"Slow For Everyone"

[Ian Mackenzie]

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
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.

[Charlie Goerges]

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
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.

[Rick Sides]

There is a viral video of Cantllay  standing overt the ball in the tee box waggling for 45 seconds … time for a clock

[Michael Dugger]

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.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

[Charlie Goerges]

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.

[David Cronan]

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.

[Kyle Harris]

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.

[Ira Fishman]

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

[Matt Schoolfield]

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
"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.


Figure 12 — Each group’s total waiting time.

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)

[Sean_A]

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

[Niall C]

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

[Brett Meyer]

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.

[Carl Johnson]

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.

[jeffwarne]

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.

[Kyle Harris]

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?

[Kalen Braley]

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.

[Padraig Dooley]

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.

[Pat Burke]

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

[Peter Sayegh]

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.

[William_G]

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

[Dan_Callahan]

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.

[jeffwarne]

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.

[Tim_Weiman]

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!

[Craig Sweet]

I totally agree with Dan Callahan. There are plenty of people that simply do not give a f%#k about the golfers behind them.