RSS

Tag Archives: Golf

Resurrecting Donald Ross…again

“Resurrecting Donald Ross”

By: Nathan Crace    Date: August 28, 2007/August 28, 2013

The following is a re-print of my original column with the same title that was published exactly six years ago today, with some revised content for today’s reader:

It’s no secret to those who read this column on a regular basis that I am of that group of individuals who believe the unbridled advances in golf technology in the past 15+ years (specifically the ball, the driver, and the newer wedges) have damaged the game of golf and endangered the classic courses of the past by rendering them defenseless against the long ball and the “bomb and gouge” approach.  But recently, I have also been watching more and more of the classic courses working to “restore” themselves to their former glory.  And as with any other niche industry, there are a number of smart golf course architects making a name for themselves by channeling the deceased architects of the glory days while they restore these courses.

I’m the last person to second-guess another architect because (by the very nature of what we do) there is no one right way to renovate or design a golf course.  It’s their project, let them do as they wish and leave the second-guessing to the pundits.  But I do wonder why there is such a rabid fervor by some club members and owners to put courses exactly back to the way they originally were.  While in my opinion, a properly designed/built/managed golf course is a work of art, is it not Michelangelo’s Statue of David or a Van Gogh painting.  Those can be restored.  Golf courses are organic living things that change and adapt over the years.  One of the reasons the game itself is so unique is that each course is unique and that creates diversity.  So why do we want to keep courses the way they were or spend millions in a futile attempt to turn back time?  Is it for the nostalgia? For the history? For the assumed wishes of the original architect? 

Enter the “ghost whisperers.”  Most will use old sketches or photos of the course in question or maybe even the original construction drawings that were found in the footlocker of the original club president when his great grandson was cleaning out the old family stable.  They spend a lot of time to painstakingly recreate what used to be there and resurrect the designs of Donald Ross, Tillinghast, MacDonald, MacKenzie, Colt….the list goes on and on.  To their credit, most do an excellent job of re-creating the features to the way they used to be and should be commended for their ability to do so.  But my question is this: Is that really the best thing to do in every situation for every old course?  Would is really be what they want?  And by “they,” I mean the original architects.  One of my favorite lines I keep hearing repeated is: “I’ve renovated so many [insert dead architect’s name here] courses, I know what he was thinking.”  Really?

I must profess that I am a student of the history of the game and love the rich history of the architects of the past 100 years and I am awed by what they achieved with limited resources.  That being said, my job is to respect the past while looking toward the future—not looking over my shoulder to appease the dead.  Not to sound aloof, but the client hires me to renovate a golf course and make it aesthetically pleasing, easier to maintain, and fun to play again.  Things have changed in the past 30, 50, 100 years since the course was originally built and for many courses, there can be room for debate regarding whether or not the dead architect credited with a certain design did more than make a site visit once—if at all.  One architect in particular, whose pinnacle was after the Great Depression, is credited with nearly 300 designs! In an age without jet travel, staffs of design associates, or bulldozers—and considering he passed away in his 60’s (early by today’s standards)—that would be an incredibly grueling work load.  But I digress.  Not only have changes in golf equipment changed the game, but improvements in agronomics have also made drastic changes to the older courses by improving the quality of turf. 

Which brings us to the core point of my theory:  The men who designed the courses so famous from the past “glory days” of golf course architecture were obviously intelligent men who understood the game and how to fit a course to the land they had at their disposal.  They were not stupid people.  Therefore, I have to believe that if we could magically resurrect these great architects and show them the way the game and the industry has evolved, they would not want to “restore” their courses to the way they were.  They would want to help them evolve and adapt.  Enlarge the greens, perhaps soften some contours and change bunker styling, add and expand tees, etc.  Pinehurst’s greens were originally sand, not grass.  And the courses with turf for putting surfaces most certainly were not running 9 to 12 feet on a Stimpmeter—which was invented in 1935 because Edward Stimpson thought the greens at the US Open that year at Oakmont were unfairly fast!  Most greens in those days (the US Open notwithstanding) were more akin to the fairways of some of the better courses of today.  Who do you know that would settle for putting on the fairway at your course?  Greens in their day had to be humpbacked to assist in drainage and subsequently were not receptive to approach shots.  If you were to reconstruct a green from the 1930’s and mow it to stimp at 13, it would be so small and fast that you would never be able to keep a ball on the green. 

So the next time you see where an architect has been hired to return an old Donald Ross course to “exactly the way it was in the original photos,” ask yourself what Mr. Ross would think given today’s game of golf.  There’s a difference between respecting some of the original design elements in the context of today’s game and trying to create an exact replica of what once was, but restoring the course of yesterday may actually do a disservice to the game and is shortsighted given the advances in technology.  History is to be appreciated and I hate more than anyone when a classic course is forced to change by adding hundreds of yards or dozens of bunkers simply to defend against technology.  Evolution of a golf course is a natural progression that should be embraced and properly planned—not retroactively regenerated.  That is unless we will all be playing these “new” old courses with hickory-shafted niblicks and gutta-percha golf balls.  There are, of course, exceptions to my theory as there are with other theories, and the recent Coore-Crenshaw renovation of Pinehurst #2 is an example of restoring certain facets of the original course while respecting both the original design and the needs of the future—including the removal of acres of grown-over turf, replacing it instead with the native sandy soil and wiregrass for rough.  But notice they still have turf on the greens instead of a sand surface, internal drainage in the greens, and an automated irrigation system.  Yet something tells me Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore understood what the course needed for the future without dismissing the past.  And they didn’t walk the course consulting a Ouija board to make it happen…

Copyright 2007/Revised 2013 Nathan Crace.  Nathan Crace (on Twitter @lipouts) is an award-winning golf course architect, published author, and member of the Golf Writers Association of America.  You can purchase his book “Lipouts, The Best I Could Do From the First Two Years” from Moonbay Media on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and in the iTunes Bookstore. 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 9, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Anchors “A-Way” — the USGA bans anchored putting

The following was written for the June 2013 premier issue of the new Backspin Magazine (www.backspinmag.com).  This is a sneak peek.

_______________________________________

             The USGA has officially dropped the hammer on the anchor.  Across the country, young players who’ve never putted with a 35” flat stick are dazed and confused while older players with shaky hands who have found refuge from the yips with the assistance of a broomstick are congregating in 19th holes and drinking like soldiers in a Civil War field hospital waiting for the doctor to operate.  I don’t have a dog in the fight (personally) because I prefer the opposite approach—my putter is cut down to 32.5” because I like to extend my arms fully when putting—and I think it’s unfair to judge others based on the size of their equipment.  I’ve used a short putter since my high school golf days in Indiana eons ago when woods were actually wood and balls were full of miles of rubber bands and covered with balata (pronounced bah-lah-tah for you youngsters).  I do, however, find humor in the debate much the same as I find humor in anything where people draw arbitrary lines for the sake of…well, drawing arbitrary lines.

            On one side, there are the “traditionalists” who claim that anchoring a club against one’s body takes the skill out of the stroke and is essentially a crutch for those who struggle with putting.  Most stop short of calling it cheating, but if this were 1913 instead of 2013 and we weren’t all so politically correct I think there would be plenty of public name-callin’and finger-pointin’.  But seriously, could you imagine Bobby Jones with a putter jammed into his sternum?  It gives me the creeps just thinking about it. 

          One the other side, there are those claiming that loosening the rules helps to “grow the game” by making is more accessible and more fun.  For years, I’ve countered that the unintended consequence of “growing the game” in this manner has actually been making it less accessible.  Drivers and balls that fly farther have caused courses to be designed and built longer, necessitating the need for additional land, renovating great older courses, driving up the costs, and passing those costs along to the end user.  Take a couple of decades, factor in supply out-pacing demand with the perfect storm of a down economy plus a dose of busted housing bubble and more courses are now closing than opening.  But I digress….

            I remember when Bernhard Langer started bracing the grip of his putter against his forearm in the early 1990’s to settle his putting stroke and everyone whispered that he would never be the same again.  Remember when Rocco Meditate started using a long putter and the old guard could not believe what they were seeing?  He started using it because of back problems, but his success with it brought it to the attention of others battling similar maladies.  Then someone struggling with short putts started using a long putter by bracing it against his stomach or chest to create a pendulum stroke with no wrist action.  Now there are major champions (read Keegan Bradley and Webb Simpson) who have always used long putters since their days as junior golfers.

            So just as the USGA is apt to do, they now ride in to town after sunset while the buildings are ablaze and announce that there might be trouble headed this way.  Much like the failure to read the tea leaves of balls that travel like Tomahawk cruise missiles and driver faces with more spring in their step than a young Sergio Garcia at Medinah when Tiger may have actually had a reason to worry about playing him head-to-head, the USGA is about 10 years (give or take a biennial) too late in the anchoring ruling. Their ban on 60 degree wedges is due out in 2016…

            Do I think bracing a putter against your stomach cheapens the game and gives you an unfair advantage over me? Not really. Notwithstanding players who grew up playing with a long putter, I think if you are using a long putter for any reason other than back problems, then you probably have more mental bats in your golf-psyche belfry than you know what to do with anyway.  However, what I do think is ridiculous is some of the hypocrisy surrounding the issue.  Like a certain PGA Tour player (whom I’ve always respected) who just a few years ago demanded that the USGA and R&A immediately ban belly putters, who did call those who used them “cheaters,” who then started using one himself, who later won a major with said putter, and who—when asked about his earlier statements—used the excuse that he would “keep cheating like the rest of them” while long putters were legal.  That is what cheapens the game.

Copyright 2013 Nathan Crace.  Nathan Crace (on Twitter @lipouts) is an award-winning golf course architect, published author, and member of the Golf Writers Association of America.  You can purchase his book “Lipouts, The Best I Could Do From the First Two Years” from Moonbay Media on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and in the iTunes Bookstore.  Nathan appears in  Backspin by special arrangement.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 1, 2013 in Golf, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

The Venerable Ken Venturi — Passing of a Legend

I was saddened to hear about the passing of Ken Venturi today at age 82, just 12 days after he was inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame.  I’m glad he was on Feherty last year and I still have that episode recorded (I’m willing to bet we’ll see a re-run of it on Golf Channel–as well we should). As my tribute to Ken Venturi, here’s a e-print of the column I wrote in 2002 about Venturi and what I learned from his time on CBS and as a player.  Thoughts an prayers are with his family.  He will be missed….

___________________________________________________

“The Venerable Mr. Venturi”   from June 17, 2002

When I was young—say about 8 or 9 years old—my parents used to tell me to take time to speak with our older neighbors and listen to what they had to say. And not just when they were yelling at me for cutting the corner through their daylilies on my bike after school. Take some time to sit down with them, ask them questions about how things were when they were young and listen to what they had to say. I was assured that I would be amazed not only at how much had changed in the world, but also at how much had NOT changed.  These were the men who had fought our World Wars and the women with more grand and great-grandchildren than they could keep up with at times.

Of course, getting that to sink in for a nine year-old with ball games to play and dogs to play fetch with was surely an unenviable task. Later in life, as these elderly neighbors and friends of my parents began to pass on and I grew more mature, I realized all of the potentially fascinating life stories about their lives that would go untold—at least to me. Procrastination is a nasty habit, especially when it costs you the time that cannot be relived. But to a child, there’s always tomorrow to talk to the older folks.

The 2002 Kemper Insurance Open was the last time Ken Venturi would sit in the CBS tower behind the 18th green calling the shots for the viewers of CBS’s PGA Tour coverage each year.  Although Ken Venturi the man has not passed on, his television legacy has—leaving an indelible mark on more than a few of us. He was one of those announcers you found yourself inexplicably drawn to due to his true emotion and sense of “been there, done that.”

Unfortunately for me, it took a few years for me to realize exactly who he was and that makes his exit more noteworthy to me than perhaps to others. When I first got hooked on golf at about age 10, I would sometimes spend entire afternoons on weekends watching CBS’s golf coverage. Early on, I grew tired of Mr. Venturi’s ramblings and seemingly obvious comments. “This putt is all speed and direction” was one of my favorites. As a pre-teen who knew everything there was to know about the game (except who this Venturi guy was), I knew that all putts were speed and direction. Right? Then again, it’s always been difficult to bridge the generation gap—especially when it requires two bridges over three generations.

As I grew older and began to play competitive golf in junior and senior high school, I still watched as much golf as possible when I wasn’t actually playing golf. For me, the small screen provided an eye on the golfing world and an outlet for my desire to play more. The reason was simple: no one in my family played golf, there was no course in my hometown, and I wasn’t yet old enough to drive. I didn’t mind not getting to play as much as I would have liked and—in hindsight—it probably benefited my career today by spending more time watching golf on television. I got to see some of the best courses from all over the world instead of the same course every week.

So there we were: Ken Venturi and myself going over every shot on every hole week in and week out.  Sure there were weeks when NBC or ABC would grab a share of the market to cover a major or a Skins Game; but the majority of the time was spent with Kenny in the tower on 18—there was no Golf Channel.

Then at about age 14, I had an epiphany by “accidentally” learning who Ken Venturi really was. I couldn’t believe what an idiot I had been! I read a story about him in a magazine that I can’t remember the name of today. It began with the story of his childhood and how he turned to golf to escape the taunts he endured as a result of a speech impediment. Speech impediment? “How could someone with a speech impediment make a career of sports broadcasting?” I thought.  It went on to tell of how he lost the 1956 Masters as an amateur with a final round 80—losing by one stroke! He then turned pro and won no less than 10 times in the next four years on Tour before hitting a dry four-year spell that nearly cost him his game. He said he had to borrow money to play in the 1964 U.S. Open—an Open that is now a part of golf history. The same 1964 Open he won by playing through dehydration and 100 degree heat for a 36-hole final that forever defined Venturi the player.

Now we’ve come to the end of a 35-year long career in the booth that has seen Ken Venturi win the hearts of millions of viewers. Forget the critics. So what if people thought he wasn’t as critical as NBC’s Johnny Miller. Venturi was a straight talker, but a consummate gentleman—a genre that has be slowing slipping away from your television in contemporary times because it’s hard to sell to the younger generation. The viewers are what count and remembering Ken Venturi is what counts to him. Will the Masters really be the same to us without him in the booth? Only time will tell.

The viewers and players alike will surely miss you Mr. Venturi. Enjoy your retirement and the much-deserved time off. Just remember: like putting, retirement is all speed and direction.

 

 
 

Tags: , , ,

Why the 2012 PGA Championship and Ryder Cup Will Be More Important to Me

The following was written in Aug 2012 for Mississippi Sports Magazine and is re-printed here at blog.lipouts.com
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Why the 2012 PGA Championship and Ryder Cup Will  Be More Important to Me  |  By: Nathan Crace

In my life, I’ve written a few articles about the Ryder Cup every couple of years.  I have tried to avoid the mundane statistics or “inside baseball” angle and instead tried to focus on the peculiarities of the long-standing rivalry of the matches between America’s best and the best of the Eurozone golfers, the fervor that seems to wind the Euros together tighter than a Camilo Villegas polo, or—speaking of clothing—the poor choice of uniforms the Americans insist on making more often than not.  While I’m on the topic, please tell me that Corey Pavin’s wife is NOT designing the team uniforms this year.  With all due respect, it was bad enough that our guys had to buy rain gear from the souvenir tent in Wales in 2010 because our team’s gear leaked; but to have our rain suits look like the Globetrotter’s basketball warm-up suits from the 1950’s?  Between you and me, I still suspect that’s the real reason our guys said they needed new rain gear—not that they actually leaked. But I digress…

This year the Ryder Cup is special to me not because of who is playing or where the matches are being played, but instead because of where the matches are not being held.  The Americans will host the 2012 Ryder Cup at Medinah Country Club in suburban Chicago the month after the PGA Championship will have been decided at the Ocean Course at Kiawah Island—hard against the Atlantic Ocean (as the name indicates) in South Carolina—where the infamous “War on the Shore” took place twenty-one years ago.

The 1991 matches at Kiawah were contentious for a number of reasons ranging from alleged trash talking between a particular pair of Spaniards and Paul Azinger to Corey Paving showing up in a camo hat in support of our troops in the first Gulf War to Steve Pate’s pre-match limo accident.  The tension came to a head in the last match on Sunday afternoon in a nearly made-for-TV showdown between Hale Irwin and Bernhard Langer that featured a questionable bounce off a volunteer’s spinal cord for Irwin’s tee shot on the 17th hole and a missed near gimme for Langer on the 18th that would have halved the matches and retained the cup for the Europeans.

Flash forward to the spring of 1993.  I had the good fortune to play the Ocean Course during spring break that year on a golf road trip with my best friend.  We left Mississippi State in the late afternoon after our last Friday class and drove through the night to Charlotte, North Carolina for a pit stop at his home before continuing the next morning to Myrtle Beach.  We played golf at The Witch (a fun Dan Maples layout), Tidewater (and excellent track between the Atlantic Ocean and the Intercoastal Waterway), and a couple of other courses I cannot remember (it has been nearly twenty years ago after all) before topping off the trip on the last day with a drive south to Kiawah Island for the icing on the cake.

When we arrived, it had been raining off and on already that day and the ocean looked angry and grey like the North Sea rolling into the coast of Aberdeen, Scotland on an early spring day.  In fact, it rained off and on for about 12 holes during our round; but we couldn’t care less.  We knew the Ryder Cup had just been there just eighteen months earlier and we were ready to tackle the course head-on.  Or so we thought.  I assumed we’d probably never get a chance to play the course again, so we decided to play the course as far back as we could and since the course wasn’t busy we spent a considerable amount of time searching for hidden back tees on many of the holes that probably had not been used since the Ryder Cup.  I would speculate that Pete Dye never intended for all of the holes to be played from the back tees on the same day anyway because the course goes out and back in a clockwise loop to the north and back south along the dunes on the front nine and counterclockwise to the south and back north along the ocean returning home on the back nine—ten holes adjacent to the ocean.  I assume that the extra tees were to allow flexibility to lengthen the downwind holes and shorten the holes playing into the wind on any given day, but I’ve never asked Pete.  (story continues below)

Bear in mind this was before Google Maps and smartphones (we didn’t even have cell phones because it was still the stone age) so we had to walk-off the yardages from the hidden back tees because none of them had yardages that we could find.  To the best of our rain-soaked abilities, we calculated that the course played in excess of 7,800 yards when totaled up from all the way back on every hole: a monster.  The official yardage published for the 2012 PGA Championship is a mere 7,676 yards.  At the time, we also calculated that keeping score would be an exercise in futility so we stopped somewhere on the back nine to protect our respective egos.  Besides, I was too busy taking pictures with a disposable panoramic camera for my collection of photos of favorite golf courses to worry about keeping score.  Yeah, that’s a good excuse….

The highlight of my round came on the par-3 17th hole.  The rain had stopped momentarily but the wind was howling off of the Atlantic from our right to left.  The wind was helping a little (quartering from behind us a bit) and I remember hitting a three-iron (it was all I had short of a 3-wood and that would have landed me back on the mainland if it got up into the gale force wind and headed left).  As I went through my pre-shot routine and set up over the ball, Scott reminded me that this was the same hole where Mark Calcavecchia had choked during the Ryder Cup and shanked the ball into the water hazard—forcing the Cup to come down to the last match.  I smiled, took an extra waggle, and hit a soaring tee shot that seemed to start so far right that it might boomerang back to the southeast and come back toward the tee.  But I was counting on the wind that had my pant legs flapping like a pair of hurricane flags to turn the ball back toward the green…it did.  The ball cleared the hazard by what appeared from the tee to be millimeters and rolled to a stop just inside three feet from the cup.  After holding the obligatory I-just-hit-the-best-shot-of-the-day-scratch-that-the-best-shot-of-my-life follow through pose for what seemed like an hour, I simply turned and said “He’d have killed for that one in the Ryder Cup.”  We both laughed and proceeded to the green where I left what I recall as my only legitimate birdie putt that day about one-half inch short, dead in the jaws of the cup for a smooth tap-in par.  Routine.  That ball now resides in the bottom of the water hazard on 17.

So when this year’s PGA Championship is played at Kiawah Island in August I will have fond memories of that day in the rain nearly twenty years ago.  And when the Ryder Cup is played the following month at Medinah, it will be hard for me to watch without thinking back to the day we played Kiawah eighteen months after the historic Ryder Cup at Kiawah.  However, what will make it most difficult is the fact that the numerous text messages and phone calls my best friend and I typically make during the majors will have to go unmade this time.  Tragically, Scott was killed in a one car accident in Jacksonville the week of the Masters this year, leaving behind a wife and a young son.  After being asked to speak at his funeral service that week, I haven’t written about it because it seems too unreal even to this day.  Even now, four months later, I find it hard to accept.  But Scott and I played a lot of golf together in four years at Mississippi State and even a few times since going our separate ways after college.  We always managed to keep in touch over the years.  He was in my wedding and I was in his and two of the best courses I’ve ever played (Kiawah Island and TPC Sawgrass, both Pete Dye courses) I played with him.  That’s why this year’s Ryder Cup and the PGA Championship will be different for me.  Not because of some rivalry between professional golf’s greats or the story of the “War by the Shore,” but because of a day spent playing golf in the rain on one of the best courses I’ve ever had the pleasure of playing, not caring about the score—and doing so in good company.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An Eye for An Eye

I spent Sunday afternoon with members of the high school golf team I coach playing a practice round and preparing for the South State golf championship to be held a week from Monday. A lot of things have changed in the 20+ years since I’ve played high school golf. In addition to the obvious changes in technology and the way junior golfers these days know how to use these advances to their benefit, there’s a new piece of equipment that I see more and more at each tournament we play.

Not to date myself, but when I was in high school, the big advance in technology for golf clubs was the Taylor Made Burner Plus metal wood. It looks like a hybrid compared to today’s monster 460 cc drivers, but compared to the persimmon that we were playing at the time it might as well have been the space shuttle. Then came lightweight carry bags to replace the old leather bags we used to lug around and for those who could afford it, there was the balata-covered Titleist Professional ball and the then-new Maxfli HT.

But for today’s junior golfers, the hot new piece of equipment is neither a club nor a ball. It doesn’t even have anything to do with the act of actually hitting the ball or playing a shot. Today every aspiring young junior golfer seems to have a laser rangefinder in his or her bag.

At first, I thought it was humorous to see four golfers walking down the fairway, approaching their balls, and dropping their stand bags to the ground to reach in and pull out the rangefinders. They would then spend a good 10 to 15 seconds bracing their elbows to their chest and holding the rangefinder in front of their face like a birdwatcher spotting some rare yellow-breasted-duck-billed-triple-toed Siamese warbler in order to shoot the yardage to the flag. It was almost like it had become a part of the pre-shot routine. They never gave a thought to a sprinkler head or yardage marker. They didn’t need to–it was all in the palm of their hands.

You would literally see nearly every top junior golfer at some of these events standing there next to their bag like they were spotting for a Navy SEAL sniper–getting the yardage to the target and adjusting for wind. Unfortunately, most of these kids aren’t remotely as accurate as our nation’s finest and this target doesn’t even move or duck for cover.

After watching one of my players routinely fly the green with his approach shots for three holes in a row, I walked up to his bag while he was putting and removed the rangefinder. When he asked me why I was taking it, I told him that I didn’t think he knew how to use it. Turns out I was right.

A little questioning revealed that he wasn’t looking for a yardage marker or a sprinkler head, getting his yardage, and then using the rangefinder to zero in on the target. He was depending solely on the rangefinder and instead of shooting the flag, he was shooting the trees behind the green.

When I was playing high school golf, my goal was just to get the ball in the middle of the green. If I happened to miss it a little bit and it got closer to the pin, I just acted like that’s what I was trying to do. But like so many amateurs who insist on a pin sheet for a normal round of golf with their friends, some of these juniors think they can dial it in like Rory or Phil.

Don’t get me wrong, I want people to hit it is close to the pin as they can. It makes the game more enjoyable and speeds up play. I just don’t think most amateurs are as proficient in their shotmaking skills as they think they are just because they have a rangefinder. They still have to hit the shot and for most people who play the game, walking a yardage from a sprinkler head to their ball to get the distance to the center of the green is just as helpful/accurate as spending the time to use the rangefinder and hopefully picking up the right target.

To test my theory during Sunday’s practice round, I would routinely guess yardages by what I call “ocular engineering” (eyeballing it) and/or using a sprinkler head and my own two legs and then ask my players what yardage they found with the rangefinders. I was always within five yards but that didn’t seem to matter to them and their technology.

This is a sample of but one of many exchanges:
“164 yards,” I said.
“Nope,” was one reply. “161.”

Finally I explained to them that the difference of 3 yards was barely more than the height of the flag stick and if nine feet made that much difference in the way they were going to play the shot from 161 yards out, then they didn’t need to be playing high school golf. It was time to pack away the books and head off to Q school.

Of course I doubt if any of these kids will pack away the rangefinders. And I don’t mind that they use them when the rules permit. I just want them to realize it is a tool to supplement their talent and it shouldn’t become a crutch. They need to use it to verify a yardage and not become dependent on it. And of course if the battery runs out during a round, it’s always nice to know how big a stride in your step equals one yard.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 23, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,