Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tom_Doak on April 11, 2023, 09:34:21 PM
-
This was a very well-written article on the topic of the slow final round of The Masters, and Patrick Cantlay's response to taking a lot of the heat for it. I urge you to all read it in full:
https://golf.com/news/patrick-cantlay-responds-masters-pace-play-critiques/ (https://golf.com/news/patrick-cantlay-responds-masters-pace-play-critiques/)
It is tempting to joke that it is slow for everyone who's behind Patrick Cantlay, but the gist of the article is that Cantlay and Hovland, too, got to the second tee at Augusta and had to wait, because of course these guys have to wait for the greens on the par-5 holes to clear before they can hit their second shots . . . and while it's exciting to watch them tackle reachable par-5 holes, it also means a lot of waiting around to do it. It's the same for drivable par-4's [though Augusta only has one where anyone might ever wait], and it's the same for having to line up every putt on very scary slopey greens.
It was blindingly obvious on Sunday that Kopeka takes like five seconds to line up and fire when he has become impatient, and that Cantlay is going to take his own sweet time to assess his next move. But is there a functional difference if they are both going to have to wait nine minutes on the next tee?
I also noticed that Hovland was straddling the line of his putts to judge the slope with his feet, like we talked about in another recent thread, but he seemed very quick about it.
So, is it for real that championship golf is just doomed to be slow for the rest of time [and will appear to take up the majority of that time]? Is it possible that 54 guys playing in twosomes is TOO MANY PLAYERS ON THE COURSE? Are the shotgun starts of LIV [ironically, with the same 54 guys, but in threesomes] more suited to someone as impatient as Brooks, and in fact training him to be less patient in the majors that matter so much more to him?
It certainly sends an awful message to anyone else who competes at golf, but of course that is nothing new.
-
Baseball has done very well in trying to speed up the game. The PGAT & The Masters not so well:
[size=78%]New baseball rules for 2023 FAQ (mlb.com) (https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-new-rules-for-2023-faq)[/size]
-
To top it off, I believe the tee times were a whopping 12 minutes apart and the greens were holding.
-
It certainly doesn't help pace-of-play for the professionals, when you have a reachable in two par 5 (2nd), a drivable par 4 (3rd), followed by a par 3. That combination is bound to compress the groupings.
Is that something that today's architects would think about and try to avoid?
-
Come the revolution, ie 1/1/26, it'll be interesting to see if there's as much waiting on par-5's coz it's an issue in the amateur game these days too.
atb
-
It certainly doesn't help pace-of-play for the professionals, when you have a reachable in two par 5 (2nd), a drivable par 4 (3rd), followed by a par 3. That combination is bound to compress the groupings.
Is that something that today's architects would think about and try to avoid?
Yes, you always have to consider flow and how it affects pace of play. Bill Yates did a lot of work on this. I can’t recall many of his findings but one that always stuck out for me was that golfers do not mind a long round of golf so long as it doesn’t come with waiting for shots: They don’t notice a 4 hr 45 round if they are always moving. They get very annoyed by a 4 hr 15 round when they are waiting on every second shot.
In theory your example above is slow. In reality, it could actually help to spread out the field. The key is suitable tee spacings for the course in question.
-
Tom
I read the article in full and seems to me that Cantlay's defence was basically it's like this every week, what's the big deal ? To me, all that defence says is that slow play isn't just a phenomenon at the Masters. However what happened at the Masters was that you had a couple of no-nonsense ready to play players in Rahm and Koepka playing behind Cantlay, renowned as one of the slowest players on tour, as the last two pairings on the final day of a major. That's always going to put the issue in the spotlight.
Not that I think Cantlay was the worst BTW, the young amateur was just brutal.
Niall
-
To top it off, I believe the tee times were a whopping 12 minutes apart and the greens were holding.
For Round 4, they were alternating between 9 and 10 minute intervals. Round 3 had 12 minute intervals because they were in groups of 3.
The weather obviously played a huge factor in the weekend's tee time arrangements as it forced the use of a two-tee start. The problem with two-tee starts is that no matter how fast your first group plays, they can't make the turn before the final group off the other side has played their second shots on their first hole and they will then be held up by those players the rest of the way around.
The Masters Committee chose to play in groups of 2 for the final round off of two tees. They put 14 groups off the front and 13 off the back, although the final group off the back was a single. The first tee time was 12:30 and the last one of the front was 2:33. The last one off the back was 2:24. If we give the player in the 12:24 group 8 minutes to tee off, get to his ball and wait for the 10th green to clear before playing his second shot and clearing the landing zone, the first group of the front couldn't have teed off on #10 until 2:32 or 2 hours and 2 minutes after they started their round. Obviously there is no incentive to play any faster than that.
When the Masters has been able to go with a traditional one tee start in the third and fourth rounds, I believe they usually use 10 minute intervals. Going with the 9/10 minute intervals saved them 7 minutes in tee times over the 14 groups, but it generally means every other group is going to get to the second tee a little closer behind the group in front than usual. As that hole will have waits for groups going for the green in 2, by the time you get to the 14th group you're going to be backed up.
As Ally pointed out Bill Yates studied this and one of the main things he found was that putting tee times too close together results in slower play do to more waiting and leads to more frustration.
Had the Committee chosen to stay with groups of 3 and 12 minute intervals for the fourth round, they would have started the final group at 2:06 or 27 minutes earlier. Of course, with groups of 3, play would have been slower for each group, but it would have felt much more normal for the players than a crowded course with groups too close together. Doing this might have jeopardized the chances of finishing on Sunday because of the slower time for groups of 3, but the players would definitely have had lesser waits. Obviously it was very important to the Committee to finish on Sunday rather than drag over to a Monday finish. They were able to do that so I guess from their point of view it was a success, albeit one that came at a price of upset players and a media that doesn't understand the tradeoffs that had to occur.
-
The "that's just the way it is and there's nothing we can do about it" excuse used to be a conversation stopper ... until MLB this season. The Red Sox just played a game that barely crept past 2 hours. At this rate, fans will start complaining the games are going too fast and they don't even have time to get buzzed before they have to leave the park.
If professional golf wanted to fix this problem, they could. Overnight. Assign a walking timer to each group. Figure out parameters for when the clock starts ticking and how long players have to hit their shots, and go with it. The slow players will freak out, but to hell with them. In my opinion, slow play is a FAR more egregious problem than the distance pros are hitting it. And it has a far simpler solution.
-
Slow play is systemic. It might be slightly unfair to lay the blame at Cantlay's (perpetually shuffling and reshuffling and reshuffling) feet, but "Better things aren't possible" is not a persuasive counterargument.
JohnVDB's explanation makes sense; the compression of the field dictated by the dual-tee start, itself forced by the weather delays, hopefully made this a one-year issue. I don't have the data, but it feels like most normally-scheduled Masters final rounds go at least a little more smoothly.
Of course, as has been suggested already, the ever-lengthening golf courses are partly to blame, too. The new tee on ANGC #13 is a perfect example, where every player now had to add a 75-yard tee-box walkback round-trip to the round that they didn't have previously. It doesn't sound like a lot, but given the herd of people - players, caddies, walking scorer, etc. - traveling through that narrow space, the time adds up.
At the end of the day, Cantlay and other sluggish players are just operating as they're allowed to within a system that gives no incentive to play any faster than. If there was an incentive to play faster in the form of penalties for slow play, they would speed up. But they won't do it of their own free will.
-
To top it off, I believe the tee times were a whopping 12 minutes apart and the greens were holding.
For Round 4, they were alternating between 9 and 10 minute intervals. Round 3 had 12 minute intervals because they were in groups of 3.
Thank you for the correction.
-
This past weekend was the Princeton Invitational at Springdale Golf Club. Yale nearly reeled in Harvard on the last day.
https://results.golfstat.com/public/leaderboards/gsnav.cfm?pg=team&tid=25659
But the problem with the pace of play occurred on the reachable par-fours (holes 6 & 18) and reachable par fives (holes 4, 12 & 17) along with the longer/trickier par three holes.
Slow players and slow groups would never get too far behind until they caught up the one of these holes where there was a back up, especially 18.
The simple solution was to wave up groups. It was a waste of time for the groups to wait for the 18th green to clear and then have to play the entire hole before the next group hit. The moment groups started hitting up, the back up on the tee vanished.
-
It also doesn't help when the commentators praise the "discipline" of golfers who are able to "slow down" under the pressure of the final round. All of this built on the super-human mythology that built up around Tiger in his prime, and his talk of making sure he did everything slowly during the last round, all the way down to his breathing.
I'm sure there is some sports psychology out there that shows this is good practice, but my god ... some of these guys do everything slow. Sure, the courses have been lengthened, but it would have little effect on playing time if they f'ing put their asses in gear in between shots.
There is zero doubt in my mind that Phil's strategy at Kiawah was to slow play Koepka do death, knowing that dude plays fast and has zero patience. Some of that is on Brooks and being able to control his emotions, but there is an element of poor sportsmanship to this that a shot clock would eliminate. Just play your shot and stop trying to get under the skin of your competitor. I know Seve is lauded for his antics, but he's lucky no one ever punched him in the ear. And honestly, I would take someone coughing in my backswing over a pro who can't get around a golf course in less than 5 hours.
-
It gets repeated over and over that if you let them do it they are going to play slow and it’s not just at the professional level. The Connecticut State Amateur was at a club in the town where I live in 2021 and I went over to watch the final match. After two holes and an elapsed time of forty minutes I walked in. So two contestants playing a thirty six hole match play final starting at 7:00 a.m. didn’t finish until 5:00 p.m. with a lunch break and I’m not talking about the Muirfield lunch with jacket and tie either. One player was a reinstated amateur and the other a D1 college player both with ridiculously slow playing habits. The game deserves better. ::) :-\
-
Cantlay definitely has a point that it doesn't matter if he's slow if he's waiting anyway.
Just think that back in the 1920s, tournament rounds took between 2.5 and 3 hours. Those guys were also playing for their livelihoods. But in their minds, playing slower would have killed their rhythm.
-
If I recall correctly, the slow play issue has come up before. It's not that nothing can be done, it's that no one at the top really cares enough to adopt pace of play rules and enforce them. I know there are hole length and sequence problems? What's the perfect sequence of pars to facilitate pace of play (all other issues being equal)? What's the solution to the issue identified as the "reachable par 5"? Just call it a par four, or shorten it a bit and call it a par four? No par fives at all? Anecdotally, yesterday another geezer and I (he rode, I walked) played behind two pros; one walked and the other rode with his coach. Given the coaching, we had to wait on occasion, but not long, and our rounds took 3 hr. and 15 min. Although no longer a baseball fan, I applaud the major leaguers for trying to address their slow play issue. I understand baseball decided that the slow play hurt the popularity of the game for fans. Has that issue affected pro golf? The shame is how recreational players take cues from the pros.
-
Slow play sucks
8)
-
Slow play, the topic without solution on the pga tour, largely because they dont seem to want to punish guys.
Time players and stop putting groups on the clock, put individual players on the clock until back in position.
No fines, shots.
Multiple penalties and suspension for an event(s).
But they won’t they’re just going to talk about it more
-
Shot clock please. Put it on the players bag so everyone can see it.
-
When you’re out hunting there’s no shot clock.
How does MLB even begin to be a reasonable comparison to golf? They’re completely different pursuits.
Really the only way to make something work is to have three tee times for each group: 1st tee, 6th tee, 12th tee.
With similar penalties for failing to reach each tee as are currently on the books for the 1st tee.
-
How does MLB even begin to be a reasonable comparison to golf? They’re completely different pursuits.
The comparison is that MLB recognized that slow play was a huge problem and they actually did something about it. And the pitch clock they put in place is actually working. And their fans are much, much happier.
The solution for golf would need to be different, obviously, but this annual white flag that "there's nothing we can do" is total crap.
Funny how change tends to only come about when there is crisis. "Our winners purses can't get any bigger. There's not enough money." Then LIV comes along and suddenly ... wow ... where did all that money come from where purses are now doubled? Huh. Weird how that happens.
It would be great if the Tour for once would address an obvious issue BEFORE it becomes a crisis.
-
How does MLB even begin to be a reasonable comparison to golf? They’re completely different pursuits.
The comparison is that MLB recognized that slow play was a huge problem and they actually did something about it. And the pitch clock they put in place is actually working. And their fans are much, much happier.
The solution for golf would need to be different, obviously, but this annual white flag that "there's nothing we can do" is total crap.
Funny how change tends to only come about when there is crisis. "Our winners purses can't get any bigger. There's not enough money." Then LIV comes along and suddenly ... wow ... where did all that money come from where purses are now doubled? Huh. Weird how that happens.
It would be great if the Tour for once would address an obvious issue BEFORE it becomes a crisis.
Every MLB game starts under the exact same circumstances.
The same cannot be said for golf and the variables begin the moment the first shot is struck. A shot clock simply won't work because every situation is unique.
It is reasonable to say an entire round of golf should be completed in X time. It is completely unreasonable to say that every shot should take Y time to get there.
Did MLB address a perceived problem? Yes. Did they create other problems in doing so? Remains to be seen.
For the record, I don't mind the pitch clock. But it did alter the nature of the game. And has added an element that until this season made baseball unique amongst the major spectator games.
-
How does MLB even begin to be a reasonable comparison to golf? They’re completely different pursuits.
The comparison is that MLB recognized that slow play was a huge problem and they actually did something about it. And the pitch clock they put in place is actually working. And their fans are much, much happier.
The solution for golf would need to be different, obviously, but this annual white flag that "there's nothing we can do" is total crap.
Funny how change tends to only come about when there is crisis. "Our winners purses can't get any bigger. There's not enough money." Then LIV comes along and suddenly ... wow ... where did all that money come from where purses are now doubled? Huh. Weird how that happens.
It would be great if the Tour for once would address an obvious issue BEFORE it becomes a crisis.
Every MLB game starts under the exact same circumstances.
The same cannot be said for golf and the variables begin the moment the first shot is struck. A shot clock simply won't work because every situation is unique.
It is reasonable to say an entire round of golf should be completed in X time. It is completely unreasonable to say that every shot should take Y time to get there.
Did MLB address a perceived problem? Yes. Did they create other problems in doing so? Remains to be seen.
For the record, I don't mind the pitch clock. But it did alter the nature of the game. And has added an element that until this season made baseball unique amongst the major spectator games.
I heard a good interview with Theo Epstein (Ryen Rusillo Pod).
Theo is now in charge with making baseball 'better' for the MLB but the irony isn't lost on him that much of the data stuff he brought along caused the game to slow down (shifts, more pitcher changes, etc.) but to make a better product they have to improve the game for the fan.
I fail to see why a shot clock wouldn't work for golf outside of a rules situation -- part of a sport is processing data faster than others, I was really reading the lie well today and the game slowed down for me --said no golfer ever.
-
Buck Wolter,
For starters: The rules situation suddenly becomes "I need more time to process this unique event, please make a ruling."
It's a lot easier to say "Your group must reach the 6th tee by 11:23AM and the 12th tee by 12:53PM" and also much more enforceable especially if the penalties are the same for getting to the first tee on time.
Also, the time and the hole reached can change based on the course and daily circumstances. Some days are just going to take longer than others.
-
When you’re out hunting there’s no shot clock.
I like this old-fashioned definition of sport and how golf fits into it. Hunting is a reasonable analogue in many senses. But I think even hunting would add a shot clock or other time limit if it were being done as a competition. I'm not sure what my opinion is, but I wonder if a shot clock, only in competition golf, might work?
-
When you’re out hunting there’s no shot clock.
I like this old-fashioned definition of sport and how golf fits into it. Hunting is a reasonable analogue in many senses. But I think even hunting would add a shot clock or other time limit if it were being done as a competition. I'm not sure what my opinion is, but I wonder if a shot clock, only in competition golf, might work?
Shot clock? No.
But “You have 4 hours to bag the quarry.” Yes.
-
Shot clock? No.
But “You have 4 hours to bag the quarry.” Yes.
Well, to go back to Patrick Cantlay's argument, what good does it do to penalize everyone two strokes on Sunday? If they'd penalized Kopeka and Rahm for playing slow behind Cantlay, maybe there would be some violence on course, but I don't think that's what The Masters wants to be showing on TV.
-
Shot clock? No.
But “You have 4 hours to bag the quarry.” Yes.
Well, to go back to Patrick Cantlay's argument, what good does it do to penalize everyone two strokes on Sunday? If they'd penalized Kopeka and Rahm for playing slow behind Cantlay, maybe there would be some violence on course, but I don't think that's what The Masters wants to be showing on TV.
The first rule is that you don't talk about golf club?
-
In Pennsylvanian, and I suspect most places, players are given a schedule regarding speed of play in state and local tournaments. The allotted time to play a round is usually around 4:15, depending on the course. I am sure the allotted time is objectively determined , and I have no doubt many here know more than I about how this is all calculated.
There are checkpoints along the way. If a group is behind, a warning is issued. 2 violations results in consequences. All a group has to do is not be slow. If the group ahead is slow, the group behind is not warned so long as it keeps up with the group in front. It’s all very objective, and it works. The tours obviously know how this works, but choose not to use it. Why? 🤷♂️
-
Shot clock? No.
But “You have 4 hours to bag the quarry.” Yes.
Well, to go back to Patrick Cantlay's argument, what good does it do to penalize everyone two strokes on Sunday? If they'd penalized Kopeka and Rahm for playing slow behind Cantlay, maybe there would be some violence on course, but I don't think that's what The Masters wants to be showing on TV.
That's a fair point, but I think it goes away if it's set out from the beginning. The first group to get penalized then just resets the clock for everyone behind. As long as groups maintain the spacing there's no problem. When I was a marshall/course advisor/RANGER this is how I would do it; it's hard to argue with "You teed off 10 minutes behind the group in front of you and now they're 15 minutes in front of you, please make up the 5 minutes in the next two holes."
Pace of play is already somewhat implied by the spacing of the tee times anyway - you're compelled to be at the tee at a certain time and compelled to be clear of that tee shot within the space between the group behind.
I'm just extending the spacing into the rules and checking on it every so often. In the world of data and analytics it's not much of a stretch to setup an appropriate spacing for groups of holes and it's likely okay to say that 1-6 at ANGC would take a different amount of time than 12-18, or simply add/move the data checkpoints based on data-backed flow.
The slow group then has a chance to close the gap or know they'll get the penalty on the checkpoint tee.
-
I think Kyle is spot on that golf is certainly unique compared to the other major sports...but I don't think that's the reason why they wont address this. I suspect it comes down to 2 issues:
1) Slow play has become institutionalized at top amateur and pro levels. When you combine playing for high stakes (championships or money), coaches pounding methodical pre-shot routines into their heads for years prior, insisting on knowing every last detail for every shot and long pre-shot deliberations with caddy, tv talking heads and announcers praising and enforcing this behavior, and officiating committees showing little interest in implementing counter-measures with actual teeth, the current state of things isn't surprising.
2) If organizing bodies are unwilling to have officials actively monitor players on the course and rely on video replays or self-reporting or guys from home calling in, and players conspire which rules to follow, and even lie after the fact when asked...if they are unwilling to address issues like this, I don't see how in the hell they will get around to fixing slow play.
-
NBA has the shot clock.
NFL has the play clock.
MLB now has the pitch clock.
NHL is too bad-ass already to mess with this level of annoyance....NHL players are true athletes...;-)
All the PGAT, USGA, R&A need to do is have their version of a "shot clock" whereby players have 45-60 seconds to execute their shots. They get 2-3 "time-outs" per round when they are in a "spot of bother".
Otherwuse, it should be "see ball, hit ball" for everyone.
As this has been a topic that pops up about 1-2 times per year, I will offer the following OPINION:
- Slow play has nothing to do with tee time spacing, hole length, or other structural constraints.
- Slow play is caused by the pre-shot routine duration of the individual player. Period.
- Cumulatively, it can be the difference between a round of 3:30 and one of 5:00+
Happy to provide examples as my core group of golfers here in Chicago have debated this for hours and we quantified it to show why one of our pals plays in 4:17 and we all play in 3:30 and shoot same scores, play same tees, etc.
-
As an aside, it's no longer all that surprising to me about how golf has gotten into some of these debates when they're so willing to accept a fundamental shift in baseball simply to make it more enjoyable to some.
Baseball can now happen without a pitch being thrown. Apart from a situation that was blatantly unsporting and requiring Umpire intervention and a forfeiture, this could never occur prior to the pitch clock.
The idea that golf can happen without a stroke being played should be alarming.
-
- Slow play has nothing to do with tee time spacing, hole length, or other structural constraints.
- Slow play is caused by the pre-shot routine duration of the individual player. Period.
Ian
Agree with just about all of that but would add not clearing the green quickly after finishing the hole. When I learned the game as a wee boy the only lesson I got from my parents was to keep my head down. Everything else they drummed into me was about etiquette, and when you analyse that what it is all about is safety and speed of play. These days etiquette seems to have gone out the window.
In the long term we need beginners to be given a lesson in etiquette as being the first thing they learn. In the short term the "game" needs to set an example by penalising the likes of Cantlay. After all, if the can penalise a young Chinese amateur then how difficult should it be to penalise someone who should know better ?
Niall
-
As an aside, it's no longer all that surprising to me about how golf has gotten into some of these debates when they're so willing to accept a fundamental shift in baseball simply to make it more enjoyable to some.
Baseball can now happen without a pitch being thrown. Apart from a situation that was blatantly unsporting and requiring Umpire intervention and a forfeiture, this could never occur prior to the pitch clock.
The idea that golf can happen without a stroke being played should be alarming.
Is the pitch clock a fundamental shift, or is it simply the response to a fundamental shift? Players/managers created a problem that didn't previously exist, and they refused to fix the problem themselves, so a new rule was created.
Golf is actually quite similar, in that golf rounds tend to take much longer now than they did 50 years ago (and not because of any increase in actual game/sporting action), which was the exact same problem baseball faced.
That said, I'm not in favor of an individual shot clock for golf.
-
Edward,
Curious statement.
"Create the problem."
Is it a problem created by managers and players or is it some aspect of human nature and the game at hand? Managers and players won't do anything that doesn't give their team/performance an advantage. Adding this ruleto baseball, as most rules in games like baseball or the various version of football worldwide, simply limits this aspect of human performance.
It's no difference than having a field defined by out of bounds - which is a restriction on human speed. Without it, the first team to gain an advantge would give the ball/object to a marathon runner and play keep away for the remaining time.
A shot clock presents a much murkier problem toward golf because it's safe to say that most every shot/context is different enough to suggest that the combination of variables create more unique situations than not. At what point does the human performance/reaction/processing element need to be regulated and tested? It's a rare case where fairness may actually need to enter the conversation, to wit: If the greatest ball striker of all time needs an extra minute per shot to be that, who are we to say that their talents shouldn't still be rewarded?
-
Something has to be done but any sort of shot clock would have to come with some carve outs. When there are ruling issues/disagreements then the clock will have to get paused. I guess this is situational and you have to consider that a rules official is only called when the players can’t figure it out themselves. I agree with Kyle that there are more variables in golf than almost any other sport.
-
I don’t understand. Why can’t the tours do what I’m pretty sure almost every state and local golf association does?
-
Consider that at Augusta and almost every Tour venue are courses these players have played multiple times and shouldn't have a need for constant recalibration
Consider that part ot the beauty of walking is that it allows an organic ongoing assessment of the players sitiuation that should only require a spot check and not an interminable post walk conversation ala Spiet and many others
All this preshot fugase and green reading should be underway while other players are involved in their shot
Consider the woeful ignorance of the rules of what is your livelihood a lot of players feign when they should be getting on with whatever option they choose rather than waiting for a ruling so many many times
and all the other "ready golf" practices available and their is no excuse for their slow play.
Therefore if speed of play is essential then enforce time limits and force the players to adopt his strategies to satisfy those limits: it is the simplist and least flawed method. As someone said we tag qualifiers and other local tournamnet players with shots all the time.
-
NBA has the shot clock.
NFL has the play clock.
MLB now has the pitch clock.
NHL is too bad-ass already to mess with this level of annoyance....NHL players are true athletes...;-)
All the PGAT, USGA, R&A need to do is have their version of a "shot clock" whereby players have 45-60 seconds to execute their shots. They get 2-3 "time-outs" per round when they are in a "spot of bother".
Otherwuse, it should be "see ball, hit ball" for everyone.
As this has been a topic that pops up about 1-2 times per year, I will offer the following OPINION:
- Slow play has nothing to do with tee time spacing, hole length, or other structural constraints.
- Slow play is caused by the pre-shot routine duration of the individual player. Period.
- Cumulatively, it can be the difference between a round of 3:30 and one of 5:00+
Happy to provide examples as my core group of golfers here in Chicago have debated this for hours and we quantified it to show why one of our pals plays in 4:17 and we all play in 3:30 and shoot same scores, play same tees, etc.
The NHL sped up the game in the early 2000's with Hurry-up face offs and line changes IIRC -- again to improve the fan experience and make games shorter with more action. They were a forerunner.
My guess is the lack of pre-shot routine causes more delay than a deliberate one.
-
I've offered this solution elsewhere, but I think the answer is a chess clock. This is not a solution for everyday slow play, but it would work on the PGA tour where you can have a scorer with every group.
Allow every player a predefined amount of time (an hour?) to hit all of their shots in a round. The clock starts when you get to your ball or the previous player has hit. When a really tricky shot comes up, take all the time you want, but you'll have to make up the time elsewhere (I think this is simpler than allowing for timeouts). For every minute over your alotted time, add a stroke to your score.
I guess there could be pauses to the clock for rulings and the clock shouldn't be running if you're waiting for the group in front of you to clear, but otherwise I see it as relatively simple to implement.
-
Hello, this is my first post in the forums, but I wrote a data heavy article on this subject based on the research by Lucius Riccio, and I really think that slow play is misunderstood by most golf enthusiasts:
https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit (https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit)
The thesis is that course carry capacity has a much more dramatic effect on slow play than perceived slow play. I really think the reduction in tee time intervals to 9 & 1/2 minutes had a dramatic effect on pace of play here, as the standard tee time intervals (which I believe were 10 minutes) has already created delays in the past.
Any reduction in tee time interval from carry capacity should stack the delta in intervals all on the last group, and it will likely stack non-linearly. Thus, we can assume that these shortened tee time intervals are the primary culprit, especially when Cantlay was waiting on the 18th fairway, meaning the second-to-last group was operating at pace through the entirety of the round.
Pace-of-play math is hard. I hope the research in this article is illustrative of the concept to the group here.
-Matt
-
It's interesting the direction most have chosen to take the OP here.
My first reaction was Brooks is being an ass again and the real issue is he needs to learn how to slow down and adapt to the situation or he's going to struggle winning.
Consider...
A very hilly course making walking uphill slower
a damp course leading to more assessment of your lie
pros can reach par 5s in two, "average Joe" cannot
wind playing tricks on you
Slow play works like traffic. It trickles down to everyone. I don't think Cantlay is the villain here, why should he rush himself just to wait longer all over again?
-
Michael
Consider...
- Cantlay was playing the same hilly damp course as everyone else.
- Cantlay was slower than his playing partner who decided not to wait for him, and was so slow that he held up those playing behind.
Niall
-
The NHL sped up the game in the early 2000's with Hurry-up face offs and line changes IIRC -- again to improve the fan experience and make games shorter with more action. They were a forerunner.
My guess is the lack of pre-shot routine causes more delay than a deliberate one.
The "hurry-up" face offs were instituted for the 2002-03 season but gradually went away because the refs stopped enforcing it. A bigger change in the NHL to speed up the games was in the mid-90s when they stopped allowing the puck to be frozen against the boards. Teams have 1000-1500 less face offs a season now than they did prior to the late-90s.
MLB has also almost always had a pitch clock in the rules but never really enforced it although they had paid lip service to it occasionally before this season. Here is a good article on the history of the pitch clock in baseball.
https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2023/3/29/23661015/the-forgotten-history-of-the-pitch-clock-in-baseball
The bottom line is if the PGA and the people who run the majors were committed to speeding up play they could accomplish it. The will just isn't there...yet.
-
Stop the pre-shot routine! Peg it and hit it!!! And on the greens? Stop all the nervous mickey mousing around the ball.
-
Have you seen the video going around on Instagram of Cantlay standing over his ball with driver, and it takes him 42 seconds to finally pull the trigger? You'd assume it's some video trickery that somebody looped, but you can tell by the people walking in the background that it is, in fact, not looped. It is very real and very awful. I couldn't imagine playing in a group with him and watching that throughout a round.
-
Slow play is caused by slow players. Top level players may be slow due to pre-shot routines but on most courses is because of a multitude of issues.
One of my pet peeves is bee hive behavior where the group goes from ball to ball and watches each other hit their shots making no effort to be at their ball ready to hit when it's their turn. Someone's ball could be 10-20 yards from the cart and they will sit in the cart while their playing partner hits and then after the club is put away they drive the ten yards and go through the whole routine. Drives me crazy.
Club culture is the most important aspect of pace of play. The PGA Tour certainly doesn't have a good one.
-
Hello, this is my first post in the forums, but I wrote a data heavy article on this subject based on the research by Lucius Riccio, and I really think that slow play is misunderstood by most golf enthusiasts:
https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit (https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit)
The thesis is that course carry capacity has a much more dramatic effect on slow play than perceived slow play. I really think the reduction in tee time intervals to 9 & 1/2 minutes had a dramatic effect on pace of play here, as the standard tee time intervals (which I believe were 10 minutes) has already created delays in the past.
Any reduction in tee time interval from carry capacity should stack the delta in intervals all on the last group, and it will likely stack non-linearly. Thus, we can assume that these shortened tee time intervals are the primary culprit, especially when Cantlay was waiting on the 18th fairway, meaning the second-to-last group was operating at pace through the entirety of the round.
Pace-of-play math is hard. I hope the research in this article is illustrative of the concept to the group here.
-Matt
Thanks for posting, I think it gives a lot to think about. Just like traffic, it can feel nice to ascribe slowness to the individual failings of others, but I suspect it's more complicated than that. Some of what John VDB had to say also hinted at this same phenomenon. I suggest everyone read at least the first four sections.
-
Hello, this is my first post in the forums, but I wrote a data heavy article on this subject based on the research by Lucius Riccio, and I really think that slow play is misunderstood by most golf enthusiasts:
https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit (https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit)
The thesis is that course carry capacity has a much more dramatic effect on slow play than perceived slow play. I really think the reduction in tee time intervals to 9 & 1/2 minutes had a dramatic effect on pace of play here, as the standard tee time intervals (which I believe were 10 minutes) has already created delays in the past.
Any reduction in tee time interval from carry capacity should stack the delta in intervals all on the last group, and it will likely stack non-linearly. Thus, we can assume that these shortened tee time intervals are the primary culprit, especially when Cantlay was waiting on the 18th fairway, meaning the second-to-last group was operating at pace through the entirety of the round.
Pace-of-play math is hard. I hope the research in this article is illustrative of the concept to the group here.
-Matt
Sorry Matt, that's just a litany of excuses to allow players to take their own sweet time. Yes, different courses will take different time to play depending on length of the course, walk between holes, difficulty of the course, how busy it is and the time between tee times but that doesn't mean each golfer isn't responsible for their own pace of play. Be ready, hit the ball without fannying about and move smartly after the ball, then repeat. Not rocket science.
Niall
-
Hello, this is my first post in the forums, but I wrote a data heavy article on this subject based on the research by Lucius Riccio, and I really think that slow play is misunderstood by most golf enthusiasts:
https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit (https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit)
The thesis is that course carry capacity has a much more dramatic effect on slow play than perceived slow play. I really think the reduction in tee time intervals to 9 & 1/2 minutes had a dramatic effect on pace of play here, as the standard tee time intervals (which I believe were 10 minutes) has already created delays in the past.
Any reduction in tee time interval from carry capacity should stack the delta in intervals all on the last group, and it will likely stack non-linearly. Thus, we can assume that these shortened tee time intervals are the primary culprit, especially when Cantlay was waiting on the 18th fairway, meaning the second-to-last group was operating at pace through the entirety of the round.
Pace-of-play math is hard. I hope the research in this article is illustrative of the concept to the group here.
-Matt
Sorry Matt, that's just a litany of excuses to allow players to take their own sweet time. Yes, different courses will take different time to play depending on length of the course, walk between holes, difficulty of the course, how busy it is and the time between tee times but that doesn't mean each golfer isn't responsible for their own pace of play. Be ready, hit the ball without fannying about and move smartly after the ball, then repeat. Not rocket science.
Niall
100%, Niall!!
1. Shorten your own pre-shot routine
2. Play ready golf.
3. Dont stand around watching your playing partners hit. Get to your ball and play.
Everything else in that article just tells people WHY golf is so slow.
We know that already.
-
Hello, this is my first post in the forums, but I wrote a data heavy article on this subject based on the research by Lucius Riccio, and I really think that slow play is misunderstood by most golf enthusiasts:
https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit (https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit)
The thesis is that course carry capacity has a much more dramatic effect on slow play than perceived slow play. I really think the reduction in tee time intervals to 9 & 1/2 minutes had a dramatic effect on pace of play here, as the standard tee time intervals (which I believe were 10 minutes) has already created delays in the past.
Any reduction in tee time interval from carry capacity should stack the delta in intervals all on the last group, and it will likely stack non-linearly. Thus, we can assume that these shortened tee time intervals are the primary culprit, especially when Cantlay was waiting on the 18th fairway, meaning the second-to-last group was operating at pace through the entirety of the round.
Pace-of-play math is hard. I hope the research in this article is illustrative of the concept to the group here.
-Matt
Sorry Matt, that's just a litany of excuses to allow players to take their own sweet time. Yes, different courses will take different time to play depending on length of the course, walk between holes, difficulty of the course, how busy it is and the time between tee times but that doesn't mean each golfer isn't responsible for their own pace of play. Be ready, hit the ball without fannying about and move smartly after the ball, then repeat. Not rocket science.
Niall
100%, Niall!!
1. Shorten your own pre-shot routine
2. Play ready golf.
3. Dont stand around watching your playing partners hit. Get to your ball and play.
Everything else in that article just tells people WHY golf is so slow.
We know that already.
That's all fine, but it's almost a perfect recipe for ensuring nothing changes. It's the same with traffic. If everyone would just be nearly perfect almost all of the time, there would be no traffic jams. Or you can acknowledge that will never happen and try to take a more strategic and systemic approach. I think these things should at least be considered.
-
There is a viral video of Cantllay standing overt the ball in the tee box waggling for 45 seconds … time for a clock
-
Michael
Consider...
- Cantlay was playing the same hilly damp course as everyone else.
- Cantlay was slower than his playing partner who decided not to wait for him, and was so slow that he held up those playing behind.
Niall
Niall,
I too saw Hovland chipping on 13 before Cantlay arrived at the green. So what.
I guess holing out sooner was allowing Victor to also hit the bathroom 7 times.
What don't you understand about the concept of hurrying up to wait?
Some people race from one traffic light to the next. Somehow, I manage to cruise in and when the next light turns green, we are all departing at the same time again. Trickle down, dude, please cite for me, specifically, how many time Cantlay and Hovland COULD HAVE PLAYED but did not because Cantlay was smelling roses?
It's a pot shot at the guy. Misguided. Lame.
-
https://nolayingup.com/blog/kevin-van-valkenburg-what-do-we-do-about-slow-play
It’s because playing fast ought to be a skill.
Andy Johnson of The Fried Egg made a great argument about slow play years ago that has always stuck with me: How quickly an athlete can process a situation and make a decision is part of what determines athletic greatness. Every quarterback who experienced success in college could likely experience it in the NFL if they had an unlimited amount of time to break down a defense. The best quarterbacks can process information almost immediately, then determine where they want to go with the football. That's the difference.
I enjoyed this piece.
-
https://nolayingup.com/blog/kevin-van-valkenburg-what-do-we-do-about-slow-play (https://nolayingup.com/blog/kevin-van-valkenburg-what-do-we-do-about-slow-play)
It’s because playing fast ought to be a skill.
Andy Johnson of The Fried Egg made a great argument about slow play years ago that has always stuck with me: How quickly an athlete can process a situation and make a decision is part of what determines athletic greatness. Every quarterback who experienced success in college could likely experience it in the NFL if they had an unlimited amount of time to break down a defense. The best quarterbacks can process information almost immediately, then determine where they want to go with the football. That's the difference.
I enjoyed this piece.
It was a good, even-handed article, but one fact from it stuck out. If Cantlay was waiting in 18 fairway, then he literally could not have finished any earlier (minus the couple of extra minutes he may have taken on his next 2-3 shots). That makes the problem seem more systemic than anything (which I believe is what the video he linked in the article about traffic seemed to indicate...it's been a while since I've watched it, didn't have time right now).
I could imagine that a shot clock could be a part of a systemic solution along with multiple other changes.
-
Before I moved to Florida, I was a member at a club and I played a bit of golf with the Head Pro. It wasn't as though either one of us had a ton of time during the week to play a leisurely 18 in the middle of the day, so we'd head out about 45-60 minutes before sunset, along with his young son. If we wanted to finish 9 holes (we were in 2 carts), we'd have to play at a pretty quick pace.
When I started playing with them, the kid was probably 9 years old. Pretty good player for that age. He was competitive and wanted to finish the 9 holes as they always had a small wager on the match. It taught me a valuable lesson when I had kids, and my family started playing "dusk" golf. It encourages people, both young and old, to read the situation while you're approaching the shot, which speeds up play for everyone.
Postscript.......The kid continued to love the game, played a lot, made his high school team, got a full-ride scholarship to college, made it on the PGA Tour and was the #1 ranked player in the world. And he's still a pretty quick player.
-
In golf’s 500+ year history is there anything to indicate that the speed at which any golfer is able to execute any discrete single shot is part of the challenge of the sport?
I’ll hang up an…
No. I won’t. It’ll take forever to answer.
“Undue delay”
What is undue and according to whom? And in what contexts?
Shot clocks? That would be true bifurcation right there.
-
A lot of you who post here or lurk are very good players who play in meaningful competitions. Do you find that looking at a putt from all angles or a deliberate set up routine or walking up to the green for a pitch shot improves your score? It is a serious question because I am not a good player so no amount of time will help me; hence, I am in the miss often but fast contingent. But I do find playing quickly increases my enjoyment; first tee time yesterday and loved a brisk walk in 1:10 for 9 holes as a two ball.
Ira
-
I would like to add that Riccio addresses specifically "perceived" pace of play and "actual" pace of play, and treats each differently.
https://www.golfsciencejournal.org/article/4965-analyzing-the-pace-of-play-in-golf-the-golf-course-as-a-factory (https://www.golfsciencejournal.org/article/4965-analyzing-the-pace-of-play-in-golf-the-golf-course-as-a-factory)
"Even if all groups are “fast” but experience some time/shot variability, even if the overall pace is quick, most groups will experience some waiting and will perceive that the pace is slow."
The one section that I think can illustrate this is the following figures in the paper:
Figure 11 — One day all fast groups with modest variability.
(https://i.imgur.com/H8wDhZL.png)
Figure 12 — Each group’s total waiting time.
(https://i.imgur.com/vxl4AZP.png)
Here, we see that *all fast groups* end up creating slower play through the day. More striking is figure 12, where, during the day, *actual wait time* varies dramatically, even if overall pace does not.
In the research, it seems that confounding variables are generally overshadowed by tee-time interval, with a few exceptions. Yes, set up time is the most dominant factor for individual pace, but placement of par 3s and reachable par 5s matters as well.
Granted, the actual play time of all the twosomes could be shortened dramatically if there were some type of shot clock, (this data is all from modeled foursomes i believe), but since the tour has access to player set-up and pace, they could easily model out event days to try and choose and ideal tee time interval for each group (even getting into player specifics). Since we have computers, there is no reason why every tee time interval MUST BE THE SAME. If players have longer set ups, then give them a shorter gap as the start, if players are quicker, then give them a longer gap.
I find the No Laying Up article to be looking for a solution far-far away from where the research lies. Players can play at their own -- reasonable -- slow pace, and the tournament can easily be set up to suit them. At the end of the day, if Cantlay waited on the 18th fairway, which he apparently did, then all the hemming and hawing about a 45 second setup, while ridiculous, is missing the point. The real solution is dynamically assigning tee time intervals to better keep the wait times down between players. This can happen both at the start of the match, and at the turn.
(again, this is my first series of posts here, so if the images there are huge or don't work, i'm sorry)
-
I am confused. Did the Masters run way beyond the tv schedule? Does this happen a lot for other big golf events? It seems to me golf is scheduled for a certain amount not just for the event, but for the adversising. If golf events are shorter does that reduce advertising fees for the broadcaster?
My take has long been that tv golf is never going to be fast golf or even golf at a just about reasonable pace. To me the solution for the viewer is to show more action. How much televised downtime is there? Guys standing around or preparing? Why not be far more nimble about covering the golf? Less studio crap and more on course reporting.
I know folks will say that skirts the issue, but I have never known tv golf to be fast. I have never watched the leaders play in 3.5 hours. To make televised golf skip along it would require a massive improvement in pace of play. Ain't gonna happen. The focus should be more on given the reality of the situation, how can the tv experience be improved?
Ciao
-
Michael
Consider...
- Cantlay was playing the same hilly damp course as everyone else.
- Cantlay was slower than his playing partner who decided not to wait for him, and was so slow that he held up those playing behind.
Niall
Niall,
I too saw Hovland chipping on 13 before Cantlay arrived at the green. So what.
I guess holing out sooner was allowing Victor to also hit the bathroom 7 times.
What don't you understand about the concept of hurrying up to wait?
Some people race from one traffic light to the next. Somehow, I manage to cruise in and when the next light turns green, we are all departing at the same time again. Trickle down, dude, please cite for me, specifically, how many time Cantlay and Hovland COULD HAVE PLAYED but did not because Cantlay was smelling roses?
It's a pot shot at the guy. Misguided. Lame.
Michael
Cantlay is the traffic lights. Him and others like him. Your argument is the usual "it's slow anyway so why should I bother". That's the attitude golf needs to sort, and not just for the professional game. What happens in the pro game gets imitated in the club game.
Niall
-
In golf’s 500+ year history is there anything to indicate that the speed at which any golfer is able to execute any discrete single shot is part of the challenge of the sport?
I’ll hang up an…
No. I won’t. It’ll take forever to answer.
“Undue delay”
What is undue and according to whom? And in what contexts?
Shot clocks? That would be true bifurcation right there.
This is a circular argument. If you don't have or have but don't enforce a shot clock, the ability to execute a shot in a certain amount of time isn't part of the challenge of the game...because the rules of the game don't make it part of the challenge. But all else equal, it's sensible to call one player better than another similarly skilled player if the former is able to perform under a greater variety of conditions, including time constraints.
In any game or sport, giving someone more time to make a move will (for the most part) help them make better moves. If there were no shot clock in chess, would you say that the speed at which any player is able to execute a shot wasn't part of the challenge of the game? Well, technically yes because there wouldn't be because there wouldn't be a rule that says it is. Still, we'd have good reason to think that the faster player is a better player--they're able to do all the complex mental calculations quicker and if equally accurate, a quicker mental CPU is better than a slower one.
Same for golf. There are a lot of factors to consider in golf and rules aside, a golfer who can consider the factors and make a decision quickly is better than one who can perform the same but takes longer to do it. The rules should reward the former accordingly.
-
Thinking about this some more. Context. As a recreational golfer you have choices, really. Choose to play with other golfers who suit your pace and at courses where the play suits your pace. Your choice. Of course, there can unexpected slow play. Rub of the green. Bite the bullet. Golf course owners/managers/clubs. Let's assume your goal is to maximize revenue. Pace of play comes into play in many different ways. Make rational choices to maximize revenue. Professional (entertainer) golfers. It's your business. What is going to maximize your income and the enjoyment of your work? How is it going to affect your audience? Your mind and game? In the end, you can always choose a line of work. Underlying all this, of course, is my opinion that the differences between people are too great to get everyone on the same pace of play page.
-
Sorry if this was posted already, as I stopped when John V. nailed it on the first page.
I said it the moment they announced 4th round pairings(two balls).
With two hours plus of tee times on each side, in two balls it was ALWAYS going to feel slow.
This was a big MISS by The Masters.
Sure they wanted traditional 2 balls but they already compromised with a two tee start.
Too many players left in the field for two balls to start off both tees and not have a lot of waiting(simply too many groups).
Three balls would've played at a similar pace, (maybe even faster with less groups on the course) but it would've felt way faster, waiting on 50% more players in YOUR group, rather than on each tee and fairway.
This something I spend my summer studying and preaching to members who insist on playing a single or a double on a busy/full tee sheet day at the course-4 two balls in a row having to wait on a four ball pace create far more congestion than two foursomes as they have a bit of space for ebb and flow..
The more GROUPS you send out, the slower the pace becomes-especially if you have a built in governer of a two tee start, or a course populated with mainly 4-balls.
And for the "play through" brigade, having small groups play through a course of mainly large(4) groups simply slows the larger groups even more, and is impractical on a full tee sheet day, except in rare circumstances.
By the way, prior to the last couple of years and the increased obsession with terminology, has The Masters EVER called the "front" nine, the first nine?
Feels contrived to me.
-
Amazing how people are so obsessed with the amount of time AT the ball.
If golf were a game of speed then getting TO the ball would be just as important, no?
-
Amazing how people are so obsessed with the amount of time AT the ball.
If golf were a game of speed then getting TO the ball would be just as important, no?
Kyle,
Well there is a difference actually, and Cantlay basically alluded to this.
If play is slow, how do I or anyone else benefit by rushing to the ball, if I'm just going to have to wait longer? The time that I CAN save thou is how long it takes me to hit the ball once i'm AT it and its my turn to go.
In my experience, hurrying up in between shots and having a longer wait is more frustrating than just taking your time and waiting less, and from what I've read this is what Cantlay was doing at the Masters.
-
Amazing how people are so obsessed with the amount of time AT the ball.
If golf were a game of speed then getting TO the ball would be just as important, no?
The curious aspect of the pace of play discussion and the PGA Tour is how quickly pro golfers walk between shots, which is rarely discussed, they don't hang around. If it was required for pro golfers to get around the course quickly, they could easily do it. One sure thing, is the PGA Tour have zero desire in doing anything about speed of play, so do not look to them to do anything.
Many club golfers have no idea on how to play a round of golf quickly.
As has been discussed, there are many reasons behind slow play, so a multi faceted solution is needed to speed play up. Clubs rarely are aware of the reasons behind slow play, and blame George for taking an extra waggle on the shot when there are 8 minute intervals for 4 balls, roughs too high, greens too fast, pins too difficult, don't educate golfers etc.
Clubs or golfers looking for inspiration from some one else to solve their problems won't ever solve anything.
-
My rookie year was 1990. I was totally unprepared for your golf and was the epitome of a rookie.
One of the biggest challenges was that I was a very fast player when I qualified. I did not take practice swings and was a pretty reactive player. I saw the shot/putt, and played. In my rookie season two things happened a lot. I hit shots when guys were talking or still walking (didn’t care), and I stood around waiting a hell of a lot of time.
My pace of play negatively impacted my results most of my rookie year until I worked on slowing my game down. Standing waiting was frustrating, pacing myself was better.
The worst for me were the handful of brutally slow players who would drag the group behind, get us put on the clock, and miraculously speed up (often playing well). It was frustrating.
There’s is a pace that fits the field, it’s not quick, but it should be better managed
-
A lot of you who post here or lurk are very good players who play in meaningful competitions. Do you find that looking at a putt from all angles or a deliberate set up routine or walking up to the green for a pitch shot improves your score? It is a serious question because I am not a good player so no amount of time will help me; hence, I am in the miss often but fast contingent.
Ira
Ira, I'm with you! Hope someone answers your question.
Pre-shot routines do not bother me. I (maybe incorrectly) assume players "play ready golf."
My first rules amendment: touch your ball ONCE when it's on the green. No exceptions.
-
It certainly doesn't help pace-of-play for the professionals, when you have a reachable in two par 5 (2nd), a drivable par 4 (3rd), followed by a par 3. That combination is bound to compress the groupings.
Is that something that today's architects would think about and try to avoid?
I believe ANGC flipped the 9's back in the day so was not designed for the way it's played now
-
In terms of recreational golfers, folks can throw around all the data they want. The fact is in Ireland and Scotland, on courses with full or mostly full tee sheets, I have almost never had a round take longer than 4 hours. And that’s with 99% of the people walking. In the US, it is rare to play a weekend round that takes less than 4.5 hours. And it is not uncommon for a round to take 5+ hours. And that is with a majority of (and sometimes all) golfers using carts.
I’m fine waiting when the group ahead of me is looking for a ball, or just happens to have a bad hole. That’s part of the game. But watching people move at a glacial pace, finishing their stories before hitting, waiting until it is their turn before reading a putt, is absolutely agonizing. I have stopped playing at public courses on the weekend for this reason. It takes all the fun out of the game.
And I’m sure people who are on the course for social reasons, to yuck it up with their friends, see nothing wrong with a long round. It would just be nice if courses were up front about whether they intend to enforce pace of play or not.
-
There are many reasons for slow play. Culture is a huge one.
Many have cited the specific problems such as sitting in the cart till it's your turn etc., reading putts one at a time, storytelling before hitting a shot.
Size/scale of courses and tees played of course contribute.
It takes long er to walk 7 miles than 4.
tee time spacing is huge and for those courses without tee times, having a culture of waiting for the group in front to reach #1 green helps this spacing. A round feels faster when you don't weaait, and tht 3 minutes can make a huge difference.
Then there are many who play at a very acceptable pace(or at least the pace of the course or faster, but they don't actually play real golf) pick up when lose a ball, never putting out etc.
That's all well and good and is their right.That even allows time for a few bad habits as mentioned above, and they still can keep an excellent pace.
But then, they play an event which IS(well semi real-a BB Member Guest etc.) real golf, and the pace grinds to a a halt because they aren't used to keeping score, putting out etc. and they still have the bad slow play habits they get away with in casual no putt out scoring games.
-
There are many reasons for slow play. Culture is a huge one.
Many have cited the specific problems such as sitting in the cart till it's your turn etc., reading putts one at a time, storytelling before hitting a shot.
Size/scale of courses and tees played of course contribute.
It takes long er to walk 7 miles than 4.
tee time spacing is huge and for those courses without tee times, having a culture of waiting for the group in front to reach #1 green helps this spacing. A round feels faster when you don't weaait, and tht 3 minutes can make a huge difference.
Then there are many who play at a very acceptable pace(or at least the pace of the course or faster, but they don't actually play real golf) pick up when lose a ball, never putting out etc.
That's all well and good and is their right.That even allows time for a few bad habits as mentioned above, and they still can keep an excellent pace.
But then, they play an event which IS(well semi real-a BB Member Guest etc.) real golf, and the pace grinds to a a halt because they aren't used to keeping score, putting out etc. and they still have the bad slow play habits they get away with in casual no putt out scoring games.
Jeff,
I completely agree with you about culture. I grew up playing at Pelham Country Club in the 1960s. Kids playing the golf course wasn’t against club rules but I wouldn’t say we were welcome. Pelham was filled with grumpy old men and they sure made it clear we better not hold them up.
Maybe that’s why I was welcome at Ballybunion in the 1980s. Ballybunion members enjoyed playing but there was no doubt that the most important hole was #19 and you better get there fast because it took a long time to play that hole!
-
I totally agree with Dan Callahan. There are plenty of people that simply do not give a f%#k about the golfers behind them.
-
An interesting thought regarding pro tournaments: Count the number of times a group has to wait for the group ahead of them before playing a shot. The groups with the least number of times waiting are the slowest. Now, what to do with that information?
-
I am amazed that no one has posted to this thread any comments regarding play at Harbour Town during yesterdays' 4th round. It involved Cantlay as he took what seemed to be an astoundingly long time decided how to deal with an extraordinary situation...a real live true situation not some theoretical "what if".
On the par 3 14's, he hit his tee shot left and his pitch ran thru the green and trickled to the top of the railway ties holding up the green's right side. That chip ended up resting between two of the wood "posts" that constitute the railway ties with the bottom of the ball below the top surface of both pieces of wood (probably around 0.1" below but that is a pure guess). He ended up playing an amazing shot to about 5' and made a bogey rather than taking a penalty shot etc for a double or worse.
I thought it would elicit a wide variety of responses on this thread. My vote is that it shouted for a "shot clock" of some type..as did the pace of play of the final threesome throughout their round. And my guess is that average round times this week will be up a good 5 minutes or more after golfers watched yesterday's broadcast. I did not time how much time it took...but for sure it was more than a lost ball 3 minute limit and I think more than the old 5 minute limit. It also ended with a brilliant shot
-
I do see a certain element of a PGA golfer needed to take his time being a stroke or two may cost the golfer thousands of dollars and it’s their profession . That being said some golfers still take way to much time on tee box , approach and on the green . My biggest problem with club golfers is playing from tee boxes too far back and slowing play. I travel to a lot of clubs and get paired with different people most of whom should be playing from 6100 yards rather than the 6500 or even 6700 yard tee boxes they choose.
-
But then, they play an event which IS(well semi real-a BB Member Guest etc.) real golf, and the pace grinds to a a halt because they aren't used to keeping score, putting out etc. and they still have the bad slow play habits they get away with in casual no putt out scoring games.
We play medal competitions most weeks. With all of those things. If the round is more than 3hrs 45mins there are loud complaints. Keeping score and putting out do not mean rounds should be slow.
-
I am amazed that no one has posted to this thread any comments regarding play at Harbour Town during yesterdays' 4th round. It involved Cantlay as he took what seemed to be an astoundingly long time decided how to deal with an extraordinary situation...a real live true situation not some theoretical "what if".
On the par 3 14's, he hit his tee shot left and his pitch ran thru the green and trickled to the top of the railway ties holding up the green's right side. That chip ended up resting between two of the wood "posts" that constitute the railway ties with the bottom of the ball below the top surface of both pieces of wood (probably around 0.1" below but that is a pure guess). He ended up playing an amazing shot to about 5' and made a bogey rather than taking a penalty shot etc for a double or worse.
I thought it would elicit a wide variety of responses on this thread. My vote is that it shouted for a "shot clock" of some type..as did the pace of play of the final threesome throughout their round. And my guess is that average round times this week will be up a good 5 minutes or more after golfers watched yesterday's broadcast. I did not time how much time it took...but for sure it was more than a lost ball 3 minute limit and I think more than the old 5 minute limit. It also ended with a brilliant shot
My takeaway after looking at the final round pairings at Harbour Town was that Fitzpatrick would get worn down being sandwiched between slow play kings Cantlay and Speith as I remember him being pretty vocal about the pace of play at the U.S. Open at Brookline. It was a terrific shot that Cantlay played from the railroad ties but I don’t think he gets a pass for how long it took. I remember Speith taking more than twenty minutes in the 2017 British Open final round on the 13th hole to hit what was ultimately a great shot but again no pass for how long it took. I don’t know if it’s an apt analogy but as a crossword devotee I would point out that tournaments are based on both speed and accuracy.
-
Fitzpatrick reminds me of Daly back in the day, when it seemed like he was hitting many of his shots while his playing partners ball was still in the air. I can't even watch Cantlay anymore. The ball coming to rest in the penalty area on the par 3 was obviously a unique situation, and you would expect it to take more time than usual to make a decision, but good lord ... he took forever. And Spieth doesn't get a pass either. Watching him deliberate between 8 and 9 iron on 18, going back and forth countless times, screamed for a shot clock of some sort. It was great to watch Fitzpatrick choose a club, step up and hit his shot, and then start walking. That should be the norm rather than the exception. On the putting green it's the same: reads his putt, addresses the ball, hits his putt. Done.
-
Tim
The time Spieth took in that situation at the Open was a joke and I think the main reason Kuchar fell away. He had the momentum at the time but after waiting 20 minutes for Spieth to sort himself out he'd clearly lost a bit of concentration. What could the official have done ? Well instead of waiting for Spieth to ask all sorts of questions and letting him run up and down sand dunes he might have taken charge of the situation and told him straight away what his options were and advised him he was on the clock. I appreciate that's easy to say in hindsight. As an aside, Spieth's second shot wasn't that good considering he was hitting off pristine turf and had a level stance and lie. He just made the right hand rough thereby partially short siding himself. The chip and putt however were top notch.
Paul
I was a bit distracted on other things when Cantlay was going through his pre-shot routine for the bunker shot but let me assure that watching on Sky TV in the UK, that the commentary team were pretty scathing of Cantlay's general slowness throughout the round.
The particular instance that got me however was when he was third to tee-off on one hole and he stepped up and started rooting about in his pocket for a tee. After a while and failing to find one he then turns to his caddy for a tee. Why wouldn't a player be ready, ball and tee in hand, ready to step up and play their shot ? It's as though he's deliberately trying to waste time.
Given that the media are now calling these guys out for their slow play, and that golf on TV is supposed to be entertaining, I wonder how long before the likes of Cantlay get's sanctioned in some way by the Tour. What do they do on the LIV Tour ? I don't know who their slow players are but I assume they have them. Maybe 100 lashes for a first offence and something a bit more draconian for the second ?
Niall
-
Here's the thing.
Occasionally we all hit it somewhere weird and it might take a bit longer than usual on a routine shot.
the problem is their "usual" is so slow that whn you further increase that time it takes forever.
As someone who competes and also spends more time in the shite than most, SOMETIMES you simply have to take your medicine quickly, and punch it back out into play, even though you know with a bit more time there might be a more precise or measured option. It's a mental shot clock and if you've consistently been struggling, searching for balls etc. you have to take it on yourself to hit a shot quickly to get your group on pace.There simply may not be time for you to get another odd ball, blind shot yardage from two fairways over.
Guys like Spieth, who is in the shite a lot as well, simply think it is their divine right to have the exact walked off yardage and super rehearsed special practice swing EVERY time they are out of position.
They have no regard for the fact that they spend a lot of time in scrambling situations, which by themselves are no big deal, but cumulatively,can add up to a lot.
I didn't see the Cantley event, but it shows me he has little self awareness in light of what was reported last week.
There was even a remarking fan on 9 green about his pace-good emntal toughness but poor self awareness.
IMHO, you SHOULDN'T be allowed to take that much time for any shot. (kind've like the 10 second rule on a ball falling in the cup)
For this reason, I'm all for a shot clock, with say two occasions where you get to CALL timeout and get an extra 30 seconds.
After you use those two, you have to hit ALL shots within the prescribed time.
I watched Spieth at The Open at Carnoustie do this nonsense EVERY shot on every hole on the front nine. It was unbearable, and very disruptive to his playing partners.
Sometimes you don't deserve the exact yardage or the extra time that a certain shot (seems) to demand.
Without a shot clock, this will always be a problem for entitled players.
-
I would be careful about calling out Cantlay's shot from the railroad ties on 14 yesterday or Spieth's long-considered shot at Birkdale as the best examples of the slow-play epidemic. Those are two pretty extraordinary circumstances where I think it's reasonable to take some extra time to hit the shot. Exactly how much extra time, it's hard to say, but it's not really important to be precise on those circumstances because they are unpredictable by virtue of their extraordinariness.
The real problem is how long it takes so many players to play shots that are well within the big part of the bell-curve. Cantlay taking 1 1/2 playings of the Final Jeopardy! theme to hit a simple tee shot should not be acceptable to anyone with an interest in making the "product" of professional golf enjoyable and (most importantly to the ones overseeing it) commercially lucrative.
Even at the highest level, in tournaments where there are roving officials, an individual shot clock for each player is simply a non-starter. Who is going to carry the shot clock? My understanding is that there aren't usually enough rules officials to post someone with each group, and you would need at least one person dedicated to each group to oversee the clock, being the sole arbiter of when the clock begins on each and every shot. Different clock-watchers will inevitably start the clock at different times. It's close to impossible to see how it could work in an equitable way.
That being the case, an overall checkpoint system makes the most sense. The tournaments in which I've been subjected to it, you have a time par to complete each round. If you reach the established checkpoints late, you get warned, then penalized for repeat offenses. Very simple.
-
That being the case, an overall checkpoint system makes the most sense. The tournaments in which I've been subjected to it, you have a time par to complete each round. If you reach the established checkpoints late, you get warned, then penalized for repeat offenses. Very simple.
How does that work with other players in the group? Are they all penalized when the group doesn't reach the checkpoint in time? If so, imagine Fitzpatrick being penalized for slow play simply because he had the misfortune to be paired with two snails?
-
That being the case, an overall checkpoint system makes the most sense. The tournaments in which I've been subjected to it, you have a time par to complete each round. If you reach the established checkpoints late, you get warned, then penalized for repeat offenses. Very simple.
How does that work with other players in the group? Are they all penalized when the group doesn't reach the checkpoint in time? If so, imagine Fitzpatrick being penalized for slow play simply because he had the misfortune to be paired with two snails?
Usually when groups get in trouble under this system, they're subject to some scrutiny from a rules official, who can elect not to penalize a player who is clearly trying to play quickly.
But the stress of potential penalties hanging over a player's head might incentivize him or her to get the slowpokes in the group to move along. That is a feature of the system, not a bug.
-
I would be careful about calling out Cantlay's shot from the railroad ties on 14 yesterday or Spieth's long-considered shot at Birkdale as the best examples of the slow-play epidemic. Those are two pretty extraordinary circumstances where I think it's reasonable to take some extra time to hit the shot. Exactly how much extra time, it's hard to say, but it's not really important to be precise on those circumstances because they are unpredictable by virtue of their extraordinariness.
The real problem is how long it takes so many players to play shots that are well within the big part of the bell-curve. Cantlay taking 1 1/2 playings of the Final Jeopardy! theme to hit a simple tee shot should not be acceptable to anyone with an interest in making the "product" of professional golf enjoyable and (most importantly to the ones overseeing it) commercially lucrative.
Even at the highest level, in tournaments where there are roving officials, an individual shot clock for each player is simply a non-starter. Who is going to carry the shot clock? My understanding is that there aren't usually enough rules officials to post someone with each group, and you would need at least one person dedicated to each group to oversee the clock, being the sole arbiter of when the clock begins on each and every shot. Different clock-watchers will inevitably start the clock at different times. It's close to impossible to see how it could work in an equitable way.
That being the case, an overall checkpoint system makes the most sense. The tournaments in which I've been subjected to it, you have a time par to complete each round. If you reach the established checkpoints late, you get warned, then penalized for repeat offenses. Very simple.
there are 20-50 people INSIDE the ropes at every PGA Tour event.
One of them can't keep a shot clock?
Major cop out.
Agreed that odd situations are not the usual slow play problems, but they do add up.
What Jordan Spieth did at Birkdale was very inconsiderate and should not have been allowed.(I fell asleep during the replay last night and missed Catlay's event, but 7 minutes is just TOO LONG.)
I'm sorry. but hitting it MILES out of position should not be allowed to be turned into an advantage for an oblivious player who has no self awareness of how long such a process takes.
Spieth has these "extraordinary circumstances" 3-4 times per round
Take your medicine more quickly and perhaps you'll learn to hit it better.
I once had a player who lost three balls and multiple searches for others(5 minute search each who then had to walk back each time, having not hit a provisional.)
We were behind and were on the clock- i had a good round going.
On 18, I was first to hit and it was a difficult tee shot, and I needed par to make the cut.
I backed off and took 47 seconds to hit the shot.(it was a time violation and I received my first warning, which I expected)
As we we were walking down the fairway he told me I really needed to pick pace, as that was the second time I had backed off in the previous 3 holes.
After the round I not so gently explained to him that my 70 had taken far less time than his 84, and that I had spent more time looking for his ball, and waiting for him to walk backwards, than I had spent cumulatively hitting all my shots.
Slow play takes many forms, and if we are not willing to go after the low hanging fruit, there's no way we'll ever get Joe 6 pack to not sit in his cart until it is his turn to hit.
-
Regardless of Michael Greller’s compensation agreement with Speith it’s not enough. His therapist bills alone have to be enormous.
-
Tim
I disagree. As Jeff says, it's for the player to get on and deal with the situation. After all they put themselves there. The only time there should be a delay is when a player needs a ruling.
In terms of enforcement why not simply leave it to the discretion of the referee. If he/she perceives an individual player is slow then he/she gives them a warning, and if they don't improve they get penalised one shot. No need for timeclocks or officials with each group. We know who the slow players so persecute them ! After all they are simply gaming the (current) system.
Niall
-
I have to believe Shotlink could create a timekeeping function for the Walking Scorers. Have three-hole checkpoints. If the group is over their allotted time assess penalties to the guilty party or parties.
There's a relief pitcher for the Cleveland Guardians who was notoriously slow. So far this season he's 0-2 with 4.50 ERA. The clock has been a huge problem for him. He's either going to have to figure it out or find another line of work. Good pitcher, but he was one of the reasons games were as long as they were.
-
I have to believe Shotlink could create a timekeeping function for the Walking Scorers. Have three-hole checkpoints. If the group is over their allotted time assess penalties to the guilty party or parties.
There's a relief pitcher for the Cleveland Guardians who was notoriously slow. So far this season he's 0-2 with 4.50 ERA. The clock has been a huge problem for him. He's either going to have to figure it out or find another line of work. Good pitcher, but he was one of the reasons games were as long as they were.
Amazing we had no problem driving people out of golf who anchored, yet we worry about driving(slow) people out with a shot clock.
In some ways golf does have this, when players are out of position and have been warned.
They usually play better.
Kudos to baseball, get with it golf.
-
Tim
I disagree. As Jeff says, it's for the player to get on and deal with the situation. After all they put themselves there. The only time there should be a delay is when a player needs a ruling.
In terms of enforcement why not simply leave it to the discretion of the referee. If he/she perceives an individual player is slow then he/she gives them a warning, and if they don't improve they get penalised one shot. No need for timeclocks or officials with each group. We know who the slow players so persecute them ! After all they are simply gaming the (current) system.
Niall
Subjectivity vs objectivity makes for bad outcomes here, Niall...;-)
Case in point: The ONLY effing time the cranks at ANGC decided to levy a slow play penalty on a player was on a 14 or 15 yo amateur kid from China.
coincidence...?...nah....doubtful.
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/tianlang-guan-receives-rare-slow-play-penalty\ (https://www.golfdigest.com/story/tianlang-guan-receives-rare-slow-play-penalty\)
-
Jeff gets my vote for PGATour commish, he's exactly what they need! ;D
P.S. I've also been critical of Spieth ever since the 2017 Open debacle. One point of correction thou, it wasn't 20 minutes, it was actually 30. Completely and utterly disrespectful to everyone including his competitor. Lord knows why rule 6-7 doesn't get mentioned or enforced in these situations.
-
"The time Spieth took in that situation at the Open was a joke and I think the main reason Kuchar fell away. He had the momentum at the time but after waiting 20 minutes for Spieth to sort himself out he'd clearly lost a bit of concentration."
If Kuchar was so distracted by the wait, why and how did he manage to birdie 2 of the next 4 holes? ;)
While I acknowledge Spieth is among the slower players, what happened on the 13th hole in the Open at Birkdale in 2017 was an extraordinary situation. 2 of the most senior rules officials in the game were right there to make sure everything was done properly and according to the rules.
Anyone who wants to know what really took place should watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3zfrDSqDUs
-
"The time Spieth took in that situation at the Open was a joke and I think the main reason Kuchar fell away. He had the momentum at the time but after waiting 20 minutes for Spieth to sort himself out he'd clearly lost a bit of concentration."
If Kuchar was so distracted by the wait, why and how did he manage to birdie 2 of the next 4 holes? ;)
While I acknowledge Spieth is among the slower players, what happened on the 13th hole in the Open at Birkdale in 2017 was an extraordinary situation. 2 of the most senior rules officials in the game were right there to make sure everything was done properly and according to the rules.
Anyone who wants to know what really took place should watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3zfrDSqDUs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3zfrDSqDUs)
Sort of ironic that it takes almost sixteen minutes to explain the situation.
-
You shot clock people are the true Bifurcationists.
-
When it comes to speed of play, there has been bifurcation for years. As Tim observed above, in most state and locally run amateur events, players are given a time limit to complete play with checkpoints that must be hit.
-
When it comes to speed of play, there has been bifurcation for years. As Tim observed above, in most state and locally run amateur events, players are given a time limit to complete play with checkpoints that must be hit.
Jim,
Can you provide examples of this? I ask because this has NOT be my experience in GA and NC playing is sanctioned events. In CGA tournaments, if you finish your round as much as 25 minutes after the group in front of you, you are subject to disqualification, but there is no "time limit" or checkpoints during the round.
The AJGA system, which Chris Cupit essentially uses at Rivermont, is the best that I've come across, and it creates a culture of playing at an acceptable pace, while allowing for situations like the one Cantlay faced on the RR ties yesterday. The Speith situation at The Open is a different animal; I don't think any of us had ever seen anything like that, and we might not ever again.
I'd also add this; I think the thing that REALLY pushed baseball to a pitch clock (which I LOVE!) was declining viewership, which golf does not face. The analogy also fails because the logistics are so different; it's easy to know when to start the clock in baseball, but when do you start it in golf after tee shots or after approach shots, given that there might be as much as a 300 yd walk in between. And on the green, if two players are on the same line, how does the second guy get his routine, even a fast one, started until the first guy has hit his putt?
I'll admit that I'm not as concerned as many others about slow play on Tour; those guys are playing for millions and their livelihood; I don't think that's an apt comparison to my $6 Nassau or even a sanctioned senior tournament. I do agree that it's an issue, but I don't think the fix will be especially simple, or very much like what baseball and tennis have been able to do.
-
I am embarrassingly inept at figuring out how to attach websites to posts here. If you Google Pa. Golf Association Slow Play Policy, a full blown description will appear. I tried to summarize how it worked earlier in this thread, as did Tim more recently. Maybe someone more ept than I will do it.
-
Here is the link Jim mentioned...
https://www.pagolf.org/detail.asp?id=258&pid=5 (https://www.pagolf.org/detail.asp?id=258&pid=5)
-
"The Speith situation at The Open is a different animal; I don't think any of us had ever seen anything like that, and we might not ever again."
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much time it took for the rules officials to sort out Seve's play from the car park in the 1979 Open?
-
Thank you, Kalen.
-
Here is the link Jim mentioned...
https://www.pagolf.org/detail.asp?id=258&pid=5 (https://www.pagolf.org/detail.asp?id=258&pid=5)
I think that’s another version of the AJGA pace of play policy that Steve Hamblin sort of pioneered years ago. Chris Cupit did the same thing at Rivermont, even for “ordinary” non-tournament play, with a clock beside the green every few holes set to the same time as a clock at the first tee plus the pace of play to that point. So if you had a 10 am tee time, and you arrived at every checkpoint on time, every clock would say 10 am; it’s a graphic display of how far behind (or ahead) of pace a group is.
I think Rivermont has done away with the clocks because their GPS system lets the pro shop see exactly where every group on the course is, but the expectations and the pace are still the same. It a great policy,the best I've ever seen, and I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t work on Tour, EXCEPT that the players don’t want it.
I suspect the issue with this for state associations is manpower. If you read the PA policy and imagine enforcing it, you’d have have to have a few volunteers scattered throughout the course. For smaller tournaments, that’s not really practical, which is why the CGA has adopted the 25 minute rule that I mentioned earlier.
-
Here is the link Jim mentioned...
https://www.pagolf.org/detail.asp?id=258&pid=5 (https://www.pagolf.org/detail.asp?id=258&pid=5)
I think that’s another version of the AJGA pace of play policy that Steve Hamblin sort of pioneered years ago. Chris Cupit did the same thing at Rivermont, even for “ordinary” non-tournament play, with a clock beside the green every few holes set to the same time as a clock at the first tee plus the pace of play to that point. So if you had a 10 am tee time, and you arrived at every checkpoint on time, every clock would say 10 am; it’s a graphic display of how far behind (or ahead) of pace a group is.
I think Rivermont has done away with the clocks because their GPS system lets the pro shop see exactly where every group on the course is, but the expectations and the pace are still the same. It a great policy,the best I've ever seen, and I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t work on Tour, EXCEPT that the players don’t want it.
I suspect the issue with this for state associations is manpower. If you read the PA policy and imagine enforcing it, you’d have have to have a few volunteers scattered throughout the course. For smaller tournaments, that’s not really practical, which is why the CGA has adopted the 25 minute rule that I mentioned earlier.
I recall North Berwick having groups carry gps a while back. They said it was for helping to determine the slow areas. I never heard what came of this.
Ciao
-
When it comes to speed of play, there has been bifurcation for years. As Tim observed above, in most state and locally run amateur events, players are given a time limit to complete play with checkpoints that must be hit.
.
The AJGA system, which Chris Cupit essentially uses at Rivermont, is the best that I've come across, and it creates a culture of playing at an acceptable pace, while allowing for situations like the one Cantlay faced on the RR ties yesterday.
Rivermont, north of Atlanta, in John's Creek?
I love what they've been doing there at that place. If I lived closer, I'd try to join.
-
Let's be realistic about a shot clock. In football, basketball, etc. there is one ball in play, on a defined perimeter. You need two shot-clocks and one operator for a period of about 2 1/2- 3 1/2 hours.
In golf you would have to have 70-80 portable shot clocks with full time trained operators (one for each player on the course). For two days it would be 10-14 hours each day, for the other two days it would be 6-8 hours each day. This is the only way to have a level playing field for all players for the entire tournament.
In team sports players have a defined salary. In golf each individual is on their own and earnings are the result of performance, and in genral half the field gets $0.00 if they fail to make a cut.
The pace of play quidelines that JVDB mentioned work. It only needs a realistic field size limit so there is no waiting at the turn in a 1st/10th tees format.
Caveat: A shot clock might work in the LIV format. I'd like to see them try.
-
Why won’t the system used by the Pa. Golf Assn. and I’m sure many other state and local organizations, work? It works for the best amateurs in the game. In Pennsylvania, it works for pros in open tournaments and in USGA qualifiers. If pros have to play a round in 4 1/2 hours, they’ll do it. Just like pitchers will throw a pitch in 15 seconds, even if they’ve never done it before.
-
"The time Spieth took in that situation at the Open was a joke and I think the main reason Kuchar fell away. He had the momentum at the time but after waiting 20 minutes for Spieth to sort himself out he'd clearly lost a bit of concentration."
If Kuchar was so distracted by the wait, why and how did he manage to birdie 2 of the next 4 holes? ;)
While I acknowledge Spieth is among the slower players, what happened on the 13th hole in the Open at Birkdale in 2017 was an extraordinary situation. 2 of the most senior rules officials in the game were right there to make sure everything was done properly and according to the rules.
Anyone who wants to know what really took place should watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3zfrDSqDUs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3zfrDSqDUs)
It really shouldn't have taken place. He was on the practice ground which is normally OoB. For some reason the R&A didn't treat it as such. I suspect it was a mistake.
My take is for total time. Let players decide how to use their time, but the game must be over by a certain time. First time the rule is broken the entire group is penalised, because I do think players need to police each other. After that, first offenders can be on watch and it will likely be obvious who are the problem players. After a second penalty, I would be in favour of suspension from the tour for one event.
For guys against bifurcation, how do all these clock related solutions work for us?
Ciao
-
One of the problems with an expected "pace of play" in a professional event(i.e. when you go on the clock) is that it should increase throughout the day.
It's often 4:20 for a threesome, which is too much time for the first groups off and inevitably not enough for later groups.
If the first 3 groups are 4 hours, then the next 3 are 4:05 etc.up to the 4:20 for the rest of the field, it would help considerably, which is exactly how we do it for members.
In a professional event where the first group plays in exactly the prescribed 4:20,or worse yet longer, there are no penalties-especially if the delays came late in the round(before anyone could get a bad time).
At that point, no other group can play any faster and one lost ball , play through, ruling or delay backs up the whole place, and though a group may fall behind, they can easily get back into position because such a slow pace was established initially.
-
there are 20-50 people INSIDE the ropes at every PGA Tour event.
One of them can't keep a shot clock?
Major cop out.
I agree with your point that the bodies are there if the PGA Tour wanted someone in each group's bloated entourage to carry some sort of timing device.
But if that happens...
...do those people have real power?
...are they able to penalize pros after X amount of bad times? I can just see some earnest volunteer being berated by a pro after giving a bad-time penalty.
...is it possible for all of them to be trained to start the clock at the exact correct instant relative to each shot in a way that is foolproof? Basketball games have shot clock issues all the time. In golf, there would need to be a whole new rulebook to legislate when the clock is supposed to start, and what the exceptions will be. It's hard to see any way around there being dozens of complaints/appeals of bad-time penalties if everyone is on a shot clock.
It's a nice idea in theory in part because it reminds us of recent positive edits to the way tennis and baseball are played, but it just seems that the mountain of in-round variables that make golf unique is too high to overcome. An overall time-par is much more elegant, and it has a proven track record. To your point about that time-par creeping higher as more groups come in, I think that's fine, though it also muddies things a bit and, in cases where groups move well, gives an advantage to players playing later because they can take their time where those in the early groups cannot.
-
To your point about that time-par creeping higher as more groups come in, I think that's fine, though it also muddies things a bit and, in cases where groups move well, gives an advantage to players playing later because they can take their time where those in the early groups cannot.
If the opening group plays in the max allotted time(the normal procedure), everybody potentially waits- every-single-shot.
Allowing the first group to play in max allotted time(where by definition they will NEVER wait themselves)is a recipe for a slow day, and unfair to a later group for sure, who no doubt is above max time early in the round, and suceptible to going on the clock on the first lost ball etc.
I'm all for time checkpoints as well.
-
Here’s an article about the Shot Clock Masters in 2018, a tournament that showed how easy it is to speed up play.
https://golf.com/news/european-tours-shot-clock-masters-debuts-to-rave-reviews/?amp=1 (https://golf.com/news/european-tours-shot-clock-masters-debuts-to-rave-reviews/?amp=1)
-
Here’s an article about the Shot Clock Masters in 2018, a tournament that showed how easy it is to speed up play.
https://golf.com/news/european-tours-shot-clock-masters-debuts-to-rave-reviews/?amp=1 (https://golf.com/news/european-tours-shot-clock-masters-debuts-to-rave-reviews/?amp=1)
Proof that no one really wants change, and they cave to the whataboutisms. can't do it etc.
There are always challenges when outside the box thinking is attempted.
Yet here we are watching 7 minute delays pondering a challenging shot,and inane, time consuming caddie chat is not only tolerated, but embraced by announcers.
Practical and proven method above, yet discarded.
and scores dropped...
-
Based on my understanding of how Shotlink data is recorded, I would expect there is a method to measure the total playing time of every round of golf played and the total amount of time between shots for every player.
Beyond measuring who's inherently faster / slower, It would seem possible to identify bottlenecks within a round that may be based on course setup. Potentially more importantly, it would also seem possible to determine which courses consistently have a faster / slower place of play than other courses. Permitting the ability to analyze why certain courses play faster / slower than others and if there are clearly identified design / setup features that have significant impacts on pace of play.
-
Based on my understanding of how Shotlink data is recorded, I would expect there is a method to measure the total playing time of every round of golf played and the total amount of time between shots for every player.
Beyond measuring who's inherently faster / slower, It would seem possible to identify bottlenecks within a round that may be based on course setup. Potentially more importantly, it would also seem possible to determine which courses consistently have a faster / slower place of play than other courses. Permitting the ability to analyze why certain courses play faster / slower than others and if there are clearly identified design / setup features that have significant impacts on pace of play.
Since they track every single shot, there's certainly a way to record the time it takes to hit those shots.
-
Since they track every single shot, there's certainly a way to record the time it takes to hit those shots.
Right, I believe within Shotlink there is a timestamp of when every shot was hit.
-
Since they track every single shot, there's certainly a way to record the time it takes to hit those shots.
Right, I believe within Shotlink there is a timestamp of when every shot was hit.
I thought of this, but it would be harder to determine when players got to their ball, whose turn it was, etc. Not impossible, but someone would have to sort through all the data accordingly. Or maybe there's a bot for that?
As to those who object on the grounds of someone facing a challenging shot, there would be necessary exceptions. In baseball the batter can call time out but I believe there are limits to how often. Maybe each player would get three times per round to go off the clock and have an extra minute or two? But if they had to do it more than that, they'd eventually be forced to play a shot without the extra time.
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
If bifurcation is not part of rectifying slow play, there is really only one way forward. Total round time. No exceptions. Slow time, entire group nailed. That will change golf culture in a hurry. We can't really be concerned with the outcome of tv golf. They can do their own thing to figure out how to improve their product.
Ciao
-
Here’s an article about the Shot Clock Masters in 2018, a tournament that showed how easy it is to speed up play.
https://golf.com/news/european-tours-shot-clock-masters-debuts-to-rave-reviews/?amp=1 (https://golf.com/news/european-tours-shot-clock-masters-debuts-to-rave-reviews/?amp=1)
Does anyone know why this concept wasn’t taken forward? The article, and my memory from the time, suggests it was pretty effective and reasonably well received by the players (or at least those that were prepared to express an opinion publicly).
-
Since they track every single shot, there's certainly a way to record the time it takes to hit those shots.
Right, I believe within Shotlink there is a timestamp of when every shot was hit.
Maybe each player would get three times per round to go off the clock and have an extra minute or two? But if they had to do it more than that, they'd eventually be forced to play a shot without the extra time.
The problem is players like Jordan Spieth get into these situations 8-10 times a round.
I watched him play out the hay on nearly every shot on the front nine of the final round at Carnoustie(I couldn't get around his gallery as he was always in it and had caddie walking all the way to the green every time)
He's not breaking any rules(unless they are out of position, behind time, and on the clock)and many of the places he hits it ARE challenging and do take time to get exact yardages. I'm just not sure you're entitled to that much information if it exceeds expected norms(in this case the shot clock would be the expected norm)
As Tom said, with a shot clock, he might just have to hit the shot(probably conservatively) without the extra time-which would only seem fair his playing partners and the field.
As far as bifurcation, Sean, surely you know pros already play a bifurcated game than ams.
For one, they play stroke play, putt out, retee etc.
Seeing them get on with it in a reasonable manner(because of a shot clock), without the endless caddie chat,can ONLY help the speed of the am game. It certainly has hurt pace(endless caddy chat) at high end places that employ caddies.
-
Slow play is no different than the ball. It will take gumption and time. And the players will get royally sanctimonious about being the best players in the world and one shot potentially being worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Due in part to social media and also in part to a golf media telling the story, slow play is being appropriately vilified.
Baseball attacked slow games. College football just did this week by announcing running clocks after first downs. It will happen in golf.
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
If bifurcation is not part of rectifying slow play, there is really only one way forward. Total round time. No exceptions. Slow time, entire group nailed. That will change golf culture in a hurry. We can't really be concerned with the outcome of tv golf. They can do their own thing to figure out how to improve their product.
Ciao
Sean:
Well, your foursome is not going to apply a two-stroke penalty to themselves if they play slowly, and it wouldn't matter if you did, unless it was in a formal competition.
The reason to crack down on slow play on TV, is that the habits of pro golfers become ingrained in average golfers and junior golfers via TV exposure. Where did you learn you need to get an accurate yardage for every shot? That you need to establish a methodical pre-shot routine? That you need to plumb-bob your putting line, or look at the putt from all sides of the hole, or however you line up your putts? Most likely it was from pro golfers on the TV.
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
If bifurcation is not part of rectifying slow play, there is really only one way forward. Total round time. No exceptions. Slow time, entire group nailed. That will change golf culture in a hurry. We can't really be concerned with the outcome of tv golf. They can do their own thing to figure out how to improve their product.
Ciao
The reason to crack down on slow play on TV, is that the habits of pro golfers become ingrained in average golfers and junior golfers via TV exposure. Where did you learn you need to get an accurate yardage for every shot? That you need to establish a methodical pre-shot routine? That you need to plumb-bob your putting line, or look at the putt from all sides of the hole, or however you line up your putts? Most likely it was from pro golfers on the TV.
Bingo.
You left out long caddy consultations and chats.
Multiple processes(learned from TV) take more time than fewer processes.
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
If bifurcation is not part of rectifying slow play, there is really only one way forward. Total round time. No exceptions. Slow time, entire group nailed. That will change golf culture in a hurry. We can't really be concerned with the outcome of tv golf. They can do their own thing to figure out how to improve their product.
Ciao
Sean:
Well, your foursome is not going to apply a two-stroke penalty to themselves if they play slowly, and it wouldn't matter if you did, unless it was in a formal competition.
The reason to crack down on slow play on TV, is that the habits of pro golfers become ingrained in average golfers and junior golfers via TV exposure. Where did you learn you need to get an accurate yardage for every shot? That you need to establish a methodical pre-shot routine? That you need to plumb-bob your putting line, or look at the putt from all sides of the hole, or however you line up your putts? Most likely it was from pro golfers on the TV.
Tom
I am hardly going to blame Cantlay for monkey see monkey do behaviour. I hope you and Jeff don't either. Blame individuals for their actions.
Assessing a penalty wouldn't be up to me. It would be down to the club. Comp cards can easily be stamped when returned. For casual play, I guess we all have to rely on each other to follow the rules just as we do now. I am not worried about it. Just making a more workable solution than timing each shot or hole. That is an absolute non starter unless the rules are further bifurcated. I am not going to time golfers just as I don't for the 3 minute rule. I don't even carry a watch 8)
This is a wild discussion. Guys are saying tv golf is too slow. So lets lets further complicate complicated rules so a tv golf is more entertaining. Maybe folks should stop watching. If it is not entertaining do something else....and if you are doing something else, why do you care?
Is golf must be the only game on the planet where a huge percentage of the particpants expect perfect rules outcomes 100% of the time. Folks, its sport. Roll with the punches.
Ciao
-
I seem to remember my host and the starter at Pine Valley reporting/recording the time of our group. Maybe I imagined that, it’s been 12 years. And I think I’ve seen it some elsewhere.
I wish more clubs would do that, record playing times for members.
-
It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules.
We can't really be concerned with the outcome of tv golf. They can do their own thing to figure out how to improve their product. THERE'S A TRUE "BINGO" SA... THE PROBLEMS OF SLO-PLAY AT ONES OWN TREKS IS A TASK FOR THAT CLUB...THE TV PRODUCT HAS BEEN AND IS THRIVING
Sean:
...
The reason to crack down on slow play on TV, is - IN YOUR OPINION TOM, NOT IN ANY FACT - that the habits of pro golfers become ingrained in average golfers and junior golfers via TV exposure. Where did you learn you need to get an accurate yardage for every shot? FROM THE DRIVING RANGE I WENT ON AS A CHILD WITH BIG NUMBERS TELLING ME THE YARDAGE FROM THE TEE I WAS HITTING...FROM THE GOLF COURSE, CADDYING FOR PEOPLE THAT ASKED ME THE YARDAGE That you need to establish a methodical pre-shot routine? ASK THE THOUSANDS OF GOLF PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE DOING THAT STUFF FOR $150 AN HOUR...That you need to plumb-bob your putting line, or look at the putt from all sides of the hole, or however you line up your putts? Most likely it was from pro golfers on the TV. NO, THAT'S LIKE THE STOP THE STEAL "LAWYERS" HAVING CALCULATED STATISTICAL PROBABILITY THAT TRUMP HAD TO HAVE WON PRECINCTS BECAUSE OF HOW HE WAS POLLING...THE FALLACY "AFTER THIS, BECAUSE OF THIS"
Tom
I am hardly going to blame Cantlay for monkey see monkey do behaviour...
This is a wild discussion. Guys are saying tv golf is too slow. So lets lets further complicate complicated rules so a tv golf is more entertaining. Maybe folks should stop watching. If it is not entertaining do something else....and if you are doing something else, why do you care?
Again, double - bingo SA...120 posts of scorn and you guys are watching f'n TV!!!???...Go make a sandwich, have a glass of milk, empty the dishwasher or simply record and watch with the remote, or as Sean says, don't watch...You don't like the caddy-confabs, that's TV's fault for showing you it, not some inured cultural fault...on the local level, I've had thousands upon thousands of those conferences... WHAT OTHER POINT IS THERE?? YOUR SCORE? YOUR OUTCOMES? But if you still can't stomach it on TV, watch other players on one of the other web platforms, or the ladies golf or the seniors golf, or the Korn Ferry golf....it's not slow play unless the group or the player is on the clock and exceeding his allotment...and I find those conferences more fascinating than not, the figuring of elite players of shots under course conditions and competitive stress?? Are you frickin' kidding me.
Cantlay's situation on #14?!!! That's one of the only reasons TO WATCH GOLF on TV...the competitive tension of moment, score and situation was positively delicious for TV drama...and I'll say, if no one else will, that because it was Cantlay (under slo-play assault) and because his decision went longer and longer, the tension of that moment was all the better... yes Billy Foster feigning sleep was great, part of it too...
Address slow play at your own joint, keep your mitts off the TV - go watch LIV on the WB.
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
It's not bifurcation in the typical sense of the word to institute a Pace of Play Policy. The AJGA already has one. Some AGA events (like GAP events) already have one. The USGA has one for several of its events.
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
It's not bifurcation in the typical sense of the word to institute a Pace of Play Policy. The AJGA already has one. Some AGA events (like GAP events) already have one. The USGA has one for several of its events.
For well supported comps it's not that hard. Although it's much easier to have a total time mandate. What about casual play? Maybe we have to accept that casual play scores will always be less reliable even though they are a significant percentage of counting scores for many golfers?
Ciao
-
I haven't read this entire thread but I did hear Lanny Wadkins talking about slow play and he said on tour there should only be one yardage book between the player and caddie - he pointed out how long Bernhard Langer takes because he and his caddie have to each make their computation, etc., before playing a shot. I was yelling at the TV when Cantlay took about 5 minutes to hit one off the wood piling a couple of weeks ago and Lanny pointed to that as well. His pointing out how slow Langer is rather surprised me as he broadcasts the Champions Tour and those comments might not be taken well by the player or the tour.
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
It's not bifurcation in the typical sense of the word to institute a Pace of Play Policy. The AJGA already has one. Some AGA events (like GAP events) already have one. The USGA has one for several of its events.
For well supported comps it's not that hard. Although it's much easier to have a total time mandate. What about casual play? Maybe we have to accept that casual play scores will always be less reliable even though they are a significant percentage of counting scores for many golfers?
Ciao
I don’t think there has ever been a question that competitive play scores would be more reliable than casual rounds especially since the advent of online posting. I won’t venture to guess the percentage of players that are either unaware of or don’t adhere to ESC as well as the most basic rules but both issues certainly skew the data.
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
It's not bifurcation in the typical sense of the word to institute a Pace of Play Policy. The AJGA already has one. Some AGA events (like GAP events) already have one. The USGA has one for several of its events.
For well supported comps it's not that hard. Although it's much easier to have a total time mandate. What about casual play? Maybe we have to accept that casual play scores will always be less reliable even though they are a significant percentage of counting scores for many golfers?
Ciao
I don’t think there has ever been a question that competitive play scores would be more reliable than casual rounds especially since the advent of online posting. I won’t venture to guess the percentage of players that are either unaware of or don’t adhere to ESC as well as the most basic rules but both issues certainly skew the data.
I have little faith in the current system of reporting casual scores. The attesting process is a joke.
Ciao
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
It's not bifurcation in the typical sense of the word to institute a Pace of Play Policy. The AJGA already has one. Some AGA events (like GAP events) already have one. The USGA has one for several of its events.
For well supported comps it's not that hard. Although it's much easier to have a total time mandate. What about casual play? Maybe we have to accept that casual play scores will always be less reliable even though they are a significant percentage of counting scores for many golfers?
Ciao
I don’t think there has ever been a question that competitive play scores would be more reliable than casual rounds especially since the advent of online posting. I won’t venture to guess the percentage of players that are either unaware of or don’t adhere to ESC as well as the most basic rules but both issues certainly skew the data.
I have little faith in the current system of reporting casual scores. The attesting process is a joke.
Ciao
Sean-I agree as there is nothing to stop anyone from posting a score online especially an away course where there would be -0- accountability as to who and how many were in the group as a way to corroborate.
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
It's not bifurcation in the typical sense of the word to institute a Pace of Play Policy. The AJGA already has one. Some AGA events (like GAP events) already have one. The USGA has one for several of its events.
For well supported comps it's not that hard. Although it's much easier to have a total time mandate. What about casual play? Maybe we have to accept that casual play scores will always be less reliable even though they are a significant percentage of counting scores for many golfers?
Ciao
I don’t think there has ever been a question that competitive play scores would be more reliable than casual rounds especially since the advent of online posting. I won’t venture to guess the percentage of players that are either unaware of or don’t adhere to ESC as well as the most basic rules but both issues certainly skew the data.
I have little faith in the current system of reporting casual scores. The attesting process is a joke.
Ciao
Sean-I agree as there is nothing to stop anyone from posting a score online especially an away course where there would be -0- accountability as to who and how many were in the group as a way to corroborate.
That’s why not being allowed to post a score you play alone is a joke. I can play a round next week in Florida with three guys I’ve never met and post what ever I want.
-
Since they track every single shot, there's certainly a way to record the time it takes to hit those shots.
Right, I believe within Shotlink there is a timestamp of when every shot was hit.
I thought of this, but it would be harder to determine when players got to their ball, whose turn it was, etc. Not impossible, but someone would have to sort through all the data accordingly. Or maybe there's a bot for that?
As to those who object on the grounds of someone facing a challenging shot, there would be necessary exceptions. In baseball the batter can call time out but I believe there are limits to how often. Maybe each player would get three times per round to go off the clock and have an extra minute or two? But if they had to do it more than that, they'd eventually be forced to play a shot without the extra time.
My interest in timing through the shotlink data has more to do with understanding what can be learned about course design and course setup in relationship to overall pace of play. Are courses such as Colonial and Riviera faster for the field to play than places like TPC Deere Run and PGA National? Is the pace at Torrey Pines or Quail Hollow faster for a regular tour event than it is for a major championship?
Courses around the country have found that by reducing lost ball opportunities, converting more sand bunkers to rough, and keeping the rough height under control they have been able to speed up their pace of play. Do those same elements also apply to the PGA tour. How you've previously spoken about designing Memorial Park in Houston would suggest some of those same decisions were made but for different scoring reasons, has a byproduct been quicker rounds during the Houston Open?
While I had not previously considered the ShotLink recorded times to be used for real time pace management, I could see the potential for doing so. Although, I don't believe golf should adopt something like a shot clock / play clock, Rather it would make more sense to adopt a chess clock model. For each round a player would be allotted a set amount of time to play when it is their turn, If they go over the time by the end of the round they are assessed a penalty. This way if a player chooses to spend more time on a particular challenging shot they can do so, but will have to make it up at other points in the round.
-
It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules.
We can't really be concerned with the outcome of tv golf. They can do their own thing to figure out how to improve their product. THERE'S A TRUE "BINGO" SA... THE PROBLEMS OF SLO-PLAY AT ONES OWN TREKS IS A TASK FOR THAT CLUB...THE TV PRODUCT HAS BEEN AND IS THRIVING
Sean:
...
The reason to crack down on slow play on TV, is - IN YOUR OPINION TOM, NOT IN ANY FACT - that the habits of pro golfers become ingrained in average golfers and junior golfers via TV exposure. Where did you learn you need to get an accurate yardage for every shot? FROM THE DRIVING RANGE I WENT ON AS A CHILD WITH BIG NUMBERS TELLING ME THE YARDAGE FROM THE TEE I WAS HITTING...FROM THE GOLF COURSE, CADDYING FOR PEOPLE THAT ASKED ME THE YARDAGE That you need to establish a methodical pre-shot routine? ASK THE THOUSANDS OF GOLF PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE DOING THAT STUFF FOR $150 AN HOUR...That you need to plumb-bob your putting line, or look at the putt from all sides of the hole, or however you line up your putts? Most likely it was from pro golfers on the TV. NO, THAT'S LIKE THE STOP THE STEAL "LAWYERS" HAVING CALCULATED STATISTICAL PROBABILITY THAT TRUMP HAD TO HAVE WON PRECINCTS BECAUSE OF HOW HE WAS POLLING...THE FALLACY "AFTER THIS, BECAUSE OF THIS"
Tom
I am hardly going to blame Cantlay for monkey see monkey do behaviour...
This is a wild discussion. Guys are saying tv golf is too slow. So lets lets further complicate complicated rules so a tv golf is more entertaining. Maybe folks should stop watching. If it is not entertaining do something else....and if you are doing something else, why do you care?
Again, double - bingo SA...120 posts of scorn and you guys are watching f'n TV!!!???...Go make a sandwich, have a glass of milk, empty the dishwasher or simply record and watch with the remote, or as Sean says, don't watch...You don't like the caddy-confabs, that's TV's fault for showing you it, not some inured cultural fault...on the local level, I've had thousands upon thousands of those conferences... WHAT OTHER POINT IS THERE?? YOUR SCORE? YOUR OUTCOMES? But if you still can't stomach it on TV, watch other players on one of the other web platforms, or the ladies golf or the seniors golf, or the Korn Ferry golf....it's not slow play unless the group or the player is on the clock and exceeding his allotment...and I find those conferences more fascinating than not, the figuring of elite players of shots under course conditions and competitive stress?? Are you frickin' kidding me.
Cantlay's situation on #14?!!! That's one of the only reasons TO WATCH GOLF on TV...the competitive tension of moment, score and situation was positively delicious for TV drama...and I'll say, if no one else will, that because it was Cantlay (under slo-play assault) and because his decision went longer and longer, the tension of that moment was all the better... yes Billy Foster feigning sleep was great, part of it too...
Address slow play at your own joint, keep your mitts off the TV - go watch LIV on the WB.
This is absolutely a response from a player who probably plays in 4:27 at his club and defends slow play.
We are 100% in favor of the right to play slow and determine that those who wish to take so long are no longer allowed to tee off on Saturday mornings until 11:00.
Problem solved...;-)
-
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/lpga-tour-rookie-given-slow-131248719.html (https://www.yahoo.com/sports/lpga-tour-rookie-given-slow-131248719.html)
Once again, a professional golf tour decides to enforce slow play ... by penalizing an unknown. God forbid they ever come down hard on a star. They are cowards. What a joke.
-
Perhaps slow play would get better if this happened in PGA events...I know ratings would almost certainly improve! ;D
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/golfers-fight-over-slow-play-at-florida-golf-course/ar-AA1arBpF?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=3345ab979dc04257a43b1fc2771f30f4&ei=38
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
It's not bifurcation in the typical sense of the word to institute a Pace of Play Policy. The AJGA already has one. Some AGA events (like GAP events) already have one. The USGA has one for several of its events.
For well supported comps it's not that hard. Although it's much easier to have a total time mandate. What about casual play? Maybe we have to accept that casual play scores will always be less reliable even though they are a significant percentage of counting scores for many golfers?
Ciao
I don’t think there has ever been a question that competitive play scores would be more reliable than casual rounds especially since the advent of online posting. I won’t venture to guess the percentage of players that are either unaware of or don’t adhere to ESC as well as the most basic rules but both issues certainly skew the data.
I have little faith in the current system of reporting casual scores. The attesting process is a joke.
Ciao
Sean-I agree as there is nothing to stop anyone from posting a score online especially an away course where there would be -0- accountability as to who and how many were in the group as a way to corroborate.
In England we have to have the score attested on the app, but so far as I can tell it can be anybody who uses the app. Even when the score is attested by a guy in the group, I have never seen them look at the card let alone keep score as a marker, as should be the case. My guess is that many will eyeball the score when attesting to get a sense of accuracy.
On the other hand, I played in a society weekend trip and we exchanged cards for score keeping. We checked scores etc, but nobody posted their scores 🤷. I figured if I have to go through that we may as well post scores. Didn't happen.
Sorry Rob, I am not in favour of making a bad system worse by allowing single scores.
Ciao
-
How does all this time keeping jiggery pokery work for the average golfer? It seems to me that people are trying to make a tv entertainment product better by changing the rules. That is a poor place to start for any rule which applies to all golfers. Are we becoming more in favour of bifurcation?
It's not bifurcation in the typical sense of the word to institute a Pace of Play Policy. The AJGA already has one. Some AGA events (like GAP events) already have one. The USGA has one for several of its events.
For well supported comps it's not that hard. Although it's much easier to have a total time mandate. What about casual play? Maybe we have to accept that casual play scores will always be less reliable even though they are a significant percentage of counting scores for many golfers?
Ciao
I don’t think there has ever been a question that competitive play scores would be more reliable than casual rounds especially since the advent of online posting. I won’t venture to guess the percentage of players that are either unaware of or don’t adhere to ESC as well as the most basic rules but both issues certainly skew the data.
I have little faith in the current system of reporting casual scores. The attesting process is a joke.
Ciao
Sean-I agree as there is nothing to stop anyone from posting a score online especially an away course where there would be -0- accountability as to who and how many were in the group as a way to corroborate.
In England we have to have the score attested on the app, but so far as I can tell it can be anybody who uses the app. Even when the score is attested by a guy in the group, I have never seen them look at the card let alone keep score as a marker, as should be the case. My guess is that many will eyeball the score when attesting to get a sense of accuracy.
On the other hand, I played in a society weekend trip and we exchanged cards for score keeping. We checked scores etc, but nobody posted their scores 🤷. I figured if I have to go through that we may as well post scores. Didn't happen.
Sorry Rob, I am not in favour of making a bad system worse by allowing single scores.
Ciao
Sean, my point is it is supposed to be a game of honor and integrity. Scores don't need to be attested so why can't you post a score if you play alone? It makes no sense. I can sit in my living room and post anything I like.
-
Presumably it takes two to collude in posting erroneous scores Rob? Allowing one person to post without attestation is begging for even more problems, no?
Let's be forthright. It was much harder to cheat on handicap with the old UK system. There was a huge sacrifice made in switching to the US system with the idea of sacrificing reliability for unification and hopefully get more people to obtain proper handicaps. That and the disparity of systems for elite ams was causing issues.
Just about the only concession made by the US for retaining some sense of reliability was single scores don't count. It makes sense on a macro level. The talk about honesty is great, but attestation is better. It's an uphill argument to say otherwise.
Ciao
-
I've not held an official handicap for a number of years, primarily because I've not been a member anywhere. Under the old system in the UK it was difficult to have a handicap without being a member. And if you didn't have a handicap it was more or less impossible to play in club Opens. While I'd have liked to have played in a few select Opens I've had no real desire to go to the trouble of obtaining a handicap.
So basically I have no first-hand experience of the new system. I have however spoken to friends who are members and none are particularly happy with the new system and some are fairly scathing. Apparently it has led to one or two of the members logging high scores in bounce games to get an artificially high handicap for the comps. The old system didn’t really allow that to happen.
Niall
-
I've not held an official handicap for a number of years, primarily because I've not been a member anywhere. Under the old system in the UK it was difficult to have a handicap without being a member. And if you didn't have a handicap it was more or less impossible to play in club Opens. While I'd have liked to have played in a few select Opens I've had no real desire to go to the trouble of obtaining a handicap.
So basically I have no first-hand experience of the new system. I have however spoken to friends who are members and none are particularly happy with the new system and some are fairly scathing. Apparently it has led to one or two of the members logging high scores in bounce games to get an artificially high handicap for the comps. The old system didn’t really allow that to happen.
Niall
In an effort to simplify the system with ease of access through online posting of scores a Pandora’s Box was opened as to gaming the system. It applies to the vanity handicaps as well as the sandbaggers although the sandbaggers have won the day.
-
I've not held an official handicap for a number of years, primarily because I've not been a member anywhere. Under the old system in the UK it was difficult to have a handicap without being a member. And if you didn't have a handicap it was more or less impossible to play in club Opens. While I'd have liked to have played in a few select Opens I've had no real desire to go to the trouble of obtaining a handicap.
So basically I have no first-hand experience of the new system. I have however spoken to friends who are members and none are particularly happy with the new system and some are fairly scathing. Apparently it has led to one or two of the members logging high scores in bounce games to get an artificially high handicap for the comps. The old system didn’t really allow that to happen.
Niall
In an effort to simplify the system with ease of access through online posting of scores a Pandora’s Box was opened as to gaming the system. It applies to the vanity handicaps as well as the sandbaggers although the sandbaggers have won the day.
Tim
The US handicap system has a long history of poor reliability.
Ciao
-
I've not held an official handicap for a number of years, primarily because I've not been a member anywhere. Under the old system in the UK it was difficult to have a handicap without being a member. And if you didn't have a handicap it was more or less impossible to play in club Opens. While I'd have liked to have played in a few select Opens I've had no real desire to go to the trouble of obtaining a handicap.
So basically I have no first-hand experience of the new system. I have however spoken to friends who are members and none are particularly happy with the new system and some are fairly scathing. Apparently it has led to one or two of the members logging high scores in bounce games to get an artificially high handicap for the comps. The old system didn’t really allow that to happen.
Niall
In an effort to simplify the system with ease of access through online posting of scores a Pandora’s Box was opened as to gaming the system. It applies to the vanity handicaps as well as the sandbaggers although the sandbaggers have won the day.
Tim
The US handicap system has a long history of poor reliability.
Ciao
Sean-No argument on that. My only point is that it’s never been easier to manufacture a handicap as with the current system.
-
I've not held an official handicap for a number of years, primarily because I've not been a member anywhere. Under the old system in the UK it was difficult to have a handicap without being a member. And if you didn't have a handicap it was more or less impossible to play in club Opens. While I'd have liked to have played in a few select Opens I've had no real desire to go to the trouble of obtaining a handicap.
So basically I have no first-hand experience of the new system. I have however spoken to friends who are members and none are particularly happy with the new system and some are fairly scathing. Apparently it has led to one or two of the members logging high scores in bounce games to get an artificially high handicap for the comps. The old system didn’t really allow that to happen.
Niall
In an effort to simplify the system with ease of access through online posting of scores a Pandora’s Box was opened as to gaming the system. It applies to the vanity handicaps as well as the sandbaggers although the sandbaggers have won the day.
Tim
The US handicap system has a long history of poor reliability.
Ciao
Sean-No argument on that. My only point is that it’s never been easier to manufacture a handicap as with the current system.
I don't know about that. I invented two US handicaps for friends to meet TOC requirements back in 90s. Absolutely no system checks. It was common to save up a bunch of scores then post them all at once. I never saw competitor cards.
Given that reliability has been totally sacrificed. I guess the real way to judge the new system is twofold
Are elite Am handicaps more accurate?
Have significantly more non-club affiliated golfers joined the system?
Ciao
-
I've not held an official handicap for a number of years, primarily because I've not been a member anywhere. Under the old system in the UK it was difficult to have a handicap without being a member. And if you didn't have a handicap it was more or less impossible to play in club Opens. While I'd have liked to have played in a few select Opens I've had no real desire to go to the trouble of obtaining a handicap.
So basically I have no first-hand experience of the new system. I have however spoken to friends who are members and none are particularly happy with the new system and some are fairly scathing. Apparently it has led to one or two of the members logging high scores in bounce games to get an artificially high handicap for the comps. The old system didn’t really allow that to happen.
Niall
In an effort to simplify the system with ease of access through online posting of scores a Pandora’s Box was opened as to gaming the system. It applies to the vanity handicaps as well as the sandbaggers although the sandbaggers have won the day.
Tim
The US handicap system has a long history of poor reliability.
Ciao
Sean-No argument on that. My only point is that it’s never been easier to manufacture a handicap as with the current system.
I don't know about that. I invented two US handicaps for friends to meet TOC requirements back in 90s. Absolutely no system checks. It was common to save up a bunch of scores then post them all at once. I never saw competitor cards.
I guess the real way to judge tee new system is twofold
Are elite Am handicaps more accurate?
Have significantly more non-club affiliated golfers joined the system?
Ciao
Sean, I agree with you that the best way would be for all scores to be attested. I'm in Florida for a few weeks. I'm actually playing with a friend and my son but on Sat we picked up a single. He must post his score. I never even got his last name. He can post anything he wants. IF he played alone he can still post anything he wants. Without attesting the system is ripe to be exploited whether you play alone or with 3 guys you don't know. It makes no difference.
-
How did this turn into a handicap thread?
-
Bringing this back to slow play this article answers a lot of our questions. But beware that the title might be misleading when the article gets down to point #6 (which I have pointed out before).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/the-simple-answer-to-the-pga-tour-s-slow-play-problem-a-first-hand-look-reveals-why-there-isn-t-one/ar-AA1aL3hn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2ba8a8bb37f1488486bc9ea4f49edc91&ei=27
-
Played Hideout today. The carts say that play should not take longer than 3:30. Course looked full. We played in 3:15. At one point we caught the group a head of us. They looked back and never held us up again. It’s a mentality.
-
Bringing this back to slow play this article answers a lot of our questions. But beware that the title might be misleading when the article gets down to point #6 (which I have pointed out before).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/the-simple-answer-to-the-pga-tour-s-slow-play-problem-a-first-hand-look-reveals-why-there-isn-t-one/ar-AA1aL3hn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2ba8a8bb37f1488486bc9ea4f49edc91&ei=27 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/the-simple-answer-to-the-pga-tour-s-slow-play-problem-a-first-hand-look-reveals-why-there-isn-t-one/ar-AA1aL3hn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2ba8a8bb37f1488486bc9ea4f49edc91&ei=27)
Fitzpatrick nailed it with his criticism of the ref's at the Harbour Town comp and this article shows why. It's a litany of excuses and the writer has swallowed them whole. Clearly what the Tour needs is a new head referee.
Niall
-
https://twitter.com/tap_it_in_golf/status/1648096714799173639?s=20 (https://twitter.com/tap_it_in_golf/status/1648096714799173639?s=20)
I mean ... this is an insane amount of time to hit a shot.
-
https://twitter.com/tap_it_in_golf/status/1648096714799173639?s=20 (https://twitter.com/tap_it_in_golf/status/1648096714799173639?s=20)
I mean ... this is an insane amount of time to hit a shot.
I fell asleep. How did it end?
-
https://twitter.com/tap_it_in_golf/status/1648096714799173639?s=20 (https://twitter.com/tap_it_in_golf/status/1648096714799173639?s=20)
I mean ... this is an insane amount of time to hit a shot.
Patrick Cantlay-“What do you think Joe?”
Joe LaCava-“I think I made a big f- - king mistake carrying for you. Just hit it.”