News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2019, 07:41:02 PM »
Ballybunion is a treat but the marram grass slows things down.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2019, 04:36:24 AM »
Sean,

I was one of two four balls of Americans on a tour, and although I am not very good, I play fast. Not so true of my group. Plus it was packed because it was high season. Having said that, Ballybunion is a Four Hour Plus Round other than when empty which probably is never.

Ira

Ira

Shouldn't the pace par be based on when no groups in front impede play? What it seems you are suggesting is that poor player and/or club pace management is the reason for 4+ hours for a round... no?

On another note, do folks think the Ballybunions of GB&I will start to get a reputation similar to that of many US munis on weekends? Namely, unbearable pace of play?

Ciao
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 09:20:01 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2019, 05:43:07 AM »
 ;D


Bill Seitz makes a great point! Why would you ever post a time that acceptable for pace of play?

Not only does it look awful; with terrible signage that is a visual diversion>its plain stupid as the mantra must be stay in step with the group in front

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2019, 09:11:53 AM »
;D


Bill Seitz makes a great point! Why would you ever post a time that acceptable for pace of play?

Not only does it look awful; with terrible signage that is a visual diversion>its plain stupid as the mantra must be stay in step with the group in front

Archie,

I agree in principle that the goal should be simply to keep up with the group in front; I've played in many tournaments where the instructions before teeing off were simply, "Keep up with the group in front of you; we'll worry about the group behind you."

But that sort of assumes that all groups are the same size, right?  There's not much way a four ball is going to keep up with a twosome, all other things equal, so at that point the issue becomes whether or not the four ball is playing at an appropriate pace or not; their fall back position is going to be, "Of course we were played slower than the group in front; there were only two of them!"   So the four ball falls several holes behind the twosome, and now the issue becomes whether or not the four ball is playing at an appropriate pace; there's not much way around it.


Beyond that, there is value in creating expectations for excellence in ANY endeavor, including pace of play.  No expectations, no way to measure success or failure.  Again, it goes back to the course management creating a culture that values a reasonable pace of play.  A stated pace of play expectation is only a part of that, and it may well not be the most important part, but there's a reason it's become a pervasive part of golf.

On a side note, I just saw some signs at Hawks Ridge in GA that said, "If you're playing well, play quickly.  If you're playing poorly, play quicker."
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2019, 09:24:33 AM »
AG makes a good point.  These days, it seems 4balls are less willing to allow smaller/faster groups through so part of the issue is pace expectation for 4balls. One way around this is to not allow 4balls out until late AM.  Say open til 8:30ish for 2balls, 8:30ish until 11ish for 2/3balls.  After 10:30ish 4balls.  It works pretty well at my club. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Bernie Bell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2019, 09:41:22 AM »
Sean -


Not sure if this is generally true but at my US club the opposite is the norm.  Anything less than a 4-ball will not expect to play through on a weekend morning; a single would probably not get out at all.  Would either be matched up or slotted in solo after 1.  Pace is not an issue but no one is calling us a “great course” for GCA either. 
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 09:46:26 AM by Bernie Bell »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2019, 09:48:17 AM »
Sean -

Not sure if this is generally true but at my US club the opposite is the norm.  Anything less than a 4-ball will not expect to play through on a weekend morning; a single would probably not get out at all.  Would either be matched up or slotted in solo after 1.  Pace is not an issue.


I don't get the impression slow play is a huge problem at private US clubs. I think most of this talk is geared toward publics and privates which take a load of public play.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Daryl David

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2019, 11:39:28 AM »
I played a private course the other day that had one of those clocks set to measure your pace. It was at the halfway house with a sign that said: “the time on this clock should equal your staring time or you are behind pace”. As I walked up, I spied the group ahead lounging around looking like they were in no hurry to tee off. I gave them a quizzical look and one guy got defensive looking and barked, “what’s the problem, we are 20 minutes ahead of the time on the clock”! 



Moral of the story. Tell people how slow you want them to go and they will comply.  ;D

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2019, 02:49:38 PM »
I appreciate the variety of thoughts and comments on this thread.  A lot of good stuff here.  My not-so-firm conclusions:


Yes, a course can be great even if takes 5+ hours ordinarily to complete the round.  It is often those things we like about gca that has an impact of the pace of play: the routing over considerable elevation changes and around environmentally sensitive areas; rolling terrain that creates difficult lies and feeds the ball into hazards and obstacles; large green complexes with lot of slope, internal contouring, run-away and false slopes; large bunkers which while aesthetically pleasing are hard to maintain and even more difficult for the average golfer to get the ball back into play; flanking penalty areas and native vegetation close to lines of play; blindness; large scale, etc.  For some of us who like to play fast, we sometimes have to consider whether the features we love more than offset being able to play in our definition of what is reasonable.  I do wonder if one of the reasons we like so many of the classical golf courses is because they tend to be simpler, cleaner; no attempt seems to have been made to create 18 signature holes.


No, I don't think it is a good idea to create or publicize a goal of 5 hours.  As a sometime referee and tournament helper, I find the practice of setting highly generous time standards- say 4:45 for a three ball in 10-minute starting times- ensures slow play.  My preference would be to set aggressive targets as they did at TOC (4 hours) and manage the pace of play accordingly.  The old rule book's etiquette section stated that if a group behind is playing faster, let them through, and certainly if there is a hole or more open in front.  I understand that conflict is not a good thing, but to appease a slow group just creates conflict for the folks behind (we had a case in Carrollton, TX where a golfer hit into another group after waiting most of the round, a fight ensued, and the instigator busted the skull of a guy in the offending group with a club, putting the guy in the hospital with permanent damage).


Yes, I think architects and superintendents have a strong professional obligation to doing the type of things that further the interests of the game.  Pace of play is cited as a big factor in the lower participation rates.  Sacrificing aesthetics a bit (e.g. putting eye brows on bunkers at a daily fee course; forcing a long climb to a high tee box for a view with no effect on the playability of the hole; being different/"out of the box" for the sake of it/brand differentiation) for better efficiency is fine with me.  Superintendents could pay much more attention to how they set up the course for the day's play and weather condition- the responsibility for setting tees and hole locations should fall to workers who understand the game well and aren't too zonked out early in the morning to do a proper job.


The owner's objectives and those of the clients are, of course, highly important.  Playing Pebble Beach in under 4 hours is not a good goal though I've done it once and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Judging from the full tee sheets at $$$$$ rates, it appears that the 5+ hour round is desirable at any number of golf resorts (I remember a 6-hour round at Barona Creek during the first King Putter).  As a golfer who is clearly concerned with spending too much time on the course, I just won't be visiting these type of places very often.  But, I am the type of golfer who doesn't find caddies yelling across fairways to their buddies and making loud Tarzan calls that can be heard several holes away part of a pleasant experience.  I do think that caddies slow things way down, but it is not because they want to spend an extra hour on the course.  It is likely that they perceive their role to be part of the experience.  If the client wants a Spieth/Greller experience and it has a bearing on the "tip" (mandatory minimum of $X + more for good service), they're going to provide it.  When pointing fingers, remember where 3 are pointing to.       


   








corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2019, 08:32:35 PM »





Watch out Lou you are very close to bashing caddies again. 


The course can be considered great but it might not be a great place to play. 

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2019, 05:57:07 PM »
It took us 5 hours to play Pinehurst 2 today. That largely is because it was very crowded although I am not sure it could be played in much less than 4:15 on a moderately busy day. But the length of the round did not detract at all from how great I thought the course to be. I played it pre-restoration and found it overrated. Not today. Today I appreciated how the green complexes influenced the correct tee to green placements, and the flattish holes revealed their merit. It did help that we played with two players far better than I am which helped me see how the course rewarded great shots but could play havoc with even good misses.


Ira

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #36 on: September 03, 2019, 05:23:01 AM »
It took us 5 hours to play Pinehurst 2 today. That largely is because it was very crowded although I am not sure it could be played in much less than 4:15 on a moderately busy day. But the length of the round did not detract at all from how great I thought the course to be. I played it pre-restoration and found it overrated. Not today. Today I appreciated how the green complexes influenced the correct tee to green placements, and the flattish holes revealed their merit. It did help that we played with two players far better than I am which helped me see how the course rewarded great shots but could play havoc with even good misses.


Ira

Ira

Another course that I am surprised you say requires 4:15 for a 4ball.  Green to tee walks are good and there is minimal elevation change.  Why 4:15?

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #37 on: September 03, 2019, 06:14:25 AM »
It took us 5 hours to play Pinehurst 2 today. That largely is because it was very crowded although I am not sure it could be played in much less than 4:15 on a moderately busy day. But the length of the round did not detract at all from how great I thought the course to be. I played it pre-restoration and found it overrated. Not today. Today I appreciated how the green complexes influenced the correct tee to green placements, and the flattish holes revealed their merit. It did help that we played with two players far better than I am which helped me see how the course rewarded great shots but could play havoc with even good misses.


Ira

Ira

Another course that I am surprised you say requires 4:15 for a 4ball.  Green to tee walks are good and there is minimal elevation change.  Why 4:15?

Ciao


Sean,


Like Ballybunion, a course where a shot just off the fairway might take some time to find. And shots around the greens require a bit of extra care plus they can multiply quickly.


Ira

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #38 on: September 03, 2019, 12:03:16 PM »
I think we have enough information to confirm...YES!


Even if there aren't many examples.....

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #39 on: September 03, 2019, 12:55:55 PM »
When I lived in Toronto there was a high end CCFAD north of the city that proudly advertised itself as the 'home of the 4:30 hour round'. It could do so because, like at the several other sprawling, high-end, mid 90s-early 2000 courses in the area, 4:30 hours was just about the minimum amount of time it took to get around:

which was (or so it seemed to me) precisely what the corporate-credit-card wielding clientele actually wanted for their $130 plus cart plus lunch plus drinks, i.e. a sense of 'ownership' and 'respect' and 'privilege' that manifested itself as a very slow and deliberate and highly-self regarding pace of play, taking plenty of time to smoke a cigar or plumb-bob a putt for double bogey or not even starting preparation for their shot until they watched everyone else in the foursome prepare and then hit their own shots. (I played each of these courses at least once, and one of them 3 times).
I think you are referring to Copper Creek and it never got that high in the rankings.  A few resort courses, like Eagle's Nest and Taboo did eke into the ScoreGolf top 20 for a short time, but they didn't last very long.  But they gave golfers who didn't belong to clubs a high end golf experience which was of value to some folks.


Incidentally, Copper Creek is supposed to close at least nine of its holes in the near future as the booming Toronto real estate market continues to eat up golf courses.  That is somewhat helpful to deal with an oversupply of golf, especially private clubs, with places like York Downs and Mandarin already gone, and The Country Club (FKA Board of Trade) closing soon.

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #40 on: September 04, 2019, 03:13:36 PM »
I skimmed through this thread, but don't remember seeing one of the most important contributors to slow play: drink carts and halfway houses.  We do a lot of corporate events where the sponsors want to entertain their customers and suppliers.  When there are stations around the course supplying adult beverages, count on dreadful pace of play.  Another feature to these types of events is they are usually scrambles and involve many golfers who only play once per year or very little golf.  These golfers are here for the free booze and food.  We limit this as much possible, or charge enough so that nobody cares.   



I only play on weekdays when we aren't busy, so I'm very spoiled.  Anything longer than 2.5 to 3 hours seems glacial to me.  Our normal pace of play is under 4 hours except on very busy days and competitions.  However, as has been pointed out, it's very difficult to enforce.[size=78%]   [/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%] [/size][/size]Some years ago I went off the back nine after such an event, 6.5 hours after the event started, and caught up to a group on the 3rd hole.  When I talked to them, they still had 6 holes to play.  The other golfers had already finished, eaten lunch, given out the prizes, had drinks and gone home.  We went around them to play the empty course, but called the proshop to make sure somebody called cabs for them when they finally finished.      [size=78%]

David Wuthrich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2019, 11:30:45 AM »
I don't think that it is the course's fault in a lot of circumstances.


There is not a course around (that I have seen) that without people, I could not play in less than 4 hours.


There, sorry to say, are many great courses that have been turned into 5+ hours rounds of pain!




Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Can a course be considered great if .....
« Reply #42 on: September 06, 2019, 05:45:36 PM »
A couple of amendments if anyone cares.


Our second play on PH2 took 4:10 or so. We were a four ball sandwiched between two three balls. The pace was very pleasant and consistent with my estimate of pace on a not overly crowded day.


We played Hope Valley today in 2:40 as a two ball. We played through a two ball. But also let a two ball play through us—one of the golfers is 85 years old and the other is 71. Sweetest swings you ever want to see.


Hope Valley is not a great course, but it is really good. I would gladly play PH2 in Five hours if necessary, but certainly not the others there.


Ira

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back