yardage measuring device?

[Ignorant]

What I still cannot understand how those people you have seen using GPS can possibly use so much time! I mean, the device is visible all the time and once you stop you read the reading without even having to touch the thing. This really takes no more than one second. Certainly things change if the device has to be pulled out of the pocket or turned on and the distances need to be sought after from various pages or such, but those kinds of devices should be thrown into nearest water hazard.

In our local golf magazine there was a comparison between four different laser rangefinders and GolfBuddy (a GPS device) a couple issues back. The outcome is very clear: with a RF you can get readings accurately to the pin and other clearly visible and distinguishable objetcs. For that you need time appr. 10-15 seconds depending on the user. With GolfBuddy you get readings in front and back of every hazard on that particular hole and the green. These figures are all visible at once and all the time as you walk and certainly ready when you stop at your ball. What you do not get is an accurate reading to the pin.

What it comes to time spent in general for measuring yardages it is very clear that players should do that during other players' turn as often as possible. What I frequently do is when another player is preparing for his shot and my ball is nearer the hole I shoot the distance to the pin AND to my ball. Then I calculate the distance and have selected the club in my mind even before I have reached my ball. This way I can speed up the game.

[saevel25]

If people play ready golf than they should have no issue with playing time, unless they are constantly loosing a golf ball. Believe me i have had times were i lost a golf ball in the middle of an area that was just rough, stuff happens. But i agree.. If your standing around while others are hitting, and you found your ball, start getting your yardages and preparing your shot. If your on the green, read your putts while others are reading theres and getting ready to putt.

As for range finders, i like GPS, i like that it can go over hills, when you might not have visibility. Also its sometimes a pain to hold the range finder still enough to get the yardage.

[ghalfaire]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

So for me the bottom line is pick and use the one you like.  They both have some advantages and disadvantage.

I really do enjoy these discussions but have to tell you fellows/women that this is a Ford/Chevy argument.  Both systems are useful on the course, but somewhat different in attributes and performance.  So if you have the opportunity play a round with with each one (I don't know how to rent a laser but there are courses with GPS on the carts) and see what you like.  It is my belief that either one helps speed the game up some (assuming they are used and not abused) and is better than "stepping off" the distance from a marker.

[zeg]

I have a GPS and can't imagine what people are doing with them to slow anyone down.

If I'm walking, I keep it on a belt clip and pull it out as I approach my ball.  Since I can accurately estimate 5-10 yards, I put it away when I reach that point unless I'm going to be waiting anyway, then just subtract that from the reading.  It's certainly more accurate than my next shot will be.

In a cart, I keep it on the dash and read it where I stop to get out.  If I'm getting out next to the ball, then I use the reading to pull the right club; if it's a bit of a walk, I estimate the difference and pull a couple clubs to compensate for estimation errors, then carry the GPS with me and treat it like I'm walking.  (I've only played in a cart a couple of times, though, so I haven't completely ironed out this procedure.)

Once in a while I'll measure a shot, but if I do that I set the GPS into that mode either while the guy before me hits or while I'm waiting for the guy after me, so it really doesn't add any time.  Of course, this'd be easier if the Garmin G3 had a smarter shot tracking mode (I'll never understand why they put it in a separate screen that requires multiple menu selections to reach; there's plenty of room on the main display to keep it up all the time...)

In the end, though, I don't think the choice of distance measuring technology has a real impact on the speed of its use.  If there is an observed difference, I'd guess it's one of two things.  It could be a confirmation bias effect, or perhaps a real effect but the causality goes the other way: less serious golfers who are more likely to dilly-dally and play with their toys on the course might tend toward GPSes.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

So for me the bottom line is pick and use the one you like.  They both have some advantages and disadvantage.

I really do enjoy these discussions but have to tell you fellows/women that this is a Ford/Chevy argument.  Both systems are useful on the course, but somewhat different in attributes and performance.  So if you have the opportunity play a round with with each one (I don't know how to rent a laser but there are courses with GPS on the carts) and see what you like.  It is my belief that either one helps speed the game up some (assuming they are used and not abused) and is better than "stepping off" the distance from a marker.

I'll wear this one since I commented on GPS users pace of play IN MY EXPERIENCE is slowER. Slow people are slow and the very slowest players I've seen don't seem to use any distance determination. They don't pace their yardages (regardless of accuracy, it's still the cheapest and most reliable method for walkers ), they don't use a GPS, they don't use a rangefinder, and they don't seem to even ask for a yardage. Not saying every player who just takes a look and guesses is slow, but compared to a quick player using any distance estimation tool available, they're often like sloths. A couple guys in my local golf league have their name circled on opponents schedules in "anticipation" - your round is gonna be frustratingly slow.

Conversely, quick players are quick and if their system of determining distance is slow they likely ditch it. Personally even though I can use a rangefinder pretty quickly, more often that not I'll go with pacing and estimation because it's faster and close enough for tee shots and for approaches to the middle of the green.

In general I see people being a bit slow with a GPS because they're typically using a new unit or an unfamiliar unit (e.g. one mounted on their powercart especially on paths only courses). Cart mounted systems are not only unfamiliar for many greens fee players on paths only courses, but the yardage doesn't quite match the one you'll have standing over the ball. There's a bit of estimating or pacing required. Is this close enough for most shots? Of course it is. Not unlike taking a rangefinder shot to an adjacent object then pacing the difference to deterime the length of shot just taken.

No method is 100% correct from a long distance (unless you're using a rangefinder to confirm the distance of shot just holed out or perhaps a ball embedded in a reflective object) but that wasn't point of my first post anyway. There are actually people who think a rangefinder and/or a combination of rangefinder and pacing to accurately determine the distance of a shot just made. The fact is, it can.

And no, this has absolutely nothing to do with a Ford/Chevy argument. That argument could be relevant when GPS users compare brands (like the GolfBuddy versus an app on a smartphone) or rangefinder users compare brands. (like the V2 versus the Leupold with slope).

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

So for me the bottom line is pick and use the one you like.  They both have some advantages and disadvantage.

I really do enjoy these discussions but have to tell you fellows/women that this is a Ford/Chevy argument.  Both systems are useful on the course, but somewhat different in attributes and performance.  So if you have the opportunity play a round with with each one (I don't know how to rent a laser but there are courses with GPS on the carts) and see what you like.  It is my belief that either one helps speed the game up some (assuming they are used and not abused) and is better than "stepping off" the distance from a marker.

I'll wear this one since I commented on GPS users pace of play IN MY EXPERIENCE is slowER. Slow people are slow and the very slowest players I've seen don't seem to use any distance determination. They don't pace their yardages (regardless of accuracy, it's still the cheapest and most reliable method for walkers), they don't use a GPS, they don't use a rangefinder, and they don't seem to even ask for a yardage. Not saying every player who just takes a look and guesses is slow, but compared to a quick player using any distance estimation tool available, they're often like sloths. A couple guys in my local golf league have their name circled on opponents schedules in "anticipation" - your round is gonna be frustratingly slow.

Conversely, quick players are quick and if their system of determining distance is slow they likely ditch it. Personally even though I can use a rangefinder pretty quickly, more often that not I'll go with pacing and estimation because it's faster and close enough for tee shots and for approaches to the middle of the green.

In general I see people being a bit slow with a GPS because they're typically using a new unit or an unfamiliar unit (e.g. one mounted on their powercart especially on paths only courses). Cart mounted systems are not only unfamiliar for many greens fee players on paths only courses, but the yardage doesn't quite match the one you'll have standing over the ball. There's a bit of estimating or pacing required. Is this close enough for most shots? Of course it is. Not unlike taking a rangefinder shot to an adjacent object then pacing the difference to determine the length of shot just taken.

No method is 100% correct from a long distance (unless you're using a rangefinder to confirm the distance of shot just holed out or perhaps a ball embedded in a reflective object) but that wasn't point of my first post anyway. There are actually people who think a rangefinder and/or a combination of rangefinder and pacing to accurately can not be used to determine the distance of a shot just made. The fact is, it can.

And no, this has absolutely nothing to do with a Ford/Chevy argument. That argument could be relevant when GPS users compare brands (like the GolfBuddy versus an app on a smartphone) or rangefinder users compare brands. (like the V2 versus the Leupold with slope).

Copy and paste error during editing - doh!

* can not be used to

[ghalfaire]

Well Sean, I suppose it is off topic a little but since they both the laser and GPS are used to measure distance to target on the golf course I see them as having the same purpose, just like the Ford and Chevrolet have the same purpose. But, like you, I have seen folks with new units taking more time than they should.  I think being familiar with the equipment prior to stepping on the course would be considerate of your fellow players.  So you're correct that in some cases these can slow the pace of play.  I would agree the the GPS takes a little more time to become familiar with its' operation than the laser does.  But the difference in time used is indeed small and probably more dependent on the individual golfer than upon the device used once the player is familiar with the device operation.  At least that has been my experience.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

Well Sean, I suppose it is off topic a little but since they both the laser and GPS are used to measure distance to target on the golf course I see them as having the same purpose, just like the Ford and Chevrolet have the same purpose. But, like you, I have seen folks with new units taking more time than they should.  I think being familiar with the equipment prior to stepping on the course would be considerate of your fellow players.  So you're correct that in some cases these can slow the pace of play.  I would agree the the GPS takes a little more time to become familiar with its' operation than the laser does.  But the difference in time used is indeed small and probably more dependent on the individual golfer than upon the device used once the player is familiar with the device operation.  At least that has been my experience.

I'll give you the OEM versus OEM thing as people who liked Chevy and GMC pickups did tend to also prefer GM muscle cars over Dodge or Ford (did they even make one? LOL)

But comparing a rangefinder directly to a GPS is like comparing an F-350 to a Camaro. They're not the same type vehicle even though they can get you and [some of] your stuff from A to B.  How about comparing a Honda lawn mower to a Toyota minivan - is that a Toyota versus Honda debate?

[zeg]

And the award for taking a (very apt) analogy far too literally goes to...

A "Ford vs Chevy" argument is one that can't be won because there's no better or worse, it comes down to preference. That's exactly what we have here.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by zeg

And the award for taking a (very apt) analogy far too literally goes to...

A "Ford vs Chevy" argument is one that can't be won because there's no better or worse, it comes down to preference. That's exactly what we have here.

Hey you're right. That "analogy" actually works even better if you're comparing things that shouldn't even be compared.

"My Chevy Avalance can haul way more ATVs to a jobsite than your Ford Focus. Basically Chevy blows your Ford out of the water for pulling trailers!!!"

"Oh yeah, well my parking spot at work is quite small and my monthly fuel budget says my Ford blows your Chevy out of the water. I take my lapdog farther - way farther - down the highway for $25!!"

That in a nutshell is the Rangefinder v. GPS version of the Ford versus Chevy Argument. Have at 'er if you want, but can I call it the old "Car versus Truck" or "Motorcycle versus Station Wagon" debate?!?

BTW - taking things too literally is what started this BS in the first place . . sort of. I offered my preference (which should not come as a surprise since I've mentioned a Rangefinder preference on this site many times) then stated how a rangefinder can be used quite easily to solve the OP's shot distance dilema.

That other people choose to dis rangefinders is fine with me, since I stated my preference as well. That during the process they're also forced to acknowlege that a Laser Rangefinder is more than adequate for the task originally introduced by the OP in this thread also sits well with me. Very well.

[ghalfaire]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I'll give you the OEM versus OEM thing as people who liked Chevy and GMC pickups did tend to also prefer GM muscle cars over Dodge or Ford (did they even make one? LOL)

you're a lot younger than me if you don't know the answer to that question.