[THuckaby2]

JES - no hassles my friend.  When it comes to this rules stuff, I am Pee Wee Herman and Dennis is Marlon Brando, so to speak.  Listen to him.

 

[Jim Sweeney]

JSlonis:

Certainly haveing a distance helps a player in determining how to play his shot. This is true regardless of how he obtained the yardage.

The difference is that these are mechanical devices in use at the time the round is being played. This has never been allowed before.

Some will point out that motorized carts are mechanical devices. True, but they only move the player and his equipment from spot to spot; they do not assist the player in playing his shot. One could argue, I suppose, that some players use carts to locate yardage markers so they can estimate the distance to be covered, and therefore might be considered mechanical in the same way as yardage devices. But that is not the purpose of motorized carts.

But I degress. Its the mechanical aspect that bothers me.

George Pazin:

I don't think this local rule says anthing about committees. Under the Rules of Golf, the "committee" is the committee in charge of the competition; if non exists, it is the committee in charge of the course. At a club, this would be (probably) the Golf Committee.


I don't yet see this as a harbinger of the arrival of a "tournament ball." Nothingn the USGA or R&A has ever said indicates they would make such a change to the equipmant rules. Even if such a change were to happen, I don't see how it would necessarily be linked to this optional local condition.

Comittees today could opt for a larger, lighter, or slower ball and still be within the rules. But none exist because manufactureres would never be able to sell them. There are no advertising (read: endorsement) dollars to promote a product that cannot that will not produce a profit. Nobody benefits. It is a lose/lose proposition, and bad for the game at that.

John VB: I hadn't heard of Finchem's remarks. I would hope they are true. But I also believe that the laser distance companies are very eager to have there products seen being used on TV by the pros. What will happen when they start knocking on the Finchem's door saying, "I can make money on this, and this organization, of which I am a dues paying member, is keeping me from making a living?" I suspect we can all surmise the answer to that question.

[john_stiles]

These devices will only get smaller and better and easier and cheaper.  The distance devices will be everywhere in another 10 years.

Another local rule for these devices (like the one ball rule), at a time when a tournament ball is needed, might be helpful.

The juggernaut of commercialism and technology is unrelenting.

[A_Clay_Man]

These devices will only get smaller and better and easier and cheaper.  The distance devices will be everywhere in another 10 years.

I can tell you where they will never be...
in my bag.

[Jim Sweeney]

Adam: I applaud your steadfastness. Unfortunately, those who play in tournaments at the regional level or above will be loathe to play without them if the committee adopts the condition.

Perhaps we all here can monitor the effect of the use of these devices and report back next year at this time.

I'll be relly interested if any clubs have particualrly bad experiences in member tournaments and subsequently ban them, as many clubs now ban cell phones.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Perhaps we all here can monitor the effect of the use of these devices and report back next year at this time.

I'll be relly interested if any clubs have particualrly bad experiences in member tournaments and subsequently ban them, as many clubs now ban cell phones.

I am aware a lot of clubs will be watching with interest as this unfolds -- and a lot of test data will be compiled--

Although most golfers use them since they think they gain an advantage with their use, to a man the advocates will tell you they are "good for the game" because they speed up play-- and on that basis a majority of clubs will make their decision (do they speed up play?)

Earlier tests have given mixed results-- At courses such as resort courses or courses where much play is by golfers not familiar with the course, the evidence is they do tend to speed up play (by a 10-15 min factor)-- HOWEVER, at private clubs or clubs where the golfers are familiar with the course (and hence generally know the yardage of their own course) the use of such devices becomes a part of the golfers preshot routine, and hence tends to slow down play (by the same 10-15 min factor)--

I can still remember playing with a member at a desert course (where there use is widespread) and watching him stand on the yardage plate on a par three, with the same iron he had hit on the hole the last two days, and still take the time to get a yardage read that he already knew--

When I asked him what he was doing since he only had one club, knew the yardage both from the plate and his experience from the last 100 times he had played the hole, he replied "I don't know, just checking I guess"--

And another 15 seconds was added to our round times 4 times the number of shots each player got a lazar read on--

[THuckaby2]

I too will be very interested in how this all goes.  I've expressed my thoughts and predictions several times, but we'll see.

I can also say with steadfastness that the day I carry one of these BS devices in a casual friendly game is the day I know I've gone over the edge and need a new hobby.  However, as Jim so rightly points out, if I am in a competition at a poorly-marked course and the committee has allowed for their use, well I'd just be giving strokes to the field if I didn't use one.  I'd not be happy about doing it, but if I am in a competition the goal is to do as well as I possibly can relative to the field, and the last thing I can afford to do is give up any advantage.

TH

[JSlonis]

Jim,

I just don't see the difference that you do concerning this "mechanical device".  The majority of courses now have their sprinkler heads marked with yardage.  How were these yardages measured?  The current measurements you'll find are either LASER marked or GPS'd.  To me it makes NO difference whether I'm standing next to a 150 yard marker that I look on the ground to find or if I look at a handheld device that tells me the same thing.

Since you brought up the CART issue.  I would say that without a doubt, a golf cart as a "mechanical device" has a much greater influence over how a golfer plays his shot than does a "yardage device".  Anyone who has ever walked 36 holes in a day of golf as opposed to riding in a cart for those same 36 holes can attest to that.  

Our club is just about to finish installing a new, state of the art irrigation system.  Every head that is installed is pinpointed and mapped by a GPS system.  Consequently, the heads in the fairways will be marked using this GPS system, and each head will have the exact yardage to the center of the green.  So instead of having a handheld device, in a sense we have a giant GPS system that has already done the work for you.

[john_stiles]

On my knees, I would say that I used one, the cart GPS version,  several years ago at Arcadia Bluffs.  It was nice for that once in a blue moon round, at course far, far away that has some twists and turns and elevation changes.

Have had no overwhelming urge to use the hand held, yet.

But, it is inane, or funny, when playing with usual Saturday or Sunday game.  Everyone in the groups shoots between 72 and 80, occasional sub-par round by a few, more above 80; but we have several who want to know the EXACT yardage. Sometimes, when I'm near a sprinkler head,  someone in our group will ask the yardage. I say I'm on the '142'. They say 'What do you think I am ?'

Their location is off to the side of the fairway, etc.  

I'll say  'You're 141, but off to the side, so your're 143 plus 3 yards for the breeze, plus 2 yards because it's slighty uphill, and plus 5 yards because temperature is 50 degrees.'  

They ask if it plays 153 and I'll say 'Yes.'

Someday my humor will be appreciated.  I mean it is a truthful answer but it just sounds so funny, in light of our play.  Like anyone in my group can hit it 153 versus 151 or 155, off a slight sidehill lie, with a slight cross wind, from the first cut of rough.

They have those GPS gizmos that you buy separately for driving information, if your Lexus doesn't already have one.

I am waiting for the golf bag with the distance device already sewn in, above the standard ball pouch, with a nice display screen.  It should be in a store near you soon (10 years anyway).

Huck can remove the battery or use his old ratty bag.  I might do the same thing.

[THuckaby2]

 
Love it.  I mess with people the same way.

I ought to clarify my stance here, though:  I play LOTS of rounds out of carts with GPS.  I figure if the damn thing is there, why not use it?  In an odd way they are kinda fun, too.  I just look at those as a different form of course marking.  Of course it either cracks me up or frustrates the hell out of me (depending on my mood) watching the yokels who manouver the cart around all day trying to get it just right for all spots they and their friends are at... but I don't do that.  Cart says 155, I'm 5 yards behind it, 160.  Call it a moving 150 tree.

 

What I meant was I'd rather quit the game then carry a bushnell or hand-held GPS thing in a casual round.  Talk about overkill.  

TH

[Dan King]

Jim Sweeney writes:
Comittees today could opt for a larger, lighter, or slower ball and still be within the rules.

I don't think that is true. Rule 5-1:
5-1. General  
The ball the player uses must conform to requirements specified in Appendix III.

I think if a committee said I must play with a ball larger, lighter or slower and play by USGA rules I'd say, no look to this rule. Even there is a precedent in disallowing something beyond this:

Note: The Committee may require, in the conditions of a competition (Rule 33-1), that the ball the player plays must be named on the current List of Conforming Golf Balls issued by the United States Golf Association.

But the exceptions are spelled out in the book.

So the rules say they can restrict to balls on the list and they can restrict to one-ball rule, but that according to the rules is the extent of the restrictions.
 
I think they would have to add a similar caveat should they want to allow a committee to use a ball more restricted than what is in Appendix III.

I still think the USGA made a huge mistake, and once again it is make-up for past big mistakes. Similar to the preferred lies (winter rules) it is bad to write rules if you are unwilling to use them in your own championships.

Then again, it will probably move things closer to bifurcation, which I see as a good thing.

Dennis_Harwood writes:
Earlier tests have given mixed results-- At courses such as resort courses or courses where much play is by golfers not familiar with the course, the evidence is they do tend to speed up play (by a 10-15 min factor)

Can you site the test? I've looked for any such data and haven't found anything. I would have thought the USGA and R&A would have done tests prior to allowing the hand-held devices but have been told they have not.

Dan King

Nobody strikes the ball on the streets with clubs with lead or iron heads.
  --Ordinance of Zierikzee, 1429

[THuckaby2]

Similar to the preferred lies (winter rules) it is bad to write rules if you are unwilling to use them in your own championships.

Why?

Is there no such thing as practicality?  Do we all have to play this game via deadly serious ball-busting rules, constantly?

I for one applaud the USGA for taking this step and recognizing real-world golfers.

But perhaps we are on common ground here, especially when I read:

"Then again, it will probably move things closer to bifurcation, which I see as a good thing."

I never really felt like I was for "bifurcation" before, but I guess this shows that I am.  It's fun to gain new beliefs, unwittingly.

TH

[PThomas]

duh, a light bulb just went it on:  maybe they did it this way to try and make both sides happy --"sure you can use them, if you want...but not in our tournaments"

so lets say the tour starts to allow them....do you think the USGA will still not allow them for the Open???  I would think not

[JohnV]

Jim,

Finchem is "quoted" on Laser Links website:

"He (Finchem) told me, 'We'd love to speed up play but we are concerned with how it looks,' " O'Loughlin said. "That's OK. We're not trying to change professional golf. We don't care about Davis Love and his caddie and how they figure out yardages. They know what they're doing.

It sounds like they won't have them.

Dan/A.G.  

Would you somehow have felt better if the USGA/R&A said, "Range finders are ok, but the Committee can make a local rule prohibiting their use"?  This is essentially the same as it is for carts today.  Then the USGA would have been using the local rule.  Why is that somehow better?

I wouldn't be surprised if the USGA might have wanted the decision to be worded that way, but the R&A which was much more opposed to them wouldn't go along with it so it is the way it is.

Also, to truely make them legal all the time, it might have required a change to the Rule rather than just a new Decision and Rules changes won't be happening until 2008.

This is also an attempt to stop the new features in rangefinders from becoming standard.  The decision says that range finders that measure anything other than distance are not allowed.  So those that measure elevation change won't be allowed. This is a way to keep things basically as they are.  You can have the yardage, but nothing else.  Same as a yardage book, a sprinkler head or a caddie.  No wind measuring, elevation measuring or anything else.

[JESII]

I can guarantee you that the tour players will find no need for them when time comes to play in a tournament. They absolutely use them on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, but they will only prove a distraction Thursday through Sunday.

The thing that turned me is that these are the guys that actually derive benefit from them and they will not use them in tournaments, I am certain. except for Tiger when he misses the fairway by 50 and needs the number from over there!

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Is there no such thing as practicality?  Do we all have to play this game via deadly serious ball-busting rules, constantly?

I could care less how the game is played most of the time. But the USGA should stand for some maintenance of the game as it was passed down to us. They should stop giving in to the lowest common denominator in fear that they will lose the casual golfer. They should stand for more.

Haven't you dealt with club tournament play? At least in the club I used to belong to, anytime it wasn't summer, the players wanted to use winter rules. Why not, the USGA says it is okay. Look how often the PGA Tour uses it. Far too many golfers believe they should never have to hit a golf ball if there is mud on it.

It was a bad decision that has led to other bad decisions, with people believing they should have nothing but perfect lies and clean balls. Allowing carts with GPS was a bad decision (They couldn't be turned off? They're electrical and could be turned off.) now taking them down the slippery slope to this decision. They keep compounding their own bad decisions with these slippery slope arguments.

Wouldn't you expect the USGA to do some speed of play research prior to allowing such a big change?

They should all be forced to read Richard Tuft's book prior to making any rule changes.

Dan King

The USGA has lost its ability to govern the game, and with what the courts have done to them, I can't blame them for not getting tough. They're in the middle of a lawsuit every time they open their mouth, so what control do they have over what's going on?
 --Jack Nicklaus

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

I play with a group who shuns far more rules than "play it as it lies."  And they could give a rats ass what the USGA says, one way or the other.

But I see your point.

I just don't see that that trumps the practicality in these specific issues.  In general, yes the USGA ought to hold the line.  I just think they DO.  I assume you disagree.

All of these things seem like so much ado about nothing... so much chicken little thinking...

Because see, that's the point - why is this a "big change"?

Truly NOTHING changed for how golf is played, for 99% of the people I know anyway.  Same goes for GPS on carts.  Same goes for preferred lies.  If the USGA wants to allow for local rules for these things so that those who play this way anyway can justify it, well I just don't see the harm.  Just don't make them GENERAL rules so that they are used competitively.  And they haven't!

Of course I know all of this because I still play the game.  Perhaps if you did, you wouldn't have these odd, strict principles.

 

[Sean_A]

I reckon this is another one of those issues which doesn't really effect me, much like the ball and driver issues.  If people don't like it, they shouldn't use it.  

I am convinced that any of these devices, including yardage markers, trolleys, buggeys, carts, caddies or any other mechanized (with or without batteries) tool or outside agency should not be used.  I also think there should be a limit of 8 clubs, maybe less.  I also think the loft range should be reduced to something like 18 degrees to 45 degrees.  I also think there is no need for greens to roll over 9ish on the stimp.  I also think there is no need for course over 6800 yards, probably less.  I also think we should go back to the drawing board for the rule book.  The rules are far too complicated.  It is to the point where we need experts.  For crying out loud, we are not talking about tax evasion, we are talking about a recreational pastime.  As for those that make a living at playing golf, I don't give a toss what they do.  Have I missed anything on the modern golfer's list?

But hey, since it is a pastime, I am not too bothered what people do.  It really has nothing to do with me.  I will continue to play the game the way I choose, not how some eggheads in New Jersey of all places, decide how I should play the game.  However, everytime I swing away with my Callaway driver at my Callaway ball, I am under no delusion that I am playing the game properly.  I ain't, no matter what the USGA says.  So far, I haven't come across a better way to look at "progress" in golf other than in one way: Is the game any simpler for a rule or equipment change?  If not, don't do it.  It is easy as that.  Keep the game simple.

Ciao

Sean

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()