Forget about distance controlled golf balls...get rid of yardages and green books.

[DavidCrockett]

38 minutes ago, Xiphos said:

I’m not the one that brought up other sports as a rational for using yardage guides in golf. 

 

Greener's Law:  Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.  Or, in this case, spends all his time on the internet, racking up 10's of thousands of posts on a message board.

 

I joined yesterday and have already figured that one out.

Edited February 25, 2021 by DavidCrockett

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, clevited said:

Honestly, I wouldn't mind this at all.  Imagine if you had to judge distance now all the time rather than have all of these exact yardages and stuff.  I actually don't think you should be able to pace anything off either, or go up to see the landing area of your shot (it all leads to slow play imo).  I am not gunho that such a change be made though, I really don't care, but if ever it was, I would be fine with it.  I am also of the mind that nobody should ever have a caddy (at least in the capacity that they are used today) as I think that changes golf from a solo sport to a team sport.

Heresy!

 

Caddies are as old as the game of golf!

 

And it's only a team sport when on wrx some player gets penalized or misses a green by a mile and people here start jumping all over their caddie, like he or she actually hit the shot or is paid to be a rules official, lol.

 

Caddies for some players have more of a role, but that's just good delegation by the captain of the ship, IMO, of course. 😉

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

So you want to completely do a 180 of how golf has been since the 1950s?

 

I don't "want" to do anything, I said I wouldn't mind it.  Reason being....

 

I don't have or use a range finder or gps on most courses I play

I don't have the option to use a caddy on most courses I play

I don't use a green book or yardage book ever.
 

Basically, I play by feel and distance judgement on most courses I play.

Edited February 25, 2021 by clevited

[Frankensteins Monster]

10 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I don't "want" to do anything, I said I wouldn't mind it.  Reason being....

 

I don't have or use a range finder or gps on most courses I play

I don't have the option to use a caddy on most courses I play

I don't use a green book or yardage book ever.
 

Basically, I play by feel and distance judgement on most courses I play.

And you have that option to do that at any time you wish. Forcing others to play that way goes against the way golf has been for over 70 years. This thread was started to take the option to use all of that away.

[clevited]

6 minutes ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

And you have that option to do that at any time you wish. Forcing others to play that way goes against the way golf has been for over 70 years. This thread was started to take the option to use all of that away.

 

You don't need to try and pick a fight with me, I just told you, I would be ok with it, but I am not gunho to make it so precisely because I don't want to infringe on the way others currently like to play the game, therefore, I am not for forcing anyone to not do those things.  I stated why I would be OK with it, it is simply because I don't experience golf with all that stuff, or don't use it.  I do happily play golf that way.  I merely made a statement based on the OP, and that statement is, if that happened I would be just fine with it, but that is me.

 

Go try and pick a fight with someone else, you won't win against me anyway, I don't know when to quit.

[Hawkeye77]

25 minutes ago, DavidCrockett said:

 

Greener's Law:  Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.  Or, in this case, spends all his time on the internet, racking up 10's of thousands of posts on a message board.

 

I joined yesterday and have already figured that one out.

Seems to me @Xiphosis doing just fine - actively in the discussion at hand. 😉

 

You enjoy yardage books? Landmarks? Play by feel?

[bigred90gt]

1 hour ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

Basketball hoop has a backboard... that is a landmark. Playing catch... the other person is a landmark. And again... estimating distance of 10ft, 25ft, is FAR easier than estimating 200 yards with zero markings. I'd guarantee if anybody went to a course they're not familiar with, you set them out there at 175 yards, they would be off by 10-20 yards. That's 30-60ft.

At this point it feels like you’re arguing just for the sake of arguing. 
 

above you said “ Go to a basketball court where a hoop is in a wide open field with nothing behind it. See how well you shoot on it.”

 

now you’re saying g the backboard is a landmark. The backboard is the target. It’s what you are shooting at. A landmark used for a distance reference would be something between you and the goal at a known distance that is used to gauge distance, like the lines in the court. As it relates to golf, it’s like the courses that plant bushes at 100, 150, 200. Those are landmarks. The flag is not a landmark, it is the target. Then you say the person catching the ball is a landmark. No, that person is the target. 
 

of course it is easier to estimate 20’ than 200 yards, I don’t think anyone would say otherwise. 

[Xiphos]

4 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

None of those sports are relevant to the subject of pro yardage books or greens books, certainly not in the way you suggest. Not a rational argument.

I didn’t mean to conflate kids choosing not to play play with yardage guides because that isn’t the case. However, most kids I’ve coached think the secret is found solely at the range. Basically they think practice can substitute for playing. If exact yardages were removed from the equation they would have to get out on the course as there would be no other way to learn the feel. I made this post only being half serious as I realize the industry isn’t going to go that way. I would personally love it, but I won’t spend a lot of time advocating for it. However, I think kids and adults alike could learn a lot by training their instinct. At the pro level it would be fun because it would lead to a lot of recovery shots and I enjoy watching that a great deal. 

[Krt22]

Golf is a sport that rewards precision, replacing precision largely with luck would not make the game any better or more entertaining. Using antics and gimmicks to inflate scores is not the answer to the so called distance "problem" 

[Hawkeye77]

19 minutes ago, Xiphos said:

I didn’t mean to conflate kids choosing not to play play with yardage guides because that isn’t the case. However, most kids I’ve coached think the secret is found solely at the range. Basically they think practice can substitute for playing. If exact yardages were removed from the equation they would have to get out on the course as there would be no other way to learn the feel. I made this post only being half serious as I realize the industry isn’t going to go that way. I would personally love it, but I won’t spend a lot of time advocating for it. However, I think kids and adults alike could learn a lot by training their instinct. At the pro level it would be fun because it would lead to a lot of recovery shots and I enjoy watching that a great deal. 

 

Would it be fun to waive a magic wand and see the pros tee it up with no books, no caddies and go play? I'd enjoy watching it, and enjoy doing it myself from time to time (but I already know the yardages from all spots on my course, but still making my own yardage book!).  

 

My very limited experience has been the opposite - other than kids who are pretty good and know what they are working on, I don't see any kids on the golf teams spending time on the range or practicing much, but all kids aren't into it the same.  No doubt in some areas with certain parents, coaches, you probably see little kids and older kids beating balls on the range (or having fun or both).  

 

I don't want to go all "good old days", but when I was in HS we just played golf, rarely did even the really good players (not me) ever go to the range.  Different times maybe.  

 

I don't know that you can't learn the feel of a distance by knowing what the distance is when hitting a shot, you are still perceiving the target and all that goes with it, but maybe there is something to learning it better the other way.  I don't know.  But I think going back 40 years or more I can't remember playing a course that didn't at least have 100 or 150 marked, but definitely over time it seemed like courses marked more increments or threw numbers on sprinkler heads, but I thought that was progress and always wanted more information.  What I always loved seeing at some courses were those official monuments in the ground on a tee box from the golf association with the yardage, didn't mean much, just was cool.

 

 

[kasting333]

How about we let the game progress?

[Pops99]

No idea how to post tweets but Brandel posted tonight a quote from Rahm saying he feels green reading books shouldn’t be allowed:

”I think being able to read a green and read a break and understand the green is a talent, it’s a skill that can be developed, and by just giving you the information, they’re taking away from the game.”

-Rahmbo 

 

Interesting (to me anyways) that players are talking about this. 

 

[AmazinBlue]

The simple fix is lengthen the height of the fairways and rough and soften thw fairways and narrow them.  Less roll, less spin into greens and the distance they hit the driver will drop less birdies will come.

[Creedo77]

It's not logical for golf course superintendents to water down their golf courses. Firm/Fast conditions are tougher for pros to play in, compared to when greens are soft, that will only see more birdies. Raising the rough is the main thing that will make things tougher. 

[Creedo77]

34 minutes ago, Pops99 said:

No idea how to post tweets but Brandel posted tonight a quote from Rahm saying he feels green reading books shouldn’t be allowed:

”I think being able to read a green and read a break and understand the green is a talent, it’s a skill that can be developed, and by just giving you the information, they’re taking away from the game.”

-Rahmbo 

 

Interesting (to me anyways) that players are talking about this. 

 

While the greens books do provide a lot of information, unless you know exactly where you are on the green, and you know exactly where the pin is (sometimes the pin sheets are off by a yard or two in either direction) then the greens book is useless. If were talking about reading the general direction of a putt then yeah that information is pretty spot on, but for the most part they aren't helping improve make rates (and thats over the course of the last 10-15 years).

 

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what these tour greens book look like ill be happy to post them. They actually provide 4 topographical charts of the same green, but with different information on them. 

[Pops99]

6 minutes ago, Creedo77 said:

While the greens books do provide a lot of information, unless you know exactly where you are on the green, and you know exactly where the pin is (sometimes the pin sheets are off by a yard or two in either direction) then the greens book is useless. If were talking about reading the general direction of a putt then yeah that information is pretty spot on, but for the most part they aren't helping improve make rates (and thats over the course of the last 10-15 years).

 

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what these tour greens book look like ill be happy to post them. They actually provide 4 topographical charts of the same green, but with different information on them. 

I’ll 100% defer to you on this as I know you’ve posted about your experience caddying on the KFT. I just thought it was interesting that it’s being discussed by players more now. Or maybe if it was talked about in the past I just missed it. 

[Creedo77]

9 minutes ago, Pops99 said:

I’ll 100% defer to you on this as I know you’ve posted about your experience caddying on the KFT. I just thought it was interesting that it’s being discussed by players more now. Or maybe if it was talked about in the past I just missed it. 

And just to be clear, my comment wasn't just directed towards you but to a lot of people on here who talk about wanting to ban greens books, but I don't think they really know what they're all about. 

 

I've used Straka Line and Mark Long greens books, and there have been plenty of instances that the books were wrong on given reads/putts. They aren't 100% correct,and unless they're updated/surveyed every year than the information will be wrong (due to greens being mown/shrinking). The one thing that I like about them is that they illustrate the green in colors for approach shots.

 

I think the majority of players don't really care if they're banned or not, but you are right that Rahm is one of the first (That i can remember) who has publicly said something about them. 

[Pops99]

12 minutes ago, Creedo77 said:

And just to be clear, my comment wasn't just directed towards you but to a lot of people on here who talk about wanting to ban greens books, but I don't think they really know what they're all about. 

 

I've used Straka Line and Mark Long greens books, and there have been plenty of instances that the books were wrong on given reads/putts. They aren't 100% correct,and unless they're updated/surveyed every year than the information will be wrong (due to greens being mown/shrinking). The one thing that I like about them is that they illustrate the green in colors for approach shots.

 

I think the majority of players don't really care if they're banned or not, but you are right that Rahm is one of the first (That i can remember) who has publicly said something about them. 

I appreciate the info man. Its cool to hear what they’re actually like. I’ve only ever seen the ones on the Mackenzie Tour and definitely not the same quality  haha 

[Creedo77]

5 minutes ago, Pops99 said:

I appreciate the info man. Its cool to hear what they’re actually like. I’ve only ever seen the ones on the Mackenzie Tour and definitely not the same quality  haha 

I'll post some pics of Hamilton G/CC from last years Canadian Open in the morning 

[80sFredriksson]

I somewhat agree, at least regarding green books, also hope the lasers never makes it the pga tour

Edited February 26, 2021 by 80sFredriksson

[Frankensteins Monster]

14 hours ago, bigred90gt said:

At this point it feels like you’re arguing just for the sake of arguing. 
 

above you said “ Go to a basketball court where a hoop is in a wide open field with nothing behind it. See how well you shoot on it.”

 

now you’re saying g the backboard is a landmark. The backboard is the target. It’s what you are shooting at. A landmark used for a distance reference would be something between you and the goal at a known distance that is used to gauge distance, like the lines in the court. As it relates to golf, it’s like the courses that plant bushes at 100, 150, 200. Those are landmarks. The flag is not a landmark, it is the target. Then you say the person catching the ball is a landmark. No, that person is the target. 
 

of course it is easier to estimate 20’ than 200 yards, I don’t think anyone would say otherwise. 

I thought it was understood I was talking about removing the backboard. 

 

Flag is not the target for professional golfers. It never is. Parts of the green/fairway are the targets. 

 

No comment about how professionals have known exact yardages, and kept yardage books since the 50's? Knowing exact yardages to specific areas of the golf course is imperative to professional golfers and has been for over 70 years.

[Frankensteins Monster]

11 hours ago, Krt22 said:

Golf is a sport that rewards precision, replacing precision largely with luck would not make the game any better or more entertaining. Using antics and gimmicks to inflate scores is not the answer to the so called distance "problem" 

I agree. There's already enough luck, chance, and guessing in the game of golf. 

[Frankensteins Monster]

14 hours ago, clevited said:

 

You don't need to try and pick a fight with me, I just told you, I would be ok with it, but I am not gunho to make it so precisely because I don't want to infringe on the way others currently like to play the game, therefore, I am not for forcing anyone to not do those things.  I stated why I would be OK with it, it is simply because I don't experience golf with all that stuff, or don't use it.  I do happily play golf that way.  I merely made a statement based on the OP, and that statement is, if that happened I would be just fine with it, but that is me.

 

Go try and pick a fight with someone else, you won't win against me anyway, I don't know when to quit.

I agree with you, for yourself. You have the option to choose for YOURSELF. You posted in a thread that was petitioning for removing the option to use those for everyone. When you posted, "Honestly, I wouldn't mind this at all," as your first sentence, it makes it seem you'd be OK with banning people from using any books and play blind. Now that you clarified that you were talking about you, yourself, with regards to yardages/books/markers, and you, yourself, not using books and yardage markers because you do that from time to time now. You're not for prohibiting anybody else from using them. 

 

I'm now confused about you saying you don't want to infringe on how others play the game, but in your original post you wrote, "I am also of the mind that nobody should ever have a caddy (at least in the capacity that they are used today) as I think that changes golf from a solo sport to a team sport." Golf has never, ever been a solo sport. Ask Arnie, Jack, all the greats of their era, they were a team. Professional golf has nearly always been about being a "team." It's why may of the greats from that era, and eras to follow, had caddies for long periods of time.

[clevited]

9 minutes ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

I agree with you, for yourself. You have the option to choose for YOURSELF. You posted in a thread that was petitioning for removing the option to use those for everyone. When you posted, "Honestly, I wouldn't mind this at all," as your first sentence, it makes it seem you'd be OK with banning people from using any books and play blind. Now that you clarified that you were talking about you, yourself, with regards to yardages/books/markers, and you, yourself, not using books and yardage markers because you do that from time to time now. You're not for prohibiting anybody else from using them. 

 

I'm now confused about you saying you don't want to infringe on how others play the game, but in your original post you wrote, "I am also of the mind that nobody should ever have a caddy (at least in the capacity that they are used today) as I think that changes golf from a solo sport to a team sport." Golf has never, ever been a solo sport. Ask Arnie, Jack, all the greats of their era, they were a team. Professional golf has nearly always been about being a "team." It's why may of the greats from that era, and eras to follow, had caddies for long periods of time.

 

You are confusing yourself.  If tomorrow the rules changed and all that stuff went away, I wouldn't be pissed off.  Much like some people wouldn't care if the ball got nerfed tomorrow.  I can be accepting of something if it occurred but not advocate that it does occur.  I really am not sure how I can be any clearer.  Again, don't pick a fight with me lol, not wise.  

 

Just because the OP said one thing, and I made a comment on it while clearly saying i wouldn't push for a rule change, it doesn't follow that I would push for any rule change, you know, especially with how clearly I made that clear, is that clear?

[Frankensteins Monster]

7 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

You are confusing yourself.  If tomorrow the rules changed and all that stuff went away, I wouldn't be pissed off.  Much like some people wouldn't care if the ball got nerfed tomorrow.  I can be accepting of something if it occurred but not advocate that it does occur.  I really am not sure how I can be any clearer.  Again, don't pick a fight with me lol, not wise.  

 

Just because the OP said one thing, and I made a comment on it while clearly saying i wouldn't push for a rule change, it doesn't follow that I would push for any rule change, you know, especially with how clearly I made that clear, is that clear?

Got it. Your sentencing was not quite clear because you made multiple determinations in one paragraph about being ok with certain stuff either way, but then when on to want certain things prohibited. Now that you cleared up that you're not in favor of banning caddies and pacing yardages off, contrary to what you previously wrote, I now see where you're coming from.

[BIG STU]

16 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Haha, maybe I'm biased - excerpt from winter project below, pretty fun!  Walking and looking at the course from the hole backwards, plotting ideal landing spots and what clubs to hit, all part of learning the nuances of the course, strategy, course management - all part of playing golf.  Makes you think, sometimes admit you really never did know how to play certain holes intelligently, lol, but mostly just fun.

 

 

 

 

I actually did that last summer when I was hurt on my home course. Applied some triangulation principles I have learned and backed them up with my range finder. Found a new way to play some holes that had been a problem for me. I think it was Ben Hogan who said if you want to see how a hole plays play it from the green to the tee. Who ever said it was correct. Opened my eyes up because my home course a lot of holes are 100% position holes especially off the tee. Did away with some of my old thinking. I play a cut by nature and usually tee up on the right side of the tee. Found out on one hole especially that it was a shorter carry across water teeing up on the left side of the tee. I had honestly never shot it from the left side. I knew by eyeballing it that it was shorter but did not imagine it was some 20 yards shorter from the left side. Now I am anxiously waiting to get my back to 100%.

[davep043]

16 hours ago, wildcatden said:

At the Masters, the topographical maps that plot putting surfaces down to the tenth of a degree of slope are not allowed. The PGA Tour should take this approach for all tournaments for 1 year (or at least for a subset of tournaments) and see what happens.

There are simply no detailed greens maps available because Augusta hasn't allowed anyone the access required to make one.  The Masters hasn't overruled the Rules of Golf, they've simply made sure detailed greens maps aren't readily available.  The player is still allowed to make his own map, subject to size and scale limitations.

And the PGA Tour has no interest in going outside of the Rules of Golf, they won't prohibit greens books as long as the Rules allow them.

[Hawkeye77]

5 minutes ago, BIG STU said:

I actually did that last summer when I was hurt on my home course. Applied some triangulation principles I have learned and backed them up with my range finder. Found a new way to play some holes that had been a problem for me. I think it was Ben Hogan who said if you want to see how a hole plays play it from the green to the tee. Who ever said it was correct. Opened my eyes up because my home course a lot of holes are 100% position holes especially off the tee. Did away with some of my old thinking. I play a cut by nature and usually tee up on the right side of the tee. Found out on one hole especially that it was a shorter carry across water teeing up on the left side of the tee. I had honestly never shot it from the left side. I knew by eyeballing it that it was shorter but did not imagine it was some 20 yards shorter from the left side. Now I am anxiously waiting to get my back to 100%.

That's cool!  I've been playing most of my golf at the same course for the past 20+ years. Rarely employ any real sense of strategy, hit it find it, go for it, I'll be back tomorrow, lol.  Sometimes play great, sometimes not, so on.  When I've experimented in the past with different ideas I've abandoned them pretty quickly - it's like OK easier to make par that way but go right back to hitting driver 60% of the time in the left trees.  Just spending time on Google Earth is a revelation, but yep, walking the course backwards makes things a lot more obvious.  It's fun to do, fun to study - working on the greens will take a little time and I know them, but there are spots on certain greens after all these years I'll question myself about while playing.  No exaggeration, I've eliminated 6 holes from hitting driver where I hit it 95% of the time and they may now be anything from 4h to 3w depending on the landing area.  So much more ability to find the best part of the fairway and stay out of trouble when taking the time to think about it - now . . . . need to apply it and put the 1 time out of 8 I actually drive the drivable par 4 out of my mind, haha, last season three of the times I drove it I three putted, and usual misses led to a low bump and run from trees on one side or short pitch out of long grass.  50 yards out in the short grass is by far the widest and easiest to hit target.  Anyway, it really is fun to do and at least for me, pretend I might develop some kind of attempts at strategy.

[Myherobobhope]

18 hours ago, Xiphos said:

I keep reading about the need to distance proof golf by reining in balls and or equipment. However, I think it would be more interesting to get rid of yardages (except maybe 200,150,100) and green books. This would do a couple of things I think would be great for the sport. One, it would put a premium onplaying it safe into greens and off the tee. Two, and more importantly, it would put a premium on playing golf vs. practicing golf as one would need to gain the experience required to develop “feel”.  I’m involved in HS and young Junior golf programs and I can’t help but notice that kids don’t want to play choosing rather to hit the range. I think this change would give them incentive to play. 

I would love to see the best in the world rely on instinct. I love Bryson, but I’m dreading the day when kids need to pace off their putts and chips in order to compete. Anyways, that’s just my half baked two cents. What say you?

I'm of the opinion if the data is findable, make it as easy as possible to level the playing field... playing without yardage books while having markers on the ground would just lead to people pacing off yardages from the markers... then you are adding a skillset of "who can step most consistently" to the game of golf... I have no real problem with yardage books (or pros using range finders). You can figure out the information if given enough time, even without markers. 

 

Getting rid of green reading books... maybe? Having had a green reading book in my bag, I can tell you it still takes skill to properly read the green, figure out where you are on the map and hit the correct putt... I think Bryson is an interesting case study in that he's shown you can try to "Science" out feel shots, but it doesn't necessarily work. As someone who has used him in the last 2 tournaments in fantasy rounds, I can tell you his methods don't always work. It would be interesting for a few months as players got used to the new normal, but it seems like the logical conclusion would be hiring caddies who were excellent at reading greens and communicating those reads (Assuming it wasn't a skill set the player possessed).

[Creedo77]

9 hours ago, Pops99 said:

I appreciate the info man. Its cool to hear what they’re actually like. I’ve only ever seen the ones on the Mackenzie Tour and definitely not the same quality  haha 

Attached is the Mark Long PGA Tour Greens Book from the 2019 Canadian Open 

 

and a straka line book from an RTJ course in Alabama 

 

you can see that the Mark Long book is well detailed with 4 views of the same green. Compare that to the straka book with only 2. Mark Long is $165 a week on the PGA Tour and the Straka is $40/$50 on the KFT