Course Length

[Tim Martin]

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.

More bluster with no basis in fact from BCowan. Anybody shocked?

[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.

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

You're really gonna make me do this?



Finn, I'll give Ben credit for his estimate's accuracy. I was in one of the first two groups to finish on Sunday. We wrapped up at about 2:00, and we played the final 9 with three players and the final 6 with nothing on the line (in other words, we were pretty slow considering our circumstances). There were still groups coming in at 2:45 after a 10 AM shotgun tee off. That experience isn't unusual at GCA events I've played. I don't think I've ever finished a round in under four hours at one of them.

Sean's point that GCAers aren't especially fast is accurate in my experience. I love playing with guys from this site, and look forward to our events more than any others I play in. It's a blast, but it's not fast. There are lots of reasons why and it doesn't dampen my enjoyment, but there's also no reason to pretend that pace of play is fast at GCA events. I have a running joke with a few guys on the site that the average GCAer's claim of a 3 hour round deserves about as much credence as a 15 handicap's claim that he regularly drives the ball 290 yards.

The nonsense getting put forth in this thread, essentially suggesting that golfers can render themselves immune to the confines of space and time if they simply walk with purpose, isn't doing anything to dispel the notion that the average GCAer knows little about how pace of play works.

[BHoover]

I don't think I've ever played in less than 3 hours. The only time I've come close is when I play by myself, but if I'm doing that I tend to drop an extra ball or hit a few extra putts. I tend to enjoy golf more so if there's some type of competition, and I think that competition results in slower play (but notice I did not say that it should mean slow play).

Is not the appropriate pace of play whatever pace it takes to keep up with the group in front and to keep ahead of the group behind?  In other words, I see pace of play as being akin to whatever the market dictates, with "market" being the field as a whole.  Another way to think of it is that, like the Supreme Court with pornography, i know the "right" pace is play when I see it.

[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.

You're really gonna make me do this?



Finn, I'll give Ben credit for his estimate's accuracy. I was in one of the first two groups to finish on Sunday. We wrapped up at about 2:00, and we played the final 9 with three players and the final 6 with nothing on the line (in other words, we were pretty slow considering our circumstances). There were still groups coming in at 2:45 after a 10 AM shotgun tee off. That experience isn't unusual at GCA events I've played. I don't think I've ever finished a round in under four hours at one of them.

Sean's point that GCAers aren't especially fast is accurate in my experience. I love playing with guys from this site, and look forward to our events more than any others I play in. It's a blast, but it's not fast. There are lots of reasons why and it doesn't dampen my enjoyment, but there's also no reason to pretend that pace of play is fast at GCA events. I have a running joke with a few guys on the site that the average GCAer's claim of a 3 hour round deserves about as much credence as a 15 handicap's claim that he regularly drives the ball 290 yards.

The nonsense getting put forth in this thread, essentially suggesting that golfers can render themselves immune to the confines of space and time if they simply walk with purpose, isn't doing anything to dispel the notion that the average GCAer knows little about how pace of play works.

Jason-I know that you think the South Park reference is really funny as you seem to use it often. That's fine but it still doesn't back up your premise that you can play just as quickly on an executive course as a regular course. Something factual rather than anecdotal would be best. Thanks.

[Jason Thurman]

Tim, are you the guy who makes serious rebuttal arguments when your friends post articles from The Onion to your Facebook News Feed? Would emoticons help?  

I have a friend and former colleague who once told me she had a hard time figuring out when I was being serious and when I was kidding. I explained to her that the best way to tell if I'm kidding is to just decide whether what I'm saying is totally stupid or not. If it's totally stupid, then I'm kidding, because I don't say stupid things.

I'm not as certain about the other guys who have claimed course yardage does not affect pace of play. I suspect some of them really do believe it takes 3.5 hours to play most executive courses.

[Sean_A]

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!  

    

B

I will take your "noticeable" qualifier as an admission that it does take you longer to play longer courses.  I am glad we settled that  .

Ciao

[Jud_T]

If the greens at Kingsley were running 13 we'd still be out there trying to hole out.  I'd be shocked if they were above 11.

[BCowan]

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.

  Brian-  Actually I think that our group played in 4 hours, and I think your estimate is right and proves my point.  Some groups prob did play in 3.5 and others played in over 4, remember i said don't lump GCAers in the Collective.  I thought that the tournament pace was great!  I am guessing on stemp too, they were the fastest i have putted on in a long time (remember i play a muni in some people's eyes).  Your last sent. i disagree with.  My point is Kingsley proved that if the course proved any slow play it was around and on the Greens, not walking back 20 yards on 3 holes to the tips.  Which i played a practice rounds from the tips and played faster than from the members in the tournament.  Proving that you can't compare everyday play to tournament (gathering).   As Mr Shackelford has said and many other wise, that super fast green speeds slow up play but people want to focus on what ''Tee it forward''!  I thought the set up was amazing and the best i have experience, i thought the greens were a touch fast for their design.  I believe some prefer CD greens to not be higher than 9-10 on the stemp and they are all about F&F.  

Jason-  I played a muni twice two weeks ago in Florida and played both rounds under 3.5 hours, you gotta know what you are doing.  You start of ten tee and play in 2.1hrs, then you play the front in 1.2hrs.  It is real simple.  I remember you don't venture off your own club much, but you know the walking policies of public courses around you and you don't even play them, lol!

Tim- you again attack what i say and provide no examples.  An estimation of stemp reading is a guess, i am not a keeper and i don't carry around a measuring device in my bag!  When you come to the thread next time, try some critical thinking!

[Tim Martin]

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.

  Brian-  Actually I think that our group played in 4 hours, and I think your estimate is right and proves my point.  Some groups prob did play in 3.5 and others played in over 4, remember i said don't lump GCAers in the Collective.  I thought that the tournament pace was great!  I am guessing on stemp too, they were the fastest i have putted on in a long time (remember i play a muni in some people's eyes).  Your last sent. i disagree with.  My point is Kingsley proved that if the course proved any slow play it was around and on the Greens, not walking back 20 yards on 3 holes to the tips.  Which i played a practice rounds from the tips and played faster than from the members in the tournament.  Proving that you can't compare everyday play to tournament (gathering).   As Mr Shackelford has said and many other wise, that super fast green speeds slow up play but people want to focus on what ''Tee it forward''!  I thought the set up was amazing and the best i have experience, i thought the greens were a touch fast for their design.  I believe some prefer CD greens to not be higher than 9-10 on the stemp and they are all about F&F.  

Jason-  I played a muni twice two weeks ago in Florida and played both rounds under 3.5 hours, you gotta know what you are doing.  You start of ten tee and play in 2.1hrs, then you play the front in 1.2hrs.  It is real simple.  I remember you don't venture off your own club much, but you know the walking policies of public courses around you and you don't even play them, lol!

Tim- you again attack what i say and provide no examples.  An estimation of stemp reading is a guess, i am not a keeper and i don't carry around a measuring device in my bag!  When you come to the thread next time, try some critical thinking!

BCowan-Mr. Tigerman is a member and advises that the green speeds didn't exceed 11. My only point is that you have developed a pattern in your short tenure on the site of making statements that are neither provable or true. Carry on.

[BCowan]

Tim
  
    How is an estimate a true statement?  If a member said they were 11, i will go with it.  Your smugness in trying to get me in a gotcha moment with your cronies is sad!  Again when you understand what the definition of estimate is, let me know.  Most people put their opinions on here without rending them as fact, which you spin mine on a regular basis while providing no rebuttals, just dribble!  

      Back to the Ross and 3 hazards, GOLF HAS NEVER FAILED ME book was a collection of Ross notes found by Mr Ross's daughter.  Those were his notes and his rule of thumbs!  It is in the book under hazards!

[Jason Thurman]

One other thing I've noticed at GCA events is how bad people are at math. Part of the reason that a GCAer claiming they played in under 3 hours should be met with skepticism is the fact that I've seen firsthand how GCAers fail to calculate elapsed time correctly. I once teed off with a GCA group at 9:30 AM, and we walked off the course at 2:25. One of the guys, while looking at his watch, said "Well if we went off at 9:30, we played in just under four hours right? That's pretty good! It didn't feel slow to me at all!"

If someone can't perform basic math, I guess you can't expect them to be able to identify whether extra yardage makes it take longer to play a course. As Ben said, it's real simple. 2.1+1.2=3.5.

[BCowan]

Jason one round was 3.3 and the other was 3.5.  Sorry for not being thorough and detailed.  Your first example was funny and possibly accurate.   

[Garland Bayley]

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 .  

Sean,

I have to take exception to the use of the word logical. Your claim of logical for Jud and yourself depends on overlooking what others write and being vague on what you write. The comparison is between playing tees at 7000 yards vs. tees at 6000 yards on the same course. Yet, you write a "a 7000 yard course" and "a 6000 yard course". I don't think anyone disagrees with you on such a statement, because the walk is shorter. However, on the same course the majority of courses make you walk the same distance in my experience no matter which tees you play. As for the stroke difference, as I wrote above the time difference is "negligible". I.e., in a 250 minute round, the two extra minutes for more strokes is less than 1 percent.

Am I not being logical?

Brent,

As usual I get myself in trouble by not including the in my post. Sorry if you took it wrong. I think overswinging is a common fault of most high handicappers, so of course it applies to me too.

[Sean_A]

However, on the same course the majority of courses make you walk the same distance in my experience no matter which tees you play.

This is certainly not the case in my experience.  I would go so far as to say if the back tees were consistently closest to the greens it is architectural malpractice.  Okay, too strong?  How bout stupid design?  Not only does it make people walk longer distances, it effectively encourages golfers to play inappropriate tees.  I am amazed golf course owners wouldn't get all over an archie for that sort of design.  

The more I look at courses the more I realize how easy it is to screw up a design with basic mistakes.  


Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

As usual I get myself in trouble by not including the in my post. Sorry if you took it wrong. I think overswinging is a common fault of most high handicappers, so of course it applies to me too.

No offense. I just thought "pot...kettle...old" was a neat turnabout.

Personally I alternate being overswinging and decelerating. On a good day I can do both on the same shot.

[Garland Bayley]

However, on the same course the majority of courses make you walk the same distance in my experience no matter which tees you play.

This is certainly not the case in my experience.  I would go so far as to say if the back tees were consistently closest to the greens it is architectural malpractice.  Okay, too strong?  How bout stupid design?  Not only does it make people walk longer distances, it effectively encourages golfers to play inappropriate tees.  I am amazed golf course owners wouldn't get all over an archie for that sort of design.  

The more I look at courses the more I realize how easy it is to screw up a design with basic mistakes.  


Ciao

In my experience, the back tees have always been nearest the greens. That is because the ball didn't used to go huge distances further for the young and strong. IMO it is only stupid design for courses that a) have been designed since the ball revolution, or b) have hosted, host, or intend to host the top tournaments.

I don't know where you get your experience, but I have done the satellite mapping of Perranporth, West Cornwall, Royal North Devon, Saunton East and West, and Carne for photo tours on this website, and I don't recall this phenomenon of back tees not being nearest the greens.

EDIT: Well now I feel quite the dunce as I looked back at the Perranporth thread and saw the need to walk back to tees. I assume because as I noted in the text it appeared like they had lengthened the course by adding back tees.

[David Davis]

 

The problem that I often have is playing a short set of tees because my companions who are often younger and drive 20-50+ yards past me want to hit short irons into the par 3s and wedges into the 4s.  Shooting near par at very shorter distances is far less satisfying for me than shooting 80 while hitting all the clubs in my bag.  Even though I've lost 50+ yards off my driver, I'd much rather play a 7200 yard course at sea level than one at 6200.

but if I were to do as you suggest, I'd be playing a 6100 yard golf course, and maybe taking up painting for excitement.  A much better metric for me is the number of greens I can reach in regulation with reasonably well-struck drives, and the variety of the approaches.  Ego?  I am reminded of the several golfers I've known with vanity handicaps who always played the "correct" tees then bitched because I cleaned their clocks in competitions (allegedly, it was "unfair" because my handicap was established from the back tees, which, somehow, put them at a disadvantage).   Bottom line, if you want to be a better golfer, play longer tees.  Look up the literature on goal setting.  And play fast.  
[/quote]


+1 here. I think Lou does a great job of explaining my feeling on this as well. We seem to be split on GCA between the younger guard, which I would certainly include Lou and Sean as part of and those that think what fits them fits everyone. I'm not a fast player if you consider playing under 3 hours fast, but I'm certainly a ready golf player and I'm also certain that on most of the courses where people are claiming to play in 3 hours I too will get around in 3 hours. I do highly rely on my putting and short game so tend to take a touch more time around the greens but often for me this pays off in less putts.

I've noticed that playing from the medal tees often leaves the situation where I'm hitting wedge, 52,56 etc into a green. I don't mind this a couple times a round but if it's like that on most holes well I too feel the need to take up basket weaving for excitement. I would much rather play great and be thoroughly challenged and end up with an 83 than to play shite and walk off with a 73. One gives a sense of accomplishment and the other is purely an inflation of ego.

Many don't keep score at all, so if you can play all the time like that it doesn't matter I like the added challenge of fighting against par and the course and am realistic enough to think if a pro plays to scratch on the course or even -10 in slightly different conditions over a few days then there is something wrong if I think I should be scoring low 70's. I'm just not that good to expect that.

[Carl Rogers]

No one has discussed the effect of high rough and pace of play.  My experience is that is a real pace of play killer.  You cannot see your ball until 8 feet away from it and the entire playing group is pre-occupied with the task.