[John Moore II]

Ally - in no way does knowing exact yardages eradicate feel. You still have to have feel and the ability to pull off whatever shot you trying to hit. There are plenty of times I have played a cut to take off 2-3 yards from a shot. Sure, for most people that doesn't matter, but for me it does. Also, should caddies be banned? They help you overcome the deception of the architect. And caddies have been around since the start of the game.

And the older caddies can give you precise yardage, even when there is no yardage present anywhere on the course because they've caddied 5000 rounds and played 1000 rounds on the course and know what the yardage is to within a yard or two from every possible spot on the course.

[Wade Schueneman]

Steve,

I think you make a very interesting point regarding the use of caddies.  I do not mind having a good caddy the first time I play a course to answer general questions about firmness of greens, safe places to miss, blind holes . . . . BUT I really do not like it when a caddy offers unsolicited advice about where to hit a putt.  In my opinion reading one's own putts is a VERY big part of the game, and (once again) is a big part of the FUN.

[Steve Lang]

  exact distance.. can't hurt ..   what're ya gonna do with it?

evidence??? harrumph

[Colin Macqueen]

Davy (Crockett) and Steve,

I have never used a range-finder and NEVER will; exact yardages are of little use to me as the statistical spread on any of my golf shots will make a mockery of this information.  The point of my question was regarding the golf course architects and did THEY try to think of newer, more clever ways to still mess up the distance perception to the hole given that golfers were getting pretty exact yardages.

Cheers Colin

[Doug Siebert]

Deception only works the first time you play a course, so I'm not really worried about this.  Sure, you can make a 140 yard par 3 look 165 or vice versa, and if I have reason to distrust the yardage I'm provided you might fool me.  But once I bomb it over the green or hit it short of the fronting bunker I'll realize my error, and next time I'll be fine.

OK maybe it takes me several times before I'm fine, especially if I think I might have mishit it the first time or it was windy, but for any course you play more than a handful of times deception is completely irrelevant.

I'm not a big fan of rangefinders but they are really no different than yardages on sprinkler heads.  I find so-called purists who believe courses should have neither rangefinders, yardage markers or yardage books to be highly hypocritical if they also believes caddies have a role in the game, as a caddie telling you how far you are or what club to hit is the same damn thing!

One type of deception I find works much better over repeated plays is deception about green slopes, i.e., cutting a green into a hillside so appears fairly flat but actually has a pronounced back to front slope.  You know you have to hit it softer than what your eyes tell you, so particularly where putting it off the front of the green means it'll roll 30 yards down the hill you may err on the side of caution and leave yourself a 4-5 foot downhill putt for your par.  Makes for quite a testing approach from any distance to a front pin position knowing that short of the green by a foot is 30 yards short of the green, while being 25 feet long is no guarantee of an easy par putt!

[Ally Mcintosh]

This is the first (and hopefully last) time that I will do this on GCA so apologies in advance but:

I really think there is a fundamental difference here between those growing up playing golf in the US and those growing up in the UK... Almost all players in the UK now expect and want yardage markers because they have grown accustomed to them... but they are a new invention...

For those who think they don't matter because of wind, topography etc..., then why have them at all?...
For those who think it adds to the fun and is an absolute necessity to be able to club exactly right to a green surrounded by bunkers, then more fool you... You are talking like a true pro.
For those who think it's hypocritical to berate yardage markers on one hand and embrace caddies on the other, then maybe you have a point... But I don't embrace caddies (other than as a revenue stream and employment)... I also don't believe that it is part of the tradition of the game, at least not one that has any meaning...

Adrian is right - It is an expectation of almost all players (including the UK) and therefore a necessity at all public clubs. It doesn't make it right though. Yardage markers were born because the pros were getting exact distances and us amateurs want everything the pros get, including slow play, tight fairways and the best equipment.

To answer Colin's question, I think architects do always try and think of visual deception, even with yardage markers... It can still work now and again.

[John Moore II]

For those who think it adds to the fun and is an absolute necessity to be able to club exactly right to a green surrounded by bunkers, then more fool you... You are talking like a true pro.

Since this comment is obviously directed at me, I will address it. I never once said you need total, precise yardage so that you can club exactly right. Never said that. I said once a "rough yardage" and then a "fairly precise yardage." To me, those are pretty much the same. With a simple 150 yard mark, I can guess close enough that I have, lets say 135 yards to the center of the green and then work from there based on where on the green the cup is placed. I don't need to know that I have 129 yards to the flagstick, and that is why I do not own a rangefinder. I have never played in Scotland and I have never played a course that had no yardage marks at all, but I can say that I don't need all these sprinkler head yardages and rangefinder guns. Give me a 150 post and I'll be fine.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hi John,

It wasn't specifically aimed at you - I was paraphrasing your comment to apply to the masses so I hope you didn't read vitriol where there was none...

I guess what I'm asking is if you are happy with a rough yardage, then why do you need one at all when your eyes can provide the same rough information on most occasions? On the occasions they don't, it's where the architect has won the mental battle of deception...  Quite a few of the old architects discussed deception and the importance of the mental battle over the golfer... In these discussions, they hadn't even encountered yardage aids.

I grew up playing without yardage markers - it's second nature. I still use them in competition but refuse to when outside competition.

I honestly think that those commenting above who have never not used yardage markers would be surprised at how accurate the eyes can be. And until you've tried, let's be honest - you're not really in a position to comment...

In my opinion, this is no more a "purist" ideology than wanting to roll back the ball... It is what should happen but it is very unlikely to...

[Brent Hutto]

I always make the same comment on these threads.

No, I don't need an exact yardage to the nearest yard. What I need is a distance more exact than I can eyeball it. If I could look at a shot and tell for sure whether it was 140 versus 150 yards then I would not need a yardage marker, rangefinder, Strokesaver or anything else. And if I could tell the difference between 140 versus 145, any further distinction is moot.

But my eyeball doesn't work that way. I can look at a 140 yard shot and guess 140, sometimes. Other times I might guess 120 or 160. That's not good enough. I don't care if you're a Tour pro or a 30-handicap hacker, you need to have a better idea than that about the distance you're trying to hit the ball. With enough practice I could learn to play golf with a blindfold on but why would I? Same thing for ignoring the distance I'm trying to hit it.

Unless you're not keeping score, not playing against an opponent or just don't give me a damn whether the ball ends up near the hole or not. But in that case you're not playing golf. More power to you if your eyeball will get you within 5-6 yards of the right distance most of the time. Mine will not.

[Martin Toal]

I use a laser and find it is helpful, but it doesn't often change the club that I think I would take before using it. Perhaps it gives a bit more confidence.

On links courses where the game is a running game, and the choice of club takes in the wind, the firmness and your preferences and abilities, I don't think yardages matter a great deal, but on parkland courses with forced carries over water to a green, a yardage is helpful and I see no problem with having one.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I always make the same comment on these threads.

No, I don't need an exact yardage to the nearest yard. What I need is a distance more exact than I can eyeball it. If I could look at a shot and tell for sure whether it was 140 versus 150 yards then I would not need a yardage marker, rangefinder, Strokesaver or anything else. And if I could tell the difference between 140 versus 145, any further distinction is moot.

But my eyeball doesn't work that way. I can look at a 140 yard shot and guess 140, sometimes. Other times I might guess 120 or 160. That's not good enough. I don't care if you're a Tour pro or a 30-handicap hacker, you need to have a better idea than that about the distance you're trying to hit the ball. With enough practice I could learn to play golf with a blindfold on but why would I? Same thing for ignoring the distance I'm trying to hit it.

But in that case you're not playing golf.  

That's the second time you've made this comment - "In that case, you're not playing golf".

I do not understand how you have come to that conclusion. You are relying on an invention that was nothing to do with golf until the modern era. How have you managed to deduce that that invention is one of the defining features of the game?

Have you played a few rounds in a row without using yardage markers? Eyes work differently I agree and maybe I am just lucky, but yardage markers make very little difference to me and I am a low handicapper. I probably misclub two times a round more than if I had them as an aid and that is usually down to deceptive design. I also feel quite liberated walking up to my ball, feeling the shot I'm going to hit and what I need to do, and then playing the shot without any numbers cluttering my head...

We all did it that way a matter of 25 years ago - It's not a difficult concept to grasp....

At the very least, it's worth a try...

[Brent Hutto]

My point is, there is nothing in the Rules of Golf that says you have to eyeball distances. If you want to play without looking at yardage markers or whatever, the Rules are silent. Likewise if I want to play while I'm looking at a Strokesaver or sprinkler head, the Rules are silent. So "golf" as defined by its Rules is defined without respect to whether you get the distance of your shot by eyeball or by some other means.

What you guys are proposing is a different game. You keep insisting that being able to eyeball a distance and know how far it happens to be is somehow fundamental to the game. OK, fine. That's a good game too. But it's not golf. Just like a one-club tournament or a Captains Choice or any other variation is not golf. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, I'm just saying it's not the game as defined by the Rules. It has a further restriction on the manner in which it is played.

If you tell me I can't look at a marked sprinkler, can't consult a Strokesaver, can't ask a caddie, can't use a laser and can't pace off the distance of my shots then that is exact analogous to telling me I have to use right-handed clubs (I'm a lefty) or play with a blindfold on. It means I will be playing the game in a way that does not attempt to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, in a manner allowed under the Rules of Golf. That is the definition of "golf" to me, trying my best to use the least strokes I can. Doing something other than that is fun once in a while (I've played a whole round with one club) but I don't claim a one-club round is a purer expression of the game than playing with a dozen clubs.

There's also no Rule that says I can insist you compute a yardage on every shot. If you feel that you can best attempt to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, in a manner allowed under the Rules of Golf by eyeballing everything then that is within your discretion. But doing so doesn't make you a better or purer or more accomplished golfer than Justin Rose who plays with full knowledge of his distances. It's just a personal preference.

[Steve Kline]

One type of deception I find works much better over repeated plays is deception about green slopes, i.e., cutting a green into a hillside so appears fairly flat but actually has a pronounced back to front slope.  You know you have to hit it softer than what your eyes tell you, so particularly where putting it off the front of the green means it'll roll 30 yards down the hill you may err on the side of caution and leave yourself a 4-5 foot downhill putt for your par.  Makes for quite a testing approach from any distance to a front pin position knowing that short of the green by a foot is 30 yards short of the green, while being 25 feet long is no guarantee of an easy par putt!

Great point about the deception of slopes on greens. That kind of deception tends to stay with you longer. Better golfers adjust to it fairly quickly but weaker golfers never seem to adjust to it (based on my home course having several "foolers" like this and people still play them wrong after being members for several years).

[A.G._Crockett]

Hi John,

I grew up playing without yardage markers - it's second nature. I still use them in competition but refuse to when outside competition.

This says it all.  You are a "purist" until you really want to play well; then you want yardages! 

I'm guessing you are using a 460 cc titanium driver with a graphite shaft to hit a ProV1-type ball to get to the yardage you are going approach the green from in the competition as well.

[Steve Kline]

On links courses where the game is a running game, and the choice of club takes in the wind, the firmness and your preferences and abilities, I don't think yardages matter a great deal, but on parkland courses with forced carries over water to a green, a yardage is helpful and I see no problem with having one.

Yardage still makes a difference. First time at St. Andrews on the 11th the caddie gave me a four iron since it was into the wind. I asked him the yardage and he said it was a four iron. That didn't look right and I hit one of my worst shots. A yardage would have given me a better idea, especially because he didn't know what kind of shot I was going to hit - low to avoid the wind or high to have the wind kill it.

Look...I think we all play golf for fun and part of that fun for all us here is related to architecture. For me fun is always trying to shoot my best possible score and I like having a range finder to help me do that. Others aren't like that...no big deal. I guarantee a range finder doesn't make me a slow payer. You are either a naturally slow player or a fast player. A range finder adds between 15-30 seconds. I make that up walking a lot faster than most, rarely throwing grass to check the wind or some other means.

What I love about golf is figuring out the right way for me to play a hole and best to attack a course to shoot the lowest possible score. Having a yardage helps me do that more quickly. For those that are against this have you EVER asked for advice on the golf course? If so you seem to be violating your own rules because any advice you get defeats the ability of the architect to over come you.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Brent,

Those rules were introduced when they couldn't comprehend what a yardage marker was... It is a poor argument. The rules also don't allow for a ball that automatically finds it's way in to the hole but once it's invented and if the R&A sanction it, there will still be nothing in the rules that says you shouldn't use it. We can all get round in 18 strokes after that.

I was coincidentally just starting an article on deception in design where I was going to mention the use of distance aids. I will have to rethink that now because if many posters on here don't like the idea, then I will get no take-up from the general readership...

As a matter of interest, when did distance aids first become prevalent in the USA?... I'm presuming that the 150 yard marker was first, followed by discs at 100 and 200, followed again by yardages on all sprinkler heads, followed finally by yardages to front, middle and back on all sprinklers... In fact, I'd like the same answer for the UK... I am only guessing with my 20 - 25 years...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hi John,

I grew up playing without yardage markers - it's second nature. I still use them in competition but refuse to when outside competition.

This says it all.  You are a "purist" until you really want to play well; then you want yardages! 

I'm guessing you are using a 460 cc titanium driver with a graphite shaft to hit a ProV1-type ball to get to the yardage you are going approach the green from in the competition as well.

Mr. Crockett, I use them because they are there. I'd be more than happy for them to be removed. In fact, I'd positively encourage that move.

I hope that clarifies my stance on the issue. Thank you for your judgement of me.

As an aside, I have only owned two sets of clubs in my 30 years playing the game.

[Steve Kline]

I always make the same comment on these threads.

No, I don't need an exact yardage to the nearest yard. What I need is a distance more exact than I can eyeball it. If I could look at a shot and tell for sure whether it was 140 versus 150 yards then I would not need a yardage marker, rangefinder, Strokesaver or anything else. And if I could tell the difference between 140 versus 145, any further distinction is moot.

But my eyeball doesn't work that way. I can look at a 140 yard shot and guess 140, sometimes. Other times I might guess 120 or 160. That's not good enough. I don't care if you're a Tour pro or a 30-handicap hacker, you need to have a better idea than that about the distance you're trying to hit the ball. With enough practice I could learn to play golf with a blindfold on but why would I? Same thing for ignoring the distance I'm trying to hit it.

But in that case you're not playing golf.  

That's the second time you've made this comment - "In that case, you're not playing golf".

I do not understand how you have come to that conclusion. You are relying on an invention that was nothing to do with golf until the modern era. How have you managed to deduce that that invention is one of the defining features of the game?

Have you played a few rounds in a row without using yardage markers? Eyes work differently I agree and maybe I am just lucky, but yardage markers make very little difference to me and I am a low handicapper. I probably misclub two times a round more than if I had them as an aid and that is usually down to deceptive design. I also feel quite liberated walking up to my ball, feeling the shot I'm going to hit and what I need to do, and then playing the shot without any numbers cluttering my head...

We all did it that way a matter of 25 years ago - It's not a difficult concept to grasp....

At the very least, it's worth a try...

What about my dad who is virtually blind in one eye and has zero depth perception (he can't get catch anything you throw at him no matter how close you are to him)? Should he have to play without yardages?

Some of you guys seem like real Luddites here. Titanium drivers and graphite shafts were part of the original game either. Neither were tees. You also had to tee up with a few club lengths of the hole. How many of you are still using hickory shafts, wood drivers, feateries, and carry sand to make a mound for a tee?

[Steve Kline]

Brent,

Those rules were introduced when they couldn't comprehend what a yardage marker was... It is a poor argument. The rules also don't allow for a ball that automatically finds it's way in to the hole but once it's invented and if the R&A sanction it, there will still be nothing in the rules that says you shouldn't use it. We can all get round in 18 strokes after that.

I was coincidentally just starting an article on deception in design where I was going to mention the use of distance aids. I will have to rethink that now because if many posters on here don't like the idea, then I will get no take-up from the general readership...

As a matter of interest, when did distance aids first become prevalent in the USA?... I'm presuming that the 150 yard marker was first, followed by discs at 100 and 200, followed again by yardages on all sprinkler heads, followed finally by yardages to front, middle and back on all sprinklers... In fact, I'd like the same answer for the UK... I am only guessing with my 20 - 25 years...

Distance markers have always exited in my golfing lifetime in the U.S. That's been 27 years. So, they' been around at least that long.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I always make the same comment on these threads.

No, I don't need an exact yardage to the nearest yard. What I need is a distance more exact than I can eyeball it. If I could look at a shot and tell for sure whether it was 140 versus 150 yards then I would not need a yardage marker, rangefinder, Strokesaver or anything else. And if I could tell the difference between 140 versus 145, any further distinction is moot.

But my eyeball doesn't work that way. I can look at a 140 yard shot and guess 140, sometimes. Other times I might guess 120 or 160. That's not good enough. I don't care if you're a Tour pro or a 30-handicap hacker, you need to have a better idea than that about the distance you're trying to hit the ball. With enough practice I could learn to play golf with a blindfold on but why would I? Same thing for ignoring the distance I'm trying to hit it.

But in that case you're not playing golf.  

That's the second time you've made this comment - "In that case, you're not playing golf".

I do not understand how you have come to that conclusion. You are relying on an invention that was nothing to do with golf until the modern era. How have you managed to deduce that that invention is one of the defining features of the game?

Have you played a few rounds in a row without using yardage markers? Eyes work differently I agree and maybe I am just lucky, but yardage markers make very little difference to me and I am a low handicapper. I probably misclub two times a round more than if I had them as an aid and that is usually down to deceptive design. I also feel quite liberated walking up to my ball, feeling the shot I'm going to hit and what I need to do, and then playing the shot without any numbers cluttering my head...

We all did it that way a matter of 25 years ago - It's not a difficult concept to grasp....

At the very least, it's worth a try...

What about my dad who is virtually blind in one eye and has zero depth perception (he can't get catch anything you throw at him no matter how close you are to him)? Should he have to play without yardages?

Some of you guys seem like real Luddites here. Titanium drivers and graphite shafts were part of the original game either. Neither were tees. You also had to tee up with a few club lengths of the hole. How many of you are still using hickory shafts, wood drivers, feateries, and carry sand to make a mound for a tee?

I guess it's whether you consider all of these things improvements to the game.... For your father, maybe they are.... For another person, maybe they aren't.

There are always two sides to the coin... I'm just surprised that this issue seems to be opposed by so many on here, especially because many older golfers still play without the use of any distance aids, in Britain & Ireland anyway... and especially because it can reduce the influence of the architect...

[Brent Hutto]

I started playing 16 years ago and back then some of the rudimentary courses I frequented had next to nothing for yardage markers. Maybe some bushes along the side of the fairway that might or might not be somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 yards.

So on those courses I hit the shots blind the first time I played there...then counted my steps walking to the green so I'd know how far it was next time.

And BTW the Rules of Golf have numerous prohibitions and exceptions for things that couldn't have been imagined a couple hundred years ago. I can use a 460cc Titanium driver but not a 480cc one. That was not dreamed of in Old Tom's day yet Titanium drivers are reflected in the Rules. The reason 480cc drivers are disallowed (as are laser rangefinders with slope computations and gadgets to place on the green to measure the degree of incline) are ultimately arbitrary, as are all of the Rules. But we mutually agree to a certain set of arbitrary Rules and implicitly agree that additional arbitrary restrictions beyond those agreed-upon Rules are not part of the "game".

I agree that the entire concept of "yardage" as part of ones planning a shot would have been foreign to golfers centuries ago. Then again so would the concept of the mowing putting greens every day and for that matter the concept of carrying only 14 clubs. The fact that knowing how far ones pitching wedge travels in the air and matching that up with a known distance to the hole did not enter the game until about 75 years ago does not argue against the fact that it is a more effective and expedient way for the typical golfer to play at his best. Not every golfer but the vast majority.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I started playing 16 years ago and back then some of the rudimentary courses I frequented had next to nothing for yardage markers. Maybe some bushes along the side of the fairway that might or might not be somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 yards.

So on those courses I hit the shots blind the first time I played there...then counted my steps walking to the green so I'd know how far it was next time.

And BTW the Rules of Golf have numerous prohibitions and exceptions for things that couldn't have been imagined a couple hundred years ago. I can use a 460cc Titanium driver but not a 480cc one. That was not dreamed of in Old Tom's day yet Titanium drivers are reflected in the Rules. The reason 480cc drivers are disallowed (as are laser rangefinders with slope computations and gadgets to place on the green to measure the degree of incline) are ultimately arbitrary, as are all of the Rules. But we mutually agree to a certain set of arbitrary Rules and implicitly agree that additional arbitrary restrictions beyond those agreed-upon Rules are not part of the "game".

I agree that the entire concept of "yardage" as part of ones planning a shot would have been foreign to golfers centuries ago. Then again so would the concept of the mowing putting greens every day and for that matter the concept of carrying only 14 clubs. The fact that knowing how far ones pitching wedge travels in the air and matching that up with a known distance to the hole did not enter the game until about 75 years ago does not argue against the fact that it is a more effective and expedient way for the typical golfer to play at his best. Not every golfer but the vast majority.

I can't argue against any of that Brent... Although I find it strange that you were hitting shots and then counting the yards to the green for the next time... I guess we all work in different ways.

I also can't argue that it's a more effective way for a player to play at his best (hence my partial use of them in competitions - when I want to compete)... Therein lies part of the problem in my opinion... We are constantly inventing new "aids" to make the game easier... Now, no-one can argue that the game is easy. It is a major reason that people don't take up the sport. So we must be countering these "aids"... And we are doing that by making our courses more difficult... This argument applies mainly to such aids as equipment but all assistances play their part in our courses being made longer and more difficult.

Tom Simpson told us that a hole should never be as it seems: It can look difficult and play easy or look easy and play difficult but it should never play as it looks. He also warned against the use of bunkers to provide targets for better players. What do you think he would think of yardage markers? I think it's pretty obvious.

You don't have to agree with his philosophy.... But I do.... And I think in answer to Colin's question, most architects constantly consider ways of incorporating visuals and deception in to their designs, even though they have to work harder to fool the golfer these days...

[Mac Plumart]

I love this type of discussion.

I do want to say three things...

#1--Ally, you apologized for saying that there are big difference between UK and US golf.  I know I kind of paraphrased you, but nevertheless...don't apologize.  I think you are spot on.  Perhaps those differences aren't limited to yardage markers and the like.  Aren't most great US courses private, aren't most great UK courses public (at least to a degree).  It seems like most US courses love highly manicured courses, while perhaps many of the UK courses like a more natural look.  Could we then add fast and firm vs. lush?  I think I could go on and on and on about this.  Anyway, no need to apologize as you are correct.

#2--Whatever way you want to play the game...more power to you as long as it is within the rules of the game.  Have fun, enjoy it in the manner that you enjoy most.

#3--The great Melvyn Hunter Morrow once articulated this exact distance type of argument this way to me.  When you play catch in your back yard, do you have to know the exact yardage or do you just throw the ball after you eyeball it?  When you are stopping your car at a stop sign, do you have to know the exact yardage or do you just eyeball it?  Golf is the same.  Perhaps the first few times you do it (not use yardage markers, GPS, etc) you will be off a bit, but you will get better at it over time.  Like driving or playing catch.  I think this touches base on something Brent said, his eyeballs aren't all that accurate.  Brent, if you care to...keep at it...it can be satisfying and fun.

But again, to each their own.  I think playing both ways is fun.  Give both a try and see what you like.  Hell, play hickories with no distance aids and play modern equipment with distance aids.  Makes sense doesn't it.

Later!

[Adam Clayman]

Steve, If those who value training their eye and mind come off as luddites, those dependant on the aid are far worse off. You'all would be surprised at how wrong many of the pro caddies give wrong yardages to their pro. There's also the idiosyncratic nature of how far a certain shot plays. Pebble & Spyglass have ample situations where the playable distance is far removed from the actual. Crystal Downs 17th comes immediately to mind where the yardage is moot and one must feel how far to play the approach. To me there's no greater satisfaction than figuring out the proper shot regardless of the actual distance. The trust implicit to execute will not be acheived through any device. It must come from experience.

[Brent Hutto]

There's also the idiosyncratic nature of how far a certain shot plays. Pebble & Spyglass have ample situations where the playable distance is far removed from the actual. Crystal Downs 17th comes immediately to mind where the yardage is moot and one must feel how far to play the approach. To me there's no greater satisfaction than figuring out the proper shot regardless of the actual distance. The trust implicit to execute will not be acheived through any device. It must come from experience.

Non sequitur. You're arguing that in some situations knowing the distance is not sufficient to play the right shot. OK, stipulated. That in no way argues that knowing the distance is not necessary.

If I decide to hike 1,000 miles I need some water with me. Now admittedly, if I start out on that walk with nothing but some water I'm going to probably starve to death before I make it 1,000 miles. But pointing out that I also need food (and shelter and good shoes, etc.) does not mean I ought to leave the water behind.

So let's say you have a 140 yard shot like you're talking about at Pebble beach. The conditions dictate that you have to take all sorts of other factors into account to play the right shot. How does knowing that it is 140 and not 100 or 120 or 160 or 250 yards harm your ability to play the right shot? It doesn't. I don't care if you want your caddie to tell you "140" and you do the math for all the other stuff in your head or if you want the caddie to do with math and tell you "165" instead. Somebody, somewhere along the line has to know that it's 140 yards to the hole as a starting point. Call it "140" if you like or call it "7-iron" or call it "rumpelstiltskin" but you either know the distance or somebody tells you the distance or you guess the distance. Of the three I prefer looking at my yardage book or sprinkler head or laser and knowing the distance.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()