[ChipRoyce]

Bob;
Just found your thread... althought its been out here for a day or so...

"Fast Play"... those words are warm to my heart. If only more people could equate those words to an ejoyable golf experience, the world would be a better place and the golf industry would be rocking!

For instance, I went out after hours with a few friends. We played 11 hole in barely 1.5 hours. I was in the comfort zone - stepping up and hitting shots without too much thinking and was only 1 over through those 11. Then we hit a group that was playing "leisurely" - 4.5 hour pace. Too much time on my hands - finished 10 over - the mojo was gone!

[Brian_Gracely]

Better fast golf?

First group in the morning, dew on the ground, trying to beat the grounds to the next hole and nobody else on the course...

...or....

Last group of the day, sun setting, trying to get in 9 holes before meeting some people at the clubhouse for dinner, and about 1/3 of the shots are played in little to no daylight...

[JohnV]

While sitting around being bored at tournaments I've done a little checking on pace.  One thing I've found is that the average player walks about 100 yards in 1 minute.  Therefore adding 1000 yards to a course should add about 10 minutes walking plus the time to play a few shots.

It takes a group of 3 players (sorry but we usually play threesomes) about 2:20 to tee off from the time they reach the tee until the last ball is hit.

Also, a group plays the fastest around a green when 1 player misses the green and the other two are smart enough to read their putts while he/she is chipping.  The first player usually takes less time to hit the chip than to read a long putt (not to mention marking/lifting/cleaning/fixing ball marks etc).

[Scott_Burroughs]

Isn't "ready golf" a cop out?  An acquiesence to the fact that you need to change the standard, whoever is out plays first, procedure?  Has ready golf given slow golfers an excuse to be even slower and less ready?  ... just food for thought...

No.  let's say one ball is left side of fairway, 190 yards out, another is 30 yards ahead of that ball on the left side, and the third is right side of fairway, 150 yards out.  The guy 150 yards out goes to his ball as Mr. 190 hits, as he's not in the way.  He then is ready to hit after Mr. 190 hits, as Mr. 160 goes the thirty yards up to his ball.  Ready golf, not farthest (furthest?) away golf.

Same with putting, if one ball is in the line of another, he can't check the line and get ready while another, closer ball is 90 degrees away and can check his line and be ready.  Mr. 90 is ready to go before him.


Shivas,

That 2:20 includes time to put bag down, pull out club, remove head cover, get tee out of pocket (all of these for the first player only, as others can do this while first player gets ready), and tee the ball up (all players).  Then calculate the average pre-shot routine times.

[Dan Kelly]

I play golf at very near the speed of light.

Gotta use the 90 compression balls, they kind of "dense up" after a few holes.

The tunnel vision thing really helps my concentration.

My rangefiner hardly works at all!

After the round I like to enjoy a beverage with my pals who have aged ten years while I was playing.

Next time you're standing there waiting for the slowpokes who somehow got ahead of you, here's something to ponder -- from "my" column, last Thursday:

Muse, amuse

Including: Know thyself!

Swedge of Rochester: "Being the science geek that I am, I frequently find myself thinking about relativity and how it can affect my daily life.

"For instance: Since relativity shows that the faster you move, the slower time goes for you, I have to wonder what fraction of a second I make up on my daily commute thanks to relativity. Not much, granted, but I'm guessing it's gotta be a nanosecond or two. Add all those up, and after about 3 million years, I've saved myself a second or two. Wow!

"I have also hypothesized that people who run fast don't actually run fast; they just experience time more slowly, therefore appearing to the rest of us that they're really fast. That one's gonna be tough to prove.

"Lately, though, as I was passing someone on the road, I thought of the phrase 'passed him like he was standing still.' Suddenly, I found my brain slipping into relativity mode, and it exclaimed: 'That's a ridiculous statement! Everything you pass, you pass like it's standing still -- because relative to you, it IS standing still.'

"Once again being scared at the exclamatory tendencies of my brain (and that thing's loud -- I mean, it's right inside my head!), I came to realize that my brain was once again correct. Think about it: If you pass someone that's going 65 mph, and you're going 70 mph, you're passing that person (presumably they're driving something, unless of course they experience time EXTREMELY slowly and are therefore able to run that fast), it's the exact same as passing a tree at 5 mph. Well, not the exact same. I'm guessing that it's slightly less exciting and much less dangerous to pass a tree at 5 mph, but relative motion-wise, it's the same.

"As you can probably imagine, I'm a riot at parties."

[RJ_Daley]

Did you ever stop to think... that Andy Rooney might be making a bigger impression on how we view things than we'd like to admit?  

[Stan Dodd]

Shivas,
You are so right ready golf can be a cop out, particularly in relation to the tee.  All golfers should know when they have the honor and shoud be prepared to hit when it is their turn.

Mark, Great point when does fast play become some kind of race and the speed of play becomes the point rather than enjoyment of the game.

I am a mediocre player who does not take a practice swing, who hits quickly but enjoys noticing the birds, the flowers, the sky.  I enjoy the walk, when I want to run I go running.
Cheers

[Brent Hutto]

Shivas,

I have a very good feel for how long 45 seconds is because a few years ago my teaching pro started timing my routine and pointed out that it was about 40-42 seconds. So I had a playing lesson where he looked at his watch as soon as I was standing behind the ball and it was my turn to hit. When the watch hit 16 seconds he'd say "Too long!" and I had to back off and try it again faster. When you're used to 45 seconds, it's a long way down to under 20 seconds. I actually spent time practicing my routine in the back yard with my poor wife Shanghaied into calling time at 16 seconds for me.

I suspect when I play now I regularly fail that 16-second criterion but I probably keep it under 18-19 seconds most of the time. Knowing how long 45 second is, I'm quite sure that I play with people who far exceed it on every shot. Boooring!

[Dan Kelly]

Did you ever stop to think... that Andy Rooney might be making a bigger impression on how we view things than we'd like to admit?  

I think about it more or less constantly -- but I never stop to think it.

That would slow down play.

[Mike Benham]

... soup to nuts ...  

This topic is prime for a thread-jack so here goes ... I former boss of mine, who grew up in Detroit, used to say "soup to nuts" and when we called him on it, to explain where it came from, he couldn't provide an answer .... Shivas, care to explain?

[Dan Kelly]

... soup to nuts ...  

This topic is prime for a thread-jack so here goes ... I former boss of mine, who grew up in Detroit, used to say "soup to nuts" and when we called him on it, to explain where it came from, he couldn't provide an answer .... Shivas, care to explain?

From www.straightdope.com:

What's the origin of the expression, "from soup to nuts"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Straight Dope:

Where did the phrase "soup to nuts," which I believe means from start to finish, come from? --Rich, Hebron, CT

SDSTAFF Songbird replies:

According to my Dictionary of Idioms:

From Soup to Nuts

Meaning: the whole thing from beginning to end
Origin: For centuries, any foods served at the beginning or end of a meal stood for the entire thing: the start and finish and everything in between. This expression was "from eggs to apples" and "from pottage to cheese." In the United States in the middle of the 20th century, the expression developed into "from soup to nuts." At many meals, soup is often the first course and a dessert with nuts is sometimes the last. The expression does not have to refer to only to meals, however. It could be the selection of goods for sale or classes offered.

SDSTAFF Dogster adds:

The Oxford English Dictionary gives these citations:

phrase: (from) soup to nuts (US colloq), from beginning to end, completely; everything.
1920: C Mathewson "Won in Ninth" 143: He knew the game from 'soup to nuts.'
1938: H Asbury "Sucker's Progress" 16: For many years a common expression was 'from soda to hock', meaning the whole thing, from soup to nuts.
1946: E O'Neill "Iceman Cometh" 79: I know all about that game from soup to nuts.
1964: F. O'Rourke "Mule for Marquesa" 42: 'Everything here we asked for?' 'Soup to nuts, nothing but the best.'

Not exciting. But dig a little deeper, and we find this:

Hock: In the game of faro, the last card remaining in the box after all the others have been dealt.
Soda: (paraphrasing) in the game of faro, the first card out of the box.

So, from soda to hock would be from the first card to the last card, hence, from beginning to end.

1902: H.L. Wilson "Spenders" 49: Young Bines played the deal from soda to hock.

Maybe not the answer we were looking for, but interesting anyway.

SDSTAFF Lara concludes:

I don't know if the Dictionary of Idioms explanation rings quite true for me. Desserts that contain nuts are *sometimes* served? Groan.

According to most of the British authors I read, the last course of a meal is port and nuts. But only for the men, I believe. I think the women had to go sequester themselves elsewhere and drink coffee or something until the men got tired of drinking port and joined them. Which of course begs the question, how did *that* get started? At any rate this is a British custom, and "from soup to nuts" is an American idiom. But still it seems clear that in some form or another nuts were considered the last course in a good meal, while soup was the first. And I think that covers this one from soup to nuts.

--SDSTAFF Songbird, SDSTAFF Dogster, and SDSTAFF Lara
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board

[Brian_Gracely]

... soup to nuts ...  

This topic is prime for a thread-jack so here goes ... I former boss of mine, who grew up in Detroit, used to say "soup to nuts" and when we called him on it, to explain where it came from, he couldn't provide an answer .... Shivas, care to explain?

It's a midwest phrase...we all use it....

We don't give the CA folks too much crap (anymore) about "like..." or "and he's all..." or "and she's all..."

And all Shivas has is Medinah, so give him a break.  It's bad enough you east & west coast guy do nothing but play Shinnecock, Pine Valley, NGLA, Cypress, Pebble, SFGC, OClub, etc..

[Brent Hutto]

8. Posing/pained viewing of hook: 4 seconds.
[snip]
I'm telling you, the pre shot routines that are out there today thanks to that fast-play pariah Bob Rotella and all the silly TV announcers who laud slowpokes for "really taking his time on this one" are what is causing our rounds to take so fricking long.

If I include your #8 I'm probably over 20 second, too. In the playing lessons I referred to the time ended when club met ball.

I don't know that following Bob Rotella's advice inevitably leads to slow play. I know of some good players who are at least moderately fast and who follow an awful lot of what Bob Rotella or similar mental-game gurus espouse. I think what happens when a lot of people read a Bob Rotella book is that they're standing around trying to mentally check off everything in the book before they hit the shot. There's a big difference in learning to think a certain way habitually (and therefore quickly) versus thinking a certain way by reading little self-talk scripts in your mind because you haven't learned how to do it automatically. That sort of thing is called "meta-cognition" which literally means "thinking about how you're thinking".

[Mike Benham]

Dan - you da man ...

[A.G._Crockett]

Dan Kelly
You are amazing!  There may not be a dozen people on earth outside this website who know this!  I can't believe I do!

[John_Cullum]

The Immaculate Heart of Mary nuns taught me that in 8th grade. Why, I don't know. I hated most of those women; in fact, I still do.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Shivas,

I wasn't saying that the total time was too long, I was being technical to needle you...  There are different things going on with each shot, and not everything is total this, boom, bang.  Time goes by quicker than you think in various parts of the tee shot...and this from a self-professed quick player.
Next time you play, check out all phases and time them to see how 2:20 compares to John's figure.  Just count the first 3 players.


And to all, I agree there is a fine line between playing swiftly with a good groove and rushing.  That fine line often is a world of difference in the quality of my play.

[Mike Benham]

The guys who are totally out of control are the big showboat exhale huffers and puffers and, of course, the multiple full practice swing guys.  Not to mention the club-shaft-line up guys (thanks Lee Janzen and Bob Tway -- as if you've ever lined up more than 2 degrees offline in your lives!!).

Inevitably, the guys who do all this crap DON'T NEED IT, and the guys who might benefit from this stuff are so bad it doesn't make a bit of difference!  

I'll give you one word as the epitome to slow play golf and supports Shivas extreme opinion:

Pre-shot routine ...[/i]

[George Pazin]

I'm only a little over half way through reading this thread, but after the second Shivas error, I had to post.

First of all, unless you are defining fast as under 2 hours, I have played relatively fast many times while shooting around 100. Ask JohnV. We played a course here in Pittsburgh that is a challenging walk (they have a sign requesting that people take carts on the back 9 - which we ignored). I shot 41-58 (just another day at the office for Mr. Consistency) and we finished in just under 3 hours, as I remember. There was no one in front of us and no one behind us.

The second big lie was "of course you were fricking rushing if you walked a course in 3:20." See my previous example, on a course that's not an easy walk. I didn't feel rushed at all, and in fact was somewhat astonished when we looked at the time after finishing. Unless John was magically rushing me without my knowledge, it was really quite comfortable.

----

You lazy cartballers love to throw out the "no way anyone can play as fast walking as singles riding in carts with no one in front of them."

Of course you're right. I can't keep up with someone running either. My questions are twofold: 1) How often are you presented with this scenario? and 2) Why would you want to race around like an idiot?

[THuckaby2]

You lazy cartballers love to throw out the "no way anyone can play as fast walking as singles riding in carts with no one in front of them."

Of course you're right. I can't keep up with someone running either. My questions are twofold: 1) How often are you presented with this scenario? and 2) Why would you want to race around like an idiot?

Leaving your battle with shivas aside, and also disregarding the slanderous name you've called me (and others)  , well....

George, please understand my stressing this point, over and again, is only to prove the fallacy of those who would say that walkers go faster than riders without question.  It's just plain not true, as you acknowledge.

As for your questions, my answers are:

1. I've been presented with the scenario only a few times over the years, but enough to know the differences.  When the need is to go extra fast, I take a cart.  Thankfully that need doesn't happen very often.

2. Why would I want to race around like an idiot?  Well first you assume that I'd be racing, which I wouldn't.  I just would move as quickly as possible from shot to shot.  But taking your question at face value, the answer is obvious:  to get the most number of holes in, or make the best logistical loop to get me back to the parking lot, so that I arrive home and avoid death or castration, or worse fates.  Time limits do happen, sadly enough.

But I guess this also hints at the fundamental issue we've only batted around about 5000 times previously here:  I really believe that outside of VERY special courses or outings with VERY special people, I'd rather ride and hit more shots than walk and hit fewer, when I am faced with time limitations.  

TH

[Mike_Golden]

I've actually timed some of the people I've played with (it must be my engineering background) but didn't include the time the ball was in the air since the next player should already be walking up to the tee.

If I remember, my routine is in the 20-25 second range, maybe quicker, but the total range was from the 15 seconds up to 35, depending on the player.    The 35 second time was from a notoriously slow player at our club-the funny thing that I had to play him in the club championship match play round once and we played as a twosome in under 3 1/2 hours-it's hard to believe, I know, and it was from the back tees at Lake Merced-I won the match, 3&2, and attributed the victory to not every watching him in his preshot routine.

Taking Shivas' timing a step further, if each player in the foursome takes 25 seconds per shot and shoots a 90, the total elapsed time is 2 hours and 30 minutes.  If the average golf course requires a 5 mile walk, and we walk at a 3 mile per hour pace (which is pretty slow), that's another 1 hour and 40 minutes or 4 hours and 10 minutes elapsed time.  Add another 20 minutes for miscellaneous stuff (like bathroom breaks, presses, kibitizing, and the like) and you have 4 hours and 30 minutes-if you lop off 40 strokes because everyone is playing pretty well or there are a bunch of gimmee putts-remember, if each of us has 9 tapins that's a total of 36 strokes off the total time. that reduces the total time by 12 minutes.  So just over 4 hours seems like a very reasonable amount of time for a foursome and 3 1/2 hours seems very doable-just 5 seconds off each stroke equals 30 minutes off the round.

[George Pazin]

But I guess this also hints at the fundamental issue we've only batted around about 5000 times previously here...

We've gotta do something to keep our posting stats up!

[JohnV]

2:20 (which is 46 seconds per player!! -- talk about pre-shot routines being out of control!!) would presumably take 3:05 or so if there were 4 players in the group.

3:05 multiplied by 18 holes = 55 1/2 minutes wasted fricking standing around on the tee per round!!  

Anybody want to tell me that pre-shot routines aren't the problem?  

PS  -- and here's the funny (or should I say "sad, pathetic") part.  You have "ball in hand"!  The ball is on a fricking tee!  You aren't analyzing your lie, you aren't getting distance to a pin, and at least half the time, you generally aren't even trying to decide on a club.   And it STILL takes 45 seconds per player!

From timing players when they are on the clock I can say that the time a player takes between when they tee the ball up until they actually hit it is between 20 and 30 seconds (note, this is on a par 4 or 5 where they have a driver in their hand, no club decisions involved.)  That would be from when I start the clock until contact is made.  But, they also get a few seconds to tee the ball up (can't hit it until it is there so we don't time that unless they are taking an excessive amount of time.)  Also, when the group reaches the tee there is usually a general mulling (putting clubs down etc) around that takes 10 or 20 seconds before that first player gets up there.  Also, they usually watch where one ball goes before they tee up the next one so that at 10 seconds or so per player.  In the end it adds up to about 2:20 per group.

My favorite stat is that it takes approximately 5-10 seconds to put on a golf glove.  If a player does it before every full shot (assume 36 per round) each player is taking 3-6 minutes just putting on the glove!  That is 9-18 minutes per group of 3 if players don't have their glove on before it is their turn to play.  Which is only one of the reasons I don't wear one.

[Brent Hutto]

My favorite stat is that it takes approximately 5-10 seconds to put on a golf glove.  If a player does it before every full shot (assume 36 per round) each player is taking 3-6 minutes just putting on the glove!  That is 9-18 minutes per group of 3 if players don't have their glove on before it is their turn to play.  Which is only one of the reasons I don't wear one.

I've never figured out the glove thing. I know everyone from Jack to Tiger wears one but it still seem more like an affectation than a necessity. Anyone who can't hold onto a golf club without it slipping ought to seriously consider cleaning or changing their grips. If it's raining hard enough for my cord grips to slip in my hand then it's raining so hard that a golf glove would be soaked before I could finish one shot.

[JohnV]

Brent, the only time I wear a glove is if it is pouring.  But, the gloves I wear are rain gloves that I bought at Bandon Dunes.  The wetter they get, the better they grip and you don't have to worry about keeping your grips dry.  They come as a pair so you don't even look like Michael Jackson wearing them.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()