Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 5619 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Which yardage do you prefer on your golf course, Yard or Meter?   And why?

Which one is more accurate?

Whats in my Golf Bag:
Driver: Nike Sumo 5000
5 Wood: Mizuno MP-001
Iron: Mizuno MX-950 5-PW
Wedge: Cobra FP 60 degrePutter: Odyssey 2-BallBall: Yellow balls

Posted

1 yard equals 3 feet exactly whereas 1 meter is 3.28 feet.  I think most people will have an easier time judging yards over meters, even us canucks that are brought up with the metric system.  I have yet to see a course that measures off in meters..


Posted

I live in Europe and Norway, where the imperial system doesn't even exist (Norway), of course I use and prefer the metric system. The imperial got some advantages in terms of using the body to measure stuff, but it's no more difficult than to use the distance in centimeters. I'll have to calculate it over to metric in the end anyways. The metric system is of course more logical and easier to use.

Ogio Grom | Callaway X Hot Pro | Callaway X-Utility 3i | Mizuno MX-700 23º | Titleist Vokey SM 52.08, 58.12 | Mizuno MX-700 15º | Titleist 910 D2 9,5º | Scotty Cameron Newport 2 | Titleist Pro V1x and Taylormade Penta | Leupold GX-1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted

Yards is more accurate only because it's a slightly smaller unit of measurement.

But whatever - yards or meters - very little difference between the two.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I saw one scorecard from Germany which listed both yards and meters for the tee boxes.

If you go to a course with metric distances, make up an index card with major yardage conversions on it. Laminate it so sweat and rain doesn't blur things.

Rough conversion factor: meter = 1.1 yards.. So

90 meters = 99 yards

100 meters = 110 yards

Etc.....

That way, you don't have to try computing things in your head while playing a strange course for the first time.

Or, if you have a rangefinder set to yards, you don't need the index card.

Focus, connect and follow through!

  • Completed KBS Education Seminar (online, 2015)
  • GolfWorks Clubmaking AcademyFitting, Assembly & Repair School (2012)

Driver:  :touredge: EXS 10.5°, weights neutral   ||  FWs:  :callaway: Rogue 4W + 7W
Hybrid:  :callaway: Big Bertha B16 OS 4H at 22°  ||  Irons:  :callaway: Mavrik MAX 5i-PW
Wedges:  :callaway: MD3: 48°, 54°... MD4: 58° ||  Putter:  image.png.0d90925b4c768ce7c125b16f98313e0d.png Inertial NM SL-583F, 34"  
Ball:  :srixon: QStar Tour - Divide  ||  Bag: :sunmountain: Three 5 stand bag

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted

They both have the same accuracy.  When playing in the opposite system you are used to, you just need to do a quick conversion, 100 meters ~ 110 yards, 200~220, 300~330.

Just remember, the British gave the world the Imperial System even though it is associated with the US now.  So don't blame us (USA)!!

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Or if you're not a complete math slouch, you can just take the yard length and subtract 10% for meters (or add 10% if converting meters to yards).

The meter/yard conversion doesn't bother me too much (provided that you know which one the course is using), what kills me more are differences in measurement methods (e.g., middle of the green vs. front of the green).  I played a course in France that used meter measurements to the front of the green but didn't know about the front of the green part until my second round there.  I was having a heck of a time figuring out why my shots kept coming up short!  Figured it was heavy French air or something.


Posted

There is a huge difference between meters and yards when it comes to golf. 150 meters = 164 yards. That's at least one club! When I played golf in Europe for the first time, I was coming up short based on the yardage (meterage) markers...

If it's 100 meters:club up about one club

If it's 150 meters: club up about 1.5

If it's 200 meters: you're looking at about two clubs.

titleistprov1x |nikeneo |●| callawayx-forged 54/60 |● |mizunoMP68

adamsproblack 3H |●| mizunoMPtitanium5w/3w |●| mizunoMP630FT


Posted


Originally Posted by The Gill

There is a huge difference between meters and yards when it comes to golf. 150 meters = 164 yards. That's at least one club! When I played golf in Europe for the first time, I was coming up short based on the yardage (meterage) markers...

If it's 100 meters:club up about one club

If it's 150 meters: club up about 1.5

If it's 200 meters: you're looking at about two clubs.

Yes, as was said above, a meter is about 10% longer than a yard (39.4 inches vs 36 inches).  It's enough that you have to convert, but not enough that one is any more accurate than the other unless you're worried about about 1 inch extra worst-case error for the meter.  You need to know which it is, but other than familiarity there's no advantage to one or the other when it comes to golf.

In the bag:
FT-iQ 10° driver, FT 21° neutral 3H
T-Zoid Forged 15° 3W, MX-23 4-PW
Harmonized 52° GW, Tom Watson 56° SW, X-Forged Vintage 60° LW
White Hot XG #1 Putter, 33"


Posted

Does it mean that golf course with meter yardage is longer than golf course using yards?

Whats in my Golf Bag:
Driver: Nike Sumo 5000
5 Wood: Mizuno MP-001
Iron: Mizuno MX-950 5-PW
Wedge: Cobra FP 60 degrePutter: Odyssey 2-BallBall: Yellow balls

Posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronaldkuntoro View Post

Does it mean that golf course with meter yardage is longer than golf course using yards?

Longer how? In distance? No. A 6000 yard course is 5486 meters.

Ogio Grom | Callaway X Hot Pro | Callaway X-Utility 3i | Mizuno MX-700 23º | Titleist Vokey SM 52.08, 58.12 | Mizuno MX-700 15º | Titleist 910 D2 9,5º | Scotty Cameron Newport 2 | Titleist Pro V1x and Taylormade Penta | Leupold GX-1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Longer means when you see 330 meter average distance for par 4 against the average 330 yard par 4 on most courses. Maybe you should play Golf in East Asia once to see my point.

Whats in my Golf Bag:
Driver: Nike Sumo 5000
5 Wood: Mizuno MP-001
Iron: Mizuno MX-950 5-PW
Wedge: Cobra FP 60 degrePutter: Odyssey 2-BallBall: Yellow balls

Posted

The courses are not laid up after numbers regardless of unit of measure, meaning that an average par 4 is not 330 yards in one country and 330 meters in the next.

In Norway the guidelines for the course distances are as follow (for men):

Par 3: Up to 225 meters (246 yards)
Par 4: 200 - 450 meters (219 - 492 yards)
Par 5: 400 - (437 yards)

I couldn't find anything on the USGA website, but other pages use this:

Par 3 - Up to 250 yards (228 meters)
Par 4 - 251 - 470 yards (228 - 430 meters)
Par 5 - 471 - 690 yards (431 - 631 meters)

As you can see, the distances are pretty close to eachother. There are many other variables that make a difference to how long a hole is playing also, of course. In the end, if you play courses around the world, this will not be an issue. The biggest differences are in the individual course lengths.

Ogio Grom | Callaway X Hot Pro | Callaway X-Utility 3i | Mizuno MX-700 23º | Titleist Vokey SM 52.08, 58.12 | Mizuno MX-700 15º | Titleist 910 D2 9,5º | Scotty Cameron Newport 2 | Titleist Pro V1x and Taylormade Penta | Leupold GX-1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 5619 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.