Rory McIlroy says that Greens Books should be banned

[sixcat]

13 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

What changed was laser surveys of green contours, the computer technology to interpret that as contour lines and slope percentages

When greens reading books began to become this sophisticated, they should have been disallowed. It's never too late to do the right thing but this is long overdue!

[fixyurdivot]

6 minutes ago, cnosil said:

We don’t have to,. There is nothing preventing you from buying or making a green reading book.   Even one of the most recent MGS tests is for a rangefinder that provides green mapping.  Do you think they should get pin sheets at the beginning of the round that gives exact pin location?

Well, while we can use them, I can honestly say I've never seen anyone I've played with in over 50 years of golfing do so. Perhaps that speaks to the caliber of golfers I hang with . Pin sheets are fine and have been commonly used for years. We just played Circling Raven and the carts had 3D mapping available that showed that... I never looked at it one time.  I really like the red/white/blue pin colors to designate front/middle/back locations.  I wish all courses employed this coding. That's about as accurate of information as I need since I don't use a rangefinder. 

They and their caddies have practice rounds to load their memory banks with green contour information.  Plus, they can study all the information before the event.  Pro golf should be a closed book test IMO.

[DaveP043]

50 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Amateurs aren’t playing for a living and a putt made or missed doesn’t have a large impact on their living.

I would hate to lose resources at my job that allow me to have information readily available rather than have to go off memory. 

None of us really play from memory, we usually read the greens with our senses, visually, or with our sense of balance using something like Aimpoint.  And of course, experience does help.  Reading the greens is definitely a skill, and detailed green-reading books are a substitute for that skill.  The sentiment that I'm getting from Rory is that those who lack the skill to read greens well are getting an artificial boost from the books, and he (along with a large majority of those at the Advisory Council meeting) would rather not allow that artificial boost.  Rory is saying he's using the books because he won't turn down any available information, but he'd rather that every player had to do without this particular stuff.

In googling this, I came across a proposal from about 2018 to limit the detailed information to areas of the green with 4% slope or greater.  Holes are virtually never cut on slopes that severe, so the areas around the holes would have no detail.  I wonder if the PGA Tour might go in this direction.  Or as @cnosil suggested, maybe they'll only allow an outline of the green.  I don't think they'll go this far, I think some level of "terrain mapping" should still be acceptable.  No matter what they decide, they'll almost certainly go to the USGA/R&A to get approval for a Local Rule to cover this.  I don't believe they'll override the existing permission in the Rules of Golf on their own.

[RickyBobby_PR]

5 minutes ago, sixcat said:

When greens reading books began to become this sophisticated, they should have been disallowed. It's never too late to do the right thing but this is long overdue!

Sports evolve and so does the technology, information gathering and documentation. 

Professionals in all sports have tons of information and data at their hands. Banning something because it’s detailed/sophisticated is kind of silly. They all have the same ability to access the information. It’s personal choice whether they want it or not. Denying someone access to what helps them perform their job because a small segment of fans or players don’t like it is also silly IMO.

We have simple and detailed scripts to perform tasks in my job. They simply lots of tasks that remove human action. Should we ban that because it takes away from the engineer performing task should do things how they always have been done because verifications and comparisons should be done the less sophisticated.

[LICC]

9 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

None of us really play from memory, we usually read the greens with our senses, visually, or with our sense of balance using something like Aimpoint.  And of course, experience does help.  Reading the greens is definitely a skill, and detailed green-reading books are a substitute for that skill.  The sentiment that I'm getting from Rory is that those who lack the skill to read greens well are getting an artificial boost from the books, and he (along with a large majority of those at the Advisory Council meeting) would rather not allow that artificial boost.  Rory is saying he's using the books because he won't turn down any available information, but he'd rather that every player had to do without this particular stuff.

In googling this, I came across a proposal from about 2018 to limit the detailed information to areas of the green with 4% slope or greater.  Holes are virtually never cut on slopes that severe, so the areas around the holes would have no detail.  I wonder if the PGA Tour might go in this direction.  Or as @cnosil suggested, maybe they'll only allow an outline of the green.  I don't think they'll go this far, I think some level of "terrain mapping" should still be acceptable.  No matter what they decide, they'll almost certainly go to the USGA/R&A to get approval for a Local Rule to cover this.  I don't believe they'll override the existing permission in the Rules of Golf on their own.

I'm still not understanding what is wrong with it. Is it that different from a caddie who knows every inch of the greens giving you the read? Should caddies not be allowed to tell you how a putt will break as you are then not using your skill to read the green?

[cnosil]

5 minutes ago, LICC said:

I'm still not understanding what is wrong with it. Is it that different from a caddie who knows every inch of the greens giving you the read? Should caddies not be allowed to tell you how a putt will break as you are then not using your skill to read the green?

Agree, this is also why players choose local caddies; they have knowledge and experience.  

[StrokerAce]

what cracks me up is the guy who pulls out the green reading book, walks a 360 around his ball and the hole. Marks the ball, picks it up, looks again from behind, puts the ball back down, looks at the book again... and after that unnecessary 2 and a half minutes misses the putt.

...bro, I could've missed it just as easily in like 15 seconds. 

[DaveP043]

54 minutes ago, LICC said:

I'm still not understanding what is wrong with it. Is it that different from a caddie who knows every inch of the greens giving you the read? Should caddies not be allowed to tell you how a putt will break as you are then not using your skill to read the green?

You'd really need to talk to Rory, he's apparently the leader of the group that wants to eliminate the books.  And he's not talking about eliminating the books if you or I choose to spend the money on them, he's just talking about the top level of golf.    I've read speculation that this is at least partly about pace of play, I don't know, but I think there are better ways to address pace of play.

From my personal standpoint, it seems to be about the use of technology to obtain information that really wasn't available until recently.  Yes, you could read greens and roll balls and make notes.  But the modern greens books are done using very sophisticated laser survey techniques, and the maps are then developed with computerized evaluations to get the slope numbers and contour lines.  This level of information simply cannot be done without the technology.  Caddies have been a part of the game for hundreds of years, laser surveying and computerized mapping has been around for (figuratively) 5 minutes.  This seems to be about limiting the role of technology in obtaining information.

[Hook DeLoft]

I think green reading is an essential skill for a golfer.  I have no problem at all with ending the green books used on tour.  On the other hand, I was and remain opposed to the ban on anchored putting.  If it was inherently easier to sink putts that way, then most players would have changed to it.  The same with arm lock putting.  For some players, anchored putting helps, for most it doesn't.  And I know senior golfers who were able to enjoy the game much more with a long putter.  They are people who don't play in tournaments, so they could play illegal clubs if they liked.  Most, however, want to play by the rules and banning anchored putting has driven some from the game.

[sixcat]

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Sports evolve and so does the technology, information gathering and documentation. 

Professionals in all sports have tons of information and data at their hands. Banning something because it’s detailed/sophisticated is kind of silly. They all have the same ability to access the information. It’s personal choice whether they want it or not. Denying someone access to what helps them perform their job because a small segment of fans or players don’t like it is also silly IMO.

We have simple and detailed scripts to perform tasks in my job. They simply lots of tasks that remove human action. Should we ban that because it takes away from the engineer performing task should do things how they always have been done because verifications and comparisons should be done the less sophisticated.

I have used the same technology used to generate these greens reading books in my profession for over 27 years. By your logic, MLB and NFL teams should be celebrated for using sophisticated technology to spy on other teams before, during, and after games. The Houston Astros GM was banned from MLB for life and the manager was suspended for a calendar year. How has that gone over in MLB?

If you believe such measures should be allowed in professional golf and made any disparaging remarks about Bill Belichick filming other teams, you're a hypocrite. It has no place in professional sports!

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, sixcat said:

I have used the same technology used to generate these greens reading books in my profession for over 27 years. By your logic, MLB and NFL teams should be celebrated for using sophisticated technology to spy on other teams before, during, and after games. The Houston Astros GM was banned from MLB for life and the manager was suspended for a calendar year. How has that gone over in MLB?

It has no place in professional sports!

I think the difference here is that the Astros (and who knows who else) were breaking the rules of their game.  In contrast, the PGA Tour has been playing completely within the Rules of Golf, and will need to get a Local Rule approved if they choose to ban the green-reading books from the Tour.  But in general I agree, I'd prefer to see all top-level players required to use their own senses on the greens, rather than sophisticated technology.

And I hope I've described the technology semi-accurately.  I can remember doing a little bit of topo mapping by hand way back in the day, the current technology is almost miraculous.

[sixcat]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

And I hope I've described the technology semi-accurately.  I can remember doing a little bit of topo mapping by hand way back in the day, the current technology is almost miraculous.

Just this morning, I have taken a field survey consisting of approximately 1,000 points, imported into Civil 3D, and generated a 3-dimensional model of the existing area. This includes streams, streets, sidewalks, curbs, guttering, buildings, and all existing utilities to include local water system, sewer system, stormwater collection, telephone, fiber optic, and power (all utilities above and below ground).

Once the proposed improvements are included, the contractor will load this file directly into the on-board computer system found in his heavy equipment to get proposed finished grade, new sidewalk and street elevations, horizontal and vertical curves, and new utilities exact.

You see the promotions for the "augmented reality" by Deloitte on the coverage today?  That's exactly what I do. 

It's literally a science these days. And to think, I first learned this when it was still pencil and paper!

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, sixcat said:

I have used the same technology used to generate these greens reading books in my profession for over 27 years. By your logic, MLB and NFL teams should be celebrated for using sophisticated technology to spy on other teams before, during, and after games. The Houston Astros GM was banned from MLB for life and the manager was suspended for a calendar year. How has that gone over in MLB?

If you believe such measures should be allowed in professional golf and made any disparaging remarks about Bill Belichick filming other teams, you're a hypocrite. It has no place in professional sports!

What the astros did is considered cheating by the rules of mlb. Sign stealing has been a part of the game forever. The use of technology do this was against the rules.

But baseball has advanced with the use of technology and information to gather various stats and use technology to analyze them, create game plans and scouting reports to allow their players to have as much information as possible to do their jobs better and potentially more efficiently. This hasn’t taken away the skills of the players needed to play the game pitch to pitch.

[Siamese Moose]

I tend to defer to the pro's opinions on things like this. In this case, I really don't feel I know enough to lock in an opinion. Does anyone have a link to an instruction page or video that shows what's in these books (most or all are copyrighted,  and can't legally be pictured), and how they are used? I've seen pictures of a few pages, but I don't really understand how to use one.

[sixcat]

42 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

What the astros did is considered cheating by the rules of mlb. Sign stealing has been a part of the game forever. The use of technology do this was against the rules.

But baseball has advanced with the use of technology and information to gather various stats and use technology to analyze them, create game plans and scouting reports to allow their players to have as much information as possible to do their jobs better and potentially more efficiently. This hasn’t taken away the skills of the players needed to play the game pitch to pitch.

Those are just policy and policy can easily change. Professional golf already has policy in place to restrict the use of distance measuring devices. I don't see any difference in distance measuring devices with slope calculation, compus use, and greens reading books.

I don't set policy on Tour so it's not for me to decide. I would just prefer to see the best players in the world rely on their own abilities rather than technology. Roll it all back!!!

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 minutes ago, sixcat said:

Those are just policy and policy can easily change. Professional golf already has policy in place to restrict the use of distance measuring devices. I don't see any difference in distance measuring devices with slope calculation, compus use, and greens reading books.

I don't set policy on Tour so it's not for me to decide. I would just prefer to see the best players in the world rely on their own abilities rather than technology. Roll it all back!!!

let’s roll back football to the days where there weren’t videos of games for the opposing teams to watch and let the players just figure it out on the field. Let’s get rid any technology in all sports and play them like when they were invented 

[MyWifesSwingCoach]

Please refer to my post... I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't really care lol But I thought this meme was funny, so I'll just put this here continue eating my popcorn and watch.

I actually not even being sarcastic lol White Cheddar Popcorn is pretty good haha

Edited June 17, 2021 by MyWifesSwingCoach
Text

[sixcat]

56 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

let’s roll back football to the days where there weren’t videos of games for the opposing teams to watch and let the players just figure it out on the field. Let’s get rid any technology in all sports and play them like when they were invented 

Based on this analogy, PGA Tour players should be able to use greens books in practice rounds just like NFL coaches can use video in preparation for a future opponent. Neither should be allowed to use said respective technology in competition!!!

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 hours ago, sixcat said:

Based on this analogy, PGA Tour players should be able to use greens books in practice rounds just like NFL coaches can use video in preparation for a future opponent. Neither should be allowed to use said respective technology in competition!!!

Well considering the NFL let’s the coaching staff and other members of the teams staff to use in game video and still photos to provide information to the on field staff and get it relayed to the players they are using it in competition and it’s within the rules just like using green books, yardage books and notes in each to make decisions during a round as well as for confirmation of what their eyes and feet tell them as they walk around the green assessing the putt.

 

[cnosil]

6 hours ago, Siamese Moose said:

I tend to defer to the pro's opinions on things like this. In this case, I really don't feel I know enough to lock in an opinion. Does anyone have a link to an instruction page or video that shows what's in these books (most or all are copyrighted,  and can't legally be pictured), and how they are used? I've seen pictures of a few pages, but I don't really understand how to use one.

they look like the below image.  The images shows the topography of the green which includes the slope and slope direction.  The closer the wavy lines the steeper the slopes,  the arrows show the slope direction.  Systems like Aimpoint have shown that give an percent of slope and a green speed you can accurately predict the balls break for a particular distance.    The horizontal and vertical lines are distance lines that are typically 5 yards.    

If you look on the various phone app stores you will see apps that will show you the line you should play;  you also see the line during golf coverage.   Those lines are based on this type of information.  

 

 

[LICC]

8 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

But in general I agree, I'd prefer to see all top-level players required to use their own senses on the greens, rather than sophisticated technology.

But they don’t use their own senses. They use caddies to give the reads, and they use practice rounds beforehand to putt from all over the greens to see the rolls. If the ability of the player to read the green is part of the skill to score, then they shouldn’t be allowed to get a read from a caddie. 

[DaveP043]

19 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

rather than sophisticated technology.

 

11 hours ago, LICC said:

But they don’t use their own senses. They use caddies to give the reads, and they use practice rounds beforehand to putt from all over the greens to see the rolls. If the ability of the player to read the green is part of the skill to score, then they shouldn’t be allowed to get a read from a caddie. 

My sentence was intended to draw a line between low-tech evaluations and high-tech solutions, perhaps I could have written it differently, and perhaps you could have read the entire sentence.  All of the things you mention are substantially different from "sophisticated technology."  All of them are what I'd call "low-tech".  From the beginning of golf, a caddie has been considered as an extension of the player, so I have no problem in accepting the caddie's skills as an extension of the player's skills.  I also consider practice putting as using "senses", since the player is watching how the balls roll, and usually making notes to aid his memory.  Experience, senses, observations, use whatever term you like, I can understand drawing a line between that stuff and laser-surveyed computer-modeled greens books.  But its possible to draw the line somewhere else, which is what the USGA/R&A did in their 2019 Rules. 

[LICC]

8 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

 

My sentence was intended to draw a line between low-tech evaluations and high-tech solutions, perhaps I could have written it differently, and perhaps you could have read the entire sentence.  All of the things you mention are substantially different from "sophisticated technology."  All of them are what I'd call "low-tech".  From the beginning of golf, a caddie has been considered as an extension of the player, so I have no problem in accepting the caddie's skills as an extension of the player's skills.  I also consider practice putting as using "senses", since the player is watching how the balls roll, and usually making notes to aid his memory.  Experience, senses, observations, use whatever term you like, I can understand drawing a line between that stuff and laser-surveyed computer-modeled greens books.  But its possible to draw the line somewhere else, which is what the USGA/R&A did in their 2019 Rules. 

But why draw the line at lasers? Either the read is a skill, that only the player should be allowed to determine as a measure against another player’s skill, or the player can get assistance as to how the green is shaped to know the breaks. Whether that assistance is high tech or low tech, why does that matter?

I read your whole comment. Please stop with the snarky comments. If you can’t handle a disagreement with your opinion, then don’t engage. 

[JeremyD]

I've never seen a green book before the picture above, and I feel I'd spend too much time trying to decipher them. I'm sure there's a skill to reading greens, and I'm by no means an expert since I'm not the best putter. Before making the decision, and I could care either way, maybe test out a couple of different tournaments, and measure time spent on greens, putting stats, etc to make a more informed decision. Have any of the top putters piped up on this, or are they quiet since they need/like the green reading books?

 

[DaveP043]

56 minutes ago, LICC said:

But why draw the line at lasers? Either the read is a skill, that only the player should be allowed to determine as a measure against another player’s skill, or the player can get assistance as to how the green is shaped to know the breaks. Whether that assistance is high tech or low tech, why does that matter?

You could just as easily ask "Why draw the line at caddies", why not let the player get advice from anyone present?  Why is the teeing area only two clublengths deep, why not three?  Every rule draws a line of some kind, and the specific spot the line is drawn is almost always somewhat arbitrary.  It makes sense to me to draw a line between high-tech and low-tech.  That seems to be what the PGA Tour has done in choosing to utilize the Model Local Rule that disallows the use of distance measuring devices.  So a decision by the PGA Tour to disallow high-tech green-reading books seems consistent, to me.  I'm still interested in reading what they come up with, as I believe they'll need to get approval from the USGA for a Local Rule to accomplish their goal.

[cnosil]

44 minutes ago, JeremyD said:

I've never seen a green book before the picture above, and I feel I'd spend too much time trying to decipher them. I'm sure there's a skill to reading greens, and I'm by no means an expert since I'm not the best putter. Before making the decision, and I could care either way, maybe test out a couple of different tournaments, and measure time spent on greens, putting stats, etc to make a more informed decision. Have any of the top putters piped up on this, or are they quiet since they need/like the green reading books?

 

Every player is different. Some use the detailed books others don’t.  Just like on here everyone has an opinion. Does being the best putter really make their opinion more important?  
 

PGA players will adapt over the long term.  For regular tour stops the players book will become more refined and detailed as time passes; Including Augusta.  For lesser played courses like a US Open, the players will just visit the course in advance or hire someone to build a book that complies with whatever this ban will really mean. 

[JeremyD]

4 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Every player is different. Some use the detailed books others don’t.  Just like on here everyone has an opinion. Does being the best putter really make their opinion more important?  
 

PGA players will adapt over the long term.  For regular tour stops the players book will become more refined and detailed as time passes; Including Augusta.  For lesser played courses like a US Open, the players will just visit the course in advance or hire someone to build a book that complies with whatever this ban will really mean. 

My point of the better putter is whether the books make them a better putter or not. Do they feel it helps them be better?  They'd have to be honest, which who knows? It won't change the decision. It's more of a survey of what they feel makes them good. If they don't use them as much, then it lends more to their skill

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, JeremyD said:

My point of the better putter is whether the books make them a better putter or not. Do they feel it helps them be better?  They'd have to be honest, which who knows? It won't change the decision. It's more of a survey of what they feel makes them good. If they don't use them as much, then it lends more to their skill

Good putters are probably going to be good putters no matter what.  It will also depend on how the players processes information.  The one example I know is Harry at MGS.  He has posted this on his Instagram story but he says the books are Extremely helpful and significantly helped his putting in tournaments.  

[LICC]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

You could just as easily ask "Why draw the line at caddies", why not let the player get advice from anyone present?  Why is the teeing area only two clublengths deep, why not three?  Every rule draws a line of some kind, and the specific spot the line is drawn is almost always somewhat arbitrary.  It makes sense to me to draw a line between high-tech and low-tech.  That seems to be what the PGA Tour has done in choosing to utilize the Model Local Rule that disallows the use of distance measuring devices.  So a decision by the PGA Tour to disallow high-tech green-reading books seems consistent, to me.  I'm still interested in reading what they come up with, as I believe they'll need to get approval from the USGA for a Local Rule to accomplish their goal.

There is a separate rule that a player can't get advice from another player. As usually the only people on the greens are players and caddies, it isn't really feasible that a player will ask a fan or a cameraman to come over and give a read.

How do you define hi-tech and low-tech. Laser readings are fairly standard technology nowadays.

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, LICC said:

Laser readings are fairly standard technology nowadays.

Compared to pacing distances from known landmarks, DMDs are high-tech.  Compared to using senses and experience to read greens, computer-generated contour maps are high-tech.  That's why I think the new decision by the PGA Tour players is consistent with existing policy.  In each case, they're choosing to disallow the higher-tech option.