Green Reading Books and Slow Play Debate

[15th Club]

Wow I am so surprised and delighted by the number of informed and intelligent posts in this thread! Well done, everyone!

 

For my part my analysis is this:

**~Is this an elites-only problem?** Yes. No recreational players can afford, or effectively use, these books.

 

**~Would average recreational players be hurt by banning the books?** No; see above.

 

**~Would there be any competitive advantages or disadvantages in elite-level play if the books were to be banned? In other words, is there data to suggest that one class or another of elite players would be hurt by a ban?** None that I am aware of.

 

**~Do the books add to the quality of elite-level play or the enjoyment of watching elite-level competitions?** No; others have correctly noted the abject boringness of Bryson DeChambeau staring down at a book as opposed to Jack Nicklaus stalking his way around a hole. All things being equal (mostly a question of time saved to speed up play), the latter is unquestionably better, with the added benefit of our being able to watch a great player read a green, seeing his eyes, and the player being entirely focused on the course and not a book.

 

**~Going forward into the future, are we shutting off a valuable aid for making the game more enjoyable for the vast majority of golfers, competitive and recreational players alike, if we do ban green-reading books?** I say no, and for the following reasons.

In the near term, I can easily see situations in which well-funded amateurs increasingly buy and use the books where others who cannot afford them do not. That problem could, I suppose, by solved by undertaking the expense to supply everyone in a state am, or a city open, or an AJGA event, with green reading books. Okay; so just one more thing making golf more complicated and expensive. Great.

In the farther term, somebody will no doubt come up with something digitalized that can actually read a putt for you. Like, uh, what is being done on television right now. Let's suppose that the technology gets so good, so fast, that it is as affordable as an Apple watch. Does that make golf any better? Any more fun? Does it enhance the challenge of the game and the enjoyment of the golf course?

 

Many people suggest that the USGA waited too long to ban long putters and/or anchoring. Some suggest that the USGA should have banned "square" grooves the moment that they came out. Some young feller named Arnold Palmer as I recall. So I am just fine with proactively acting in a certain area where regulation is clearly going to be required to insure that technology doesn't distort the game.

[rangersgoalie]

A course nearby just go straka books to test

 

They’re about useless. Almost impossible to locate the hole and then your ball position accurately enough to be orecise

[larrybud]

> @BeautifulNice said:

> Green reading books should be banned, regardless of slow play. Green reading is a skill. Green reading books replace skill with data unavailable to the average golfer. A guy who can't read greens well can use a green reading book to narrow the gap between himself and someone like Spieth. Spieth's skill is diminished. The pro and his caddy are free to map a green however they like (without laser technology) before the tournament. This is acceptable because the pro is using his own eyes and senses to understand how the green moves. Same with fairways or any other feature of the course. An amateur can do the same. Pros and amateurs should be playing the same game, and only skill should separate the two.

 

What about the use of range finders before the round? Isn't distance measuring a skill as well? What about marked sprinkler heads?

[North Butte]

> @larrybud said:

> > @BeautifulNice said:

> > Green reading books should be banned, regardless of slow play. Green reading is a skill. Green reading books replace skill with data unavailable to the average golfer. A guy who can't read greens well can use a green reading book to narrow the gap between himself and someone like Spieth. Spieth's skill is diminished. The pro and his caddy are free to map a green however they like (without laser technology) before the tournament. This is acceptable because the pro is using his own eyes and senses to understand how the green moves. Same with fairways or any other feature of the course. An amateur can do the same. Pros and amateurs should be playing the same game, and only skill should separate the two.

>

> What about the use of range finders before the round? Isn't distance measuring a skill as well? What about marked sprinkler heads?

 

This is one of those attitudes that betray the long and unsavory history of golf as an elitist pastime. The idea is that paying a caddie thousands of dollars a year to figure stuff out for you is an integral part of golf. But paying $200 for a laser rangefinder or paying whatever a greens book costs means you are betraying the fundamental spirit of the game.

[Krt22]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Wow I am so surprised and delighted by the number of informed and intelligent posts in this thread! Well done, everyone!

>

> For my part my analysis is this:

> **~Is this an elites-only problem?** Yes. No recreational players can afford, or effectively use, these books.

>

I just bought one for a course I was playing a tournament at for $15. I used it effectively on 2-3 holes where the breaks are very subtle. I did not do any BDC math wizard stuff, but knowing the general direction of the break can absolutely help

 

[15th Club]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @larrybud said:

> > > @BeautifulNice said:

> > > Green reading books should be banned, regardless of slow play. Green reading is a skill. Green reading books replace skill with data unavailable to the average golfer. A guy who can't read greens well can use a green reading book to narrow the gap between himself and someone like Spieth. Spieth's skill is diminished. The pro and his caddy are free to map a green however they like (without laser technology) before the tournament. This is acceptable because the pro is using his own eyes and senses to understand how the green moves. Same with fairways or any other feature of the course. An amateur can do the same. Pros and amateurs should be playing the same game, and only skill should separate the two.

> >

> > What about the use of range finders before the round? Isn't distance measuring a skill as well? What about marked sprinkler heads?

>

> This is one of those attitudes that betray the long and unsavory history of golf as an elitist pastime. The idea is that paying a caddie thousands of dollars a year to figure stuff out for you is an integral part of golf. But paying $200 for a laser rangefinder or paying whatever a greens book costs means you are betraying the fundamental spirit of the game.

 

 

Paying a young kid to caddy for you — like Francis Ouimet with Eddie Lowry — should not be elitist or thought of as elitist. Ask an Evans Scholar about that.

 

Of course the modern Tour caddy is an entirely different thing. Yet another distortion brought to golf by the PGA Tour.

 

[North Butte]

Paying someone to carry my golf clubs is a rich guy thing, period.

[idrive]

> @"North Butte" said:

> Paying someone to carry my golf clubs is a rich guy thing, period.

 

So. Sucks for you if that bothers you.

 

 

[North Butte]

> @idrive said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > Paying someone to carry my golf clubs is a rich guy thing, period.

>

> So. Sucks for you if that bothers you.

 

Use of caddies don't bother me because it doesn't affect me. And I have long since come to grips with playing a game with a long history of being exclusionary.

 

I am simply pointing out that caddies are a holdover from when golf was exclusively a rich man's pastime. And to repeat my original assertion, the belief that relying on a caddie for information is an integral part of golf while use of a rangefinder or green reading book should not be allowed is an "elitist" holdover attitude from an earlier age.

[idrive]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @idrive said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > Paying someone to carry my golf clubs is a rich guy thing, period.

> >

> > So. Sucks for you if that bothers you.

>

> Use of caddies don't bother me because it doesn't affect me. And I have long since come to grips with playing a game with a long history of being exclusionary.

>

> I am simply pointing out that caddies are a holdover from when golf was exclusively a rich man's pastime. And to repeat my original assertion, the belief that relying on a caddie for information is an integral part of golf while use of a rangefinder or green reading book should not be allowed is an "elitist" holdover attitude from an earlier age. **_ IMO_**

 

Fixed it for you.

 

 

[North Butte]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > Wow I am so surprised and delighted by the number of informed and intelligent posts in this thread! Well done, everyone!

> >

> > For my part my analysis is this:

> > **~Is this an elites-only problem?** Yes. No recreational players can afford, or effectively use, these books.

> >

> I just bought one for a course I was playing a tournament at for $15. I used it effectively on 2-3 holes where the breaks are very subtle. I did not do any BDC math wizard stuff, but knowing the general direction of the break can absolutely help

>

 

I would think it would nice for one of those putts on fast greens where it looks flat around the hole but you know if there's even a slight break left or right it will matter a lot as the ball slows near the hole. Getting even a simple, binary "Left Break or Right Break" hint would let you favor the correct side of the hole.

 

Our greens during much of the year don't Stimp much over 10. But late summer and into the fall (like right now) the superintendent targets 11 and for tournaments they range from 11-12. When they are slower, I can just aim a 5-10 footer straight at the hole if I'm unsure about a subtle break. Speed them up into the 11's and the just-aim-straight strategy almost never works. Even from inside six feet.

[15th Club]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @idrive said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > Paying someone to carry my golf clubs is a rich guy thing, period.

> >

> > So. Sucks for you if that bothers you.

>

> Use of caddies don't bother me because it doesn't affect me. And I have long since come to grips with playing a game with a long history of being exclusionary.

>

> I am simply pointing out that caddies are a holdover from when golf was exclusively a rich man's pastime. And to repeat my original assertion, the belief that relying on a caddie for information is an integral part of golf while use of a rangefinder or green reading book should not be allowed is an "elitist" holdover attitude from an earlier age.

 

 

You're talking about caddies who make a demonstrable difference in play. Caddies who read greens for you, and who are effectively on-course coaches. That is an entirely new phenomenon. Through the entire history of U.S. major championships in golf, regular club caddies were required at the Masters, the PGA Championship and the U.S. Open. Only in the later part of the 20th century did that change. It was the mid-1970's before the PGA Championship allowed "Tour" caddies. The U.S. Open was just before that. The Masters was well after that.

 

Oh; and in lots of amateur competitions now, caddies are not allowed precisely because of the modern "weaponization" of the job of caddy. So no caddies in NCAA play. No caddies in many state ams. Are caddies allowed in the AJGA? I don't know.

 

[North Butte]

> @"15th Club" said:

> You're talking about caddies who make a demonstrable difference in play. Caddies who read greens for you, and who are effectively on-course coaches. That is an entirely new phenomenon. Through the entire history of U.S. major championships in golf, regular club caddies were required at the Masters, the PGA Championship and the U.S. Open. Only in the later part of the 20th century did that change. It was the mid-1970's before the PGA Championship allowed "Tour" caddies. The U.S. Open was just before that. The Masters was well after that.

>

> Oh; and in lots of amateur competitions now, caddies are not allowed precisely because of the modern "weaponization" of the job of caddy. So no caddies in NCAA play. No caddies in many state ams. Are caddies allowed in the AJGA? I don't know.

>

 

I think that is a good and most likely inevitable trend. There's no reason in the world for amateur competitions to allow caddies when the players can easily use push carts or just shoulder their own bags.

[Krt22]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > Wow I am so surprised and delighted by the number of informed and intelligent posts in this thread! Well done, everyone!

> > >

> > > For my part my analysis is this:

> > > **~Is this an elites-only problem?** Yes. No recreational players can afford, or effectively use, these books.

> > >

> > I just bought one for a course I was playing a tournament at for $15. I used it effectively on 2-3 holes where the breaks are very subtle. I did not do any BDC math wizard stuff, but knowing the general direction of the break can absolutely help

> >

>

> I would think it would nice for one of those putts on fast greens where it looks flat around the hole but you know if there's even a slight break left or right it will matter a lot as the ball slows near the hole. Getting even a simple, binary "Left Break or Right Break" hint would let you favor the correct side of the hole.

>

> Our greens during much of the year don't Stimp much over 10. But late summer and into the fall (like right now) the superintendent targets 11 and for tournaments they range from 11-12. When they are slower, I can just aim a 5-10 footer straight at the hole if I'm unsure about a subtle break. Speed them up into the 11's and the just-aim-straight strategy almost never works. Even from inside six feet.

 

Yep, the course has/had much faster greens than most of the other tracks I typically play at. Simply knowing which side of the hole to favor absolutely helped.

[farmer]

When I watched the NCAA's, there were no caddies, but there were coaches walking with the players. Discussing (I assume) club and shot selection. That is a very fine distinction, mostly being about who's carrying the bag, not about their function.

[gioguy21]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > You're talking about caddies who make a demonstrable difference in play. Caddies who read greens for you, and who are effectively on-course coaches. That is an entirely new phenomenon. Through the entire history of U.S. major championships in golf, regular club caddies were required at the Masters, the PGA Championship and the U.S. Open. Only in the later part of the 20th century did that change. It was the mid-1970's before the PGA Championship allowed "Tour" caddies. The U.S. Open was just before that. The Masters was well after that.

> >

> > Oh; and in lots of amateur competitions now, **caddies are not allowed **precisely because of the modern "weaponization" of the job of caddy. So no caddies in NCAA play. No caddies in many state ams. Are caddies allowed in the AJGA? I don't know.

> >

>

> I think that is a good and most likely inevitable trend. There's no reason in the world for amateur competitions to allow caddies when the players can easily use push carts or just shoulder their own bags.

 

i don't know what the french toast you guys are talking about. in every am i've played in at the state and usga level -- you're allowed,encouraged and in most cases mandated to have a caddie. (NJSGA, USGA locals, MET)

 

[aabcuue]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> Just FYI

> Strakaline are not even close to the most used books on the PGA Tour

>

> Mark Longs books are the standard

Have many of both and some Euro versions. Which one ia used depends on the tournament.

 

Have met Long's family a few times and chatted. Nice people.

[BNGL]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @idrive said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > Paying someone to carry my golf clubs is a rich guy thing, period.

> > >

> > > So. Sucks for you if that bothers you.

> >

> > Use of caddies don't bother me because it doesn't affect me. And I have long since come to grips with playing a game with a long history of being exclusionary.

> >

> > I am simply pointing out that caddies are a holdover from when golf was exclusively a rich man's pastime. And to repeat my original assertion, the belief that relying on a caddie for information is an integral part of golf while use of a rangefinder or green reading book should not be allowed is an "elitist" holdover attitude from an earlier age.

>

>

> You're talking about caddies who make a demonstrable difference in play. Caddies who read greens for you, and who are effectively on-course coaches. That is an entirely new phenomenon. Through the entire history of U.S. major championships in golf, regular club caddies were required at the Masters, the PGA Championship and the U.S. Open. Only in the later part of the 20th century did that change. It was the mid-1970's before the PGA Championship allowed "Tour" caddies. The U.S. Open was just before that. The Masters was well after that.

>

> Oh; and in lots of amateur competitions now, caddies are not allowed precisely because of the modern "weaponization" of the job of caddy. So no caddies in NCAA play. No caddies in many state ams. Are caddies allowed in the AJGA? I don't know.

>

 

Oh great one thank you for gracing us with your presence, not to be the fly in ointment, but I do think that caddies are allowed amateur competitions. Usually it’s stipulated, if carts are allowed, that clubs must remain on the cart and player or caddie may ride but not both. I certainly could be wrong, and if so I sincerely beg your pardon your eminence and wish nothing but good fortune upon you and all those “lucky” enough to be in your good graces...

 

I believe Florida and Wisconsin allow caddies, the Wisconsin golf association actually encourages you to take a local caddie (if available) for their state am.