Discounts for fast players

« **Reply #125 on:** August 09, 2007, 08:49:36 AM »

Quote from: Kalen Braley on August 08, 2007, 06:24:55 PM

Patrick,

I understand what you are trying to get at here but...

Golfers putting pressure on other golfers to speed up can lead to some nasty side effects. I've been in a couple of groups where this kind of "urging" almost led to fisticuffs.

There's nothing wrong with that

The truth is, slow players don't think they're slow.

Peer pressure IS NEEDED in order to get them to play at pace.

And, if a golfer is that slow, who WANTS to play with him ?

Telling someone that you don't want to play with them because they're too slow, or, that you'll play with them ONLY IF THEY SPEED UP, aren't bad ideas, because they now bring the issue to the golfers attention, along with the consequences of continued slow play.[/color]

And I've also been in groups where one or more players would intentionally hit balls while they were still in range to "encourage" them to get it moving.

That's blatantly stupid.
Has anyone ever informed those individuals of the legal consequences for INTENTIONALLY hitting into someone, should the ball find its target ?[/color]

« **Reply #126 on:** August 09, 2007, 08:55:26 AM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on August 08, 2007, 06:40:36 PM

Patrick,

I don't understand labor intensive. I am writing about courses where there already is a marshal. I don't understand what you mean by policing. I am suggesting the marshal incentivize not police.

Garland,

Under your system he'd have to be racing all over the golf course trying to speed up slow groups while at the same time handing out coupons to every group that's waiting on a tee.

Last I counted, there were 18 tees, all of which are in use for most of the day.

That's labor intensive because one man can't do all that work.

My method merely has the starter: log out & log in.
The Pro shop would handle the math and the rebate.[/color]

« **Reply #127 on:** August 09, 2007, 08:59:46 AM »

This is a simple fact:

If you are a foresome playing at a four hour pace and you let a twosome playing at a 3 hour pace through it will cost the foresome at least 10 minutes for the pleasure.

Note: Three hours is 180 minutes divided by 18 equals 10 minutes. I don't mind this if the twosome picks up short putts and/or does everything possible to get through without disruption. I have actually had to tell people going through to speed up and then arrived at the next tee finding them chatting over club selection. People, including me, have a natural desire to catch groups in front of them, it happens with cars on the highway, doors to restaurants..etc..etc.

Garland...be happy you created a thread that has lasted multiple days and pages...it is a rare event..congrats.

« **Reply #128 on:** August 09, 2007, 08:59:48 AM »

George Pazin, et. al.,

Once you accept 4 1/2 hour rounds you've lost the battle.

Rounds over 4 hours for foursomes are not acceptable.

The goal should be 3 1/2 hours

« **Reply #129 on:** August 09, 2007, 09:20:45 AM »

RickS:

Generally speaking you can get players around a golf course using 9 minute intervals (or even 10 minute intervals) as fast as you can using 7 minute intervals.

Pace in golf really is something like the old military adage that you can only go as fast as your slowest man. It's also sort of the pebble in the pond effect but in reverse.

The only real difference between 7 minute intervals compared to 9 or 10 is with 7 minute intervals golfers are going to be waiting a whole lot more.

So, the point is from a total time standpoint why make them wait more (using 7 minute intervals) when it isn't going to accomplish anything with total time anyway?

In the real world you can't really use the speed a single group may be able to play a golf course with few on it (like in 2 hours and 40 minutes) to a golf course that has golfers on every hole.

« **Reply #130 on:** August 09, 2007, 09:24:03 AM »

As proven by the pace of play at every GCA outing, few people on this site and out in the real world understand the time they take to play a round of golf. The key is to create the illusion of quickness and long tee sheet intervals is an excellent method that makes it seem like you don't wait as much.

« **Reply #131 on:** August 09, 2007, 09:27:14 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on August 09, 2007, 09:24:03 AM

As proven by the pace of play at every GCA outing, few people on this site and out in the real world understand the time they take to play a round of golf. The key is to create the illusion of quickness and long tee sheet intervals is an excellent method that makes it seem like you don't wait as much.

It takes more than 4 hours to prove how smart you are amongst your peers......

Joe

« **Reply #132 on:** August 09, 2007, 09:28:33 AM »

JK,
It'll only take you that much extra time if you don't 'play up' while they are 'playing through'.

« **Reply #133 on:** August 09, 2007, 09:32:57 AM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on August 09, 2007, 09:28:33 AM

JK,
It'll only take you that much extra time if you don't 'play up' while they are 'playing through'.

Every situation is different and I have often wondered when is the best time to let a group go through. The par 3 wave up is probably the most common and could be the slowest as they hit, you putt out and get stuck on the next tee waiting. My problem is often with the group going through when they do not have the courtesy to hump it up.

Of course going through a group during a match is also difficult in that you have no choice, if you are not a misfit, to take and give putts that may have mattered. The tee shot when going through a group is always pressure packed...anything but perfect should always result in a pick up and friendly wave of thanks on the way to the next tee.

« **Reply #134 on:** August 09, 2007, 09:33:41 AM »

Here's a good example of pacing realities.

At the highly dramatic super drop shot par 3 at Lehigh (220 yards and down well over a hundred feet and across a river) in the PA State Senior Amateur we had up to three groups on the tee a few times.

So we got the groups to mark their balls on the green and let the following group hit up.

In about four or five groups that solved the logjam on the tee completely.

But the thing is instead of waiting up to a half hour on that tee the groups were waiting on the following holes in smaller time increments until things freed up near the end. If we hadn't let them hit up they wouldn't have been waiting in those smaller time increments on the next few following holes.

The point is either way those groups were going to finish in the round in the same amount of time. It's just a matter of spreading out the wait time into much smaller increments.

« **Reply #135 on:** August 09, 2007, 09:34:13 AM »

TEPaul,

Years ago, I saw a study that indicated that 10 minute intervals worked best.

« **Reply #136 on:** August 09, 2007, 09:49:40 AM »

"TEPaul,
Years ago, I saw a study that indicated that 10 minute intervals worked best."

Patrick:

They do and there's nothing anyone on here can do with multiplication and theoretical math to change that.

The point is 7 minute intervals are not going to get players around a golf course faster. All 7 minute intervals do is force them to wait more and more often than 10 minute intervals.

We do this all the time and it's just a reality.

It's not that we don't get behind on the pacing grid---we do, and it generally happens for fairly obvious reasons and is generally inevitable as the day wears on.

We have what we call an "and" policy with our pace of play. That means a group has to be both behind on the clock AND out of position to get warned, timed or penalized.

The real deal is to just keep all the groups in position.

This new pace of play policy that the USGA is now using in their national amateurs is something else altogether. It takes a ton of man power too. The idea of it is to get fellow competitors to police one another with pace of play.

Frankly, in a philosophical sense, I don't think I agree with it either.

It's each player's responsibility to himself to conform to Rule 6-7. And it's our job to see that they do that individually.

I don't really like the idea of making fellow competitors do some other player's job or our job of officiating (pacing). Individual golfers in stroke play competition have enough to think about without having to get into that, in my opinion.

« **Reply #137 on:** August 09, 2007, 09:50:37 AM »

Three weeks ago during a morning round at Shaftesbury Glen at Myrtle Beach, the pace on the front nine was excruciating slow. Late in the side, the marshal came around and apologized to our foursome, and told us that they had split a foursome into two twosomes and that the pace should be picking up on the back nine. The offending players were also offered a partial rebate if they chose to leave rather than play the back nine as twosomes.

We did move through the back nine at an very acceptable pace of play, and it was a very refreshing moment to see a daily fee course paying attention to and being proactive about pace of play.

« **Reply #138 on:** August 09, 2007, 09:53:20 AM »

A.G.

Wonderful story -- but more often that's the exception.

Most personnel prefer to snooze because it's safe and politically easy to avoid any entanglements dealing with slow play.

In sum -- management creates the environement for whatever shakes out for pace of play. If management sets the terms and does so consistently and without bias for implementation then players will adjust accordingly.

In my experience -- very few places do anything more than post signs and provide smiling non-effective lip service.

« **Reply #139 on:** August 09, 2007, 10:30:19 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on August 09, 2007, 08:55:26 AM

Quote from: Garland Bayley on August 08, 2007, 06:40:36 PM
Patrick,

I don't understand labor intensive. I am writing about courses where there already is a marshal. I don't understand what you mean by policing. I am suggesting the marshal incentivize not police.

Garland,

Under your system he'd have to be racing all over the golf course trying to speed up slow groups while at the same time handing out coupons to every group that's waiting on a tee.

Last I counted, there were 18 tees, all of which are in use for most of the day.

That's labor intensive because one man can't do all that work.

My method merely has the starter: log out & log in.
The Pro shop would handle the math and the rebate.[/color]

You don't understand Patrick. The marshal is not trying to speed up the slow groups, which they don't much do any way already. He is simply cycling backwards through the course handing out coupons. In my experience, it would take no more time than it takes now, because marshals often stop to chat.

« **Reply #140 on:** August 09, 2007, 10:33:27 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on August 08, 2007, 12:12:26 PM

Quote from: Garland Bayley on August 08, 2007, 11:00:20 AM
Quote from: jeffwarne on August 07, 2007, 11:01:15 PM
John,
Amen to the social misfit problem.
I had to explain to a single why he couldn't go ahead/through the 8 twosomes in our speed slots on sat morning.

The other problem is the riding twosome who insists on playing through the golf course and all those "slow foursomes"

I see more fast play problems than slow play problems.
Always from riders or groups smaller than the rules permit on weekend days.

If you people want to discuss the problem of single players on courses that are not filled to the limits and experiencing 5 1/2 hour rounds, why don't you start your own thread and arrogantly blather on about "social misfits" to your hearts content out of sight of the decent people here.

Are you denying the fact that onesomes and twosomes are a serious problem when it comes to the flow of people around a golf course?

John

You could look at it another way. Perhaps 4 balls slow down the course for 2 balls. This is exactly how I see it! Afterall, 2 ball is the traditionally form of the game not least because it is far quicker. IMO 4 ball play is the single biggest reason for slowing down the game. There are many clubs in the UK which have 2 ball rules in place for the prime part of the morning - say 8:00am to 10:00am. I welcome this because I know it keeps the course moving and it is often the case that 3 and 4 balls may tee off on the back nine during this time. I think it is a fair solution to a growing problem.

It may serve you well to be a bit more tolerant of those not quite as fortunate or as lucky as yourself.

Ciao

« **Reply #141 on:** August 09, 2007, 10:36:13 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on August 09, 2007, 08:59:46 AM

This is a simple fact:

If you are a foresome playing at a four hour pace and you let a twosome playing at a 3 hour pace through it will cost the foresome at least 10 minutes for the pleasure.

Note: Three hours is 180 minutes divided by 18 equals 10 minutes. I don't mind this if the twosome picks up short putts and/or does everything possible to get through without disruption. I have actually had to tell people going through to speed up and then arrived at the next tee finding them chatting over club selection. People, including me, have a natural desire to catch groups in front of them, it happens with cars on the highway, doors to restaurants..etc..etc.

Garland...be happy you created a thread that has lasted multiple days and pages...it is a rare event..congrats.

John,

It's a simple fact. If you are in position, you have no business letting anyone through.

Another simple fact. This thread has been going for less than a day.

« **Reply #142 on:** August 09, 2007, 10:37:08 AM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on August 09, 2007, 10:33:27 AM

It may serve you well to be a bit more tolerant of those not quite as fortunate or as lucky as yourself.

Ciao

Tolerant to whom...those without golfing buddies. I should be the poster boy for proof that if I can have friends anybody can.

« **Reply #143 on:** August 09, 2007, 10:42:16 AM »

Just a question:

as a public course player, I've always imagined that private courses were a paradise of timely play, and that rounds there are almost always completed in 4 hours at the most....because the skill level across the board was generally higher, because there were measures/policies in place that all the golfers knew about to keep the play moving, and because members had to see eachother often and so there was 'social pressure' that mitigated slow play.

Is that actually the case, or have I come to Casablanca for the waters and found that I've been misinformed? I'm sure hoping this isn't another of my naive illusions about to be shattered.

Peter

« **Reply #144 on:** August 09, 2007, 10:44:47 AM »

Hey Peter,

Guess what topic pops up in my clubs newsletter the most. Slow play!
I am guessing it may not be as big an issue at spendier clubs though.

« **Reply #145 on:** August 09, 2007, 10:47:08 AM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on August 09, 2007, 10:44:47 AM

Hey Peter,

Guess what topic pops up in my clubs newsletter the most. Slow play!
I am guessing it may not be as big an issue at spendier clubs though.

At poor clubs people play as fast as they need to, while at spendier clubs they play as fast as they want to.

« **Reply #146 on:** August 09, 2007, 10:47:39 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on August 09, 2007, 10:37:08 AM

Quote from: Sean Arble on August 09, 2007, 10:33:27 AM

It may serve you well to be a bit more tolerant of those not quite as fortunate or as lucky as yourself.

Ciao

Tolerant to whom...those without golfing buddies. I should be the poster boy for proof that if I can have friends anybody can.

John

If you reread the post I think you will notice that I mentioned 2 ball. For most, that means collecting a mate or three and teeing it up. However, if you were to choose to play two balls on your own I wouldn't give you grief. As the great Chuck Berry once said - You gotta right baby!

I am all in favour of rewarding 2 balls with the prime times because they encourage and dare I say were designed for fast play. No matter how fast anyone thinks they play as a 4 ball, a 2 ball of the same ilk plays faster.

Ciao

« **Reply #147 on:** August 09, 2007, 10:50:40 AM »

If you are talking true alternate shot, I get these fancy names all confused, you may be surprised that I play at least 25% of my golf now in that format. I have introduced to the clubs where I play and almost all of our emergency 18's or 9's are that format. The only killer is that it is so fast that we catch other groups too quickly.

« **Reply #148 on:** August 09, 2007, 10:58:00 AM »

Quote from: Peter Pallotta on August 09, 2007, 10:42:16 AM

Just a question:

as a public course player, I've always imagined that private courses were a paradise of timely play, and that rounds there are almost always completed in 4 hours at the most....because the skill level across the board was generally higher, because there were measures/policies in place that all the golfers knew about to keep the play moving, and because members had to see eachother often and so there was 'social pressure' that mitigated slow play.

Is that actually the case, or have I come to Casablanca for the waters and found that I've been misinformed? I'm sure hoping this isn't another of my naive illusions about to be shattered.

Peter

Peter,
I think this is a correct assumption by you; pace of play IS faster (maybe MUCH faster) at private clubs. However, it is all relative. If the expectation and norm is 3 1/2 hrs., then 4 seems slow. If the expectation is 4, then 4 1/2 seems slow, and so on. It is an issue almost everywhere on the weekends.

« **Reply #149 on:** August 09, 2007, 11:01:06 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on August 09, 2007, 10:50:40 AM

If you are talking true alternate shot, I get these fancy names all confused, you may be surprised that I play at least 25% of my golf now in that format. I have introduced to the clubs where I play and almost all of our emergency 18's or 9's are that format. The only killer is that it is so fast that we catch other groups too quickly.

John

Nothing you say or do would surprise me! I reckon you missed your calling because entertainment should be your line of business.

There is nothing fancy about the lingo and you know better. A 2 ball can be in the form of two players or four players. In the case of four players the game is usually foursomes, but sometimes greensomes There are of course bastardized forms of these games, but they don't enhance or otherwise increase the enjoyment of these games.

Ciao

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

John Kavanaugh

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

John Kavanaugh

Joe Hancock

Jim_Kennedy

John Kavanaugh

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

A.G._Crockett

Matt_Ward

Garland Bayley

Sean_A

Garland Bayley

John Kavanaugh

Peter Pallotta

Garland Bayley

John Kavanaugh

Sean_A

John Kavanaugh

A.G._Crockett

Sean_A