Is pace of play *actually* hurting the game?

[kevin81002]

The more I read this thread, the less I think pace of play is 'hurting the game'. :/ Privilege and elitism seem more the problem.

Some might do well to rent a set of lefties and go humble themselves a round or two with some others out there just trying to enjoy the day and maybe have a chance at 100. Pass on some knowledge on how to fix a ball mark, replace divots, and let others play through while you're at it. The good game of golf might be better for it.

I borrowed a lefty set from a friend years ago. I had an absolute blast and probably only hit 4 solid shots all day.

 

[DG_1234]

. You tell people that they can't play a regular course until they're good enough, and they won't even bother with the range or exec courses. They just won't play at all.

If someone does not want to respect the game, to take a bit of time to learn some skills and etiquette, maybe they don't deserve to play, haven't earned it ?
In this thread I've mentioned Trevino's comments a couple of times, and others have written about the policy of some Euro Sates requiring certification (before being allowed access to a full length course), so whether you like it or not, some do have the perspective that the game deserves a minimum level of respect.

 

[DG_1234]

i'd rather buy a new driver :banana:

go for it !

 

[rallo]

others have written about the policy of some Euro Sates requiring certification (before being allowed access to a full length course), so whether you like it or not, some do have the perspective that the game deserves a minimum level of respect.

I think there is something to this, but I don't think that it should only apply to the beginner.

For instance, it would appear that Sergio wasn't required to take this course.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[rollin]

For a regulation length golf course "reasonable control of the golf ball" is the skill level to strike a 130 to 150 yard consistently straight shot, and the ability to routinely hit a green from inside 100 yards.
There are some exceptions, but for the most part skill level and etiquette mirror each other.
.

firstly...skill level and etiquette are not reflective. One has nothing to do with the other. A huge amount of better players can be human rain delays not to mention lacking in many other forms of etiquette.
What I do think is a bit more fair to say......is that avid participants of the game do (by default) through time learn of etiquette. So it stands to reason experience playing the game generally means the player has better etiquette vs one newer to the game. But thats not a skill thing so much as it simply experience vs an honest ignorance. Whats far worse than a newer poorer ability and somewhat ignorant player holding things up is actually the good experienced player doing the same. He/she is the one who should know better and yet they still are a problem.

I get what suggesting about ability and just when one should or shouldnt play a full course. When i first dabbled in golf I knew nothing at all of pace nor its issues nor did i know all that much about the game.
But it was just simple common sense that i did not want to step foot on the course till i at least was able to hit some golf balls well enough. No one told me this , I simply just kind of figured it. It just made sense to me.
But that being said your asking "too much". I dont care what yardage number you want to place on it. Your asking for one to hit consistently stright and then also routinely hit greens from inside 100.
Regardless of the distances you mention, that is one heck of a tall order. Most any newbie could potentially take years to do what you ask. heck im playing for decades , have had numerous lessons and infinity amount of practice and a whole lot of golf and i still cant hit 140 yrd shots straight "consistently" nor routinely always hit greens form lest say 90 yrds. Golf doesnt come that easy for very many people. Even knowing how to do what you ask and having the ability to do it and have done it doesnt mean we can do it consistently. Hence why there are 6 cappers, 12 appers, 17 cappers and 24 cappers. The biggest difference is the success vs failure ratio. Not so much the ability but most often its the ability to do it consistently. thats two different things and the later being one in which many many people struggle with for many yars and even a lifetime of golf. Consistency in golf is not at all always obtainable even to the modest level your suggesting. Golf is simply too hard for too many people and dosnt come nearly as easy as it has for some people. Your asking way too much and what your asking would be far more damaging to golf participation than pace is. Simply put you wouldnt have enough pplayers to even support half the public courses that exist now.

i dont think what you suggesting is elitism because i do get there is something to be said for being able to play the game a little bit to some degree. So not elitism but perhaps better said is unreasonable and simply not practical. Its asking far too much which may not even be obtainable for many people for a very long time if ever.

 

[kevin81002]

If someone does not want to respect the game, to take a bit of time to learn some skills and etiquette, maybe they don't deserve to play, haven't earned it ?
In this thread I've mentioned Trevino's comments a couple of times, and others have written about the policy of some Euro Sates requiring certification (before being allowed access to a full length course), so whether you like it or not, some do have the perspective that the game deserves a minimum level of respect.

Oh I understand that there are some that share that perspective. And as far as I'm concerned, that's what private country clubs are for. They can defer that elitist thought process to those elite establishments. This won't fly in the public establishments. The closes I've seen to this is some courses won't allow people to play the back tees without permission from the pro shop. While I agree with limiting access to play from a distance and difficulty level that 99% of us have no business playing from, I don't agree and never will agree with not allowing someone to play at all without proof of ability. It's a recreational sport with a handicapping system set up for people of all skill levels. ALL skill levels. Not just golf's elite.

 

[DG_1234]

For instance, it would appear that Sergio wasn't required to take this course.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I am 100% down with Sergio being suspended from the Tour for a year. And if any or all golf course (s) choose to deny him access, I am fine with that too. My guess is that if he went without golf for a year he would come back having really leaned something, and be a better man for it.

 

[PhillyV]

For a regulation length golf course "reasonable control of the golf ball" is the skill level to strike a 130 to 150 yard consistently straight shot, and the ability to routinely hit a green from inside 100 yards.
There are some exceptions, but for the most part skill level and etiquette mirror each other.
Tour players have always complained about one thing or another.

not trying to attack here but I think your just a tad off here. Hitting a shot consistently straight has very little to do with slow or fast pace. Getting to your ball while someone else is hitting, having a club selected and being ready when its your turn does, no matter where the shot ends up. Especially if you are riding. Slow play is caused by people not being willing to or simply not knowing how to play ready golf.

 

[radiman]

not trying to attack here but I think your just a tad off here. Hitting a shot consistently straight has very little to do with slow or fast pace. Getting to your ball while someone else is hitting, having a club selected and being ready when its your turn does, no matter where the shot ends up. Especially if you are riding. Slow play is caused by people not being willing to or simply not knowing how to play ready golf.

I will add that I know a few golfers who can shoot lights out who are slow as can be. They can pass the ability test proposed no problem, but they are some of the slowest golfers I have ever played with.

 

[rollin]

You know whats funny or better yet perhaps just plain ridiculous in a way?
Pace problem talk has gone on for many many years almost constantly. Almost everyone always has all the reasons and almost everyone knows all the answers. People in the industry, course owners, organizations, all us people who play the game, etc,etc.... We all know of it, we all seem to know why it happens and what to do about it. And yet still we have the same problem for all those many years.

Something is very wrong with that picture.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

You know whats funny or better yet perhaps just plain ridiculous in a way?
Pace problem talk has gone on for many many years almost constantly. Almost everyone always has all the reasons and almost everyone knows all the answers. People in the industry, course owners, organizations, all us people who play the game, etc,etc.... We all know of it, we all seem to know why it happens and what to do about it. And yet still we have the same problem for all those many years.

Something is very wrong with that picture.

Not a puzzle at all.

Nobody has the ability and the will to make slow players play faster.

You can break the "causes" down into as many factors as you like. But in most situations the pace of 100+ people on a golf course is determined by the slowest individual and nobody is willing to make him speed up. You can leave that guy to do his thing and address all the other "factors" with zero effect on the pace behind that slowpoke.

Some people want to be on the golf course for 5+ hours. And there's nobody to keep them from doing just that.

 

[DG_1234]

We all know of it, we all seem to know why it happens and what to do about it. And yet still we have the same problem for all those many years.

Something is very wrong with that picture.

Consider that it is just about impossible to find someone willing to admit that they are a slow player.

 

[Space Bandito]

For a regulation length golf course "reasonable control of the golf ball" is the skill level to strike a 130 to 150 yard consistently straight shot, and the ability to routinely hit a green from inside 100 yards.
There are some exceptions, but for the most part skill level and etiquette mirror each other.
Tour players have always complained about one thing or another.

I secretly think your goal here is to have the course all to yourself. There are a lot of us here who can't do this "routinely." :beauty:

Consider that 20 years ago Tiger became a household name , made golf "cool", and that brought many newcomers to the game. Back then it was common for beginners to buy a new set of clubs and tee it up at their local full length golf course. However, most soon realized that trying to strike a golf ball is more frustrating than it is fun, so in the back of the garage went the clubs where they still sit today.
If the powers that be in the golf industry, such as the USGA, R&A, PGA Tour, Callaway, Ping, Taylor Made, Titleist etc... truly want to "grow the game" then they need to respect it by promoting golf technique and etiquette instruction.. The First Tee program is trying to do this, and that's great, but it's limited to only youngsters. For adults, I would liike to see the major equipment OEM's subsize PGA instructor lessons. For example, spend $1000 on Callaway (or Ping. TM, Cobra, Titleist) stuff and receive a $100 credit towards a lesson with a local PGA pro.Spend $2,000 and get a $200 lesson voucher etc...
The above would be more productive towards "growing the game" than what's been happening for the past 20 years, which is marketing/advertising telling consumers with .10 cent swings that the latest $500 driver has technology that will help help them. Sure some new tech might help reduce a guy's slice from 30 yards to 25 yards, but does that really matter ? If that consumer actually takes lessons and practices he/she can get the skills to strike nice straight shots, and will definitely then enjoy the game much, much more.

This is a novel idea, but the downside to it is that it would help make golf unsustainable for the OEMs and for the administrative powers. You can't expect Taylormade to say "Hey you! Like this new driver? Here's a little cash. Get some lessons, and maybe we'll talk about letting you have one."

 

[Space Bandito]

Haha, my above post was flagged as spam by the system!

 

[rollin]

Not a puzzle at all.

Nobody has the ability and the will to make slow players play faster.

You can break the "causes" down into as many factors as you like. But in most situations the pace of 100+ people on a golf course is determined by the slowest individual and nobody is willing to make him speed up. You can leave that guy to do his thing and address all the other "factors" with zero effect on the pace behind that slowpoke.

Some people want to be on the golf course for 5+ hours. And there's nobody to keep them from doing just that.

I suppose your correct about that. A speed bump is a speed bump unless its flattened out.

 

[GoldenBuff]

Slow play can be an issue for me. n = 1. I have limited free time and will choose not to play if I know rounds are going to be slower than a rate of 4 hours/18 holes. I have to be realistic. I also find myself watching less pro golf due, in part, to what feels to me like an overall slower pace of play. But is it a problem for golf overall? IDK.

The other side of pace of play is that one of my personal challenges with golfing is feeling rushed. I'm not likely to hit anyone's radar for slow play, but if I don't have a little bit of time to think through shots and compose my approach, golf stops being fun. Given that in the last few years I've had a struggle with anxiety, I'm clearly more sensitive. But there does need to be a balance, I think, where people can play golf versus minimize play time.

 

[DG_1234]

You can't expect Taylormade to say "Hey you! Like this new driver? Here's a little cash. Get some lessons, and maybe we'll talk about letting you have one."

My suggestion was for $1,000 spent on equipment, that TaylorMade (or Ping, Callaway, Titelist etc...) subsidize PGA instructors by offering a $100 voucher/credit towards a lesson with a local PGA instructor.

 

[Space Bandito]

My suggestion was for $1,000 spent on equipment, that TaylorMade (or Ping, Callaway, Titelist etc...) subsidize PGA instructors by offering a $100 voucher/credit towards a lesson with a local PGA instructor.

I know. I was being facetious.

 

[rollin]

Slow play can be an issue for me. n = 1. I have limited free time and will choose not to play if I know rounds are going to be slower than a rate of 4 hours/18 holes. I have to be realistic. I also find myself watching less pro golf due, in part, to what feels to me like an overall slower pace of play. But is it a problem for golf overall? IDK.

The other side of pace of play is that one of my personal challenges with golfing is feeling rushed. I'm not likely to hit anyone's radar for slow play, but if I don't have a little bit of time to think through shots and compose my approach, golf stops being fun. Given that in the last few years I've had a struggle with anxiety, I'm clearly more sensitive. But there does need to be a balance, I think, where people can play golf versus minimize play time.

almost evryones free time is limited to some degree. And so you wont play if you know the round would take 4:10 to finish. So I mean your barely able to scrape out the time for a 4 hr round if it goes just a few minutes more and wont or cant play if that happens. At the time frame your talking, that is not really all that much a golf slow play problem but is much more (in your case) a life gets in the way problem. Golf always did and always requires the resource of a good amount of disposable time. You do have the option of playing 9 fwiw, or how ever many holes you can. Often times one can find other holes on the back that can be close enough to the club house/parking lot where as they can leave early. Or (especially with a cart just leave whenever you want.

No doubt a 2.5 hr or longer 9 is just as much a big problem as a full 18 in 5hrs. But your describing simply a round that cannot go any longer than 4 in order to work for you. So then you dont have to play 18 in 410. You can play 9 in 2.05. or leave after 17 in the 4 hrs you wanted to or after 16 in less than 4hrs.

 

[ntanygd760]

The difference between a 6 and a half hour round and any round under 3 hours is night and day.

Anyone who honestly argues differently may need to reconsider. It literally feels like we would need to stop and return to the driving range to warm up in the middle of the round when it takes 45 minutes to tee up between holes.

You lose any sense rhythm or continuity. Your score invariably suffers. And honestly many individuals have quite the sport. Can you really dedicate 1 hour to travel, 1 hour to warmup, 6 hours to play and another hour to drive home? 8 hours? Is this a full time job or a recreational pursuit?

3 to 4 hours a round is plenty of time even for the professionals in a major. Who are we kidding, when anyone believes that a 6 hour round of golf doesn't hurt the sport in general, and your individual score and Handicap.

Any and every one is welcome to play. But we are not pitching a tent and spending the weekend on the 12 hole waiting to enjoy the perfect sunset.

M2C

Sent from my SM-G977U using Tapatalk

I have zero issues with 6 hour rounds............. as long as it is 36 holes

 

[ntanygd760]

It does for me... just space out tee times, but courses want every dime they can get. 5 min tee times create log jams and it absolutely affects my mental state, clearly impacts my score. I know it varies from person to person. 5 hour rounds of golf are very low on my totem poll.

Last week we had 3 groups on a par 5, plain stupid.

Let me know when you get 5, 6 or 7 on a par 5.

 

[GoldenBuff]

almost evryones free time is limited to some degree. And so you wont play if you know the round would take 4:10 to finish. So I mean your barely able to scrape out the time for a 4 hr round if it goes just a few minutes more and wont or cant play if that happens. At the time frame your talking, that is not really all that much a golf slow play problem but is much more (in your case) a life gets in the way problem. Golf always did and always requires the resource of a good amount of disposable time. You do have the option of playing 9 fwiw, or how ever many holes you can. Often times one can find other holes on the back that can be close enough to the club house/parking lot where as they can leave early. Or (especially with a cart just leave whenever you want.

No doubt a 2.5 hr or longer 9 is just as much a big problem as a full 18 in 5hrs. But your describing simply a round that cannot go any longer than 4 in order to work for you. So then you dont have to play 18 in 410. You can play 9 in 2.05. or leave after 17 in the 4 hrs you wanted to or after 16 in less than 4hrs.

I didn't mean to imply such time precision. I find that rounds where I play (lot of tourists) are generally near 4 hours or much longer, 5+ hours. That's the typical binary decision-making factor for me. I don't sweat a few minutes here or there. And yes, balancing golf with the rest of my life is part of my challenge. I fully admit that. That's why I said I wasn't sure if pace of play was hurting the game. But more consistent overall pace of play (thinking closer to 4 hours rounds) would be a nice incentive for my selfish interests. Just played 9 holes in 1:40. That was a perfect pace for me, not too fast, not too slow. Apparently I need to play more early afternoon rounds on weekdays!

 

[dduarte85]

Let me know when you get 5, 6 or 7 on a par 5.

The one hole where the log jam always comes has a difficult second shot, par 5... you need to hit 180 over a bunker directly in front of you, three bunkers to the left where it all slopes into a penalty area. Right is ok but isn’t completely safe either with trees blocking the green. When you’re getting a little frustrated waiting and waiting it becomes one of the hardest shots of my round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dduarte85]

I didn't mean to imply such time precision. I find that rounds where I play (lot of tourists) are generally near 4 hours or much longer, 5+ hours. That's the typical binary decision-making factor for me. I don't sweat a few minutes here or there. And yes, balancing golf with the rest of my life is part of my challenge. I fully admit that. That's why I said I wasn't sure if pace of play was hurting the game. But more consistent overall pace of play (thinking closer to 4 hours rounds) would be a nice incentive for my selfish interests. Just played 9 holes in 1:40. That was a perfect pace for me, not too fast, not too slow. Apparently I need to play more early afternoon rounds on weekdays!

I used to accept the mentality that golf took time then a friend who’s a member at a local club had me out as a guest and we played 18 holes in 3:15 walking and my life changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OldandStiff]

But your describing simply a round that cannot go any longer than 4 in order to work for you. So then you dont have to play 18 in 410. You can play 9 in 2.05. or leave after 17 in the 4 hrs you wanted to or after 16 in less than 4hrs.

I do this. Just because I try to get a round in doesn't mean I always succeed. If the course is really busy I'll take my own cart or walk in on my own if time restraints or life come calling. Not ideal, but as someone who's hurt right now and can't play at all, some golf is still way better than none.