this... he's just shifting one contrarian stance to the contrarian order of the day, as he found more opponents on this side... arguing against Melvyn would have been going with the majority, and thus far too easy! ;)
-
When I read this thread, all I can hear is Jim Carrey's awful "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeehh" squeal in Dumb & Dumber.
I don't have an agenda, other than saying "why do we have to have an agenda?"
I understand that you, Melvyn, protect what you feel is the purest, cleanest, best way that golf can be played. That is abundantly clear. That is your path to the enjoyment of the game. You have been taught to play the game a certain way, and it is admirable you stick to it.
But why is that the ONLY way it can be?
Personally, I enjoy golf for the practice, for the mental workout, and to see if the combination of the two can produce something special that day. I totally admit that I am a slave to distance. I like to know my exact yardage if I can find it, even if I'm not skilled enough to use the exactness of the number. Golf is a technical game for me, and I prefer to fly my shots near the hole. I have learned that this approach is the most efficient way to better scores or match play victories, for me anyway.
Would I like to be able to look at a shot and hit it 4 different ways? Sure! But 9 of 10 times a high shot that stops on a dime works for me. If I had grown up over a links course, I would certainly have more shots in my repetoire. Hell that's why I love going over there so much, because it multiplies the options.
However, that is not how golf is for me. I play a decent game that is efficient through the air. Conditions in Boston in the summer are generally benign, the ground is medium to firm. I play in many local amateur events where everyone looks for the spraypainted yardage on the par 3s, if they don't already have a (recently-legalized for competition by the MGA) rangefinder. I work an hour from my home course, so much of my golf is with the use of a cart. I choose 18 holes in 2-2.5 hrs. over walking 11 of them before dark. So sue me.
You might call my golf perspective depressing, or my locale and conditions of play unfortunate. However, in the framework of my life currently (i.e. not in Scotland, not in the 1860s, not with a gutty), I find quite a bit of enjoyment out of golf in New England.
People love golf for many reasons. Some because they like to challenge themselves and eyeball a distance, some because they like to challenge themselves to hit the ball the exact distance the laser tells them to. Some because a golf cart allows them to get in 18 in 2 hours after work, or 36+ in a day without needing a new set of leg tendons afterward.
I tend to think that somewhere in your theories you are looking out for us, Melvyn, combatting what might be the undoing of the game, the runaway ball, course lengthening, and other departures from the game's roots. Totally cool. I just worry you are isolating yourself.
You have mentioned a few times how GCA is a discussion group and it's a forum of opinions, etc... but you only have one, and it's so fiercely defended that the discussion is no longer a game of catch. Your opinion seems to just be bouncing back to you off a brick wall... :-\
-
Tom, for myself I'd say that genies such as this one tend to remain unbottled. In things of far greater import than the game of golf, change can be both hailed as progress, or decried in the name of tradition, respect, or out of bull-headedness. I love that there's nothing to prevent Melvyn or anyone else from playing the game the way they wish, under the rules. Maybe the presence of cart paths is intrusive to the aesthetics of the game, but if one wants to walk then in most cases that is still a workable, available option. One can use gps or distance-finders......or not.
The competitive arena is where a lot of the notions of how golf Should Be Played obviously become larger issues because of the reality that certain competitors can't have unfair advantage over others (even though some might choose to deal with self-imposed limitations). I know that carts aren't allowed on the PGA tour, but local or club competitions might be different. The use of distance aids may not be allowed, but caddies who provide much the same information are allowed. That's a conundrum that I don't encounter much or at all, as I don't play competitive golf. However, given how competitive many folks are, I'm sure that these are contentious issues to those who participate. I guess that's why we put our trust in governing bodies, and hope for the best. And those bodies have a lot of different people to try and please.
-
Kirk:
You've hit on a couple key issues here, those that I also see preventing getting that genie back in (assuming that's a wise idea, which I am just accepting for sake of argument here):
1. There may be nothing to prevent Melvyn from playing the game the way he wishes - he must play on courses that are either sparsely marked or not marked at all (though I sure didn't encounter many of those in Scotland myself), but I look forward to Dave answering my questions. That is, as much as he WANTS to TRY to do this (and he knows that I know that he really doesn't; he's just being his contrarian self here and does not enjoy losing money on the golf course), I just believe it would be tantamount to impossible to fully ignore all the distance information that is available on courses here in the USA. It's pervasive at damn near all golf courses... one would truly have to play with blinders on.
2. Competition - heck yeah, it's one thing to play a certain way due to principle, quite another to cede advantage to the field (or an opponent). Only if ALL play this way will it truly work. Caddie are no issue - if we reach this no-distance info fantasy world, they could be re-trained. That is, they just plain don't give distance information, as I fully believe they did not for many years in the game's infancy.
So as I see it, the genie remains. Perhaps each of us are quixotic in different ways... me for continuing the discussion here, him for believing the genie can be re-bottled.
;D
-
LOVE IT - we can resort to Mucci-ing each other.... ;D
So Dave, assuming given your vociferous stances in this thread you shall be from this point forward eschewing all distance information as you play the game, can you enlighten us as to:
a) how you will manage to not notice any of it - please give self-blinding techniques; and
I haven't a clue. But I'm not saying that they can be ignored. It's basically impossible to walk over a 150 marker in the middle of the fairway (not that I'm actually there very often) and not notice it. Distance grafffiti is basically unavoidable.
BINGO - so why the hell make the argument?
b) from what slush fund shall you derive the means to cover your expected losses to your opponents?
I don't bet with guys I don't know anyway, so that part doesn't matter.
Surprised you so massively miss the point - which is if you play this un-watered down game - as I have to believe you are going to try, given your arguments here - then they have info, you don't. And you WILL lose, no matter how well you know them. Or are you saying you are just talking out of your ass here? You're NOT going to play this pure as the driven snow way you advocate?
Or is this a case of... no, can't be... do as I say, not as I do?
I didn't ask anybody to put on blinders and ignore distance graffiti. All I asked people to do is realize that because of unavoidability of distance graffiti, we're all playing a lesser game.
OK, we get that. But what's the point? Damn near everyone has played this way their entire lives... of course it's a lesser game... but why make the point if you don't intend to try to play the superior way? What the hell does it matter?
;D
TH
ps - Jim - he deserves no credit for any of this... he's just shifting one contrarian stance to the contrarian order of the day, as he found more opponents on this side... arguing against Melvyn would have been going with the majority, and thus far too easy! ;)
So??
So I am just calling a spade a spade. Glad you admit to it. Now just as Mucci can be ignored for being eristic, you can and should be because you admit to talking out of your ass, in your contrarian viewpoint of the day manner. Love ya though.
;D
-
LOVE IT - we can resort to Mucci-ing each other.... ;D
So Dave, assuming given your vociferous stances in this thread you shall be from this point forward eschewing all distance information as you play the game, can you enlighten us as to:
a) how you will manage to not notice any of it - please give self-blinding techniques; and
I haven't a clue. But I'm not saying that they can be ignored. It's basically impossible to walk over a 150 marker in the middle of the fairway (not that I'm actually there very often) and not notice it. Distance grafffiti is basically unavoidable.
BINGO - so why the hell make the argument?
The argument is made so that people realize the extent of what is, and what should be, not necessarily what will be.
b) from what slush fund shall you derive the means to cover your expected losses to your opponents?
I don't bet with guys I don't know anyway, so that part doesn't matter.
Surprised you so massively miss the point - which is if you play this un-watered down game - as I have to believe you are going to try, given your arguments here - then they have info, you don't. And you WILL lose, no matter how well you know them. Or are you saying you are just talking out of your ass here? You're NOT going to play this pure as the driven snow way you advocate?
I won't lose if I get enough shots...and I can't believe that YOU so massively miss the point, which is that I haven't said one single time that I intend to play this way. Why? Because it's impossible with the courses littered with distance graffiti.
Or is this a case of... no, can't be... do as I say, not as I do?
I didn't ask anybody to put on blinders and ignore distance graffiti. All I asked people to do is realize that because of unavoidability of distance graffiti, we're all playing a lesser game.
OK, we get that. But what's the point? Damn near everyone has played this way their entire lives... of course it's a lesser game... but why make the point if you don't intend to try to play the superior way? What the hell does it matter?
It matters because those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.
;D
TH
ps - Jim - he deserves no credit for any of this... he's just shifting one contrarian stance to the contrarian order of the day, as he found more opponents on this side... arguing against Melvyn would have been going with the majority, and thus far too easy! ;)
So??
So I am just calling a spade a spade. Glad you admit to it. Now just as Mucci can be ignored for being eristic, you can and should be because you admit to talking out of your ass, in your contrarian viewpoint of the day manner. Love ya though.
;D
You still owe me a beer...
The hell I do. I owe shivas a beer. I know no DSchmidt.
-
You guys need to start using different colors...getting confusing as to who said what.. ;D
-
You guys need to start using different colors...getting confusing as to who said what.. ;D
He and I know. You mean others seriously WANT to read this?
-
Does anyone here think the original topic got settled?
Did anyone even bother to read the historical information I posted (way back) on page 3?
No one ever responded to it so I assume they didn't want facts to interfere.
-
Does anyone here think the original topic got settled?
Did anyone even bother to read the historical information I posted (way back) on page 3?
No one ever responded to it so I assume they didn't want facts to interfere.
Ralph - I would hazard a guess that Bob would admit his original topic was meant to be tongue in cheek, prodding Melvyn to admit inconsistency.
But yes, seems to me it's clear that Old Tom was not actually the standard bearer for range finders.
;D
-
You guys need to start using different colors...getting confusing as to who said what.. ;D
He and I know. You mean others seriously WANT to read this?
I hang on every word!!! ;D
-
I am finding it very disturbing that people are beating up on Melvin and mis-stating what he has said. How many times does he have to say he doesn't care how others are playing there game and he just wants to be left alone in playing his?
You guys don't realize how hard it is to play a traditional game anymore. People, like many on here, won't let you. Trust, me I know.
I have solved it by playing alone or, on occasion, with other hickory players. Yes, there was a time more than a decade a go that I was pushing playing hickories on others, but learned quickly to just offer it to people that showed interest.
I remember when I first went to Scotland there wasn't any kind of yardages to be found. Now it seems like all the courses are being pushed to become US resort courses.
You can't get away from modernized golf any more. Traditional golf could be lost for good, and when it is the game will be poorer for it. The handful of us researching and trying to keep it around will be gone soon enough and the knowledge we bear will probably be lost forever.
Keep beating up Melvin, you guys. At least some here realize what a stupid ass idea that is. If he leaves this site because of it... (wheres the head shaking icon)
I can only hope that some day I might be able to sit with him in some pub for a couple of hours and talk.
-
RALPH...I replied to the historic information you posted back on page three...
Here is what I posted:
"Ralph..so you are saying they had no interests in knowing that the shot they "felt", and hit, was 20 paces? I find that a bit difficult to belief. A HUGE part of programing that "feel" in the brain comes form a curiosity of knowing the distance...using your eyes...sizing up the distance, and giving it your best 20 paces swing.... "
I know that a typical swing with a club will result in a certain outcome...yes there are other factors influencing that outcome...but, never the less...I know a certain swing typically produces a shot of a certain distance...now, how that swing "felt" , and the result, (how far it went) is programed into my brain....
Isn't it human nature to wonder, at some point, how far that ball went?
-
After all these posts, I still fail to see how its beyond reason to beleive that they could have known a few yardages on a few or even many of the holes after pacing them informally or otherwise and taking mental notes. Or is it really a stretch that a caddie eager to please could have figured this out in thier spare time and verbally supplied this information to them?
I fully beleive Melyvn that yardage books or other references are not written anywhere, but it doesn't mean they couldn't have verbally talked about it.
Is it written what these blokes ate for dinner or where they slept at night? If not, does this mean we are to beleive they never ate dinner or slept?
-
I am finding it very disturbing that people are betting up on Melvin and mis-stating what he has said. How many times does he have to say he doesn't care how others are playing there game and he just wants to be left alone in playing his?
You guys don't realize how hard it is to play a traditional game anymore. People, like many on here, won't let you. Trust, me I know.
I have solved it by playing alone or, on occasion, with other hickory players. Yes, there was a time more than a decade a go that I was pushing playing hickories on others, but learned quickly to just offer it to people that showed interest.
I remember when I first went to Scotland there wasn't any kind of yardages to be found. Now it seems like all the courses are being pushed to become US resort courses.
You can't get away from modernized golf any more. Traditional golf could be lost for good, and when it is the game will be poorer for it. The handful of us researching and trying to keep it around will be gone soon enough and the knowledge we bear will probably be lost forever.
Keep beating up Melvin, you guys. At least some here realize what a stupid ass idea that is. If he leaves this site because of it... (wheres the head shaking icon)
I can only hope that some day I might be able to sit with him in some pub for a couple of hours and talk.
Ralph:
You and I have conversed many times before over the years; you may recall you gave me great advice in acquiring hickory clubs. I am a very inactive, but yes still registered (I think) member of the Society of Hickory Golfers, in a large part thanks to YOU introducing me to such.
So perhaps that gives a little background.
I for one am certainly not "betting (sic) up on Melvyn." Perhaps you haven't read prior threads.... but I'd venture to guess many here can confirm, I am simply defending myself.
And not to get into these battles AGAIN, but well... if in fact Melvyn was sincere in the fact "he doesn't care how others are playing there game and he just wants to be left alone in playing his?" none of us would have any issue.
The fact is, however, that Melvyn does believe his way to be the "pure" form of the game, and that all of us who do not follow it are necessarily then not really playing golf, miss the spirit of the game, etc. Some - like myself - take offense to this, in its implications. But Melvyn can also say whatever he wishes... he does tend to repeat time and time again what you say... but then he also - as he did today in a reply to me - uses very harsh words and tones, and states that the way we play is a "problem" that needs to be fixed.
That doesn't sound like live and let live to me.
I am trying my best to converse with him rationally and without rancor... still at times he lumps me in with all that is bad for hte game... assuming he knows how I play. You of all people should understand otherwise.
It is I who wants to live and let live. Seems to me Melvyn couldn't be farther from that. Read his reply to me today.
TH
-
Isn't it human nature to wonder, at some point, how far that ball went?
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is why this arguement of wandering around a golf course aimlessly searching for "pure" golf and scorning others for using a yardage is nutso.
Ralph-
I'm not sure how to answer to the "ah shucks everyone picks on hickory players" post. Only perhaps that I think its cool that you are actually going out every day with a set of hickory clubs, but unrealistic to think you can play a game by "feel." I have played with hickories before, and while fun and I found it not nearly as hard to do as one would think, its just not the same game everyone else is playing. It's like playing horse when everyone else is playing 3-on-3.
If you walked up to the tee in +4's and your bag of old style clubs I would think "ok...let's see what he can do." Never "why don't you wait for the next group." (Like you made it seem like).
-
That isn't the way they played! They didn't have cards with yardage. They didn't pace anything off.
They were playing matches in under 2 hrs. How would they do that if you were concentrating on yardage in any way, shape or form?
Do you pace off your short pitches, chips, or putts? Or do you just play them by feel? Do you look at it and say to yourself that it looks to be 20 ft. and maybe you should grip down an extra 1/2"?
Is it really that hard to think that 150 years ago the whole game might have been played that way?
I don't know how to better say it. If you haven't played the game that way, you will never understand.
Clarification: when I said they new the "distances" on the courses they played I was refering to the 1 shot holes and by "knowing it" I meant they knew it was a 3/4 General Iron on a benine day.
I over simplified my statements to keep from writing a small book. Long detailed posts usually are semi ignored. And historical facts are thoroughly ignored.
-
Isn't it human nature to wonder, at some point, how far that ball went?
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is why this arguement of wandering around a golf course aimlessly searching for "pure" golf and scorning others for using a yardage is nutso.
Ralph-
I'm not sure how to answer to the "ah shucks everyone picks on hickory players" post. Only perhaps that I think its cool that you are actually going out every day with a set of hickory clubs, but unrealistic to think you can play a game by "feel." I have played with hickories before, and while fun and I found it not nearly as hard to do as one would think, its just not the same game everyone else is playing. It's like playing horse when everyone else is playing 3-on-3.
If you walked up to the tee in +4's and your bag of old style clubs I would think "ok...let's see what he can do." Never "why don't you wait for the next group." (Like you made it seem like).
Tom,
You are wrong in that this issue will not ever be resolved. Too much spin on statements.
Case in point.
-
Ralph:
Absolute statements are rarely true. I read most long posts if they are of interest to me. I accept historical facts too.
And I'd also appreciate a response to my post, directed to you. You can make it off-line if you wish.
I just believe you have quite misjudged at least some of the characters in this drama.
;)
LATE EDIT: here am I Don Quixote..... yes Ralph, it likely never will be resolved. Still, a fair judgment of the characters might be a bit nicer.
-
I have to admit that I like the term "distance graffiti." I'll also admit that the more a golfer is self-reliant, the better, whether we're talking distance info or just getting around the course. I'll admit further that I grew up playing courses with 150-yard markers, and no other distance info, and that's what I'm used to. Thus, that's what I like.
"I know what I like, and I like what I know"
I also think that, for me, the more golf resembles science the less I personally enjoy it. At the same time, I know that not everyone feels the same way, and that I might not feel the same way if I had more at stake when I play than lunch or the occasional beer. I'll also freely admit that I'd love to spar over this or any other issue with the lot of you, over a beverage of your liking. I admire Melvyn, and his stands, and feel like this group has been enhanced by his presence. And I pretty much feel the same way about the rest of you, and your opinions, and your ways of expressing them.
And I still think that long putters are crap.
-
Ralph:
Absolute statements are rarely true. I read most long posts if they are of interest to me. I accept historical facts too.
And I'd also appreciate a response to my post, directed to you. You can make it off-line if you wish.
I just believe you have quite misjudged at least some of the characters in this drama.
;)
LATE EDIT: here am I Don Quixote..... yes Ralph, it likely never will be resolved. Still, a fair judgment of the characters might be a bit nicer.
Tom,
I can't seen to find a question directed at me from you. Could you repost?
Pat,
You have never "played" hickories. You have hit some balls around with some crappy old clubs. As far as I know, Ran is the only one on the site that has played hickories. Tom might have, but I don't know how many rounds he has under his belt.
edit:
And thanks for spinning a statement to establish my background into "ah shucks everyone picks on hickory players".
-
Ralph:
Absolute statements are rarely true. I read most long posts if they are of interest to me. I accept historical facts too.
And I'd also appreciate a response to my post, directed to you. You can make it off-line if you wish.
I just believe you have quite misjudged at least some of the characters in this drama.
;)
LATE EDIT: here am I Don Quixote..... yes Ralph, it likely never will be resolved. Still, a fair judgment of the characters might be a bit nicer.
Tom,
I can't seen to find a question directed at me from you. Could you repost?
Pat,
You have never "played" hickories. You have hit some balls around with some crappy old clubs. As far as I know, Ran is the only one on the site that has played hickories. Tom might have, but I don't know how many rounds he has under his belt.
Ralph - I did an entire post directed to YOU and YOU ALONE. Here it is, so you don't have to go back up this very page. ;D I suppose no direct QUESTION was directed to you... more comments... to which a response would be appreciated. Such response can be a simple "OK, I get that" if you wish. ;)
Ralph:
You and I have conversed many times before over the years; you may recall you gave me great advice in acquiring hickory clubs. I am a very inactive, but yes still registered (I think) member of the Society of Hickory Golfers, in a large part thanks to YOU introducing me to such.
So perhaps that gives a little background.
I for one am certainly not "betting (sic) up on Melvyn." Perhaps you haven't read prior threads.... but I'd venture to guess many here can confirm, I am simply defending myself.
And not to get into these battles AGAIN, but well... if in fact Melvyn was sincere in the fact "he doesn't care how others are playing there game and he just wants to be left alone in playing his?" none of us would have any issue.
The fact is, however, that Melvyn does believe his way to be the "pure" form of the game, and that all of us who do not follow it are necessarily then not really playing golf, miss the spirit of the game, etc. Some - like myself - take offense to this, in its implications. But Melvyn can also say whatever he wishes... he does tend to repeat time and time again what you say... but then he also - as he did today in a reply to me - uses very harsh words and tones, and states that the way we play is a "problem" that needs to be fixed.
That doesn't sound like live and let live to me.
I am trying my best to converse with him rationally and without rancor... still at times he lumps me in with all that is bad for hte game... assuming he knows how I play. You of all people should understand otherwise.
It is I who wants to live and let live. Seems to me Melvyn couldn't be farther from that. Read his reply to me today.
TH
-
Kalen, Tom & All
By all means believe what you want, be happy that you believe everyone is yardage orientated and that it has been part of golf since it started.
I was always happy to present old reports, photos and articles on golf, but I have just realised that all of them do not tell the true story of golf, the bastard all these years have printed lies, so I have just taken all my files outside and had a massive fire. It’s still burning but I swear I thought I heard Old Tom whispering from the depth of the fire “that it is not true, it’s just their opinion”. But we all know it must be true as you all said it with such convection on GCA.com.
Thank for putting me straight guys, I fully understand the error of my ways, proof in actual opinions and you don’t get better that those on GCA.com.
You are right I have been banging my head against a brick wall. The truth is indeed out there, the modern man and women do fully comprehend those who went before them, because we THINK it happened so it must have been. I like that, but I keep trying it but for some reason that just does not work for me, but then I’m in the minority.
I am so pleased that you guys have won the debate (well certainly in your minds) but due to the concussion from head injuries sustained during this thread I have decided to retire gracefully to those parts unknown. My wife and our friends will start to enjoy our antiquated way of life on that small group of island sticking out into the Atlantic, just North of Europe. In the dead of night I will watch the continental plates move further and further apart and wonder if in time we will meet again on a natural contoured golf course close by the sea.
Perhaps that’s the impossible dream.
NYVLEM
-
Ralph:
Absolute statements are rarely true. I read most long posts if they are of interest to me. I accept historical facts too.
And I'd also appreciate a response to my post, directed to you. You can make it off-line if you wish.
I just believe you have quite misjudged at least some of the characters in this drama.
;)
LATE EDIT: here am I Don Quixote..... yes Ralph, it likely never will be resolved. Still, a fair judgment of the characters might be a bit nicer.
Tom,
I can't seen to find a question directed at me from you. Could you repost?
Pat,
You have never "played" hickories. You have hit some balls around with some crappy old clubs. As far as I know, Ran is the only one on the site that has played hickories. Tom might have, but I don't know how many rounds he has under his belt.
Ralph-
What makes you so darn "pig-headed" is the fact that you really 100% believe that I never "played" hickories. That is an insane statement and in no way should you make that assumption.
Yes, Sir Ralph, I have PLAYED hickories.
TCC-Brookline owns two full sets (maybe 10-11 clubs, not an old crap set, but purchased that year) and one day while playing 36 holes of golf one of the Assistants let me take a set out for a round. As I stated before I didn't find them all that difficult after an adjustment period of 2 or 3 holes. I probably shot 6 strokes higher than I usually would have.
Ralph- In no way, shape, or form am I trying to disagree with anyone on here. But I HATE when people believe they know the secret to "pure" and "traditional" golf and somehow every normal golfer is some sort of virus. Give me a break.
Games and sports change. Period. Try going to the NBA and saying you want the three point line removed because that is not "traditional" basketball. Try telling football players to play with leather helmits. Baseball players to not use steriods. And hockey players to only play pond hockey.
-
Kalen, Tom & All
By all means believe what you want, be happy that you believe everyone is yardage orientated and that it has been part of golf since it started.
I was always happy to present old reports, photos and articles on golf, but I have just realised that all of them do not tell the true story of golf, the bastard all these years have printed lies, so I have just taken all my files outside and had a massive fire. It’s still burning but I swear I thought I heard Old Tom whispering from the depth of the fire “that it is not true, it’s just their opinion”. But we all know it must be true as you all said it with such convection on GCA.com.
Thank for putting me straight guys, I fully understand the error of my ways, proof in actual opinions and you don’t get better that those on GCA.com.
You are right I have been banging my head against a brick wall. The truth is indeed out there, the modern man and women do fully comprehend those who went before them, because we THINK it happened so it must have been. I like that, but I keep trying it but for some reason that just does not work for me, but then I’m in the minority.
I am so pleased that you guys have won the debate (well certainly in your minds) but due to the concussion from head injuries sustained during this thread I have decided to retire gracefully to those parts unknown. My wife and our friends will start to enjoy our antiquated way of life on that small group of island sticking out into the Atlantic, just North of Europe. In the dead of night I will watch the continental plates move further and further apart and wonder if in time we will meet again on a natural contoured golf course close by the sea.
Perhaps that’s the impossible dream.
NYVLEM
Melvyn:
Please do not lump me in with that. I fully believe the game was played originally without any sort of distance aids. I just do not see why that matters TODAY in this world full of distance information... that is, how in any way shape or form the genie can get put back in the bottle.
Please do read my posts to you if you want to discuss this with me. You have once again missed my point and mischaracterized my position.
Many thanks.
Tom H.
-
After spending the last four days here -
http://www.nphnicaragua.org/
- I find it a little difficult to get too excited about range-finders.
Of course - this could be said about all GCA topics. Nonetheless, I participate daily.
-
In the dead of night I will watch the continental plates move further and further apart and wonder if in time we will meet again on a natural contoured golf course close by the sea.
Just make sure you don't estimate the distance between the two.
-
Tom,
OK, I see why I missed it. No real question. I guess I am too busy trying to understand the "how could they not be interested in walking off there yardage" statements. And how they keep ignoring the information I give them.
Let alone the "you can't possibly be playing by feel alone" statements. Will it mean anything if I add that I have won events in Scotland and there was no distance graffiti? (I like that term too.)
But to get back on track, I guess haven't read any treads where Melvin was forcing his perspective on anyone. I have only seen him state it and people call him an ass for believing in such a thing because they have no experience with it.
I do only get on here occasionally because of my health thing so have probably missed much.
-
Tom,
OK, I see why I missed it. No real question. I guess I am too busy trying to understand the "how could they not be interested in walking off there yardage" statements. And how they keep ignoring the information I give them.
Let alone the "you can't possibly be playing by feel alone" statements. Will it mean anything if I add that I have won events in Scotland and there was no distance graffiti? (I like that term too.)
But to get back on track, I guess haven't read any treads where Melvin was forcing his perspective on anyone. I have only seen him state it and people call him an ass for believing in such a thing because they have no experience with it.
I do only get on here occasionally because of my health thing so have probably missed much.
Understood. Ralph.
Please trust me, and believe me, that you have sincerely misjudged the participants here.
All the best to you.
-
Melyvn,
I don't think that everyone is "yardage" biased, but I do think they are distance oriented yes. There has been a lot of studies on this and how the male brain works in how it sizes up distances thru common units of measurements in whatever forms they come in.
I'm not trying to tear down your ancestors...I am rather thankful on the contrary for thier early involvement in forming the game. However I think its naive to think that they were interested in distance, just like 99% of golfers today are. Especially given the fact that they were so good at the game, they must have been keenly aware of distances and used it to thier advantage.
The truth does indeed exist...I just don't think we'll ever find it without inventing a time machine and outfitting Tom H in old wool clothes and hickories and sending him back to be a spy on our behalf. 8)
I do think this is an interesting topic even though it doesn't change anything. As Tom always says, the Genie is indeed out of that bottle and it ain't going back in. So anything that happened 150 years quite frankly doesn't matter....but its still fun to argue/haggle/speculate on it though. ;D
-
Ralph:
Absolute statements are rarely true. I read most long posts if they are of interest to me. I accept historical facts too.
And I'd also appreciate a response to my post, directed to you. You can make it off-line if you wish.
I just believe you have quite misjudged at least some of the characters in this drama.
;)
LATE EDIT: here am I Don Quixote..... yes Ralph, it likely never will be resolved. Still, a fair judgment of the characters might be a bit nicer.
Tom,
I can't seen to find a question directed at me from you. Could you repost?
Pat,
You have never "played" hickories. You have hit some balls around with some crappy old clubs. As far as I know, Ran is the only one on the site that has played hickories. Tom might have, but I don't know how many rounds he has under his belt.
Ralph-
What makes you so darn "pig-headed" is the fact that you really 100% believe that I never "played" hickories. That is an insane statement and in no way should you make that assumption.
Yes, Sir Ralph, I have PLAYED hickories.
TCC-Brookline owns two full sets (maybe 10-11 clubs, not an old crap set, but purchased that year) and one day while playing 36 holes of golf one of the Assistants let me take a set out for a round. As I stated before I didn't find them all that difficult after an adjustment period of 2 or 3 holes. I probably shot 6 strokes higher than I usually would have.
Ralph- In no way, shape, or form am I trying to disagree with anyone on here. But I HATE when people believe they know the secret to "pure" and "traditional" golf and somehow every normal golfer is some sort of virus. Give me a break.
Games and sports change. Period. Try going to the NBA and saying you want the three point line removed because that is not "traditional" basketball. Try telling football players to play with leather helmits. Baseball players to not use steriods. And hockey players to only play pond hockey.
Like I said, you didn't play hickories. You played a set of reproductions that might as well have been a new set of pings.
I am glad you acknowledge that games change, so where is the difficulty in understanding that they played by feel? Using your analogy, the statements in this thread have been argueing there is no way they didn't know about a three point line 150 years ago.
-
Ralph...
Distance is such a part of the game...how did Old/Young Tom Morris design a course if he did not understand distance? Did he simply "feel" that a bunker was in the proper location to produce a challenge or did he do some pacing?
-
Melvyn....there is a big difference between playing the game with distance aids and knowing how far you hit a certain club...maybe I am reading you wrong, but you appear to be saying they did not care to know how far they hit a certain club back then....obviously each time they hit a club it went a different distance, but never the less, they had a maximum distance, and surely early golfers must have known this?
-
Ralph:
Absolute statements are rarely true. I read most long posts if they are of interest to me. I accept historical facts too.
And I'd also appreciate a response to my post, directed to you. You can make it off-line if you wish.
I just believe you have quite misjudged at least some of the characters in this drama.
;)
LATE EDIT: here am I Don Quixote..... yes Ralph, it likely never will be resolved. Still, a fair judgment of the characters might be a bit nicer.
Tom,
I can't seen to find a question directed at me from you. Could you repost?
Pat,
You have never "played" hickories. You have hit some balls around with some crappy old clubs. As far as I know, Ran is the only one on the site that has played hickories. Tom might have, but I don't know how many rounds he has under his belt.
Ralph-
What makes you so darn "pig-headed" is the fact that you really 100% believe that I never "played" hickories. That is an insane statement and in no way should you make that assumption.
Yes, Sir Ralph, I have PLAYED hickories.
TCC-Brookline owns two full sets (maybe 10-11 clubs, not an old crap set, but purchased that year) and one day while playing 36 holes of golf one of the Assistants let me take a set out for a round. As I stated before I didn't find them all that difficult after an adjustment period of 2 or 3 holes. I probably shot 6 strokes higher than I usually would have.
Ralph- In no way, shape, or form am I trying to disagree with anyone on here. But I HATE when people believe they know the secret to "pure" and "traditional" golf and somehow every normal golfer is some sort of virus. Give me a break.
Games and sports change. Period. Try going to the NBA and saying you want the three point line removed because that is not "traditional" basketball. Try telling football players to play with leather helmits. Baseball players to not use steriods. And hockey players to only play pond hockey.
Like I said, you didn't play hickories. You played a set of reproductions that might as well have been a new set of pings.
I am glad you acknowledge that games change, so where is the difficulty in understanding that they played by feel? Using your analogy, this the statements in this thread have been argueing there is no way they didn't know about a three point line 150 years ago.
Let me know where I can sign up to be a member of the American Association of Mindless Hickory Players .
-
I guess the Bombsquad guys have taken over....
-
Ralph..
Actually, the game is still played by "feel".....you can use all the distance aids in the world, but all they do is tell you where you are...not how hard or soft to hit a shot, not where to land the ball, not what club to use....that is all FEEL.
For you to sit on your high horse and claim the game is so much different than it was 150 years ago is asinine and wrong!
-
For you to sit on your high horse and claim the game is so much different than it was 150 years ago is asinine and wrong!
Beautiful.....truly.
Joe
p.s. Craig, how old are you again?
-
Joe...
Equipment changes...the hole hasn't and the object of the game hasn't.
Get over it...stop being so wrapped up in the material...embrace the spirit(ual)!!!
-
Let me know where I can sign up to be a member of the American Association of Mindless Hickory Players .
Patrick: under-informed, cocksure certitude such as this (particularly, as packaged with pointless ad hominems) is utterly unimpressive. You are doing a great disservice to yourself. You haven't been around long enough to be able to get away with pretending to know everything yet...
Yes, that role is reserved to this DSchmidt character, whoever the hell he is.
;D
-
Let me know where I can sign up to be a member of the American Association of Mindless Hickory Players .
Patrick: under-informed, cocksure certitude such as this (particularly, as packaged with pointless ad hominems) is utterly unimpressive. You are doing a great disservice to yourself. You haven't been around long enough to be able to get away with pretending to know everything yet...
The only "cocksure certitude" is the additude I get from Melvyn and Ralph. If anyone has actually read my posts would know I am essentially on their side. However their bullheaded and condenscending stance on all things "pure" golf is stupid.
I have "been around" for five years. Apparently unless you have 15,000 posts are you allowed to state a strong opinion about something.
-
Man, is this thread still going? :o
-
Charlie - it is indeed - we have plenty of Quixotes here as well as others who for whatever reason find this fun. I myself seem to qualify as both.
BUT... in discussions with a wise man... a light bulb has gone on over my head. OK, he pulled the switch.
WHAT IF.....
The USGA and R&A each got together and made rules changes such that distance information was effectively banned?
The mechanics of this can be fleshed out by others (it's not my forte, that's for sure). I think if you told courses that if they had distance markings (other than on scorecard only, one distance per hole), they could not be rated - and modified the advice rule such that distance information could not be given - that would do the trick. There would be a large backlash for sure. However, if the governing bodies stood firm.... people would adapt.
Then we'd add back in this skill - judging of distance, what club to hit - that I have to believe is fundamental to the game. The game would be more fun. The erosion of at least this judgment skill would cease.
Now if Melvyn reads this, he is likely keeling over in shock right now, given the assumptions he's made about me (incorrectly). But my position all along has never been that use of distance information is the right way, or a better way, to play this game. No, my position has always been that it is how the game is played today, it's not going to change, so live and let live, go with the flow, judge not lest ye be judged.
BUT HMMMMMMM.... if it could change - and I do think this could work.... man I believe the game would be better for it, in several ways.
Thoughts?
TH
-
The only time I have ever seen significant use of range finders was last year in BUDA VI at Lundin and Elie. All "culprits" that I played with were visiting Americans and in all cases their use of the devices was so unobtrusive and so irrelevant to the speed of play as to hardly be noticed (if anything it speeded things up). Old Tom would have liked that, IMHO.
-
Tom, I for one would love to see it.
What people (particularly grasshoppers whose adult life experience began well into the 21st century) tend to forget is that long before the now-faddish educational device called the "open book test" -- which comes complete with permitted calculator and computer and sometimes they even give you the questions in advance -- there was this thing they used to use that was called the closed book test, where it was just you, your brain and your writing instrument, the questions were a surprise and you had to do the best your could using only your recollections of your learning and experience.
In fact, they didn't even call it a closed book test back then. It was simply called a test. The fact that it was "closed book" was a given.
Similarly, there was once something simply called Golf - where it was just you, your judgment and your experience. Now, with courses that are littered with distance graffiti, pin sheets abounding, players carrying detailed yardage maps in fancy little leather booklets, every distance zapped electronically, caddies standing behind players to line them up, cheater lines on the putter and cheater lines on the ball, make no mistake: we are playing "open book golf".
And the average score for both test types is still a "C" (90).
-
Tom, I for one would love to see it.
What people (particularly grasshoppers whose adult life experience began well into the 21st century) tend to forget is that long before the now-faddish educational device called the "open book test" -- which comes complete with permitted calculator and computer and sometimes they even give you the questions in advance -- there was this thing they used to use that was called the closed book test, where it was just you, your brain and your writing instrument, the questions were a surprise and you had to do the best your could using only your recollections of your learning and experience.
In fact, they didn't even call it a closed book test back then. It was simply called a test. Similarly, there was once something simply called Golf - where it was just you, your judgment and your experience. Now, with courses that are littered with distance graffiti, pin sheets abounding, players carrying detailed yardage maps in fancy little leather booklets, every distance zapped electronically, caddies standing behind players to line them up, cheater lines on the putter and cheater lines on the ball, make no mistake: we are playing "open book golf".
There is no such thing as "open book golf." That is completely ridiculous. Maybe a select few golfers are using a wide range of devices to zap yardages and line up putts, but all of us generally do not. You're idea of closed book golf would mean that unless we are playing golf exactly like Ralph and his old hickory clubs (but not new ones because that would be like using pings ::) ) we are not really playing golf?
I would suggest calling your closed book game "Hickory Golf" and everyone else can call what they play "Golf."
But what do I know considering I have less than 10,000 posts, a grasshopper, and someone who was educated and raised in a far off land (oh wait).
-
The only time I have ever seen significant use of range finders was last year in BUDA VI at Lundin and Elie. All "culprits" that I played with were visiting Americans and in all cases their use of the devices was so unobtrusive and so irrelevant to the speed of play as to hardly be noticed (if anything it speeded things up). Old Tom would have liked that, IMHO.
Rich - oh I fully concur with that - that's been another point of mine all along - that use of these devices is either irrelevant in terms of speed of play or in rare instances (like over here in distance graffiti world) does tend to speed things up. Whether Old Tom would have liked it is a historical footnote, no comment from me, I don't know.
But what about the world today and what we do now? Any thoughts on the idea to remove all distance information? Can it be done? Should it be done? I kinda like Dave's "closed book test" thought process....
TH
-
Pat:
Your post is the backlash I'd expect if the rules-makers changed things as per what I posted.
Many would be up in arms... many would scream... legal implications would have to be considered (sadly)....
But try to look beyond that.
Picture a golf world with no distance information. No one would have it, none at all. The skill in judging just what club to hit on any given shot would be fundamental.
Wouldn't this be more fun? Wouldn't it re-introduce a complexity and skill to the game that would be just one more way to separate the great players from the poorer? Wouldn't it add more shotmaking to a game some complain has gotten too easy? Wouldn't it lead to greater chances being taken in architecture... wilder holes being built...
I don't know. Maybe I am reaching too far. Heck I've been a slave to distance my entire golf life and it would be one hell of an adjustment for me.
I just can't think of any reasons why this would be a bad thing.... can you? Can anyone?
TH
-
Tom,
Are you going to somehow outlaw counting ones steps? Are you going to make it against the Rules to take notes when you're playing to use the next time you play that course?
People who want to score well in medal play tend to believe that knowing how far they need to hit the ball is an advantage leading to lower scores. They will inevitably find ways to ascertain distance as exactly as possible for as many shots as possible since they believe that information leads to lower scores (which it does BTW).
-
Tom,
Are you going to somehow outlaw counting ones steps? Are you going to make it against the Rules to take notes when you're playing to use the next time you play that course?
People who want to score well in medal play tend to believe that knowing how far they need to hit the ball is an advantage leading to lower scores. They will inevitably find ways to ascertain distance as exactly as possible for as many shots as possible since they believe that information leads to lower scores (which it does BTW).
Brent:
One can play however one wishes; he just will not be allowed to have distance information available on the course. He can (and perhaps many will) create notes (or purchase such) if he remains a slave to knowing numbers. He just can't take that information with him on the course - that would be an open book test.
Those who do find ways to ascertain distance will be rewarded for their ingenuity. That's part of the judgment skill that I feel ought to be rewarded. It will result in lower scores for those diligent enough, creative enough, savvy enough, skillful enough... all adjectives connoting things that ought to be rewarded, don't you think?
I figure, however, that over time, this will be more and more of a pain, and just ascertaining what CLUB to hit will become more and more fundamental (ie next to this bush is a 7iron, as opposed to next to this bush is 150 and that means a 7iron).
But however it happens and whatever happens, a skill that seems fundamental to the game to me gets reintroduced, the game gets more complex, the game gets more fun.
No?
-
Tom,
Are you going to somehow outlaw counting ones steps? Are you going to make it against the Rules to take notes when you're playing to use the next time you play that course?
People who want to score well in medal play tend to believe that knowing how far they need to hit the ball is an advantage leading to lower scores. They will inevitably find ways to ascertain distance as exactly as possible for as many shots as possible since they believe that information leads to lower scores (which it does BTW).
So don't folks think there is any difference between gaining information and knowledge through experience is any different than being gifted the information and knowledge of experience?
Ciao
-
Tom,
Are you going to somehow outlaw counting ones steps? Are you going to make it against the Rules to take notes when you're playing to use the next time you play that course?
People who want to score well in medal play tend to believe that knowing how far they need to hit the ball is an advantage leading to lower scores. They will inevitably find ways to ascertain distance as exactly as possible for as many shots as possible since they believe that information leads to lower scores (which it does BTW).
So don't folks think there is any difference between gaining information and knowledge through experience is any different than being gifted the information and knowledge of experience?
Ciao
Well that's rather what I was getting at, Sean.. and Dave too....
If it CAN BE DONE, I can't see why it shouldn't be. My issue prior to today assumed it couldn't be done. Maybe it can't. And if it can't, then I remain in favor of getting the information as efficiently as possible.
TH
-
Pat:
Your post is the backlash I'd expect if the rules-makers changed things as per what I posted.
Many would be up in arms... many would scream... legal implications would have to be considered (sadly)....
But try to look beyond that.
Picture a golf world with no distance information. No one would have it, at all. The skill in judging just what club to hit on any given shot would be fundamental.
Wouldn't this be more fun? Wouldn't it re-introduce a complexity and skill to the game that would be just one more way to separate the great players from the poorer? Wouldn't it add more shotmaking to a game some complain has gotten too easy? Wouldn't it lead to greater chances being taken in architecture... wilder holes being built...
I don't know. Maybe I am reaching too far. Heck I've been a slave to distance my entire golf life and it would be one hell of an adjustment to me.
I just can't think of any reasons why this would be a bad thing.... can you? Can anyone?
TH
Tom-
I agree with you. I have said all along in my posts that I really don't use that many distance aides. All I need is a 150 yard pole and I can go from there. I have always played as fast as possible, if I am on any course playing alone, a round over 3 hours would mean I must of broke my leg along the way.
However the problem I personally have is when people tell me that looking at that 150 pole is somehow not playing real and "pure" golf. Somehow in my (apparently very short) life I never understood that I wasn't really playing golf.
I would bet I use less distance aid than Ralph, Melvyn, and Shivas combined. That being said at least I admit that I do use some sort of distance estimation and that in the end "feel" is a product of distance.
-
Pat:
Oh believe me, I share your offense at that... Melvyn and I have certainly had our battles, and that's the main reason why.
But let's try to get past that too....
I think this new/old game would be a lot of fun and better for the game and us all. The key question is could it happen?
TH
-
Pat:
Oh believe me, I share your offense at that... Melvyn and I have certainly had our battles, and that's the main reason why.
But let's try to get past that too....
I think this new/old game would be a lot of fun and better for the game and us all. The key question is could it happen?
TH
Tom-
I think it is a good idea for a select group like the GCA.com board. However in the grand scheme of things it is doubtful. The Melvyns and Ralphs of the world actually consists of about 0.000001% of the entire golfing population.
-
Tom,
Are you going to somehow outlaw counting ones steps? Are you going to make it against the Rules to take notes when you're playing to use the next time you play that course?
People who want to score well in medal play tend to believe that knowing how far they need to hit the ball is an advantage leading to lower scores. They will inevitably find ways to ascertain distance as exactly as possible for as many shots as possible since they believe that information leads to lower scores (which it does BTW).
Well that's rather what I was getting at, Sean.. and Dave....
If it CAN BE DONE, I can't see why it shouldn't be. My issue prior to today assumed it couldn't be done. Maybe it can't. And if it can't, then I remain in favor of getting the information as efficiently as possible.
TH
So don't folks think there is any difference between gaining information and knowledge through experience is any different than being gifted the information and knowledge of experience?
Ciao
Huckabilly
Other than my main objection to archies being partially hamstrung by distance graffiti, I suspect this is the second area where I part company with the lot advocating all and more. I want to see the thinking part of the game be more utilized and players who can out-think opponents be rewarded.
Ciao
-
So don't folks think there is any difference between gaining information and knowledge through experience is any different than being gifted the information and knowledge of experience?
Of course there's a difference. And the former is better than the latter.
But that's not the choice on offer. Tom is proposing that those without information and knowledge gained through experience have various (attempted) nuisances and barriers erected to prevent them from being "gifted" any information about the course. Which of course is typical Treehouse wish-fulfillment wankery masquerading as a thought experiment.
The best players I know prefer to learn about a course over multiple practice rounds, rangefinder in hand, making their own notes about the course and attempting various shots from situations they may encounter in a competitive round. If that is not available, they will settle for one practice round and a detailed yardage book. If that is not available they will settle for whatever markers are on the course plus pacing around until they've gained as much distance information as possible without causing an uprising on the part of their fellow competitors or officials.
If a skilled player looks at the hole before he hits the shot, on average he will hit it closer than if he wears a blindfold. If a skilled player knows how far his ball lies from the hole he will hit it closer on average than if he has to guess the distance. If a skilled player has played the hole twenty times before he will hit it closer on average than if he's just off the boat playing the course for the first time. All of these are simply, empirical facts. Wishing them not to be so has no effect on objective reality.
I'm not a skilled player. I play many rounds where my knowledge of distance on most shots is vague at best. In all likelihood even an unskilled player like myself hits the ball slightly less close to the hole and therefore shoots slightly higher scores than I could do by measuring distances but frankly many times I'm not out there to shoot the lowest score possible (if I were I would trade in about a third of my rounds for practice-range sessions).
But you guys aren't talking about people playing like Sean prefers to play (and Melvyn and Ralph and ostensibly Tom H. although I don't believe that for a moment). What you're talking about is trying to come up with Rules to [expletive deleted] with the heads of the guys who actually are trying to shoot the lowest scores possible. And that is a fool's errand.
-
Pat:
But let's try to get past that too....
TH
The problem is others can't understand that this is a discussion board and not a lecture hall. Dismissing someone's comments and ideas because age and a lack of posts is completly uncalled for and unacceptable.
-
As good as Toms suggestion is and I agree with it in principle, I still don't see this being effective in deterring anyone from using yardages in the game even if it were introduced.
At the organized level, specifically the pro level, caddies can still pace yardages and take notes during practice rounds and study/memorize these at night to regurgitate the next day to thier player. So while they may not have every last carry distance, they would still have decent yardages for most of the shots required.
And at the local weekend warrior level, guys would still use thier bushnells, pre-owned yardage books, GPS and otherwise....because they are just playing for fun. As it is, alot already break/inproperly enforce many rules on the course as well as use non-conforming balls, clubs, etc....this would just be another item to add to the list.
-
Brent:
I think you misunderstand me.
I am not advocating fucking with anyone's head. I just suggested one means to an end. That is, we can get to a game I think would be better via these rules changes. I am VERY open to other suggestions as to how to get to this end.
Because you see, I am just quite sincerely advocating that we go back to a game in which distance information (if one has to have it) is earned rather than given. I think it's a skill that some will be great at, some won't, but in any case something in which hard work will be rewarded. I think Sean phrased it well:
I want to see the thinking part of the game be more utilized and players who can out-think opponents be rewarded.
That's what I want as well. This would be a way in which we make that happen.
TH
ps - regarding note taking, that can be done in practice rounds only. As shivas says, "there should be no note taking, note making or note use during a stipulated round."
-
Whatever might ail the Game of Golf, it won't be improved by a bunch of lawyers packing layer upon layer of fanatical nitpicking into the Rules.
-
Whatever might ail the Game of Golf, it won't be improved by a bunch of lawyers packing layer upon layer of fanatical nitpicking into the Rules.
But Brent, I am not a lawyer - not even close - and that's sure as hell not what I am doing.
Read my last post... I really think you misunderstand me.
If you don't think the game would be better without distance information, fine. I can definitely accept the different viewpoint.
But if you can accept that... then the rules change just remains the best way I can think of to make it happen.
BTW...I really don't see much chance of this gaining much traction, as in the end I think there are not even that many in the governing bodies who would agree with those who say it's a better or more fundamental way to play the game. So perhaps I ought to go back to my previous stance. This is more of a "what if", as I initially posted.
TH
-
Whatever might ail the Game of Golf, it won't be improved by a bunch of lawyers packing layer upon layer of fanatical nitpicking into the Rules.
Lawyers don't add much. ;D
-
So don't folks think there is any difference between gaining information and knowledge through experience is any different than being gifted the information and knowledge of experience?
wankery
I'm not a skilled player. I play many rounds where my knowledge of distance on most shots is vague at best. In all likelihood even an unskilled player like myself hits the ball slightly less close to the hole and therefore shoots slightly higher scores than I could do by measuring distances but frankly many times I'm not out there to shoot the lowest score possible (if I were I would trade in about a third of my rounds for practice-range sessions).
But you guys aren't talking about people playing like Sean prefers to play (and Melvyn and Ralph and ostensibly Tom H. although I don't believe that for a moment). What you're talking about is trying to come up with Rules to fuck with the heads of the guys who actually are trying to shoot the lowest scores possible. And that is a fool's errand.
Brent
Well, your imaginative use of a word derived from wanker made me laugh.
I am not trying to fuck with anybody. My goal in eliminating yardage graffiti is to enable archies to be more creative, or rather allow their creativity to impact the game more. Lord knows there is a serious dearth of architectural creativity out there and when an archie does come up with some clever ploy, players just whip out a gun. This sort of thinking makes no sense to me and eventually, more and more archies will stop wasting time trying to design in deceiving features because there is little point. Secondly, I want to see experience properly and fully rewarded. When a guy can even the odds with a machine or by looking at a disc then the advantage of experience is reduced - this is a shame imo.
Ciao
-
Golf, like everything else in our dynamic world, has changed. Whether or not you like yardage markers, they exist on the vast majority of courses and the vast majority of golfers (including myself) approve of their existence. Thus it appears that most people see this as progress, but if individuals prefer not to use them they certainly have that right. I think the chances of yardage markers disappearing is about as likely as elimination of e-mail so that we can go back to sending letters by post for communication.
-
Well, your imaginative use of a word derived from wanker made me laugh.
I was trying to connote a certain grudging respect for the skill with which some people have developed a rather prosaic pursuit into something akin to a art form.
Tom H,
I would never mean to accuse yourself of being a lawyer...let's see, could that be "lawyerie"...naah, doesn't work.
-
Golf, like everything else in our dynamic world, has changed. Whether or not you like yardage markers, they exist on the vast majority of courses and the vast majority of golfers (including myself) approve of their existence. Thus it appears that most people see this as progress, but if individuals prefer not to use them they certainly have that right. I think the chances of yardage markers disappearing is about as likely as elimination of e-mail so that we can go back to sending letters by post for communication.
Andy: I don't wholly disagree. Change is difficult and there do seem to be very very few behind this issue. But let's play more "what if"... say the rulesmakers made these changes. Do you see such as a bad thing?
Brent - LOL - no offense taken. I yam what I yam. But I yammnot is a lawyer, that's all. And come on... you know this kind of prosaic wankering is not normally my style... I just think this is an interesting what if.
One more thing - hell no, I don't play this way NOW. Why should I? I have been a slave to distance my whole life, I know no other way to play. But change the rules and hell yes I comply. And I think it would be a more fun game.
TH
-
Golf, like everything else in our dynamic world, has changed. Whether or not you like yardage markers, they exist on the vast majority of courses and the vast majority of golfers (including myself) approve of their existence. Thus it appears that most people see this as progress, but if individuals prefer not to use them they certainly have that right. I think the chances of yardage markers disappearing is about as likely as elimination of e-mail so that we can go back to sending letters by post for communication.
Andy: I don't wholly disagree. Change is difficult and there do seem to be very very few behind this issue. But let's play more "what if"... say the rulesmakers made these changes. Do you see such as a bad thing?
I don't see any benefit to taking away yardage markers so that I can guess yardages over cross hazards--so yes I would see the change as a bad thing personally. If yardage markers had never been included on courses I'm sure I'd see it differently, but I've used them for 99.9 percent of the rounds I've ever played and have no desire to eliminate them. Modern American courses (and perhaps others) are often designed with the expectation that players will know yardages--they're too hard as it is let alone if one had to guess how far it would be to carry the water (with some kind of other death on the other side most likely).
-
Andy:
It would be a difficult transition. And it would make the game a lot tougher on courses such as you describe... at least initially.
Because... just how deceiving can ANY forced carry be? Oh sure some might fool you... but over time as your how far this club ought to go and how far away is something skills increased, I think you wouldn't be fooled very often. And if you were, well.... it's your own lack of skill....
Oh I know I would suffer at first... but as everyone else played this way, misery would be company.. but I really believe a light bulb would go on eventually... and this would be a really cool way to play, more how the game is SUPPOSED to be.
TH
-
Modern American courses (and perhaps others) are often designed with the expectation that players will know yardages--they're too hard as it is let alone if one had to guess how far it would be to carry the water (with some kind of other death on the other side most likely).
Good point. Any course designed in the last few decades, at least those of quality and thoughtfulness, was built in an environment where knowing the distance of obstacles and targets (to one degree of accuracy or another) is part of the background assumptions under which the architect is working. It would be nuts to play a typical Florida resort course---where one, two or three shots on every hole have water in play either as a cross hazard or a lateral one---with absolutely no idea of the distances involved. Many such watery courses have multiple shots per round where the margin for error in a shot is comparable to the margin of error in even a trained eyeball unfamiliar with the hole in question.
That said, the flip side of this is Sean's point that certain architectural features are no longer worth the time and effort to design into a course in an era of ubiquitous near-exact distance information. I think it's easy to oversell that drawback by overlooking the ability of good players to "know" their distances after a handful of times playing a given shot but it is an influence on the practice of architecture no doubt.
As I always point out in these discussions, courses designed for "links" or other windy low-profile environments have to be built in a way that accommodates shots in which nothing like certainty as to carry and/or rolling distances is possible due to the conditions. I'd like to add that such accommodation would seem to result in courses both more challenging to eyeball distance estimation (some links ground I have seen is a very visual-target-poor environment) and simultaneously more forgiving of errors in distance knowledge/estimation/guessing with a more finely graduated scale of error and recovery than stereotypical "target golf" setups.
P.S. That last comment could be taken to mean that if I played as many round on links-like terrain as friend Sean perhaps I would share his preferences for how the game is best to be played.
-
Brent - the same reply to Andy goes to you as well.... that is:
It would be a difficult transition. And it would make the game a lot tougher on courses such as you describe... at least initially.
Because... just how deceiving can ANY forced carry be? Oh sure some might fool you... but over time as your how far this club ought to go and how far away is something skills increased, I think you wouldn't be fooled very often. And if you were, well.... it's your own lack of skill....
Oh I know I would suffer at first... but as everyone else played this way, misery would be company.. but I really believe a light bulb would go on eventually... and this would be a really cool way to play, more how the game is SUPPOSED to be.
And then in the end, the gains in architecture that Sean mentions (and I had alluded to earlier) to me outweigh the short-term pain.
TH
-
My goal in eliminating yardage graffiti is to enable archies to be more creative, or rather allow their creativity to impact the game more. Lord knows there is a serious dearth of architectural creativity out there and when an archie does come up with some clever ploy, players just whip out a gun. This sort of thinking makes no sense to me and eventually, more and more archies will stop wasting time trying to design in deceiving features because there is little point. Secondly, I want to see experience properly and fully rewarded. When a guy can even the odds with a machine or by looking at a disc then the advantage of experience is reduced - this is a shame imo.
Sean, I really agree with this statement. While there are obviously too many distance markers out there in the world to ever remove them (the genie mentioned earlier), it seems like there's a richness to the game that is added when the player has to think more for himself, or enrich himself with experience. And the role of the architect is made more important when every distance isn't a known quantity?
For you historians out there, would it be safe to say that in the past there were a lot more players who played only a small number of courses in their lifetimes, and tended to play those courses many more times, as opposed to now where it seems like there are LOTS of people who play LOTS of courses? And has this "play it once" mentality helped to fuel the proliferation of distance graffiti, since there's no desire or opportunity to obtain distance experience on a given course?
And Andy, I feel your pain regarding cross hazards. From an architectural perspective, would lack of knowledge of precise distance tend to make you as a golfer over-club when faced with such a hazard, allowing the architect to mess with your head more when placing hazards beyond your target area?
-
Tom,
I'm sure we would all adjust eventually--and probably avoid courses where judging distances made them difficult beyond reason.
I really don't care how people think the game is "supposed" to be played though--everyone is entitled to their opinions but we obviously won't come to a consensus. I'm not much of a traditionalist by this groups standards and would have to say I'm more interested in how the game is ACTUALLY played today. There are a heck of lot of other things in golf more concerning to me than whether we mark the sprinklers with yardages.
-
Tom,
I'm sure we would all adjust eventually--and probably avoid courses where judging distances made them difficult beyond reason.
I really don't care how people think the game is "supposed" to be played though--everyone is entitled to their opinions but we obviously won't come to a consensus. I'm not much of a traditionalist by this groups standards and would have to say I'm more interested in how the game is ACTUALLY played today. There are a heck of lot of other things in golf more concerning to me than whether we mark the sprinklers with yardages.
Well, you and me both there also. I don't tend to care much either how the game is supposed to be played; of more concern to me is how the game would be more fun. And I really do think it would be more fun sans distance information.
Of course also, this is somewhat trivial in the greater scheme of things. But hey, absent trivialities where would this site be?
;D
-
Kirk:
Regarding this:
While there are obviously too many distance markers out there in the world to ever remove them (the genie mentioned earlier,
I used to think this way as well; oh my, just ask Melvyn.
BUT... if the rules changed... it wouldn't be THAT HARD to remove distance info.
The genie problem to me remains in people's attitudes. That genie is gonna be really tough to corral.
Think it can be done?
TH
-
Does anybody have a picture of this genie?
Anthony
-
Does anybody have a picture of this genie?
Anthony
Your wish is my command.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/THuckaby/genie.jpg)
-
"The genie problem to me remains in people's attitudes. That genie is gonna be really tough to corral.
Think it can be done?"
Of course not. Who do you guys think let this genie like range finder thing out of the bottle? The R&A? The USGA? No way, they didn't have anything to do with rangefinders being commonly used but they did make something of a logic misstep with their handicap system RULE on artifical devices and unfortunately that opened the door to a regular Rule Book Rules change.
Somebody in the Rule writing room apparently forgot that in the Handicap Rules it said to post a score under the USGA Handicap System one must play by The Rules of the game. They sort of forgot about that when they relaxed the ban on artificial devices for handicap posting purposes.
OOPs. And how to resolve that? Ah Shit, let's just remove the ban on it in the Rules Book itself! ;)
And why not since so many recreational golfers and courses hadn't been paying any attention to it for years anyway!
-
TEP:
Well jeez, thanks man, shoot me back down into reality.
;D
More seriously though... yes, it's the attitudes of the masses that has driven many changes. So like I told Melvvyn eons ago when this first came up, the largest problem is that his view is that of a tiny minority... and he's got one hell of a preaching job in front of him to change that.
HOWEVER... in my naivete, I figured that perhaps the governing bodies might take the lead on this issue. Is there really zero chance of that?
If so this goes back to being a silly what if, and I go back to battling with Melvyn. I still think the game would be BETTER this way - and of course Melvyn's assumptions notwithstanding I have always maintained that - but I go back to dealing with today's reality. And in today's realities, range-finders remain a good thing, not a bad one.
TH
-
How about this........ We all want uor performance enhanced.....After all we live in a culture of performance enhancement.....So golf yet again immitates life........a longer driver....a longer ball.....more accurate distance information.......this will never go away from life or from golf.....the girl wants to be prettier.....the golfer wants to be better......life.life.life.golf.golf.golf.....
Anthony
-
Anthony:
I don't want to hear anything else about any genies and their bottles or how in the hell they all got out of them. The fact is there can't be a single genie left in a bottle in America. It's pretty much "Katie Bar the Door" now.
I mean for a few years I've had to suffer through all these pretty looking ads on female cycle products and female hygene products but the other day (and I think on a golf broadcast of all things) I had to endure this ad with this smiling middle-aged couple going on and on about how much fun it's gonna be when the guy gets his dick-extender/enlarger product that the ad is selling.
Super large drivers and hopped up golf balls are the least of my disappointments these days.
-
Anthony:
I don't want to hear anything else about any genies and their bottles or how in the hell they all got out of them. The fact is there can't be a single genie left in a bottle in America. It's pretty much "Katie Bar the Door" now.
I mean for a few years I've had to suffer through all these pretty looking ads on female cycle products and female hygene products but the other day (and I think on a golf broadcast of all things) I had to endure this ad with this smiling middle-aged couple going on and on about how much fun it's gonna be when the guy gets his dick-extender/enlarger product that the ad is selling.
Super large drivers and hopped up golf balls are the least of my disappointments these days.
Tom,
I am glad that we see eye to eye on this topic. Without performance enhancers from that bottle I would not have these two.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3330/3291298200_aff5bbccbf.jpg?v=0)
-
Very few solutions being offered in this thread.
With the world recession, stimulus and a fundamental change to business and personal wealth, I offer these simple solutions and alternatives:
1. Require all courses to have yardage markers, perhaps every 10 yards, of some sort and/or rent yardage gauging devices. This requirement will foster an increase of production (result = more jobs, tax revenue) of yardage markers, plates, etc. and perhaps spawn new innovative technologies.
2. Charge for the use of yardage markers, distance measure devices, etc. based on use. In the same pricing model as carts, courses can charge golfers for use of the yardage markers. It would be a pre-pay plan ($ .50 per view or $ 15 for unlimited viewing of the distances placed on sprinkler heads, $ 10 use fee for using your own laser device, etc.).
The world as we know it is changing, so is the business of golf.
-
Tom,
Great idea, I'm sure the lobbying groups of Garmin et al will sign up for it in a second - especially since electronic yardage devices seem to be the only golf item flying off the shelves these days . . .
There would certainly be initial "slow play" pains to go through as people rip 3 irons over the green from 150 yards away but I agree that over time it would raise the average golfers conciousness to a higher level as experience on particular courses builds. Unfortunately, many golfers do not want this as has been discussed. The American cultural mantra of - Make it easy, make me stupid, do whatever you want as long as I score better - is completely juxtaposed with taking away yardage.
As I mentioned on a previous thread, it seems like golf is being compartmentalized into several very different games - ie) cart golf, walking golf, range finder golf, 460cc golf, hickory golf, persimmon/forged golf, dream golf, fazio golf, professional golf, etc.
I think the reason for this falls squarely at the feet of the USGA because it is their responsibility to put guard rails on the game.
Another reason is the proliferation of public golf courses. If the average golfer lives in a city with 100 public courses and he plays 20 different courses once or twice a year then distance information is much more important to scoring. If a golfer plays 20 times a year at his private club then after a few rounds it is much less relevant.
That raises the question of scoring and the obsession in the US with handicap. If we all played matches then the question of interpreting distance becomes an exciting element of the match. In stroke play format on an unfamiliar course, not knowing distance just pisses people off.
I'll happily sign the petition to the USGA to get rid of distance info - who's putting it together :)
-
Rob: you delineated the roadblocks quite well.
It would certainly not be easy... the backlash would be HUGE and angry, for all the reasons you state.
I just wonder if over time it would work itself out... every issue you raise would seem to me to fade away over time, as people adapt....
But of course it doesn't matter if it never gets a chance. And yes, there really isn't a snowball's chance in hell that said chance will be given.
SO... it remains an interesting what-if.
-
I have noticed a trend with the young players that club selection is based on distance rather than shot type. Rarely do I see a youg player take an extra club for a knock down shot or take a three quarter swing into the wind.
Anthony
-
I have noticed a trend with the young players that club selection is based on distance rather than shot type. Rarely do I see a youg player take an extra club for a knock down shot or take a three quarter swing into the wind.
Anthony
I think this falls under the category of not throwing a curveball until you're 16. If you can hit a stock shot, getting fancy doesn't make a lot of sense. Whether that is a high flying shot to soft greens in the Northeast or low runners in Texas.
PS - from the looks of the pic you posted, you out-kicked your coverage....twice. Great looking family :)
-
"I'll happily sign the petition to the USGA to get rid of distance info - who's putting it together ;)"
Rob:
Don't know who's putting it together but I can tell you the chances are the USGA will just label that what they used to call "Bed-bug letters" and file it accordingly. :-X
-
"I'll happily sign the petition to the USGA to get rid of distance info - who's putting it together ;)"
Rob:
Don't know who's putting it together but I can tell you the chances are the USGA will just label that what they used to call "Bed-bug letters" and file it accordingly. :-X
So we'll go to the R&A. ;D
-
What's forgotten is that the vast majority of players in the US are not on the golf course for the same reason as someone who disdains the use of all the modern devices like:
range finders -X
yardage markers -X
ProV1s -X
spiked shoes -X
tees
bags
motor carts -x
pull carts -X
steel shafts -X
graphite shafts -X
rubber grips -X
cavity back investment cast irons -X
titanium drivers/fwy woods -X
sand wedges -X
chest length putters -X
belly putters -X
sunglasses
gore-tex rain gear
gloves -X
X= Big Aid!
I got tired of typing.
If you use any 'aid' on the above menu you cannot lay claim to being a purist, you are a cafeteria golfer and lose any moral high ground in this argument, but I'm sure that won't stop anyone from rationalizing it in any way that floats their boat. ;) ;D
-
Jim:
I can also rationalize using all of those things, and still wanting to eliminate distance information.
I care not about being a purist. In fact I am insulted if anyone calls me that, which anyone who's ever read a word of mine here sure would not (outside of wanting to insult me).
I also could give a rat's ass about a moral high ground.
I just see a game that would be more fun, and give some other benefits already described. I realize it has no chance of occurring. However it does remain a fun what-if.
;D
-
Huck,
That's 'cause you are a golf slut. ;)
I was speaking to no one in particular, but since you replied...
How far do you normally hit your 7 iron, 150?, well now that you know that you can throw it away, along with all the other irons in your bag, because once you know how far you hit each and every one of them you are no longer getting the benefits out of playing the game eschewed by Ralph.
The skill level needed to pull a specific club after reading a yardage marker vs. estimating the yardage and pulling a club is minimal, especially when you know the built-in yardage you get from that club.
So, unless you're going to Play-Like-Ralph, you only need to close your eyes as you walk by the signage on the par 3s, and don't look for the yardage markers on the course.
-
While I, for one, find the notion of playing without any distance aids at all very intriguing, I don't consider that position akin to taking any moral high ground. I think it's interesting, and worthwile, and that's all. TomP, I'm sure you're right about the reaction of the USGA, and most golfers would probably think it's silly, and wouldn't spend a moment of their lives fretting about the issue. Maybe that's part of WHY I am so intrigued by the idea. What if...........
And Jim, I don't need to eschew the distances on the par 3 signs, either. First of all because the tees are never exactly at that distance, and second because I always look at the sign and then look at the hole and say to myself....."sure looks like less than 187 to me," or whatever. I'm just not very trusting, I suppose.
-
You know, none of those guys back in the 19th century never really practiced on ranges. How soon until we can all feel guilty for hitting the range every so often?
Maybe these guys were so complacent and satisfied with their games they never sought a competitive edge. The notion that a person who played the game 400 years into its evolution defines what is part and parcel to its ethics is going to lead to some rather poorly judged conclusions and nobody has answered the integral question:
Has the game been broken by the addition of yardage information to the golf course?
-
Kyle: just FYI, I've probably hit less that 20 buckets of balls in the last 5 years, 90 percent of the because I'm a cheap ass who only hits them when a friend is running really late to the tee or when they're free at a charity event or whatever.
They're stupid too, IMO. But since they're not part of the stipulated round, they're outside the rules and always should be - like making lots of money or hugging your kids so as to relieve stress so you can make 3 footers for $50 and not worry about it.
I'm not a range rat anymore, either.
Stipulated round. When does that begin and end? (I am DEAD serious) What does information gathered about the golf course outside of a stipulated round matter during the stipulated round?
How would you word a rule about yardage information that won't be broken?
-
They're stupid too, IMO.
David -
What's stupid about the practice range?
-
Jim - you want to talk about aids? You forgot the biggest aid ever created: The handicap system. I think it is proof positive that aids can benefit the game of golf. One of the best things about our sport is that a 2 handicap can have a fun match with a 20. However, there is little reason that a 2 handicap that's devoted the time and effort (and money) to get to their level should ever lose a competitive round to a 20.
I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread: We worry about aids that marginally help golfers (distance aids), but we routinely allow the skill achieved by the low handicapper to be nullified in an instant with the handicap system. Why no uproar? Surely Old Tom (or any competitive Scot in their day) wouldn't want their talent advantage taken away so nonchalantly.
(not to be confused, I'm glad we have the handicap system....)
-
There weren't even any rules governing B&I until 1908 for clubs (limited to plain in shape) and 1921 for balls. That would seem to mean that there weren't enough advances in equipment to give them much thought, at least not for the first 3/4s of golf's history.
There has never been any prohibition against knowing yardages. Even before markers or yardage books came on the scene, no ruling body has ever seen a player that knows his yardages as harmful to the game. As yardage markers/books became more popular I'm sure some prig questioned an opponent's use of them, saying they were 'artificial aids', and weren't allowed under the rules pertaining to 'advice'. That may have led to the addition of 'public knowledge' (1984) as an acceptable form of advice. Equity, in the rules since 1891, may have the guiding principle behind adding those words. Since knowing yardages had never been previously addressed in the rules you have to conclude that yardage markers/books are little different than making one's own map of the course, and there has never been any prohibition against doing that. Sounds like an equitable decision.
Finally, even if you were trying to make the case that a map made by a player, his caddie, his partner, or his partner's caddie wasn't an'artificial aid', you would always be up against the problem of proof that it was them, and only them, that drew it up. Good luck with that approach.
I went to Ralph Livingston's site, http://www.hickorygolf.com/ , and it's well worth the time spent looking around.
-
There weren't even any rules governing B&I until 1908 for clubs (limited to plain in shape) and 1921 for balls. That would seem to mean that there weren't enough advances in equipment to give them much thought, at least not for the first 3/4s of golf's history.
There has never been any prohibition against knowing yardages. Even before markers or yardage books came on the scene, no ruling body has ever seen a player that knows his yardages as harmful to the game. As yardage markers/books became more popular I'm sure some prig questioned an opponent's use of them, saying they were 'artificial aids', and weren't allowed under the rules pertaining to 'advice'. That may have led to the addition of 'public knowledge' (1984) as an acceptable form of advice. Equity, in the rules since 1891, may have the guiding principle behind adding those words. Since knowing yardages had never been previously addressed in the rules you have to conclude that yardage markers/books are little different than making one's own map of the course, and there has never been any prohibition against doing that. Sounds like an equitable decision.
Finally, even if you were trying to make the case that a map made by a player, his caddie, his partner, or his partner's caddie wasn't an'artificial aid', you would always be up against the problem of proof that it was them, and only them, that drew it up. Good luck with that approach.
I went to Ralph Livingston's site, http://www.hickorygolf.com/ , and it's well worth the time spent looking around.
Jim
You are missing the point. I don't think anybody is advocating the banning of knowing yardages, at least I ain't. I am advocating that the knowledge of yardage (distance, type of shot whatever) be gained through experience rather than gifted as some sort of divine right. I don't like the idea that a guy can whip out a machine and in that instant go a long way to wiping out someone else's advantage perhaps gained through years of experience. What will it be next? Guys will have little machines which crank out the firmness of the ground so players can more accurately judge the roll out? IMO, I don't see any difference between devices which could gauge distance, wind or firmness of the ground. They would all go some distance to reducing fundamental judgement skills and the knowledge that experience brings.
Aren't there some courses out there without distance markers? I am sure I have played some, but I don't recall. How do the members of these clubs get on?
Ciao
-
Aren't there some courses out there without distance markers? I am sure I have played some, but I don't recall. How do the members of these clubs get on?
Ciao
Did you get to play Merion on your Philly trip? No yardages there, even on the Par 3s.
Caddies with an encyclopedic knowledge of the golf course.
At least SkyCaddie will NEVER be hung over...
-
Aren't there some courses out there without distance markers? I am sure I have played some, but I don't recall. How do the members of these clubs get on?
Ciao
Did you get to play Merion on your Philly trip? No yardages there, even on the Par 3s.
Caddies with an encyclopedic knowledge of the golf course.
At least SkyCaddie will NEVER be hung over...
Kyle
You know what? I never even noticed about yardage markers at Merion. I spose I really am not terribly bothered by yardage if it isn't readily available. I don't recall asking my caddie for yardage and I don't think he volunteered it in most cases. Maybe he was double looping - yes, I think he was because he often left me with a handful of clubs and disappeared, but I am not sure. I also recall being well off with my club selection a few times. I thought the 3rd was much longer than it is (from one of the frontish tees), but my ballooned 5 iron was pin high - pure luck. I also recall coming up short on #11 with my approach, but this time I hit it solid and was surprised at the splash. I gotta get back to Merion.
Ciao
-
What's forgotten is that the vast majority of players in the US are not on the golf course for the same reason as someone who disdains the use of all the modern devices like:
range finders -X
yardage markers -X
ProV1s -X
spiked shoes -X
tees
bags
motor carts -x
pull carts -X
steel shafts -X
graphite shafts -X
rubber grips -X
cavity back investment cast irons -X
titanium drivers/fwy woods -X
sand wedges -X
chest length putters -X
belly putters -X
sunglasses
gore-tex rain gear
gloves -X
X= Big Aid!
I got tired of typing.
If you use any 'aid' on the above menu you cannot lay claim to being a purist, you are a cafeteria golfer and lose any moral high ground in this argument, but I'm sure that won't stop anyone from rationalizing it in any way that floats their boat. ;) ;D
I agree Jim.
I was under the impression that unless you use a shepherd's crook and literal rocks you are not playing "pure" golf. ::)
-
To Jim Kennedy:
I too think you are missing the point here, or at the very least getting too caught up in the details.
The main point is this: I do quite sincerely believe the game would be more fun if selection of club became a skill earned through experience rather than given to one on a platter. HOW WE GET TO THAT POINT does remain very problematic. The suggestion of changing the rules just seems to me to be the most practical way at this point in time.
Just note re the rules changes:
a) no notes or yardage guides are allowed on the course during a stipulated round; so it doesn't matter if you created it yourself or purchased something... either way you'd have to rely on memory.
b) caddies also cannot give yardage info - they can suggest clubs, but not give numbers. That's solved under a change in the advice rule.
I do think that IF these rules changes were adopted, it would "work." On those with a mind to cheat would certainly do so - as happens today under current rules. But the vast majority of golfers would go kicking and screaming - or willingly - back to the future.
So to Sean, yes I am advocating the banning of distance information; in the sense that courses will no longer be marked, caddies cannot give distance info as advice, and of course electronic aids may not be used. Do all this and it achieves the end you advocate - that is, "knowledge of yardage (distance, type of shot whatever) be gained through experience rather than gifted as some sort of divine right." So perhaps we are saying the same thing. In the end, if golfers want to choose to continue to relate club selection to specific distances, that of course will remain their right. They're just going to have to EARN that distance information (either through experience, memorization or something) rather than have that given to them.
Other golfers will learn to eyeball a shot and relate it to a CLUB to be used....
I think it would be great fun, and yes, a superior way to play the game for one and all.
It also certainly does NOT mean one has to go back to hitting rocks with shepherd crooks. To me B&I innovation is completely separate from this.
Now once again, do I believe this has a snowball's chance in hell of really happening? Of course not. And that's where I differ from Melvyn.
I have to believe Ralph Livingston sees the reality as well (though I hope he chimes in). The Society of Hickory Golfers likely can and does eschew distance information in their events (they sure have the right attitudes to do so)... but as cool as they (we) are, they (we) are a tiny subset of the world's golfers.
TH
-
Tom,
In all seriousness, why don't you just find somebody who wants to play that game and go out and play it? Pick a course that isn't overly marked up with distances, ignore whatever is there and have a guessing game along with your golf. If it's such a great game I'm surprise you haven't found a way to play it.
What bugs me isn't your preferring that game (or more precisely Sean preferring it since I doubt you ever play a round without distance information on the vast majority of your shots). What bugs me is your wanting to by hook, crook or Rule force the 99% of the golfers in the world who are comfortable with knowing how far it is to the hole to dumb their game down to your preferred level. It's akin to a person who hates garlic wanting a health code enforced which bans garlic from everyone's food. That's just nuts.
-
Tom -
I understand the points made by many on both sides here. I'm not a range finder guy. I don't feel the need to know the EXACT yardage of each shot, but it is helpful to know +/- 15 yards.
If we went through with your proposal, can you honestly state you would never step off the distance of a shot (after you hit it and were walking to the green) on a course you played regularly to make a mental note for yourself the next time? I wouldnt' be able to resist.
I love the idea of no yardages on a one-time play course. I'd love to join you for a game some time on a mutually never played course and have at it touchy-feely style... the Sheep Ranch was a blast! BUT at a course I'm playing on a daily basis, I'm going to figure out what club I hit from what spots over time any way. That pleasure may only last a few months or a year anyway.
I think the proponents of no yardage are over-stating the case of the skill factor just a bit. If you play a course regularly unless you have no memory, you will have a sense for what to hit and I don't see how that is superior to having the distance.
-
Tom,
In all seriousness, why don't you just find somebody who wants to play that game and go out and play it? Pick a course that isn't overly marked up with distances, ignore whatever is there and have a guessing game along with your golf. If it's such a great game I'm surprise you haven't found a way to play it.
What bugs me isn't your preferring that game (or more precisely Sean preferring it since I doubt you ever play a round without distance information on the vast majority of your shots). What bugs me is your wanting to by hook, crook or Rule force the 99% of the golfers in the world who are comfortable with knowing how far it is to the hole to dumb their game down to your preferred level. It's akin to a person who hates garlic wanting a health code enforced which bans garlic from everyone's food. That's just nuts.
Brent:
Well you have a point there. I certainly am advocating forcing a way I think would be fun on the rest of the world's golfers. I absolutely believe that many would take it exactly as you are. That's the main reason why I don't think this has any chance of really happening.
SO... you may have noticed I don't get much into any huge policy reasons behind this. Is this the way the game is meant to be played or was originally played? Hell if I know. I THINK so, but I sure can't prove it. To me, it seems like a better way to play, as it restores some more judgment to the game.. so much of which has eroded over the years. But I surely don't expect all to agree with this.
BTW, you might have noticed I posted yesterday that hell no, I don't play this way now. Oh I have tried it a couple times - it takes a course that isn't marked for it to be feasible, and on those few (Ballyneal comes to mind) it was pretty darn fun. But heck even there I only lasted a few holes, and was begging for use of my friend's Bushnell pretty quickly, as there was a match to be won!
But the main point is this: it's not so simple to say just go out and play this way - come on Brent, do you really believe it's possible to ignore all the distance markings on a typical course? I sure don't see that.... and again, given the purpose of most of my golf is to post a score, win a match, do something competitively, it's just not feasible to play this way now, ceding advantage to the competition. Nor do I want to as it would be just such a pain in the ass given the proliferation of distance info.
But change the rules such that everyone has to play this way, markings are removed... man I'd love that. I do think it would be a better way to play this game.
But reasonable minds will of course differ.
TH
-
Tom
I have only dipped in and out of this post so comments below may already have been aired by someone else but I wonder if the modern prevelance of given yardages is a product of the extra length we are now hitting the ball.
Trying to eyeball the distance of say 130 yards, whether you are measuring it in yards, metres or the appropriate club to play is fairly straightforward but when the distance is say 200 yards, the player may not be able to make any kind of reasonable estimate so anything he hits will just be a hit and hope. I can't think that is a practical way of doing things, nor all that satisfying.
-
If instituted as a rule it would certainly bring about a "home field advantage" to top amatuer and professional competition.
Would the probability of the US Am winner being a local guy increase? Would tour rookies fair nearly as well as they do now? My guess is yes to the first question and no to the second.
For some reason a local guy winning the Am appeals to me while lessening the impact of the rookies/youth on tour does not.
I'll just be a good Canadian and continue sitting on the fence. :)
-
Tom -
I understand the points made by many on both sides here. I'm not a range finder guy. I don't feel the need to know the EXACT yardage of each shot, but it is helpful to know +/- 15 yards.
If we went through with your proposal, can you honestly state you would never step off the distance of a shot (after you hit it and were walking to the green) on a course you played regularly to make a mental note for yourself the next time? I wouldnt' be able to resist.
I love the idea of no yardages on a one-time play course. I'd love to join you for a game some time on a mutually never played course and have at it touchy-feely style... the Sheep Ranch was a blast! BUT at a course I'm playing on a daily basis, I'm going to figure out what club I hit from what spots over time any way. That pleasure may only last a few months or a year anyway.
I think the proponents of no yardage are over-stating the case of the skill factor just a bit. If you play a course regularly unless you have no memory, you will have a sense for what to hit and I don't see how that is superior to having the distance.
Tim - you too miss the point.
Under my suggestion you can step off distances as much as you want! You're just going to have to base it on MEMORY or EXPERIENCE... the key is that the course is unmarked and distance info is not given. But if you remember based on notes or experience or whatever that some bush is 150, hell yes step off the distance to it! There would be no prohibition on this whatsoever. If that's how you want to play, go for it. Of course we'd add to the slow play rule or something some way to get people NOT to step off distances all the way to the hole... but sure, some would do that too in the short term. The hope is in the long term they'd see what idiots they look like doing so.
In any case, the main point remains that all of this becomes a skill rather than having it given. Sure on one's home course you'd come to know all the distances, or clubs to be hit under normal conditions from certain points. But I think that' GREAT! Experience / knowledge is rewarded....
And that's the point. As Sean says, "knowledge of yardage (distance, type of shot whatever) be gained through experience rather than gifted as some sort of divine right."
I just think that would be a better way to play. And it only works if distance markings are removed and these rules changes are made.
TH
-
Tom
I have only dipped in and out of this post so comments below may already have been aired by someone else but I wonder if the modern prevelance of given yardages is a product of the extra length we are now hitting the ball.
Trying to eyeball the distance of say 130 yards, whether you are measuring it in yards, metres or the appropriate club to play is fairly straightforward but when the distance is say 200 yards, the player may not be able to make any kind of reasonable estimate so anything he hits will just be a hit and hope. I can't think that is a practical way of doing things, nor all that satisfying.
Niall - no one is saying this would be EASY. Oh I agree it would be very difficult, with the difficulty increasing the longer the distance is. And it is a great point that very long distances require different clubs for many people NOW, whereas at some point in time anything over 210 (or whatever) would have just been 3wood for one and all....
But think of it this way too... as this became so hard... wouldn't strategic play increase? Wouldn't those who COULD estimate distance better and dare I say THINK THROUGH THE SHOT better come to have an advantage?
Man I think that would be great... I'd sure love to even the scales a bit against those for whom a 250 yard shot is now a "stock 4iron"....
TH
-
Tom, et al.
You may or may not recall this course i reviewed last fall.. http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36430.0.html. They took this distancec thing a step further by having bogus yardage markers all over the course. ;D (mostly just on the tees). As the course has 3 par 3's and several other short par 4s these bad yardages can really wreak havoc on ones game...especially where missing a green usually means death in an unplayable lie/OB.
On a side note, after recently discussing Painswick and Lincoln Park and thier corresponding quirkiness, i think this would be right up there too. This course has turned into a semi-annual must play for me as its so damn unorthodox....even though i've given up the delusion of ever holding a GCA event there as much as I'm convinced it would be a hit! ;)
-
Tom, et al.
You may or may not recall this course i reviewed last fall.. http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36430.0.html. They took this distancec thing a step further by having bogus yardage markers all over the course. ;D (mostly just on the tees). As the course has 3 par 3's and several other short par 4s these bad yardages can really wreak havoc on ones game...especially where missing a green usually means death in an unplayable lie/OB.
On a side note, after recently discussing Painswick and Lincoln Park and thier corresponding quirkiness, i think this would be right up there too. This course has turned into a semi-annual must play for me as its so damn unorthodox....even though i've given up the delusion of ever holding a GCA event there as much as I'm convinced it would be a hit! ;)
WHOA! OK, that's taking this to a level I can't see as fun... you may recall my rants on THE RANCH... they too have bogus yardage markings on many holes. The point is not to deceive, the point is to make distance information earned.
But that is thinking outside the box, that's for sure!
TH
-
Tom - I don't miss the point; I just don't agree with the entire point. ;D
I completely embrace your idea for the getaway weekend, the golf trip, the one time visit to a course I've never played.
I just don't see that I've accomplished anything special by "figuring out" the yardages at a home course where I'm going to play weekly. I don't think the yardages are a divine right, and I'd be happy to play without being given them, but I'm going to figure them out at a regularly played course and it isn't because I have (roughly speaking) amazing ability to retain information. It's because if I'm standing next to some fairway bunker and I hit a 9-iron to the green and I've played the course weekly for a year, I'm going to remember that. I dispute that I've shown adittional skill at that point.
As for walking off the distance, I don't think you could create a pace of play rule that would prevent someone from pacing off a rough yardage from the bush next to the fairway (unless you are going to require this game to be played from carts and thereby eliminate any of the purity.) I could get a +/- 15 yard estimate if I wanted by walking briskly, by jogging, or doing anything else to keep up. I take quick, long strides in the course of walking whether or not I'm stepping off distance, so I think I could do it without looking like a crazed maniac in the middle of this exercise of purity.
Remember - I'm not the purist Melvyn nor am I the "I need pinpoint yardage to a green despite the fact that I'm an 18 handicapper and only his my precise yardage once every 20 times I strike the ball anyway" guy. I'm just in the middle - looking to have a good time. ;)
What fun would it be if some of us didn't take a different stance? It's never going to happen anyway, so if we are all going to agree there's no reason for this thread to make it up there with the "Arts & Crafts" in the top 10.
Looking forward to playing a round with you later this summer if it works out - ancient-style or modern-style.
-
Tim:
OK, my bad. Let's rephrase it to say I think you too are getting a little too caught up in the details.
If people want to pace off yardages to any point, let them do it. The hope remains that over time one and all will come to see the stupidity/futility of doing so... or at the very least get branded as such slow-pokes that they quit doing it all that much simply out of shame. In any case, the fact this might happen to me doesn't diminish any part of the benefit of removing dstance information.
As for this:
just don't see that I've accomplished anything special by "figuring out" the yardages at a home course where I'm going to play weekly. I don't think the yardages are a divine right, and I'd be happy to play without being given them, but I'm going to figure them out at a regularly played course and it isn't because I have (roughly speaking) amazing ability to retain information. It's because if I'm standing next to some fairway bunker and I hit a 9-iron to the green and I've played the course weekly for a year, I'm going to remember that. I dispute that I've shown adittional skill at that point.
The point to me remains that one way or the other, judgement is required, rather than everything being given on a silver platter as it is now. Is this that big of a deal at a course one plays all the time? Nope. It surely would increase one's home course advantage over a visitory though... which to me is a good thing. But again one way or the other, to me the fact this doesn't work out as all that big of a deal at home courses does also not diminish the benefits of doing this.
But outside of that, heck yeah I fully expect MANY, IF NOT MOST, to completely disagree with this, as Brent has... again, that's the largest reason why it would never happen. I just want to make sure we're really talking about the same things before we agree to disagree.
As for you and I playing, it's gonna have to be out here as travel is not in the cards for me, sadly. But let me know if you do get back out here! And if we play, unless it's at a course that is wholly unmarked, then you know how we will play the game.... under the rules in place today. ;)
TH
-
Niall - no one is saying this would be EASY. Oh I agree it would be very difficult, with the difficulty increasing the longer the distance is. And it is a great point that very long distances require different clubs for many people NOW, whereas at some point in time anything over 210 (or whatever) would have just been 3wood for one and all....
But think of it this way too... as this became so hard... wouldn't strategic play increase? Wouldn't those who COULD estimate distance better and dare I say THINK THROUGH THE SHOT better come to have an advantage?
Man I think that would be great... I'd sure love to even the scales a bit against those for whom a 250 yard shot is now a "stock 4iron"....
TH
[/quote]
Tom,
To an extent I take your point about the increase in strategic play.
To me its like the difference when I play snooker or pool. If I'm trying to pot a ball on a full size snooker table and its at the other end of the table then frankly its a hit and hope as to whether I even hit the ball. Basically its beyond my level of competency whereas on a smaller pool table I'm not only looking to pot the ball but I am going to try and play for position for the next ball. I might not manage it but at least have engaged the brain and tried to play a shot a certain way to produce a desired result.
To adapt the above to the golf course, the 200 yard plus shot would mean playing away from the hazard to take the safe line just because I couldn't probably gauge what the challenge is. I'm thinking here of more modern courses which have more by way of hazards to be crossed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with you that the game should be more than being given a yardage and simply (I wish !) hitting that yardage. To get the brain engaged I think you would need more than removing yardage informnation from a course, I think you would need to throw in other factors such as wind, undulating hard and fast ground.
There's a thought, anyone ever thought about building a course by the seaside ?
Niall
ps. I wish I could hit my driver 250 yards let alone a 4 iron
-
Niall:
Great stuff - well said, all of it. And you and me both brother, re the "need" for seaside courses to best exploit this, and the wishful thinking about 250 yard shots!
;D
-
I DO NOT USE RANGE FINDERS!! I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ARTIFICAL HELP!
Tthis is why I refuse SPELL CHECK. Spell Check is unnatural, artifical, and just plain cheating. Spell it as it lies (sounds) boys.
Anthony
-
"Spell it as it lies (sounds) boys."
Anthony:
Have you ever seen a word after it really got laid improperly?
-
To Jim Kennedy:
I too think you are missing the point here, or at the very least getting too caught up in the details.
The main point is this: I do quite sincerely believe the game would be more fun if selection of club became a skill earned through experience rather than given to one on a platter. HOW WE GET TO THAT POINT does remain very problematic. The suggestion of changing the rules just seems to me to be the most practical way at this point in time.
Just note re the rules changes:
a) no notes or yardage guides are allowed on the course during a stipulated round; so it doesn't matter if you created it yourself or purchased something... either way you'd have to rely on memory.
b) caddies also cannot give yardage info - they can suggest clubs, but not give numbers. That's solved under a change in the advice rule.
I do think that IF these rules changes were adopted, it would "work." On those with a mind to cheat would certainly do so - as happens today under current rules. But the vast majority of golfers would go kicking and screaming - or willingly - back to the future.
So to Sean, yes I am advocating the banning of distance information; in the sense that courses will no longer be marked, caddies cannot give distance info as advice, and of course electronic aids may not be used. Do all this and it achieves the end you advocate - that is, "knowledge of yardage (distance, type of shot whatever) be gained through experience rather than gifted as some sort of divine right." So perhaps we are saying the same thing. In the end, if golfers want to choose to continue to relate club selection to specific distances, that of course will remain their right. They're just going to have to EARN that distance information (either through experience, memorization or something) rather than have that given to them.
Other golfers will learn to eyeball a shot and relate it to a CLUB to be used....
I think it would be great fun, and yes, a superior way to play the game for one and all.
It also certainly does NOT mean one has to go back to hitting rocks with shepherd crooks. To me B&I innovation is completely separate from this.
Now once again, do I believe this has a snowball's chance in hell of really happening? Of course not. And that's where I differ from Melvyn.
I have to believe Ralph Livingston sees the reality as well (though I hope he chimes in). The Society of Hickory Golfers likely can and does eschew distance information in their events (they sure have the right attitudes to do so)... but as cool as they (we) are, they (we) are a tiny subset of the world's golfers.
TH
AwsHuckabilly
That about sums it up for me.
I would like to point out to Brent that if I see yardage markers I can't possibly ignore them. Its just that I don't actively seek them out. I spose part of the reasoning for not seeking them out is because I am not good enough to play by yardage. If I was, I would be a comfortable scratch player. It is very rarely that I am duped by a misjudgement of distance and when I am I generally think the archie has been a crafty devil. Nearly all of my errors have nothing to do with distance judgement. I have seen you and many others play and my conclusion is the same for you and whoever. I think people use yardage as a crutch, sort of like training wheels for a bike. They are simply afraid to let go. When I think about it, for the vast majority of players, the best play is to ignore yardage and go for the most achievable shot available - especially in recovery situations. Like much of the time on this site, we (the big ME included) try to place ourselves in the position of the great player and play like he does, or think about the strategy of a hole like he does. Far more often than not, this is a big mistake which usually leads to higher scores.
Ciao
-
Those are great points by me Sean - well said.
I also think that once the crutch is removed, we'll all learn to walk just fine... so to speak... that is, over time, the reliance on specific distances would become looked at as some weird way they used to play... as people see their scores actually drop as they make proper/mindful plays, as you describe....
Or at least that's one possible outcome. ;D
-
"Spell it as it lies (sounds) boys."
Anthony:
Have you ever seen a word after it really got laid improperly?
All the time....My wife suggested I name my daughter Hannah because of my dyslexia.
Anthony
-
"My wife suggested I name my daughter Hannah because of my dyslexia."
Aha, Anotonio, the old whatchamacallit! Pal...ah, palindrome! Good idea.
As I age gracefully I'm getting a bit aixelsyd myself. I might think about changing my name from Tom to Mom for convenience sake.
-
"My wife suggested I name my daughter Hannah because of my dyslexia."
Aha, Anotonio, the old whatchamacallit! Pal...ah, palindrome! Good idea.
As I age gracefully I'm getting a bit aixelsyd myself. I might think about changing my name from Tom to Mom for convenience sake.
Tom,
Have you seen the photo of Mom?
Anthony
-
You're missing the point.....knowledge of yardage.... (should) be gained through experience rather than gifted as some sort of divine right.
- Sean Arble
I'm not missing the point at all Sean, and I'm a guy who rarely, if ever, uses a range finder (and I always use the blank sections of my golf ball when putting ;) ). All the years of experience that give you a 'home course advantage', at least in respect to yardage, is as equally wiped out whether or not I spend time pacing off distances or use a rangefinder to acquire the knowledge. All the years of experience that give you a REAL 'home course advantage', like what tactical choices to make, the intricacies of the putting surfaces, your local windage, etc., still remain, even if I'm playing against you and whip out my rangefinder (shades of Cleavon Little :o ).
...a) no notes or yardage guides are allowed on the course during a stipulated round; so it doesn't matter if you created it yourself or purchased something... either way you'd have to rely on memory.
b) caddies also cannot give yardage info - they can suggest clubs, but not give numbers. That's solved under a change in the advice rule.
- Tom Huckaby
Tom,
Is your 'solution' to trash several hundred years of rules history in a (misguided) attempt to limit the information available to a player? Your 'rules' just elevate 'memory' to a never before seen status in those rules.
Ralph 'said' (he can correct me if I am wrong) that before we had 'modern' clubs (iron sets w/progressive lofts) knowing yardages was way down on the scale of importance when measured against knowing how to gauge what needed to be done by using 'feel'. He also said players traveled less and played fewer courses, which also elevated the importance of 'local knowledge' over knowing 'yardages' in that era. If they eschew yardage information it's because that's how the game was played in the era they are recreating for their events.
So really, if you play with 'modern' clubs there is no way you can replicate the experience you say you are after. Even if the rules said that you couldn't use any books, markers, caddies, or rangfinders to obtain yardage, you'd still be playing with equipment that is designed to hit the ball in specific increments of yards, every time, with a standard swing. It's the equipment itself that has caused player's to search out yardages.
I think there are only three approaches....
-You play mainly with the equipment from the era that Ralph knows so well; try to never look at yardage markers, and use feel and depth perception( hopefully you have both your eyes) to make your way around the course.
-You take a 'modern' approach, realizing that the genesis for the modern equipment in your possession began ca.100 years ago and its evolution and your knowledge of yardages hasn't changed the skill and judgement needed to be successful.
-You 'mix' the eras to suit your own personal agenda. There is nothing in the rules saying you must use every available modern advantage. You could throw away 2/3 of your irons, take your SW out of the bag, add a couple of hickory 'play' clubs,, etc., etc, whatever floated your boat.
...adjust to your liking, then pick one.
-
Jim:
You are a tough nut to crack. I mean that as a compliment.
;D
But methinks you miss one very key element of this:
I have no great desire to play my own way. I want the STANDARD way to be the way I advocate. Heartless, selfish? Guilty, guilty. But the point is I look to a golf world sans distance markings and see a good thing. If you do not, that's fine, we can quit quibbling over how to get there. But if you do... well....
None of your three choices work for me. It's just not practical - or dare I say possible - to ignore distance information the way courses are so clearly marked these days. As for equipment, the day all my opponents use such is the day I do also (outside of a few funsy rounds, which were the purpose of me purchasing hickory clubs - thanks to Ralph's advice).
You do make valid points. Equipment today does make this problematic. Just note too - memory would be valuable - and yes elevated - in only ONE way to go about playing the game in my approach. That is, those that remain slaves to the need for a distance would have to develop good memories. But others may just learn to eyeball better, play shots based on feel... the hope being that the latter becomes more prevalent over time.
But also answer this: are you HAPPY with the status of equipment today?
And if not, can't you see another benefit of my idea?
As the benefits of dialed-in distance decrease, might not equipment go at least a little back to the future also?
It's food for thought anyway.
-
You're missing the point.....knowledge of yardage.... (should) be gained through experience rather than gifted as some sort of divine right.
- Sean Arble
I'm not missing the point at all Sean, and I'm a guy who rarely, if ever, uses a range finder (and I always use the blank sections of my golf ball when putting ;) ). All the years of experience that give you a 'home course advantage', at least in respect to yardage, is as equally wiped out whether or not I spend time pacing off distances or use a rangefinder to acquire the knowledge. All the years of experience that give you a REAL 'home course advantage', like what tactical choices to make, the intricacies of the putting surfaces, your local windage, etc., still remain, even if I'm playing against you and whip out my rangefinder (shades of Cleavon Little :o ).
...a) no notes or yardage guides are allowed on the course during a stipulated round; so it doesn't matter if you created it yourself or purchased something... either way you'd have to rely on memory.
b) caddies also cannot give yardage info - they can suggest clubs, but not give numbers. That's solved under a change in the advice rule.
- Tom Huckaby
Tom,
Is your 'solution' to trash several hundred years of rules history in a (misguided) attempt to limit the information available to a player? Your 'rules' just elevate 'memory' to a never before seen status in those rules.
Ralph 'said' (he can correct me if I am wrong) that before we had 'modern' clubs (iron sets w/progressive lofts) knowing yardages was way down on the scale of importance when measured against knowing how to gauge what needed to be done by using 'feel'. He also said players traveled less and played fewer courses, which also elevated the importance of 'local knowledge' over knowing 'yardages' in that era. If they eschew yardage information it's because that's how the game was played in the era they are recreating for their events.
So really, if you play with 'modern' clubs there is no way you can replicate the experience you say you are after. Even if the rules said that you couldn't use any books, markers, caddies, or rangfinders to obtain yardage, you'd still be playing with equipment that is designed to hit the ball in specific increments of yards, every time, with a standard swing. It's the equipment itself that has caused player's to search out yardages.
I think there are only three approaches....
-You play mainly with the equipment from the era that Ralph knows so well; try to never look at yardage markers, and use feel and depth perception( hopefully you have both your eyes) to make your way around the course.
-You take a 'modern' approach, realizing that the genesis for the modern equipment in your possession began ca.100 years ago and its evolution and your knowledge of yardages hasn't changed the skill and judgement needed to be successful.
-You 'mix' the eras to suit your own personal agenda. There is nothing in the rules saying you must use every available modern advantage. You could throw away 2/3 of your irons, take your SW out of the bag, add a couple of hickory 'play' clubs,, etc., etc, whatever floated your boat.
...adjust to your liking, then pick one.
Jim
If you think you can pace off 150 yard shots then get back to hit your ball in the time allotted, more power to you. This still is not nearly the same thing as whipping out a gun for the distance - this is the point you are not giving merit. However, you do skip by my biggest concern and that is hamstringing the creativity of archies. There is no point to creating dead space or whatever deception if a guy can just shoot a yardage as if he were a surveyor. Its fair enough if you don't believe gauging distance should be a skill that is learned and valuable, but I do and I think its a pity the USGA and R&A see it your way. That doesn't mean I will tisk tisk those that want to use yardage devices, I just call em' girlie boys - tee hee.
As for "breaking" the tradition of rules, man, they are broken all the time. Rules change, including the allowing guns to aid with distance determination. Sometimes change is for the better, and sometimes its not. We fall on different sides of the coin, its not the end of the world. I am usually on the different side of the coin to most on this site.
Ciao
-
Tom,
Now you sound like my wife. ;D
If you played here, you'd have a hard time finding the three metal yardage discs in the fairways of our 4s and 5s, and even if you did you'd still have to gauge how to hit a shot when the green is 20' above your feet, your right foot is 6" higher than your left, your ball is 3" below your feet, resting on a slightly bare lie, and the wind is swirling around in the treetops, but the flag-on-a-stick is limp..........I'll help, you're 156 out. ;)
I watch thousands of golfers per season trying to negotiate their way up our par 5 ninth hole, including players with extreme course knowledge and ones who are first-timers. Based on that sampling I would answer no, I am not unhappy with the status of today's equipment.
I prefer a set of rules that mainly focuses on creating equitable protocols for resolving disputes while remaining broadminded in its approach, i.e., only setting limits on the maximum amount of technology a player can use, not on how little of it he chooses to use.
Seeing as how the vast majority of golf is played outside of the realm of organized competition, that approach contains something in it for everyone and it's more democratic than yours. :)
-
Jim, I am going to take that as both a rebuke and a compliment.
;D
You make great points. Hey, my plan has more holes than swiss cheese. However... when one has a plan like that, one tends to focus on the end result and leave the holes to others.
And I still see an end result of courses sans distance markings being more fun to play.
Most find me insane. Melvyn if he ever returns will find me schizophrenic as I have previously argued so strenuously against such a thing. But his issue was he didn't LISTEN... didn't realize I was always in favor of such a world, just unclear as to how to make it happen. Exploring this way to make it happen has been interesting, anyway.
TH
-
It is interesting for me to see you guys arguing over the use of any kind of distance information, and there are some interesting points being made but my suggestion is don't carrying on those discussions with the suggestion or the expectation that the Rules of Golf (USGA or R&A) are going to actually do something about it within the Rules of Golf such as roll back or ban the collection processes of distance information. That is not going to happen---not ever.
So, if you guys want to play that way the best way to go about it is the old fashioned way of just getting everyone you're playing with or against to agree to it before you all tee off! ;)
-
Tom Paul, you are such a freakin' killjoy. We allow you to go on for pages and pages and pages on arcane historical trivia... and you have the gall to chide us for discussing something that will never really happen?
And your suggestion sucks too. We need an unmarked course to make it even doable. There just pain aren't many around.
Although... I do know of a few... next time I get to one, hell yes I am gonna try to play this way.
;D ;D ;D
-
It is interesting for me to see you guys arguing over the use of any kind of distance information, and there are some interesting points being made but my suggestion is don't carrying on those discussions with the suggestion or the expectation that the Rules of Golf (USGA or R&A) are going to actually do something about it within the Rules of Golf such as roll back or ban the collection processes of distance information. That is not going to happen---not ever.
So, if you guys want to play that way the best way to go about it is the old fashioned way of just getting everyone you're playing with or against to agree to it before you all tee off! ;)
Mot,
Good point...but could four people actually play 18 holes without one person not resisting the urge to ppek at a sprinkler head. My money says at least one person would peek either out of habit or curiosity.
Anthony
-
It is interesting for me to see you guys arguing over the use of any kind of distance information, and there are some interesting points being made but my suggestion is don't carrying on those discussions with the suggestion or the expectation that the Rules of Golf (USGA or R&A) are going to actually do something about it within the Rules of Golf such as roll back or ban the collection processes of distance information. That is not going to happen---not ever.
So, if you guys want to play that way the best way to go about it is the old fashioned way of just getting everyone you're playing with or against to agree to it before you all tee off! ;)
Mot,
Good point...but could four people actually play 18 holes without one person not resisting the urge to ppek at a sprinkler head. My money says at least one person would peek either out of habit or curiosity.
Anthony
Anthony - my assumption all along has been that it would be so difficult to do as to be tantamount to impossible. Thus the "just ignore the distance info" argument is meaningless to me.
TH
-
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ARTIFICAL HELP!
If I may, what business are you in? And does this mantra follow into your everyday life?
-
a) no notes or yardage guides are allowed on the course during a stipulated round; so it doesn't matter if you created it yourself or purchased something... either way you'd have to rely on memory.
I assume you would have to eliminate scorecards as we know them (except the advertisements can stay) ...
No yardage for each hole ...
And in theory, no "PAR" for each hole ...
-
Mike: no, scorecards are fine. Allow one distance for each tee. Give par also. None of that hurts my concepts... and it keeps people from overly freaking out, particularly in the short term.
TH
-
All,
This past weekend playing the home course I had a familiar shot. I did not know the distance but I knew the shot. If asked I would have guessed 120. It is an uphill shot will a severe sloping green back to front. It is a MUST to be under the pin. As I do every week I pulled out the 7-iron to punch. The guy with the laser shouts 132. 132? "I need to hit this a little harder than planned". Result......... Passed the hole...no way to stop the ball....3-putt.....THANKS for the yardage info!!
Anthony
-
Sean,
First, I couldn't do that, my name isn't Usain Bolt, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I checked in right after I 'shot' the course on which you I were having our big match on the 'morrow. ::)
Second, I don't see any appreciable difference therefore I don't think it has merit. We differ, and if we ever meet to play a game I can assure you that I won't use one, and I rarely ever seek out yardage markers in fairways.
Of course, as the stakes go up I reserve the right to change my approach.
I agree quite a bit with your views on the architectural aspects, and I know it's one you have consistently held (not like that waffler Huckaby ;) ).
But, 'fixing' it is nearly impossible because just knowing the yardage isn't the issue, it's the equipment we use that is the real progenitor of the problem.
That's one reason that I don't mind a well placed tree or two on a course, find one in your path and you think 'fashion' instead of 'distance'.
-
Jim:
I prefer the term "one who is willing to learn, doesn't assume he has all the answers, and is open to other ideas" to "waffler."
But you can call me whatever you want - just don't call me late for dinner.
;D
You also never really answered my oh so thoughtful questions about the equipment side of this. But never mind. I'd hate to see you waffle.
;D
-
Mike: no, scorecards are fine. Allow one distance for each tee. Give par also. None of that hurts my concepts... and it keeps people from overly freaking out, particularly in the short term.
TH
Seems silly that if you are going to change the rules, why only change them half-way ...
-
The guy with the laser shouts 132. 132? "I need to hit this a little harder than planned".
How do you know he was telling the truth?
-
Mike:
Some concessions do need to be made to modern realities.
My personal hope would be that over time, we can even get to a reality where scorecard distances are unnecessary. But as a means to make this more palatable initially, I'd say it's wise to give the ONE distance, to allow for planning, and some familiarity with a game most have played all their lives.
But of course I haven't thought this through completely. Perhaps just giving a par figure would achieve the same result.
TH
-
Let me add this, of all the good players I know (and FWIW I define "good player" as someone who can shoot around par from the back tees with something meaningful at stake...or better) there is exactly one who does not play to yardages. I've not asked him but I know how he would answer if asked "Does the ubiquitous yardage information on most courses distract or bother you?" and his answer would be to laugh it off as a silly question.
But I have asked him about playing from numbers and he says having a distance in his head has no more bearing on how he plays a shot than his shoe size does. Totally a feel player although even he admitted to occasionally looking around to see if he's too far out to carry a water hazard from 200+ yards. Yet when he's playing with students or team partners it causes him no grief whatsoever to be standing there while they shoot rangefinders or discuss numbers or consult a yardage book.
Bringing me full circle to "just play your game and let me play mine". But I will stipulate that there are few people out there whose mind works better absent any numbers. It's just nothing to do with "purism" or "how the game should be played" but rather a simple contingency of how a few people are wired.
-
Let me add this, of all the good players I know (and FWIW I define "good player" as someone who can shoot around par from the back tees with something meaningful at stake...or better) there is exactly one who does not play to yardages. I've not asked him but I know how he would answer if asked "Does the ubiquitous yardage information on most courses distract or bother you?" and his answer would be to laugh it off as a silly question.
But I have asked him about playing from numbers and he says having a distance in his head has no more bearing on how he plays a shot than his shoe size does. Totally a feel player although even he admitted to occasionally looking around to see if he's too far out to carry a water hazard from 200+ yards. Yet when he's playing with students or team partners it causes him no grief whatsoever to be standing there while they shoot rangefinders or discuss numbers or consult a yardage book.
Bringing me full circle to "just play your game and let me play mine". But I will stipulate that there are few people out there whose mind works better absent any numbers. It's just nothing to do with "purism" or "how the game should be played" but rather a simple contingency of how a few people are wired.
OK Brent, that is all stipulated.
I'm actually surprised this ONE guy even exists.
;D
And note also - thought I made this clear before, but if not it bears repeating - my reasons for supporting this have little do to with purism or how the game should be played either - it's more to do, for me, with in what manner the game would be more fun... and what would be better for the game.
TH
-
I wonder if asked to write down the distance of every hole on our home courses, how close would we get. I have no idea how long each hole is on the course I play every week. I do not need to know to play it the way it needs to be played.
Anthony
-
But as a means to make this more palatable initially, I'd say it's wise to give the ONE distance......Huck
You forget Mr. Huckaby that, as Rich pointed out earlier, knowing that ONE yardage was part of the slippier slope that started this whole mess in the first place. ;D
-
But as a means to make this more palatable initially, I'd say it's wise to give the ONE distance......Huck
You forget Mr. Huckaby that, as Rich pointed out earlier, knowing that ONE yardage was part of the slippier slope that started this whole mess in the first place. ;D
I live by Rich's teachings, but I did forget that. And it is a great point. I also appreciate the respect. Heck yeah I am Mr. Huckaby if you are so inclined. ;D
So OK, no distance on cards either. Force people to go cold turkey. But I would leave a par figure, if only to aid strategic planning, and again for lessening the initial freakout. But after some time even that goes away too.
TH
-
How about this........ We all want uor performance enhanced.....After all we live in a culture of performance enhancement.....So golf yet again immitates life........a longer driver....a longer ball.....more accurate distance information.......this will never go away from life or from golf.....the girl wants to be prettier.....the golfer wants to be better......life.life.life.golf.golf.golf.....
Anthony
No comments on this idea. This is some of my best work to date. Agree or Disagree?
ANthony
-
How about this........ We all want uor performance enhanced.....After all we live in a culture of performance enhancement.....So golf yet again immitates life........a longer driver....a longer ball.....more accurate distance information.......this will never go away from life or from golf.....the girl wants to be prettier.....the golfer wants to be better......life.life.life.golf.golf.golf.....
Anthony
No comments on this idea. This is some of my best work to date. Agree or Disagree?
ANthony
Anthony,
Quite apropos, yet, as I sit here looking down....no reaction whatsoever.
Sorry.... :)
Joe
-
"No comments on this idea. This is some of my best work to date. Agree or Disagree?"
AH-HAH! No comment you say---just an Agree or Disagree?! No conceivable way, young Master Gray. Let's just take your remark below:
"So golf yet again immitates life"
Does it indeed?? How do you know life doesn't imitate golf? You don't know do you? I didn't think so!!! Consequently I'd like a ten page thesis that does a complete "Compare and Contrast" with the question-----Does golf imitate Life or does life imitate Golf?
And I'd like it on my desk first thing tomorrow morning!
And you better be taking into consideration the clever usage of the capital L and G or not or your thesis will begin at a C- and you will receive at least 14 demerits!
-
I see young Hancock is sitting in the back of the room looking out the window and day-dreaming again.
And what about me? What am I going to do? I'll tell you what I plan to do. There is apparently some snow coming to Pennsylvania and I plan to sleep right next to an open window just as Old Tom used to do when it snowed at TOC. He would wake up in the morning with snow on his face, and I'm planning the same thing. If that doesn't give me some real Old Tom Morris inspiration I figure nothing will. Now where in the hell did I put my fancy new Hammecker, Schlemer mechanical hand-held weather forecaster?
-
But as a means to make this more palatable initially, I'd say it's wise to give the ONE distance......Huck
You forget Mr. Huckaby that, as Rich pointed out earlier, knowing that ONE yardage was part of the slippier slope that started this whole mess in the first place. ;D
I live by Rich's teachings, but I did forget that. And it is a great point. I also appreciate the respect. Heck yeah I am Mr. Huckaby if you are so inclined. ;D
So OK, no distance on cards either. Force people to go cold turkey. But I would leave a par figure, if only to aid strategic planning, and again for lessening the initial freakout. But after some time even that goes away too.
TH
TH,I'll gladly fight on your side in any Muccian battle(especially regarding preferred tee markers),but this one is pretty quixotic,even for someone as old-school as I am.
While everyone is,to some extent,a "feel" player,nowadays the entire universe of golf is designed to know a specific yardage.The "art" of hitting a golf ball 125 yards with 5 different irons depending on conditions is long since gone.
Anyone who's learned to play in the last ~20 years has always known sprinkler heads that are marked(frequently front/center/back).Entire sets of irons are bent to ensure little/no gaps.Wedges are bought in lofts to eliminate as many half shots as possible.Everything is geared to hitting a specific club a specific yardage.Which,of course,makes knowing the yardage vital.And these are teenagers.It's only going to get worse.
Like probably most people my age,I was taught to think in terms of 10 yard strips like on a football field.I still do it and it still works-in spite of having access to sprinkler heads and Bushnells being common in my group.
I admire your argument for golf being more fun without yardages,but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
If,however,you want to institute some rule denying range finders to those who can't hit 3 PW's out of 100 within 20 yards of the measured distance,then I'm with you.
-
JME:
It's clear to me this ain't gonna happen in any sort of reality. I just do believe that the rules changes I suggest (which again were not my own, but related to me by someone else) would be a MEANS that it COULD happen, if the sea-change in attitudes required took place. But of course I am not holding my breath.
SO... this is all theoretical, rhetorical, choose whatever word you like to mean something akin to mental masturbation.
;D
To that end though, of course I have found this all great fun.
Just understand, I have assumed all along all of the things you state... and in fact way way way back made a damn near identical post to Melvyn. Hell yes, we've all been trained to play using distance, it's normal and fundamental to us, it ain't going away.
ONLY if we COULD rid courses of distance information... I still believe it would be more fun and the game would be better for it.
As for
If,however,you want to institute some rule denying range finders to those who can't hit 3 PW's out of 100 within 20 yards of the measured distance,then I'm with you.
Whoa no, I am not going down THAT road again. I'm pretty strongly in favor of use of range finders in today's reality, for reasons stated ad nauseam. Seems to me that we have to take the good with the bad there. ;)
-
"Bringing me full circle to "just play your game and let me play mine"."
Very good Mr. Hutto. That attitude will serve you far better on the golf course of life than some of the others who become overly concerned about things they probably shouldn't be concerned about. Looking back on my career in golf it occurs to me I've known very few successful golfers who were constant over-worryer/criticizers. There're too many other good things to think about out there. ;)
-
"Bringing me full circle to "just play your game and let me play mine"."
Very good Mr. Hutto. That attitude will serve you far better on the golf course of life than some of the others who become overly concerned about things they probably shouldn't be concerned about. Looking back on my career in golf it occurs to me I've known very few successful golfers who were constant over-worryer/criticizers. There're too many other good things to think about out there. ;)
TEP:
Do you really think that any of this bullshit makes it out into real life?
Whoa my... if so... ever hear about the swamp land in Florida?
-
"Bringing me full circle to "just play your game and let me play mine"."
Very good Mr. Hutto. That attitude will serve you far better on the golf course of life than some of the others who become overly concerned about things they probably shouldn't be concerned about. Looking back on my career in golf it occurs to me I've known very few successful golfers who were constant over-worryer/criticizers. There're too many other good things to think about out there. ;)
Over criticizers? Now I know why I never golfed with my wives or parents. WOW does life imitate golf!!
Anthony
-
While everyone is,to some extent,a "feel" player,nowadays the entire universe of golf is designed to know a specific yardage.The "art" of hitting a golf ball 125 yards with 5 different irons depending on conditions is long since gone.
My teaching pro buddy can hit a ball 125 yards with anything from a wedge down to at least a 5-iron, maybe even a 4-iron. And he "makes" his high-school and college students learn a certain amount of that kind of shot in order to be a complete player.
And yet in a tournament round he virtually never hits a shot without knowing his carry and to-the-hole distances to the nearest yard. Even if you can hit the ball 125 yard with either a 6-iron, 8-iron or wedge depending on conditions it still makes sense to know that you're trying to hit it 125 and not 128 or 119 or some other distance. I continue to fail to see how that idea could be so unfathomable as some would pretend it to be.
TomP,
I forget who the famous player was that said something like "If I get the other guy paying attention to what I'm doing out there he's toast". But then again that was somebody worried about playing his best golf and not proving abstract points to his Internet buddies.
P.S. One of the coolest shots I've ever seen on TV was JM Olazabal at #17 at TPC Sawgrass. It was downwind to a front pin and guys had been airmailing the green with pitching wedges all day. He pulls out an 8-iron, made a swing that never got over knee high on the backswing and bloops a little chip up to about five feet. Yet before that shot he got the exact distance from his caddie and double-checked it before choosing the club. Gee, what an ultra-modern no-feel player he must be.
-
I forget who the famous player was that said something like "If I get the other guy paying attention to what I'm doing out there he's toast". But then again that was somebody worried about playing his best golf and not proving abstract points to his Internet buddies.
OK Brent, my seconds will be contacting yours. I cannot live with the offense.
;D ;D
Come on my friend, you've met me, played golf with me. You have to believe that proving abstract points to my internet buddies is about as far from my reality as is declining the piece of home-made carrot cake I was just offered.
I find this to be fun and I am making no attempt to "prove" anything. Nor do I have any real desire in this game to do anything other than live and let live.
It's just a fun concept, that's all. I am interested in people fully understanding the concept, but as I've said many times, I fully expect most to completely disagree with it.
TH
-
Tom,
I'll stop. I've stomped on all ten toes and started over stomping them all again so enough's enough. Plus I've got to take my traditional ass-whooping from Sean Arble in a few weeks and I don't need to give him any more reason to enjoy his free beer at my expense.
-
Tom,
I'll stop. I've stomped on all ten toes and started over stomping them all again so enough's enough. Plus I've got to take my traditional ass-whooping from Sean Arble in a few weeks and I don't need to give him any more reason to enjoy his free beer at my expense.
Have a sip for me, my friend.
;D
-
I just do believe that the rules changes I suggest (which again were not my own, but related to me by someone else)-Tom Huckaby
Tom, Tom, Tom, what are you doing my good man? You never mentioned that these ideas weren't your own when you posted them, I know, I went back and looked!
All this time I have been giving you credit for what turns out to not even be original ideas.........
..........on second thought, now that I know you were fed a talking point and that someone else was pulling the strings, I guess I can let it go by the wayside. But just try to be yourself going forward, OK Ms Palin. ;D
-
Jim:
The next time I have an original thought on here will be the first time. I am FAR from that clever, given the massive thought generation in this forum.
But go to reply 249... read this:
BUT... in discussions with a wise man... a light bulb has gone on over my head. OK, he pulled the switch.
WHAT IF.....
The USGA and R&A each got together and made rules changes such that distance information was effectively banned?
OK it's not the most simple language, but what I meant was someone else clued me in that this could be done via rules change.
So no Palin here - although I wish I was that hot - I rather think this IS me being myself... which is giving credit where credit is due.
TH
-
"Over criticizers? Now I know why I never golfed with my wives or parents. WOW does life imitate golf!!"
At least a straight A or perhaps even an A+ for you Master Gray!
A followup question however. Did you say wives, as in plural? If so I hope you haven't had them at the same time or you may have to move from Memphis to where is it---Utah or Idaho where those polygamist Mormons live.
-
While everyone is,to some extent,a "feel" player,nowadays the entire universe of golf is designed to know a specific yardage.The "art" of hitting a golf ball 125 yards with 5 different irons depending on conditions is long since gone.
My teaching pro buddy can hit a ball 125 yards with anything from a wedge down to at least a 5-iron, maybe even a 4-iron. And he "makes" his high-school and college students learn a certain amount of that kind of shot in order to be a complete player.
And yet in a tournament round he virtually never hits a shot without knowing his carry and to-the-hole distances to the nearest yard. Even if you can hit the ball 125 yard with either a 6-iron, 8-iron or wedge depending on conditions it still makes sense to know that you're trying to hit it 125 and not 128 or 119 or some other distance. I continue to fail to see how that idea could be so unfathomable as some would pretend it to be.
My point was that the yardage was more intuited rather than measured by a device.Anyone who's played enough either before or without Bushnells can eyeball yardage close enough for all but the very highest level player.
In the day,players "had" accurate yardage,they just didn't need a range finder to get it for them.IMO,that's what "feel" players felt-exactly how far to hit a golf ball.
-
All golfers should use the force to gauge distance - it's just that simple ;D
So, is this the longest thread in GCA history? If not even close, how about Top 5 or Top 10?
Props to Bob for throwing this one out there - a passionate topic indeed.
-
All golfers should use the force to gauge distance - it's just that simple ;D
So, is this the longest thread in GCA history? If not even close, how about Top 5 or Top 10?
Props to Bob for throwing this one out there - a passionate topic indeed.
Rob - props to Bob for sure for phrasing it in a quite unique manner... but this issue hearkens back to SEVERAL previous threads.... it's been Melvyn's personal bugaboo for quite some time.
And I doubt this thread makes the top 10... not yet... and it's not likely going to. But dare to dream!
TH
-
All golfers should use the force to gauge distance - it's just that simple ;D
So, is this the longest thread in GCA history? If not even close, how about Top 5 or Top 10?
Props to Bob for throwing this one out there - a passionate topic indeed.
Rob,
Search "cheater line" or "Merion"
You may find your winner there.
-
All golfers should use the force to gauge distance - it's just that simple ;D
So, is this the longest thread in GCA history? If not even close, how about Top 5 or Top 10?
Props to Bob for throwing this one out there - a passionate topic indeed.
Rob,
Search "cheater line" or "Merion"
You may find your winner there.
Currently tracking at 27th most "replies" and way too far back in the pack to count on "views."
-
I know this thread got off topic and became a distance thread, but on this topic I have found the last couple of pages very enlightening and surprising. The calls for distance markings removal are very interesting, but absolutely impractical. Mr. Paul's description of the USGA's response I am sure is nuts on, plus golf is too much of an industry now. To undo anything that's perceived to make the game easier. bring in more players, and creates more corporate profit is not going to be viewed well.
I think they have seen the light with things like the iPods, that tech toys will help bring in the kids.
-
Not even Top 25? Aww shucks. Well, the Huckster has given it his best! ;D
Paul, indeed, don't think anything will even touch the Cheater Line . . .
-
Yes I did give this the old college try, but if we're gonna really reach the depths of GCA infamy (which is what I consider these huge threads), we need one man and one man only to return:
MELVYN.
If he comes back firing, we can get this to at least 15 pages.
But good to read you in here again, Ralph. Of course you're right and this whole removal of markings thing is a pipe dream.
But let's explore this then. So it can't be done. The golf world is what it is. In light of this - and how distance information is EVERYWHERE on such courses... even if one does believe that a world without distance marking is a better world, a more fun way to play... what to do going forward?
My feeling has always been - this exploration down the road of the possibilities of removing distance markings nothwithstanding - that in this real today world, I see no harm in using electronic distance aids - they just make what's available anyway easier to get, and in effect speed up play as those who must have it don't have to search for it.
I have never bought the "just ignore distance info" idea - to me it's impossible on damn near all courses I play.
Melvyn has tended to greatly take me to task for this. What say you? Can a hickory golf champion like yourself see the realities of today's world as it plays out for most golfers (even as you shun such in terms of equipment)?
And a separate question, if you would be so kind - I've never made it to a hickory golf event - if you do such on a marked golf course, do you all try to ignore distance markings, or do you go with the flow? Or do you somehow always find unmarked courses?
Not trying to nail you or anything - remember I am an inactive member of the Society - I am genuinely curious how far a group like this takes it.
Tom H.
-
Tom,
I have been stuck using yardage graffiti because it is unavoidable, at least in the US. It is too ingrained in me to look and use it. I purchased one of the first Bushnell's back a little more than a decade ago, to help in analyzing and documenting the various hickory clubs. I approached it the same as anyone else here would, trying to create a direct comparison to an equivalent contemporary club. It took expressions of disappointment from British Golf Collector members while playing over there, to get me to to play by feel/eyeballing it. So it took a little kick in the butt to see the error of my ways and I truly thank them for it.
I don't expect anyone else to play this way. I just want to do my part to keep it alive so it doesn't get lost to history. Playing the entire game by feel gave me insights to the clubs that, if I had continued in a modern mechanical fashion, I would never have experienced. Unfortunately for others to duplicate what I have found will take a serious time commitment and a wordy description will not get it across.
With regards to the Society of Hickory Golfers, they have no real authority yet. Guidelines on play are just recommendations that sponsers of events can follow or not. The "rule" that would be of interest here is that they decided that the current year USGA rules should be followed, for early 20th century events. There is, as expected, a waiver on the equipment in that anything that was used, even clubs that became ruled illegal, can be played with. It was decided it would be too difficult to have people play by rules from the era because; as quickly as the rules were changing between 1898 and 1931 we would have to decide on one particular year. Plus, people typically don't know the current years rules so expecting them to sit and learn a new set of rules would be almost impossible. The 19th century events are different in that there are only a couple of events for that era and the gentlemen running them created a set of rules based on a combination of rules from the existing clubs, and it is short and easily remembered.
Hope this clarifies things.
-
Ralph:
Many thanks. We're getting there.... but excuse my density, I remain confused about a few things:
1. So you TRY to play sans distance information these days - I get that and it makes great sense. My question is: on the normal US course with its distance graffii, do you manage to succeed in ignoring it? Or do you play courses that are either unmarked or sparsely so, shunning the others?
2. The whole idea of trying to play this way, well...I get it, believe me I do. I have tried it from time to time and my fun experience with it is the backbone of my thoughts the last few pages of this thread. But yes, it is very difficult to describe and even more so to convince others to follow. So no sweat there.
3. So at Society events, they use distance, range finders, etc. - that is follow the current rules? Of course that makes logistical sense and is what I would expect. I just wondered if they took it so far to try to eliminate such things... as if such were possible.
TH
-
Try is the best way to describe it. Most times I will have a club in my hands to hit before I reach the ball and it will be usually be stronger than needed for a full swing. Unless I have to have a higher trajectory to stop the ball, I would try to "feel" the shot with that more powerful club.
The majority of people participating in the hickory events are very much part timers. These people think it is too hard and feel they need the help.
A dozen plus years ago when I went full time hickory I became the first to do so. There are a number of others that have followed but I have no clue how many. Some percentage of this group will play a more traditional game, but they are still playing on courses littered with distance graffiti. It is hard to ignore those markings especially while playing a competition and you realize you don't want to give up any advantages.
-
Try is the best way to describe it. Most times I will have a club in my hands to hit before I reach the ball and it will be usually be stronger than needed for a full swing. Unless I have to have a higher trajectory to stop the ball, I would try to "feel" the shot with that more powerful club.
The majority of people participating in the hickory events are very much part timers. These people think it is too hard and feel they need the help.
A dozen plus years ago when I went full time hickory I became the first to do so. There are a number of others that have followed but I have no clue how many. Some percentage of this group will play a more traditional game, but they are still playing on courses littered with distance graffiti. It is hard to ignore those markings especially while playing a competition and you realize you don't want to give up any advantages.
Ralph: gotcha - makes perfect sense, thanks.
I also may quote your last line there the next time someone says "just ignore the distance information." I'd say it goes beyond HARD....
;)