RANGEFINDERS ARE NOT THE ANSWER

THE PGA Tour is currently trialling rangefinders on three of its tours to assess their impact on pace of play – one of golf’s biggest issues. But golf is a sport that relies on doubt. Club selection and shot selection is what makes it exciting; it’s what makes it impressive. So why would we want to remove any aspect of that doubt?

Tour players are averaging 38 seconds per shot and are taking longer than ever to complete their rounds. So the PGA Tour’s decision to trial rangefinders on its secondary tours suggests they believe caddies are taking too long to calculate yardages, but that’s rarely the case. Besides, who amongst us doesn’t get a kick out of watching Steve Williams pace out yardages for Adam Scott with those emu-like steps?

The real issue here goes much, much deeper. And it’s one the PGA Tour appears to be masking with a temporary solution in rangefinders. Golf balls are travelling too far. The flow-on effects mean golf courses have become too long, players are taking too long to make decisions, and golf’s economical and entertainment value is dropping. But don’t take my word for it …

“The main culprit in slow play is the golf ball and the distance the golf ball goes,” Jack Nicklaus said. “If we left equipment alone but changed the golf ball and played shorter golf courses, it would mean less maintenance cost, less cost to play the game, quicker play, less land, less fertiliser … less everything, which would make the game more economical.”

But it’s unlikely we’ll see practical changes in that department any time soon. So, back to rangefinders. Would they actually improve pace of play? Most tour players don’t think so.

“I’ve played at tournaments with lasers, and it slowed play down incredibly,” three-time major champion Padraig Harrington said.

And players already know – to the yard – how far they hit every club in their bag, so handing them such an accurate yardage would remove the doubt that leads to so much of golf’s entertainment value. Not to mention effectively killing the art of a caddy’s ability to calculate a yardage.

So perhaps the PGA Tour is better off looking at how to best utilise the 38 seconds players are taking to hit their shots. Portable cameras and microphones worn by players and caddies, as well as an increased use of Protracer, would significantly enhance golf’s entertainment value – as mentioned in this column last month. Or, if that’s not feasible, why not introduce a shot clock? Even better, why not reward fast players – as suggested by Geoff Ogilvy – with a timing “money list?”

But let’s imagine for a minute Rule 14-3b is abolished and rangefinders are allowed on Tour. You’d expect public sales to go through the roof. Suddenly every weekend hacker, of which I am one, would become obsessed with measuring their shots. Your four or five-hour round could quickly, or rather slowly, become a nightmarish six.

Even if the PGA Tour’s tests show that rangefinders do improve pace of play – and that improvement is likely to be minimal – is it really worth sacrificing the entertainment that comes from a player’s doubt? And what about the art of calculating yardages? Even if shots became ‘better’, they would become somewhat less impressive, don’t you think? There’s hardly a bigger issue in golf right now than pace of play, but rangefinders are not the answer.

“THE MAIN CULPRIT IN SLOW PLAY IS THE GOLF BALL AND THE DISTANCE THE GOLF BALL GOES” - JACK NICKLAUS