News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Max Prokopy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« on: April 22, 2023, 04:17:41 PM »

IF (a big if) the Tour were to ever enforce a shot clock, I am undecided on whether or not scoring would go lower or suffer a bit.  I know in some cases the player who walks 50 yards to the green and back to see the contours is probably in a better position.  There also might be other instances when just having to pick a club and commit would probably help scoring.  Overall I figure scoring might be a touch worse, but not nearly as much as to make players and the game suffer. 


Thoughts?


V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2023, 05:09:11 PM »

IF (a big if) the Tour were to ever enforce a shot clock, I am undecided on whether or not scoring would go lower or suffer a bit.  I know in some cases the player who walks 50 yards to the green and back to see the contours is probably in a better position.  There also might be other instances when just having to pick a club and commit would probably help scoring.  Overall I figure scoring might be a touch worse, but not nearly as much as to make players and the game suffer. 

Thoughts?


But if scoring is worse (higher), doesn't that necessarily give back gains on the shot clock in the first place?...more shots necessarily takes more time, doesn't it?  And on TV, what would be the difference of "seeing the tap-in" as opposed to full shot action on another hole?


No matter which way it might change; would lower scoring make the game prosper. or would higher scoring make "the game" suffer...?  What's the point? This is the frustration of these ubiquitous slow play threads, when they are directed at TV golf:


1. The product is fine and despite LIV vomitus, is thriving and prospering for players, Tour and TV rates alike.


2. The coverage both tech and delivery methods have never been better, more angles, explanations, interviews, shot tracers, predicted line of putt, shot-link metrics, slo-mo swing analysis, caddie-player consults, rules analysis, charity tie-ins, inclusive opportunities and coverage...If you're not liking any or all of this, why are you watching golf on TV...just check out tomorrow's paper if you want the scores and the winner....and you can find the content just about anywhere, on any platform, packaged and tailored the way you want it....feature groups, select hole stretch coverage, video replays of action you might have missed on the player's scorecard....and every round now too, not just weekend leaders...


3. The last thing we need for golf and TV golf is more rules and penalties and petulant procedures, and tortured nomenclature and more things decided in a corporate suite or conference center boardroom or in a television production truck.
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Ian Mackenzie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2023, 06:15:15 PM »

IF (a big if) the Tour were to ever enforce a shot clock, I am undecided on whether or not scoring would go lower or suffer a bit.  I know in some cases the player who walks 50 yards to the green and back to see the contours is probably in a better position.  There also might be other instances when just having to pick a club and commit would probably help scoring.  Overall I figure scoring might be a touch worse, but not nearly as much as to make players and the game suffer. 


Thoughts?


Shot clock will speed play and I dont think scores will suffer.
There will be more "see ball, hit ball" out there.


And when the pros whine about it all, throw them a bone and legalize range finders. LIV guys have them.




Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2023, 08:00:00 PM »

IF (a big if) the Tour were to ever enforce a shot clock, I am undecided on whether or not scoring would go lower or suffer a bit.  I know in some cases the player who walks 50 yards to the green and back to see the contours is probably in a better position.  There also might be other instances when just having to pick a club and commit would probably help scoring.  Overall I figure scoring might be a touch worse, but not nearly as much as to make players and the game suffer. 


Thoughts?
And when the pros whine about it all, throw them a bone and legalize range finders. LIV guys have them.


Because the “LIV guys have them” is the logic behind letting PGA Tour players use rangefinders? Why not allow a modicum of human error to remain in the calculation?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2023, 03:48:48 AM by Tim Martin »

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2023, 07:11:23 AM »
Snails might suffer.
The rest might play better.
At the moment they are all forced to be snails.


Let's let the snails be uncomfortable for a change.....



"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Ian Mackenzie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2023, 09:56:03 AM »

IF (a big if) the Tour were to ever enforce a shot clock, I am undecided on whether or not scoring would go lower or suffer a bit.  I know in some cases the player who walks 50 yards to the green and back to see the contours is probably in a better position.  There also might be other instances when just having to pick a club and commit would probably help scoring.  Overall I figure scoring might be a touch worse, but not nearly as much as to make players and the game suffer. 


Thoughts?
And when the pros whine about it all, throw them a bone and legalize range finders. LIV guys have them.


Because the “LIV guys have them” is the logic behind letting PGA Tour players use rangefinders? Why not allow a modicum of human error to remain in the calculation?


Because I could swear this thread is about slow play and shot clocks?
If you want more "human error", then remove yardage plates.


If you have yardage plates to middle of green and you have accurate daily pin sheets, then calculating yardage to flag is just a math problem that takes more time to solve vs just having a range finder.


Getting exact yardage is not an issue.
Give the players the tools they need to get that task done faster.


Then the shot clock may be received by some.

Stewart Abramson

  • Karma: +0/-0

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2023, 12:16:55 PM »
My response would be does it matter?

In nearly every other sport players must perform against the clock, if golfers can't adjust to that and still compete at the highest levels I see zero issue with that.


P.S.  Rules in every sport serve purposes like handling like situations the same, defining basic constructs, determining how a team wins, etc.  And a large component of it is implementing rules to encourage or discourage behavior. 

In the NBA the hand checking stifled offensive creativity, so they did away with it.
In the NFL clothesline and horse collar tackles created brutal injuries so they banned it
And in Baseball slow fidgety play made baseball an unwatchable slog...
Will golf get on board? 
« Last Edit: April 23, 2023, 12:24:34 PM by Kalen Braley »

Max Prokopy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2023, 02:33:21 PM »
My response would be does it matter?

 


I think players and media, who ultimately make important decisions, think it could matter.  Many fans like birdies, home runs, and touchdowns.  In golf we have 1-2 events per year where scoring is notoriously tough but the rest of the time I'd say there's a correlation between enthusiasm and low scoring. 


I personally don't feel that way, likely many on GCA wouldn't either, but we're not exactly being catered to in the Tour broadcasts or corporate tents.

Mike Wagner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2023, 02:45:05 PM »

IF (a big if) the Tour were to ever enforce a shot clock, I am undecided on whether or not scoring would go lower or suffer a bit.  I know in some cases the player who walks 50 yards to the green and back to see the contours is probably in a better position.  There also might be other instances when just having to pick a club and commit would probably help scoring.  Overall I figure scoring might be a touch worse, but not nearly as much as to make players and the game suffer. 


Thoughts?


It would most likely improve .. more over time. It would improve in amateur events even more.


The benefit to the game would be immeasurable.

Bill Shamleffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2023, 02:48:35 PM »
They had a Shot Clock tournament on European Tour in 2018, that went well with minimal impact on scoring.


https://golf.com/news/european-tours-shot-clock-masters-debuts-to-rave-reviews/

During the first round, average round time dropped significantly from the tour’s average: from 4 hours 47 minutes to a brisker 4:13 pace. Interestingly, scores dropped, too. Last year’s first round saw an average score of 72.96, which fell to 72.36 in this year’s opener. Five threesomes played Thursday’s round in under four hours, including the group featuring Peter Hanson.
“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.”  Damon Runyon

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2023, 05:10:43 PM »
Snails might suffer.
The rest might play better.
At the moment they are all forced to be snails.


Let's let the snails be uncomfortable for a change.....


Indeed.



"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2023, 06:18:07 PM »
I support the clock, but give the first player to hit a little more time than those that follow.
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2023, 10:02:15 AM »
You would think that the players would self police the issue. Make the slow guys feel uncomfortable. Get in their face a little. Only way things will change.


How can two guys play in 5 hours? Almost seems impossible to me.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2023, 10:16:23 AM »
You would think that the players would self police the issue. Make the slow guys feel uncomfortable. Get in their face a little. Only way things will change.


How can two guys play in 5 hours? Almost seems impossible to me.


Competitive golf is hard.
Confronting others when trying to compete at the highest level would be a game wrecking distraction for most.
Heck, half the people on this board are defending slow play (on tour/TV) so it would be an uphill battle while IN battle, especially is they aren't violating any current pace of play rules.(which are pretty hard to actually break enough to be penalized)


Handling pace, and "out of position" also requires real experience and judgement-for example, I arrived at the second tee yesterday in an event to three groups on the tee(driveable par 4-I laid up to shorten the wait :) ) then we spent the rest of the next 4 holes trying to catch up, only to wait 10 minutes on the 6th tee, a long par 3.(so the minute we hit our tee shot on #2, we were "behind pace" and (almost) out of position.
The waits on those two tees is time we will never get back, yet goes into the total time, so total time can be tricky too, and that can be compounded by a player who used his full allotment of time EVERY shot, walks slow and/or is playing poorly(more shots, lost balls/rulings)
Then all of a sudden you're running to catch up, and he............isn't, but is merely playing in the prescribed time.
Sure that puts your group on the clock if you're behind time AND out of position, but frankly doesn't really help a whole lot as some players simply play worse on the clock, and play even worse, which takes more time, even if adhering to times.


As it turns out, we never waited again as the early delays really spread the groups out, and with three fast players(minimal processes) in our group and the group ahead moving nicely, we were able to make up the time lost on those two holes very comfortably and finish ahead of time pace, as did the rest of the field(which to be fair was only 60 players or so off one tee).
« Last Edit: April 25, 2023, 10:45:31 AM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Ian Mackenzie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2023, 11:58:39 AM »
Imagine if there are players in the NBA who could incrtease their free throw percentages if they had 60+ seconds to execute each foul shot?


Imagine if, during an NHL shoot-out, a player took 60+ seconds to put his shot on net.


Imagine if a tennis player took 60 seconds between serves.


Imagine if an MLB pitcher took 60+ seconds for each pitch.




These things DO NOT happen because executing in a defined time period is PART of the sport and players have adapted to adhere to simple rules.


Slow play is the consummate selfish act akin to showing up later for dinner always.
It says to everyone that you do not care about THEM and are solely concerned about yourself.


It's spectacularly disrespectful and deserves to be acted on.


The sponsors are the ones that pay the prize money. So, until they feel the pain, there prob wont be anything done.




Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2023, 01:05:52 PM »
Imagine if an MLB pitcher took 60+ seconds for each pitch.


These things DO NOT happen because executing in a defined time period is PART of the sport and players have adapted to adhere to simple rules.
Pitchers many not have taken 60 second for every pitch, but it was not uncommon for the time between two pitches during the same at bat to take longer than 60 seconds. Here's an interesting video showing the how different 110 seconds can look with the pitch clock and without. In one instance half an inning of baseball is played, in the other one pitch is thrown.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2023, 04:10:22 PM »
You would think that the players would self police the issue. Make the slow guys feel uncomfortable. Get in their face a little. Only way things will change.


How can two guys play in 5 hours? Almost seems impossible to me.


Competitive golf is hard.
Confronting others when trying to compete at the highest level would be a game wrecking distraction for most.
Heck, half the people on this board are defending slow play (on tour/TV) so it would be an uphill battle while IN battle, especially is they aren't violating any current pace of play rules.(which are pretty hard to actually break enough to be penalized)


Handling pace, and "out of position" also requires real experience and judgement-for example, I arrived at the second tee yesterday in an event to three groups on the tee(driveable par 4-I laid up to shorten the wait :) ) then we spent the rest of the next 4 holes trying to catch up, only to wait 10 minutes on the 6th tee, a long par 3.(so the minute we hit our tee shot on #2, we were "behind pace" and (almost) out of position.
The waits on those two tees is time we will never get back, yet goes into the total time, so total time can be tricky too, and that can be compounded by a player who used his full allotment of time EVERY shot, walks slow and/or is playing poorly(more shots, lost balls/rulings)
Then all of a sudden you're running to catch up, and he............isn't, but is merely playing in the prescribed time.
Sure that puts your group on the clock if you're behind time AND out of position, but frankly doesn't really help a whole lot as some players simply play worse on the clock, and play even worse, which takes more time, even if adhering to times.


As it turns out, we never waited again as the early delays really spread the groups out, and with three fast players(minimal processes) in our group and the group ahead moving nicely, we were able to make up the time lost on those two holes very comfortably and finish ahead of time pace, as did the rest of the field(which to be fair was only 60 players or so off one tee).


Jeff, I agree the golf course isn't the place during competition but the locker room is.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2023, 04:23:33 PM »
Rob,

I agree with you 100%, but doesn't the PGATour have bylaws that prohibit that kind of stuff?  Hell these guys are afraid to call penalties on each other for same as I recall from a couple years ago during the Pat Reed/ Torrey Pines controversy.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2023, 11:48:33 PM »

IF (a big if) the Tour were to ever enforce a shot clock, I am undecided on whether or not scoring would go lower or suffer a bit.  I know in some cases the player who walks 50 yards to the green and back to see the contours is probably in a better position.  There also might be other instances when just having to pick a club and commit would probably help scoring.  Overall I figure scoring might be a touch worse, but not nearly as much as to make players and the game suffer. 


Thoughts?


The answer is, “Yes.”

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #20 on: May 03, 2023, 10:48:15 AM »
A shot clock, in the same respect as the shot clock in the NBA or the play clock in football would not be appropriate for the PGA tour.

Shots in golf are not congruent in the amount of time they take, so if you were to average the amount of time for play and make that the shot clock time a noticeable number of all shots would naturally take more time than the average.

For example, lets say a player is facing a difficult 15' putt for birdie late on Sunday that could give them a share of the lead. If the shot clock is 40 seconds, we would anticipate that if they make the putt the shot would take less than 40 seconds, if they miss the putt and tap in, the pair of shots would take less than 80 seconds.

If the player takes 60 seconds to properly read the putt and hole it for birdie, they were 20 seconds over the shot clock, but 20 seconds under the expected 2 putt par. In this case, wouldn't taking the addition 20 seconds to hole the first putt actually speed up play? If he happen to miss the first putt, walks up and taps in the par putt in less than 20 seconds, keeping the whole sequence to under 80 seconds, wouldn't he still be on time, even though he violated the shot clock in the first shot?


This chart was created based on data through the 2019 season, while a few years old it's probably still fairly accurate. Presumably you could create an expected total play time based upon these numbers for any given course and develop a total expected play time limit for the field. Rather than apply the time as a single per shot clock, apply it like a chess clock.

At the start of a round, each player could be given X minutes to play, Once its there turn to play for a given shot during the round the clock starts and it stops again once the ball is struck. If a group arrives on the tee of a hole and the fairway is not clear, the clock would not start for any player. It would only be active if the next shot is clear for play. This could be potentially managed by the walking scorer of the group and always be available to the player to be known.

Using a chess clock type timing systems would allow a player to take more time when they feel is necessary on particular shots, allowing them to make up time on simpler shots. Tap in putts and holes where the drive is straightforward, for example. It doesn't disrupt a players overall playing process, but encourages them to speed up their process on the whole.

If the clock strikes zero and the player is still on the course, they could be penalized accordingly. Potentially something like 1 shot will be added to the score of each remaining hole yet to be completed. So if the player runs out of time on the 16th fairway, a 1 shot penalty would be assessed to the 16th, 17th, and 18th holes.

Using the tour average above and current tour average statistics, for a common par 72 I'd estimate the expected time to play would be ~47 minutes. For the Slowest 10% player, their expected time to play would be ~58 minutes. Which would put them more than 3 holes behind the pace of the average player. Getting a 4 shot penalty each round for playing slow would quickly force those players to pick up the pace, or risk missing the cut every week of the year, bouncing them out of the tour at the end of the season.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2023, 05:25:24 PM »

Love the Chess Clock analogy.

A shot clock, in the same respect as the shot clock in the NBA or the play clock in football would not be appropriate for the PGA tour.

Shots in golf are not congruent in the amount of time they take, so if you were to average the amount of time for play and make that the shot clock time a noticeable number of all shots would naturally take more time than the average.

For example, lets say a player is facing a difficult 15' putt for birdie late on Sunday that could give them a share of the lead. If the shot clock is 40 seconds, we would anticipate that if they make the putt the shot would take less than 40 seconds, if they miss the putt and tap in, the pair of shots would take less than 80 seconds.

If the player takes 60 seconds to properly read the putt and hole it for birdie, they were 20 seconds over the shot clock, but 20 seconds under the expected 2 putt par. In this case, wouldn't taking the addition 20 seconds to hole the first putt actually speed up play? If he happen to miss the first putt, walks up and taps in the par putt in less than 20 seconds, keeping the whole sequence to under 80 seconds, wouldn't he still be on time, even though he violated the shot clock in the first shot?


This chart was created based on data through the 2019 season, while a few years old it's probably still fairly accurate. Presumably you could create an expected total play time based upon these numbers for any given course and develop a total expected play time limit for the field. Rather than apply the time as a single per shot clock, apply it like a chess clock.

At the start of a round, each player could be given X minutes to play, Once its there turn to play for a given shot during the round the clock starts and it stops again once the ball is struck. If a group arrives on the tee of a hole and the fairway is not clear, the clock would not start for any player. It would only be active if the next shot is clear for play. This could be potentially managed by the walking scorer of the group and always be available to the player to be known.

Using a chess clock type timing systems would allow a player to take more time when they feel is necessary on particular shots, allowing them to make up time on simpler shots. Tap in putts and holes where the drive is straightforward, for example. It doesn't disrupt a players overall playing process, but encourages them to speed up their process on the whole.

If the clock strikes zero and the player is still on the course, they could be penalized accordingly. Potentially something like 1 shot will be added to the score of each remaining hole yet to be completed. So if the player runs out of time on the 16th fairway, a 1 shot penalty would be assessed to the 16th, 17th, and 18th holes.

Using the tour average above and current tour average statistics, for a common par 72 I'd estimate the expected time to play would be ~47 minutes. For the Slowest 10% player, their expected time to play would be ~58 minutes. Which would put them more than 3 holes behind the pace of the average player. Getting a 4 shot penalty each round for playing slow would quickly force those players to pick up the pace, or risk missing the cut every week of the year, bouncing them out of the tour at the end of the season.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2023, 08:28:29 PM »
Add Scheffler to the turtle brigade. ::) Dead to me and virtually unwatchable.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2023, 09:57:59 PM »
I'm not too concerned about the effect it would have on scoring. I think initially it would hurt the turtles, there "normal" rhythm/process will be altered, and they will suffer for a time until they adjust.


But the real benefit would be that weekend golfers would stop trying to do what the pros do and THAY might speed up play for us all.


Might...

Jason Connor

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would a "shot clock" on Tour improve or hinder scoring?
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2023, 09:25:57 AM »
Baseball is so much better to watch this year with the new pitch (and batter's) clock.


Now we get to watch baseball ... instead of watch men get ready to play baseball.


Golf could've used a clock 25 years ago and it's only gotten worse over that time.
 
Even if it causes scores to go up a little, it seems that more bogeys would just cause more position changes on leaderboards which leads to more drama and a better viewer experience.

We discovered that in good company there is no such thing as a bad golf course.  - James Dodson

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back