Fivesomes on a Weekend Morning

[Missouri Swede]

18 minutes ago, dagolfer18 said:

I hate the idea of fivesomes, slow or fast.

If they’re fast, why would it bother you?

[dagolfer18]

1 minute ago, Missouri Swede said:

If they’re fast, why would it bother you?

Well, there is a sign in our pro shop that says no fivesomes. And it’s just proper etiquette. 

[Bonvivant]

2 hours ago, David in FL said:

Kill me now

Played as a 5 today.  We hit the ball a lot of times and finished in 3:25.  We played behind a 3-some that went off 15 minutes ahead of us.  We caught them on 3 and they picked up the pace just enough so we didn’t run over them.  

 

Now this is the kind of golf I like! No need to play fast, just ready golf and reasonable shot times (15-30 seconds).

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, dagolfer18 said:

Well, there is a sign in our pro shop that says no fivesomes. And it’s just proper etiquette. 

Why?

If a 5-some is faster than a 4-some, which one is the problem...?

[mcanadiens]

7 hours ago, David in FL said:

Why?

If a 5-some is faster than a 4-some, which one is the problem...?

The problem is that allowing 5-somes is bad course policy. That one super-fast 5-some may not be a problem itself, but then you'll have all the other 5-somes that will jam stuff up.

 

[Double Mocha Man]

15 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

The problem is that allowing 5-somes is bad course policy. That one super-fast 5-some may not be a problem itself, but then you'll have all the other 5-somes that will jam stuff up.

 

Fivesomes are ungainly and unsightly, especially if they are wearing shirts without collars.

[David in FL]

23 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

The problem is that allowing 5-somes is bad course policy. That one super-fast 5-some may not be a problem itself, but then you'll have all the other 5-somes that will jam stuff up.

 

The problem arises, not in allowing 5-somes, but in not actively managing the pace of play of all groups.  Regardless of number...

 

[mcanadiens]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

actively managing the pace of play

The next time I see "active management of pace of play" will be the first time.

Of course, a difference that probably just exists between the types of courses I play and the ones you do.

[djake]

57 minutes ago, David in FL said:

The problem arises, not in allowing 5-somes, but in not actively managing the pace of play of all groups.  Regardless of number...

 

You are correct. 

5-somes are only an issue if they do not maintain pace of play.  That is no different then any size group on the course.  Either you can maintain pace of play or let people go thru.

Case in point:  I played a 4-some at Atlantic Dunes this summer.  We played 18 in 4 hours and 15 minutes while letting 3 groups go thru.  All 3 groups were 2-somes which seamed odd they allowed so many 2-somes out.  But it was a horribly hot and humid day.

The Ranger actually made a point of coming up to us and thanking us for letting people play thru.  

[David in FL]

19 minutes ago, djake said:

You are correct. 

5-somes are only an issue if they do not maintain pace of play.  That is no different then any size group on the course.  Either you can maintain pace of play or let people go thru.

Case in point:  I played a 4-some at Atlantic Dunes this summer.  We played 18 in 4 hours and 15 minutes while letting 3 groups go thru.  All 3 groups were 2-somes which seamed odd they allowed so many 2-somes out.  But it was a horribly hot and humid day.

The Ranger actually made a point of coming up to us and thanking us for letting people play thru.  

Good for you.  

I’m curious.  Would you have been as quick to let a 5-some through?

[billchao]

2 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

The problem is that allowing 5-somes is bad course policy. That one super-fast 5-some may not be a problem itself, but then you'll have all the other 5-somes that will jam stuff up.

That almost has nothing to do with the amount of people in the group as it does the makeup of said group.

I've played in foursomes that were held up by twosomes. Slow players will play slowly, regardless of the number of people they are paired with.

[djake]

27 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Good for you.  

I’m curious.  Would you have been as quick to let a 5-some through?

Should have been theoretically.

If they had caught us and were pushing us then letting any group thru should not have slowed us down, 2-some or 5-some.  

Letting a group go thru does not really slow you down if you do it right.  We would tee off while the group behind finished putting and then let them tee off.  All of us would go down the fairway and we would wait while the groups finished out the hole.  This works great on a Par 3.  Par 4 we would either tee off and wait until they hit their 2nd shot and then leave the tee box or just relax and tee off after they were out of range.

There is hardly any extra time added to a round by letting a faster group go thru and it is so much less stressful for me to not have that pressure of a faster group pushing.

 

[mcanadiens]

4 minutes ago, billchao said:

That almost has nothing to do with the amount of people in the group as it does the makeup of said group.

I've played in foursomes that were held up by twosomes. Slow players will play slowly, regardless of the number of people they are paired with.

Knowing that you can't weed out slow players in a public-course setting, isn't it obvious that you increase the likelihood of having slow players in a group with five per group instead of four or less?

I imagine that we all have examples that stand out of that brutally-slow twosome that did it to us one day. How often does that really happen?

Personally, I've died behind fivesomes far more often than I did behind a slow pair.

 

[David in FL]

34 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Knowing that you can't weed out slow players in a public-course setting, isn't it obvious that you increase the likelihood of having slow players in a group with five per group instead of four or less?

I imagine that we all have examples that stand out of that brutally-slow twosome that did it to us one day. How often does that really happen?

Personally, I've died behind fivesomes far more often than I did behind a slow pair.

 

I’ve died behind slow 4-somes far more often than behind slow 5-somes.  Certainly there are exceptions, but in my experience, 5-somes, when they are allowed, tend to be more aware of their pace and work to ensure that they don’t abuse and potentially lose the privilege.

But again, it lies with the course to manage it.  A course that simply allows anyone to do as they please deserves what it gets.  As do those that choose to frequent that course.

[Yukari]

On 9/25/2019 at 10:38 AM, Bucki1968 said:

We allow some fivesomes to play early on the weekends and they usually move pretty quick. I get aggravated when they give me the "we played in 4 hours" crap when everyone else is on a 3:30 pace. I hate the whole "four hours for 18 holes crap". For some reason (in scotland) they can get around in 3:30 or usually less walking. 

+1.

It's not how much time you take to play 18 holes.  The question should be "are you holding anyone up?"

Most places we play, Marshal's don't do squat even if a foursome is out of position as long as they are "within the time limit" - i.e., 4-1/2 hour round for 18 holes.

If they are 1-1/2 holes behind the group in front, they should pick up pace to keep up!  I don't care if they are playing 4 hour pace.  If they are holding up the groups behind and are more than a hole behind from the group in front, pick up pace!

Rant over.  Just my 2 cents!

On 9/25/2019 at 12:17 PM, Patch said:

It seems like I am seeing more 5-6 somes on courses these days. Usually a 3 cart affair.

Our two local courses will allow it. I think for them, it's a revenue thing. Slow player's green fees help pay the bills too. 

...

No.  In the long run, they have a negative impact on their revenue.

[billchao]

1 hour ago, djake said:

Letting a group go thru does not really slow you down if you do it right.  We would tee off while the group behind finished putting and then let them tee off.  All of us would go down the fairway and we would wait while the groups finished out the hole.

That's the right way to do it, IMO.

@Vinsk and I played through two groups at his course. The first group was still teeing off when we reached the tee so they let us tee off, too. Pretty sure they were still looking for their tee shots by the time we finished the hole. The second group waved us through from the fairway and we both ended hitting our shots in the woods so we decided to skip the hole so we didn't hold them up.

59 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Knowing that you can't weed out slow players in a public-course setting, isn't it obvious that you increase the likelihood of having slow players in a group with five per group instead of four or less?

No? You still have the same number of golfers so the number of slow golfers on the course remains the same.

I guess statistically you're increasing the likelihood of a slow golfer being in a group by adding a 5th member, but how is pace actually affected playing behind one group of five golfers, one being slow, versus playing behind two groups of two and three with the slow golfer in one of them?

I think it's more of a perception issue than anything else. If you play behind a slow fivesome, you blame the grouping. If you play behind a slow threesome, you blame the golfers.

31 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Certainly there are exceptions, but in my experience, 5-somes, when they are allowed, tend to be more aware of their pace and work to ensure that they don’t abuse and potentially lose the privilege.

I think this is a factor to consider. Members in a fivesome should know their grouping is abnormal and be conscious of it.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, billchao said:

No? You still have the same number of golfers so the number of slow golfers on the course remains the same.

I guess statistically you're increasing the likelihood of a slow golfer being in a group by adding a 5th member, but how is pace actually affected playing behind one group of five golfers, one being slow, versus playing behind two groups of two and three with the slow golfer in one of them?

Playing devil's advocate, a slow player in a group with four other players will make that group slower overall than the same slow player in a group with one other person. (And no, I'm not talking about it in terms of percentages, which would be stupid here.)

The twosome, even with a slow player, they'll generally keep up a reasonable pace. Add a slow player as a fifth, though, and that'll bog that group down a good bit more, as four other people are now being slowed down to accommodate that guy.

This assumes the other players don't almost just ignore the slow player, regularly play out of turn while he's looking over his putt from his fifth angle, etc.

[jetsknicks1]

3 hours ago, David in FL said:

The problem arises, not in allowing 5-somes, but in not actively managing the pace of play of all groups.  Regardless of number...

 

^^^^this. A bit off topic but the biggest problem I see when it comes to pace of play isn’t the golfers but the Starters & rangers.