Cross your fingers please...

[coolbreeze]

I've seen my fair share in the industry in my young career and I see where CB is coming from, but I must disagree with Bear Mountain on this one. There is other ways of speeding up play than to put an HC limit. Rangers do a lot when used effectively, and I think they may need to do a little more in this manner.

Handicaps can be helped or hurt with putting or shotmaking ability and no 2 20 handicappers are the same. I know that if I had one of my 20+ buddies' putting ability, I'd be plus. And I know someone who is a lower cap than me who can't putt the ball to save their life(generalization), but make up tons of strokes on through ballstriking the crap out of a course.

I agree with you Thainer and it won't happen this year, but the problem becomes when you are also a resort course as we are. The course is looking at all options but its pretty hard to kick a group of slow players off the course when they are paying $300 a night each to stay at the resort for a week and then $110 dollars a round. You can threaten them all you like, but with that much money being spent, not counting food and beverage, its pretty difficult for the marshalls to have any authority.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, if there was a course like this that everyone who wanted to play certain courses had to take, I think it would definatly help the pace of play that we all see, at almost every course.

 

[Tadashi70]

I'm sorry, I just have to respectfully disagree. I play to a 20, but I have never been accused of slowing down the pace of play. If a golfer is slow beyond reason, kick him off the course, but I will say this: some of the best golfers out there are slow as Christmas (Tiger Woods, Jim Furyk, Kevin Na).

Why are you making this about you? I mean you play to 20 and move you wouldn't be an issue. It's the 20 that takes 5-5.5 hours to play. It's the group that drives to each others shot instead of playing ready golf. It's the guy that can find his FW, greens. It's for the guy that knows nothing about the game and tees it up in the FW or hits ball after ball and marks down a 4.
A rules, etiquette and playability course would be great. Everyone would be on the same page unless they chose to ignore them. Plus we have luxuries others countries don't have....a million golf courses.

 

[JR]

I have played with amazing people who love the game of golf that will never break 120. I also live in an area where there are no driving ranges, there is only one course, and the only way to learn is to play on that course. So yes, I do think it is unreasonable. There are better ways to speed up play, such as rangers.

The OP said you have to break 30 for 6 holes with a par of 18. That is the same as having to break 90 on an 18-hole course with a par of 54. That is the same as having to break 120 on an 18-hole course with a par of 72.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a player to break 120 on an average US course, do you? Let them play par 3 courses until they can do that. I'd love to see this implemented and enforced here.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[JR]

It isn't about me, Freddie. Never has been, never will be. It is about high handicappers, a group of which I am a member.

Why are you making this about you? I mean you play to 20 and move you wouldn't be an issue. It's the 20 that takes 5-5.5 hours to play. It's the group that drives to each others shot instead of playing ready golf. It's the guy that can find his FW, greens. It's for the guy that knows nothing about the game and tees it up in the FW or hits ball after ball and marks down a 4.
A rules, etiquette and playability course would be great. Everyone would be on the same page unless they chose to ignore them. Plus we have luxuries others countries don't have....a million golf courses.

 

[coolbreeze]

I have played with amazing people who love the game of golf that will never break 120. I also live in an area where there are no driving ranges, there is only one course, and the only way to learn is to play on that course. So yes, I do think it is unreasonable. There are better ways to speed up play, such as rangers.

You are making this a very localized issue. Most places are not like rural Alabama, and your course I'm sure would be able to do whatever it wanted to do as a privatly owned club.

 

[JR]

Also, I have already stated that those who cannot keep pace shouldn't be on the course. I have also stated that etiquette and rules knowledge should be tested. The handicap restriction is literally the ONLY thing I have a problem with here.

I'm done guys, I have let my emotions on the matter get the best of me, making me incapable of rendering sound argument. I sound like a child, and that is not something I am fond of.

 

[Golf Ghost]

The OP said you have to break 30 for 6 holes with a par of 18. That is the same as having to break 90 on an 18-hole course with a par of 54. That is the same as having to break 120 on an 18-hole course with a par of 72.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a player to break 120 on an average US course, do you? Let them play par 3 courses until they can do that. I'd love to see this implemented and enforced here.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Once brooken down, this is not unreasonable at all. I know even my very first round of golf ever I broke 120.

I agree with you Thainer and it won't happen this year, but the problem becomes when you are also a resort course as we are. The course is looking at all options but its pretty hard to kick a group of slow players off the course when they are paying $300 a night each to stay at the resort for a week and then $110 dollars a round. You can threaten them all you like, but with that much money being spent, not counting food and beverage, its pretty difficult for the marshalls to have any authority.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, if there was a course like this that everyone who wanted to play certain courses had to take, I think it would definatly help the pace of play that we all see, at almost every course.

I know the argument would come up that it would limit people who pay good money, but would there even be the possibility of splitting it between the two courses?

I mean one day there is a handicap limit on one course, but not the other. Then it's the other way the next day. Being a resort, I doubt most people who come only play one of the two courses. So, it might work. That way the lower handicaper and faster paced members know the days they can play each course without having to worry about player hold up.

Just a thought I guess.

 

[TwoGlovesGarcia]

JR, if you get golf lessons from a pro in your area, where do those take place? I find it hard to believe that is done on the actual course.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[JR]

There are no pro's around here. Golf around here isn't anything like what it is in other areas, as CB pointed out.

JR, if you get golf lessons from a pro in your area, where do those take place? I find it hard to believe that is done on the actual course.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[CharlieMoy]

Just to touch back on Bear Mountain before really killing the side convo, I've done a few case studies on courses with similar issues and Bear Mountain has been mentioned numerous times in this discussion, but to me, for the market they're trying to be in, they need a redesign.

It's a great golf course from what I have seen and heard, but it's just too difficult for the market it targets. Doral really speaks to me in this situation because the course is fairly easy from what I recall, Jasper Park Lodge and Predator Ridge also stick out to me about being top notch resort specific golf courses.

The one thing that people forget though is that a properly designed resort golf course can become tougher for the more experienced player. There are golf courses that a less experienced golfer will shoot 90-100 on no matter the difficulty and almost seem easy and enjoyable to them, but when a single digit takes it on it can be tougher.

 

[Tadashi70]

It isn't about me, Freddie. Never has been, never will be. It is about high handicappers, a group of which I am a member.

Jr did you read my entire post? If you shoot 120 you have no business on a golf course. Lessons would be order. 120 ain't golf and I'm talking 120 on the regular not every once in a while. It nothing to do with the person and how nice they are, it's about the game. It's about learning about the game we live so much

 

[JR]

Jr did you read my entire post? If you shoot 120 you have no business on a golf course. Lessons would be order. 120 ain't golf and I'm talking 120 on the regular not every once in a while. It nothing to do with the person and how nice they are, it's about the game. It's about learning about the game we live so much

Yeah man, I read your post, and I will limit myself to saying that I simply disagree. I love the game, I really do, and I have certain opinions about the game that you will never change in me. This is one of those.Like I said guys, I am far too emotionally invested in this debate to be involved, so I am excusing myself.

 

[Tadashi70]

Yeah man, I read your post, and I will limit myself to saying that I simply disagree. I love the game, I really do, and I have certain opinions about the game that you will never change in me. This is one of those.Like I said guys, I am far too emotionally invested in this debate to be involved, so I am excusing myself.

JR is respect your opinion and I'm
Not trying to change it just letting you see the other side of the coin. Try not make this so personal. It's not that big a deal and will never happen here in the states

 

[Wake]

Like others have said, I think you could realistically apply a multi-tiered system here in the US where Muni's and lower level courses have no handicap requirements, but nicer courses do. Or maybe handicap requirements prior to 11AM and on the weekends. The problem is most courses don't have alot of interest in turning paying customers away.

I agree with Tadashi, if you will never break 120, you need to reevaluate where you are playing. Maybe start teeing from the 200 yard marker on par 4's and 250 on par 5's. I just can't see that being fun for you, and it certainly isn't enjoyable to those behind you. I don't care what you say, its pretty much impossible to play quickly if you are hitting the ball 120 times.

 

[JR]

I know bud, and I honestly can see you and CB's point of view. It makes sense. There are just some ideals I cannot suspend under any circumstances. Liberal arts student, lol.

JR is respect your opinion and I'm
Not trying to change it just letting you see the other side of the coin. Try not make this so personal. It's not that big a deal and will never happen here in the states

 

[TwoGlovesGarcia]

There are a lot of small communities with courses like that around here. Small, mostly 9-hole courses where anyone can play. You can play in jorts and no shirt. You can have a foursome share one set of clubs. You can play 5 or 6 in a group if you like.

There is nothing wrong with a course like that. A lot of good players play there, too.

But I'm not talking about courses like that. Use common sense and designate a course like that as a beginner-friendly course.

Limit scoring restrictions to nicer, more difficult courses which make up the majority of US courses.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Smallville]

I'm sorry, I just have to respectfully disagree. I play to a 20, but I have never been accused of slowing down the pace of play. If a golfer is slow beyond reason, kick him off the course, but I will say this: some of the best golfers out there are slow as Christmas (Tiger Woods, Jim Furyk, Kevin Na).

I don't think so, we are considering adding a HC requirement to our course because 18+ HC resort golfers really back up the pace of play and ruin 100's of peoples rounds. I think overall it is a very good idea and with some work could be great for golf.

I am all for the etiquette and rules tests, but a mandatory scoring ability? I am sorry, but that is just idiotic. Absolutely stupid.

Why are you making this about you? I mean you play to 20 and move you wouldn't be an issue. It's the 20 that takes 5-5.5 hours to play. It's the group that drives to each others shot instead of playing ready golf. It's the guy that can find his FW, greens. It's for the guy that knows nothing about the game and tees it up in the FW or hits ball after ball and marks down a 4.
A rules, etiquette and playability course would be great. Everyone would be on the same page unless they chose to ignore them. Plus we have luxuries others countries don't have....a million golf courses.

To be fair, tad, breezy mentioned 18+ HC. If that were the limit, then JR wouldn't be allowed on the course, no matter how fast he plays. The course doesn't know how fast someone plays, especially if they say you can't play because you aren't less than an 18 handicap. It would also include me before a couple years ago. And I've always played fast, but the course would turn me away before they could see how fast I play because I didn't meet the handicap requirement. Tom Watson has said he liked playing with his friends who couldn't break 100 because they didn't slow him down than to play with some scratch players because they take forever.

Comparing a pro's pace of play to an amateur isn't really a fair or useful comparison in my opinion.

I see nothing wrong with the system myself. Especially the etiquette test.

I think it's very fair and very useful since it is ranted about in the tournament threads. On tour the pace of play is brutal.


I think rather than having a handicap requirement, there should be tee box requirements. Enforcing that would be tough once they got off the first tee though.

 

[SW]

Jr did you read my entire post? If you shoot 120 you have no business on a golf course. Lessons would be order. 120 ain't golf and I'm talking 120 on the regular not every once in a while. It nothing to do with the person and how nice they are, it's about the game. It's about learning about the game we live so much

Dude I could not disagree more with that. What is the point of having a game that excludes? Golf isn't really in the place to be turning people away or relegating them to the range. Who is going to go buy fancy new equipment to just beat ball after ball on the range? Not anyone I know.

If a course has issues with perpetual slow play then they either to have a reassessment on the amount of play or how times are spaced. If its because a course is to hard then maybe a redesign is in order, or adding in a set of tees that are a little more forgiving, make a few days a week semi-private or maybe just go private all together.

A local course here just started a "new to golf league" and so far it has been met with very good response from the public. I inquired about the average scores and thru 9 the average is well on its way to nearing if not over 120 for 18. Should those people be relagated to lessons and ranges? No. Golf is not all about the score to some people.

Taking away the chance for people to play the game makes zero sense no matter how you present it.

-
Tapatalk2

 

[JR]

This pretty much describes how I feel, but was woefully unable to express.

Dude I could not disagree more with that. What is the point of having a game that excludes? Golf isn't really in the place to be turning people away or relegating them to the range. Who is going to go buy fancy new equipment to just beat ball after ball on the range? Not anyone I know.

If a course has issues with perpetual slow play then they either to have a reassessment on the amount of play or how times are spaced. If its because a course is to hard then maybe a redesign is in order, or adding in a set of tees that are a little more forgiving, make a few days a week semi-private or maybe just go private all together.

A local course here just started a "new to golf league" and so far it has been met with very good response from the public. I inquired about the average scores and thru 9 the average is well on its way to nearing if not over 120 for 18. Should those people be relagated to lessons and ranges? No. Golf is not all about the score to some people.

Taking away the chance for people to play the game makes zero sense no matter how you present it.

-
Tapatalk2

 

[coolbreeze]

Dude I could not disagree more with that. What is the point of having a game that excludes? Golf isn't really in the place to be turning people away or relegating them to the range. Who is going to go buy fancy new equipment to just beat ball after ball on the range? Not anyone I know.

If a course has issues with perpetual slow play then they either to have a reassessment on the amount of play or how times are spaced. If its because a course is to hard then maybe a redesign is in order, or adding in a set of tees that are a little more forgiving, make a few days a week semi-private or maybe just go private all together.

A local course here just started a "new to golf league" and so far it has been met with very good response from the public. I inquired about the average scores and thru 9 the average is well on its way to nearing if not over 120 for 18. Should those people be relagated to lessons and ranges? No. Golf is not all about the score to some people.

Taking away the chance for people to play the game makes zero sense no matter how you present it.

-
Tapatalk2

I don't think anyones saying that they shouldnt be able to golf, but there should be courses that they shouldn't be allowed to play until a certain HC is reached. Every other sport is like this, I think golf could take a similar approach. But everyone is getting all worked up for nothing, this is never going to happen.

 

[Golf 'N Gator]

Wow, this thread went south from the OP's opening post.

 

[rdsmith3]

Paintitblack85 - Best wishes. I am sure you will do fine.

 

[runpuddrun]

I could see that. However, in Merica, courses can be filled with folks who have absolutely no concept of etiquette thus leading to some pretty painfully long rounds of golf. I hate slow play.

This. It took us 3.5 hours to play 9 on Wed this week. makes me want to save up for a year and get a private membership somewhere. So frustrating.

 

[SW]

Wow, this thread went south from the OP's opening post.

Good point, best wishes in your qualifying round to the OP. We can all disagree but we still kept the discourse civil, kudos everyone.

--
Tapatalk2

 

[Smallville]

This. It took us 3.5 hours to play 9 on Wed this week. makes me want to save up for a year and get a private membership somewhere. So frustrating.

Where did you play that took that long? Only time I've ever had a round like that was Sunflower Hills. I've had 3 hour nines and 6 hour 18's, but my only 7 hour round (3.5 hour nines) was at Sunflower.