OT: If the PGA TOUR is serious about slow play they should ..........

[Rob Marshall]

Erik,
I'm pretty sure that John would agree if you straddle 1 foot putts all day you are going to slow down play.


What I really would like to know is if Aimpointers pick up strokes gained on the field.


John is much more than an Aimpoint coach. Great putting coach and was a great college coach.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm pretty sure that John would agree if you straddle 1 foot putts all day you are going to slow down play.

She stood over that putt for two seconds. Watch the video.

What I really would like to know is if Aimpointers pick up strokes gained on the field.

They do. You're going to see more on that soon. This topic is about pace of play, though, so I'm going to stick to that.

John is much more than an Aimpoint coach. Great putting coach and was a great college coach.

I know John pretty well, man. Thanks. 😃

[Sean_A]

I really don't care at all about the pace of play on the PGA Tour.  I am among the many fans they have (mostly) lost as viewers. 

However, I agree with Erik (this may be a first for me) regarding the '22 Open.  Additional walking yardage is a minor factor in the overall time it took the pros to play.

But the added walk time can be measured to some degree. I would think 100 yards had to be at least 1 minute of walking. So do the math. What I think some folks are saying is the pace of play isn’t drastically affected by the added walking because of other factors. Hence the reason guys are standing on tees waiting to play even after the added walk. Bottom line is the added walk isn’t the same for me hacking around as it is for a tour event.

I agree that slow play is mainly cultural. The Tour is cultured to extremely slow play. Of this there is no doubt in my mind.

I don’t care about Aimpoint, this or that. What matters is the total time to walk and play. If a golfer can do all his shenanigans and still finish in the accepted time that’s fine. A huge problem with the Tour is the accepted time is more like 5+ hours. That is culture. I have no doubt that if the Tour wanted to change to a 4+ hour culture it could do so…assuming it works for tv contracts.

Ciao

[Simon Barrington]

I really don't care at all about the pace of play on the PGA Tour.  I am among the many fans they have (mostly) lost as viewers. 

However, I agree with Erik (this may be a first for me) regarding the '22 Open.  Additional walking yardage is a minor factor in the overall time it took the pros to play.

But the added walk time can be measured to some degree. I would think 100 yards had to be at least 1 minute of walking. So do the math. What I think some folks are saying is the pace of play isn’t drastically affected by the added walking because of other factors. Hence the reason guys are standing on tees waiting to play even after the added walk. Bottom line is the added walk isn’t the same for me hacking around as it is for a tour event.

I agree that slow play is mainly cultural. The Tour is cultured to extremely slow play. Of this there is no doubt in my mind.

I don’t care about Aimpoint, this or that. What matters is the total time to walk and play. If a golfer can do all his shenanigans and still finish in the accepted time that’s fine. A huge problem with the Tour is the accepted time is more like 5+ hours. That is culture. I have no doubt that if the Tour wanted to change to a 4+ hour culture it could do so…assuming it works for tv contracts.

Ciao

Some may suggest it is advantageous to TV/Streaming coverage to have a shorter more predictable window for broadcast, faster play enables that.


A predictable c.2-hour window for the leaders' back nine is much more attractive to both production and spectators (who have scarce available eyeball time, and attention span).

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But the added walk time can be measured to some degree. I would think 100 yards had to be at least 1 minute of walking. So do the math.

It takes just under a minute, so 600 yards takes six minutes out of the 120. But…

As you point out and as Tim has seemingly never grasped… it's not that simple: if you get to the tee and wait three minutes before you tee off, your round time doesn't increase if you walk an extra minute and wait only two minutes. Adding length can add NO time to the length of a round.

The Tour is cultured to extremely slow play.

That's pretty much it.

[Tim Martin]

I'm pretty sure that John would agree if you straddle 1 foot putts all day you are going to slow down play.

She stood over that putt for two seconds. Watch the video.

What I really would like to know is if Aimpointers pick up strokes gained on the field.

They do. You're going to see more on that soon. This topic is about pace of play, though, so I'm going to stick to that.

John is much more than an Aimpoint coach. Great putting coach and was a great college coach.

I know John pretty well, man. Thanks. 😃

Would love to see some independent data about strokes gained from someone other than the people who are hawking AimPoint.

[Bret Lawrence]

I watched my second episode of TGL Golf last night and the pace of play there is amazing! In order to get play done in the broadcast time slot there is a visible 40 second clock. No matter whether it’s a full shot, chip or putt they just get up and hit the ball; zero pre shot routines. They seem to play more instinctively and there is no apparent drop off in performance. It shows that the best golfers in the current world can play quickly and still perform to their desired standards. It’s almost like watching Shells Wonderful World of Golf from days gone by; just step up and hit the damn ball!

I would say video game golf is the ideal structure for pace-of-play.  Every golfer is delivered to an open shot, every time.  There is no waiting for the fairway or green to clear.  The fact that some guy in logistics over at FedEx can’t deliver these golfers to an open shot on the weekend with 77 of the world’s most proficient golfers is mind boggling.  If you have to wave players up on the same hole every year you are clearly not spacing the golfers out properly or checking your math after each tournament.  Thursday and Fridays are obviously busier and the pace-of-play will be slower, but there is no reason these guys should be waiting for Par 5 greens to clear or driveable Par 4’s on the weekends.  That should be baked into the equation already, but it’s clearly not.


The USGA events bake in at least one hour of waiting time in their championship propers, at the cost of participation.  These governing bodies and tours have led us into traffic that they are completely comfortable sitting in.  If you are not comfortable sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic and want to fix pace-of-play at your local level, it should be done from the bottom up, because the universal, top down approach is never coming in our lifetime!

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

How informative is it to use the Old Course during the Open as an example? I think it's an extreme case since you have double greens, cross-overs, long walk backs, usually the largest spectator numbers of any Open and viewing restricted to just one side of each hole.

Isn't it the case that with so many walk backs, the greens on several holes are almost in the line of play for the next hole?

I'm quite sure that those wishing to putt on the 3rd green must wait while players tee off on the 4th hole, and vice versa. There are several examples of this situation on the Old Course, e.g. 1st green/2nd tee; 2nd green/3rd tee; 3rd green/4th tee, etc.

Another issue is the double greens. I recall seeing groups preparing to hole out on the double greens having to wait while the other groups playing a different hole are putting. Perhaps this is not always the case, especially when the holes are cut quite far apart, but I think this is also a major contribution to the long round times.

As a TV viewer, I really don't care so much about long round times. I just want the coverage to focus on players hitting golf shots and exclude the long pre-shot routine and player/caddie discussions. I don't want to see players walking to the tee, lining up putts, weighing up the shot options, deliberating with their caddies, etc. Just show me the golf !!

[Kalen Braley]

In reply 61, John said "If you’re waiting you’re not the problem.", which i certainly agree with but it seems a bit incomplete.

It should also include "...but if you're not figuring out the yardage, conditions, strategy, and in general how you're going to hit your next shot, and have club in hand when its your turn to go, then you are the problem"

It seems like players stroll up to their tee ball, chit chat with the caddy, look around or at the gallery...and then when its actually their turn, THEN they start that entire process.  It would seem a lot of time could be saved if the culture dictates be ready to hit your shot, and then its a quick practice swing and fire away.

Ditto for time on the green in preparing for the putt.   Outside of extra steps near the hole, this is my biggest complaint of Aimpoint.  Given the nature of that routine it would be far too distracting to be doing that while your opponent is putting, so everyone must now wait on you to do it when it is your turn, further incurring more overall delay.

[BHoover]

I know others have made the point, but I’ll say it again — implement a shot clock. A player can do whatever the hell he/she wants in terms of preparation but be ready to play the shot within 40 seconds. Failure to play within the shot clock should be followed by a penalty.


Obviously it will never happen, particularly on the PGA Tour. They refuse to adopt the model rule for a much-needed rollback of the golf ball. Of course they will never adopt a shot clock. But they should.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Aimpoint is the tush push of golf.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Aimpoint is the tush push of golf.

How so?

[Jim_Coleman]

   It works for some but despised by most.

[Jerry Kluger]

I think a conclusion that is reasonable is that generally pace of play is generally determined by the pace of play of the slower players.  Players who are faster generally slow down and try to get their playing rhythm in tune with the other players in the group.  I haven't watched very much of the TGL golf but I do remember seeing Keegan Bradley playing and he didn't to appear to miss any shots or putts because of the shot clock - he scoped out the putt and went ahead and stroked it - got the distance and conditions and hit the shot without twirling the club, etc. 

[David Kelly]

It's 100% culture.  If the Tour's network partners came to them and said that starting in 2026, the average tour round needs to be at 4:00 or all of the contracts are rendered void, the tour would be at 4:00 a round, and the scores and quality of play would not appreciably suffer.

[Chris Hughes]

It's 100% culture.  If the Tour's network partners came to them and said that starting in 2026, the average tour round needs to be at 4:00 or all of the contracts are rendered void, the tour would be at 4:00 a round, and the scores and quality of play would not appreciably suffer.

I kind of doubt the "contracts" allow for that sort of unilateral declaration... 

Joking aside, I don't think the TV partners care. 

And as long as the tourney finishes within the broadcast time slot why would/should they? 

I seem to recollect some recent tourneys finishing early, but don't remember any running long due to slow play. 

Is it possible the Tour and their broadcast partners, together, have analyzed the issue ad nauseum and are fine with the current system as is?

[Matt_Cohn]

And as long as the tourney finishes within the broadcast time slot why would/should they? 

If you just show the guy once he gets over the ball, that's not a good telecast—the discussion, planning, and setup of the shot is interesting. But if you show all that and it keeps taking 60+ seconds, that's boring TV.


I don't think it's about the length of the rounds; I think it's about the less interesting and less action-filled telecast that results from slower, more deliberate play. Just like in baseball—it's not that the telecasts were taking too long; it's that there was too much dead time.

[Matt Schoolfield]

If you just show the guy once he gets over the ball, that's not a good telecast—the discussion, planning, and setup of the shot is interesting. But if you show all that and it keeps taking 60+ seconds, that's boring TV.


I don't think it's about the length of the rounds; I think it's about the less interesting and less action-filled telecast that results from slower, more deliberate play. Just like in baseball—it's not that the telecasts were taking too long; it's that there was too much dead time.

Matt, this is really insightful. I would never have thought if it in a narrative framing like this, but it makes perfect sense.

[Chris Hughes]

And as long as the tourney finishes within the broadcast time slot why would/should they? 

If you just show the guy once he gets over the ball, that's not a good telecast—the discussion, planning, and setup of the shot is interesting. But if you show all that and it keeps taking 60+ seconds, that's boring TV.


I don't think it's about the length of the rounds; I think it's about the less interesting and less action-filled telecast that results from slower, more deliberate play. Just like in baseball—it's not that the telecasts were taking too long; it's that there was too much dead time.

Those sound like production decisions made in real-time during the golf telecast -- unrelated to "pace of play."


I applaud MLB for their efforts (2024 avg. game was 2:37, down from 3:03 in 2022) but I don't see their situation as analogous to golf.  Field size, weather, # of players, rules & rulings, etc...golf just isn't a comparable situation.

[Matt_Cohn]

Those sound like production decisions made in real-time during the golf telecast -- unrelated to "pace of play."


I applaud MLB for their efforts (2024 avg. game was 2:37, down from 3:03 in 2022) but I don't see their situation as analogous to golf.  Field size, weather, # of players, rules & rulings, etc...golf just isn't a comparable situation.

How is this not comparable? Baseball was boring to watch because there was too much setup time between the action, and to many people, golf is boring to watch because there's too much setup time between the action. If golfers on TV play 10% faster, everybody hits ~11% more shots in any given timeframe. More shots and less setup time without missing any of either.

[Sean_A]

And as long as the tourney finishes within the broadcast time slot why would/should they? 

If you just show the guy once he gets over the ball, that's not a good telecast—the discussion, planning, and setup of the shot is interesting. But if you show all that and it keeps taking 60+ seconds, that's boring TV.

I don't think it's about the length of the rounds; I think it's about the less interesting and less action-filled telecast that results from slower, more deliberate play. Just like in baseball—it's not that the telecasts were taking too long; it's that there was too much dead time.

I agree. TV coverage hasn’t changed much over my lifetime. During that time round averages are much higher so there is more dead time. Watch LIV, the coverage is far different. Far more shots shown and less set up time shown. Plus, they are playing faster. Even so, golf is a long commitment to watch on tv. Even if one’s attendance is limited to just the weekend. So the length of the round does matter, but it’s only one factor why golf is usually dull as dishwater to watch even for golfers. People go on about the absurdity of test cricket….hello.

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

    Slow play in golf isn’t a tv problem; it’s a golf problem. Slow play in baseball is only a tv/spectator problem.

[MCirba]

How about a shot clock with, say, two exceptions per player per round for particularly vexing situations?

[Chris Hughes]

Those sound like production decisions made in real-time during the golf telecast -- unrelated to "pace of play."


I applaud MLB for their efforts 👇 (2024 avg. game was 2:37, down from 3:03 in 2022) but I don't see their situation as analogous to golf.  Field size, weather, # of players, rules & rulings, etc...golf just isn't a comparable situation.

             ☝️                       👆


How is this not comparable? Baseball was boring to watch because there was too much setup time between the action, and to many people, golf is boring to watch because there's too much setup time between the action. If golfers on TV play 10% faster, everybody hits ~11% more shots in any given timeframe. More shots and less setup time without missing any of either.

    Slow play in golf isn’t a tv problem; it’s a golf problem. Slow play in baseball is only a tv/spectator problem.

I've never been a guest at or member of any legitimate private club that had a slow play problem.  If yours does a frank conversation with the Board/proshop is in order.


Public/municipal golf is a different animal.  The powers that be don't, won't, or can't enforce for a variety of reasons.  The expectation of a 4hr round at Bethpage or Big Rec on a Saturday at 1pm is just unrealistic.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

How about a shot clock with, say, two exceptions per player per round for particularly vexing situations?

Thing is… the Tour is mostly player run. If they want a change, they'll make a change. That they haven't says a lot, IMO…

[Tags:]

Tags: