Jump to content
IGNORED

Is pace of play (or slow play) a real problem?


Jakester23
Note: This thread is 1952 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!

Pace of Play  

129 members have voted

  1. 1. Is slow play a real problem?

    • Yes
      101
    • No
      28


Recommended Posts

  • Administrator
49 minutes ago, CaseyD said:

The impatience of today’s society is killing past times.  And more times than not that impatience is driven by money. 

Uhmmmm…

No. Golf didn’t used to take five to six hours.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Ummmmmm no kidding the popularity of golf didn’t used to be near what it is today. 

 

Anyways, everyone is in a hurry. Speed up the game, speed up the game. No I’m good, I enjoy being out with my buddies or my wife when she golfs with me. It’s nice being out on a nice golf course enjoying a couple of beverages. What’s the rush. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
1 minute ago, CaseyD said:

Ummmmmm no kidding the popularity of golf didn’t used to be near what it is today.

You're right… it used to be more popular. 🙂 And before that, less popular.

But… when it was less popular, there were also significantly fewer courses.

1 minute ago, CaseyD said:

Anyways, everyone is in a hurry.

Not remotely true.

Nobody's on here trying to suggest everyone should play in three hours. But five and six hour rounds are ridiculous.

1 minute ago, CaseyD said:

What’s the rush?

What's it to you?

The "rush" is that some people would prefer to play golf, and since it's now a seven-hour adventure (five hours+ to play, driving to and from the course, warming up, etc.), their choices become "don't play" or "spend an entire day away from their family."

Golf shouldn't take more than about four hours. Four hours is plenty of time. If you like to spend six hours on the golf course… play 27 holes at a four-hour pace.

 

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Golf has never been as popular as it has been post 1997.  

 

Remove the very few markets of 6 hour rounds and the game doesn’t have an issue.  It’s not a pace of play issue it’s “pack the course for money” issue, when the course is setting tee times 7 mins apart and expecting every level of golfer to stick that.  Maybe it’s even a quantity of courses issue for a given population.   Yes your gonna find a slow group here or there. 

 

What’s it to you I don’t feel there is a pace of play issue?  You obviously feel like there is that’s fine. I’m just sayin enjoy life a little. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
6 minutes ago, CaseyD said:

Golf has never been as popular as it has been post 1997.

That sentence doesn't even make sense. Golf has never been as popular as it has been?

Golf was more popular fifteen years ago than it is now.

But whatever… that's hardly the point, and even if golf was more popular than ever, the number of courses, the number of rounds, the rounds played by player per year… etc. all matter.

6 minutes ago, CaseyD said:

Remove the very few markets of 6 hour rounds and the game doesn’t have an issue.

I disagree, and think that a five-hour round is still an "issue."

6 minutes ago, CaseyD said:

It’s not a pace of play issue it’s “pack the course for money” issue, when the course is setting tee times 7 mins apart and expecting every level of golfer to stick that.

You'd do well to stop speaking in absolutes.

I've been behind foursomes that, with nobody in front of them (or the group in front of them moving out of range within a few holes), will take five plus hours to play 18 holes.

6 minutes ago, CaseyD said:

What’s it to you I don’t feel there is a pace of play issue?  You obviously feel like there is that’s fine. I’m just sayin enjoy life a little. 

Again, for some people, it's literally a matter of getting to play golf or not. With a faster pace of play, those who want to spend six hours at the course can even play more golf.

People on a golf course can only generally move about as fast as the slowest group in front of them. If that's you, and you're "enjoying life" and taking your time, then that's a problem for perhaps 40+ people behind you. It's entitled and inconsiderate.

Again, nobody's asking for three-hour rounds.


These same things have been said by both sides for years now. Neither of us are bringing anything new to the discussion here.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So golf was more popular since 03 Han when tiger put it on the map in pretty much every household?  

 

I will assume you are much older than I am by all of your credentials you list.  So we can agree on what tournaments used to look like pre 97/ 98.  The sponsoring companies became bigger/ even younger fan based focused brands( I hope I’m not being too absolute saying Nike/ UA/ Adidas/ Monster/ Puma/ RedBull are focused on the younger crowd. Even Travis Mathew) Pre 97/98 golf was considered an old mans sport. Not saying that is true but as some say perception is reality. 

And you gave an example of what I agreed with on the slow groups so thanks for trying to make your point off the point I already conceded. There will always be the slow group here and there. 

 

Never said I played slow but I’m also not playing cart polo or hitting my ball as soon as yours leaves the club face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Played 18 holes today at a club that has two courses. One course was shut down for a tournament so they forced all of the rest of us onto the other course. 4 somes were stacked up at every hole. 4 and a half hours...golf shouldn’t take that long. It helped I played well but it sure felt like a long round. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
3 hours ago, CaseyD said:

So golf was more popular since 03 Han when tiger put it on the map in pretty much every household?

You've missed the point. Popularity is one measure, but it also matters:

  • how many golf courses are available
  • how many rounds those "golfers" play
3 hours ago, CaseyD said:

I will assume you are much older than I am by all of your credentials you list.

What about a "Best Young Teachers in America" listing implies that I'm "much older"? 😁

3 hours ago, CaseyD said:

Pre 97/98 golf was considered an old mans sport. Not saying that is true but as some say perception is reality.

What's that got to do with the price of beans?

Point remains: some people have to choose between being gone all day and not playing golf at all. And that's unfortunate. Faster play benefits everyone: if you have all day to play golf, play 27 or 36.

  • Upvote 1

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So do you only pick out what you want to see to argue?  I literally said it could be a quantity of available golf courses like 3 posts ago. I agree if you’re in a area that doesn’t have many courses or has a heavy population then it’s going to be an issue.  But that isn’t a pace of play issue. If you have a stacked course full of foursomes then your pace of play arguement has no bearing unless everyone is a low index golfer. Your group may be a scratch group but if the guys infront of you are all 20 cappers they may still be playing as fast as they can. 

 

We are mixing pace of play and quantity in the same discussion and that’s not apples to apples. 

 

Just like the guy that just posted 4 1/2 hours was too long for a round. His example wasn’t a pace of play issue. It was an available course issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

I’m not interested in talking about the popularity of golf. I keep trying to shut it down as it’s off topic and you keep bringing it back up. It’s off topic.

It is not an availability issue if the group playing slow rounds has nobody in front of them.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 hours ago, iacas said:

People on a golf course can only generally move about as fast as the slowest group in front of them. If that's you, and you're "enjoying life" and taking your time, then that's a problem for perhaps 40+ people behind you. It's entitled and inconsiderate.

@CaseyD This pretty much sums it up ok? Pretty solid statement that many, many if not the vast majority of golfers would agree. Pretty good statement considering it's an Amaretto evening.

:ping: G25 Driver Stiff :ping: G20 3W, 5W :ping: S55 4-W (aerotech steel fiber 110g shafts) :ping: Tour Wedges 50*, 54*, 58* :nike: Method Putter Floating clubs: :edel: 54* trapper wedge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

48 minutes ago, CaseyD said:

If you have a stacked course full of foursomes then your pace of play arguement has no bearing unless everyone is a low index golfer. 

I don’t think that’s necessarily true.  A high handicapper is not necessarily slow. I’m a high handicapper, and playing with two friends of similar ability will easily finish 18 holes in under 3 hours.

  • Like 1

Craig
What's in the :ogio: Silencer bag (on the :clicgear: cart)
Driver: :callaway: Razr Fit 10.5°  
5 Wood: :tmade: Burner  
Hybrid: :cobra: Baffler DWS 20°
Irons: :ping: G400 
Wedge: :ping: Glide 2.0 54° ES grind 
Putter: :heavyputter:  midweight CX2
:aimpoint:,  :bushnell: Tour V4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't play with very good players on very busy courses very often, but earlier in the year I did. My partner and I are high cappers and were paired with a father/son, both of whom were good with the son being a long hitter. 

On every par 5, the son was able to go for the green in two. This meant that while the rest of us had laid up on our second shot and would have been able clear that part of the fairway for the group behind us, we'd instead have to wait for the group in front to clear the green. That seemed to take forever.

The kid certainly wasn't the cause of the 5+ hr round. It's hard to say if the group ahead (who had a caddy) were playing slowly or waiting for those ahead of them. I think they simply packed in too many golfers. 

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

15 hours ago, iacas said:

You're right… it used to be more popular. 🙂 And before that, less popular.

But… when it was less popular, there were also significantly fewer courses.

Not remotely true.

Nobody's on here trying to suggest everyone should play in three hours. But five and six hour rounds are ridiculous.

What's it to you?

The "rush" is that some people would prefer to play golf, and since it's now a seven-hour adventure (five hours+ to play, driving to and from the course, warming up, etc.), their choices become "don't play" or "spend an entire day away from their family."

Golf shouldn't take more than about four hours. Four hours is plenty of time. If you like to spend six hours on the golf course… play 27 holes at a four-hour pace.

 

See now in the previous posts a bunch of you were saying 4 hour rounds are "slow" now you're saying 5-6 hours is slow. I would have never said a word if we were talking about 5-6 hour rounds. That's slow. I have problem when someone says 4 hrs. is slow. Oh and thanks for my picture 🤝

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So this is a very interesting discussion. What we know, the busyness of a course doesn’t contribute to slow play because regardless of skill level everyone should be playing at the same pace? (both of the above “facts” can be checked in previous posts) If some one could explain how a group who let’s say is a normal weekender group all shooting 90-92 is playing/ can play at the same speed as a decent group who are all shooting 80 or under I’m all ears. You’re talking on average 4.5 more shots per hole but that’s not slowing anyone down? Who knows maybe we just found out why you’re shooting in the 90s. Take your time on shots.  As stated above people going at a par 5 in two can definitely bunch a course up, doesn’t mean they are playing slow though.

If if a group of high handicappers is playing 18 in under 3 hours!?!? Then either you play on the worlds smallest golf course or you’re playing polo. 

And if as stated above one group is some how playing twice as slow as the rest of the course then play through. It should open right up once you get past them. We’ve all played through or have been played through at some point. What’s the big deal. 

But my pace of play shouldn’t be effected by someone who has a longer logistical drive to the course than I do.( again that was stated above) a persons choice of residence cannot be factored into pace of play concerns, sorry. I mean yea that sucks if you have a 45 min to an hour drive to and from the course but that’s not anyone’s fault.

What hasnt been dicussed is course design. Links style course will generally take longer than your typical square muni. But your typical square muni will generally end up stacking groups up at tee boxes due to the back and forth nature of the course layout. 

i don’t know if I still have one laying around but my “home course” is a links style course that used to have the minutes per hole listed. Like Hole 1= 7 min after Hole 2 you should have 15 min total playing time and so on. Even the scorecard put you at 4hrs 15 min. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


A lot goes into pace of play. The gap between tee times is key. If it takes most groups 8 minutes to play a hole (I know not all holes take the same amount of time) then we violate the first rule of operations (don't plan on 100% efficiency). Swings take almost no time. Walking time is low (a 6500 yard course should take 1 hr to walk). 

So pre-shot and waiting are the biggest issues. Figure 30 seconds pre-shot and 30 sec to get a club and plan. SO 120 shots give it 2 hrs. Now comes the rub. If we wait for every person to finish we get to 8 hrs. If it is just our cart partner then we get 4 hrs + the walk>> 5hrs.

So on the weekend set up the course with the par 5 long so that few people are tempted to go for it in 2. Set up the par 3 & 4 shorter so people hit shorter clubs in. 

But in the end it is our responsibility to not wait to plan our next shot and pull a club. Be ready to go when the person in front of you tees off or putts. And get people to their ball with the right club ASAP.

At the end of the day I don't think we care about the ACTUAL time on the weekend but rather the feeling of waiting.

 

<<Putting on fireproof undies>>

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
2 hours ago, TRUCKER said:

See now in the previous posts a bunch of you were saying 4 hour rounds are "slow" now you're saying 5-6 hours is slow. I would have never said a word if we were talking about 5-6 hour rounds. That's slow. I have problem when someone says 4 hrs. is slow. Oh and thanks for my picture 🤝

4 hours is slow to me, but I don’t think anyone has ever really said they are saying it’s slow in general, no.

If everyone played in 4 hours everywhere we probably wouldn’t have this discussion.

And @CaseyD, you can play just as quickly shooting 95 as a guy who shoots 75. Some of the fastest players I know don’t often break 90.

52 minutes ago, CaseyD said:

But my pace of play shouldn’t be effected by someone who has a longer logistical drive to the course than I do.( again that was stated above) 

No, it wasn’t stated above like as if you need to factor that in. Enough of the straw men dude.

Please use quotes.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1952 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!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • I would never do the extended warranty on the $50 slow cooker.  I also routinely reject the extended service plans on those toys we buy for the grand-kids.  I do consider them on higher cost items and will be more likely to get one if the product has a lot of "Electronic Tech" that is often the problem longer-term.  I also consider my intended length of ownership & usage.  If my thought is it would get replaced in 2-3 years then why bother but if I hope to use it for 10 years then more likely to get the extension. I did buy out a lease about a year ago.  Just prior to the lease end date the tablet locked up and would not function.  I got it repaired under the initial warranty and would not have bought it out if they had not been able to fix it since IMO once electronic issues start in a car they can be hard to track down & fix.  They did fix it but when I bought out the lease I paid up for the extended warranty the would cover electronic failures because my intent is to keep that car for another 8-10 years and I just do not trust the electronics to last.  Last week the touch screen went black and was unresponsive.  It reset on the 2nd time I restarted the car but that is exactly how the last malfunction started.  I fully expect to have a claim on that on repair under the extended warranty.  I do not recall the exact cost to fix last time since I did not pay it but I think it was @ $700-$800 and I suspect that will be higher next time.
    • Have you looked at Model Local Rule F-9 Relief from Tree Roots in or Close to Fairway?  You could extend this to cover exposed rocks.  The rule is recommended to be used only for areas relatively near the fairway, a player who hits a shot 20 yards in the woods doesn't really deserve relief.   Players can always take Unplayable Ball relief, they're not required to play it from a rock or a root.  Of course, they hate to take the penalty stroke too.
    • I agree with @klineka, you're clearly doing something right.  Its always going to be a bit of a guessing game if you don't have any scoring history.  On the other hand, understanding that it takes only 54 holes to establish an actual handicap, and they have about 6 weeks in which to play and post enough scores, I don't think its at all unreasonable to require them to have an official handicap before they become eligible for prizes.  I don't know how you structure the fees for the series of competitions, but if its possible they'll play with the group without being eligible for prizes, you could consider a way to let them do that without contributing to the prize pool.
    • I run tournaments and want to put in a local rule that allows relief from tree roots and rocks that are not loose impediments. We have some really terrible lies in some of our courses in my area and nobody is getting paid enough to break clubs. Let me know if you think the verbage for this rule makes sense. Local Rule Roots and Rocks You may move your ball from a tree root or buried rock one club length for free relief no closer to the hole. However you may not use this rule to get relief from a tree, bush, boulder, or other foliage hindering your swing. Your only option here is to play it as it lies or take an unplayable for a one stroke penalty.
    • Makes sense.  Like I said, I wouldn't have been upset at their original offer either, and based on the fine print it seems like they've held up their end of the deal.  
×
×
  • 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...