Using a rangefinder / GPS

[iacas]

Let me just show you a situation that would not be possible with just a rangefinder. Par 3...Bunker guarding the pin...135 middle, 147 pin (located pin on the display green), 143 to clear the bunker and make the green, 153 back directly behind the pin.

That sounds like a better situation for a rangefinder to me. With a GPS you might not have a clue where the pin is on the green, but with the rangefinder you can hit the bunker lip (there's your carry), the flag (there's your flag depth), and you can determine the distance to the center of the green from the course markers, which will be right near where you're teeing off.

Only problem might be the back of the green, but if you've got a pin sheet, can hit a tree right there, or anything else you can figure that out too - and rarely does anyone care about the "back of the green" yardage. It's the carry yardage that matters.

However, what if you have just a rangefinder and the course's yardage to the center? 147 pin, 135 middle. What now? You'd have to zap a hole lotta stuff to get as much info as the GPS.

Right... like two things: the bunker lip and the flag. And as others have pointed out, GPS can be wildly inaccurate (up to six meters off - +/- 3 for your measurement, +/- 3 when the course was measured), and oftentimes the exact carry distance won't be marked - just some other point on the bunker - maybe the part that wraps around the side that you don't care about because it's not on your line. And what's worse, you often have no idea which part of the bunker was used in the measurement. Uncertainty is never a good thing. GPS has uncertainty in spades.

All that IMHO, of course.

[mad max]

I am a high handicapper and i use a golflogix GPS partly because it is not as obvious that I am using it. I do this because I think I would feel pressure to at least get the ball close to the green after getting the yardage with a rangefinder. Kind of like when you wait for a green to clear from 200+ yards and than you top the ball and it goes 20 feet. Also if a got a yardage and hit a bad shot and was still next to play I wouldn't feel comfortable using the rangefinder again especially if I was playing with new people and it was early in the round or if I had done the same thing on the previous hole. I also think it depends when you would like to know the yardage, if you are more concerned with the yardage from less 100 yards I think a rangefinder is the better choice because it tells you the actual distance to the pin. For me I generally don't look at the yardage at all inside 75 yards but rely on where I want to land the ball, but I use a GPS so I have to do it this way.

[Titleist Man]

Only problem might be the back of the green, but if you've got a pin sheet, can hit a tree right there, or anything else you can figure that out too - and rarely does anyone care about the "back of the green" yardage. It's the carry yardage that matters.

I might be the only one here who does this, but if I am in between clubs the deciding factor is usually how far the back of the green is cause I would rather be on the front than off the back. Thats my two cents.

[Kcas77]

if you dont play any tournament golf you cant get much better than the leupold gx 2

[Fourputt]

I think GPSs are such more valuable. You can locate the pin on the green display on a GPS anyway (I forget the function's name). With your 36.3 handicap, you should pretty much go for the middle all of the time...not the pin.

Let's see... 3 seconds to shoot the pin, 3 seconds to shoot the bunker lip. I know it's a back flag from the info provided by the course, so in less than 10 seconds I know more than you do because I KNOW the exact distance to the pin. No matter how you play it, with the GPS you are still estimating that pin location. Sure you will be close on an average size green, but on the oversize greens that are all the rage at many resorts, your estimate can miss by 5-10 yards.

As I said, both have advantages and both have disadvantages. I like the one time cost for the laser. No subscriptions, no losing a satellite connection, no recharge or replace batteries every other round (my Tour V2 is still on its original battery). But it won't see through hills, or around forested doglegs, so it has that limitation. I'm glad that you have a tool that you like, but you can't say that it's perfect or that it's better, it just has different strengths and weaknesses.

[Fourputt]

GPS can be wildly inaccurate (up to six meters off - +/- 3 for your measurement,

Erik, you are correct in that most GPS have that inherent double error, but when the Sky Caddy programmers measure a course, they use a Trimble GPS, which is accurate to within a couple of feet. It's the same type of unit that surveyors use. But many of the GPS companies just use satellite imagery or handheld GPS receivers, and that can be a very shaky and inaccurate way to plot out a golf course.

[iacas]

Erik, you are correct in that most GPS have that inherent double error, but when the Sky Caddy programmers measure a course, they use a Trimble GPS, which is accurate to within a couple of feet.

That's the problem: Sky Golf doesn't do all the GPS mapping of their own courses, and they don't always use the more precise Trimble.

I know because, for awhile, I was considering mapping some courses, and when I turned it down I know the person who did many in my area.

[Eeryck]

I think for my needs at this point it sounds like the rangefinder is the right choice for me. I am really trying to dial in the short game so it seems like I could use the range finders to set up some practice distances off the course as well as use it to spot those distances on the course.

I think this thread has also helped me see and re-enforce the way the rangefinder is used on the course and the "scan mode" makes a lot more sense now.

In the long run though I think I will probably add a GPS in addition to the rangefinder, perhaps in 2010 because as I mentioned before a few of the muni courses that I play are very poorly marked. Sometimes only a 150 marker. Of course this may not be an issue after this year if my lessons work out and I am playing better so I am closer to the green more often.

-E

[Fourputt]

That's the problem: Sky Golf doesn't do all the GPS mapping of their own courses, and they don't always use the more precise Trimble.

That I wasn't aware of. I was going by their commercials and the photos on their website. Trimble GPS units are expensive... guess they couldn't stand the cost of actually doing every course the right way.

Then too, the fact that the Sky Caddy's guts are made by Magellan is my guarantee that I won't own one of them. If you have a problem with it, don't hold your breath.... Magellan (and Sky Caddy by extension) has the worst customer service reputation in the GPS industry. If I do get one, I'm leaning toward Golf Logix made by Garmin. I have a Garmin Nuvi GPS for my car and I love it. I believe in staying with a brand that I can trust until that trust is proven to be misplaced.

[Fourputt]

I think for my needs at this point it sounds like the rangefinder is the right choice for me. I am really trying to dial in the short game so it seems like I could use the range finders to set up some practice distances off the course as well as use it to spot those distances on the course.

Scan mode is essential, with some sort of logic circuitry to sort out the object you are shooting from the background clutter. Just keep in mind that there are times when that logic algorithm needs to be turned off or it can give you false reading (if something is closer to you and near the sight line, the logic may pick that out instead of the flag or other target). Once you get your laser, play with it a lot, test it on objects you can pace off to learn how to use it right. Shoot the same thing several times to be sure you get repeated readings. That way, when you get on the course you will have the confidence that you are getting good numbers, and you can just shoot and go.

Just FYI, the way I shoot a flag with my Bushnell is aim just left of my target, then press and hold the button, scan slowly across the the actual cloth material of the flag (not just the flagstick). The logic algorithm will pick the flag as the closest object it sees and display that number. It's even easier when the course installs laser reflectors on the top of the flagstick, but I've only seen a couple of courses that have done that. The same general principle applies to any other object that you want to probe. For bunker lips, grass mounds and such, I turn off the Pinseeker and scan the target to get an average reading. Your measurements won't usually be quite as precise for such objects (still close enough to determine carry distances, etc.), but at least you can pick your own target, unlike the GPS which locks you into its programming.

[jmoc]

I am a high handicapper and i use a golflogix GPS partly because it is not as obvious that I am using it. I do this because I think I would feel pressure to at least get the ball close to the green after getting the yardage with a rangefinder. Kind of like when you wait for a green to clear from 200+ yards and than you top the ball and it goes 20 feet. Also if a got a yardage and hit a bad shot and was still next to play I wouldn't feel comfortable using the rangefinder again especially if I was playing with new people and it was early in the round or if I had done the same thing on the previous hole.

I think I'm seeing a pattern, that in general, those who are interested in "exact" distance, i.e. some one who can hit a wedge 97 yards or 95 yards as needed, prefer the rangefinder. Conversely, those who just want distance, i.e. do I hit the SW (100 yards) or the AW (110 yards), are more inclined to the GPS. Mad Max hit the point I was trying to make earlier, that, in general, some one using a rangefinder, by perception, is a better player looking for exact distance for scoring opportunity, and that by using a rangefinder, you may feel added pressure to meet that expectation. Whereas, if you are using a GPS, there is not that expectation to be "laser" accurate, you can even peek at it clandestinely if you so chose. I think that, for good or bad, the rangefinder carries with it the weight of a "player" and the GPS is more accepted as an "everyman" tool or aide to play. That doesn't make the rangefinder elitist by any means, but like strolling up to the 1st tee in plus fours, or whipping out the Sam Snead blades, you better have the game to back it up or it could be a long day with the boys. Then again, I could be seeing things

.... jmoc

[biscuity]

I think I'm seeing a pattern, that in general, those who are interested in "exact" distance, i.e. some one who can hit a wedge 97 yards or 95 yards as needed, prefer the rangefinder.

I bought my Nikon 800 laser finder for the accuracy. Even the guys I play with who use GPS are interested in my number to the pin, because there is no guesswork. With a GPS you know F-C-B but you still have to estimate where the pin is. Add in the known margin of error of the satellite and original mapping of the course and you've got a fairly significant potential variation.

When my laser finder says it's 63 yards I know it's 63 yards. And I use mine alot inside 100 yards, it has really helped my short game. It takes me about 10 seconds max to get the reading. List of things I like about the laser over GPS 1. Accuracy to within +/- 0.5 yard 2. Super long battery life 3. No subscriptions/dues 4. Works on driving ranges 5. Helps me see better, I use it like a telescope GPS has a few advantages, but for me they didn't outweigh the list above. The only times I ever ask for help from a GPS user is when the view to the green is obstructed.

[denver_nuggs_15]

Just wondering, did you pull the trigger on anything yet? If so, what brand and model?

I still feel that GPSs are more valuable. I have used just about every non-slope rangefinder (including Callaway/Nikon, Bushnell, and Laser Link). I have even compared the readings from a GPS (with or without a pin sheet) to those of a rangefinder. 99% of the time the readings are within 3 yards. (I say 99% of the time and not 100% because there was probably one time that this was not the case.) I'm not just citing results from one round...I'm talking about THOUSANDS of holes over HUNDREDS of rounds...just this year.

Many people on this thread are speaking about how GPSs are +/- 3 through 6 yards. They can be and I have seen it. However, if you wait about 3-5 seconds the readings will update and become more accurate. The SkyCaddie GPSs seem to be good; I really like the IntelliGreen system that allows you to locate the pin. As stated previously, the results are within 3 yards of any rangefinder that I have used.

What surprised me, though, about GPSs is that they are all not mapped to the highest quality. Then, I thought about it. The GPS for my car is +/- 15 feet or 5 yards. Why the heck would a GPS for a car be more accurate than a golf GPS? There is no possible reason why Garmin, etc. would spend so much money mapping every road. Therefore, I think (I could be wrong) that golf GPSs, regardless of mapping technique, are more accurate than driving GPSs simply because they should be. Basically, golfers need more accuracy than drivers.

I think eventually GPS will catch up to rangefinders' +/- .5 yard accuracy. It could be within the next few years. (The US military has GPS systems that are accurate to within a foot.) However, how much more accurate can a rangefinder become? +/- .25 yards?

Pros of GPS: gives a bunch of numbers automatically, technology will expand in the next year, accurate enough for just about everyone.

Cons of GPS: monthly/yearly fee on most, can be inaccurate, battery life

Pros of RangeFinders: accurate as he*l, no monthly fee, good battery life, I definately missed one

Cons of RF: cannot get much more accurate, can occassionally hit wrong target.

It's up for you to decide but, I prefer GPSs right now (but my opinion will probably change in the next few months.)