OT: If the PGA TOUR is serious about slow play they should ..........

[Tim Martin]

You really want people to listen to a two hour podcast to try and prove your point? Kind of analogous to AimPoint itself which is long and drawn out.

AimPoint will contribute to slow play at these bottlenecks (generally par 3's and short par 5's),

So you agree that AimPoint slows things down. Thank you!

[Matt Schoolfield]

So you agree that AimPoint slows things down. Thank you!

Literally anything beyond walking up to the ball and hitting it as fast is possible will slow things down. Reading the green slows things down. AimPoint slows things down. Literally just thinking about your shot slows things down. My point is that pace is controlled by finding the speed people are playing at, and spacing groups so it doesn't cause a traffic jam. Fighting about what the minimum speed of play should be effectively irrelevant to overall pace of play, because the overall pace people are complaining about is a mismatch between speed of play and group spacing... not just speed of play.

[Tim Gavrich]

Derek Duncan and Jim Urbina recently had Ian Baker-Finch on one of the "Salon" episodes of Feed The Ball, and Baker-Finch said the following:


“The game should take four hours, not five and a half hours. Now, in defense of the players on the PGA Tour, they’re taking a long time because all of the tees are now 100 yards back from the greens, so they’re walking 100 yards back to the tee and 100 yards back again. So they’re walking 200 extra yards on every hole to what they used to - that’s two miles in itself by the end of the day - and the greens are 13 on the Stimpmeter so you never have a tap in; you’ve always got to mark every putt and line it up. That’s why - well, it’s one of the reasons why it takes so much longer.”

“They are making the game harder to make up for the fact that they've missed the boat on the equipment and it’s an unfortunate thing. Hey, it’s great for the fans - they can watch everyone hit the ball 350 yards, but I still think that if they hit the ball 300 yards instead of 350, the fans would still love it. Courses would be more relevant, we wouldn’t need to have greens at 14 on the Stimpmeter - maybe we could have them at 12 maximum, say - and we’d cut an hour off the playing times. There’s a lot of things that could be done, I think."


I tend to think that with decades of experience watching hundreds of rounds of PGA Tour golf per year, Baker-Finch has a good grasp on why the game is taking so long to play.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Derek Duncan and Jim Urbina recently had Ian Baker-Finch on one of the "Salon" episodes of Feed The Ball, and Baker-Finch said the following:


“The game should take four hours, not five and a half hours. Now, in defense of the players on the PGA Tour, they’re taking a long time because all of the tees are now 100 yards back from the greens, so they’re walking 100 yards back to the tee and 100 yards back again. So they’re walking 200 extra yards on every hole to what they used to - that’s two miles in itself by the end of the day - and the greens are 13 on the Stimpmeter so you never have a tap in; you’ve always got to mark every putt and line it up. That’s why - well, it’s one of the reasons why it takes so much longer.”

“They are making the game harder to make up for the fact that they've missed the boat on the equipment and it’s an unfortunate thing. Hey, it’s great for the fans - they can watch everyone hit the ball 350 yards, but I still think that if they hit the ball 300 yards instead of 350, the fans would still love it. Courses would be more relevant, we wouldn’t need to have greens at 14 on the Stimpmeter - maybe we could have them at 12 maximum, say - and we’d cut an hour off the playing times. There’s a lot of things that could be done, I think."


I tend to think that with decades of experience watching hundreds of rounds of PGA Tour golf per year, Baker-Finch has a good grasp on why the game is taking so long to play.

An appeal to authority isn't a particularly convincing argument, even if I think Duncan's podcast is one of the very best (if not the best golf podcast). If we care about total potential speed of play, we need only look at the first group, who is playing unencumbered. If there is a problem there, by all means we can address it. The groups people care about are the tournament leaders at the back. When we compare the first group pace to the last group pace, we'll find a delta in the total time per round, and that delta is the traffic jam.

"The game should take four hours" is a truism that is spouted ad nauseam by people who clearly haven't thought about the mechanics of how groups move across a golf course throughout the day, and how one groups movements affect the others. I genuinely don't care who is saying it, because it's demonstrably false. Concern about the length of a course is one of the most naive mistakes mistakes one can make when we see that any time lost to waiting at a teebox nets out that extra walking time, and eliminating the walking won't change overall pace if the waiting still happens.

I fully agree with the analysis that more difficult greens cause a slower pace, because they will influence and exaggerate the natural traffic jams. Making the game less difficult should increase pace, but we don't increase pace significantly just by making the course shorter. It's a complex system with multiple inputs and outputs, but if we want play to move fast, we should space the intervals out more (which means shrinking the field sizes) or put in a shot clock at pinch points (you only really need it on holes that naturally cause backups, and maybe try to fix the underlying issue causing the natural backup).

The most effective way to increase pace in organized competitions is simply to group all non-leaders by play-time from fastest to slowest, and not by where they are on the leaderboard. This would do the most to prevent the backups that grow throughout the day.

[Simon Barrington]

So you agree that AimPoint slows things down. Thank you!

Literally anything beyond walking up to the ball and hitting it as fast is possible will slow things down. Reading the green slows things down. AimPoint slows things down. Literally just thinking about your shot slows things down. My point is that pace is controlled by finding the speed people are playing at, and spacing groups so it doesn't cause a traffic jam. Fighting about what the minimum speed of play should be effectively irrelevant to overall pace of play, because the overall pace people are complaining about is a mismatch between speed of play and group spacing... not just speed of play.

While I understand the point you are trying to make by using queing theory and how it creates erratic concertina-like halts in flow, you are fundamentally forgetting that the key is the general/overall speed of play required.


The key to good behaviour is to have a acceptable speed of play (defined, understood and policed) and suitable gaps to allow for ebb & flow without causing outright stoppages.
A bit like a "train" of cars on cruise control at a constant speed with techonology managing the gaps.


But there is so much player behaviour now that occurs as a discrete activity, whereas golfers used to do far more preparation while they were walking to their ball and while others were playing their shots.


The problem with Aimpoint is that it is very hard to do while someone else is putting without disturbing them.
So de facto it slows things down hugely for being so, even more so if two or three are in the same grouping doing it.


Straddling the line between ball & hole is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and etiquette of the game (Sam Snead and decisions on his putting style set precedent, as do the rules for the extension of that same line behind the hole in the rules).


Golfers (teeing off with 10 minute gaps) simply need to walk faster, do more thinking and preparation before it is their turn to play, and shorten their (discrete) routines to sub 30 seconds max.


If one reads Rotella, turning putting into a instinctive reactive athletic task can yield results, and if one's routine lengthens under pressure it has a very negative affect.


IBF (I think it was him) hit the nail on the head perhaps when he pointed out that stats for Aimpointers are no better than non-Aimpointers on Tour...so why do it (or indeed permit it) at all if it doesn't work?

[Matt Schoolfield]

Straddling the line between ball & hole is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and etiquette of the game (Sam Snead and decisions on his putting style set precedent, as do the rules for the extension of that same line behind the hole in the rules).

This is the heart of the disagreement. The spirit and etiquette of the game is not written in stone anywhere. If it were, we would likely still be playing match-play, with stymies, where players were not allowed to measure yardages.

My point here is only to argue about the mechanics of pace of play, not the spirit of the game. Were I to argue for the spirit, I would strongly argue for a return to match-play with persimmons (for durability over hickories) and blades (or perhaps muscle-backs), where yardage books and rangefinders were banned, and where seven clubs are standard. Players would have time limits on, and not be able to move far from their ball (and certainly not forward of it, even on the putting surface). By intentionally limiting the amount precision the player can expect, we can anticipate faster play due to fewer calculations to be made, which should dramatically increase pace... but only if we still respect the mechanics of how pace works.

The current spirit seems to be get the lowest overall score by any means necessary, and as those scores get lower, we must defend par by making the courses harder. That inherently means ignoring pace of play.

I'm on the side of the folks who want to increase pace by all the principles you suggest, my only problem is that you argument isn't with me, it's with the USGA and R&A, and until we decide that we want a new governing body with very different principals at its core, then we're going to be talking in circles, because you can't have it both ways.

[Simon Barrington]

If spirit and etiquette fail, as is the case with all these self indulgent extended routines of all types (repeated waggling, Aimpoint etc. which do not seem to work anyway) then the authorities must legislate.

But they seem unwilling to do so (as we have seen in regards to equipment)

So we agree, golfers are taking too much time, it is too slow, but nothing will change... let's move on...?


Re. Rules (not spirit or etiquette) I mentioned around this area - Re. Line of Play/Putt i.e. Rules 10.1c & 10.2b(4)

There does seem to be some inconsistency?

The line is sacrosanct in some cases (as these) but not in others...i.e. no longer against the rules to touch the line of putt (as long as not gaining advantage)...more revisions may be necessary.

[Tim Martin]

Why not figure out the changes and introduce them incrementally with a reasonable waiting period?

[John Kavanaugh]

There is fault in those who think they should be able to play in under 3 hours no matter what time, or what day, they decide to play. Eliminate golfers who feel they are entitled to play fast and the problem of slow play goes away.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So if everyone straddle an 8" putt it wouldn't slow down play. Interesting...

That woman needed to tap that in. David Orr knows a thing or two about coaching AimPoint and coaching Tour players, which you'd know if you listened. John Graham knows a thing or two as well.

I tend to think that with decades of experience watching hundreds of rounds of PGA Tour golf per year, Baker-Finch has a good grasp on why the game is taking so long to play.

Guilty of yet another logical fallacy, you are.

[Simon Barrington]

Geoff Shackelford's latest Quadrilateral Blog "Why Aimpoint Offends?" takes on the subject (head on as is his way)...

[Charlie Goerges]

Geoff Shackelford's latest Quadrilateral Blog "Why Aimpoint Offends?" takes on the subject (head on as is his way)...

Despite Geoff's clear dislike of how aimpoint appears, he does say that it's minor compared to green speeds.

[Pete Lavallee]

I watched my second episode of TGL Golf last night and the pace of play there is amazing! In order to get play done in the broadcast time slot there is a visible 40 second clock. No matter whether it’s a full shot, chip or putt they just get up and hit the ball; zero pre shot routines. They seem to play more instinctively and there is no apparent drop off in performance. It shows that the best golfers in the current world can play quickly and still perform to their desired standards. It’s almost like watching Shells Wonderful World of Golf from days gone by; just step up and hit the damn ball!

[Simon Barrington]

Geoff Shackelford's latest Quadrilateral Blog "Why Aimpoint Offends?" takes on the subject (head on as is his way)...

Despite Geoff's clear dislike of how aimpoint appears, he does say that it's minor compared to green speeds.

That is correct, and why I mentioned it, there are many contributors to pace of play.

But IMHO No.1 is intent, as the subsequent post re. TGL notes.

40 second shot clocks with penalty strokes (doubling for each infraction) will lose the offending players both money but more importantly points (Fedex, DP Race to Dubai, Rolex WWGR & OWGR etc.) and so will change the game.

Good behaviour as an example will feed down to the amateur game too, opening up on-course capacity/time for others, and making the game more palatable to time-starved participants.
It doesn't have to be 3-hours as a target (unless a Club's Membership wishes it), but the game would certainly benefit for 4 hours as the average target time for 18.

In a world of "Tik-Swipe" and "Instabrag" shorter & edited is better, the game needs to recognise and adapt.

As has been mentioned on here several times, constraint is the mother of invention (and in GCA creativity).

[Rob Marshall]

So if everyone straddle an 8" putt it wouldn't slow down play. Interesting...

That woman needed to tap that in. David Orr knows a thing or two about coaching AimPoint and coaching Tour players, which you'd know if you listened. John Graham knows a thing or two as well.

I tend to think that with decades of experience watching hundreds of rounds of PGA Tour golf per year, Baker-Finch has a good grasp on why the game is taking so long to play.

Guilty of yet another logical fallacy, you are.

Erik, I've known John Graham for 20 years. He's a great coach. I didn't say AimPoint doesn't work. I said it slows down the game when players are doing in on short putts. I've taken the class from John.

[Tim Gavrich]

So if everyone straddle an 8" putt it wouldn't slow down play. Interesting...

That woman needed to tap that in. David Orr knows a thing or two about coaching AimPoint and coaching Tour players, which you'd know if you listened. John Graham knows a thing or two as well.

I tend to think that with decades of experience watching hundreds of rounds of PGA Tour golf per year, Baker-Finch has a good grasp on why the game is taking so long to play.

Guilty of yet another logical fallacy, you are.

Are you able to engage with what Baker-Finch said, then?


Still eagerly awaiting your breakdown on why rounds of threesomes at the 2022 Open took two hours longer than the established daily foursome pace.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, I've known John Graham for 20 years. He's a great coach. I didn't say AimPoint doesn't work. I said it slows down the game when players are doing in on short putts. I've taken the class from John.

My point in mentioning John was to say that he too would tell you that AimPoint does not lead to slow play. He would disagree with you. He would tell you that AimPoint, done properly, is faster.

Are you able to engage with what Baker-Finch said, then?

To what end? His opinion is one data point, and carries about as much weight as others.

Still eagerly awaiting your breakdown on why rounds of threesomes at the 2022 Open took two hours longer than the established daily foursome pace.

I've already told you that it's not because of the added length. Despite the added length, they were still waiting on the tee box at the 11th, for example. It's the crossovers, the winds, the bunkers, the fact that it's a major, everyone plays off the first tee… etc. The added walking length as you constantly talk about is a small part.

[Tim Gavrich]

Still eagerly awaiting your breakdown on why rounds of threesomes at the 2022 Open took two hours longer than the established daily foursome pace.

I've already told you that it's not because of the added length. Despite the added length, they were still waiting on the tee box at the 11th, for example. It's the crossovers, the winds, the bunkers, the fact that it's a major, everyone plays off the first tee… etc. The added walking length as you constantly talk about is a small part.

Thanks for providing a list of factors you believe contribute to the pace of play difference. Some follow-ups:


Don't the crossovers affect play on normal days as well as The Open?


Doesn't wind affect play on normal days as well as The Open?


Don't the bunkers affect play on normal days as well as The Open?


Doesn't everyone start off the first tee on normal days as well as The Open?


You listed "the fact that it's a major." Are you able to be more specific? What are the main pace-of-play elements that comprise "the fact that it's a major"? Other than the fact that the golf course plays about 1,200 yards longer during The Open than it does during normal play, of course  .

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Don't the crossovers affect play on normal days as well as The Open?

Yep, not nearly as much as golfers aren't playing for a major championship on a normal day. Nor are there thousands of spectators and the commotion they can cause when a player is settling over a birdie putt on a nearby green and players will have to wait lest there be a cheer at the top of their backswing.

Doesn't wind affect play on normal days as well as The Open?

Yep, not nearly as much as golfers aren't playing for a major championship on a normal day.

Don't the bunkers affect play on normal days as well as The Open?

Yep, not nearly as much as golfers aren't playing for a major championship on a normal day.

Doesn't everyone start off the first tee on normal days as well as The Open?

I was in this instance comparing it to some other major championships.


Your "extra time to walk a few hundred extra yards" is WAY down on the list of reasons why golf takes longer at a major championship. Tell everyone playing the Old Course one day that the best score to their handicap will get $2M and see how fast they play that day. Ha ha ha.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Eric’s seems to believe that, because they’re playing for a lot of money, they’re entitled to play slow. Why? Let speed of play be part of what they have to deal with. If they have to play faster, they will.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

   Eric’s seems to believe that, because they’re playing for a lot of money, they’re entitled to play slow. Why? Let speed of play be part of what they have to deal with. If they have to play faster, they will.

That would be a misreading of what I’ve said. I said nothing about whether they were entitled to or not.

[Simon Barrington]

   Eric’s seems to believe that, because they’re playing for a lot of money, they’re entitled to play slow. Why? Let speed of play be part of what they have to deal with. If they have to play faster, they will.

Correct.

At the risk of being accused as an old fart...

Did "The Triumvirate" care any less about their score than modern professionals (given the 1st place in The Open only made £50), and they had no ropes and thousands of unmarshalled spectators across the course to deal with (which is why Prestwick was considered no longer suitable as too many holes in close proximity)
They played 36 in a day, with only 4 min gaps!
Average times for the whole field in Opens in their day were well below 3hrs

Slow play is entirely cultural, and not explained by more prize money (that is a false facilitating construct)

Simply said they just need to get on with it, in all aspects.

Yes, there are reasons why today's play may not able to be quite as fast as historical precedent (some genuine, many not so, such as butterflies farting on backswings!) and I do not think anyone seriously wants c.3hr rounds, but there seems to be absolutely no impetus nor intent to deal with excessively slow play from the players (who "own" the Tour authorities who are loathed to legislate, despite them all knowing the culprits in their midst)...

[Tim Gavrich]

Your "extra time to walk a few hundred extra yards" is WAY down on the list of reasons why golf takes longer at a major championship.

I guess I'll try one more time...


It took about 120 minutes longer for the best golfers in the world to play The Old Course in threesomes in the first two rounds of the '22 Open than it takes foursomes of much worse golfers to play in normal times.


It would be really helpful and enlightening if you could assign approximate chunks of those 120 minutes to the various factors you do believe are responsible for the slowdown in play. E.g.,


Crossovers: ## minutes


Wind: ## minutes


Bunkers: ## minutes


"Because it's a major": ## minutes


Course length: ## minutes (I gather this will be a small number - curious what you think the number is)


Thanks in advance for helping us understand the nature of slow play.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I guess I'll try one more time...

You can keep trying all you want. All I’ve pointed out is that your idea about walking a few hundred yards doesn’t hold up. That’s a small fraction of 120 minutes. Hence the pace/time is coming mostly from elsewhere.

[Brian Finn]

I really don't care at all about the pace of play on the PGA Tour.  I am among the many fans they have (mostly) lost as viewers. 

However, I agree with Erik (this may be a first for me) regarding the '22 Open.  Additional walking yardage is a minor factor in the overall time it took the pros to play.   

[Tags:]

Tags: