USGA Pace of Play Survey

[iacas]

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Pace-of-playUSGA

Please, everyone take that survey. Be honest.

Post here when you've done so. I'll post here after I take the survey if I have any extra notes.

Uhhh, okay, never mind. That was a ridiculously short survey.

I voted that I would pay 25% more.

[Golfingdad]

I voted that I would pay 25% more.

I voted that I would not pay more, but there is a caveat in there. I estimated that my average greens fees were in the $60-70 range.  There is at least one course around here that I used to play more often and that I could play for $45-50 on a weekend morning, that is so busy and painfully slow that I actively avoid it.

So one could say that I ALREADY pay 20-65% more for significantly improved pace of play.  But more often than not, I'm not stuck in a crawl on the courses I play and at the times I play so I see no reason to pay any more money than I already do. :)

[saevel25]

I I voted 15%.

[Fourputt]

I voted that I wouldn't play more, but that's because I haven't really had a pace issue in a couple of years now.  Being able to play on weekdays almost exclusively puts me in a bracket where pace isn't a factor.    Even on the few rounds that I've played on weekends, I haven't seen the pace issues that I used to have.  I don't know if course loading is less, or if it's just the different demographic region that I now live in.

[No Mulligans]

I voted I'd pay 10% more... 

Thinking this over 10% probably wouldn't work very well.  The courses I play are often pretty much full.  To be revenue neutral they could change the tee time intervals by about 1 minute if they charged 10% more.  I'm guessing that wouldn't do much for pace of play.

[ncarlsongolf]

I voted 10% more but surprisingly as I ranked what was important I found it was third on my list. Much more important to me to have good course conditions and well designed course!

[iacas]

I voted I'd pay 10% more... 

Thinking this over 10% probably wouldn't work very well.  The courses I play are often pretty much full.  To be revenue neutral they could change the tee time intervals by about 1 minute if they charged 10% more.  I'm guessing that wouldn't do much for pace of play.

If they don't sell all of their tee times now, but could sell more tee times if the course was known as getting players around in four hours (as opposed to six), then they could even charge less and still make more money.

Think about it… the only thing slow play really affects is not how many tee times you can put out, but how late into the day you can start people with the expectation that they'll finish.

Courses shouldn't lose 10% of the tee times. Let's say it gets light at 7am and dark at 8pm. Four-hour rounds must start by 4pm, and six-hour rounds must start by 2pm. That's about nine hours of tee times versus only seven hours of tee times. You're getting nearly 30% more tee times that can complete 18 holes if you have four-hour pace of play.

---

But I voted for 25% because those don't matter to me: what matters to me is my time. I'll pay extra to be home and able to spend time with the family or work (and thus earn more money) to shave two hours off my round, easily.

[InTheRough]

i voted that i wouldnt pay more for better pace of play--golf is already expensive enough as it is.  Also, improving pace of play isnt going to make me play more golf (price is an issue there) but bad pace of play will certainly lead me to play less golf

[mcanadiens]

It's not really wouldn't as much as it is can't. I spend every dollar in my golf budget. Paying more means golfing less.

[bmartin461]

Voted.  It would be worth 50% more for me.

[LagShaft]

I'm curious how many rounds your courses put through in a year.  I was talking to a grounds keeper at the municipal course that I typically play and was told that they had moved over 4,500 rounds through the course so far this year and would probably have over 6,500 rounds by Dec. 31st.  I really haven't noticed any problem with play time.  The course is very well kept and managed.   There is a 9 hole course 15 miles away that charges almost twice as much, mows their ruffs and has a no Tee time policy.  I've found it to get far more congested on the weekends. It's also changed hands in the last 5 years and I've heard that it's struggling to stay above board now.  So I don't know that price is nearly as key as proper management of groups. Our municipal course doesn't allow less than a threesome on weekends so I think that helps aswell.  (That's probably standard but I don't get out much)

Edited October 14, 2015 by LagShaft

[CoachB25]

I wouldn't pay more.  At the course I play as my home course, both public and members are very good about allowing others to play through.  Also, we have 27 holes and so, at the turn, players (members) can pick which "back 9" they want to play.  Per fees, I don't ever have to pay and so, I hope I didn't skew your poll too much.  I taught the course owner many years ago and was his favorite teacher.  So, every year, I get a membership for free.  I am one of the most blessed people on the face of the earth. 

[bkuehn1952]

I voted 10% more.  But then what does a better pace of play mean to the USGA, the consulting firm and course owners?  Instead of 5 hours we get around in 4:45?  No thanks.  And I sure would not be willing to pay more for that pace. 

My choices as to where to play are affected by perceived pace.  If I think it is going to be a very slow round, I won't even consider playing a course.  Less well-designed courses and ones a bit rough around the edges are my staple mainly because I don't want to spend an afternoon watching 4 goof balls in front of me slowly attempt to play golf.

 

 

 

[Fourputt]

I'm curious how many rounds your courses put through in a year.  I was talking to a grounds keeper at the municipal course that I typically play and was told that they had moved over 4,500 rounds through the course so far this year and would probably have over 6,500 rounds by Dec. 31st.  I really haven't noticed any problem with play time.  The course is very well kept and managed.   There is a 9 hole course 15 miles away that charges almost twice as much, mows their ruffs and has a no Tee time policy.  I've found it to get far more congested on the weekends. It's also changed hands in the last 5 years and I've heard that it's struggling to stay above board now.  So I don't know that price is nearly as key as proper management of groups. Our municipal course doesn't allow less than a threesome on weekends so I think that helps aswell.  (That's probably standard but I don't get out much)

6500 rounds in a year?  That's about a month on my former home course.  I don't see how they could stay solvent unless they charge $500 per round.

[saevel25]

6500 rounds in a year?  That's about a month on my former home course.  I don't see how they could stay solvent unless they charge $500 per round.

 

6500 a month seems a lot for just a month. 

In Ohio we average 12.5 hours of daylight for the golfing season. If you are able to complete a 4 hour round that leaves you about 50 groups a day that can play 18 holes if you use 10 minute tee times. If the courses were packed daily that would be 1500 per month. 

If you have a state like Florida which averages about 12 hours of sunlight for the whole year. If you have 10 minute tee times you can only fit 1440 of 18 hole rounds of golf in a month. 





 

[Jeremie Boop]

I voted 10% because, while I hate to wait, getting done golfing quicker isn't really a concern for me. Actually, as long as the wait isn't ridiculously long I just want a consistent pace regardless of fast or slow. However, if I get done too quickly I still want to golf more. Now on the course where they have all you can golf after 2 pm I'd pay maybe 25% more if I could play faster but that's because then I could get more holes in and still feel like I'm getting more for my money.

[newtogolf]

I voted I wouldn't pay more for a faster round but that's because most of my rounds are at private clubs and pace of play isn't an issue for me.  I ranked it third on my priority list, behind course upkeep and design.

[Kenny Lee]

I'm a member at a private club. The course is usually pretty empty, so pace of play is a non issue. Occasionally we will find ourselves behind a "slow group" (3.5-4 hours). We simply go around them, and come back and play the skipped hole at the end of our round.

We average 2:40 hrs to 3:10 hrs per 18 holes.

The extra $$ I spend is worth it. I like to play golf; not stand around and wait.