[Brent Hutto]

Never say never but I would "never" let a group play through me unless my group were the ones holding them up. If I'm standing and waiting on the group(s) ahead, then the folks behind me will just have to wait likewise.

The exception would be if I'm a single waiting on bigger groups ahead then another single or twosome behind me is always welcome to join up if they like.

[Michael Moore]

I will ask to play through you and the group in front of you

If you really tried I bet you could pass them both on the same hole.

[John Connolly]

If they were anything like my Dad, a man who picks a club up maybe 4 times a year and NEVER breaks 100, they would have had a much better day if you had just played through. But then maybe not.

I just hope you moved aside for any group that happened to catch you. It would be very poor form to not call them through simply because you were waiting. After all, you had chosen to wait, they hadn't. And you never know, they might have actually lived in the real world and had responsibilities beyond the golf course. Sadly, we can't all live our lives as the eternal man-child.

That line of reasoning is so ridiculous it's not even wrong.

[Sean_A]

Thats a new one on me Paul.  I am waiting on every shot, the group in front doesn't invite me to play through, yet I am meant to worry about the guys behind me because they are a 2 ball?  I can easily see this scenario resulting in me letting umpteen groups through due to no fault of my own.  I am not buying that no matter what "rule" you cite, though it would be interesting to see that rule quoted.   

I am all in favour of playing at a good pace, but part of the responsibility of golfers is understanding when it makes sense to play as a 2ball and when it makes sense to play as a 4ball...and that is all down to club culture.  I have always thought the opening hour or so of the tee sheet should be for 2ball play only.  If those times aren't snagged the day before, they can be walk up times.  With the use of the internet, this approach is quite easy.  It seems to me this is the best compromise to keep as many people happy as possible.

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

We played a Sunday morning 3-ball in 2:28 last weekend and never felt like there was a sprint. Not saying that this should be the norm, but this same group, when one more is added, plays a 4-ball in 3:00 tops!

I must start playing with your group Ian.  My experience at the Buda this past week suggests a very different world.  Round 1 was Greensomes (both partners drive, choose one and alternate from there), took 4:35 to play, and our first group waited on nearly every hole (presumably behind local players).  Round 2, a fourball, was on a slower pace and discontinued on the 10th green in order to make dinner reservations.

Day 2, round 1 foursomes took 3:30, and that's running in the last four holes after the match was decided.  R 2 fourball took 4:05, again flying through the last four holes with the match over.  Day 3 twoball (twosomes) took over 3:30 in a tight match ending on the 17th tee.  I believe some later matches took longer.

And this is on short courses (6200 yards), easy to walk, with an average # of lost balls.  In the U.S. where it is not unusual to walk more than 6 miles over 18 holes, 4:15+ sounds like an artificially low (too fast) average.  I can walk my home course (around 6 miles, relatively light rough, well-bunkered) as a single with purpose in 2:45.  The goal for our course is 4:10 with riders accounting 90%+ or our rounds.

A big problem with golf is that unlike a highway, there is no fast lane to pass without affecting the slow drivers.  We all want to play at a pace that is comfortable for us, but seldom do we find the sweet spot where we are all happy with the folks in front of us and those behind.  How many times have we left faster players go through only to then watch them slow down to their comfort level and hold us up (ok, maybe like on the highway, we tend to speed up and dog them a bit).

In this regard, private clubs with management which knows the players can have a positive impact by massaging the tee sheet and ensuring that fast groups are at the front end and slower ones bring up the rear end when play is lighter.   A good pro or GM can further improve the pace of play by educating the membership and dealing with those who prefer or require more time to play their golf.   

[Sean_A]

Sweet Lou

In my experience, GCA events are notoriously slow. I routinely play Burnham in 3ball comps in under 4 hours.

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

4:25 for our 3-ball at B & B.  Some lost balls, but Tony kept us moving; some minor waiting on many holes.  Hopefully you won't get reprimanded for our slow play.

[Sean_A]

4:25 for our 3-ball at B & B.  Some lost balls, but Tony kept us moving; some minor waiting on many holes.  Hopefully you won't get reprimanded for our slow play.

Sweet Lou

No reprimands 

There was a 4somes club comp ahead which I can't imagine held up play on your end.  The course wasn't keen, the greens weren't quick and the rough isn't bad, but the course could never be considered wide    

The club is struggling with how to cope with visitor play.  We need the money, but visitors do play much slower than members.  I think a survey concluded that visitors take on average 37 minutes longer to play the course.  Not sure where that info came from, but it is easy to see how problematic this is.  Many members have said that if the club wants quicker play for all golfers it needs to widen the fairways at practically every opportunity.  But as atb and myself discussed the previous day, members aren't really in control of this sort of thing.  The super and whoever just seem to determine what is what and that seems to be the end of the story.

Ciao

[Ian Mackenzie]

We played a Sunday morning 3-ball in 2:28 last weekend and never felt like there was a sprint. Not saying that this should be the norm, but this same group, when one more is added, plays a 4-ball in 3:00 tops!

I must start playing with your group Ian.  My experience at the Buda this past week suggests a very different world.  Round 1 was Greensomes (both partners drive, choose one and alternate from there), took 4:35 to play, and our first group waited on nearly every hole (presumably behind local players).  Round 2, a fourball, was on a slower pace and discontinued on the 10th green in order to make dinner reservations.

Day 2, round 1 foursomes took 3:30, and that's running in the last four holes after the match was decided.  R 2 fourball took 4:05, again flying through the last four holes with the match over.  Day 3 twoball (twosomes) took over 3:30 in a tight match ending on the 17th tee.  I believe some later matches took longer.

And this is on short courses (6200 yards), easy to walk, with an average # of lost balls.  In the U.S. where it is not unusual to walk more than 6 miles over 18 holes, 4:15+ sounds like an artificially low (too fast) average.  I can walk my home course (around 6 miles, relatively light rough, well-bunkered) as a single with purpose in 2:45.  The goal for our course is 4:10 with riders accounting 90%+ or our rounds.

A big problem with golf is that unlike a highway, there is no fast lane to pass without affecting the slow drivers.  We all want to play at a pace that is comfortable for us, but seldom do we find the sweet spot where we are all happy with the folks in front of us and those behind.  How many times have we left faster players go through only to then watch them slow down to their comfort level and hold us up (ok, maybe like on the highway, we tend to speed up and dog them a bit).

In this regard, private clubs with management which knows the players can have a positive impact by massaging the tee sheet and ensuring that fast groups are at the front end and slower ones bring up the rear end when play is lighter.   A good pro or GM can further improve the pace of play by educating the membership and dealing with those who prefer or require more time to play their golf.   

Lou, I dont know what the Buda Cup is, but genuinely enjoyed looking at the recent pics just posted. I would love to play those courses and have never been to Cornwall.

But, I did happen to see a shot of Pennanporth's score card where, printed clearly in all cap letters, it says,

"PLEASE AVOID SLOW PLAY AT ALL TIMES"

Love it.

Sure, it's relative, but I imagine they are thinking more of 3:00 - 3:30 for a 4-ball....tops.
4:45 at John Kav's course...?....

[Paul Gray]

Dear John et al,

This must be the fifth or sixth time I have copied and pasted this very statement on to this website. It's a very long way of simply telling you to be considerate to others. I would have thought the libertarian leaning on this site would have embraced it with open arms but I guess that only applies when self serving is the aim of the game. Anyway,

It is a group’s responsibility to keep up with the group in front. If it loses a clear hole and it is delaying the group behind, it should invite the group behind to play through, irrespective of the number of players in that group. Where a group has not lost a clear hole, but it is apparent that the group behind can play faster, it should invite the faster moving group to play through......

.......In the case of a serious breach of etiquette, the Committee may disqualify a player under Rule 33-7.

[Jon Wiggett]

Dear John et al,

This must be the fifth or sixth time I have copied and pasted this very statement on to this website. It's a very long way of simply telling you to be considerate to others. I would have thought the libertarian leaning on this site would have embraced it with open arms but I guess that only applies when self serving is the aim of the game. Anyway,

It is a group’s responsibility to keep up with the group in front. If it loses a clear hole and it is delaying the group behind, it should invite the group behind to play through, irrespective of the number of players in that group. Where a group has not lost a clear hole, but it is apparent that the group behind can play faster, it should invite the faster moving group to play through......

.......In the case of a serious breach of etiquette, the Committee may disqualify a player under Rule 33-7.

Paul,

I would have thought anybody with any sense of golfing etiquette would know this instinctively. Players who think 4.45 is acceptable pace of play really should be shown how to play like a golfer.

Jon

[John Kavanaugh]

So after I have waited 13 holes on the foresome in front of my foresome I am obligated by rule to let a twosome through on the 15th tee. That is not a practical matter as I will now let a twosome through on every remaining hole of the day. As a matter of fact I may never tee of the 15th at all.

You guys are killing the game with this crap.

Much like this idiotic rule was made by private course playing officials, it was my club, not me, that established tbe 4:45 max time. Sorry, it's 4:40 which is 15 min per hole.

[jeffwarne]

of course there is some middle ground here as Sean suggests.

So Paul, surely if there are 8 foursomes in a row playing at a 4 hour pace they shouldn't allow a twosome, followed inevitably by another twosome,and another eventually as all this takes time, to play through all 8 groups-disrupting the flow of the entire course.....

a management issue no doubt

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,

This little part of the rule was conveniently left out: "Players should play at a good pace. The Committee may establish pace of play guidelines that all players should follow." Note that it says all players which would include those wishing to play at 3 hours to everyone else's demise. There are speed limits after all.

[John Connolly]

Dear John et al,

Where a group has not lost a clear hole, but it is apparent that the group behind can play faster, it should invite the faster moving group to play through......

.......In the case of a serious breach of etiquette, the Committee may disqualify a player under Rule 33-7.

Paul,

You have misinterpreted the rule. You stated in your prior post that "even if you are waiting on the group in front it is your honourable obligation to invite the following group through." That is, of course, not the same the situation as "where a group has not lost a clear hole" which implies the "slow" group is losing ground although still in view of the fore group. Stopped and waiting is not the same as slowing. A waiting group is not required to call up another from behind. That would be obtuse. It only requires faster groups to be allowed to play through and I've never played with anyone who wouldn't do as much. We golfers are, if nothing else, civil, courteous and logical gentlemen.

[Jon Wiggett]

of course there is some middle ground here as Sean suggests.

So Paul, surely if there are 8 foursomes in a row playing at a 4 hour pace they shouldn't allow a twosome, followed inevitably by another twosome,and another eventually as all this takes time, to play through all 8 groups-disrupting the flow of the entire course.....

a management issue no doubt

Jeff,

yes the twosome should be allowed to play through all 8 if possible.

John K,

maybe you should ask to play through if the group in front are too ignorant to ask you to. Should you not wish to play through then clearly you should give a quicker group behind the option of playing through. Having said that as the only person I have ever heard pushing the line that 'fast play is killing the game' I doubt you would .

Jon

[jeffwarne]

of course there is some middle ground here as Sean suggests.

So Paul, surely if there are 8 foursomes in a row playing at a 4 hour pace they shouldn't allow a twosome, followed inevitably by another twosome,and another eventually as all this takes time, to play through all 8 groups-disrupting the flow of the entire course.....

a management issue no doubt

Jeff,

yes the twosome should be allowed to play through all 8 if possible.

Jon,
We'll have to disagree on that one.
On an already busy course full of foursomes all playing at an appropriate pace, a twosome should either.
1.Go around if there's an open spot i.e the back nine
2.Find a friend or two-especially if there is more than one twosome about
3. Play at foursome pace
4.not be allowed out if can't follow the above

I'm all for twosomes at an appropriate time, but on a full golf course they are an inefficient use of space, and can be incredibly disruptive to pace of play for the entire course.Don't even get me started on singles on a busy day.
two two balls playing through 8 foursomes can add 30-40 minutes to everybody's round, and makes the 8 groups succeptible to more groups coming up from behind and having to wait while the parade is disrupted for 2 who can't find friends or plan appropriately.
remember if the two ball takes 5 minutes to play through each group, the entire train is slowed.

Of course a fourball or two, or even three can allow a two ball through, but on a full course it's pointless.
Again, a management issue

[BCowan]

of course there is some middle ground here as Sean suggests.

So Paul, surely if there are 8 foursomes in a row playing at a 4 hour pace they shouldn't allow a twosome, followed inevitably by another twosome,and another eventually as all this takes time, to play through all 8 groups-disrupting the flow of the entire course.....

a management issue no doubt

Jeff,

yes the twosome should be allowed to play through all 8 if possible.

Jon,
We'll have to disagree on that one.
On an already busy course full of foursomes all playing at an appropriate pace, a twosome should either.
1.Go around if there's an open spot i.e the back nine
2.Find a friend or two-especially if there is more than one twosome about
3. Play at foursome pace
4.not be allowed out if can't follow the above

I'm all for twosomes at an appropriate time, but on a full golf course they are an inefficient use of space, and can be incredibly disruptive to pace of play for the entire course.Don't even get me started on singles on a busy day.
two two balls playing through 8 foursomes can add 30-40 minutes to everybody's round, and makes the 8 groups succeptible to more groups coming up from behind and having to wait while the parade is disrupted for 2 who can't find friends or plan appropriately.
remember if the two ball takes 5 minutes to play through each group, the entire train is slowed.

Of course a fourball or two, or even three can allow a two ball through, but on a full course it's pointless.
Again, a management issue

+1, common sense. 

[John Connolly]

+1 Bingo - sanity

[Jon Wiggett]

of course there is some middle ground here as Sean suggests.

So Paul, surely if there are 8 foursomes in a row playing at a 4 hour pace they shouldn't allow a twosome, followed inevitably by another twosome,and another eventually as all this takes time, to play through all 8 groups-disrupting the flow of the entire course.....

a management issue no doubt

Jeff,

yes the twosome should be allowed to play through all 8 if possible.

Jon,
We'll have to disagree on that one.
On an already busy course full of foursomes all playing at an appropriate pace, a twosome should either.
1.Go around if there's an open spot i.e the back nine
2.Find a friend or two-especially if there is more than one twosome about
3. Play at foursome pace
4.not be allowed out if can't follow the above

I'm all for twosomes at an appropriate time, but on a full golf course they are an inefficient use of space, and can be incredibly disruptive to pace of play for the entire course.Don't even get me started on singles on a busy day.
two two balls playing through 8 foursomes can add 30-40 minutes to everybody's round, and makes the 8 groups succeptible to more groups coming up from behind and having to wait while the parade is disrupted for 2 who can't find friends or plan appropriately.
remember if the two ball takes 5 minutes to play through each group, the entire train is slowed.

Of course a fourball or two, or even three can allow a two ball through, but on a full course it's pointless.
Again, a management issue

Jeff,

I do not call 8 groups on a course a full course nor do I call 4 hours a decent pace of play. It also should only take a minute or two at the most for a 2 ball to play through if going at a decent speed (i.e. 3 hours max)

I do agree if the course is busy then 2 balls should be made up with other 2 balls and singles but this generally happens. You may be happy to wait behind that slow group which takes 1 hour longer to get round than you do normally though I would be surprised if the 5 hours it took you would be really enjoyable every game.

JohnC and Ben are 5+ hour plus rounds really acceptable. I just think it is common courtesy to let a faster group through if there is the chance and they wish to.

Jon

[John Connolly]

JohnC and Ben are 5+ hour plus rounds really acceptable. I just think it is common courtesy to let a faster group through if there is the chance and they wish to.

Jon

No they are not acceptable at most courses - exceptions being places like Erin Hills, etc. And without question faster groups should be allowed to pass through. Keep it moving for sure. My only point is that when it's log jammed, letting "faster/smaller" groups through is not going to help anything and is probably counterproductive. If I can't keep up with the group in front, and some group behind me is faster, they are being waved through 100% of the time.

[Ian Mackenzie]

JohnC and Ben are 5+ hour plus rounds really acceptable. I just think it is common courtesy to let a faster group through if there is the chance and they wish to.

Jon

No they are not acceptable at most courses - exceptions being places like Erin Hills, etc. And without question faster groups should be allowed to pass through. Keep it moving for sure. My only point is that when it's log jammed, letting "faster/smaller" groups through is not going to help anything and is probably counterproductive. If I can't keep up with the group in front, and some group behind me is faster, they are being waved through 100% of the time.

I agree 100%.
When the entire course is filled with 4-balls that believe playing in 4:45 is acceptable, then you must resign yourself and conform or just not play. On crowded days, singles and 2-balls should join up so as not to disrupt those who believe that the pace at which they play should dictate the place of ALL players behind them...;-)

For me, it's very simple. I prefer to NOT play than to play on a full, slow course. I play at 6:45 am when the course is light and the weather is great. It would be foolish to think that my speedy 4-ball of efficient players can go out on a Sunday at 1:30 and expect the Red Sea to part in front of us.

But, if the course is relatively clear, and you are slow, then please...Make Way.

[Paul Gray]

Firstly, I haven't misunderstood anything. I have copied and pasted EXACTLY what it says in the rule book. You want a fight about it, take it up with the USGA and/or R&A or, as apparently people are reluctant to do, accept that you are flaunting the prescribed behaviour as given to you by the governing bodies of the game you love. We can all disagree with all sorts of bits and pieces in the rule book. That doesn't mean we disregard them.

If it's still confusing to anyone, let's break it down a little more: if there's some space in front of you and the group behind catches you up, have the manners to get out of their way. As Jon W so rightly pointed out, it shouldn't need to be written down for you. Clearly, contrary to what John K has written, the moment the faster group has gone through, you are free to play, given that space will not have already developed and you will not therefore be required to move again, although obviously you will before long if you are slower than the next group. 

As I understand it, Jon W and I both grew up playing the game in a certain way at a certain type of golf course in a certain country. And I can tell anyone from further shores that the same system we grew up playing under is the one which has been proven, time and time again, to allow groups to comfortably, without rushing, play 18 holes in 3 hours. It's a system which John K laughably infers is in some way a new stain on the game. Reality is that it's a system which goes back to the early days of golf when it was bloody obvious to anyone with a brain that you simply didn't deter other chaps from getting on with their own games. Of course, the game has long been plagued by the righteous self-centred; those whose insular perceptions of the world have flatly prevented them from recognising just how ill mannered their actions actually are. Nonetheless, a procession of ignorance doesn't, by default, dictate an acceptable or workable pattern of behaviour. 

Think of a motorway. Does it work better when people decide to park in the middle lane at 60mph or when they are obliged to follow the correct overtaking policy?

[John Connolly]

Paul,

I suspect people on this thread are more in line on the topic than you might imagine. Well, most people anyway. I certainly don't want to "fight" about it - curious word usage there. But I certainly enjoy a robust discussion and I'm all for that.

And as you are certain you haven't "misunderstood" anything, I am just as assured that I'm not confused, although I appreciate your concern. Yes, you have diligently copy and pasted EXACTLY what is in the rule book but you have not clarified your equating waiting with slowing. It's not the rules I'm befuddled by - it's your interpretation. Your "EXACTLY reproduced rules" never discuss what a group waiting on a group in front of them is to do, a small point that seems to escape your reasoning. But frankly, that's really just a small component of the larger issue of whether it is proper and customary to let faster players play through. And on that point, we are all (well almost all) aligned. And as for using traffic as an example, I couldn't agree more. If I'm driving at 60 and you're driving at 80, I'm moving over and you're overtaking me, no question. But, if I'm stopped in traffic because the car in front of me is stopped, why on Zeus' green earth would I offer up a position in front of me?

[Sean_A]

If the following group are moving more quickly than you, even when you are waiting on the group in front, it is your honourable obligation to invite the following group through. It's all there in the little book, not that anyone should need to be told.

Paul

Where is this wee quip in the little book?  Thus far, the quotes from the little book you have offered don't back up your quote above.  Though I do notice you changed your tune a bit yesterday with the all important if there's some space in front of you  I think we are on the same page except I would say some space needs to be clarified.  A group should always be at least a half hole behind or...they would be plating with the group in front - no 

And...how exactly does the group behind move more quickly than the group in front?  What, do they temporarily pass then fall back again   

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()