Is pace of play *actually* hurting the game?

[DG_1234]

Mind expanding on this?

Sure. I've observed that once slow players/slow groups become aware that course policy is 4 hour or 4:15 pace of play they are inclined to hang their hats on that and disregard the groups stacked up behind them.
No matter whether there is a hole or two open in front of them , rather than let group (s) behind them play thru, they point to a watch and say "we're on pace".

 

[Golf Ghost]

Sure. I've observed that once slow players/slow groups become aware that course policy is 4 hour or 4:15 pace of play they are inclined to hang their hats on that and disregard the groups stacked up behind them.
No matter whether there is a hole or two open in front of them , rather than let group (s) behind them play thru, they point to a watch and say "we're on pace".

Is that the group's fault or the courses fault for not implementing a proper estimated time of play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rollin]

Sure. I've observed that once slow players/slow groups become aware that course policy is 4 hour or 4:15 pace of play they are inclined to hang their hats on that and disregard the groups stacked up behind them.
No matter whether there is a hole or two open in front of them , rather than let group (s) behind them play thru, they point to a watch and say "we're on pace".

Courses imo should specify that the time is not the suggested pace but is the maximum allowable pace. What happens is that when they are another 5 or ten miniutes beyond that they think they are only that much behind when in reality they are already at a max to begin with. So I can see some issue there but that aside they are not wrong. Groups cant just play golf in whatever quicker time they want and think anyone else longer is wrong and a problem. Believe it or not majority of people are not playing golf to rush through it and imo they do have a right to play it slower (within the pace guideline) and not be bothered for doing so. Being faster doesn't at all make one correct. playing in that 4 or 415 guidline is imo perfectly fine to do. That's not a slow play issue. that only an issue to those who think it should be played as fast as they want it to be played. That imo is just as selfish as the group who does cause a true slow play problem.

 

[DG_1234]

That ideology is just as wrong the other way around. Just like most all don't like long rounds, who is to say we should all play in whatever time frame some quicker group ahead plays in? First of all you do have to allow for poorer play even among those of poorer ability who do make effort to not be a slow problem. You also have to allow people to play the game at different time frames and pace (even while not problematic). You cannot expect any given group to play up with speedier players. People do have a right to play the round slower than others would like yet without being a pace problem. Not all pace issues are actual pace issues just because some groups would like to play faster than others.

If there are holes open ahead then the offending group should let the group (s) behind play thru. For many decades this protocol has worked well, and is most fair to all those playing the course that day.
If for whatever reason, such as lack of golf swing skill, absence of golf etiquette knowledge, physical limitations etc... then players/groups which cannot keep up with the group in front of them do have alternatives.For example, par 3 courses, executive length courses, playing full length courses but routinely picking up their ball (s) and going to the next tee box, playing full length regulation courses at off times when they will not have to let as many group (s) play thru etc...

 

[DG_1234]

Is that the group's fault or the courses fault for not implementing a proper estimated time of play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The concept of "estimated time of play" is relatively new and a nonsense policy born from golf course operators desire to answer slow play complaints.
The tried and true policy of "keep up with the group ahead " and, or, "if there are holes open ahead let the group (s) behind you play thru" was always very effective and fair.

 

[Golf Ghost]

The concept of "estimated time of play" is relatively new and a nonsense policy born from golf course operators desire to answer slow play complaints.
The tried and true policy of "keep up with the group ahead " and, or, "if there are holes open ahead let the group (s) behind you play thru" was always very effective and fair.

I'd look at it as complimenting policies rather than one or the other. Everyone has their opinion though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DG_1234]

Groups cant just play golf in whatever quicker time they want and think anyone else longer is wrong and a problem. .

The reality is that on a full golf course , one with players on nearly every hole, there is no room for a faster group to play thru. So, your quote above reading "groups can't just play golf in whatever quicker time they want" is not applicable (to a full golf course).
However, if there are holes open ahead of a group then that group is absolutely obligated to let the group (s) behind play thru. They primary factor here is always whether or not there are open holes ahead.

 

[Space Bandito]

The concept of "estimated time of play" is relatively new and a nonsense policy born from golf course operators desire to answer slow play complaints.
The tried and true policy of "keep up with the group ahead " and, or, "if there are holes open ahead let the group (s) behind you play thru" was always very effective and fair.

I completely agree here. I don't feel that there should be a published pace of play time. Perhaps every cart should read:

"A round on this course should take 4:15 OR LESS, please keep up with the group in front of you. Report any issues to: xxx-xxx-xxxx"

I know folks don't like to be tattled upon for slow play, and even more folks don't want to do the tattling, but I think its important to have player input as well as marshal and pro shop input. If a group calls in slow play, the marshal can come see the group that calls, and determine if they have a case before confronting the offending group.

 

[rollin]

If there are holes open ahead then the offending group should let the group (s) behind play thru. For many decades this protocol has worked well, and is most fair to all those playing the course that day.
If for whatever reason, such as lack of golf swing skill, absence of golf etiquette knowledge, physical limitations etc... then players/groups which cannot keep up with the group in front of them do have alternatives.For example, par 3 courses, executive length courses, playing full length courses but routinely picking up their ball (s) and going to the next tee box, playing full length regulation courses at off times when they will not have to let as many group (s) play thru etc...

It depends. if there is only one group behind. But the group playing within the timline does imo have a right to not be forced to allow your group plus the one behind and then another behind that as long as they are on course expected pace to begin with. You see, they too imo have a right not to be delayed just because your group wants to play faster. I certainly would personally accommodate a play through if practical if it was my group. But very likely Im not one in that situation anyway. But im sorry to say why do faster players always have the right of way regardless of the scenario. Playing through imo should be more for those who just cant play a reasonable time frame and not necessarily for a group who is playing one yet simply is met with a faster group. The slower group playing within the suggested pace were to be forced to allow even just two (or worse more play throughs) they themselves would then be stuck taking even longer. I just don't think in given specific scenarios that group plying in time should always be forced into a longer round just because some other groups want to play faster. I mean what makes them being delayed and forced into a round longer than suggested or longer than they would like any more correct than your grouo having to play a round slower than you would like? im sorry but faster does not always in all cases mean correct when the play is within suggested time frame. it cant be only about "whats good or me" . It has to work both ways.

I not advocating for slow play. I don't like it as much as anyone. Ive libved it terribly for years and it sucks. But we all do have difference as for what we think is considered slow. We are all guilty of self serving to some degree in that sense. But just that while people do have a right to expect a round not to be too long, others also have a right to live on the longer side of the suggested pace. Those slower ones are not somehow wrong. Its golf and it always took significant time to complete.

 

[zoned_post_meri]

I played with a group (me being single) with some pretty decent players. They were talkers. one of which would begin conversation whil his turn to tee it up. he would pull off from his routine in the midst of it just to freaking talk. I was like..."hello, hmmm hmm , we need to hit the ball" ?? if you cant alk and hit at the same time then just hit first and talk after. I could actualy talk to you while Im hitting but many people cant do that which is fine of course I understand that. But then if that's the case don't talk as its your turn, get your ball hit and then talk your mind after.

I've seen the same thing. Drives me nuts. Plenty of talking time while walking down the fairway -- but when the ball is teed up, the next action better be hitting that ball before anything else.

 

[zoned_post_meri]

Just thought of something.


Do the majority of higher handicappers just walk up to a ball and belt it? Because I know a fair few older folk who don't hit it very far at all and because of this only ever have one option when over 150 from the green and that is lay up. So they just dink, dink, dink, putt, putt, putt and off they go. Rather that having to think if you will carry a hazard, have to turn it a little to not run through the fairway. When 220 out do I lay up, where should I lay up, where are the hazards, do I go for it, can I go for it, is someone on the green still etc etc etc.

Flippin heck I'm going into a slow play rabbit hole

I'm convinced that during some rounds, I'd score better with just a 7i (which I can pitch pretty well for shorter distances) and a putter than my full bag of clubs.

 

[browncrowe]

I haven't read the whole thread so I apologize if this is echoing others. I certainly play less golf because of the time it takes to play. My wife and I have a 1 year old so leaving my wife alone with the baby for 6-7 hours on a weekend is frowned upon. When I am able to get out early or as a single, I can usually finish in 3 hours or less and that is a little more reasonable sell to the missus. Our compromise has been that I only play once or twice a month.

Also, for me, the time it takes to play matters far more than pace. Of course, I'd love to play "hit, walk, hit, putt" rather than "hit, wait, wait some more, hit, wait..." but I'd deal with poor pace so long as I am playing.

 

[millsan1]

To me, pace may be an issue and may not be.

If I get the course to myself, I'm done in 1:45-2:00. If there is one group in front of me holding me up, and it takes 3:00+, then I feel like the pace was awful.

However, when I take my step dad or mom out, I know it will be a 5+ hour round, and that is not a problem for me (to be clear, we always let others through, try to schedule end of day, etc)

Pace really becomes a problem to me when people aren't considerate. Want to take 5 practice swings per shot, and all 4 of you stand around each shot waiting for your buddy to hit, and you need to pose after each shot, then swing again to see if you could have hit it better, then talk to your buddy about the shot? Fine. But let me through.

As I said, when I play with mom and step dad, it's gonna be a long round, but I watch behind us like a hawk and do all I can to make sure we are not the bottleneck.

So for me, it really boils down to this: Slow and considerate is fine. Any speed and inconsiderate is not.

 

[rollin]

I haven't read the whole thread so I apologize if this is echoing others. I certainly play less golf because of the time it takes to play. My wife and I have a 1 year old so leaving my wife alone with the baby for 6-7 hours on a weekend is frowned upon. When I am able to get out early or as a single, I can usually finish in 3 hours or less and that is a little more reasonable sell to the missus. Our compromise has been that I only play once or twice a month.

Also, for me, the time it takes to play matters far more than pace. Of course, I'd love to play "hit, walk, hit, putt" rather than "hit, wait, wait some more, hit, wait..." but I'd deal with poor pace so long as I am playing.

but what your desribing is not so much about slow play hurting the game than it is that life simply gets in the way. Golf does and always did take significant disposable time to play. Its one of the requirements to play it.

Even 4 hr rounds still mean being out of the house for at least 5 hrs or more. getting to the course 20 to 30 minutes prior to round for getting ready and checking in and losen up. maybe putt, etc..... Time to drive back and forth, time to prepare yuour stuff prior to leaving home and time to put your stuff away when you return, maybe a shower is also required, etc... Even just living within 20 minute drive a 4hr round can mean far more than 5hrs not to mention the many folks who live 30 or 40 minutes or an hour away. We cant expect golf round itself to be done in 3hrs. That's simply not a fair assessment of how pace can hurt the game. That's just how your current life situation doesn't have enough disposable time to play golf. But also you don't have to play 18.

I had the very same problem when my kids were babies and tottlers and I only lived about 8 minutes from a course. I had to play very early am or I couldn't play at all. That's nit a slow play problem but simply that my life didn't have enough required disposable time to play the game. Shall we also talk of (for most people) also trying to find time to practice it as well? The whole process of being involved with golf is never able to suit anyone and everyone. Just the way it is and always was.

 

[rollin]

This sounds more they may be in need of the extra revenue. But this day and age, who knows. It's either "costs are up, and we have no choice to pass it on to the consumer," or "hey we can squeeze 32 extra seats into this 737 if we just tell our customers to cut off their legs, or better yet, charge them for bringing their legs on the plane!"

Forgot to answer this.
They don't need the extra income. Golf in my county does not hurt. In fact not only does it support itself but it also supports other avenues of the municipality. That's why I get so annoyed at times as they keep raisjng fees and now they want to squeeze even more coming at expense of pace. The golfer himself (me, everyone else who plays here) gets more and more squeezed. And it beginning to hurt the participation. Not so much from a pace issue but from an expense issue and from a pov that we are being taken advantage of and not being treated so fairly.

 

[JB]

It depends. if there is only one group behind. But the group playing within the timline does imo have a right to not be forced to allow your group plus the one behind and then another behind that as long as they are on course expected pace to begin with. You see, they too imo have a right not to be delayed just because your group wants to play faster. I certainly would personally accommodate a play through if practical if it was my group. But very likely Im not one in that situation anyway. But im sorry to say why do faster players always have the right of way regardless of the scenario. Playing through imo should be more for those who just cant play a reasonable time frame and not necessarily for a group who is playing one yet simply is met with a faster group. The slower group playing within the suggested pace were to be forced to allow even just two (or worse more play throughs) they themselves would then be stuck taking even longer. I just don't think in given specific scenarios that group plying in time should always be forced into a longer round just because some other groups want to play faster. I mean what makes them being delayed and forced into a round longer than suggested or longer than they would like any more correct than your grouo having to play a round slower than you would like? im sorry but faster does not always in all cases mean correct when the play is within suggested time frame. it cant be only about "whats good or me" . It has to work both ways.

I not advocating for slow play. I don't like it as much as anyone. Ive libved it terribly for years and it sucks. But we all do have difference as for what we think is considered slow. We are all guilty of self serving to some degree in that sense. But just that while people do have a right to expect a round not to be too long, others also have a right to live on the longer side of the suggested pace. Those slower ones are not somehow wrong. Its golf and it always took significant time to complete.

Wait, am I reading this right that no matter if there is space in front of you, if a golfer or group is asking to play through, you don't think its reasonable to allow them to go through just because a group is playing at the slowest pace allowable by the course.

Thats like saying the left hand lane on a major highway is not for passing. It takes all of 5 minutes at the most to allow a group to play through and in most cases, if done properly even less. Instead, let the faster group sit and wait, because "posted time is 4.5 and right now we are on pace of exactly 4.5 and I paid my money too". That sir is crazy talk.

Forgot to answer this.
They don't need the extra income. Golf in my county does not hurt. In fact not only does it support itself but it also supports other avenues of the municipality. That's why I get so annoyed at times as they keep raisjng fees and now they want to squeeze even more coming at expense of pace. The golfer himself (me, everyone else who plays here) gets more and more squeezed. And it beginning to hurt the participation. Not so much from a pace issue but from an expense issue and from a pov that we are being taken advantage of and not being treated so fairly.

You are taking a small sample size and extrapolating that to an entire industry and assuming its the same.
Costs have gone up, because players demand more of their golf course conditions, their cart conditions, their amenities, etc.

 

[radiman]

It depends. if there is only one group behind. But the group playing within the timline does imo have a right to not be forced to allow your group plus the one behind and then another behind that as long as they are on course expected pace to begin with. You see, they too imo have a right not to be delayed just because your group wants to play faster. I certainly would personally accommodate a play through if practical if it was my group. But very likely Im not one in that situation anyway. But im sorry to say why do faster players always have the right of way regardless of the scenario. Playing through imo should be more for those who just cant play a reasonable time frame and not necessarily for a group who is playing one yet simply is met with a faster group. The slower group playing within the suggested pace were to be forced to allow even just two (or worse more play throughs) they themselves would then be stuck taking even longer. I just don't think in given specific scenarios that group plying in time should always be forced into a longer round just because some other groups want to play faster. I mean what makes them being delayed and forced into a round longer than suggested or longer than they would like any more correct than your grouo having to play a round slower than you would like? im sorry but faster does not always in all cases mean correct when the play is within suggested time frame. it cant be only about "whats good or me" . It has to work both ways.

I not advocating for slow play. I don't like it as much as anyone. Ive libved it terribly for years and it sucks. But we all do have difference as for what we think is considered slow. We are all guilty of self serving to some degree in that sense. But just that while people do have a right to expect a round not to be too long, others also have a right to live on the longer side of the suggested pace. Those slower ones are not somehow wrong. Its golf and it always took significant time to complete.

What? When did the act of letting faster groups play through get stricken from common golf etiquette?

Who gives a darn what stated or perceived pace of play is. If you have someone waiting every shot and there is room ahead of you, you let them through. Be aware of your surroundings and fellow golfers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[radiman]

It takes all of 5 minutes at the most to allow a group to play through and in most cases, if done properly even less.

Hit your tee shots. Tell the group behind that you are letting them through. Watch them tee off. Accompany them down the fairway. Stop just before they get to their balls. Wish them good luck and wait for them to clear out of the way before hitting up.

Smooth, friendly, and like you said, much less than 5 minutes.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[DG_1234]

What? When did the act of letting faster groups play through get stricken from common golf etiquette?

Who gives a darn what stated or perceived pace of play is. If you have someone waiting every shot and there is room ahead of you, you let them through. Be aware of your surroundings and fellow golfers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Exactly.

 

[jjfcpa]

I wonder if it would help if the course handed out some "speed of play" suggestion sheets. Things like the following:

1. Consider continual putting where once you start putting on the green you continue until you hole out.
2. Play ready golf where you hit your shots from the fairway as soon as you're ready without waiting until you are furthest from the green.
3. If you are not keeping up with the players in front of you and the players behind you are waiting for you to tee off, then as a courtesy offer them the chance to play through.
4. Hit tee shots as soon as the group in front of your reach the green on par 4's and as soon as the group in front of you is beyond your driving distance on par 5's.
5. Instead of searching for lost balls, allow players to drop a ball without penalty once per round.
6. Adopt a gimme range for putts, such as, one foot.

 

[rollin]

Wait, am I reading this right that no matter if there is space in front of you, if a golfer or group is asking to play through, you don't think its reasonable to allow them to go through just because a group is playing at the slowest pace allowable by the course.

Thats like saying the left hand lane on a major highway is not for passing. It takes all of 5 minutes at the most to allow a group to play through and in most cases, if done properly even less. Instead, let the faster group sit and wait, because "posted time is 4.5 and right now we are on pace of exactly 4.5 and I paid my money too". That sir is crazy talk.



You are taking a small sample size and extrapolating that to an entire industry and assuming its the same.
Costs have gone up, because players demand more of their golf course conditions, their cart conditions, their amenities, etc.

To the first point. I was talking given scenario dependent where its not "always" automatically so correct imo. But would also be a rare thing. Most usually when a group is slow they are not within the pace but are indeed a problem anyway so the point is usually not something that would happen. I also did say I myself would accommodate playing through if it was my group. .

And to the second point its was indeed only on sample but he responded to my post which was only about "my own county" situation. Of course that wouldn't apply to all places I understand.

My county golf fees from us paying customers does support other avenues of the municipality in addition to the golf courses. Golf is simply not hurting here. Rounds run from 36 to 49 to walk depending which courses and which times and then 20 more for a cart which many people purchase. At those prices they are able to maintain pretty decent courses and even renovate parts when needed and also then as said use the extra income to support other parks department avenues. I suppose the amount of participation is a large volume, they do claim that over 200,000 rounds of golf are played each year. And alarge percentage would be during prime time where its more expensive plus the carts too.

private courses maybe very different. Taxes, land mortgages, and possibly other things etc may of course be an expense issue that the municipality may not have or at least not as much.

 

[rollin]

What? When did the act of letting faster groups play through get stricken from common golf etiquette?

Who gives a darn what stated or perceived pace of play is. If you have someone waiting every shot and there is room ahead of you, you let them through. Be aware of your surroundings and fellow golfers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I said "depending" meaning in certain scenarios its not always correct.

 

[millsan1]

Comment removed

 

[JB]

I’m asking this genuinely. Why do people have the need to announce that they are using a feature to ignore, when the goal is to ignore?

 

[OnePuttLarry]

It’s very boring to be behind a group and they’re playing slow and you have to stand and wait! And even worse to watch a televised tournament & Tour players have to wait and watch one of their foursome take 2 minutes to read his putt or 2-3 minutes to hit a drive or fairway shot.