| |
Main
Date: 14 Apr 2007 22:30:40
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
I now own a GPS type rangefinder. Now that I know how to use it, it is OK.
But for my primary needs a laser type would have been a better choice. That
primary need is accurate yardages in the 30-80 yard range.
But I observed something interesting in my round last Friday. On the first
hole I had a 110'ish yard approach shot to a very short pin. Since my GPS
has FRONT/MIDDLE/BACK of the green info, I added a few yards to the FRONT
reading, hit a smooth PW OK but not well. I ended up a bit short of the
green.
On the second hole I had a longer approach shot to a very rear pin. This
time I played 5 yards less than the BACK yardage, absolutely pured a 5i, and
ended up well over the green.
When using only marker/sprinkler head yardages on most greens I would go +5
yards for a back pin and -5 yards for a front pin (which tends to group my
approach targets toward the center, a good strategy at my skill level).
Without the GPS I probably would have had (relatively long) birdie putts on
both holes.
It is interesting to realize that I probably make better club
selection/distance decisions (in this case) with less data.
dave
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 23:26:06
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
Dave, if you use a regular old GPS gizmo and take note of the position at
the middle of the greens during a round, shouldn't you be able to know how
far you are away without paying for a golf specific GPS, or maybe the
regular GPS gives data in a way that it's hard to do the math on ...
seriously.
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:kCcUh.21446$PL.18185@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I now own a GPS type rangefinder. Now that I know how to use it, it is OK.
> But for my primary needs a laser type would have been a better choice.
> That
> primary need is accurate yardages in the 30-80 yard range.
>
> But I observed something interesting in my round last Friday. On the first
> hole I had a 110'ish yard approach shot to a very short pin. Since my GPS
> has FRONT/MIDDLE/BACK of the green info, I added a few yards to the FRONT
> reading, hit a smooth PW OK but not well. I ended up a bit short of the
> green.
>
> On the second hole I had a longer approach shot to a very rear pin. This
> time I played 5 yards less than the BACK yardage, absolutely pured a 5i,
> and
> ended up well over the green.
>
> When using only marker/sprinkler head yardages on most greens I would go
> +5
> yards for a back pin and -5 yards for a front pin (which tends to group my
> approach targets toward the center, a good strategy at my skill level).
> Without the GPS I probably would have had (relatively long) birdie putts
> on
> both holes.
>
> It is interesting to realize that I probably make better club
> selection/distance decisions (in this case) with less data.
>
> dave
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 11:15:35
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:NMZUh.160621$115.26422@newsfe10.phx...
>
> Dave, if you use a regular old GPS gizmo and take note of the position at
> the middle of the greens during a round, shouldn't you be able to know how
> far you are away without paying for a golf specific GPS, or maybe the
> regular GPS gives data in a way that it's hard to do the math on ...
> seriously.
>
Possibly - I've never used a generic GPS device so can't really say.
I will say that having other points mapped (lay-ups to water, bunkers, etc)
was either 'almost irrelevant' or extremely critical, depending on which
course I was playing. But I would think that you could do all of this (in
principle) with a generic device. I just don't have any experience with
them.
dave
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 19:26:44
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
On Apr 15, 8:15 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
>
> Unfortunately I don't have a 108 yard club/shot.
Sure you do!
> I have a maybe 104 to 112 yard shot.
That's it then! Now just work on your 12-footers.
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 16:54:55
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
On Apr 14, 6:30 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
> It is interesting to realize that I probably make better club
> selection/distance decisions (in this case) with less data.
It seems that either one of two things is happening here.
1. The GPS is giving you incorrect data.
2. You don't know how far you hit (carry) a golf ball.
I'd junk the GPS crap in favor of a laser rangefinder that gives you
true distances. After a few rounds with the laser, you'll quickly
learn exactly how far you hit a ball. Many mistakes (perhaps the
shots you mentioned) are caused by indecision. If you know the
distance is 108 and you have a pretty good idea of what kind of swing
produces a 108 yard shot, you are a long way there. You can now
confidently commit to your 108 swing without that little voice yelling
at you from the top of your backswing.
Or maybe I'm the only one who hears that guy? Gosh, now I feel
stupid.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 00:15:05
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1176681295.831540.36490@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 6:30 pm, "Dave Lee" <DaveLe...@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
> > It is interesting to realize that I probably make better club
> > selection/distance decisions (in this case) with less data.
>
> It seems that either one of two things is happening here.
>
> 1. The GPS is giving you incorrect data.
> 2. You don't know how far you hit (carry) a golf ball.
>
> I'd junk the GPS crap in favor of a laser rangefinder that gives you
> true distances. After a few rounds with the laser, you'll quickly
> learn exactly how far you hit a ball. Many mistakes (perhaps the
> shots you mentioned) are caused by indecision. If you know the
> distance is 108 and you have a pretty good idea of what kind of swing
> produces a 108 yard shot, you are a long way there. You can now
> confidently commit to your 108 swing without that little voice yelling
> at you from the top of your backswing.
>
> Or maybe I'm the only one who hears that guy? Gosh, now I feel
> stupid.
>
>
Unfortunately I don't have a 108 yard club/shot. I have a maybe 104 to 112
yard shot (would achieve that range maybe 80-90% of the time on the course).
That is as good as my ballstriking is, and I don't even need a laser to tell
me that :-)
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 20:45:09
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:dezUh.4666$3P3.3591@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> yard shot (would achieve that range maybe 80-90% of the time on the
course).
> That is as good as my ballstriking is, and I don't even need a laser to
tell
> me that :-)
An accurate rangefinder is not about how accurately you can hit a shot.
An accurate rangefinder is about having accurate distance to the pin.
I have never seen my rangefinder jump off my bag and grab a club and hit a
golf ball. I wish it could but it can't.
All it can do is give me an accurate distance to the pin.
If I want to spend the big bucks, it will even compensate for slope.
None of them compensate for wind or purity of hit.
It's just a number.
Some folks like numbers(I do).
Some folks like a picture to feel.
Either way, you have to hit the golf ball.
None of the ragnefinders will do that.
Otto
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 10:47:14
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
Interesting?
Are you on drugs?
|
| | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 20:21:13
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
"Miss Anne Thrope" <High_Colonic@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:4059-46223AF2-354@storefull-3154.bay.webtv.net...
> Interesting?
>
> Are you on drugs?
>
Nothing like a "Vytorin High" and RSG - nothing like it in the world :-)
dave
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 10:38:30
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:kCcUh.21446$PL.18185@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I now own a GPS type rangefinder. Now that I know how to use it, it is OK.
> But for my primary needs a laser type would have been a better choice.
> That
> primary need is accurate yardages in the 30-80 yard range.
>
> But I observed something interesting in my round last Friday. On the first
> hole I had a 110'ish yard approach shot to a very short pin. Since my GPS
> has FRONT/MIDDLE/BACK of the green info, I added a few yards to the FRONT
> reading, hit a smooth PW OK but not well. I ended up a bit short of the
> green.
>
> On the second hole I had a longer approach shot to a very rear pin. This
> time I played 5 yards less than the BACK yardage, absolutely pured a 5i,
> and
> ended up well over the green.
>
> When using only marker/sprinkler head yardages on most greens I would go
> +5
> yards for a back pin and -5 yards for a front pin (which tends to group my
> approach targets toward the center, a good strategy at my skill level).
> Without the GPS I probably would have had (relatively long) birdie putts
> on
> both holes.
>
> It is interesting to realize that I probably make better club
> selection/distance decisions (in this case) with less data.
>
> dave
>
>
It's not less data, it's different data. You wrote it yourself, had you not
had the GPS, you'd have made a different choice. In other words, with the
GPS, you disregard your own personal experience in favor of somebody else's.
But, as personal experience goes, keep at it and it shall become yours.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 14:49:34
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
"Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:qNqUh.17$iq5.13957@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:kCcUh.21446$PL.18185@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >I now own a GPS type rangefinder. Now that I know how to use it, it is
OK.
> > But for my primary needs a laser type would have been a better choice.
> > That
> > primary need is accurate yardages in the 30-80 yard range.
> >
> > But I observed something interesting in my round last Friday. On the
first
> > hole I had a 110'ish yard approach shot to a very short pin. Since my
GPS
> > has FRONT/MIDDLE/BACK of the green info, I added a few yards to the
FRONT
> > reading, hit a smooth PW OK but not well. I ended up a bit short of the
> > green.
> >
> > On the second hole I had a longer approach shot to a very rear pin. This
> > time I played 5 yards less than the BACK yardage, absolutely pured a 5i,
> > and
> > ended up well over the green.
> >
> > When using only marker/sprinkler head yardages on most greens I would go
> > +5
> > yards for a back pin and -5 yards for a front pin (which tends to group
my
> > approach targets toward the center, a good strategy at my skill level).
> > Without the GPS I probably would have had (relatively long) birdie putts
> > on
> > both holes.
> >
> > It is interesting to realize that I probably make better club
> > selection/distance decisions (in this case) with less data.
> >
> > dave
> >
> >
>
> It's not less data, it's different data. You wrote it yourself, had you
not
> had the GPS, you'd have made a different choice. In other words, with the
> GPS, you disregard your own personal experience in favor of somebody
else's.
> But, as personal experience goes, keep at it and it shall become yours.
>
>
I would argue that "CENTER" information vs. "FRONT/CENTER/BACK" information
is "less data" - I can't imagine how this could be anything but a correct
statement.
I can't even imagine what "with the GPS, you disregard your own personal
experience in favor of somebody else's" might mean in this context.
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 12:03:00
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:2YqUh.543$Ut6.293@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:qNqUh.17$iq5.13957@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
>> news:kCcUh.21446$PL.18185@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >I now own a GPS type rangefinder. Now that I know how to use it, it is
> OK.
>> > But for my primary needs a laser type would have been a better choice.
>> > That
>> > primary need is accurate yardages in the 30-80 yard range.
>> >
>> > But I observed something interesting in my round last Friday. On the
> first
>> > hole I had a 110'ish yard approach shot to a very short pin. Since my
> GPS
>> > has FRONT/MIDDLE/BACK of the green info, I added a few yards to the
> FRONT
>> > reading, hit a smooth PW OK but not well. I ended up a bit short of
>> > the
>> > green.
>> >
>> > On the second hole I had a longer approach shot to a very rear pin.
>> > This
>> > time I played 5 yards less than the BACK yardage, absolutely pured a
>> > 5i,
>> > and
>> > ended up well over the green.
>> >
>> > When using only marker/sprinkler head yardages on most greens I would
>> > go
>> > +5
>> > yards for a back pin and -5 yards for a front pin (which tends to group
> my
>> > approach targets toward the center, a good strategy at my skill level).
>> > Without the GPS I probably would have had (relatively long) birdie
>> > putts
>> > on
>> > both holes.
>> >
>> > It is interesting to realize that I probably make better club
>> > selection/distance decisions (in this case) with less data.
>> >
>> > dave
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It's not less data, it's different data. You wrote it yourself, had you
> not
>> had the GPS, you'd have made a different choice. In other words, with the
>> GPS, you disregard your own personal experience in favor of somebody
> else's.
>> But, as personal experience goes, keep at it and it shall become yours.
>>
>>
>
> I would argue that "CENTER" information vs. "FRONT/CENTER/BACK"
> information
> is "less data" - I can't imagine how this could be anything but a correct
> statement.
>
> I can't even imagine what "with the GPS, you disregard your own personal
> experience in favor of somebody else's" might mean in this context.
>
> dave
>
>
The context is your experience versus somebody else's (GPS and its
integrated distances, which by the way is done by somebody else). Your
experience tells you to play either +5 or -5 depending on the pin placement
but the GPS tells you otherwise. The difference between your personal
experience and the GPS accounts for the difference in results you produce.
As you become more accustomed to working with the GPS, it'll become your
personal experience just like your previous experience without the GPS had
become then.
I would argue that you used the GPS's data as the only point of reference
for that round while during the previous rounds, those you did not use the
GPS, you used your own past personal experience as a point of reference. So,
it isn't more data, it's just different data. To me, it's obvious that my
personal experience is superior to and more reliable than any other and as a
result, I frequently disregard any other data if more than mine is available
and if there is a disagreement between all the data.
Perhaps the GPS gadget includes some club selection recommendations as well?
Such unsolicited advice would influence one's choice and subsequently, one's
results. After all, the GPS and the person who programmed it knows nothing
of the clubs I play with but I may be fooled simply because I may rely more
on its data than on mine and extend this reliance on everything related to
golf. I'm not that foolish but I know people who are.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 22:46:46
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
"Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:w0sUh.20$iq5.24238@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> The context is your experience versus somebody else's (GPS and its
> integrated distances, which by the way is done by somebody else). Your
> experience tells you to play either +5 or -5 depending on the pin
placement
> but the GPS tells you otherwise. The difference between your personal
> experience and the GPS accounts for the difference in results you produce.
> As you become more accustomed to working with the GPS, it'll become your
> personal experience just like your previous experience without the GPS had
> become then.
>
> I would argue that you used the GPS's data as the only point of reference
> for that round while during the previous rounds, those you did not use the
> GPS, you used your own past personal experience as a point of reference.
So,
> it isn't more data, it's just different data. To me, it's obvious that my
> personal experience is superior to and more reliable than any other and as
a
> result, I frequently disregard any other data if more than mine is
available
> and if there is a disagreement between all the data.
>
> Perhaps the GPS gadget includes some club selection recommendations as
well?
> Such unsolicited advice would influence one's choice and subsequently,
one's
> results. After all, the GPS and the person who programmed it knows nothing
> of the clubs I play with but I may be fooled simply because I may rely
more
> on its data than on mine and extend this reliance on everything related to
> golf. I'm not that foolish but I know people who are.
>
I'm not sure what "GPS integrated distances" are. And in this case they were
not "done by somebody else" as I personally did the course mapping. And the
GPS data was certainly not the only point of reference for that round as I
was certainly aware of the 100/150/200 yard markers and often nearby
sprinkler heads.
But I can see a related set of circumstances where your comments make
sense - and that would be the use of a laser type rangefinder. In this case
the available data is truly different (yardage to the pin rather than
yardage to fixed points on the green). And this experience tells me that,
even if I had a laser type device, it will not be replacing my use of course
yardages as knowing distance "to the center of the green" is probably the
most important piece of distance information that I should have on longer
approach shots (say 125 and longer).
Of coures I have always thought that laser devices were most useful on short
approach shots and longer pitch shots, where exact distance to the pin
actually matters. Now that I have owned a "more convenient to use" GPS type
device, I would say that this capability trumps all the others.
dave
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 19:55:02
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
"Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote in message
news:w0sUh.20$iq5.24238@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:2YqUh.543$Ut6.293@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:qNqUh.17$iq5.13957@wagner.videotron.net...
> >>
> >> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> >> news:kCcUh.21446$PL.18185@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >I now own a GPS type rangefinder. Now that I know how to use it, it is
> > OK.
> >> > But for my primary needs a laser type would have been a better
choice.
> >> > That
> >> > primary need is accurate yardages in the 30-80 yard range.
> >> >
> >> > But I observed something interesting in my round last Friday. On the
> > first
> >> > hole I had a 110'ish yard approach shot to a very short pin. Since my
> > GPS
> >> > has FRONT/MIDDLE/BACK of the green info, I added a few yards to the
> > FRONT
> >> > reading, hit a smooth PW OK but not well. I ended up a bit short of
> >> > the
> >> > green.
> >> >
> >> > On the second hole I had a longer approach shot to a very rear pin.
> >> > This
> >> > time I played 5 yards less than the BACK yardage, absolutely pured a
> >> > 5i,
> >> > and
> >> > ended up well over the green.
> >> >
> >> > When using only marker/sprinkler head yardages on most greens I would
> >> > go
> >> > +5
> >> > yards for a back pin and -5 yards for a front pin (which tends to
group
> > my
> >> > approach targets toward the center, a good strategy at my skill
level).
> >> > Without the GPS I probably would have had (relatively long) birdie
> >> > putts
> >> > on
> >> > both holes.
> >> >
> >> > It is interesting to realize that I probably make better club
> >> > selection/distance decisions (in this case) with less data.
> >> >
> >> > dave
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's not less data, it's different data. You wrote it yourself, had you
> > not
> >> had the GPS, you'd have made a different choice. In other words, with
the
> >> GPS, you disregard your own personal experience in favor of somebody
> > else's.
> >> But, as personal experience goes, keep at it and it shall become yours.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I would argue that "CENTER" information vs. "FRONT/CENTER/BACK"
> > information
> > is "less data" - I can't imagine how this could be anything but a
correct
> > statement.
> >
> > I can't even imagine what "with the GPS, you disregard your own personal
> > experience in favor of somebody else's" might mean in this context.
> >
> > dave
> >
> >
>
> The context is your experience versus somebody else's (GPS and its
> integrated distances, which by the way is done by somebody else). Your
> experience tells you to play either +5 or -5 depending on the pin
placement
> but the GPS tells you otherwise. The difference between your personal
> experience and the GPS accounts for the difference in results you produce.
> As you become more accustomed to working with the GPS, it'll become your
> personal experience just like your previous experience without the GPS had
> become then.
>
> I would argue that you used the GPS's data as the only point of reference
> for that round while during the previous rounds, those you did not use the
> GPS, you used your own past personal experience as a point of reference.
So,
> it isn't more data, it's just different data. To me, it's obvious that my
> personal experience is superior to and more reliable than any other and as
a
> result, I frequently disregard any other data if more than mine is
available
> and if there is a disagreement between all the data.
>
> Perhaps the GPS gadget includes some club selection recommendations as
well?
> Such unsolicited advice would influence one's choice and subsequently,
one's
> results. After all, the GPS and the person who programmed it knows nothing
> of the clubs I play with but I may be fooled simply because I may rely
more
> on its data than on mine and extend this reliance on everything related to
> golf. I'm not that foolish but I know people who are.
>
>
Too much analysis - even for me :-)
dave
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 11:54:26
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
Martin Levac wrote:
> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
> news:2YqUh.543$Ut6.293@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:qNqUh.17$iq5.13957@wagner.videotron.net...
>>> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kCcUh.21446$PL.18185@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> I now own a GPS type rangefinder. Now that I know how to use it, it is
>> OK.
>>>> But for my primary needs a laser type would have been a better choice.
>>>> That
>>>> primary need is accurate yardages in the 30-80 yard range.
>>>>
>>>> But I observed something interesting in my round last Friday. On the
>> first
>>>> hole I had a 110'ish yard approach shot to a very short pin. Since my
>> GPS
>>>> has FRONT/MIDDLE/BACK of the green info, I added a few yards to the
>> FRONT
>>>> reading, hit a smooth PW OK but not well. I ended up a bit short of
>>>> the
>>>> green.
>>>>
>>>> On the second hole I had a longer approach shot to a very rear pin.
>>>> This
>>>> time I played 5 yards less than the BACK yardage, absolutely pured a
>>>> 5i,
>>>> and
>>>> ended up well over the green.
>>>>
>>>> When using only marker/sprinkler head yardages on most greens I would
>>>> go
>>>> +5
>>>> yards for a back pin and -5 yards for a front pin (which tends to group
>> my
>>>> approach targets toward the center, a good strategy at my skill level).
>>>> Without the GPS I probably would have had (relatively long) birdie
>>>> putts
>>>> on
>>>> both holes.
>>>>
>>>> It is interesting to realize that I probably make better club
>>>> selection/distance decisions (in this case) with less data.
>>>>
>>>> dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's not less data, it's different data. You wrote it yourself, had you
>> not
>>> had the GPS, you'd have made a different choice. In other words, with the
>>> GPS, you disregard your own personal experience in favor of somebody
>> else's.
>>> But, as personal experience goes, keep at it and it shall become yours.
>>>
>>>
>> I would argue that "CENTER" information vs. "FRONT/CENTER/BACK"
>> information
>> is "less data" - I can't imagine how this could be anything but a correct
>> statement.
>>
>> I can't even imagine what "with the GPS, you disregard your own personal
>> experience in favor of somebody else's" might mean in this context.
>>
>> dave
>>
>>
>
> The context is your experience versus somebody else's (GPS and its
> integrated distances, which by the way is done by somebody else). Your
> experience tells you to play either +5 or -5 depending on the pin placement
> but the GPS tells you otherwise. The difference between your personal
> experience and the GPS accounts for the difference in results you produce.
> As you become more accustomed to working with the GPS, it'll become your
> personal experience just like your previous experience without the GPS had
> become then.
>
> I would argue that you used the GPS's data as the only point of reference
> for that round while during the previous rounds, those you did not use the
> GPS, you used your own past personal experience as a point of reference. So,
> it isn't more data, it's just different data. To me, it's obvious that my
> personal experience is superior to and more reliable than any other and as a
> result, I frequently disregard any other data if more than mine is available
> and if there is a disagreement between all the data.
Martin, I'd tend to disagree with this assessment.
Just as it's common that your ball will head toward the last thing you
see or think about just before you swing, the GPS, by telling you where
the PIN is, is putting the seed in your head that this is the distance
you should be aiming for. And thus, you end up doing that, with
consequences that may be poor if you can't hit that distance.
What Dave was doing before was often analogous to simply aiming toward
the center of the green (not bad advice for most golfers whose
consistency is only fair, unless the green is steeply sloped and the pin
is in the front).
In fairness, lasers (which I have) can produce the same thing, but it's
simply a matter of deciding where you want to hit the ball--maybe the
center of the green--and making that the last thing you think about or
look at before you swing.
I know that for me, if I am thinking I want to hit the ball to the
center of the green, but I look at the *flag* last, it's more likely
that's where my ball will head than the center of the green. I have to
consciously look at the green center and make that my last visual
reference. I think the same thing works for many golfers.
Mike
--
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdoctor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2007: June 22-24----Lawsonia!
Website: http://clubdoctor.com/rsgwis2007
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 15:23:25
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
"Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote in message
news:58f3m8F2h27tvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Martin Levac wrote:
>> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
>> news:2YqUh.543$Ut6.293@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> "Martin Levac" <vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:qNqUh.17$iq5.13957@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>> "Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kCcUh.21446$PL.18185@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>> I now own a GPS type rangefinder. Now that I know how to use it, it is
>>> OK.
>>>>> But for my primary needs a laser type would have been a better choice.
>>>>> That
>>>>> primary need is accurate yardages in the 30-80 yard range.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I observed something interesting in my round last Friday. On the
>>> first
>>>>> hole I had a 110'ish yard approach shot to a very short pin. Since my
>>> GPS
>>>>> has FRONT/MIDDLE/BACK of the green info, I added a few yards to the
>>> FRONT
>>>>> reading, hit a smooth PW OK but not well. I ended up a bit short of
>>>>> the
>>>>> green.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the second hole I had a longer approach shot to a very rear pin.
>>>>> This
>>>>> time I played 5 yards less than the BACK yardage, absolutely pured a
>>>>> 5i,
>>>>> and
>>>>> ended up well over the green.
>>>>>
>>>>> When using only marker/sprinkler head yardages on most greens I would
>>>>> go
>>>>> +5
>>>>> yards for a back pin and -5 yards for a front pin (which tends to
>>>>> group
>>> my
>>>>> approach targets toward the center, a good strategy at my skill
>>>>> level).
>>>>> Without the GPS I probably would have had (relatively long) birdie
>>>>> putts
>>>>> on
>>>>> both holes.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is interesting to realize that I probably make better club
>>>>> selection/distance decisions (in this case) with less data.
>>>>>
>>>>> dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It's not less data, it's different data. You wrote it yourself, had you
>>> not
>>>> had the GPS, you'd have made a different choice. In other words, with
>>>> the
>>>> GPS, you disregard your own personal experience in favor of somebody
>>> else's.
>>>> But, as personal experience goes, keep at it and it shall become yours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would argue that "CENTER" information vs. "FRONT/CENTER/BACK"
>>> information
>>> is "less data" - I can't imagine how this could be anything but a
>>> correct
>>> statement.
>>>
>>> I can't even imagine what "with the GPS, you disregard your own personal
>>> experience in favor of somebody else's" might mean in this context.
>>>
>>> dave
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The context is your experience versus somebody else's (GPS and its
>> integrated distances, which by the way is done by somebody else). Your
>> experience tells you to play either +5 or -5 depending on the pin
>> placement but the GPS tells you otherwise. The difference between your
>> personal experience and the GPS accounts for the difference in results
>> you produce. As you become more accustomed to working with the GPS, it'll
>> become your personal experience just like your previous experience
>> without the GPS had become then.
>>
>> I would argue that you used the GPS's data as the only point of reference
>> for that round while during the previous rounds, those you did not use
>> the GPS, you used your own past personal experience as a point of
>> reference. So, it isn't more data, it's just different data. To me, it's
>> obvious that my personal experience is superior to and more reliable than
>> any other and as a result, I frequently disregard any other data if more
>> than mine is available and if there is a disagreement between all the
>> data.
>
> Martin, I'd tend to disagree with this assessment.
>
> Just as it's common that your ball will head toward the last thing you see
> or think about just before you swing, the GPS, by telling you where the
> PIN is, is putting the seed in your head that this is the distance you
> should be aiming for. And thus, you end up doing that, with consequences
> that may be poor if you can't hit that distance.
>
> What Dave was doing before was often analogous to simply aiming toward the
> center of the green (not bad advice for most golfers whose consistency is
> only fair, unless the green is steeply sloped and the pin is in the
> front).
>
> In fairness, lasers (which I have) can produce the same thing, but it's
> simply a matter of deciding where you want to hit the ball--maybe the
> center of the green--and making that the last thing you think about or
> look at before you swing.
>
> I know that for me, if I am thinking I want to hit the ball to the center
> of the green, but I look at the *flag* last, it's more likely that's where
> my ball will head than the center of the green. I have to consciously
> look at the green center and make that my last visual reference. I think
> the same thing works for many golfers.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
My assessment is based on the difference between more and different. If we
conclude that there is more data, it's in part because we assume that the
other data includes the existing data without error. If instead we look at
the GPS as entirely different data, then we don't make the mistake of
assuming anything.
An example that I refer to frequently when I play. At the MeadowBrook, the
7th is a short par 3 of 150 to 108 yards depending on the tee placement. To
make a short story, I invariably end up short if I aim for the stated
distance.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 20:24:27
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:23:25 -0400, "Martin Levac"
<vac3@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
>An example that I refer to frequently when I play. At the MeadowBrook, the
>7th is a short par 3 of 150 to 108 yards depending on the tee placement. To
>make a short story, I invariably end up short if I aim for the stated
>distance.
It's a goal of mine in situations such as this to learn to calculate
the adjusted distance that works for me. This means I don't just
remember what club I should use, but figure out why the stated
distance doesn't work.
The same thing happens with putts. If I am practicing putts and
toss 3 balls down - see one is too far right and adjust the 2nd, I am
not practicing my read. If I see one is two far right, and then
stop, walk around, and make my corrected read based upon observation -
then my putt reading skills improve.
I want my distance reading skills to be improved so that they work on
unfamiliar courses as well.
A GPS can help me develop these skills - if I allow it to. Or they
can atrophy these skills - if I let it.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 17:26:30
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Interesting Rangefinder Observation
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:54:26 -0500, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:
>Just as it's common that your ball will head toward the last thing you
>see or think about just before you swing, the GPS, by telling you where
>the PIN is, is putting the seed in your head that this is the distance
>you should be aiming for. And thus, you end up doing that, with
>consequences that may be poor if you can't hit that distance.
...
>In fairness, lasers (which I have) can produce the same thing, but it's
>simply a matter of deciding where you want to hit the ball--maybe the
>center of the green--and making that the last thing you think about or
>look at before you swing.
In my experience, lots of people think the GPS knows exactly where the
pin is. But where I have checked, it is programmed in with "today
pin we are using pin position #1".
Remembering this makes it easier to go through the same distance
calculating that people without a GPS go through, figuring out the
effective distance after deciding where you want the ball to land,
checking slope, and checking wind.
|
|
