A Thread for Contrarian Takes


Well, one of the most memorable moments in golf the last couple years would have been much less exciting with a rangefinder…Spieth block right on 13 at The Open…but that is literally the only example I can think of.

In theory, the laser should speed up play. The main issue with speed is they are wayyyy to still while others are trying to readying for their shot/putt. It’s taboo to basically move if someone else is in their preshot routine.


Agree. Pace of play is a “major” issue in professional golf. Often bitched about but never really enforced, which basically means people don’t care about it that much. Therefore it wouldn’t be a big deal to allow a rangefinder for one year and see if pace of play improves enough to keep it. If it doesn’t, go back to not allowing it.


Yeah let me rephrase that. He doesn’t care what people think and he speaks his mind without regard for the outcome. Which I think golf needs more of. He shows and says what he truly feels and means.


My take

The PGA Tour events are too easy and builds in a huge systemic advantage for Europe in the Ryder Cup.

Ok, so most RC players play PGA Tour, but the Euros play a handful of ET events each year where scoring is generally harder and the style of golf more pragmatic. They have mostly grown up playing ET and almost all will have played a few full seasons in Europe.

-4 to make a cut and -24 to win is simply a brand of golf with very few penalties or risks, and is seen all too often in the states.


I’m not sure it will, if it does it’ll be a minute difference, they’re not out there just figuring out distances to a pin. I’m not against the idea though.


College kids can use lasers and they are slower than the grass growing under their feet.


Can be true, and it’s usually a function of overly-thorough/dramatic pre-shot routines.


Colin Sheehan (Yale golf coach) had a really interesting take on this on the fried egg podcast. Essentially he said the pressure of team golf and not wanting to leave a single shot out there especially on the greens slows them. Good listen


Not sure what’s worse - that, or the 70-year-old who hits it 160 off the tee lasering pins from 250.


Yeah, I think it’s the pre-shot routine and the way they have been brought up more than the team pressure, because those same guys are just as glacial in individual amateur comps.

Until there’s any realistic pace of play expectation or threat of repercussion for being slow, coaches are going to bring guys up from a very young age to be super slow, uh, I mean deliberate.


My buddy that lives in Columbus said he sees him in the grocery store all the time. Probably gets 22 items for the 15 item or less line and mulls over if he really wants the additional 7 items for like 15-20 minutes while others wait behind him…


This is one of my favorite things to point out. For all his “clutchiness” almost everyone forgets he made two bad bogeys there and a DiMarco chip nearly went in to win.


two bad fives*, Kyle.


Yeah and then hit three perfect shots in the playoff. I get the point but lets not forget that “clutchiness” also


Agreed on the Nantz take - he’s a timeless classic.

The measuring stick by which I rate modern day golf commentators is by seeing & hearing a call from the 1980’s and prior. A player could hole out from 270 for albatross and the pulseless commentator would muster no more than a verbal golf clap. Verne’s “Yes Sir!” at the '86 Masters was a far outlier in the data points of snooze-worthy calls.

Nantz is classy and has a velvet touch with just the right adjectives to describe the enormity of the moment.


Reading this post made me yearn for Peter Aliss



This has probably been mentioned here in some capacity but the ball/distance debate with Chamblee got me thinking about a very contrarian proposal… what if we stopped caring about distance entirely? What happens then and why is that so terrible?

This game is hard enough for 99.999999% of its participants so we need all the help we can get. Bring on your Double-Jailbreak-Super-TwistFace technology that I’ll still pump O.B. Does this mean the pros may hit it 350 and shoot 30 under. Maybe, but who cares? Distance is cool and birdies are fun.

Tell the architects to stop lengthening courses to 8,000 yards. Tell the USGA to fuck off with protecting par and just let the pros shred it. Oh but what about the record books? Stop clutching your pearls. Records are made to be broken and besides, I was told par is irrelevant.

But how do we compare greats across eras? A) You don’t because that’s dumb. But B) You could look at performance relative to the field. Not that hard.

What about a course not playing the same as it did back in the 50’s? Doesn’t matter. Sports evolve and the game is played differently. Football has the spread offense now and that would make Walter Camp shit his pants.

What about courses not strategically playing the same as the architect intended? Again, sports evolve. Also, I don’t give a damn about the intent of some guy who was born before the Model-T was invented. He was probably an asshole anyways.

But what about the short hitters? Sucks to suck, get better small fry. Hit the gym and go visit George Gankas. Only thing stopping you is your attitude.



I enjoyed that spicy take and think it should permanently take up a place in this ongoing discussion and I consider myself in the GCA crowed, although a moderate.

The pros matter least in this discussion as they are the overwhelming minority of participants in our great game.

I’ll also add, do you think Old Tom Morris and his contemporaries designed their links for themselves or the playing masses? I’d guess the masses.


I’ve been a member of this site for two days, and I already feel that this post will be hard to top. I had a good laugh and totally agree with points made. “Stop clutching your pearls” is a gem of a snarky comment that I will surely put into the starting rotation.


Really hoping you can get a couple bites from the GCA crowd on this take.