Course Length

[Garland Bayley]

Jesus.

Brent,

You are just going to have to quit swinging harder and start working on your mental fatigue issues.

[Greg Chambers]

Slow play has ZERO to do with course length or how many shots it takes to get to the green.  It has EVERYTHING to do with course WIDTH (and how the out of play areas are maintained) and how SLOW golfers have become at playing their shots.  I play a lot of golf with my wife.  Almost every course is too long for her...no thanks to modern architecture.., she's constantly hitting faiway woods into greens, she spends more time chipping than she does putting, she's never broken 95, and yet she plays quicker than almost every single other golfer I've ever played with.

[Garland Bayley]

Slow play has ZERO to do with course length or how many shots it takes to get to the green.  It has EVERYTHING to do with course WIDTH (and how the out of play areas are maintained) and how SLOW golfers have become at playing their shots.  I play a lot of golf with my wife.  Almost every course is too long for her...no thanks to modern architecture.., she's constantly hitting faiway woods into greens, she spends more time chipping than she does putting, she's never broken 95, and yet she plays quicker than almost every single other golfer I've ever played with.

 

[BCowan]

You know, this topic might be be the best example of an overdone topic I see on the various discussion groups I hang out on.

FWIW, I am a total believer in the 36 x five iron to find a rough yardage to have fun on the golf course. It's only a starting place, and by no means is it set in stone. Although I rarely carry a five iron, my equivalent nine wood goes about 165-170 which equates to 5950 - 6150.  And I always enjoy golf more in that range than I do at longer yardages.''Beware of the man with the tape measure''-D. Ross.  With some courses being 6600 yds and playing longer than 7000 yds courses I have played, throw the yard book out the window!  I hit my 5 iron 180 for scoring and hit my driver 270=450 the average long par 4 for a 7000 yard course.  Your formula is a estimate and not a rule of thumb

What's funny is that most of my fellow short hitters simply don't accept the logic of it.  Because most low handicappers DO get it, even if they don't realize it.  Or maybe they want to challenge themselves to get better

Start with tour pros.... They bitch like hell if they are asked to play a course much of 7200 yards.  Well that equates to a a 200-yard five iron, which might be a little short for a lot of pros.Name a pro who complains about 7200 yards?

I have friend in Topeka who was trying to get me to move back a tee several weeks after I had carpal tunnel surgery and had been playing up.  W e typically play around 6300 yards and I don't whine about it. I asked him how he liked playing 7200 yards plus.
Maybe he needs a new group of guys to tee it with
He said he HATES it.  Despite being a 2 handicapper who hits it at least 30 yards longer than me off the tee.  He's more than one club longer than me with irons as well.  In all, I figured he's 900 yards longer than me on eighteen holes.When Gary player played Weiskoft in shells match he was 60 yards behind Tom, did he get out his calculator? He lost by a stroke to a guy who designed the course.

I did that math for him and said, "Well, 6300 yards is EXACTLY the same for me as 7200 is for you."  Put the calculator down and hit the gym and the range!

He stopped harassing me.

He's one of many low handicappers I have talked to about this, and damned few of them will play a course that requires hitting fairway woods for their approach shots on half the par threes, six or seven par fours and a three wood shots on a couple of par fives.
Most of the ''golden age'' architects wanted people to hit 3 woods into par 3's and 4's.  Thank god they were men principles and passion.
It's not even about the scores, because several of the higher handicappers at my course who have started playing up a tee aren't scoring that much better. Their short games just aren't good enough to take advantage.  Wow, i agree with you!

For me, however, moving from 6300 to 6000 usually results in my score dropping more than the difference in course rating.  I almost always play ~6000 yards when I am travelling, but at home I don't simply because I'm not willing to take the handicap hit.  Do people tell you what tee to play from?

Those who think it's fun to hit 10-12 fairway wood approach shot in a round are welcome to.  I won't even try to convince them otherwise.  But if someone isn't having a lot of fun on the course, moving up to 5 iron x 36 is a reasonable start.Agree again!

As for this macho stuff, Why does everyone have to judge one another.  If the person is moving who cares?

[Jud_T]

Apparently it takes the same amount of time for the same guy to hit the ball 85 times as 100 or walk a 5800 yard course as a 7500 yard one.  God bless new math.

[BCowan]

A person playing a 5800 yard is still walking the same distance, for their tee is ahead of the tips usually, assuming they are walking.  Someone who shoots 85 might take 2 practice swings, and the guy that shoots 100 might play real quickly.  No new math, just critical thinking!

[Garland Bayley]

Apparently it takes the same amount of time for the same guy to hit the ball 85 times as 100 or walk a 5800 yard course as a 7500 yard one.  God bless new math.

Jud,

The difference between 85 and 100 is negligible for a fast player in the realm of playing a full round of golf.
Unless you force the long hitters to walk backwards to their tees, everyone is walking much the same distance in a round of golf. So what point are you trying to make with this statement?

[Jud_T]

I guess distance as the largest determinant of slope is all just a bunch of malarkey.

[Garland Bayley]

Jud,

Scores go up (as in from 85 to 100) as slope (and distance) goes up. So again, what's your point?

[Lou_Duran]

Lou, you just proved my point - the ROT would equate to your best chance at scoring well.  The fact that you would shoot "80" on a 7,200 yard course, and assuming near par on a 6,200 yard course would be the number of strokes due to yardage increase.  

And if you play a 7,200 yard course, I guarantee you won't be using every club in your bag - woods hybrids and long irons only.

And, if you and your playing partners use the proper course rating and slope for each tee played from, the handicap differential should take that into account.

And...if you hit more greens, I gurantee you'll play faster!

If my objective in golf was shooting the lowest score and playing faster, I'd opt for the shortest tees.  "Scoring well" is an interesting concept because it implies some criteria or standard to qualify the score (otherwise you might have just have said shooting a lower score).  I am telling you that holding everything else equal, I would get considerably more enjoyment from shooting 80 on OSU-Scarlet than I would a 67 on the Gray (which I've done both a number of times in the 1970s when Scarlet played around 7200 yards and Gray around 6,000).

The thing to remember when we have these discussions is that golf means different things to different people (what TE Paul called "golf is a big world").  So long as the externalities are minimized- primarily slow play, but sometimes also some minor disruptions to the round- why not let the gorillas in the group let it all hang out while the powder-puffs do their dainty thing.  I've seen 5-man $$$$ wolf games using three sets of tees in proper order, and very few groups could keep up with them.

BTW, the avg. card length I played in 2013 was 6737 yards, which is probably closer to 6400 yards in reality because most courses are set-up short these days to speed up play and, perhaps, in the spirit of "playing it forward".  

YANK-  I did notice my name missing from your dance card the last time I played in the Buda.  Now I know the reason.  Pity.  

[Garland Bayley]

...
He's one of many low handicappers I have talked to about this, and damned few of them will play a course that requires hitting fairway woods for their approach shots on half the par threes, six or seven par fours and a three wood shots on a couple of par fives.
Most of the ''golden age'' architects wanted people to hit 3 woods into perhaps 1 par 3's and a few 4's.  Thank god they were men principles and passion.
...

[Jason Thurman]

Let me break this down for you KimYe style.

Ben hit the nail on the head once again. Scores go down relative to practice swings, Jud. Duh. So a golfer who shoots 85 does it while taking lots of practice swings while he takes almost none when he shoots 100. That's critical thinking, in a sense.

If yardage affects pace, explain why it takes just as long to play executive courses as it does to play full length courses!

[Sean_A]

Jud

Stop trying to be logical - folks can't handle it.  Somehow, folks come up with bistro math on this and say the same golfer can somehow play just as fast on a 7000 yard course as he can on a 6000 yard course.  Ain't magic grand? Anyway, once these folks figure out this is a load of hogwash then it will be an uphill grind with more yards equals more shots equals more time.  If they eventually figure out this makes zero sense, then there will be the idea that guys have to wait on others....well, you get the idea.  You are wasting my O2 explaining this stuff and I need it for my bunker soapbox .  

Sweet Lou

I rarely choose my partners in GCA events, but I do seem to recall at the last GCA event I attended we played in a crazy 4ball singles format - no?  In any case, my experience tells me that GCAers play slow enough without stepping back to 7000+ yards.  I consider myself an average speed player who expects to finish a 3-4 ball in 3.5 hours.  If we are being honest, based on Buda anyway, I think that places me in the top 1 precentile of GCAers  .  

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

Let me break this down for you KimYe style.

Ben hit the nail on the head once again. Scores go down relative to practice swings, Jud. Duh. So a golfer who shoots 85 does it while taking lots of practice swings while he takes almost none when he shoots 100. That's critical thinking, in a sense.

If yardage affects pace, explain why it takes just as long to play executive courses as it does to play full length courses!

Why don't you explain where the notion comes from that says playing an executive course takes as long as playing a full length course?

[BCowan]

Stop trying to be logical - folks can't handle it.  Somehow, folks come up with bistro math on this and say the same golfer can somehow play just as fast on a 7000 yard course as he can on a 6000 yard course.  Ain't magic grand? Anyway, once these folks figure out this is a load of hogwash then it will be an uphill grind with more yards equals more shots equals more time.  If they eventually figure out this makes zero sense, then there will be the idea that guys have to wait on others....well, you get the idea.  You are wasting my O2 explaining this stuff and I need it for my bunker soapbox

     You haven't said anything that is logical?  Moving with a purpose, playing ready golf that is how golf is played faster.  I play from 7000 yards and play as fast if i played from 6400!  Find the ball, hit it, and then hit it again.  If i did play ten minutes faster what is the difference between 3.3 hrs and 3.2 hrs, you still have to wait for the group ahead of you!  BS more shots equal more time.  I can hit 2 chips faster than most ''rain delays'' can hit 1 put!  No, i don't get the idea?  If a person is playing where they don't reach fairway bunkers because they are playing the wrong tee, wouldn't that save much more time?  There are so many factors that go into pace of play traditional courses vs modern forced carry courses!  Your thoughts are ''in the box'' and too narrow minded!

[Sean_A]

B and all other dreamers

Stop comparing yourself to others as an excuse for your slower play.  It doesn't take you extra time to walk 600 yards more?  It doesn't take you extra time to cover those yards with shots?  And I haven't touched on what the 600 yards poses in long rough, water, trees etc risk - alll of which slow the game down.  As I say, its magic that GCAers can play longer courses using more shots in the same amount of time as shorter courses using less shots.  Though, I shouldn't expect anything different I spose.  We can all make up reasons why we can play slower based on our playing partners or the group in front.  If everybody thought like that I would never finish my rounds in the US.  

I like posting in the style of JakaB.  I bet he can do excellent gangster style paddy cakes.  

Ciao  

[BCowan]

Sean the Authoritarian

    I play in 3-3.5 hours most of the time.  No, it doesn't take any noticeable time.  No, i don't take practice swings (unless working on something) do you?  There you go assuming more shots, i score the same practically for my weakness of late has been putting.  I don't like playing courses with many water hazards.  Trees are 90% air.  Long rough maybe in early May due to weather conditions.  How long does it take you to wedge out? No it isn't magic, it is just playing golf.  Did you forgot that 4 hours is the goal in the US?  So if i play in 3.5 I am holding someone up or am I most likely waiting for the group ahead of me?  I love how you think of GCAers in a collective sense!  

    

[Brent Hutto]

Jesus.

Brent,

You are just going to have to quit swinging harder and start working on your mental fatigue issues.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle old.

[Jason Thurman]

Ben, you've played a GCA event. What do you suspect the pace of play averaged at the Mashie?

Tim, you should really watch South Park. It's delightful.

[BCowan]

4.25 at the Mashie.  Greens running at 13 what does one expect.  All it takes is a couple slow players to slow up an event.  Most tournaments in general are played in 3 somes. 

[Tim Martin]

Ben, you've played a GCA event. What do you suspect the pace of play averaged at the Mashie?

Tim, you should really watch South Park. It's delightful.

Misdirection does not address my question. I like South Park.

[Andrew Lewis]

4.25 at the Mashie.  Greens running at 13 what does one expect.  All it takes is a couple slow players to slow up an event.  Most tournaments in general are played in 3 somes. 

BCowan -

I have to ask:  Who provided green speed measurements at the Mashie, and who logged the round times?

Best, Andrew

[BHoover]

The green speeds at Kingsley during the Mashie were absolutely perfect. End of story.

[Brian Finn]

4.25 at the Mashie.  Greens running at 13 what does one expect.  All it takes is a couple slow players to slow up an event.  Most tournaments in general are played in 3 somes. 

While I assume you are merely providing your best estimate, I think you are off here. As you saw firsthand, kingsley is not a course that gets crowded or backed up.  I believe the Mashie weekend was one of their busiest, and I personally waited on only 1 or 2 tees (over roughly 100 holes).  Additionally, in many cases, some groups finished in under 3.5 hours, and were done eating lunch before the next group came in, so the length of rounds that weekend varied quite widely.  In 5 rounds there, I think one of my rounds was 4.25, with the other 4 all quicker (3.5 to 4).  

Concerning green speed, how do you know the #?  Just curious on that.  Regardless of the f'ing stimp reading (or made up estimate, thereof), I thought they ran perfectly - neither too fast nor too slow - and very true.  I never found putting slowed down any of my groups, particularly since we were playing matches.

[BHoover]

Concerning green speed, how do you know the #?  Just curious on that.  Regardless of the f'ing stimp reading (or made up estimate, thereof), I thought they ran perfectly - neither too fast nor too slow - and very true.  I never found putting slowed down any of my groups, particularly since we were playing matches.

Spot on.  Those greens were fantastic. Yes, they were quick, but isn't that consistent with the concept fast & firm?  Furthermore, I thought the green speeds were very fair, tough but fair.

In my rounds at Kingsley, I had scores ranging from 74 (first time seeing the course) to 85+.  But at no point did I think the greens were unfairly fast. Nor did the green speeds have any impact on pace of play.

I think our longest round was our match with Matt Scmidt. We were out on the course for more than 4 hours, but that's also because we played an extra 4-5 holes, including some cross-country checks to play some improvised tee shots and different tee-green combinations.

I don't even know what green speeds have to do with length, but I didn't bother reading the rest of this thread.