Smart phones, distance measuring devices

[rapriebe]

[quote name='rogolf' timestamp='1433124367' post='11663706']
[quote name='rapriebe' timestamp='1433122172' post='11663482']
[quote name='rogolf' timestamp='1433116586' post='11662950']
[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1433116314' post='11662924']
If you have knowledge that there was no compromise, great...I'm happy either way.

You seem to be saying there is NEVER compromise between the ruling bodies, or between the members of each body. And that seems unlikely.
[/quote]

Reaching consensus on the right step forward may require people to re-evaluate their own position on the subject, but that doesn't always equate to "compromise". The Japanese have a way of saving face by saying "with new information, we will make a new decision." That does not mean the previous decision was wrong or that they are compromising. It's a neat way of moving forward based on all of the information.
[/quote]

I've heard the same as others, that the USGA was in favor of allowing DMD's and the R&A was not, so the compromise which they reached consensus on was to allow individual clubs to implement the local rule if they chose to do so.
[/quote]
Then I would consider that a mutual agreement, not a compromise by one or the other. All for the best of our game.
[/quote]

Sure it it is. Both sides compromised so that a consensus could be reached. Both sides gave in from their preferred positions. What else is it when they reach agreement with neither side getting exactly what they wanted?

[Mr. Bean]

[quote name='rogolf' timestamp='1433116586' post='11662950']
Reaching consensus on the right step forward may require people to re-evaluate their own position on the subject, but that doesn't always equate to "compromise". The Japanese have a way of saving face by saying "with new information, we will make a new decision." That does not mean the previous decision was wrong or that they are compromising. It's a neat way of moving forward based on all of the information.
[/quote]

Merriam-Webster definition:

[b] compromise[/b]
[color=#000000][size=1][background=rgb(241, 241, 241)]
[size=1]
: each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute[/size][size=1]
: something that combines the qualities of two different things[/size][size=1]
: a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason[/size][/background][/size][/color]

Just out of sheer curiosity, rogolf, what in your opinion is a compromise if not one of those?

[sui generis]

Boys, how is this bickering over consensus v. compromise making the world a better place?

[Mr. Bean]

[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1433181845' post='11667668']
Boys, how is this bickering over consensus v. compromise making the world a better place?
[/quote]

As long as there is golf in the world there is no better place, only better lie

[KevCarter]

[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1433181845' post='11667668']
Boys, how is this bickering over consensus v. compromise making the world a better place?
[/quote]

I think it was a compromise, and I want to win, just once, please... LOL

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1433195190' post='11669414']
[quote name='sui generis' timestamp='1433181845' post='11667668']
Boys, how is this bickering over consensus v. compromise making the world a better place?
[/quote]

I think it was a compromise, and I want to win, just once, please... LOL
[/quote]

You're a pro, IMO it's not fair that you even get to play against amateurs, let alone win.

Please consider withdrawing. You know, as a form a compromise.

[JimNewton]

Is it legal to use a club or two to gauge rise over run on the course?

Take your 5 iron, set it on the downhill and raise it until it's horizontal. Take your 6 iron (preferably with stepped shaft) and measure how far up the 5 iron is from the ground. Repeat this 3 or 4 times across the hole, then use the average slope % with the paced off yardage to calculate the adjusted yardage. You could use any other stick if this is unusual use of equipment. Would the stick itself classify as a conforming DMD?

Yes it would delay play, I would never expect much less advocate anyone to do such things; but IF such a measurement is legal to do (I'm not sure?) I don't see how the argument that slope is NOT public information stands.

[rogolf]

[quote name='JimNewton' timestamp='1433204011' post='11670470']
Is it legal to use a club or two to gauge rise over run on the course?

Take your 5 iron, set it on the downhill and raise it until it's horizontal. Take your 6 iron (preferably with stepped shaft) and measure how far up the 5 iron is from the ground. Repeat this 3 or 4 times across the hole, then use the average slope % with the paced off yardage to calculate the adjusted yardage. You could use any other stick if this is unusual use of equipment. Would the stick itself classify as a conforming DMD?

Yes it would delay play, I would never expect much less advocate anyone to do such things; but IF such a measurement is legal to do (I'm not sure?) I don't see how the argument that slope is NOT public information stands.
[/quote]

No, that would unusual use of equipment. Further it would be undue delay. Slope (angle or percent of incline or decline) may be public information if it's sign-posted on the course (like on highways), otherwise it's not public information.

But, from my pessimistic side, wait for twenty years and everyone will play with a tablet that measures every possible parameter (distance, slope, temperature, wind, humidity, barometric pressure and probably more, such as a predetermined firmness of fairways and greens, their moisture content) and recommends the club the player should use. Then he will hit the ball forty degrees to the right and 25 yards short, and blame the tablet!

Fortunately, I won't likely be playing in twenty years, or playing at 630 AM so that I can be done by 9 AM.

[JimNewton]

Thanks for the clarification. Just because there is no sign, how is it not public information? Because we said so .. now go away?

I believe it is always[i] theoretically[/i] public, sign or no sign.

[rogolf]

[quote name='JimNewton' timestamp='1433205777' post='11670692']
Thanks for the clarification. Just because there is no sign, how is it not public information? Because we said so .. now go away?

I believe it is always[i] theoretically[/i] public, sign or no sign.
[/quote]

If you have to measure it, other than distance, it's not public.

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='JimNewton' timestamp='1433204011' post='11670470'] I don't see how the argument that slope is NOT public information stands.
[/quote]

You think the answer to "which way does this putt break, and by how much" is public information?

[JimNewton]

I'm not going to win this argument, but in a pure theoretical sense, yes. They are both measurable entities.

"How far am I from the hole? How about that bunker?"

I only see a two practical differences between that and asking about a putt: 1) time and effort for measurement (delay), and 2) influence on scoring.

Why can I give a yardage but not a grade percentage? They are both equally public in a sense. They both give an advantage. Maybe permitted would be a better term for my mind than public.

The heart of what I take issue with here is this term public and the slippery slope (ironic) that may be there. Yardages have been measured forever, courses gradually added better markings, and now even computers are allowed on course (gag) to obtain these measurements. Now already you can put the forecast into said computer.

Don't get me wrong I think rangefinders are good. I also think playing without a rangefinder sometimes is good too. I just don't want to see a computer that reads putts for you. Which the term public seems to leave as a hanging possibility (at least the way I'm interpreting it it does). Down the road I'm concerned about what might be permitted if that term is stretched the way I instinctively did when I first encountered it.

This is just something I've wrestled with for a while. Where does it start / end. Maybe I am missing something from the text.

[BrianL99]

[quote name='JimNewton' timestamp='1433226423' post='11672636']
I'm not going to win this argument, but in a pure theoretical sense, yes. They are both measurable entities.

"How far am I from the hole? How about that bunker?"

I only see a two practical differences between that and asking about a putt: 1) time and effort for measurement (delay), and 2) influence on scoring.


[/quote]

There's no theoretical nor practical difference, other than perhaps what you cited.

If you have personally charted such information or have been provided with that information previous to playing the round, you're entitled to use it (yardage books have such information).

In my opinion, you're 100% correct, in that it's the slippery slope. Yardage books (ala Jack Nicklaus/Deane Beaman) were deemed legal 60 years ago (perhaps earlier). If I'm not mistaken, AimPoint Charts are legal to use and if prepared prior to the round, so would be information on how far you hit individual clubs, under varying conditions.

There seem to be a significant difference (to the USGA) as to whether the information was generated and documented before the round as opposed to ad hoc measurement.

So why is it ok to ask "how far is it to the green" (public information), but not ok to ask "does that green slope left to right?"

It's much like when we were kids and asked our Mom why we couldn't eat ice cream for breakfast ... "because I said so". In this case, it's the USGA making the rules and not Mom.

[Mr. Herbert]

I think, and I may be entirely wrong, that when the rules makers say "public information", they aren't talking about info available to the general public. They mean info available to the players on the course. Distance is provided to the players on the scorecard, usually on a sign on each tee box, and usually at intervals of 200, 150, and 100, and sometimes on sprinkler heads throughout the course. So therefore distance is considered public. If the signs at each tee box listed something like "350 yards, 4 degree rise from tee to green" then the slope would be "public" also, as its provided to each golfer. Of course anyone can go online and look at a topographical map and determine slopes at various places on a course, and that's available to the general public. But I don't think the rules makers are using the term "public" in that sense.

[Sawgrass]

I think this is getting over-thought here.

You can accurately pace off a distance. Having a machine calculate it for you gives you the same information as you could collect in real time, only faster. IMO it's good that the RBs allow DMDs.

Slope is a different story, you can't accurately determine it without equipment. That's where they chose to draw the line, I'm good with it.

If you have access to pre-measured slope information on greens or otherwise, good for you I guess. Outlawing it might, practically speaking, require outlawing all notes. Leave it be.

[JimNewton]

Yeah I think public / provided / permitted clarifies it a bit. But if I have an insanely detailed yardage book and various maps, plus my caddy is a math wiz, that's an advantage. We are allowed to use a device for one thing but not the rest of it. We just have to do it the old fashioned way, which simply takes longer and is somewhat pre-prepared.

So, why not let us use a device for the rest of it? That's what I'm worried about. That argument is there today.

I mean all this in a purely academic or philosophical sense, not practically. I hope nobody plays a round overthinking every blade of grass in such a way ...

[BrianL99]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1433257907' post='11674328']
I think this is getting over-thought here.


If you have access to pre-measured slope information on greens or otherwise, good for you I guess. Outlawing it might, practically speaking, require outlawing all notes. Leave it be.

[/quote]

Isn't that what AimPoint does? Provide that sort of information? Or at least provide a recommendation for how much to allow for break, based on an ad hoc analysis of the current situation?

I've never used AimPoint nor do I have a whit of interest. From what I've seen, it's a whole new way to make rounds take 5 hours or more.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1433258700' post='11674444']
[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1433257907' post='11674328']
I think this is getting over-thought here.


If you have access to pre-measured slope information on greens or otherwise, good for you I guess. Outlawing it might, practically speaking, require outlawing all notes. Leave it be.

[/quote]

Isn't that what AimPoint does? Provide that sort of information? Or at least provide a recommendation for how much to allow for break, based on an ad hoc analysis of the current situation?

I've never used AimPoint nor do I have a whit of interest. From what I've seen, it's a whole new way to make rounds take 5 hours or more.
[/quote]

I'm not an AimPointer. But isn't it a system that provides you with a way in which to analyze your normal senses? If so, I'd think that Rule 6-7 is all that we have to protect us from compete destruction.

[BrianL99]

The answer from the horses mouth:

[KevCarter]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1433796872' post='11713398']
The answer from the horses mouth:
[/quote]

Thank you for the update, makes complete sense...

[BrianL99]

[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1433800127' post='11713786']
[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1433796872' post='11713398']
The answer from the horses mouth:
[/quote]

Thank you for the update, makes complete sense...
[/quote]

I love when the rules makes sense, Kev

[HitEmTrue]

[quote name='BrianL99' timestamp='1433796872' post='11713398']
The answer from the horses mouth:
[/quote]

Did you specify Player C as a marker/play along, or a competitor?