Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rmenary

Best color lenses for golf

Note: This thread is 934 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!

26 posts / 3168 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

Apparently polarized lenses make it harder to read greens because some reflections off the grass actually help assess the breaks and the polarized lenses eliminate these reflections. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

1 hour ago, arturo28mx said:

Apparently polarized lenses make it harder to read greens because some reflections off the grass actually help assess the breaks and the polarized lenses eliminate these reflections. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Reading greens with your eyes is so 1900s, though.

I wear polarized lenses almost exclusively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Reading greens with your eyes is so 1900s, though.

I wear polarized lenses almost exclusively.

You are probably right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got about 5 pair of the 'Maxx' brand golf sunglasses in my rotation. The amber lens seems to make things "pop"...They're UVA/UVB rated and don't seem to make things too dark or too bright.....And at sub $20 a pair, I can afford to keep a few pair around in case I break one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently bought some amber-colored, anti-glare glasses that take out something called the "blue light". Played with them on yesterday. It was a bright sunshine Texas day. I was impressed that my vision, which is not very good and light-sensitive, was much sharper. -Marv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

FWIW, I've never had any issues with polarized lenses. As @iacas pointed out, reading greens with your eyes is so last century. 

(It's also really just not that bad with polarized lenses. You can still see the same green slope. You don't all of a sudden lose that ability.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm a newcomer to golf but as an Optician I do know glasses. I just got a set of Oakley Prism Golf sunglasses to try out but not sure if I'll like them since they're not polarized. 

IMO going with a polarized brown or rose lens will yield the best results for golfing. The polarization filters out the horizontal glare which gives you much clearer vision overall, and brown and rose are high contrast which allows you to better see the subtleties in terrain change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, badfish said:

I'm a newcomer to golf but as an Optician I do know glasses. I just got a set of Oakley Prism Golf sunglasses to try out but not sure if I'll like them since they're not polarized. 

IMO going with a polarized brown or rose lens will yield the best results for golfing. The polarization filters out the horizontal glare which gives you much clearer vision overall, and brown and rose are high contrast which allows you to better see the subtleties in terrain change. 

Welcome to the forum.   Glad you found us.   Read the "How to" section and if you are so inclined, post a swing video.   You'll find lots of friendly folks here.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 934 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!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2019 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • I had two friends that played Founders Clubs.  I have never heard of them being a club made by Langert. How ever a search did bring up some info on those clubs. Is this the item you are referring to? eBay has a listing for this driver. My friends played this driver.  
    • I watch GSK just because I like watching him play.  But he is a scratch player so he can get away with hitting three 6 irons on a 540 yd par five.  Me, I have to get max distance on every shot because I know that I will probably mis-hit 1/3 shots.  So his divide and conquer strategy wont work for me.  Fun videos tho. 
    • Another idea is to make your own shaft flex board. Maltby sell one for $180. I once made one for free using a scrap of plywood, and some 2", 1/4" dowell material. Hung it on my garage wall.  I marked known  clubs flexes on the board as reference points, using a consistent weight. The board also gave me other info besides flex.  It was crude looking, but did the job.  It mattered little what the manufacturer's rating on the shaft was, which was usually different from each company. What ever my flex board showed me, was what the actual flex was when compared to the known flexes I used.   Maltby probably has a picture of his flex board on his website. Probably other sites have picts available too. With a little self ingenuity, a person can study the picture, and build their own. It's pretty easy. 
    • I thought about this a while, and then had an epiphany last night.  Without a perfect test, the answer is almost definitely no. It's a fairly simple statistical calculation called Bayes' Theorem. The end result is that you'll end up preventing more people from driving when they aren't drunk than preventing drunk drivers. I'm going to plug in numbers, but since I'm (likely correctly!) assuming drunk driving is a rare event, the numbers don't really matter that much. I'm also going to assume the test is extremely accurate. Let's say that in 1/10,000 car trips, the driver is too drunk to legally drive. This is probably an underestimation by a factor of 100, if not more, if you think about how many car trips there are in a day. Let's assume that the when the test is positive, the driver is drunk 99.9% of the time. And then assume that when the test is negative, the driver is sober 99.9% of the time (in other words, if the test is negative, the driver is drunk 0.1% of the time). We can use this to plug in probabilities for each event. Probability that a driver is drunk: .0001 Probability that a driver is sober: .9999 Probability that a drunk driver gets a positive test: .999 Probability that a drunk driver gets a negative test: .001 Probability that a sober driver gets a positive test: .001 Probability that a sober driver gets a negative test: .999 Bayes' Theorem applies here. It says: The probability that someone is drunk driver given a positive test is equal to the probability of a drunk driver gets a positive test times the probability of a drunk driver; that divided by the following: the probability of a drunk getting a positive test times probability of a drunk driver plus the probability of sober driver getting a positive test times the probability of a sober driver. In mathematic terms (DD=drunk driver; SD = sober driver; + = positive test): P(DD | +) = (P(+ | DD)*P(DD))/((P+ | DD)*P(DD)+P(+ | SD)*P(SD)) Plug in the numbers: P(DD | +) = ((.999)*(.0001))/((.999)*(.0001)+(.001)*(.9999)) P(DD | +) = .0908 In other words, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is only 9%. Meaning that out of a 100 people that test positive under this test, 91 of them would actually be sober. Because the test is imperfect and drunk driving is rare, it's going to impact more sober drivers than drunk drivers. Even if the test is 99.99% accurate and as a false positive rate of 0.01%, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is only 50%. Note that I'm assuming that 1/10,000 car trips is one by a drunk driver. If you assume 1/100,000 car trips are by a drunk driver, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is 0.9%. (You can also use this calculate to find out the odds that a drunk driver will have a negative test, but I have other stuff to do now...) So, without a nearly perfect test, it's a bad idea for the entire population. If drunk drivers were more frequent, then it would make more sense. Hence, it makes sense for someone who is more likely to drive drunk, and why the current policy probably makes sense. 
    • Hey Ben, good to see you’re still around!   I remember those irons. They’re beautiful! Sorry, I can’t help with the driver though…
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Edsland
      Edsland
      (65 years old)
    2. KingHack82
      KingHack82
      (37 years old)
    3. snowbeast
      snowbeast
      (32 years old)

×
×
  • 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.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...