Electronic Measuring Devices
By Frankly Golf
Electronic Measuring Devices
Some things in life and golf are inevitable. As
much as we try to fight them, we are fighting a
losing battle and are in total denial if we think
we can prevent them from happening.
One of these inevitabilities is the use of EMDs
(Electronic Measuring Devices) in golf. Their
adoption was as inevitable as the sunrise, even
though many smart people who promulgate the rules
tried to prevent it from happening.
Consider where it all began. First there was the
caddie, someone who knew the course and would
advise the player of conditions that might affect
his play. That knowledge included the distance
to certain objects and to the flag itself, but
since most golf was played on windswept links,
exact distances were not as important as
prevailing weather conditions and the state of
the turf. This was followed, considerably later
in the history of golf, by 150-yard stakes which
were removed for competition in some cases.
Shrubs or notable trees often took the place of
the stakes.
These simple steps fueled our growing obsession
with knowing our “exact yardage,” which lead to
the sale of yardage booklets. These guides were
originally developed by caddies for their own
use, then were sold to other caddies, and finally
became a commercial business. “Stroke-savers,”
as some of these were known, mapped out the
distance to the green from almost every bunker,
bush, tree or prominent feature on every hole.
Plaques or sprinkler heads were marked to give
distances to the center of the green (sometimes
they carried identifying numbers rather than
yardage, so that this secret information was
provided only to caddies at courses like Pine
Valley and the Old Course in St. Andrews).
Using this information was not considered a
violation of the rules in competition. In fact,
the USGA and the R&A provided caddies and players
a “Hole Location Sheet” identifying the exact
spot on the green, measured from the front and
side, that the hole had been cut for that day.
Rule 14-3 today -- and its predecessor, 37-9a,
which was adopted in the early 1967 -- states in
part “…the player shall not use any artificial
devices … b. For the purpose of gauging or
measuring distance or conditions which might
affect his play…” I recall citing this rule many
times in the mid 70s to advise innovators and
golfers that such devices were not permitted.
Still, I wondered about the wisdom of such a
rule. We seem to have this absolute need to know
our exact distances to the flag, even though our
shots range on average by about 10% of the
intended distance with any particular club. In
most cases, we wishfully take the upper end of
this range as our
norm and are inevitably short.
Around 1991, electronic devices appeared to fill
this insatiable need of ours. They were capable
of measuring distance to the flag stick with
great accuracy.
For example, the GPS (Global Positioning System)
that’s used for air and naval navigation was very
easily adapted to golf to determine the exact
position (within a yard or two) of the flag and
the golfer using the device.
But use of such devices was in violation of rule
14-3. It didn’t take much foresight to recognize
that golfers would soon be using them, and we
should have seriously discussed a rules change
then. For those of us who felt that the EMDs were
an electronic invasion of our game and contrary
to all traditions, we could have authorized a
local rule to permit a tournament committee to
ban such devices in competition.
But we didn’t, and for the 14 years that the USGA
and the R&A delayed accepting this inevitability,
golfers chose to disregard the existing rule en
masse.
“Why” the golfers asked, “is it legal to pace off
distance to a fixed marker, but not to use a
measuring device? Why is obtaining the same
information a violation of the rule depending on
the method by which it was acquired?” This
didn’t make much intuitive sense, and so the rule
was widely ignored outside of formal competition.
Some 60 million rounds a year were played using
EMDs before there was any action; sixty million
rounds a year in violation of the rule, and
nobody went to jail.
Finally, in 2006 the USGA and R&A adopted the
following common-sense recommendation:
“A Committee may establish a Local Rule allowing
players to use devices that measure distance
only.”
This does not include such measurements as wind
direction and speed or elevation changes etc.
Only distance.
Today there are two different technologies that
allow us to obtain exact distances. One is based
on GPS, which is used predominantly as a fixture
in carts but has recently become available in
handhelds. The other concept uses a laser beam to
reflect off a target.
My take:
From many days of experimentation, I find that
the cart GPS (UpLink and ProLink) with the map
provided is the quickest way to get my distance,
but I start to doubt whether the crew that cuts
the holes in a particular zone is always in sync
with the system. For this reason I like to
augment it with the Bushnell, which allows me to
verify what the GPS tells me as long as I can see
what I’m aiming at. I have also used the
LaserLink, which requires a retro reflector on
the flag to work best. These are becoming very
common, so I can take this device with me knowing
that many courses have reflectors. The new model
(Gold) has the same feature as the Bushnell, i.e.
it can reflect off a bunker face or the end of a
hazard to provide a carry distance if I need it.
The new LaserLink doesn’t work quite as well as
the Bushnell because it doesn’t magnify the
object. This magnification, however, makes the
Bushnell a little difficult to hold on target in
windy conditions. The LaserLink system is under
improvement to do everything one needs at a
affordable price.
The SkyCaddie was at first a little too finicky;
there was too much information available, and
learning which buttons to push to get the
information I wanted, became a chore. It does,
however, give the distance of your drives if you
want this information -- which some of us would
probably do not want, preferring to continue to
live out our fantasies. The SkyCaddie is
improving, becoming more basic and easier to use,
keeping us from wasting the valuable time that
these devices are intended to save.
I find it very hard not to comment on what we are
hearing from our readers.
We have an organization, the USGA, which
officially represents its member clubs who in
turn have elected the members of an informed
Executive Committee to engage in considered
discussions leading to the promulgation of a code
of rules that golfers are supposed to follow.
Golfers willingly and respectfully abide by this
code, knowing that the health of game they love
is at stake if they don’t. However, for this to
work effectively, those who have the
responsibility to govern need to understand what
is it that makes their followers follow.
There is an intuitive understanding that what
truly attracts us to the game is not the
companionship, beauty of the outdoors,
competition with others or the exercise we may
derive. As wonderful as these byproducts may be,
it is the personal challenge golf presents to us
that brings us back again and again. It is this
that needs to be protected, and it is this to
which we subconsciously relate. If the rules
that have been introduced “in the best interests
of the game” are ill-conceived and do not reflect
what we instinctively believe, or preserve and
protect the very essence of the game, then we are
inclined to stray.
The scary truth is that golfers are on the verge
of straying.
We have found from several surveys over the past
few months that golfers don’t agree with the
direction that the USGA is headed.
Specifically:
*
91% say they don’t want a ball that will
reduce the driving distance by 25 yards;
*
99% say grow the rough and don’t change the
groove specs (see below...);
*
80% say that the recently adopted equipment
rules are not in the game’s best interests;
*
89% say the Rules in Brief will be read and
used more than the Rules of Golf book;
*
86% said that EMDs should be permitted
under the Rules of Golf;
And the bottom line;
*
89% say the USGA is not representing the
average golfer.
Surely when 9 out of 10 golfers don’t think the
USGA is representing them, the USGA had better
listen.
Something does not seem right, and there are
cracks developing that we all need to help seal.
