[Dave McCollum]

From Gary Van Sickle on golf.com:

Modern designs like the Colorado Golf Club make fast play impossible. If some of the best players in women's golf (OK, only 10 of the world's top 25-ranked players were actually in this event) can't get around the CGC in a timely manner, what chance do 15-handicappers have on a Rube Goldberg-esque course like that?

I'm glad to see the USGA actually acknowledge this with the "While We're Young!" campaign. But there are too many courses like the Colorado Golf Club where the only way to speed up play is with bulldozers.  And that's not going to happen.

Full text:
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/solheim-cup-shows-campaign-against-slow-play-doomed

I’ve never played or seen the course, except for some coverage of this event, but this notion didn’t cross my mind from what I saw.  I was more struck by how slow the women played and by how so many putts, especially by the Yanks, seemed to roll out well past the concession range.  At one point, I also commented on how much weaker the women’s short games seemed in comparison to the field at men’s pro events.  I was thinking that the fast and firm conditions would be giving the women the same challenges as links designs of similar scale and difficulty.  Specifically, I thought they’d have as much trouble at RCD, Portrush, and the Euro Club.  Don’t know why these Irish courses came to mind.  I also thought of the internal green contours at Bandon Trails.
          
I’m from Idaho and have played a lot of golf at altitude.  You definitely have to adjust your game to the warm thin air and are tempted to try shots that you wouldn’t at sea level.  The courses can be longer and designed taking the extended distance in mind.  However, I’ve never thought that this contributes to slower play beyond the usual factors of execution.
      
What say this crowd?

[David_Tepper]

It is clear that the routing/design of a course can effect pace of play.

http://www.pacemanager.com/designed-for-speed.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yale,

Which is a difficult walk if there ever was one, can be played in 4 hours or less.

It's a cultural phenomenon, not an architectural one.

[Jim Sherma]

I always felt that maintenance practices also have a large role in pace of play. If a club expects both sub 4-hour rounds and a membership that plays by the rules of golf something has to give. Greens running 11+ and rough that does not allow for one to see their ball as they approach it from 30 to 50 yards away will necessarilly make play slower. Architecture with non-hazard lost ball opportunities that are not visible from where the ball is hit will also make play slower.

It is my opinion that native gunch that is close to playing corridors and fast greens are the main architectural/maintenance contributors to slow play.

[Garland Bayley]

Clearly the guys an idiot.

[Mike Schott]

Those of you who have seen or played this course, do you agree with the Von Sickle? From my vantage point in my recliner, his description of the course seems quite harsh. I've not heard that C and C courses generally are tough slogs or expensive to maintain.

[David Davis]

I would strongly disagree with him not only on the slow play set up of this course but also on the high maintenance costs. In fact, ironically I'd say CGC is set up to be able to operate on extremely low maintenance much like links courses. If anything they are over maintaining it. When I was there it was being over watered for sure and my understanding is that this is standard practice there. However the terrain and area itself lends itself to low maintenance much like some of our links courses IMO.

I really loved the course and thought it was set up very fair and pretty wide open. Even in the rough. We were playing late in the evening and trying to finish and even then you could find your balls. I don't want to say he's clueless because he certainly shouldn't be but I'd like to invite him out for a day to a course that he can really complain about ha ha.

[Matthew Petersen]

The only thing I can fathom is that he's mostly talking about the greens, which are indeed difficult to putt.

It's not an easy course to walk, but it doesn't have any particularly strenuous green-to-tee treks, most tees are right off the last green; the site is hilly, however.

Overall, this is a pretty ridiculous argument. Show me where these top women golfers play faster on other courses and maybe I'll change my tune.

[Bill Seitz]

I'd like to know what the hell he means by "Rube Goldberg-esque"?  I mean, I know what Rube Goldberg refers to, but if he's using that term to basically mean "something that isn't soft, target golf", then his point is ridiculous.  I've played a few rounds at courses that play very firm and fast with large slopes and wild green contours, and they're pretty easy to play in under four hours.  What's his excuse for professional rounds that take 5+ hours on non "Rube Goldberg-esque" courses?

On a side note: GCA's own Howard Riefs makes into the Q&A section of this column.

[Josh Tarble]

there are soooo many excuses as to why people are playing slow....

"the course is too hard" "the rough is too long" "the greens are too fast"

no one ever comes out and says that people (especially tour players - both men and women)  just play too slow.  they stand over the ball for too long, take too many practice swings, read their putts from too may angles, etc. etc. etc.

the fact of the matter is, 99% of shots could be played in 25% of the time it typically takes most players, everyone just keeps making excuses.

[JLahrman]

I have never played Colorado Golf Club.

But there is zero doubt that course layouts can be better or worse at encouraging faster play. Make fun of Dye's railroad ties, but the ball is either in or out of the hazard. No looking around for it.

However, the pace of play of the golfer(s) is the biggest factor in the speed of play.

How much slower were this year's Solheim Cup rounds compared to typical LPGA Tour rounds? How much slower were this year's Solheim Cup rounds compared to recent Solheim Cup rounds?

[Bill Seitz]

But there is zero doubt that course layouts can be better or worse at encouraging faster play. Make fun of Dye's railroad ties, but the ball is either in or out of the hazard. No looking around for it.

I'm not sure this would have been an improvement.  Considering it was taking them a half hour to figure out where the hell to drop and STILL getting it wrong, maybe just no hazards is the way to go.  Five minutes for lost ball and back to the tee would have been faster.

[Dave McCollum]

I thought GVS’s comments were especially harsh after all the gushing that was done here about the course and how it was playing.  He wasn’t talking about the pressure or tournament conditions.  He said the architecture was ridiculous and to blame for the 5-6 hour matches (not counting the officiating).  I would think that Garland summed things up nicely, but Van Sickle is not a complete idiot.  He’s one of the better scribblers covering professional golf and has been around enough to appreciate the charms of North Berwick and Askernish.  Personally, I think he’s full of it and missed the most glaring of obvious conclusions:  these women are glacial, particularly when faced with a difficult course.  I suppose I thought of RCD, Portrush, and TEC because I found them to be very challenging for a hack like me.

From my place on the recliner, I haven’t seen a more blatant denouncement of architectural values that we hold so dearly here in the treehouse.

[David Kelly]

I find him Gary Van Sickle very uninteresting and rarely ever read him but he is a great gauge of what the conventional wisdom is in the golf world.  They still see C&C, Doak, Hanse, etc. and their work as outliers.

[JLahrman]

I'm not sure this would have been an improvement.  Considering it was taking them a half hour to figure out where the hell to drop and STILL getting it wrong, maybe just no hazards is the way to go.  Five minutes for lost ball and back to the tee would have been faster.

It might have taken pros (except for Tiger) longer to figure out where to drop, but amateurs in casual play will just throw it down if it goes in a lake.

But yes, no hazards would be the way to go.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have played Colorado GC a few times and it does require a bit more time than some others.  But it is not because of the long rough or walks between holes.  The greens are difficult to putt and the second putts are not tap-ins.  The putting slows down the pace of play.  I think putting is the deadly curse of slow play anyway but at some of the newer courses putting on fast sloping greens takes more time. Although the same thing could be said of some older courses like Aronimink that has a great set of greens but the fast sloping greens make them difficult to putt as well.

[Edward Moody]

As others have noted, I too found the slow play a result of the players just being slow.  Yes, the greens were difficult to putt at times but the actual shots were taking a long time.  A player (and I have seen this on the men's tour) won't start her routine until the other player's shot is finished.  So once it is her turn the whole show starts - discussion with caddy, check the wind, pull a club, get in the shot, back out, start over.  Watching Furyk at the PGA was awful...

[Josh Bills]

I certainly don't have GVS's pedigree for reporting for golf events, but blaming the course for slow play is like blaming your keyboard for bad writing or your fork for being obese.  Excuses (would the story have been different had the US won?).  I have not looked at most comments from the players, but I can't imagine they would claim the course setup was too hard with wide fairways, par 5s reached in two, drivable par 4s and plenty of birdies made.  Besides I assume the US Captain setup the course.  I'm sure the players played practice rounds and knew the course well.  Who would join a club where it was so difficult to play? 

GVS's comments that, "Shots caromed around crazily-sloped greens like pinballs. Some greens appeared to be 70 or 80 yards deep, or more. I enjoyed the part where Solheim Cuppers aimed chip shots away from the green, so they could bounce down a slope onto the putting surface" tells me he thinks TOC, Sebonack any course with character are unfair and should be bulldozed too? 

IMO, the players are the only reason for slow play and his assessment of this course was off base.  Tommy I see your comments and understand fast greens can potentially slow down play, but with twosomes on Sunday and professional golfers, is there really any way to blame the course?  Can GSV really be right that this "modern" design makes fast play "impossible?"  I doubt it.

[Mark Woodger]

the course set up can help prevent slow play for sure but a brisk walk, being ready to play and not reading putts from all 360 degrees will help a dam sight more.

[Tom_Doak]

Slow play is mostly about the player(s) and what they are playing for.

We were able to play The Old Course in just over two hours this summer, in spite of its nasty bunkers and big greens with three-putt potential.  We did so because we were on a mission to play fast, and we didn't grind over every shot and every putt.  The funny thing is, in not doing so, I shot my lowest round of the year -- with 7 clubs in my bag, no less.

In competition it is difficult to be so nonchalant, because it's too easy to second-guess yourself about the putt you missed by being too hasty ... never considering the other putt you made because you didn't overthink it.

[Adam Clayman]

Slow play is mostly about the player(s) and what they are playing for.

We were able to play The Old Course in just over two hours this summer, in spite of its nasty bunkers and big greens with three-putt potential.  We did so because we were on a mission to play fast, and we didn't grind over every shot and every putt.  The funny thing is, in not doing so, I shot my lowest round of the year -- with 7 clubs in my bag, no less.

In competition it is difficult to be so nonchalant, because it's too easy to second-guess yourself about the putt you missed by being too hasty ... never considering the other putt you made because you didn't overthink it.

Your focus was the key.

Since NOBODY reads a rulebook anymore, not even the first page, their focus isn't on the consideration for others. It's on their own petty little score.

 Mr. Van Sickle must've watched a different Colorado golf club. One that didn't have rules officials with each group.

[John Kavanaugh]

I played a couple of rounds with my slow playing buddies and Colorado Golf Club was not at fault at all.  Except for the second hole you hit driver down the fairway, the rough and gunch is some of the best managed I have ever seen so you never look for balls, the bunkers are easy to enter and exit.  Now as far as the greens go we played at member speeds which were perfectly manageable.  If the greens had been at the speeds the girls played we may have never finished.  That is the case everywhere.

You people seem to be missing the true ignorance of Sic.  He hates firm and fast.  We can't expect and really don't have the right to demand that golfers change the way they enjoy the game to suit our own personal need and or paranoia to get home before dark.  We should however have the right to demand our supers prepare a course to play even half as well as CGC played this weekend.  I can see the mantra of the super now, slow down the course to speed up play, that's the ticket.  Get me a cup of coffee and a video camera.

[Jason Thurman]

He's wrong about a lot, but there are some shreds of truth in there. I've edited the quote in the original post to make it accurate:

From Gary Van Sickle on golf.com:

Post-Modern designs like the Colorado Golf Club make fast play impossible for longer round times than many shorter or less complex courses. If some of the best white players in women's golf (OK, only 10 of the world's top 25-ranked players were actually in this event) can't get around the CGC in a timely manner, we shouldn't be surprised. If competitive female golfers were a species, the banana slug might lose its spot on this Wikipedia page. But still, seeing the complexity of the greens and some of the ruling complications, I couldn't help wondering: what chance do 15-handicappers have on a Rube Goldberg-esque course like that? James Joyce isn't for everyone, and maybe interesting golf courses aren't for everyone either.

I'm glad to see the USGA actually acknowledge this with the "While We're Young!" campaign, since I'm old enough to remember Caddyshack. But for younger people who are trying to learn the game and its etiquette, I'm sure those commercials seem totally stupid.. But there are too many courses like the Colorado Golf Club with course ratings above 75 where the only way to speed up play is by threatening to run over anyone who is playing from the wrong tees, failing to prepare to play their shot while their playing partners are hitting, or taking 40 seconds over the ballwith bulldozers.  And that's not going to happen, because personal injury lawyers like The Dragon might be watching, just waiting to pounce on any course that tries to use evolution to combat slow-play..

[Bill_Yates]

Having been cited in this thread as a reference on this subject, let me briefly make a couple of points.

I don't agree with the term "course's fault."  In my 20+ years of study and working with courses, I have discovered there are "Five Major Factors that Impact the Pace of Play," they are:

1. Management Practices and Policies
2. Player Behavior
3. Player Ability
4. Course Maintenance and Set-Up
5. Course Design

Here's how it works:
- Course Design determines how long it should take to play the course (length, obstacles, green to tee distances, etc.)
- The day-to-day combination of Management Practices and Player Behavior determines how long it actually does take to play the course.

By their design, some courses just take longer to play than others.  The trick is to be able to recognize the difference between "long round times" and players playing slowly ("slow play"), and address the latter through improved Management Practices.

[Pete_Pittock]

I can three putt in less than a minute. I have seen others take five minutes and more. The golf course usually has nothing to do with it, but I have seen horrendous hole locations. But that ultimately is a people caused problem.

In fact, I can remember eight putting in a tournament in about three minutes with a teacherous hole locaton and a wavering putting stroke.
Never thought of blaming the architect.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()