Rants and Raves...

[NRJyzr]

[scomac2002]

Half empty for sure. Case in point. They show a guy using a camera and "AI" to reconstruct and ancient tower with lasers and a laptop. The only thing he can get from his data is the footprint. The rest comes from his imagination and so-called-educated guesses. Especially when they show the finials and carved stone trim work. None of that comes from rubble and "AI". It comes from thin air, imagination, and computer graphics software all with human input. And when the computer crashes and the satellite crashes and the guy ends up in the hospital with some ancient dust virus he kicked up it will be human intervention and human infrastructure that solves his problems. Not "AI".

 

Another one touted starting your car in the winter with your phone. Big deal. Remote starters have been around for how long now? That's not "AI". It's electrical switches and a wireless signal. We are so far away from real AI it ain't even funny.

 

It wouldn't be a problem if clueless managers didn't go to seminars and have "AI" nonsense pumped into their brain stems, and then come home and make stupid decisions that effect the lives and livelihood of real people. They are starting to make manpower decisions thinking that we already have "AI" in some form and that we should be able to do exponentially more with infinitely less.

 

"AI" my foot. And they can get off my lawn while they are at it. Harumpf.

 

Actually, you are very right in this.

 

My wife works in healthcare in a hospital lab. The hospital is three years old with all the latest technology designed to speed up diagnosis and exponentially increase throughput. Half the time it doesn't work properly and they are left trying to do twice as much work as before with the same staff and inferior equipment because when the mechanization fails it takes longer to perform the tasks. They still don't have auto-verification set-up with the new system that they had for 10 years in the legacy site before moving!

 

Technology will be limited by the humans that oversee it. Suppliers are always promising the moon and delivering a meteor shower at best. Too many decision makers are too far removed from the frontlines to make effective decisions with respect to procurement and system design. In the end the frontline worker is left to suffer with systems that fail to deliver on the promise with little in the way of support or backup!

[wkuo3]

Soon according to all the messages I had been receiving recently, we'll all sit home and watch program or play games because the A.I. will take over most of the work load in all phases of our current activities ( including work ). I can see the Alzheimer's cases progressing faster in human race.

 

I think "A.I." is one of the biggest boat-load-o'-crap scams to be sold to the consumer in a good long while.

 

People have no idea how many steps / people / processes / etc are involved in making even the simplest things. They are told that AI will do everything for them, and how AI is so wonderful. Bull Puckey. It's simple another buzzword used to sell crap to the gullible. IMO, robots will never rule the world because they will never be smart enough to clean up after themselves. And they will never become self aware because the earth will be a smoldering rock by then. If there is one scintilla of human tainting in there they will destroy themselves.

 

Probably not in yours and mine lifetime but it's already started.

The transfer of information had gone leaps and bounds in the last couple of decades.

I believe some of the works can actually be performed by A.I. Per cost basis. it'll be phased into our life instead of over night change. SOme fields had not reached the optimal level of switching over but it's on the edge of breaking through.

 

Not "everything and every task" will be performed by A.I. but I dare to say more than 50% of the work load could be switched over / take over.

We had known the auto industry could benefit from the A.I in manufacturing and assembling process, it;s a matter of cost at this point. With the gap of cost sourcing human and A.I closing in by the year, we should see a lot of changes coming up. With the technology taking over the work load and the human population getting larger..... some of us will be sitting home most of the time. A 3 day work week is not totally fairy tales.

Some E/U countries is currently on 4 day work week.

 

I read an report of applying A.I. assistance in the Optometry Office. It's going clinical in 2-3 years in London first then if it works, will mushroom all over the globe. What they do is to store information of thousands of ultra sound imagery of the eyeballs ( retinal scan ) and comparing that stored information to the patient's eye scan. 95% accuracy is predicted. That's almost 50% of the work load for the Optometrist.

 

I feel sorry for the kids of the world, not only they have to face the peer competition, now, they have to compete with artificial intelligence .

[wkuo3]

Half empty for sure. Case in point. They show a guy using a camera and "AI" to reconstruct and ancient tower with lasers and a laptop. The only thing he can get from his data is the footprint. The rest comes from his imagination and so-called-educated guesses. Especially when they show the finials and carved stone trim work. None of that comes from rubble and "AI". It comes from thin air, imagination, and computer graphics software all with human input. And when the computer crashes and the satellite crashes and the guy ends up in the hospital with some ancient dust virus he kicked up it will be human intervention and human infrastructure that solves his problems. Not "AI".

 

Another one touted starting your car in the winter with your phone. Big deal. Remote starters have been around for how long now? That's not "AI". It's electrical switches and a wireless signal. We are so far away from real AI it ain't even funny.

 

It wouldn't be a problem if clueless managers didn't go to seminars and have "AI" nonsense pumped into their brain stems, and then come home and make stupid decisions that effect the lives and livelihood of real people. They are starting to make manpower decisions thinking that we already have "AI" in some form and that we should be able to do exponentially more with infinitely less.

 

"AI" my foot. And they can get off my lawn while they are at it. Harumpf.

 

You are thinking of humanoids A.I. does not need to be in any physical form.

[Tumbleweed_1968]

I wonder who's teeth those are...?

[Tumbleweed_1968]

You are thinking of humanoids A.I. does not need to be in any physical form.

I know it doesn't. I just don't think it exists in any form. Just google "AI Hoax". I am amazed at this new religion frankly. Not everyone is convinced it's even a real thing. And not just cranks like me either. Too much smoke and mirrors for me so far. No offense intended to anyone. Just my two cents.

 

I guess the thing that bothers me is how simple automation is billed as AI, and people are sold a bill of goods. There is a growing religious fervor around AI, and the people in power with the money are taking advantage of people with neither. It doesn't take AI to make toast, pour coffee, vacuum a floor, or keep food cold. But the devices that are employed by humans doing these jobs are slapped with the AI label and the prices are pushed out of reach of the average person.

 

The moneyed people think that AI will save them from rubbing shoulders with the unwashed masses. Until of course something breaks or doesn't work, and then they need the unwashed masses to fix their crap.And they fail to acknowledge the thousands upon thousands or people behind the scenes that make the stuff they are so enamored with. People who can barely afford to stay alive on what they are paid.

 

Anyway..... Sorry for the rant. I just think it is more hoax than fact, and that there is an ethics question that is being ignored. That's all.

[TimV]

So, if a technology could assist a golfer to move along swiftly through he golf course, all the power to them, they'll need it.

 

I just don't see that happening with the vast majority of those that use them though. Although I do agree that some golfers will find a way to be turtle slow regardless of what they use or don't use.

I personally think they should be tied to a stake at the 150 yard marker of the driving range until they see the error of their ways.

[NRJyzr]

So, if a technology could assist a golfer to move along swiftly through he golf course, all the power to them, they'll need it.

 

I just don't see that happening with the vast majority of those that use them though. Although I do agree that some golfers will find a way to be turtle slow regardless of what they use or don't use.

I personally think they should be tied to a stake at the 150 yard marker of the driving range until they see the error of their ways.

 

 

People are fast with lasers or GPS. People are slow with lasers or GPS. Seems to me it's not the device that breeds the slow play, it's the person using it.

 

Based on my observations of clowns not using tech at my course, I could offer a similar rant to yours, just diametrically opposed. ;)

[wkuo3]

You are thinking of humanoids A.I. does not need to be in any physical form.

I know it doesn't. I just don't think it exists in any form. Just google "AI Hoax". I am amazed at this new religion frankly. Not everyone is convinced it's even a real thing. And not just cranks like me either. Too much smoke and mirrors for me so far. No offense intended to anyone. Just my two cents.

 

I guess the thing that bothers me is how simple automation is billed as AI, and people are sold a bill of goods. There is a growing religious fervor around AI, and the people in power with the money are taking advantage of people with neither. It doesn't take AI to make toast, pour coffee, vacuum a floor, or keep food cold. But the devices that are employed by humans doing these jobs are slapped with the AI label and the prices are pushed out of reach of the average person.

 

The moneyed people think that AI will save them from rubbing shoulders with the unwashed masses. Until of course something breaks or doesn't work, and then they need the unwashed masses to fix their crap.And they fail to acknowledge the thousands upon thousands or people behind the scenes that make the stuff they are so enamored with. People who can barely afford to stay alive on what they are paid.

 

Anyway..... Sorry for the rant. I just think it is more hoax than fact, and that there is an ethics question that is being ignored. That's all.

 

Well, like it or not, it is here. Not a full blown version but, it won't take much time ti get in everyone's everyday life.

Automation in it's primitive form , is artificial intelligence. When a robotic arm could have the image of an object and adjust to finish the task given, is Artificial intelligence. No difference than a human worker making adjustment to do the same task.

The A.I. could store more information than we could, could analyse the information stored at a much faster pace than we could, can perform a much tougher task given the right tools......

 

But, no worry, it won't take over the globe tomorrow but it will gradually taking over a majority part of the simple laborious task we do manually today. We'll have to figure out an affordable way for the kids to exercise their mind and body because population growth will not be under control in the foreseeable future. With the A.I. growing to take over some of the manual labor task we do, more people will need to be occupied with something else beside a 9-5 job.

[wkuo3]

So, if a technology could assist a golfer to move along swiftly through he golf course, all the power to them, they'll need it.

 

I just don't see that happening with the vast majority of those that use them though. Although I do agree that some golfers will find a way to be turtle slow regardless of what they use or don't use.

I personally think they should be tied to a stake at the 150 yard marker of the driving range until they see the error of their ways.

 

 

People are fast with lasers or GPS. People are slow with lasers or GPS. Seems to me it's not the device that breeds the slow play, it's the person using it.

 

Based on my observations of clowns not using tech at my course, I could offer a similar rant to yours, just diametrically opposed. ;)

 

It can be frustrating following the slow players ( same on the roadway following a slow drivers , but that driver could be a super senior, could have health issue or other reasons which is not readily apparent to the others )

However, world is better with all the variety in it.

I'd try to avoid getting into situation I don't approve if I could help it. But, sometimes others might need a little reminder that they are not on the boat by themselves.

[Tumbleweed_1968]

Well, like it or not, it is here.

And in many ways, I am glad I am as old as I am.

[smashdn]

Course I play most often, walked nine yesterday in fact, single white 150 yard poles. They have little colored domes in the cart path. Red-100 White-150 Blue-200 Yellow-250

 

All I need. If you can't eyeball whether you are more or less than halfway between the markers maybe golf isn't your thing. Estimating yardages is an integral golf skill imo.

 

Truthfully, my game/ability does not support needing to know it is exactly 107 yards to the flag. I aim mostly for the center of the green or to the side that offers me the largest room for error given my shot shape and attempt to get the distance correct front, middle, back.

 

There is one par five on the course where local knowledge is key. Dogleg left 470 yard par five to a downhill green. 250 yards does not equal 250 yards from the fairway. More like 200 because of the extra carry you get going downhill then the roll out.

[NRJyzr]

If you can't eyeball whether you are more or less than halfway between the markers maybe golf isn't your thing. Estimating yardages is an integral golf skill imo.

 

 

Completely disagree with that sentiment, on all levels. :)

[stixman]

When I was a lad I used to caddy, as did many on this board. My regular clients picked me because I could give them an eyeballed yardage to 5 yards, at a time when there were no yardage markers anywhere.

I'm still good enough to get pretty close to that today at 73. The difference is now the extra experience of knowing what to look for, how architects disguise visual distances for example.

I say that it is integral skill and its use makes a stack load of difference in the time taken to select a club and thus pace of play. My misses are left or right, very rarely long or short.

And occasionally the architect will stitch me up like a kipper and I enjoy the joke, it's me against him and sometimes he wins. It is part of the full enjoyment of golf.

Is golf art ...or is it science, is a discussion over the last century and a half? For me the ability to assess distance is an art, and to supplant it with a pseudo-science demeans the game.

 

It's an old,old story...we all have the innate skills to judge distance but if you don't use it, you lose it

I would also say that this ability is the major difference in pace of play that Americans find when they come to our marquee tracks.

[gloucesteroldspot]

There's a thread elsewhere on whether lasers speed up or slow down play, and I posted my own thoughts there. I agree completely that judging distance is an integral part of the game, and learning to do so using your eyes is as important a skill as learning to swing a club with your hands. Using gadgets to tell you the distance is the thin end of a large wedge that ends with portable Iron Byron machines into which you plug the selected club, programme the swing speed, and fire.

[sdandrea]

There's a thread elsewhere on whether lasers speed up or slow down play, and I posted my own thoughts there. I agree completely that judging distance is an integral part of the game, and learning to do so using your eyes is as important a skill as learning to swing a club with your hands. Using gadgets to tell you the distance is the thin end of a large wedge that ends with portable Iron Byron machines into which you plug the selected club, programme the swing speed, and fire.

 

It's good Rambo training to go out without any gadgets and play the game the way our predecessors did. We're spoiled by technology from club design to distance measurements to green reading software. I do concur that all of that tech has helped my game a lot, and I will continue to use it, but once in a while I like to embrace some old school play.

[Tumbleweed_1968]

I find it very interesting, and appealing, that Harry Vardon played as well as he did with somewhere between 5-9 clubs. (Depending on the article) Appealing from the standpoint of trying to emulate that era, with it's lack of technology applied to Golf. This winter I hope to get down to 5 hickory clubs and 2 of my oldest woods for my minimalist hickory set. It would be fun to dedicate a whole season to minimalist hickory play, just to see if I would experience the same level of improvement as I did this season playing with modern hybrids & woods in the minimalist format. Just to wonder what my game would look like playing the same course with a minimal set & old school play. Hopefully my body would cooperate. Sure would like to see what would happen, before I get too old to try it...

[TimV]

Course I play most often, walked nine yesterday in fact, single white 150 yard poles. They have little colored domes in the cart path. Red-100 White-150 Blue-200 Yellow-250

 

All I need. If you can't eyeball whether you are more or less than halfway between the markers maybe golf isn't your thing. Estimating yardages is an integral golf skill imo.

 

Truthfully, my game/ability does not support needing to know it is exactly 107 yards to the flag. I aim mostly for the center of the green or to the side that offers me the largest room for error given my shot shape and attempt to get the distance correct front, middle, back.

 

There is one par five on the course where local knowledge is key. Dogleg left 470 yard par five to a downhill green. 250 yards does not equal 250 yards from the fairway. More like 200 because of the extra carry you get going downhill then the roll out.

 

Yes. Yes! YES!!!

 

:fan_1: :fan_1: :fan_1:

 

Anyone know how to add a Poll to this? I say we take a vote.

Agree overall or Disagree overall? Let's not pick nits.

 

I Agree!

[Tumbleweed_1968]

Course I play most often, walked nine yesterday in fact, single white 150 yard poles. They have little colored domes in the cart path. Red-100 White-150 Blue-200 Yellow-250

 

All I need. If you can't eyeball whether you are more or less than halfway between the markers maybe golf isn't your thing. Estimating yardages is an integral golf skill imo.

 

Truthfully, my game/ability does not support needing to know it is exactly 107 yards to the flag. I aim mostly for the center of the green or to the side that offers me the largest room for error given my shot shape and attempt to get the distance correct front, middle, back.

 

There is one par five on the course where local knowledge is key. Dogleg left 470 yard par five to a downhill green. 250 yards does not equal 250 yards from the fairway. More like 200 because of the extra carry you get going downhill then the roll out.

 

Yes. Yes! YES!!!

 

:fan_1: :fan_1: :fan_1:

 

Anyone know how to add a Poll to this? I say we take a vote.

Agree overall or Disagree overall? Let's not pick nits.

 

I Agree!

I agree as well.

[smashdn]

Completely disagree with that sentiment, on all levels. :)

 

You disagree that estimating distances is not a critical golf skill?

 

I would ask your feelings on whether you think that estimating the effect the wind, lie or other conditions are also critical golf skills? I am certainly not saying you are right or wrong I just can't get myself into a mindset where I can entertain that the ability to judge distance is not a golf skill.

 

 

Is it too much to ask of a golfer to have him decide is he midway between the red and white markers, closer to the red or closer to the white? You are essentially asking the golfer are you 125, 112 or 137. For me and my game whether I am 112 or 115 is no consequence nor is the difference between 137 and 140. Also if you are walking just do a little math after you count your steps after you pass a known yardage to your ball if you really need a more exact yardage.

[smashdn]

It's good Rambo training to go out without any gadgets and play the game the way our predecessors did.

 

My hope is that all this walking, playing with vintage clubs, playing by feel, playing it down and by the rules pays off when I pull back out the modern bag for a scramble or tournament.

[NRJyzr]

Completely disagree with that sentiment, on all levels. :)

 

You disagree that estimating distances is not a critical golf skill?

 

I would ask your feelings on whether you think that estimating the effect the wind, lie or other conditions are also critical golf skills? I am certainly not saying you are right or wrong I just can't get myself into a mindset where I can entertain that the ability to judge distance is not a golf skill.

 

 

Is it too much to ask of a golfer to have him decide is he midway between the red and white markers, closer to the red or closer to the white? You are essentially asking the golfer are you 125, 112 or 137. For me and my game whether I am 112 or 115 is no consequence nor is the difference between 137 and 140. Also if you are walking just do a little math after you count your steps after you pass a known yardage to your ball if you really need a more exact yardage.

 

 

It's a skill, but it's IMHO it's not innate to golf. One can play golf without said ability, unlike something like hand-eye coordination, which something involved on a more fundamental level.

 

Snead could be used as an example of how well one can do with a limited ability (by his own admission, I believe) in that regard. :)

 

If being able to judge distance by eye were so integral, why does every touring pro use a rangefinder and yardage book every chance they're allowed? :)

 

I find all the anti-tech comments a bit odd, honestly. Maybe it's because I have a moderately active inner nerd. <shrug>

[Bad9]

 

I find all the anti-tech comments a bit odd, honestly. Maybe it's because I have a moderately active inner nerd. <shrug>

 

Rose coloured glasses syndrome-everything was better back then.

[birly-shirly]

I have mixed feelings about this. I do have a rangefinder. I like it as a practice tool. It can be useful on the course. I like to think that I can use it on a Saturday morning without the course backing up behind me. But if I had 2 and a half hours to get round before the light goes, then the laser would probably stay in the bag. If you’re anti-laser or gps, are you also anti-caddy?

[Chris122]

I'm sure we've discussed dmd's elsewhere but my thoughts remain the same having seen the drainers who refuse to believe what their technology is telling them and have to scope a yardage several times and the classic of the bloke I played with at a local club on the par three second hole who stood looking at his watch type device for a few minutes until I looked at my wrist and said;"120".

He said "I got 135"

I said "You're 15 minutes fast".

He said "Are you taking the p**s?".

I said "How long have you been a member here?"

He said "Ten years".

I said "They haven't moved the green since you last played....".

The mindset has changed and people increasingly seem to equate a yardage with a specific club,I've heard them chuntering in am-am's "It's 150,so it's a 7-iron",then come up 15 yards short because the device will not compute wind or terrain.

I learned to look at a shot and decide which club I needed to reach the flag or lay up for position.

Numbers never entered into it.

 

Caddies are a different question entirely.

Local caddies are a tradition and part of the golfing economy,caddies on the pro tours should either be banned or told not to speak other than to offer a bottle of water.

Golf is not a team game.

The debates and discussions that currently take place are ridiculous as is the second opinion on the line of a putt.

If a professional golfer needs to have his hand held and morale boosted by his bagman he demonstrates a lack of moral fibre.

 

I live in a flat so don't have a lawn but get off my verge!

[smashdn]

Completely disagree with that sentiment, on all levels. :)

 

You disagree that estimating distances is not a critical golf skill?

 

I would ask your feelings on whether you think that estimating the effect the wind, lie or other conditions are also critical golf skills? I am certainly not saying you are right or wrong I just can't get myself into a mindset where I can entertain that the ability to judge distance is not a golf skill.

 

 

Is it too much to ask of a golfer to have him decide is he midway between the red and white markers, closer to the red or closer to the white? You are essentially asking the golfer are you 125, 112 or 137. For me and my game whether I am 112 or 115 is no consequence nor is the difference between 137 and 140. Also if you are walking just do a little math after you count your steps after you pass a known yardage to your ball if you really need a more exact yardage.

 

 

It's a skill, but it's IMHO it's not innate to golf. One can play golf without said ability, unlike something like hand-eye coordination, which something involved on a more fundamental level.

 

Snead could be used as an example of how well one can do with a limited ability (by his own admission, I believe) in that regard. :)

 

If being able to judge distance by eye were so integral, why does every touring pro use a rangefinder and yardage book every chance they're allowed? :)

 

I find all the anti-tech comments a bit odd, honestly. Maybe it's because I have a moderately active inner nerd. <shrug>

 

I understand better now. Do you have a strong feeling one way or the other as to whether they should be allowed in tournament play?

 

 

I kind of feel that any opportunity where you can re-inject an opportunity for someone who is better or works harder at something to get an advantage is a good thing. Golf is more than just hitting the shot on cue but also (should be) about deciding the yardage, picking the club, interfaces with the architecture, taking on nature etc. When you take away one or more of those variables you have to weigh, you turn golf closer to Topgolf where you just try to hit targets, it becomes more one dimensional.

 

 

I sort of feel the same way about taking balls and strikes away from the behind the plate umpire. Pitching (and catching) is more than just throwing the ball over the plate. There is a skill in working the umpire. A skill in expanding the zone. A skill in making a batter swing at balls. Gred Maddux and Tom Glavine would not have been able to survive as a pitcher let alone be hall of famers.

 

(Sure am glad I found this rant and rave thread. I got a lot of crap to get off my chest.)

[stixman]

I find all the anti-tech comments a bit odd, honestly. Maybe it's because I have a moderately active inner nerd. <shrug>

 

Rose coloured glasses syndrome-everything was better back then.

And you find that odd in a forum set up like this?

May I offer you a compass to find your way home or can you manage on GPS, flat batteries and all?

[stixman]

I'm sure we've discussed dmd's elsewhere but my thoughts remain the same having seen the drainers who refuse to believe what their technology is telling them and have to scope a yardage several times and the classic of the bloke I played with at a local club on the par three second hole who stood looking at his watch type device for a few minutes until I looked at my wrist and said;"120".

He said "I got 135"

I said "You're 15 minutes fast".

He said "Are you taking the p**s?".

I said "How long have you been a member here?"

He said "Ten years".

I said "They haven't moved the green since you last played....".

The mindset has changed and people increasingly seem to equate a yardage with a specific club,I've heard them chuntering in am-am's "It's 150,so it's a 7-iron",then come up 15 yards short because the device will not compute wind or terrain.

I learned to look at a shot and decide which club I needed to reach the flag or lay up for position.

Numbers never entered into it.

 

Caddies are a different question entirely.

Local caddies are a tradition and part of the golfing economy,caddies on the pro tours should either be banned or told not to speak other than to offer a bottle of water.

Golf is not a team game.

The debates and discussions that currently take place are ridiculous as is the second opinion on the line of a putt.

If a professional golfer needs to have his hand held and morale boosted by his bagman he demonstrates a lack of moral fibre.

 

I live in a flat so don't have a lawn but get off my verge!

'to speak other than to offer a bottle of water.', as a traditionalist I do believe you missed an opportunity there , 'water, from a caddy?' for goodness sake

[Bad9]

I'm sure we've discussed dmd's elsewhere but my thoughts remain the same having seen the drainers who refuse to believe what their technology is telling them and have to scope a yardage several times and the classic of the bloke I played with at a local club on the par three second hole who stood looking at his watch type device for a few minutes until I looked at my wrist and said;"120".

He said "I got 135"

I said "You're 15 minutes fast".

He said "Are you taking the p**s?".

I said "How long have you been a member here?"

He said "Ten years".

I said "They haven't moved the green since you last played....".

The mindset has changed and people increasingly seem to equate a yardage with a specific club,I've heard them chuntering in am-am's "It's 150,so it's a 7-iron",then come up 15 yards short because the device will not compute wind or terrain.

I learned to look at a shot and decide which club I needed to reach the flag or lay up for position.

Numbers never entered into it.

 

Caddies are a different question entirely.

Local caddies are a tradition and part of the golfing economy,caddies on the pro tours should either be banned or told not to speak other than to offer a bottle of water.

Golf is not a team game.

The debates and discussions that currently take place are ridiculous as is the second opinion on the line of a putt.

If a professional golfer needs to have his hand held and morale boosted by his bagman he demonstrates a lack of moral fibre.

 

I live in a flat so don't have a lawn but get off my verge!

 

Every course where I have had a caddy(Harbour Town, TPC Sawgrass, Pinehurst, Ocean Course at Kiawah, Whistling Straits, the Cabot courses) the caddy used a laser for distances. Not one of them paced it off. None.

[NRJyzr]

A lot of stuff to cover. LOL

 

 

I understand better now. Do you have a strong feeling one way or the other as to whether they should be allowed in tournament play?

 

Wouldn't call it a strong feeling, but I believe they should be allowed. It would save a great deal of time, considering the alternatives, such as the player and/or caddie pacing it off, sometimes all the way to the green.

 

 

I kind of feel that any opportunity where you can re-inject an opportunity for someone who is better or works harder at something to get an advantage is a good thing. Golf is more than just hitting the shot on cue but also (should be) about deciding the yardage, picking the club, interfaces with the architecture, taking on nature etc. When you take away one or more of those variables you have to weigh, you turn golf closer to Topgolf where you just try to hit targets, it becomes more one dimensional.

 

I don't see "deciding the yardage" as a real step. The yardage is what it is. Knowing that distance is one of the steps, regardless of whether you pace it off, use a GPS or laser, or determine it by one's own eyes.

 

 

I sort of feel the same way about taking balls and strikes away from the behind the plate umpire. Pitching (and catching) is more than just throwing the ball over the plate. There is a skill in working the umpire. A skill in expanding the zone. A skill in making a batter swing at balls. Gred Maddux and Tom Glavine would not have been able to survive as a pitcher let alone be hall of famers.

 

(Sure am glad I found this rant and rave thread. I got a lot of crap to get off my chest.)

 

To my way of thinking, a strike is a strike, and a ball is a ball. Working the umpire shouldn't be part of the game.

 

I see it as similar to the "letting them play" phrase tossed about in both NBA and NFL. Meaning, relaxing enforcement of the rules. I see it as BS; if you're going to selectively follow the rules, why bother having them at all? They're there for a reason.