[Carl Johnson]

On page 70 of SI Golf's "The Equipment Issue," Feb. 7, 2011, Senior Writer Gary Van Sickle chimes in with his opinion on range finders and GPS devices.  His editorial is titled "Get Real, USGA."  (Gary also lets us know he is a highly skilled golfer, dropping in that he entered qualifying for the USGA Mid-Am last summer.)  Gary believes that the USGA and the PGA Tour should "Get Real," accept range finder and GPS technology, and thereby speed up the tournament game.  Coincidently, with the "Big Game" on tap later today, this got me thinking about some old technology that could accomplish the same purpose, that is, the clock, watch or stop watch.  Football teams have something like 35 seconds I think to get off each snap.  (Basketball has a shot clock, and I think they use timers in chess, too.)  Surely we could put golfers on the clock on every shot, every putt.  It's not "real golf," but neither is PGA tournament golf.  Just think of the show-biz drama.  Phil Mick begins to prepare for his shot.  A clock in upper right portion of our TV screens begins the countdown.   Now, 5, 4, 3, 2 . . . will he get it off in time, or suffer a potentially costly one stroke penalty?  Yesterday I was watching the Garbage Truck Open currently underway in Phoenix, Arizona, and one guy, I recall it being Bubba Watson, but I'm not 100 percent sure, took forever to line up and reline up a putt.  It was excruciating to watch.

[JohnV]

Carl,
According to the Rules, the Committee can define whatever pace of play policy they want.  They don't need the USGA to approve it.  So send your idea to the PGA Tour, not the USGA.

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,
According to the Rules, the Committee can define whatever pace of play policy they want.  They don't need the USGA to approve it.  So send your idea to the PGA Tour, not the USGA.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think either body would care much for my opinion.  Beyond that, I wasn't really all that serious anyway.  Gary's attitude just got me riled up, which is exactly what an opinion writer is supposed to do.

[Dan Herrmann]

Carl - I'd love to see the clock work backwards - start from 0:00 and increase.

Shame the pros, male and female, into playing faster.

[Brent Hutto]

Why do you watch the PGA Tour if it's not entertaining? It's kind of hard to take seriously any complaint about the behavior of players being unacceptable from someone who sits and watches them for hours. It's an entertainment business and they are extremely unlikely to respond to any complaint that doesn't involve not consuming their product.

It would be like writing a letter to Fox and saying "I've watched every night of American Idol and I don't see how you people put this dreck on TV. The singing is over the top, the judges are like a bad circus act and the whole thing is a total waste of time". That would at least mean a little something from someone who doesn't "watch every night".

For my part, I almost totally quit watching tournament golf several years ago for exactly the reasons you give. What little bit of "golf" they squeeze in between commericials, promos and "human interest" dreck mostly consists of watching the players in contention go through their insane gyrations to avoid actually hitting the ball for as long as possible. With the exception of the sainted Masters and maybe a couple rounds of the Open Championship when it's on an interesting course the tiny bits of golf aren't worth putting up with the player's idiocy.

[Tim Martin]

With no real consequences for slow play there is little incentive for competitors to speed up. I would love the clock ticking away for drama alone. As far as Range Finders and GPS`s at the highest level of professional and amateur golf I say get real Gary Van Sickle. On the PGA Tour any caddie worth his salt has yardages from everywhere. If his player hits it two fairways over well then its time to earn your pay. At the amateur level the contestants and their caddies can put a yardage book together during practice rounds provided that there is not one already available which there usually is. Why do the best players need even more technology under the guise of speeding up play?

[Carl Johnson]

Why do you watch the PGA Tour if it's not entertaining? It's kind of hard to take seriously any complaint about the behavior of players being unacceptable from someone who sits and watches them for hours. . . .

Brent, of course I can't speak for others, but I'm with you.  Aside from the two Opens and the Masters, I watch very little televised golf.  And when I do, even with the Opens and Masters, I'll just tune in the last hour or so to see how they finish up.

[Richard Choi]

I have my DVR set up with 15 sec skip. Comes in very handy in almost all sporting events, especially golf.

I skip until I see a player address the ball. I watch a 3 hour telecast in about 30 min without missing a shot.

[Mike Benham]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think either body would care much for my opinion. 

You are probably right, so why did you post it here?    

[Travis Dewire]

i'm not sure if this is exactly in the rulebook, but it is adopted for just about every tournament I have ever entered.

When it becomes a player's turn to play, he has 0:45 (forty five seconds) to execute the shot. When slow play becomes a factor, there are predetermined time limits, for each hole, as well as the 45 second rule for each player. Now, with that said, these time rules need to be enforced, and people need to be put on a timer, for the rules to have any impact. In most tournament you find, warnings issued, a group or two put on the clock, but rarely are they penalized two strokes.

I would guess it would be a big cost issue, but you could put a timer with every group, and have every group, and player, on the clock, for every hole and every shot, with a one or two warning rule, followed by the 2 stroke penalty. Rarely is this penalty given, and I don't think it scares many players into playing "faster". Another very easy problem solver, would be to fine the players, behind the door, for breaking the 45 second to play your ball rule. This could be internally traced, with some formula to fine players, based on the number of infractions for slow play they have. This would speed up the play, be very easy to supervise and put into proceedure, and would be kept out of the public's eye. It would be a win win for everyone involved

[Jim_Kennedy]

'Speeding' up the Tour is not going to happen, events usually seem to end in their appointed TV time slot. By 'our' standards the rounds are overly long, but 'our' standards do not include playing a game where one stroke either way can mean a hundred thousand dollars, or a ten year exemption, or the millions that come with the notoriety of winning an event, especially a major.

TV crews know who the slower players are onTour, 'our' portion of the viewing public wouldn't even notice slow play if the cameras weren't focused on, say, Jim Furyk during his complete putting routine. It's a relatively simple matter to come to him as he's making his final approach to the putt instead of forcing 'us' to watch his entire cha-cha.

[Carl Johnson]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think either body would care much for my opinion. 

You are probably right, so why did you post it here?    

Because I thought it would be a good discussion topic for this group, many of whom seem to care about these things.  I don't think the PGA Tour and the USGA participate, as such, on this site.

[JohnV]

i'm not sure if this is exactly in the rulebook, but it is adopted for just about every tournament I have ever entered.

When it becomes a player's turn to play, he has 0:45 (forty five seconds) to execute the shot. When slow play becomes a factor, there are predetermined time limits, for each hole, as well as the 45 second rule for each player. Now, with that said, these time rules need to be enforced, and people need to be put on a timer, for the rules to have any impact. In most tournament you find, warnings issued, a group or two put on the clock, but rarely are they penalized two strokes.

Every tournament committee can define any time limits that are set on how long it takes to play a shot, a hole or the round.  The idea of timing every shot was the predominant one for many years and is still the method used at the pro levels.  Many golf associations are now going to a method that says you have to play some number of holes in a certain time or at least stay within a certain time of the group in front or the entire group can be penalized.  The USGA uses this for the stroke play portion of its amateur championships with timing stations at holes 5, 9, 14 and 18.  Other associations just use two stations at 9 and 18.  It has proven effective at improving the overall pace of play.

[Bob_Huntley]

'Speeding' up the Tour is not going to happen, events usually seem to end in their appointed TV time slot. By 'our' standards the rounds are overly long, but 'our' standards do not include playing a game where one stroke either way can mean a hundred thousand dollars, or a ten year exemption, or the millions that come with the notoriety of winning an event, especially a major.

TV crews know who the slower players are onTour, 'our' portion of the viewing public wouldn't even notice slow play if the cameras weren't focused on, say, Jim Furyk during his complete putting routine. It's a relatively simple matter to come to him as he's making his final approach to the putt instead of forcing 'us' to watch his entire cha-cha.

Jim,

I have always thought that watching professional golf is about as exciting as watching paint dry, unless of course it is a close friend playing. Last year, MPCC hosted the A.T.& T. National Pro-Am. I took my wife out to see the best play the game. We walked down the first fairway of the Shore Course and came across Jim Furyk getting ready to play his second shot to the green. He selected an eight iron(the hole was paying as a par 4). He took an age to address the ball, hit it on the green and then the agonizing took place. He fiddled and farted around like a deer in the headlights. I am sure he is a charming man, a good husband and father but a positive menace in the fight against slow play.

Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bob,
I'm not trying to give Tour players a pass, and I feel the same way as you about golf on TV.

We say on this site that TV influences GCA, that if Augusta showed some brown it might be copied at home, just as their vivid green and perfect conditions have been replicated (or tried to be) at numerous clubs over the past 40 years. I feel that if TV tightened up their broadcasts and only showed 1/3 of the routine of a Jim Furyk (and any other slowpokes) the illusion of pace might also be copied at home by the viewers. It would also create a better pace for the broadcasts, so we'd see more golf/more players, and even though I think that at this time the Tour only pays lip service to pace of play they might eventually get the message, especially if improved pace has the effect of adding to their audience.    

  

[Doug Siebert]

I am really tired of this argument where people give the pros a pass on slow play because of all the money they are playing for.  Well, the stars in the NBA and NFL are playing for lots of money too.  The Super Bowl was just played earlier today (a few of you may have heard about it ) and I didn't notice the NFL turning off the play clock to give these guys time to think carefully about the play they called!  Perhaps the outcome would have been different if the play clock was set at 2 minutes - after all, isn't one of the ideas behind calling a timeout in a critical situation that it gives you more time to think about the play you call.  Presumably they believe this is an advantage, otherwise they'd only use timeouts to stop the game clock.  Pittsburgh made a lot of stupid mistakes today, a two minute play clock may have helped (or not, I don't care for either team, so I don't need to hear from the Packer fans about how a two minute play clock would have had them win by a larger margin)

If they held the PGA tour players to a certain standard for pace of play its possible that some dog slow guys like Furyk would no longer be competitive if they can't adjust to playing faster.  Boo fucking hoo, when he drops off the tour, he'll make room for another guy who can hack it.  If the tour did this, you can pretty much guarantee that the mini tours would immediately follow, as these guys are all trying to learn how to compete on tour.  Probably the college and high school teams would soon follow.  I have no idea whether this would influence the average guy who considers the number of beers he starts a round with more important than the number clubs he starts with, but you can be sure that the talking heads on TV would discuss nothing else for the first year, at least, and instead of commenting on how smart a guy is to step back and restart his preshot routine because a butterfly momentarily flitted into his peripheral vision, they'd praise a guy for being so in control that even while security was tackling a guy for yelling "you da man!" (I can dream, can't I?) that he pulled the club back and hit the shot as if nothing was happening.

I have to think that TV praising pros for being quick, instead of for being slow as they currently do, could only help the pace we see from the average player.  Having players learn in high school and college to play fast instead of slow would raise a new generation of good players who played fast.  I believe the fact most guys who break 70 play so slow has an influence on the average golfers who look up to them for clues on how to improve.  Between seeing that and hearing the talking heads on TV they probably think "I need to take my time if I want to do better", and slowly (no pun intended) another five hour rounder is born.  Maybe we can't do anything about the guys who are already slow, but we can at least stop raising new generations of ever slower golfers.

For those who think that losing Furyk and a few other tortoises like him who potentially couldn't hack it would be a loss, instead think about how maybe there are one or two guys who are so slow that the tour's rules about slow play, pathetic as they are, are keeping them out.  Maybe we're missing out on the next Tiger, just because he needs 30 seconds to align his cheater line to within a micron, and restarts his preshot routine an average of 3-4x on every shot until it feels just perfect.  At least this must be what that guy playing a 5 1/2 hour round in front of you is thinking!

[Carl Johnson]

First, a technical clarification.  For those who haven't seen Gary Van Sickle's op ed piece in SI, it's title is "Get Real, USGA."  That's why I chose that title for this discussion topic.  Those words were Gary's (or the headline writer's) choice, not mine.  As John Vander Borght implies, a better title for Gary's piece might have been, "Get Real, PGA Tour," or, maybe even more appropriately, "Get Real, LPGA."  I think the LPGA tour is still around somewhere, isn't it?

Beyond that, I ditto Doug Siebert.  Well said. Sunday, before the Big Game, three of us played a skins game that took 4 hrs. 20 min. because we were behind a two-ball that was playing from tees that were too long for them and then took forever to prepare to hit their shots and line-up their putts.  At one point I thought they were going to waive us through, but that turned out to be a false alarm.  Wonder where they learned this behavior?

  

[Jud_T]

Here's the answer:

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/golf-travel-insider/fast-furious-golf-event-bucks-trend-five-hour-rounds-40509/

[Jim_Kennedy]

Doug,
Your analogy doesn't hold up. A football game is 60 minutes long, it always takes 3 or more hours to play.  Same for Pro basketball, it's a 48 minute game, and if it's a close game the last 2 minutes can get drawn out into 30. If you allow for free throws, half times, field changes, etc., these two sports take at least twice as long to play when measured against their regulation time. Just think how 'slow' those games would be if the TV audience was forced to watch the 1 hour or more of inactivity that occurs in these games.   

Golf, like baseball, has no allotted time frame, but even if three players who should get around in 3 hours take 5 1/2, that's no worse than either of the two I just mentioned.

I played football in my youth. A 1 hour game never took longer than 1 1/2.
I played golf in my youth. I cannot remember an 18 hole loop ever brushing up against the 4 hour mark.   
Of course, we weren't on TV and we weren't playing for millions of dollars, nor were we being paid millions to suit up.

Slow play can and should be addresesd, but we wouldn't even 'know' it exists if the broadcasters were on their toes.     

[Doug Siebert]

How does my analogy not hold up?  People are giving pro golfers a pass on slow play due to the money involved.  I am pointing out that similar money is at stake in other pro sports, yet they do not give the essentially unlimited time pro golfers get (it is essentially unlimited when you can pretty much count the number of players penalized for slow play in a season on one hand!)

Whether it takes two hours or four hours to play 60 minutes of NFL football is irrelevant, the relevant factor is how long does a team have to call the play, get lined up, let the QB read the defense, do the snap count and snap the ball.  There are real penalties associated with being late, a 5 yard delay of game penalty can kill a drive or lose the game.  In golf there is no clock, players get warned at least one before any penalties are assessed, and penalties are never assessed on big name players or anyone in a critical situation.

In football you have the same amount of time on the play clock for every play, whether it is the first play in the game, a meaningless play near the end where the game is already won or lost, or it is 4th and long and this is your team's last chance to keep its final drive alive - i.e., the football equivalent of having a 20 foot birdie putt for the win on the 72nd hole.  If you wanted to take 5 minutes looking at that final putt, you will not be penalized and the morons on TV would praise you!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Doug,

    "According to a Wall Street Journal study of four recent broadcasts, and similar estimates by researchers, the average amount of time the ball is in play on the field during an NFL game is about 11 minutes. In other words, if you tally up everything that happens between the time the ball is snapped and the play is whistled dead by the officials, there's barely enough time to prepare a hard-boiled egg. In fact, the average telecast devotes 56% more time to showing replays.
     So what do the networks do with the other 174 minutes in a typical broadcast? Not surprisingly, commercials take up about an hour. As many as 75 minutes, or about 60% of the total air time, excluding commercials, is spent on shots of players huddling, standing at the line of scrimmage or just generally milling about between snaps."

......and in college football commercials add 24 minutes to a broadcast, on average. The only reason the play seems quick is because we don't have to watch all the downtime, and that goes for all the down time in basketball and baseball. At least golf has continual action going on someplace during it's alloted TV slot.  

I am not giving Pros a 'pass', but it is instructive to remember that they aren't guaranteed one red cent when they 'suit up'. The average salary for a Pittsburg Pirates player is $1,295,000. the average salary for a NY Yankee is $8,250,000.
 
Sam Snead played over 4 decades, starting in the mid '30s. His total money during this time was around $670,000. Even if you were to lump all that prize money into his first year, 1934,  and index it for inflation he would only have won the same amount that Tiger did in 2009, around $10,000,000.....and that's only Tiger's winnings. The Tour makes jillions selling their product to TV, the players make millions because of it, and neither group is going to rock that boat unless viewership declines to the point where it becomes a hard sell. That's not happening right now, the money and the sponsors are still going to pro golf.  

But while we're waiting patiently for play to speed up golf telecasts could focus on the quicker players and only show the last 30 seconds or so of the slower player's routines. It would add action to the broadcasts and create the illusion of fast play, and until the Tour or the players on it choose to speed things up I'll take the illusion.  

[Kyle Harris]

Doug:

Your analogy does not hold water because in football, et. al, there is no impetus to act. A team with a lead can sit on the ball and do nothing so long as the clock runs. The game ends as a result of time running out, not as a result of play on the field. Without a play clock, the game becomes BROKEN.

With golf, the game ceases the minute a player stops playing strokes. The round does not end until the player has holed out on the eighteenth green. Baseball is similar - the game isn't over until the 3rd out has been recorded in the last necessary half of the ninth inning. The game, in that instance, dictates the pace and not a clock.

[Doug Siebert]

You guys are talking about minutes of action, salaries, etc. and totally missing my point (which is partially my fault for digressing when I'm answering others' criticisms)

The one point I'm trying to make is that other professional athletes are able to work within the constraints of a clock (or in the case of hitters in baseball or the defense in football, under time constraints partially imposed upon them by others)  But for some reason people feel golfers are a breed unto themselves and having a "shot clock" on golfers would be unfair due to the amount of money they are playing for.  They would adjust to it, just like chess grandmasters are able to adjust to speed chess (and I'm not suggesting playing at speed chess pace)

I'm not advocating anything crazy here, but from the time it is your turn to play and you are at your ball, there is some time limit where the vast majority of pros should be able to play their shot.  I don't think anyone would argue that slow play is totally ignored on the tour now, and many would argue that it bears at least some relationship to the slow play we see on the course, whether the slow guy is shooting 70 or 100.  When you see pros lining up their putts from three sides, or 2-3 minutes of discussion and practice swinging before playing a shot from out of the trees, it stands to reason you are going to think that maybe taking that much time would help your game.  Just like some amateurs take their cue from pros in everything from the brand of equipment they use, to specific things that were seen as only for old men until pros started using them (long putters, 9 woods, hybrids)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()