Pace of play scenario

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Depends on the how the word "cumulative" is being used, I think.  I agree each group does not lose the sum of the the time each group ahead of them spends getting played through. But I also agree that each group loses more than just the time spent when they are getting played through.  The amount is somewhere in between, which I've been describing using the word "cumulative". Which I think is correct because the definition is, "Formed by the accumulation of successive parts or elements" - i.e., not necessarily equal parts or elements.

Connotatively I think many would take it to mean 5+5+5+5+5 (in the context of this thread).

And yes, as I said, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Agreed.

Yeah.  It's probably something more like 5-3-3-2-3-4-3  and a lot depends on the success of shots made by the group playing through, as well as any other variables encountered by the intervening groups.

Other considerations are whether there is a particular hole or group of holes on the course which typically create a backup or bottleneck.  Long par 3 holes, short par 4's and reachable par 5's create backups with certain groups or types of players, and trying to play through on a stretch with such a natural backup can make the problem even worse.  If I'm waiting back of the tee of a par 3 hole with the group ahead of me on the tee and another group putting, I'm not about to let cda77 and his buddy play through while we sit around for another 6 or 7 minutes.  We could sit there all day long and never see the time when someone wasn't waiting behind us.

Very often after a bottleneck like that, the pace will take off.  Suddenly after a 15 minute wait, you have to struggle to keep up.  That isn't a time when I"m going to worry a lot about letting anyone play through, when my main focus is trying to maintain my place on the course.

Originally Posted by Lihu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Because selling one green fee beats selling no green fees if there is an open tee time.  It's not like a properly managed course would squeeze a single player into a full tee sheet, but if there is an open reservation which hasn't been filled, whether due to a cancellation or for any other reason, then it makes sense to get something for it if a walk-on wants to deal with the delay.  As a starter, I would always tell the player what the situation was, that the course was full in front of him and that he wouldn't be able to play through anyone, and if he chose to play anyway, we were fine with it.  I don't see anything wrong with it - his money is as good as anyone else's.

Naturally, I would always try to hook him up with a short group, but that wasn't always possible.  I'm not going to deny him the opportunity to play just because he has the bad luck to be a single on a Saturday.

I think this is location dependent. Here in So. Cal. it is pretty easy to fill at least a twosome or threesome. It is pretty rare around here for a single to go out on a busy day.

I think that it's more situation dependent than location.  A busy course is a busy course, regardless of location, and you can't send out a twosome if you only have one player on the waiting list when the opening comes up.  The course where I worked had a reputation of being hard to get on during most mornings, so we didn't often get a lot of walk-on players.  I might have a player come up to the window and ask, I'd tell him the situation and put his name on a list.  If another player walked up, I'd do the same, and if a slot for more than one player opened up, I'd put them both out together.  If a foursome turned into a threesome, I'd put out the top guy on the list out with the three.  If a foursome then cancelled creating a full open tee time, the next player or players on the list get that slot, but it's purely random chance that dictates how many might be waiting.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Depends on the how the word "cumulative" is being used, I think.  I agree each group does not lose the sum of the the time each group ahead of them spends getting played through. But I also agree that each group loses more than just the time spent when they are getting played through.  The amount is somewhere in between, which I've been describing using the word "cumulative". Which I think is correct because the definition is, "Formed by the accumulation of successive parts or elements" - i.e., not necessarily equal parts or elements.

Connotatively I think many would take it to mean 5+5+5+5+5 (in the context of this thread).

And yes, as I said, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Agreed.

Yeah.  It's probably something more like 5-3-3-2-3-4-3  ...

Yep, those are the exact numbers I came up with as well. :-)