Players Try To Explain That (Pricey) Rangefinders Are Only Part Of Their Distance Measuring Process

/

We should all applaud the PGA Tour for testing out how distance measuring devices look and play at some of their "other tour" events.

But as someone who has followed the issue from the day the USGA mysteriously started advocating for another costly device, I've always been a bit amazed at the lack of statistical backing for these devices as pace enhancers. So again, we must have good players kindly explain how the devices are essentially a backup tool to them in real championship conditions. Or when they blow one into the next fairway.

Will Gray surveyed players at the Shell Houston Open and only Bryson DeChambeau saw a pace of play improvement by introducing rangefinders. The rest, including Jon Rahm, don't see any change coming. There was this from Justin Rose:

“I don’t think it’s going to make any difference to speed of play,” Rose said. “We don’t play ‘one number’ golf. We want to know what it is to the back edge of the green; we want to know the distance over a bunker. We want to know what the distance is to a certain slope.

“So it’s not as basic as, ‘I have 179 to the pin.’ You kind of make decisions out on the golf course based on what’s around the pin.”

Rose’s sentiment was echoed by multiple other players, who added that the utility of rangefinders will hinge on how players choose to use them.

I'm happy to wait out the experiment, but unless the PGA Tour is willing to subsidize the cost for juniors, advocating these devices means they will encourage young and aspiring golfers to believe they need such pricey devices. And just like that, the entry barrier to golf that any sane individual says we must break down, become $300 more expensive.

I mean, that's money they could use to subscribe to PGA Tour Live! For seven years!

But back to the issue of pace, Brad Fritsch added this on Twitter with some fun back and forth after the initial Tweet: