On Understanding Golfing Illusion

[duncan mackie]

I don't agree... you seriously think Jack Nicklaus didn't know how far he had to each flag? They used to pace this stuff out, DMD's just save the time of having to do that, nothing more, nothing less.

Sounds like a course design company just trying to blow their own whistle, just designing better courses would suffice.

100% agree with this James (and Murph and Hobbit...same lines)

I can enjoy being beaten up by a course, and will go back (probably more than's good for me ) but I can't stand being tricked by a course. I consider the usual illusions and use of visual hazards etc as legitimate devices to raise questions in my mind but short pins? blind drives? blind approach shots?

The GCA's task is to set us a known challenge that tests our golfing capabilities, preferably in an inspiring, stimulating, environment!

 

[dufferman]

I think it's pathetic. Why are the course designers not coming out in favour of Hickory, or gutty balls? Because they know they will be laughed at. Why are DMDs or stroke savers any different.

The only people who get caught out by their trickery is people who have not played the course before. I played at Princes, and got caught out by stupidly short pins. I didn't have a flippin clue how far any of the greens were, and it was pointless. I have never been back.

Golf clubs need repeat business. They need us players to enjoy ourselves. Tricked up holes, where you haven't got a clue what club to hit, and your best shots turn out rubbish are not the way to repeat business. It's a quick way to insolvency.

They need to get on with thier jobs, and stop whinging.

Agreed - if you play a course all the time, you'll be a master at the holes even with their trickery. However, if you're off to a course for the first time and have a mare because of all the 'illusions', you're not going to be encouraged to go back!

 

[MashieNiblick]

Interesting discussion.

I've said on here before that my reservation about DMDs is that they diminish the skill of judging distances which in my view was part of the original game.

Old architects built courses with dead ground, hidden contours and cross bunkers to enhance that factor. MacKenzie learnt some of these tricks during the Boer war (the Boers were experts at using deceptive elements of the landscape to gain tactical advantages e.g. at Spion Kop - from where the Kop end at Anfield gets its name).

But I do understand that hitting a leather ball with a bit of wood was also one of the original parts of the game. Should it still be? Colt and MacKenzie were modern designers in their day as they designed for the improvements brought about from steel shafts and wound balls. The game moves on and I am beginning to soften my views on the use of DMDs.

The thing for the architects is to move on too. It is a shame that perhaps some of the tricks that MacKenzie, Colt and other great old time designers put in no longer have the same impact but you can still use contours to affect the play of the course. Even in the age of detailed yardage books and DMDs the courses those guys built stand up and offer a real test of golf as well as looking absolutely stunning. DMDs don't factor in changes of elevation or tell you what will happen when your ball hits the ground. There is still a lot of judgement involved in that. I also agree that there is still a doubt factor if your eye appears to be telling you something different from your DMD. As Ethan says knowing the distance should just be a starting point, and that should be the aim of a well designed hole.

Modern target golf is as much if not more to do with better and more consistent equipment, soft greens lush fairways etc as DMD, and yardage books.

It is up to the designers to give us courses that test our games with the equipment we have now and make us want to come back and try again another day. The other thing of course is that DMDs aren't compulsory and everyone has the option to use them or not and perhaps face a different test on the course depending on their choice.

The real danger to good course design is from lazy architects who think that the only answer to modern technology is 7,200 yard courses wth island greens and bunkers the size of the sahara.

 

[6inchcup]

my best buddy has a problem with distances,nothing medical, just bloody awful and constantly asks me in our weekly social knock "how far to the green/bunker/ditch etc etc" or" do you think i would get there with a 7i?" i always state to measure from the markers be it 150 or the 100 or the 80 and i get the stock reply "cant be bothered with that use you gizmo" the problem i have is i don't have a gizmo i use my eyes and pace off from the markers and if they removed them would i have to use a gizmo or be at a disadvantage to others or should ALL measuring devices be banned and all golfers should rely on skill?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

100% agree with this James (and Murph and Hobbit...same lines)

I can enjoy being beaten up by a course, and will go back (probably more than's good for me ) but I can't stand being tricked by a course. I consider the usual illusions and use of visual hazards etc as legitimate devices to raise questions in my mind but short pins? blind drives? blind approach shots?

The GCA's task is to set us a known challenge that tests our golfing capabilities, preferably in an inspiring, stimulating, environment!

Interesting thoughts this and everyone else's I have deliberately avoided introducing my thoughts on DMDs as I think the article approaches the discussion from a slightly different p.o.v - the GCA rather than the player - and my view of DMDs seems to be at odds with that of most other players (but maybe not all GCAs)

However @duncan, on your specific comment - don't bother playing Cruden Bay - you'll hate it. Which is a pity because it is one of my favourite courses. By the way the article wasn't promoting the idea of short and long pin - but different courses - different length pins. Also I think that there is a subtle but important difference between 'trickery' and golfing illusion - the former there is not a lot anyone can really do - and is that fair? Probably not. However illusion...as the article says - the golfer, through experience and understanding of what the GCA is trying to do with the likes of cross bunkers, can see through the illusion and understand the shot to be played.

And I have to disagree about not coming back if feeling I was fooled by the design of a hole. On the contrary I would say to myself 'ah - clever - I want another go - the architect got me but he won't get me next time'

And btw - and this may just be me. When I play a course I haven't played before I'm not actually too bothered about my score - it's how much I enjoyed my round that matters. My score matters to me around my own track - and by definition I should understand any illusions the architect has designed into it and should know my way around.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

But I do understand that hitting a leather ball with a bit of wood was also one of the original parts of the game. Should it still be? Colt and MacKenzie were modern designers in their day as they designed for the improvements brought about from steel shafts and wound balls. The game moves on and I am beginning to soften my views on the use of DMDs

Just on this specific point (as it comes up a lot in discussions I have about DMDs). My understanding of the aim of golf is 'golf is a game that involves hitting (defined) a ball (defined) with one or more (defined) clubs (defined) from one point (defined) into a hole (defined) in as few shots (defined) plus penalties (defined) as possible'

And that is it. So for me the fact that balls and clubs have changed hugely over the last two decades (say) due to advances in technology is absolutely fine as that can be accommodated in the definitions. Anything else should be considered from a different stand-point and not compared with what makes up the basics of the game. And that is why in any discussion about DMDs - as soon as advances in ball and club technology are brought in as precedents for comparison - I have a fundamental disagreement.

Does that make sense (the hostage to fortune question)

 

[Andy808]

One peice of advice in "Golf is not a game of perfect" is to look at the hole from green to tee on a practice round as it will show up things you don't notice or can't see from the tee. It's very true too and gives you the added advantage of knowing where to miss (not that it helps alot of us!) It's the same with anything we do, it's better to have as much information as possible and playing golf is no different. I have no problem with yardage cards, DMDs or yardage markers as they are only information and won't help you hit the shot you need to and they don't (or shouldn't ion some cases) give you gradient or information on weather which will assist as much in club selection as just knowing yardages.
GCAs can do alot to influence scores that knowing yardage won't matter.

 

[dufferman]

One peice of advice in "Golf is not a game of perfect" is to look at the hole from green to tee on a practice round as it will show up things you don't notice or can't see from the tee. It's very true too and gives you the added advantage of knowing where to miss (not that it helps alot of us!) It's the same with anything we do, it's better to have as much information as possible and playing golf is no different. I have no problem with yardage cards, DMDs or yardage markers as they are only information and won't help you hit the shot you need to and they don't (or shouldn't ion some cases) give you gradient or information on weather which will assist as much in club selection as just knowing yardages.
GCAs can do alot to influence scores that knowing yardage won't matter.

As much as that makes sense, those who are playing at a new course on a Saturday morning with a 4 ball waiting on the tee don't have that luxury!

 

[duncan mackie]

Interesting thoughts this and everyone else's I have deliberately avoided introducing my thoughts on DMDs as I think the article approaches the discussion from a slightly different p.o.v - the GCA rather than the player - and my view of DMDs seems to be at odds with that of most other players (but maybe not all GCAs)

However @duncan, on your specific comment - don't bother playing Cruden Bay - you'll hate it. Which is a pity because it is one of my favourite courses. By the way the article wasn't promoting the idea of short and long pin - but different courses - different length pins. Also I think that there is a subtle but important difference between 'trickery' and golfing illusion - the former there is not a lot anyone can really do - and is that fair? Probably not. However illusion...as the article says - the golfer, through experience and understanding of what the GCA is trying to do with the likes of cross bunkers, can see through the illusion and understand the shot to be played.

And I have to disagree about not coming back if feeling I was fooled by the design of a hole. On the contrary I would say to myself 'ah - clever - I want another go - the architect got me but he won't get me next time'

And btw - and this may just be me. When I play a course I haven't played before I'm not actually too bothered about my score - it's how much I enjoyed my round that matters. My score matters to me around my own track - and by definition I should understand any illusions the architect has designed into it and should know my way around.

On the basis of your response I must have done a poor job on my post, but going forwards -

I totally agree with your last paragraph. However, I wouldn't enjoy it if I kept finding my ball in hidden water hazards, found that the invisible from the tee landing area had been angled so that everything centre right ran into a hidden pot bunker etc etc. Neither element would be an issue if known about - valid and appropriate protection elements for the GCA.

Facing a row of pot bunkers or a lake without any knowledge of carry distance isn't going to contribute to my enjoyment either; but again, set up like the 18th at Lytham with known distances they represent a valid and almost welcome challenge.

As I was trying to get over, you have to remove ALL distance information to bring the judgement into play as a valid contributory factor - at which point it simply overwhelms.

IMO the best golf courses in the world require you to play both line and length with all shots - the worst simply require you to succeed at one element each time.

But all this takes things to the extreme to make a point - I don't know any course that doesn't give you the length of a hole from the tee - after which the rest is, frankly, academic. If I was to turn up in Aberdeen to play Cruden Bay (hoping for a nice day and stunning views) there will be sufficient distance information available to enjoy it - as there has been for many years without DMDs. It is however a lot faster to use these, and certainly more enjoyable, than pacing out drives, hazards etc or constantly going forwards to look at the target!

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Pace it out.. then blame the architects when all golf rounds are 6+ hours

Pacing it out isn't judging distances

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

my best buddy has a problem with distances,nothing medical, just bloody awful and constantly asks me in our weekly social knock "how far to the green/bunker/ditch etc etc" or" do you think i would get there with a 7i?" i always state to measure from the markers be it 150 or the 100 or the 80 and i get the stock reply "cant be bothered with that use you gizmo" the problem i have is i don't have a gizmo i use my eyes and pace off from the markers and if they removed them would i have to use a gizmo or be at a disadvantage to others or should ALL measuring devices be banned and all golfers should rely on skill?

Well @6inchcup - I agree with the general gist of you point and I know MY answer to your closing question - in the context of club competitions.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

On the basis of your response I must have done a poor job on my post, but going forwards -

I totally agree with your last paragraph. However, I wouldn't enjoy it if I kept finding my ball in hidden water hazards, found that the invisible from the tee landing area had been angled so that everything centre right ran into a hidden pot bunker etc etc. Neither element would be an issue if known about - valid and appropriate protection elements for the GCA.

Facing a row of pot bunkers or a lake without any knowledge of carry distance isn't going to contribute to my enjoyment either; but again, set up like the 18th at Lytham with known distances they represent a valid and almost welcome challenge.

As I was trying to get over, you have to remove ALL distance information to bring the judgement into play as a valid contributory factor - at which point it simply overwhelms.

IMO the best golf courses in the world require you to play both line and length with all shots - the worst simply require you to succeed at one element each time.

But all this takes things to the extreme to make a point - I don't know any course that doesn't give you the length of a hole from the tee - after which the rest is, frankly, academic. If I was to turn up in Aberdeen to play Cruden Bay (hoping for a nice day and stunning views) there will be sufficient distance information available to enjoy it - as there has been for many years without DMDs. It is however a lot faster to use these, and certainly more enjoyable, than pacing out drives, hazards etc or constantly going forwards to look at the target!

All reasonable and well put stuff @duncan.

I'd say the water hazards, hidden slopes etc stuff you mention - yes - that's trickery and nothing to do with illusion and therefore unfair - even though golf was never meant to be fair - that is in respect of unlucky bounces - not 'tricks' that you just can't take account of - nonsense - I hate that sort of thing - so totally in agreement.

As far as hazards etc - your hole planner will tell you that. And I am all for hole planners - really got to have them.

And remember I'm NOT anti DMDs. I just think that in a CLUB competition - when on the day of the competition the conditions of the day apply - then all members should be faced with the same uncertainties and use their skill and judgement to do their best.

Now this is drifting onto the pro or anti DMD debate which is where I didn't really want to go - but I've gone. I know that folk with DMDs want to be able to use DMDs and are their greatest proponents - well they've got one so they would be.

My point was simply that the article by the GCA described how GCAs try to introduce uncertainty in the mind of the golfer - and distance uncertainty is one of the key areas of uncertainty they work with.

So in a CLUB competition I do sincerely believe that every player should use their OWN skill and judgement to beat the course - why I stated what I thought golf was about. After all do we not say that in a competition we are not playing each other - we are playing the course. So let's play the course by ourselves and adhere to rule 14-3. And may the best and luckiest player win.

 

[Imurg]

And I am all for hole planners - really got to have them.

Are DMD's not simply an electronic Hole Planner....?

A means of determining distance without having to pace up and down...?

 

[JustOne]

And btw - and this may just be me. When I play a course I haven't played before I'm not actually too bothered about my score - it's how much I enjoyed my round that matters. My score matters to me around my own track - and by definition I should understand any illusions the architect has designed into it and should know my way around.

Totally agree.

On the basis of your response I must have done a poor job on my post, but going forwards -

I totally agree with your last paragraph. However, I wouldn't enjoy it if I kept finding my ball in hidden water hazards, found that the invisible from the tee landing area had been angled so that everything centre right ran into a hidden pot bunker etc etc. Neither element would be an issue if known about - valid and appropriate protection elements for the GCA.

Totally agree.

I have to say that there's a lot of rubbish/bland course designs out there that I might rate higher if I turned up with more than half a swing and scored well LOL

I do sometimes just hate a hole on the basis that I don't seem to play it very well or it doesn't appeal to the eye whereas I should respect the design a bit more in that it perhaps 'asks questions'.

I like DMD's as they let me know it's 225yds to the back edge without me having to do the maths from a course planner or start pacing the course.

 

[JustOne]

I'll add in my favourite golf illusion story just to stay on topic....

Playing a course once I hit what I thought was a fairly a decent drive, when I got to my ball the flag appeared to be a lot further away than I thought the drive warranted, no 150yrd makers and couldn't find a fairway marker either so I relied on the visuals... it looked a good 180yds to the flag so I hit a solid 5-iron..... it was still on it's way up as it sailed over the pin..


....... when I got to the green someone had snapped the flagstick and it was only 3ft high!... it had looked miles away whereas it was only 100yds! Doh! It's not often I'm 85yds off the back of a green

 

[Iaing]

Surely there's a lot more to it than just yardage?
The yardages given by DMD/course planners have got to be interpreted.
Uphill, downhill, wind speed and direction, the contours of the landing area and shot shape all factor in and I'd say thinking out how to get your ball close from a given yardage is more important than having to judge the distance.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Surely there's a lot more to it than just yardage?
The yardages given by DMD/course planners have got to be interpreted.
Uphill, downhill, wind speed and direction, the contours of the landing area and shot shape all factor in and I'd say thinking out how to get your ball close from a given yardage is more important than having to judge the distance.

Yes of course there are - I completely agree. But @Justone notes that...

'I like DMD's as they let me know it's 225yds to the back edge without me having to do the maths from a course planner or start pacing the course'

Well yes - maybe we all would. But if I don't have a DMD. And do you REALLY want me to start pacing yardages. No of course you don't. And I know that. And I know that it'd irritate my playing companions. So I wouldn't do it out of a courtesy to them - and that would put me at a disadvantage. BTW - it is the flag position rather than the back egde of the green that is the variable from day-to-day.

Whenever I bring up my anti-DMD point I get comparisons thrown at me - well we have this, we have that, we can get this,we can get that. Balls do this, that and the other and so on. This is all true. But all that does not get away from the very simple fact that precise measurement of the distance from your ball to the flag REDUCES the uncertainty in distance. It has to - else why on earth do these things exist? They do not exist to speed up play. They exist to reduce uncertainty in the players mind. Uncertainty in distance that the GCA is trying to introduce.

So on CLUB competitions days (I keep on stressing CLUB as this implies that all competitors pretty much know the course) - on these days when conditions can make things difficult and increase uncertainty why is it that those with a DMD can get precise measurements of distance when those without would have to slow everything up to get the same information =- by walking to the green to check where the flag was.

So there's me - despite what I wanted at the outset - back on DMDs, when it was the GCAs p.o.v on them and distance uncertainty created by illusion (not trickery) that was of my interest.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'll add in my favourite golf illusion story just to stay on topic....

Playing a course once I hit what I thought was a fairly a decent drive, when I got to my ball the flag appeared to be a lot further away than I thought the drive warranted, no 150yrd makers and couldn't find a fairway marker either so I relied on the visuals... it looked a good 180yds to the flag so I hit a solid 5-iron..... it was still on it's way up as it sailed over the pin..


....... when I got to the green someone had snapped the flagstick and it was only 3ft high!... it had looked miles away whereas it was only 100yds! Doh! It's not often I'm 85yds off the back of a green

Have had a very similar experience. Playing a match against a player from another club. Second shot on a long par 4 - all uphill and green not visible. But flag is. And trees behind. Maybe 130yds. Opponent takes out a fairway wood and skelps it miles over back of green. He explained that he thought the trees behind the green were mature Cyprusses - they were actually no more than 6ft high. He could only see the top of the pin - he thought he was looking at all of the pin. So the flag looked a good 200+ yds away uphill.

Ah well. I guess my advantage then was knowing the course and hence the distance to the flag. And do we not in some inter-club competitions still give courtesy shots to counter that advantage? Well we do.

 

[Ian_S]

Surely there's a lot more to it than just yardage?
The yardages given by DMD/course planners have got to be interpreted.
Uphill, downhill, wind speed and direction, the contours of the landing area and shot shape all factor in and I'd say thinking out how to get your ball close from a given yardage is more important than having to judge the distance.

Absolutely. Even those without a GPS device, are given a pretty accurate distance to pin on the par 3s at their course. Does having that information mean we can read the hole, where the hazards are and avoid the trouble the architect has planned for us? Not at all.

It all feels a bit of a silly argument these days those. As anyone can go onto Google Earth, get a read of distances and plot their round, even if you banned all yardage books, markers and DMDs you can't stop someone with a good memory going online, picking course landmarks, deciding what clubs to hit and, assuming they execute, having accurate yardage information in their head all the way round the course. As much as some people may not want it, accurate yardage information pre-shot is a part of golf these days.

That said I must admit to being a lover of yardage books and wouldn't have a problem if DMDs were banned. There's no logic to this view, I just happen to think the sight of player and caddy reading the book and discussing distance is nicer than someone pointing a little black box to the sky.

 

[USER1999]

So on CLUB competitions days (I keep on stressing CLUB as this implies that all competitors pretty much know the course) - on these days when conditions can make things difficult and increase uncertainty why is it that those with a DMD can get precise measurements of distance when those without would have to slow everything up to get the same information =- by walking to the green to check where the flag was.

So you either can't afford a dmd (£100 odd), or don't want one.

What if some one can't afford £1000 worth of good kit, or the latest driver, or an electric trolley, or prov1s.

What we need is a budget cap. No one on comp day can spend more than £500 on their gear, to level the field.

Ah, but I'm almost blind in one eye which makes distance perception difficult. Great idea, we can level the playing field, by every one else wearing an eye patch. But I'm also tall, so I have an advantage in having a bigger swing arc. I can also see over some hazards. How do we level this out? What about age? Is there no advantage for being younger and fitter? Or a better golfer? Or left handed? Or natural drawer of the ball? What about those who can't chip?

Golf is not a level playing field. Never has been.

Look at tiger. The poor dear has to play with rubbish made by a sneaker manufacturer.