Advice or General Knowledge?

[raynorfan1]

Golf is a funny game as it the only sport I can think if where intent matters in the rules.

 

Many sports (football, hockey, et al) have additional penalties for “intent” to hurt an opponent.

[SkiSchoolPro]

If that information was known and/or publicly available before the start of the round and hasn't been determined by use of a device during play, then I see no problem

With Google maps, you can get the elevation of various points (but it is almost certainly an estimate in many cases) and distance between two points. Some courses I've played tell you the elevation of certain points on the course and/or have published the elevation difference between a tee and green. On TV coverage, they regularly show elevation differences on hilly courses. In cases where DMDS are allowed, I understand why the current slope function is NOT allowed because it uses an algorithm to tell you how far it PLAYS, but if they simply told you how far up or down between two points, I don't see how that would be any different than telling you the distance between those same two points. Player would still have to use their own judgement as to how to incorporate this info into their shot.

[Sawgrass]

If that information was known and/or publicly available before the start of the round and hasn't been determined by use of a device during play, then I see no problem

With Google maps, you can get the elevation of various points (but it is almost certainly an estimate in many cases) and distance between two points. Some courses I've played tell you the elevation of certain points on the course and/or have published the elevation difference between a tee and green. On TV coverage, they regularly show elevation differences on hilly courses. In cases where DMDS are allowed, I understand why the current slope function is NOT allowed because it uses an algorithm to tell you how far it PLAYS, but if they simply told you how far up or down between two points, I don't see how that would be any different than telling you the distance between those same two points. Player would still have to use their own judgement as to how to incorporate this info into their shot.

The difference is the active measurement by electronic device -- that is illegal. The line is drawn, so you'll have to record such information prior to the round in order to read it back to yourself leagally.

 

It's true that it yields the same result, but if you want to limit electroinc device use you have to start somewhere.

[SkiSchoolPro]

If that information was known and/or publicly available before the start of the round and hasn't been determined by use of a device during play, then I see no problem

With Google maps, you can get the elevation of various points (but it is almost certainly an estimate in many cases) and distance between two points. Some courses I've played tell you the elevation of certain points on the course and/or have published the elevation difference between a tee and green. On TV coverage, they regularly show elevation differences on hilly courses. In cases where DMDS are allowed, I understand why the current slope function is NOT allowed because it uses an algorithm to tell you how far it PLAYS, but if they simply told you how far up or down between two points, I don't see how that would be any different than telling you the distance between those same two points. Player would still have to use their own judgement as to how to incorporate this info into their shot.

The difference is the active measurement by electronic device -- that is illegal. The line is drawn, so you'll have to record such information prior to the round in order to read it back to yourself leagally.

 

It's true that it yields the same result, but if you want to limit electroinc device use you have to start somewhere.

Thanks!

 

I understand that you can't use the slope function because it performs a calculation which assumes a particular ball flight to determine how a shot PLAYS. But what if you had a different device that simply told you point B is __ higher than point A. I don't see how this is any different than saying point B is ___away from point A. If distance between two points is public info, I don't see how elevation change between two points is any different (as long as you are not told how this might affect the shot you are about to play).

[G0lfer83]

Talking about weather conditions (mostly wind) and Rule 8-1, this is what Barry Rhodes has written about it:

http://www.barryrhodes.com/2009/10/wind-direction-and-speed.html

[2bGood]

Golf is a funny game as it the only sport I can think if where intent matters in the rules.

 

Many sports (football, hockey, et al) have additional penalties for "intent" to hurt an opponent.

 

 

HUGE difference. In those sports a third party decides what your intent was, in golf you decide yourself.

[HitEmTrue]

Golf is a funny game as it the only sport I can think if where intent matters in the rules.

 

Many sports (football, hockey, et al) have additional penalties for “intent” to hurt an opponent.

 

And basketball.

 

Also, even when it has nothing to do with potential injury, intentional fouls (like to stop the clock or force free throws) are treated differently than other fouls at some level of play.

 

[HitEmTrue]

Golf is a funny game as it the only sport I can think if where intent matters in the rules.

 

Many sports (football, hockey, et al) have additional penalties for "intent" to hurt an opponent.

 

 

HUGE difference. In those sports a third party decides what your intent was, in golf you decide yourself.

 

Then what you really mean is that golf is the only sport you know of where you become your own referee...and that is regardless of intent.

[raynorfan1]

Golf is a funny game as it the only sport I can think if where intent matters in the rules.

 

Many sports (football, hockey, et al) have additional penalties for "intent" to hurt an opponent.

 

 

HUGE difference. In those sports a third party decides what your intent was, in golf you decide yourself.

 

Then what you really mean is that golf is the only sport you know of where you become your own referee...and that is regardless of intent.

 

Exactly. Golf is one of FEW sports where the player is expected to referee their own conduct.

 

But many sports include the concept of intent in their rules.

[marmooskapaul]

But let any jack wagon carry your clubs and call him caddie....and he can give you all the advice you want....strange game indeed.

 

This is why I believe caddies should have gone away with the stymie....it's an old rich mans tradition and theoretically should be illegal....

[LeoLeo99]

But let any jack wagon carry your clubs and call him caddie....and he can give you all the advice you want....strange game indeed.

 

This is why I believe caddies should have gone away with the stymie....it's an old rich mans tradition and theoretically should be illegal....

 

Personally, I think a caddie would save me a few shots a round. I think I'd have an advantage over another player if I had a wise caddie and he didn't.

[Sawgrass]

If that information was known and/or publicly available before the start of the round and hasn't been determined by use of a device during play, then I see no problem

With Google maps, you can get the elevation of various points (but it is almost certainly an estimate in many cases) and distance between two points. Some courses I've played tell you the elevation of certain points on the course and/or have published the elevation difference between a tee and green. On TV coverage, they regularly show elevation differences on hilly courses. In cases where DMDS are allowed, I understand why the current slope function is NOT allowed because it uses an algorithm to tell you how far it PLAYS, but if they simply told you how far up or down between two points, I don't see how that would be any different than telling you the distance between those same two points. Player would still have to use their own judgement as to how to incorporate this info into their shot.

The difference is the active measurement by electronic device -- that is illegal. The line is drawn, so you'll have to record such information prior to the round in order to read it back to yourself leagally.

 

It's true that it yields the same result, but if you want to limit electroinc device use you have to start somewhere.

Thanks!

I don't see how this is any different than saying point B is ___away from point A. If distance between two points is public info, I don't see how elevation change between two points is any different (as long as you are not told how this might affect the shot you are about to play).

 

We can speculate as to why the Rules sometimes allow distance measuring by electroic deviice and never allow elevation measuring. by electronic device. I suspect it is bacause you can easily manually pace off distances without a device, and can't so easily measure elevation. When DMDs were originally allowed through LR, they simply speeded things up and didn't provide additional information. All that makes sense to me.

[bladehunter]

Would be several quiet foursomes in this bunch. Goodness. Take out the weather , shot commentary , and course layout and all you’re left with is politics and women. Who the hell wants to talk about those two ??

[SkiSchoolPro]

If that information was known and/or publicly available before the start of the round and hasn't been determined by use of a device during play, then I see no problem

With Google maps, you can get the elevation of various points (but it is almost certainly an estimate in many cases) and distance between two points. Some courses I've played tell you the elevation of certain points on the course and/or have published the elevation difference between a tee and green. On TV coverage, they regularly show elevation differences on hilly courses. In cases where DMDS are allowed, I understand why the current slope function is NOT allowed because it uses an algorithm to tell you how far it PLAYS, but if they simply told you how far up or down between two points, I don't see how that would be any different than telling you the distance between those same two points. Player would still have to use their own judgement as to how to incorporate this info into their shot.

The difference is the active measurement by electronic device -- that is illegal. The line is drawn, so you'll have to record such information prior to the round in order to read it back to yourself leagally.

 

It's true that it yields the same result, but if you want to limit electroinc device use you have to start somewhere.

Thanks!

I don't see how this is any different than saying point B is ___away from point A. If distance between two points is public info, I don't see how elevation change between two points is any different (as long as you are not told how this might affect the shot you are about to play).

 

We can speculate as to why the Rules sometimes allow distance measuring by electroic deviice and never allow elevation measuring. by electronic device. I suspect it is bacause you can easily manually pace off distances without a device, and can't so easily measure elevation. When DMDs were originally allowed through LR, they simply speeded things up and didn't provide additional information. All that makes sense to me.

Your theory makes more sense than the public information logic. With that said, I think DMDs are more accurate than pacing things off (especially where the course is undulating or when playing over water).

[Sawgrass]

 

With Google maps, you can get the elevation of various points (but it is almost certainly an estimate in many cases) and distance between two points. Some courses I've played tell you the elevation of certain points on the course and/or have published the elevation difference between a tee and green. On TV coverage, they regularly show elevation differences on hilly courses. In cases where DMDS are allowed, I understand why the current slope function is NOT allowed because it uses an algorithm to tell you how far it PLAYS, but if they simply told you how far up or down between two points, I don't see how that would be any different than telling you the distance between those same two points. Player would still have to use their own judgement as to how to incorporate this info into their shot.

The difference is the active measurement by electronic device -- that is illegal. The line is drawn, so you'll have to record such information prior to the round in order to read it back to yourself leagally.

 

It's true that it yields the same result, but if you want to limit electroinc device use you have to start somewhere.

Thanks!

I don't see how this is any different than saying point B is ___away from point A. If distance between two points is public info, I don't see how elevation change between two points is any different (as long as you are not told how this might affect the shot you are about to play).

 

We can speculate as to why the Rules sometimes allow distance measuring by electroic deviice and never allow elevation measuring. by electronic device. I suspect it is bacause you can easily manually pace off distances without a device, and can't so easily measure elevation. When DMDs were originally allowed through LR, they simply speeded things up and didn't provide additional information. All that makes sense to me.

Your theory makes more sense than the public information logic. With that said, I think DMDs are more accurate than pacing things off (especially where the course is undulating or when playing over water).

I have to admit you have a solid point regarding pacing over water! So challenging!

[Sean2]

 

I have to admit you have a solid point regarding pacing over water! So challenging!

 

You live in New England...you never walked over a pond in the winter? :-)

[Sawgrass]

I have to admit you have a solid point regarding pacing over water! So challenging!

 

You live in New England...you never walked over a pond in the winter? :-)

I was hoping for a more spiritual complement . . .

[Sean2]

I have to admit you have a solid point regarding pacing over water! So challenging!

 

You live in New England...you never walked over a pond in the winter? :-)

I was hoping for a more spiritual complement . . .

 

Lol! THAT was funny. :hi:

[llewol007]

Not sure where this lies. I mean if the hole looks to be going up hill and he says it is a bit uphill then to me it's nothing that can influence my club choice. Now if he said it's at least a half a club to a club longer than that would be advice that would influence my shot selection.

[nsxguy]

I have to admit you have a solid point regarding pacing over water! So challenging!

 

You live in New England...you never walked over a pond in the winter? :-)

I was hoping for a more spiritual complement . . .

 

You mean like G-d and the Holy Ghost ?

 

Or Samson and Delilah ?

 

Those spiritual examples complement each other very nicely, yes ? ;)