duncan mackie
Money List Winner
some interesting observations, and comments, here.
we are currently reviewing this as part of a response to a raised query, hence my questions....
1. irrigation head markers; how can something you have to go to read, then assess it's relative distance to your ball, ever be quicker than a GPS positioned by your ball? even if your ball was right on it it won't be quicker as you will have to take a drop
2. many people find it really usefull to be able to assess their tee shot targets on strange courses using visual 150 indications, hence their proliferation. This has always made sense to me, but they need to be removable but from proper mountings. Trees grow, even dwarf conifers, which really doesn't make them very sensible as markers, even less so wehn they are the only conifers present! So 150 removable posts seems to make huge sense.
3. anyone whose capable of judging their approach shot to the green from over 180 is going to have a DMD nowadays, so 200's seem OTT, but 100 does make sense as an additional aid for those without DMDs (still looking for that person but that's another story). Same removable posts.
4. coloured discs (paint) on the fairways requires a lot of maintance and has limited visibility for anyone not close by. They seem to be a carry over from early Tour set ups and were provided to assist the building of the players yardage charts. Most caddies now trust DMDs, most....personally I believe the most professional looking paint on a golf course is the use of clear lines to designate water hazards; but I'm probably biased there!
5. I'm trying to get data on course planner sales because I rarely see people using those nowadays for distance referencing, although some use them for distances to things, rather than from things to the centre of the greens. It will be interesting to see.
If people think I'm wildly out with any of the above I really would appreciate any counter points. Cheers.
we are currently reviewing this as part of a response to a raised query, hence my questions....
1. irrigation head markers; how can something you have to go to read, then assess it's relative distance to your ball, ever be quicker than a GPS positioned by your ball? even if your ball was right on it it won't be quicker as you will have to take a drop
2. many people find it really usefull to be able to assess their tee shot targets on strange courses using visual 150 indications, hence their proliferation. This has always made sense to me, but they need to be removable but from proper mountings. Trees grow, even dwarf conifers, which really doesn't make them very sensible as markers, even less so wehn they are the only conifers present! So 150 removable posts seems to make huge sense.
3. anyone whose capable of judging their approach shot to the green from over 180 is going to have a DMD nowadays, so 200's seem OTT, but 100 does make sense as an additional aid for those without DMDs (still looking for that person but that's another story). Same removable posts.
4. coloured discs (paint) on the fairways requires a lot of maintance and has limited visibility for anyone not close by. They seem to be a carry over from early Tour set ups and were provided to assist the building of the players yardage charts. Most caddies now trust DMDs, most....personally I believe the most professional looking paint on a golf course is the use of clear lines to designate water hazards; but I'm probably biased there!
5. I'm trying to get data on course planner sales because I rarely see people using those nowadays for distance referencing, although some use them for distances to things, rather than from things to the centre of the greens. It will be interesting to see.
If people think I'm wildly out with any of the above I really would appreciate any counter points. Cheers.
