Jump to content
IGNORED

USGA Pace of Play Survey


Note: This thread is 2115 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by LagShaft
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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. 





 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 2115 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • Day 37 (02 Aug 21) - Wedge work in the backyard "rough" today, its been raining enough that I have not been able to cut the grass so its anywhere from 2" to 6" high in places.  This makes for interesting work on controlling the ball flight, but given how often I tend to be left or right of the green in the taller stuff, it makes for good practice.  I can practice up to 30yds in the backyard and stretch that to 55-60 if I "borrow" the neighbors yard.  Worked exclusively with the Ping Eye 2 (50.5, 57.5) and Eye 2+(53.5) wedges.  Fought being flippy handsy by purposely slowing down and letting the legs lead the torso back and also starting the downswing.  
    • Yesterday I carded a 74 on Pinehurst #5. 37 a side, 2 birdies, 4 bogeys.  White tees, not long at 6178 yards.  What felt good about the round was using my newly acquired TS2 17* hybrid with one of my favorite shafts a Fujikura Atmos TS 8 Stiff, Blue.  It felt great! Today I couldn’t wait to again put the Hybrid into play on Pinehurst #2!  It played well again today especially into Par5’s.  Played them -2 (2 pars, 2 birdies!).  It was a good day again, played White tees at 6307 yards, shot 39/37.  12 Fairways, 10 GIR’s and only 27 putts. Today was round 142 for the year. (don’t hate me) 😀
    • My layman common sense thought about this is you spend all those swings grooving an open face it's gonna be helluva hard to get face closed assuming you've grooved the rotation bit.
    • At the moment I turn my hips by rotating my pelvis clockwise, but would it be better to rotate your hips by lowering your left knee, causing the right hip to rotate backwords?   Or is this an inferior method to using your pelvis to rotate your hips?   Reason I ask is because when I use my pelvis I often experience reverse pivot of my upper spine at the end of the backswing, because my pelvis isn't rotating straight across when I reach the end of the backswing, I'm shifting it which is putting it out of line, causing the upper spine to go out of line  
    • Wisconsin Trip Composite Course Hole #1 - Sand Valley  This was the best starting hole of the four courses. SV #1 is a drivable par 4 for some, but one were driver can give you an easy pitch or a putt for eagle, but also put you in a really nasty spot. A 3-wood off the tee leaves you with a difficult 2nd short shot to the green due to the green complex. I really like this hole.  Hole #2 - Mammoth Dunes A solid par 4 with a wide landing area off the tee, but a bunker in the fairway to challenge the direct angle to the green. I think LLB #2 is just a bad hole. Sand Valley #2 is just not enjoyable because of how penalizing it is to miss the green anywhere but short.  Hole #3 - Sand Valley I like this par 3, it has a lot of variety in pin positions. If the pin is left, you can challenge it or end up in a very nasty lie left or bail out right. This was close with MD #3, a good par 5 where you can challenge the hole on the left to cut some distance off your 2nd shot.  Hole #4 - Sand Valley An OK par 5, but its really that the other holes were not as strong as this one. They were all par 3's, but non of them were all that interesting.  Hole #5 - Sand Valley This is a really good downhill par 3. It's not a long par 3, and the green his huge, but with a lot of contour. The wind can swirl a bit making the shot selection difficult. I like the view and challenge of this par 3. Hole #6 - Lawsonia  A nice long par 4 with a difficult 2nd down hill, to a green with a false front. I like this hole, a solid straight forward par 4. I think if the tees at Sand Valley allowed you to see the entire fairway to the left, it would take this spot.  Hole #7 - Sand Valley This might be a controversial pick for some, but I liked this par 5. You do have to check the yardages, but you either challenge the hole with a driver, and have a view of the green where you can challenge carrying the long bunker, or you can lay back off the tee and then play out to the right for your 2nd shot. It is a hole that you need to play once to realize how far right you can go.  Hole #8 - Sand Valley  A par 3 up the hill, that is protected left and short. The green has some big contours. It's a nice difficult short par 3.  Hole #9 - Lawsonia  This is a nice par 5, where you actually get to see the hole from the tee box. You have to challenge the hole on the right to have a shot of getting near the green in two, but with it being a dog leg right, there is plenty of landing area off the tee.  Hole #10 - Mammoth Dunes This was a tough decision between MD and SV. I went with MD because I liked the challenge of this short par 4 that has a tricky 2nd shot to the green. You can challenge the green off the tee, but you will be left with a tough short game shot. If you lay back, then the approach shot is also difficult. SV is a good par 5 that is reachable in two, but for me the drive is not interesting. Honestly, this is close to a toss up for me.  Hole #11 - Lawsonia This is just a solid par 5. With a good tee shot, you have a great chance at going at this green in two, which is large, but protected by three bunkers.  Hole #12 - Sand Valley I really like this par 5. It's a split fairway par 5, where the landing area for most will be a wide area. You just have to miss the two trees that split the fairway. The fairway to the left is elevated giving you a great look of the hole. If you have the distance, you can challenge the gap between the two bunkers that constrict the fairway where they meet up. There is a nice bank to the left of the green that funnels shots back to the green.  Hole #13 - Lawsonia I like this par 5 because if you hit a great 2nd shot you can reach the green in two, or come up just short for an easy pitch. If you miss hit the 2nd shot you will hit a big bank and funnel back down into a small valley about 80-120 yards short of the green. Then you will have a tricky 3rd shot. A good challenging longer par 5.  Hole #14 - Mammoth Dunes This is a good short par 4, with a good drive you can challenge the front of the green. The bunker blocks the line to the green and forces a good strike. You can lay up short left which leaves you with a more blind shot to the green, but a flat lie. You can lay up right, have a clear look at the green, but maybe get a more challenging lie for your 2nd shot. The green is large, with a slight backstop to the left to catch errant shots.   Hole #15 - Lawsonia I like this par 4, it requires a good drive to have a short iron into a small green that is tucked back to the right. It is a good mix of hitting a good line off the tee to get a good angle to a smaller green. A nice challenging shorter par 4.  Hole #16 - Sand Valley I really like this par 4. The bunker challenges you off the tee to hit a great shot to have a mid iron into the green. If you clear the bunker, there is a big slope the rewards you with extra yardage. You have a line left of the bunker that is super aggressive. You can lay back right, but have a long iron into the green. The green is pretty large with bail out areas left and slightly long left. A bunker protects the front right. Any shot that ends up short is a very tricky pitch shot. Just a really challenging, and rewarding par 4.  Hole #17 - Mammoth  Mostly, I went with Mammoth because it was a par 4, and it was the better par 4 over Lawsonia. This was probably the weakest collection of holes over the four courses. SV par 3 was interesting at first, but I wish you could see the green. LLB par 3 is just a generic mid range par 3.  Hole #18 - Sand Valley If it wasn't for SV having one of the best finishing holes I've played in a long time, this would be extremely hard to pick. At SV, the finishing hole is a visually stunning par 5 up the hill. You have to navigate bunkers in the middle of the fairway, and bunkers that encroach on the right and left side. You can lay back to a wider landing area, or hit driver to make this a reachable par 5. The 2nd shot is tricky with a boomerang shaped green that lets you funnel a cut off some slopes. Right is a very difficult bunker shot. Just enough risk to make you think about going for it in two. Just a fantastic finishing hole.  Sand Valley - 9, Mammoth - 4, Lawsonia - 5, LLB - 0 Overall, Sand Valley took half of the holes for me. Lawsonia came in 2nd, but because the last 10 golf holes are very strong contenders. LLB didn't get picked, mostly because a lot of their holes were just OK to golf, but their very good holes got out shined by the other courses.   
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. ercxi
      ercxi
      (33 years old)
    2. Garea51
      Garea51
      (70 years old)
    3. iamwardicus
      iamwardicus
      (37 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...