Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: MCirba on November 15, 2017, 07:34:08 AM
-
It also means flatter greens and less fun and less interesting greens.
http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/11/15/initial-findings-confirm-faster-greens-mean-slower-play.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
-
Many privates that lack internal contouring ramp up the speeds in an effort to compensate for same. With sloping greens come downhill putts and herein lies the problem.
-
There is no question about this, and it's especially true, at least IMO, on the bermuda hybrids where lag putting is MUCH more difficult when the greens are fast. The grain on those greens tends to take anything that is downhill or sidehill significantly farther away from the hole than on bent grass, and you end up grinding on second (or third) putts instead of tapping in.
It just takes a LONG time to play that way, and it isn't much fun, really. Just kind of wears you down, whether you putt well or not.
-
and you end up grinding on second (or third) putts instead of tapping in.
Reasonably certain the greater cause of slow play is a bunch of 18-handicap calibre players grinding over any shot.
-
and you end up grinding on second (or third) putts instead of tapping in.
Reasonably certain the greater cause of slow play is a bunch of 18-handicap calibre players grinding over any shot.
Actually, it’s the 12s who think they’re 8s who dream of being 4s who cause most of the problems.
Not many 18s I know or ever played with grind over any shot, let alone putts for bogey or double. They’re well aware of their handicaps and don’t take themselves or the game/score too seriously — and they know that right behind them there is a group of 12s who think they’re 8s dreaming of being 4s shooting them the evil eye.
-
Yes it’s the 12s, I agree. Is at my place anyway. Some of the scratch guys too. But they take less shots overall.
I study this behavior a lot at our course as we are fairly militant about pace, given the 22000 rounds we get in a season. Mostly, it’s people just not caring. They tell a joke on the tee box. They aren’t ready when it’s their turn. Heck, they even wait for their turn! And plumb bobbing, and all that. Just hit the putt man, you play here all the time!
-
Everything that makes the game more fun for you slows down the game for others.
-
You guys can think what you want about who is or is not grinding over a second or third putt. But I can tell you to a certainty that ANY index who is playing in a points or skins game, or ANY golfer that is playing in a tournament under the Rules, has to putt out. And that becomes MUCH harder when the green speeds get much above 10.
We get so elitist and "holier than thou" on this site about pace of play and what the differences are between us and the great unwashed out there, especially the imagined high handicappers. And most of it is crap most of the time. A high index guy is picking up MORE often than the low index because he crashes into ESC more often. There is NO link between fast golf and either bad OR good golf, and we'd do well to remember that. If we could all climb down off our pedestals and high horses for a moment and quit pointing fingers at other golfers, we'd do better in the discussion of the issue at hand.
There IS, however, a link between having to play under the Rules and slow play, and there is no way around that fact. And that fact of life and golf only gets more true at high green speeds. If you are playing under the Rules and you have to make a three footer for money and/or your place in a competition, that's a way different deal than in casual play, and a way different deal when the greens are fast vs moderate or slow.
If you don't want or need to putt out, have at it. But you don't foster rational discussion by blaming slow play on bad golfers in a discussion of the impact of high green speeds on pace of play.
-
You can't fake making a putt matter.
-
I have studied greens in this regard over the years. From my own limited samples (and mostly from my public course designs where cup areas are under 2.25%) 9.5-10 is comfortable for me and all I play with, 11+ is uncomfortable and causes more misses.
Did a master plan for a private club last year, proud of their 13 green speeds every day. They reported five or six greens were scary. I used the old Masters pin location set up method of measuring % of slope both ways at select hole locations, and only placing pins under 5.5 combined. (they prefer 5.0 combined on the front half of the green)
Damn if every tough hole location was at 5.6 or higher, so the system is right on the nose, apparently, at least for country club golfers feeling comfortable on fast greens. BTW, if you use your high school geometry, 5.5 combined slope translates closer to 4% actual slope max) and 3% is the max typically recommended by the USGA.
Of course, borderline scary still translates into more putts, IHMO. Really, if green speeds keep going up, I presume the "casual rules" of golf will emulate putt-putt and require a maximum of three putts before picking up. It's generally what happens anyway in the higher handicap groups, no?
-
I have studied greens in this regard over the years. From my own limited samples (and mostly from my public course designs where cup areas are under 2.25%) 9.5-10 is comfortable for me and all I play with, 11+ is uncomfortable and causes more misses.
Did a master plan for a private club last year, proud of their 13 green speeds every day. They reported five or six greens were scary. I used the old Masters pin location set up method of measuring % of slope both ways at select hole locations, and only placing pins under 5.5 combined. (they prefer 5.0 combined on the front half of the green)
Damn if every tough hole location was at 5.6 or higher, so the system is right on the nose, apparently, at least for country club golfers feeling comfortable on fast greens. BTW, if you use your high school geometry, 5.5 combined slope translates closer to 4% actual slope max) and 3% is the max typically recommended by the USGA.
Of course, borderline scary still translates into more putts, IHMO. Really, if green speeds keep going up, I presume the "casual rules" of golf will emulate putt-putt and require a maximum of three putts before picking up. It's generally what happens anyway in the higher handicap groups, no?
Jeff,
I agree with you 100% about 10 being sort of a break point for green speeds and pace of play. I used to think that the problems at 11+ cropped up because most players don't get the opportunity to play at those speeds often enough, but I don't believe that so much anymore. Rather, I think that putting at those speeds just takes a long time because second (and third putts) are longer, and that means harder. There's a "critical mass" to this, I think, and 11+ seems to me to it, even for skilled players.
And I'd add this again; there is a big difference, IMO, between 11+ on Champion bermuda vs. 11+ on bent grass because the grain issue becomes significant on bermuda. Putts can really get away down-grain in a way that just doesn't happen on bent, and play gets REALLY slow. We're seeing more and more courses with fast bermuda greens, and slower play is an inevitable result.
In any case, though, I think blaming golfers for putting out instead of picking up, or thinking that the problem with green speeds is somehow ability-based, just completely misses the point. Really fast greens make putting harder for ALL golfers, and putting is always going to be the slowest part of the game anyway.
-
AG,
Have you and your friends ever given up on a course because they kept their greens too fast?
-
The problem here is that it is BAD SCIENCE. The results are not reproducible and all the various variables are not controlled. I can find a study to confirm anything I want in regard to what does or does not speed up play.
"Study confirms that not caring about score speeds up play."
"Study confirms that conceding all putts within 5 feet during a Match speeds up play."
Duh.
It's about good pace of play habits vs. bad pace of play habits. The more one blames things outside the player's control the more we codify behavior that doesn't help. Everything else is a canard.
-
AG,
Have you and your friends ever given up on a course because they kept their greens too fast?
John,
No, not at all, though there have been one of two that I've played during a tournament round and was glad I wasn't playing every day as a home course. And there have been others, like Pinehurst #2 that, while I was playing it, wondered how in the heck the pros play it at the green speeds they experience.
-
The problem here is that it is BAD SCIENCE. The results are not reproducible and all the various variables are not controlled. I can find a study to confirm anything I want in regard to what does or does not speed up play.
"Study confirms that not caring about score speeds up play."
"Study confirms that conceded all putts within 5 feet during a Match speeds up play."
Duh.
It's about good pace of play habits vs. bad pace of play habits. The more one blames things outside the player's control the more we codify behavior that doesn't help. Everything else is a canard.
Kyle,
I don't think I need a study to tell me that players with bad habits play slower. But I also don't think I need a study to tell me that more putts equals more time, and that really fast greens equals more putts. Three putts take longer than two putts, regardless of how fast or slow a player's routine is.
And please don't respond to this by telling me about hypothetical high handicappers that plumb bob 3 footers for triple bogey. That's not what we're talking about at all.
-
The problem here is that it is BAD SCIENCE. The results are not reproducible and all the various variables are not controlled. I can find a study to confirm anything I want in regard to what does or does not speed up play.
"Study confirms that not caring about score speeds up play."
"Study confirms that conceded all putts within 5 feet during a Match speeds up play."
Duh.
It's about good pace of play habits vs. bad pace of play habits. The more one blames things outside the player's control the more we codify behavior that doesn't help. Everything else is a canard.
Kyle,
I don't think I need a study to tell me that players with bad habits play slower. But I also don't think I need a study to tell me that more putts equals more time, and that really fast greens equals more putts. Three putts take longer than two putts, regardless of how fast or slow a player's routine is.
And please don't respond to this by telling me about hypothetical high handicappers that plumb bob 3 footers for triple bogey. That's not what we're talking about at all.
Is that same group three putting doing any of the following to help?
Parking carts in the correct place to get to the next shot?
Taking multiple clubs for their shot?
Prepared to play when it's their turn regardless of ready-golf or honor?
Stopping for lunch at the turn? Bev Cart trips?
Hitting multiple balls off any tee?
Those are far more critical behaviors that I have yet to see addressed in any significant way on a golf course in terms of speeding play along. I've three-putted many nightmarishly fast greens, yet still don't seem to have a problem getting around in 3 hours.
The overall message with statements like this here is that it is anything but golfers who are responsible for their pace of play, which is nonsense.
-
The easiest way to speed up play at private clubs is to not allow unaccompanied guests. The second easiest is to not allow guests at all.
-
The problem here is that it is BAD SCIENCE. The results are not reproducible and all the various variables are not controlled. I can find a study to confirm anything I want in regard to what does or does not speed up play.
"Study confirms that not caring about score speeds up play."
"Study confirms that conceded all putts within 5 feet during a Match speeds up play."
Duh.
It's about good pace of play habits vs. bad pace of play habits. The more one blames things outside the player's control the more we codify behavior that doesn't help. Everything else is a canard.
Kyle,
I don't think I need a study to tell me that players with bad habits play slower. But I also don't think I need a study to tell me that more putts equals more time, and that really fast greens equals more putts. Three putts take longer than two putts, regardless of how fast or slow a player's routine is.
And please don't respond to this by telling me about hypothetical high handicappers that plumb bob 3 footers for triple bogey. That's not what we're talking about at all.
Is that same group three putting doing any of the following to help?
Parking carts in the correct place to get to the next shot?
Taking multiple clubs for their shot?
Prepared to play when it's their turn regardless of ready-golf or honor?
Stopping for lunch at the turn? Bev Cart trips?
Hitting multiple balls off any tee?
Those are far more critical behaviors that I have yet to see addressed in any significant way on a golf course in terms of speeding play along. I've three-putted many nightmarishly fast greens, yet still don't seem to have a problem getting around in 3 hours.
The overall message with statements like this here is that it is anything but golfers who are responsible for their pace of play, which is nonsense.
Kyle,
You want to talk about golfers in a discussion of green speeds, but I must warn you; you are in danger of tearing your rotator cuff from patting yourself on the back about how fast you can play golf relative to others! :)
The issue at hand is not whether or not there are slow golfers and fast golfers, or whether not lots of things can and should be done to speed pace of play. We all know those things, and god knows there is no shortage of topics on GCA.com where we call all discuss slow golfers and how much faster WE are than the norm.
This discussion is about how the speed of greens might impact the pace of play REGARDLESS of the relative speed of particular golfers. I find that interesting and compelling; you obviously don't.
-
The problem here is that it is BAD SCIENCE. The results are not reproducible and all the various variables are not controlled. I can find a study to confirm anything I want in regard to what does or does not speed up play.
"Study confirms that not caring about score speeds up play."
"Study confirms that conceded all putts within 5 feet during a Match speeds up play."
Duh.
It's about good pace of play habits vs. bad pace of play habits. The more one blames things outside the player's control the more we codify behavior that doesn't help. Everything else is a canard.
Kyle,
I don't think I need a study to tell me that players with bad habits play slower. But I also don't think I need a study to tell me that more putts equals more time, and that really fast greens equals more putts. Three putts take longer than two putts, regardless of how fast or slow a player's routine is.
And please don't respond to this by telling me about hypothetical high handicappers that plumb bob 3 footers for triple bogey. That's not what we're talking about at all.
Is that same group three putting doing any of the following to help?
Parking carts in the correct place to get to the next shot?
Taking multiple clubs for their shot?
Prepared to play when it's their turn regardless of ready-golf or honor?
Stopping for lunch at the turn? Bev Cart trips?
Hitting multiple balls off any tee?
Those are far more critical behaviors that I have yet to see addressed in any significant way on a golf course in terms of speeding play along. I've three-putted many nightmarishly fast greens, yet still don't seem to have a problem getting around in 3 hours.
The overall message with statements like this here is that it is anything but golfers who are responsible for their pace of play, which is nonsense.
Kyle,
You want to talk about golfers in a discussion of green speeds, but I must warn you; you are in danger of tearing your rotator cuff from patting yourself on the back about how fast you can play golf relative to others! :)
The issue at hand is not whether or not there are slow golfers and fast golfers, or whether not lots of things can and should be done to speed pace of play. We all know those things, and god knows there is no shortage of topics on GCA.com where we call all discuss slow golfers and how much faster WE are than the norm.
This discussion is about how the speed of greens might impact the pace of play REGARDLESS of the relative speed of particular golfers. I find that interesting and compelling; you obviously don't.
I find it self-apparent.
However, the tone and context of the presentment, especially on the part of the media outlet referencing the study is taking the step to suggest that this is a critical and necessary step to take in order to help speed pace of play. The published study itself even mentions that this was not as big of an impact as hypothesized while Geoff goes on to downplay that aspect.
I disagree there.
-
Caning is the only solution to ending slow play. Cirba and I would be happy to administer a study on it.
-
I wish Shack had linked the Kyle-AG discussion instead; so much preaching to the converted is leading to the Great Apostasy — even among the devout!
In fact, I think the only reason Mike posted Shack’s link was as a warning shot to Merion! :)
-
Caning is the only solution to ending slow play. Cirba and I would be happy to administer a study on it.
Mike Cirba or Mike Fay (subtle historical reference from about 25 years ago)?
-
Isn't there sufficient evidence that golfers love fast greens? Are supers eventually going to take a cut in pay if their jobs become easier to replicate with less talented people?
-
Isn't there sufficient evidence that golfers love fast greens? Are supers eventually going to take a cut in pay if their jobs become easier to replicate with less talented people?
No, they are going to have more free time to reply to your posts and spend time with their dogs.
-
Some of the fault for slow play with guests is the caddies who think they need to read every put.
Slow play itself is more related to temperament and attitude than to handicap.
And in the "you gotta hear it to believe it"...one of the younger better players (a big cause of slow play) at my club has suggested that those that play the back tees "deserve" extra time on the course and should not be subjected to 4:00 mandate.
-
Soft fairways also speed up play. Every time you allow a ball to roll you introduce the unexpected. This leads to confusion and slow play.
-
The problem here is that it is BAD SCIENCE. The results are not reproducible and all the various variables are not controlled. I can find a study to confirm anything I want in regard to what does or does not speed up play.
The study leaves a LOT more questions than it answers. It's really pretty poorly done, as far as "science" goes.
I agree that we need to stop finding external reasons for slow play. The biggest, most obvious root cause is… slow players!
I don't think I need a study to tell me that players with bad habits play slower. But I also don't think I need a study to tell me that more putts equals more time, and that really fast greens equals more putts. Three putts take longer than two putts, regardless of how fast or slow a player's routine is.
I read a study awhile ago that, given time to adjust (20-30 minutes or so of warmup time), players of all levels putted better on faster greens (to a point, we're not saying 14 stimp greens here). Faster greens are smoother and thus truer, and require smaller strokes less prone to making errors than bigger strokes.
-
Caning is the only solution to ending slow play. Cirba and I would be happy to administer a study on it.
I am already on the record favoring the death penalty for anyone playing a round in over 4 hours. Caning to me seems to be a very halfway, overly lenient measure.
-
The great thing about golf in the Philadelphia area is that the courses benefit from a wide range of weather conditions. Frequently, green speeds follow something close to this cyclical nature...
With astute course set up, even a fairly mundane course can deliver a ton of variety through the year. All as a byproduct of variable green speeds.
-
Our club recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. In this time, not once have I received a complaint for greens being too fast, only compliments. And they get really fast at times. I receive dozens of complaints when they are slower. I think just the complaining makes pace slower...
-
To that point; if given the option to select “fast” or “slow” when calling to make a tee time...what would be the split?
-
Soft fairways also speed up play. Every time you allow a ball to roll you introduce the unexpected. This leads to confusion and slow play.
+1
I don't know if you were trying to be funny but this sure cracked me up.
-
To that point; if given the option to select “fast” or “slow” when calling to make a tee time...what would be the split?
10/0 in favour of fast, provided the superintendent understands fast is a relative term that has to consider slope.
-
Can we just speed things to their logical conclusion by all agreeing to go to perfectly level greased linoleum putting greens?
-
As a high capper myself, I think Kyle is right on point in this thread.
In my experience, When you miss that first putt for par (because we normally don't get the GIR), and then the second one for bogey misses...at that point you don't really give a crap anymore and just hurry up on the 3rd putt...and then quickly pick up if that don't go in.
Blaming putting for the scourge of slow play is like thinking your wife divorced you for leaving the toilet seat up. An annoyance for sure, but pretty sure its not the reason she kicked you to the curb. ;)
-
As a high capper myself, I think Kyle is right on point in this thread.
In my experience, When you miss that first putt for par (because we normally don't get the GIR), and then the second one for bogey misses...at that point you don't really give a crap anymore and just hurry up on the 3rd putt...and then quickly pick up if that don't go in.
Blaming putting for the scourge of slow play is like thinking your wife divorced you for leaving the toilet seat up. An annoyance for sure, but pretty sure its not the reason she kicked you to the curb. ;)
Kalen,
But the question at hand is NOT whether fast greens is THE culprit or not, or even the biggest of several culprits; it's whether fast greens contribute.
As with your hypothetical (I hope) wife, the toilet seat wasn't THE cause, or even in the top ten, but it didn't help, did it?
-
Can we just speed things to their logical conclusion by all agreeing to go to perfectly level greased linoleum putting greens?
Mike,
I played two tournaments this summer, one on Bermuda and one on bent, during which I thought to myself, "I really have to get home and refinish my hardwood floors; they're much too bumpy and MUCH too slow!"
Both of those tournaments were 5 hour rounds with a field of ONLY good golfers who play lots of competitive golf.
-
As a high capper myself, I think Kyle is right on point in this thread.
In my experience, When you miss that first putt for par (because we normally don't get the GIR), and then the second one for bogey misses...at that point you don't really give a crap anymore and just hurry up on the 3rd putt...and then quickly pick up if that don't go in.
Blaming putting for the scourge of slow play is like thinking your wife divorced you for leaving the toilet seat up. An annoyance for sure, but pretty sure its not the reason she kicked you to the curb. ;)
Kalen,
But the question at hand is NOT whether fast greens is THE culprit or not, or even the biggest of several culprits; it's whether fast greens contribute.
As with your hypothetical (I hope) wife, the toilet seat wasn't THE cause, or even in the top ten, but it didn't help, did it?
AG,
I will not doubt its a mitigating factor, but i think the point Kyle makes is there are so many other more important ones, it seems a bit silly to address it as one of the first action items. To give another analogy, its like saying your going to buy and renovate an old house and the first thing on your list is buying a welcome mat for the front porch. Its so far down the list, its borderline absurd.
P.S. Lord knows my wife has plenty of valid reasons to leave me if she so chooses, but after 24 years she says she's gonna stick with me...for now!! ;D And its been years since she's mentioned something as trivial as the toilet seat.
-
The late Peggy Kirk Bell, Grand Dame of Pine Needles bemoaning all of grinding over putts said that of the players that she saw come through there in more than 50 years, even they knew the line not 5 in a hundred golfers could hit it on the line. Her point well taken was that it was more about speed for the average golfer and depending on distance one should be looking to get the ball inside a circle the size of a trashcan lid, from closer in inside a platter, and up close the hole.
Golfer's egos substitute coincidence for causality. Making a 20' put does not mean the the 3 minutes taken to line it up made it more likely that it holed out.
-
Jay - with the buddy up thread near the top of the page, I thought it a good time to say that I hope to make it to NC one day, and that I look forward to the chance to tee it up with you at Mid Pines, Pine Needles and Dormie.
I will recognize you by your golf bag; and you will be able to recognize me as the guy on the range and/or putting green confusing coincidence with causality! :)
-
So, generally speaking greens running at 10 take more time play than greens running at 9? 6 seconds they say....that extra 9 minutes per 4 ball over 18 holes can easily be made up somewhere else. To me the bottom line is you do not attack fast greens because they slow play down. You attack the concept because of what it can mean once slopes head toward 4% and up. Do we want to reduce slope to accomodate speed and is speed of greens a reasonably sustainable concept for most clubs in the current environment? I am long on record as saying 9-10 is about the right pace for interesting greens...wild greens need to run slower. By far the more important aspects are to get the greens as firm as reasonable and running true. Speed should simply be a function green condition and slope.
Ciao
-
I've wondered how much faster greens affect pitching and chipping. My gut feeling is plenty, with your average player able to get the ball closer to the pin with slower greens.
-
Some of the fault for slow play with guests is the caddies who think they need to read every put.
Slow play itself is more related to temperament and attitude than to handicap.
And in the "you gotta hear it to believe it"...one of the younger better players (a big cause of slow play) at my club has suggested that those that play the back tees "deserve" extra time on the course and should not be subjected to 4:00 mandate.
yikes....
IMHO Golf got itself in a very bad place with its insistence on "growing the game"
which really means get as many players possible to pay and buy stuff--not exactly growing the "game"
Desperation generally leads to poor choices-and sadly at many places survival dictates a buyers market -translation:knuckleheads are tolerated
-
yikes....
IMHO Golf got itself in a very bad place with its insistence on "growing the game"
which really means get as many players possible to pay and buy stuff--not exactly growing the "game"
Desperation generally leads to poor choices-and sadly at many places survival dictates a buyers market -translation:knuckleheads are tolerated
Agree completely.
-
We really do like to argue here, don't we? ;)
I think the point is that all other things being equal, greens where the ball can easily get away from you leads to more putts and more time. As Joe B pointed out, that's just not putting but chipping and pitching and bunker shots, as well.
One might argue that the same effect may occur on highly undulating greens that are slower simply because of the degree of challenge/break, etc., but at least that's fun.
I'm not sure watching a barely tapped putt continue to slide 2, 3, 6 feet past is really all that enjoyable.
-
I've wondered how much faster greens affect pitching and chipping. My gut feeling is plenty, with your average player able to get the ball closer to the pin with slower greens.
IMO,as much, if not more, than putting.
-
I've wondered how much faster greens affect pitching and chipping. My gut feeling is plenty, with your average player able to get the ball closer to the pin with slower greens.
IMO,as much, if not more, than putting.
I think this is why you see putting and/or hybrids becoming more prevelant where the runoffs and surrounds are closely mowed. This is seemingly true at all skill levels as I see more proficient players using it as a default when they can keep it on the ground. There are those that won't surrender the wedge but I believe there would be lower scores and more smiles at the end of the day with this method.
-
Faster greens do equal more putts so obviously slow the game. Equally contoured greens are more difficult than flat ones so obviously slow the game.
The more contour involved in the green the slower play will be.
-
Faster greens do equal more putts so obviously slow the game. Equally contoured greens are more difficult than flat ones so obviously slow the game.
That's not necessarily accurate.
And I don't mean on a case by case basis, I mean generally. I've seen a few studies that say that players putt better on faster greens.
-
Faster greens do equal more putts so obviously slow the game. Equally contoured greens are more difficult than flat ones so obviously slow the game.
That's not necessarily accurate.
And I don't mean on a case by case basis, I mean generally. I've seen a few studies that say that players putt better on faster greens.
Generally golfers take more putts the faster the greens are. You can ring fence certain genres so the better players would putt better at say 11.5 than an 8.0 but mainly that is because what someone is used too. A more average player less regular player is more likely to have a complete nightmare on fast ones.
-
Fast green slows down pace of play. There is no doubt in my mind. Even though more long putts may be made due to the smoother surfaces the amount of grinding due to less tap ins as the ball rolls out is significant, even if you’re making them all. Also, Joe’s point of the impact on pitching and chipping is very real in adding difficulty and time.
An insight that I had earlier this year is that really fast greens kill the ground game. It becomes harder to have a ball consistently run on and stop as the greens get faster. The benefits of an aerial green with spin is very much amplified.
-
That point about the ground game really is an excellent one, Jim.
-
An insight that I had earlier this year is that really fast greens kill the ground game. It becomes harder to have a ball consistently run on and stop as the greens get faster. The benefits of an aerial green with spin is very much amplified.
+1
Played at Roaring Gap in a hickory event a couple of years back, the day before the member/guest, and the greens were rolling +/-13. Running a ball up was like rolling a ball off of shag carpet onto a bowling alley. The variation in coefficients of friction made for a very difficult and longer than expected round. Of course the aerial game didn't fare any better as niblicks with no real grooves imparted little or no spin. A frustrating day for those seeking low scores but a great day to enjoy a wonderful course.
-
An insight that I had earlier this year is that really fast greens kill the ground game. It becomes harder to have a ball consistently run on and stop as the greens get faster. The benefits of an aerial green with spin is very much amplified.
true-and we're going in the wrong direction in trying to make the surrounds catch up with the green speed rather than vice versa
-
and you end up grinding on second (or third) putts instead of tapping in.
Reasonably certain the greater cause of slow play is a bunch of 18-handicap calibre players grinding over any shot.
Reasonably certain the greater cause of slow play is a bunch of low handicap calibre players grinding over any shot to preserve their low handicap.
-
Generally golfers take more putts the faster the greens are. You can ring fence certain genres so the better players would putt better at say 11.5 than an 8.0 but mainly that is because what someone is used too. A more average player less regular player is more likely to have a complete nightmare on fast ones.
I don't believe that to be accurate, and it's not based on the studies I've seen. Given a little time to acclimate, golfers of a wide range of ability levels putt better on faster greens. Shorter strokes, putts hold their lines more/better, etc.
Either way, greens adding or subtracting five or six minutes per round is not where we should be looking. Slow players are the cause of slow play, not greens that stimp at 11 instead of 10.
-
Generally golfers take more putts the faster the greens are. You can ring fence certain genres so the better players would putt better at say 11.5 than an 8.0 but mainly that is because what someone is used too. A more average player less regular player is more likely to have a complete nightmare on fast ones.
I don't believe that to be accurate, and it's not based on the studies I've seen. Given a little time to acclimate, golfers of a wide range of ability levels putt better on faster greens. Shorter strokes, putts hold their lines more/better, etc.
Either way, greens adding or subtracting five or six minutes per round is not where we should be looking. Slow players are the cause of slow play, not greens that stimp at 11 instead of 10.
Surprisingly, I agree with Eric on both points. The book Newton on the Tee would validate the first point. And, I have long supported the idea that slow play is a personal characteristic, and is best addressed with the individual.
-
. Slow players are the cause of slow play, not greens that stimp at 11 instead of 10.
+1
-
For clarification:
1. In NO way do I believe or mean to imply that green speeds are anywhere near the top of the list of reasons for slow play. I agree 100% with those of you that believe that individual players primarily determine pace of play, and that there are several other factors that are also much, much more significant than green speeds.
2. I interpreted the discussion to be about the question of whether or not extreme green speeds take longer to play, rather than where that ranks on the list of reasons for slow play.
3. Since most golfers don't fully putt out in most rounds, greens speeds don't matter in the pace of play for most golfers in most rounds.
4. I'm an outlier, I think; I play a lot of low-level competition, on a lot of different courses with greens at a lot of different speeds, both bent and bermuda. Consequently, I putt out even in casual rounds unless ESC has reared it's ugly head.
4. All of that said, I think that extreme green speeds matter to pace of play primarily on the newer hybrid bermuda greens, simply because putts can get away from even good putters in a way that simply doesn't happen on bent grass. You don't have to agree with that, of course.
So PLEASE don't quote me in a post in which you rant that green speeds are way down the list of pace of play sins, ok? That isn't in question, and I don't disagree anyway.
But if you can play a round on Champion Bermuda greens that are running 11 or 12 in which you putt everything out and score matters as fast as you play on greens that are running 9 or 10, you are different than anybody I've come across.
-
Whilst I don't think Fast greens is the main reason for slow play by any means. The time it takes on greens is in my opinion one area where a lot of time could be saved on a round and I am talking about 30-40 minutes.
Fast greens (or faster than normal) will add some time because the situation is abnormal.
Highly contoured greens will add some time because of the extra thought into reading a curler or straight un. Both will lead to more three putting which is very depressing for most golfers. Very few golfers find it fun to three putt.
The real waste time is the continued marking of the ball and the stripe alignment.
30-40 minutes of saved time is a big thing.....so new rule MARK IT ONCE on the green.
-
So PLEASE don't quote me in a post in which you rant that green speeds are way down the list of pace of play sins, ok? That isn't in question, and I don't disagree anyway.
I apologize if any of my posts came off that way. I was speaking generally, and only really ever saying that so that we can maintain perspective. I think almost everyone here agrees that this is well down on the list of things that slow down play.
30-40 minutes of saved time is a big thing.....so new rule MARK IT ONCE on the green.
As much as we might all like that, it's probably not going to happen. "Continuous putting" is very similar in terms of what actually happens.
-
I do believe that we can all agree that firm and fast fairways lead to slow play more often than fast greens. Few people lose a ball on the green.
-
I do believe that we can all agree that firm and fast fairways lead to slow play more often than fast greens. Few people lose a ball on the green.
You haven't seen my putting since trump was elected, John.
-
The problem here is that it is BAD SCIENCE. The results are not reproducible and all the various variables are not controlled. I can find a study to confirm anything I want in regard to what does or does not speed up play.
The study leaves a LOT more questions than it answers. It's really pretty poorly done, as far as "science" goes.
I agree that we need to stop finding external reasons for slow play. The biggest, most obvious root cause is… slow players!
I don't think I need a study to tell me that players with bad habits play slower. But I also don't think I need a study to tell me that more putts equals more time, and that really fast greens equals more putts. Three putts take longer than two putts, regardless of how fast or slow a player's routine is.
I read a study awhile ago that, given time to adjust (20-30 minutes or so of warmup time), players of all levels putted better on faster greens (to a point, we're not saying 14 stimp greens here). Faster greens are smoother and thus truer, and require smaller strokes less prone to making errors than bigger strokes.
The biggest reason behind slow play is not players but the amount of players on the course, a full course means slow play.
There is no doubt there's multiple reasons behind slow play and tackling any reason will lead to faster rounds. I also feel that blaming the player continuously is a cop out by golf clubs and courses in other words it's your fault so we don't need to do anything about it.
Reason's behind slow play
Number of people on the course - i.e starting times too close together
Player behaviour
Course set up - speed of greens, pin placements, height of rough etc
Length of course
Length of walks from greens to tee
Two things are fixed and can't be changed but the course has a big influence over three ie starting times, course set up and player behaviour
There is no harm in talking about any of the factors and when it comes to architecture you'd have to say that green speeds might be the most important one to talk about.
-
The problem here is that it is BAD SCIENCE. The results are not reproducible and all the various variables are not controlled. I can find a study to confirm anything I want in regard to what does or does not speed up play.
The study leaves a LOT more questions than it answers. It's really pretty poorly done, as far as "science" goes.
I agree that we need to stop finding external reasons for slow play. The biggest, most obvious root cause is… slow players!
I don't think I need a study to tell me that players with bad habits play slower. But I also don't think I need a study to tell me that more putts equals more time, and that really fast greens equals more putts. Three putts take longer than two putts, regardless of how fast or slow a player's routine is.
I read a study awhile ago that, given time to adjust (20-30 minutes or so of warmup time), players of all levels putted better on faster greens (to a point, we're not saying 14 stimp greens here). Faster greens are smoother and thus truer, and require smaller strokes less prone to making errors than bigger strokes.
The biggest reason behind slow play is not players but the amount of players on the course, a full course means slow play.
There is no doubt there's multiple reasons behind slow play and tackling any reason will lead to faster rounds. I also feel that blaming the player continuously is a cop out by golf clubs and courses in other words it's your fault so we don't need to do anything about it.
Reason's behind slow play
Number of people on the course - i.e starting times too close together
Player behaviour
Course set up - speed of greens, pin placements, height of rough etc
Length of course
Length of walks from greens to tee
Two things are fixed and can't be changed but the course has a big influence over three ie starting times, course set up and player behaviour
There is no harm in talking about any of the factors and when it comes to architecture you'd have to say that green speeds might be the most important one to talk about.
The course set up as it relates to tees and pin placements can really slow things down as colder temps are upon is. Add a winter wind and the ball not compressing on mishits and it plays quite a bit tougher even with ordinary pin placements. With all the weather forecasting available it would seem that with rain,wind,cold would come an easier setup just to keep everybody moving and engaged.
-
The biggest reason behind slow play is not players but the amount of players on the course, a full course means slow play.
I don't think that's accurate at all. If everyone plays in three hours, you play in three hours. If one group of slow players holds people up, everyone after that group is held up.
Number of people on the course - i.e starting times too close together
I've started a round 45 minutes after a slow group, caught them on the sixth hole, and taken almost four hours just to play the last 11 holes. We might be two of only seven foursomes on the course, and still my round takes > 4 hours.
I've conducted a college tournament - and they're not known for fast play - with 24 groups (including ~15 female players), and finished the round the last two years in four hours straight. Shotgun start, "full" course the entire four hours for every group. Four hours, full Rules of Golf, in a competitive setting, with all players walking.
-
[quote author=Erik J. Barzeski link=topic=65256.msg1556559#msg1556559 date
I don't think that's accurate at all. If everyone plays in three hours, you play in three hours. If one group of slow players holds people up, everyone after that group is held up.
There’s an interview will Bill Yates on this site where he goes through the reasons for slow play. Number 1 is the amount of golfers on the course.
Even if it takes just 3 hours to play and everyone is normally able to play in 3 hours and full course means play will be slow even with no slow groups. Imagine a group needs to look for a ball this causes a delay, the delay is felt by everyone behind. Then another group loses a ball etc etc. Now imagine a player is waiting for a par 5 and holding up a group behind, the delay goes all the way through the field as with a full course there is no space to move into. Slow down how quickly golfers start and now there’s space to move into.
In your example of catching a group in front and being held on an empty course. That’s player behaviour. If your group had been called through then you would have finished quickly. This also can’t be done when the course is full.
-
My recollection of Bill Yates result was that course conditions slowed things down.
So if there are no conditions that cause ball searching then there is no backup due to that on a course full of quick players.
-
[quote author=Erik J. Barzeski link=topic=65256.msg1556559#msg1556559 date
I don't think that's accurate at all. If everyone plays in three hours, you play in three hours. If one group of slow players holds people up, everyone after that group is held up.
There’s an interview will Bill Yates on this site where he goes through the reasons for slow play. Number 1 is the amount of golfers on the course.
Even if it takes just 3 hours to play and everyone is normally able to play in 3 hours and full course means play will be slow even with no slow groups. Imagine a group needs to look for a ball this causes a delay, the delay is felt by everyone behind. Then another group loses a ball etc etc. Now imagine a player is waiting for a par 5 and holding up a group behind, the delay goes all the way through the field as with a full course there is no space to move into. Slow down how quickly golfers start and now there’s space to move into.
In your example of catching a group in front and being held on an empty course. That’s player behaviour. If your group had been called through then you would have finished quickly. This also can’t be done when the course is full.
A number of years ago I played in a scramble on a par 71 course with at least 34 teams. It went pretty good until the B teams teed off. After a while I commented that"we were holding up ourselves. We were literally playing at the pace of the slowest golfer. It was at least a 6 hour round.
-
Even if it takes just 3 hours to play and everyone is normally able to play in 3 hours and full course means play will be slow even with no slow groups. Imagine a group needs to look for a ball this causes a delay, the delay is felt by everyone behind. Then another group loses a ball etc etc. Now imagine a player is waiting for a par 5 and holding up a group behind, the delay goes all the way through the field as with a full course there is no space to move into. Slow down how quickly golfers start and now there’s space to move into.
Fast players would make up the space/time again, and the ripple effect would be minimized. I've seen it from the tournament I mentioned: we had a player go back to the tee (from the green on a par five, no less). Three groups back they barely noticed anything, the offending player's group was back in position a hole later.
I think slow players are the cause of slow play, and one comment from an interview here on this site isn't really enough evidence to sway me from that.
-
Fast players would make up the space/time again, and the ripple effect would be minimized. I've seen it from the tournament I mentioned: we had a player go back to the tee (from the green on a par five, no less). Three groups back they barely noticed anything, the offending player's group was back in position a hole later.
I think slow players are the cause of slow play, and one comment from an interview here on this site isn't really enough evidence to sway me from that.
What evidence would sway you?
-
Let’s see how things go with the timing factors to be used at next years Austrian (?) Open on the European Tour.
Atb
-
What evidence would sway you?
What evidence has been offered? One guy's experience? You said it was an interview, so if he had a study or two to back up his statements, I'm not aware of that. I took it as a veteran's experience.
Meanwhile, there are studies that show that an accident on a freeway can cause ripple effects that slow down traffic eight hours after the scene has been cleared. Fast players, even if they encounter a delay, can make up time, as can the fast players behind them.
IMO slow players are the single biggest cause of slow play, so any evidence would have to show me differently. It's exacerbated when there are no gaps - no doubt about that - but a full golf course can still be played quickly.
Maybe that's what lead to the gentleman you mentioned to make that statement. Nobody really "notices" a group of slow players on an empty course with plenty of gaps. They don't hold people up if there aren't people behind them, and when they do catch up to them on whatever hole, there's room to let them play through. But on a full course, there's no room, so every group behind the slow group has to play slowly.
Do you honestly believe 9-minute tee times instead of 11-minute tee times is a bigger cause of slow play than slow players - players who simply don't know how to get round the golf course efficiently and think they're entitled to take as long as they want, often from tees longer they should be playing?
-
As soon as people play in competitions the time taken is 30 minutes longer than a standard round. More care on shots, a lot of which is on the greens is the biggest contributor.
The time that is taken on a golf course is dictated by what is in front of you, if the first group plays in 5 hours, everyone will play in 5 hours if all the tee times are taken.
You won't significantly get people around faster with 10 minute tee times over 8 minute ones. Groups will back into others in a heartbeat if some group plays slow.
Back in the 1.62 days, we never had planners, fairway markers, lasers, maps of the green, lines on the ball, pre shot thought routines, focusing on the zone. We walked the same speed between shots, walked the same course, scored the same but probably in 1 hour less time, some people can still play 18 holes as a 3 ball in a competition in 210 minutes. You can't do it if the group in front take 270 minutes.
-
What evidence would sway you?
What evidence has been offered? One guy's experience? You said it was an interview, so if he had a study or two to back up his statements, I'm not aware of that. I took it as a veteran's experience.
Meanwhile, there are studies that show that an accident on a freeway can cause ripple effects that slow down traffic eight hours after the scene has been cleared. Fast players, even if they encounter a delay, can make up time, as can the fast players behind them.
IMO slow players are the single biggest cause of slow play, so any evidence would have to show me differently. It's exacerbated when there are no gaps - no doubt about that - but a full golf course can still be played quickly.
Maybe that's what lead to the gentleman you mentioned to make that statement. Nobody really "notices" a group of slow players on an empty course with plenty of gaps. They don't hold people up if there aren't people behind them, and when they do catch up to them on whatever hole, there's room to let them play through. But on a full course, there's no room, so every group behind the slow group has to play slowly.
Do you honestly believe 9-minute tee times instead of 11-minute tee times is a bigger cause of slow play than slow players - players who simply don't know how to get round the golf course efficiently and think they're entitled to take as long as they want, often from tees longer they should be playing?
Why didn't you look at the interview? He's one of the if not the foremost expert on pace of play in golf. He gives examples.
The freeway hold ups are a good analogy but golfers can't accelerate to 70 mph after a hold up so the amount of time that can be made up after delays on holes is limited by how quickly golfers walk, they're not going to walk twice as fast.
Yes, 11 minute tee times will lead to quicker rounds over 9 minute tee times. And here's a couple of examples why from two local courses, one which is now closed, started with a shortish par 4 followed by a long par 3, if players went off the first tee too quickly they would immediately be waiting on the second tee and on busy days there would be 3 or 4 groups waiting on the second tee. Another local club has a medium length par 4 to start followed by a short par 5, again if players go off the first tee too early and with players waiting for the second in two there is now a blockage straight away, longer intervals off the first eliminates both these problems.
One slow play issue which is rarely addressed is golfer's perceptions of slow, a round which takes a long time will not be perceived to be slow as the groups might never be waiting and a round which can take a shorter time can be perceived as very slow due to numerous waits.
If slow play was just caused by one factor it would be much easier to solve but there is a number of factors and if a club/course is not aware of all the factors a proper solution will not be achieved. When it comes to player behaviour, nobody will ever admit they're a slow player and clubs/courses are unwilling/unknowledgeable in how to deal with them. Most clubs/courses are also completely unaware of the affect starting times has on the pace of play too.
-
Why didn't you look at the interview? He's one of the if not the foremost expert on pace of play in golf. He gives examples.
...
Probably because it is meaningless for this discussion. As an "expert" he measured the players as they play. Erik is suggesting players shouldn't play as they do now, but faster.
I being the jerk that I am have to scold players that tell me they don't play faster because they have nothing better to do. The problem is that certainly more than half the players have something better to do than to wait on slow players that have nothing better to do.
Slow play is caused by slow players. Your expert gave it as one of the two top reasons for slow play.
-
Why didn't you look at the interview? He's one of the if not the foremost expert on pace of play in golf. He gives examples.
Honestly, because I didn't know Bill Yates from Bill Gates. You didn't say "he's one of the foremost experts on pace of play in golf" when you noted the interview. ;D I'm involved in a lot of aspects of golf, but I don't run a golf course, so pace of play solutions are outside my area of expertise (as is architecture).
Now that I know, I'll look for and read it now. Here it is. (http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/interviewyates/) Ahhhh, a somewhat local guy. I've got two guys on my college team from Coraopolis (Pittsburgh). I'll read it and add some notes at the end…
The freeway hold ups are a good analogy but golfers can't accelerate to 70 mph after a hold up so the amount of time that can be made up after delays on holes is limited by how quickly golfers walk, they're not going to walk twice as fast.
No, but if they were waiting even a minute on each shot before, they can make up those minutes.
Yes, 11 minute tee times will lead to quicker rounds over 9 minute tee times.
I don't doubt that (and I've yet to read the article). What I'm saying, though, is that slow players themselves are a bigger problem. Slow players can take a 3.5-hour round and turn everyone on the course into a 5-hour round player. Two minutes in tee time gaps has less of an effect, currently, IMO. Slow play has many facets.
And here's a couple of examples why from two local courses, one which is now closed, started with a shortish par 4 followed by a long par 3, if players went off the first tee too quickly they would immediately be waiting on the second tee and on busy days there would be 3 or 4 groups waiting on the second tee. Another local club has a medium length par 4 to start followed by a short par 5, again if players go off the first tee too early and with players waiting for the second in two there is now a blockage straight away, longer intervals off the first eliminates both these problems.
So would other things: 1) players waving players up on the green on the second hole, or 2) a different routing to the course. I think #2 is more likely the cause of the issue than even #1 or the tee time intervals. (I'm open to being proven wrong.)
Whispering Woods nearby where I live has a difficult and for some partially blind approach par four first, and a relatively short but somewhat dangerous par three second. Groups will occasionally pile up on the second tee a little (often just two groups), but then the third is a par five that's not super reachable for most, and groups space themselves out again there.
BTW I asked the WW head pro what he thought, and he said "slow players." Then added "One slow group kills the day."
One slow play issue which is rarely addressed is golfer's perceptions of slow, a round which takes a long time will not be perceived to be slow as the groups might never be waiting and a round which can take a shorter time can be perceived as very slow due to numerous waits.
I appreciate that, but I'm defining slow play as "rounds that take a lot longer than other rounds on that course." :)
If slow play was just caused by one factor it would be much easier to solve but there is a number of factors and if a club/course is not aware of all the factors a proper solution will not be achieved. When it comes to player behaviour, nobody will ever admit they're a slow player and clubs/courses are unwilling/unknowledgeable in how to deal with them. Most clubs/courses are also completely unaware of the affect starting times has on the pace of play too.
I agree with all that, too. But I still think slow play is more attributable to slow players than any other factor. Let me read the article and I'll post some comments below.
-----------
From the article:
The truth, however, is that while very accurate, the Pace Ratings themselves did not change management practices or the individual player's behaviour, for these are two of the main areas where the root causes for "slow play" emanate.
Yes, "management practices" is mentioned first. That could include tee time intervals, but I imagine it covers a lot of other things, too.
Those are the top two items on his list, too… 1) Management Practices and Policies, 2) Player Behaviour, 3) Player Ability, 4) Course Maintenance and Set-up, and 5) Course Design
So according to him, having the par three as the second hole is not as bad as having slower players (player behavior, #2). Okay. I can buy that.
(Side note: I find it odd that he finds it odd that 87% of the courses have three par 4s in the first five holes. That's 60%. Normally 10 out of 18 holes on a course are par fours, and that's 56%. So…? :) Seems like what you'd expect, really.)
Okay, I finished the article, and I don't see where he specifically said anything about the intervals. The only time the word "interval" appeared was when he was talking about a hypothetical. He talked vaguely, several times, about "management practices," but that can mean a LOT of things.
Probably because it is meaningless for this discussion. As an "expert" he measured the players as they play. Erik is suggesting players shouldn't play as they do now, but faster.
Right.
Slow play is caused by slow players. Your expert gave it as one of the two top reasons for slow play.
I'm still convinced of this, and I read the interview thoroughly.
-
I think people are failing to fully grasp that changing behaviour is often more difficult than changing course policy and set-up. Approaching the problem on all fronts is the best solution. The worst would be to simply blame behaviour and expect it to change. That is a hard road to pave, especially on courses where it matters most...ones that are pay and play. I don't take clubs seriously about slow play until they cut back practically all vegetation, ensure fairways are wide enough, make sure tee times are properly spread and possibly institute forms of penalty or reward for pace of play. My solution is to avoid slow times/days/clubs/courses. Big name clubs are taking the piss by shoving visitor 4ball after visitor 4ball out for big money at a 4:30+ pace. Surely the experience of the day at some point trumps the quality of the course.
Ciao
-
I think people are failing to fully grasp that changing behaviour is often more difficult than changing course policy and set-up. Approaching the problem on all fronts is the best solution. The worst would be to simply blame behaviour and expect it to change. That is a hard road to pave, especially on courses where it matters most...ones that are pay and play. I don't take clubs seriously about slow play until they cut back practically all vegetation, ensure fairways are wide enough, make sure tee times are properly spread and possibly institute forms of penalty or reward for pace of play. My solution is to avoid slow times/days/clubs/courses. Big name clubs are taking the piss by shoving visitor 4ball after visitor 4ball out for big money at a 4:30+ pace. Surely the experience of the day at some point trumps the quality of the course.
Ciao
Ciao
+1
-
I think people are failing to fully grasp that changing behaviour is often more difficult than changing course policy and set-up. Approaching the problem on all fronts is the best solution. The worst would be to simply blame behaviour and expect it to change. That is a hard road to pave, especially on courses where it matters most...ones that are pay and play. I don't take clubs seriously about slow play until they cut back practically all vegetation, ensure fairways are wide enough, make sure tee times are properly spread and possibly institute forms of penalty or reward for pace of play. My solution is to avoid slow times/days/clubs/courses. Big name clubs are taking the piss by shoving visitor 4ball after visitor 4ball out for big money at a 4:30+ pace. Surely the experience of the day at some point trumps the quality of the course.
Ciao
Yep
Princes-5 hours(exactly how long it took us to play 36 holes the day before at Deal with 4 of us)
Western Gailles-5 hours-punctuated by member 2 balls insisting on playing through when it was clear there was nowhere for the to go with 8 Swedish 4 balls(sounds like an entree in a bad restaurant) in front.If a club insists on whoring itself out, the members should suffer along with the guests from bad tee time management.
Ironically all that visitor play revenue is used "improve" conditions(copying American green speed) and further slow down play ;)
Give me Dunfanaghy any day
-
Jeff
You post also raises the issue of group size. There is a big difference between 4ball and 2ball play, especially when clubs cater to 2ball play. Bottom line, comparing Princes to Deal is apples to oranges because of play policy. It is better to compare 4ball to 4ball to actually see what the issues are.
Ciao
-
agreed Sean, the mixing of multiple member 2 balls directly behind 10 Four balls(at least) was more my point-if you want subsidized dues, something has to give if not properly managed. In a matter of moments someone will chime in that they should be let through.(10+ 4 balls) I'd argue they shouldn't even have been let out as two balls, but rather paired up or instructed they weren't going anywhere and to relax.