[Garland Bayley]

...
As to the contention that some ladies could play longer courses just as fast, well, statistically there are a few,  but not as many as you would think.  And some of it is pure distance math - 40 shots averaging 110 yards (140 tee shot, shorter approach) on a 4400 yard course has to take less (at about 3 min per shot average) than 50 shots on a 5500 yard forward tee course.

How the $@^%# do you take 3 min per shot. Don't they die of boredom first? Or, are you talking about the time to travel to the ball too? In that case your math is just as flawed as Sean's. Someone should tell ladies taking 3 min per shot that they are aging while they dawdle. That ought to speed them up.

Hitting golf shots is fun. Thinking you play like pro is delusional.

[Carl Johnson]

My two cents.  As a higher handicap senior, I don't think a shorter course will save a lot of time.  As do many others, I see that as a separate issue.  What it will do - shorter tees - is make the game a lot more enjoyable.  I routinely play from about 5,800 on our par 71 course, while my younger single digit four-ball competitors play from 6,400 or 6,700.  We make all appropriate handicap adjustments.  Moreover, more and more the youngsters say they are enjoying the game better from the 6,400 tees.  Normally, I'm still not hitting the same club to the green that they do, but I'm able to hit five to nine irons on most of them.  Another thing.  Don't ever use red tee markers, and don't assign any names to the tees (e.g., "men's," "seniors," "ball busters" or whatever.

[Ben Voelker]

Its hard for golfers in a group to split tees, which causes lots of the problem from what I've seen.  If 4 guys go out together, all as beginners, they don't seem to worry too much about playing up.  But, I have been paired up with lots of golfers over the years playing as a single and guys will rarely move up individually if the other members of the group are playing a different set of tees.  I've even paired up with guys midround who will move back a tee once we start playing together.

I went out with my brother the other day, who is an absolute beginner (say handicap 50 or more), and when I suggested I play the 6600 tees and he play up, he just said he'd play with me.  Why the hell should a beginner play the same tees as a 12 handicap?  We got through 6 holes and were going so slow that I just moved up to the next available tee set (5700) to keep us moving.  The course was empty, but it was frustrating to take so damn long to play, and he really should have been playing as far forward as they allow.

I like when courses have a handicap recommendation associated with each tee for men and women.  Its not perfect, but it would hopefully stop some of the stupid tee choices.

[Ken Moum]

Ken,

I don't understand what your post is supposed to mean with respect to mine. My point was that CBM felt if the dub couldn't reach in regulation, so be it. Who cares how many strokes they take as long as they do it in a timely fashion.

My point was that when you said CBM didn't care what club people hit into greens,  you seemed to be overlooking the fact that 100 years ago even the dub could scoot a ball up onto a green from a LONG ways out.

As Alice Dye has so wisely pointed out, today's golfers in many cases are actually hitting it shorter than they did 50 years ago.  If, like most female amateurs, you are challenged to get a shot in the air, then soft, closely-mown fairways are your mortal enemy.

CBM, perhaps more than his contemporaries, might well have been building courses for the crack player, but dubs weren't being asked to hit the kind of shots they are today.

IMHO, that's why so many of us find such joy in playing links courses. Several times a year, I tell people the story of my wife playing the par five seventh Royal Dornoch.  She was about 225 yard out  and hit a driver off the deck.  It flew about 125-150 yards and ran up onto the green for a 25-foot eagle try.

She turned to me and said, "I LOVE a fast golf course."

There isn't a single hole I've played on an American-style course where that's possible.

And that is what I meant about CBM not designing courses where golf balls don't--or can't--roll up onto a green.  When you have courses that do allow a ball to run, the club a player is hitting into a green makes much, much less difference. When my home course is as fast and firm as Ross would have probably intended, I can compete with guys who are 50 yards longer than me.

When it's soft, like it usually is, I need to move up about 400 yards to have a chance.

K

[Jason Baran]

Did you all see the very interesting article in this month's Golf Digest about 15-inch cups at Pine Needles?  Brings up some very salient and interesting points about speed of play, relative differences between lower and higher handicap players, tee-to-green strategy, etc.  Some of these are similar points in this thread.

Jason

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

The basic math is:

Average Score: 90
Average Time to Play: 4.5 hours, or 270 minutes
Average Time Per Shot: 3 Min.

Granted, some of that is travel time between shots, and the total distance of the course must be traversed, so maybe each shot is only a minute and a half.  Or, maybe half a minute, a minute of travel, and a minute and a half waiting for the others behind you to hit.

Even so, eliminating distance reduces travel time somewhat and reduces the total number of shots hit.  As mentioned, more fun to hit less shots, and more fun to be approaching greens with mid irons.  Also, more fun for golfers behind any group playing faster because of a shorter course.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

The basic math is:

Average Score: 90
Average Time to Play: 4.5 hours, or 270 minutes
Average Time Per Shot: 3 Min.

Granted, some of that is travel time between shots, and the total distance of the course must be traversed, so maybe each shot is only a minute and a half.  Or, maybe half a minute, a minute of travel, and a minute and a half waiting for the others behind you to hit.

Even so, eliminating distance reduces travel time somewhat and reduces the total number of shots hit.  As mentioned, more fun to hit less shots, and more fun to be approaching greens with mid irons.  Also, more fun for golfers behind any group playing faster because of a shorter course.

This is the same "math" that Sean put forward that was debunked. I can easily walk a mile in 20 minutes. For a course that is 600 yards shorter, playing time is reduced by at most 7 minutes. That is real math.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

Every shot is different, and may include "army golf" waiting for another in your way, walking back into play, searching for lost balls, etc.  If you take straight line walking, sure.  If you take golfwalking (or riding) into account, every shot brings in the possibility of other things besides walking.  Eliminate 10 shots per round on pure distance, and the real shortening of the round has to be at least 20 minutes, if not the full 30.  On average of course.  Each round may vary.

[Matthew Rose]

My brother is a +2 and has the game to play all the way back if he wants to. Sometimes he does.

But sometimes he likes to move up a set, or even two. "Let's make some birdies" he says. If we are playing socially with good friends or relatives we don't see often, we like to move up a set. Everyone has more fun when they make birdies.

If you tend to play the same course all the time, moving up a set brings in some variety. You might get approaches you don't usually get. Some holes become driveable. Some par-fives become reachable.

There's a time and a place where we like to play all the way back, and then there are times and places where we like to move up. It keeps the game fresh, it keeps it interesting, and if we all find ourselves in a slump, sometimes moving up a set and shooting a good score gets our confidence back.

It makes the game more fun. Isn't that the point?

[Matthew Petersen]

if I'm playing by myself, I usually prefer to play all the way back, but I can carry the ball pretty far and at most courses my 1 HCP means I'm not embarrassing myself.

But if I'm playing with friends who aren't good players or even if I'm grouped with some people I don't know, I'd much rather me move up than have them move back. Is there anything fun about watching a poor golfer try to take on a shot he has no real chance at accomplishing? But I can play up and still have a good time, see some different angles, etc.

Back in high school, our coach would occasionally send us out for a practice round playing from the forward tees. That our scores were very often not any better than if we were playing the tips made a big impression about where you really spend your strokes on a golf course, and how much time you should devote to practicing driver on the range.

[Sean_A]

Garland,

The basic math is:

Average Score: 90
Average Time to Play: 4.5 hours, or 270 minutes
Average Time Per Shot: 3 Min.

Granted, some of that is travel time between shots, and the total distance of the course must be traversed, so maybe each shot is only a minute and a half.  Or, maybe half a minute, a minute of travel, and a minute and a half waiting for the others behind you to hit.

Even so, eliminating distance reduces travel time somewhat and reduces the total number of shots hit.  As mentioned, more fun to hit less shots, and more fun to be approaching greens with mid irons.  Also, more fun for golfers behind any group playing faster because of a shorter course.

This is the same "math" that Sean put forward that was debunked. I can easily walk a mile in 20 minutes. For a course that is 600 yards shorter, playing time is reduced by at most 7 minutes. That is real math.

Garland

You didn't debunk anything.  You agreed, just not all the way with me because you don't know any better.  Just take it that I do.  Knock off 800 yards with a 4ball and thats half an hour saved assuming you are talking like for like.  Thats about 1 minute per 100 yards each.  Trust me, the math works, but it needs experience to bear it out.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Every shot is different, and may include "army golf" waiting for another in your way, walking back into play, searching for lost balls, etc.  If you take straight line walking, sure.  If you take golfwalking (or riding) into account, every shot brings in the possibility of other things besides walking.  Eliminate 10 shots per round on pure distance, and the real shortening of the round has to be at least 20 minutes, if not the full 30.  On average of course.  Each round may vary.

So your player takes 10 extra swings at two minutes per swing. No one wants to play with this player. To be that slow is as rude as you can get. He is not taking any longer, because he has to walk further. Someone that can cut 10 swings by playing 600 yards shorter is not hitting it far enough to be significantly offline. If the GCA has created a course that results in the "searching for lost balls" then I don't blame the player, I blame the GCA. Most of the ODGs I read are adamant about preventing the need to search for lost balls.

Here's the deal. A foursome of dew sweepers can walk and play the modern championship course in 2.5 hours. You put forth the 4.5 hour round as your standard. The extra two hours is playing the shots, because the walking is no part of it. You are trying to include 2 full hours of dawdling into your calculations of time saved by playing shorter tees. The fact of the matter is that there is no single type of player that you can pin this slow play characteristic on. Horrible golfers can play fast. Great players can play extremely slow. And vice versa.

What it comes down to is whether you want to make yourself feel better by shooting a lower score. Or, you just enjoy being out hitting golf shots no matter the score. If the high handicapper is playing the back tees and having fun, as long as he plays as fast or faster than the other players on the course, no one should criticize him. Certainly not the slow playing low handicapper that spends ages hitting a putt that many high handicappers could walk right up to and hit better. Those slow handicappers are delusional.

As the King, Arnold says, "If you are the slowest player in your group, you play too slow."

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

The basic math is:

Average Score: 90
Average Time to Play: 4.5 hours, or 270 minutes
Average Time Per Shot: 3 Min.

Granted, some of that is travel time between shots, and the total distance of the course must be traversed, so maybe each shot is only a minute and a half.  Or, maybe half a minute, a minute of travel, and a minute and a half waiting for the others behind you to hit.

Even so, eliminating distance reduces travel time somewhat and reduces the total number of shots hit.  As mentioned, more fun to hit less shots, and more fun to be approaching greens with mid irons.  Also, more fun for golfers behind any group playing faster because of a shorter course.

This is the same "math" that Sean put forward that was debunked. I can easily walk a mile in 20 minutes. For a course that is 600 yards shorter, playing time is reduced by at most 7 minutes. That is real math.

Garland

You didn't debunk anything.  You agreed, just not all the way with me because you don't know any better.  Just take it that I do.  Knock off 800 yards with a 4ball and thats half an hour saved assuming you are talking like for like.  Thats about 1 minute per 100 yards each.  Trust me, the math works, but it needs experience to bear it out.

Ciao

So if I move from the 7200 yard championship tees to the 4000 yard forward tees that's four hours, and I finish before I start my typical 3.5 hour round? WOW! Gotta tell Einstein about Sean's time machine. I bet he didn't take up golf cause he didn't invent time travel.

[Sean_A]

"So if I move from the 7200 yard championship tees to the 4000 yard forward tees that's four hours, and I finish before I start my typical 3.5 hour round? WOW! Gotta tell Einstein about Sean's time machine. I bet he didn't take up golf cause he didn't invent time travel."

Garland

Obtuseness is not a flattering trait, but you wear it like a badge.  Some day the penny will drop.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Apparently if the entire course consisted of a single 5 foot putt it would still take 2 1/2 hours to play....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

Some people would!

Garland,

I agree you are being obtuse and obstructive.  Why don't you go chime in on the Merion thread with your "logical analysis" which really isn't so logical at all.

One thing I didn't mention is that the time savings isn't just for one golfer, but four, if all are similarly skilled.

You say no one wants to play with the typical player, and yet in every round of golf I have ever played, it seems as if there is a foursome of typical golfers right ahead of me, so someone must be playing with them!  They are out there, and while I recently finished 18 holes in 2:10 myself, your experience, my experience, aren't germain.  The average time to play a round will prevail at some point as all/most the factors that contribute to time/pace of play will be present.

It is hard to imagine any sane person arguing that you wouldn't play faster generally on a shorter course over a longer one.  It just happens, although we agree that for any individual player, some crazy stuff happens that could skew the averages.


Pace of play experts will also tell you that distance between tees and greens has a huge effect on time of play.  That of course, is pure walking, with no shots to be considered, unless you consider whacking your putter against a tree after a three putt to be a shot.   So, walking shorter distances does shorten the round.  Reducing total shots shortens the round.  Reducing the waiting for your partners to play that is associated with not playing more shots is reduced.  Etc.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I agree you are being obtuse and obstructive.  Why don't you go chime in on the Merion thread with your "logical analysis" which really isn't so logical at all.

I chose not to put the on the last post. I was hoping it was so outlandish as to be recognized as an attempt at humor. Dan Kelly has failed me again. Or, I have failed at being as good a writer as Dan Kelly again.

I have stayed off the Merion threads, because every logical statement is met with rudeness and borish behavior.


One thing I didn't mention is that the time savings isn't just for one golfer, but four, if all are similarly skilled.

One thing I didn't mention is that golfers walk in parallel. There is no added savings for each additional golfer walking the shortened distance.

You say no one wants to play with the typical player,

I believe you did not understand what I wrote (as I you). I explicitly wrote two minutes per swing, because I apparently misunderstood you to be saying that 10 shots saved saves 20 minutes, or 2 minutes per shot without moving anywhere. I.e., just 2 minutes to make one swing of a club.

and yet in every round of golf I have ever played, it seems as if there is a foursome of typical golfers right ahead of me, so someone must be playing with them!  They are out there, and while I recently finished 18 holes in 2:10 myself, your experience, my experience, aren't germain.  The average time to play a round will prevail at some point as all/most the factors that contribute to time/pace of play will be present.

Chalk this bit up to the misunderstanding.

It is hard to imagine any sane person arguing that you wouldn't play faster generally on a shorter course over a longer one.  It just happens, although we agree that for any individual player, some crazy stuff happens that could skew the averages.

I have never maintained you can't play a shorter course faster than a longer one. The disagreement is over how much time saved playing the shorter course. I maintain most of the time is taken by personal habits that have nothing to do with distance. I also maintain crazy stuff happens on shorter distances in direct proportion to distance to the crazy stuff happening on longer distances on average.

Pace of play experts will also tell you that distance between tees and greens has a huge effect on time of play.  That of course, is pure walking, with no shots to be considered, unless you consider whacking your putter against a tree after a three putt to be a shot.  So, walking shorter distances does shorten the round.  Reducing total shots shortens the round.  Reducing the waiting for your partners to play that is associated with not playing more shots is reduced.  Etc.

The only thing we disagree about on that paragraph is the word huge. In Sean's example, he gave a 30 minute speed up. I consider that huge. I showed the walking was at most 7 minutes (when in reality it is really 0 minutes on the vast majority of courses where you have to walk past the back tees to get to the tees you will play), and allowed and additional 8 minutes on average for the other factors you list to estimate a not so huge speed up of 15 minutes.

EDIT: Playing extra shots causing rounds to last significantly longer is due to personal playing habits. When playing at my fastest, I take less than 10 seconds per swing. If I personally took all 10 extra shots, that would add less than two minutes to the round. If I played in a foursome with 4 quick players, and they all took 10 extra shots, that would be less than the 8 minutes I allowed in allowing 15 minutes extra for playing the longer distance over the shorter distance. Therefore, my conclusion is that it is personal playing habits that add time significant time to a round from a longer distance, not golfing skill. My wife has played one 9 hole round with me taking over 100 strokes. All she did is walk up the the ball and swing, walk up to the ball and swing, never putting the club back in the bag on the pull cart. Although you may not consider it a valid comparison, we played faster than the four balls on the course at the same time. However, I do think it is demonstrative of my point.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

Yes, Dan is a pioneer in the use of no smileys......

I agree that it is difficult to quantify exact time savings of any particular design change. Besides total length, I would love some college students to measure the effects of wider fw, flatter greens (or not) etc.

For that matter, depending on the routing, I guess you could say that the walking is the same, if just adding forward tees to an existing course.  The walk just is further between holes and lesser during play.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()