USGA and R&A announce proposal to limit golf ball performance for elite level competition

[gvogel]

45 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

I would say that distance is sometimes limited by course architecture. There is no universal design where every hole doglegs at 320, where a lake sits at 330. Rory literally drove a green at the API from 360 last month. The hole was designed to block that line to the green w/ tall trees. Rory just blew it over them. 

 

Regardless, there are plenty of dead straight par 4s and 5s where the course isn't limiting the player in anyway. Retief Goosen's solution is to ban the 60 degree wedge. He believes making the short pitch shot harder would force guys to lay back further. 

 

I like Adam Scott's take better.  Shrink the driver head for elite players.  That would in effect shrink shaft length, and also shrink the sweet spot.  More variability, more chance for the best drivers to gain strokes on the field.  I expect that Rory would be one of those to benefit.

[Dutch1008]

7 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I like Adam Scott's take better.  Shrink the driver head for elite players.  That would in effect shrink shaft length, and also shrink the sweet spot.  More variability, more chance for the best drivers to gain strokes on the field.  I expect that Rory would be one of those to benefit.

 

I agree and I'm honestly kind of shocked that this wasn't the ruling bodies 1st step before trying to tackle the ball. They already did an MLR to cap shafts at 46", how hard could it be to implement another MLR where driver head size is capped at 350 or 400 cc? 

 

I suppose the argument against that is it would require people trash their $750 drivers and buy a new one if they want to conform. People burn through balls quickly and replenish constantly. People keep drivers for 5-10 years. 

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, Dutch1008 said:

As if that is easy!! Rory isn't a one trick pony. He's an all time driver of the ball, a world class iron player, has a way better than tour average short game, and has more years as a positive strokes gained putter than negative. Guys with Rory's skill set have always dominated golf. That is the makeup of Arnie, Jack, Norman, and Tiger. It's why Rahm is a stick and Scheffler is a stud. Its why Johnny Miller dominated until he forget how to putt. Those dudes aren't rolled off an assembly line. They are the generationally exceptional.   

I wasn’t talking Rory’s skill biut rather the distance because everyone’s pointing out his 326 yard leading average last season. It is that easy because all the guys that everyone keeps saying are coming that are hitting 190 ball speeds are all that will be on tour because they will have the length overcome the rollback and the shorter hitters will all be gone. The tour will have more guys closer to the top end than the middle as a result.

 

Guys like Rahm and Scheffler are the perfect example of what we have been saying that it takes more to than distance to win on tour and despite the continued claim that the pros don’t have any skills and it’s all distant these guys show there is actually other skills are possessed by tour players.

 

 

Clevited addressed the rest of your comment already so I’m just responding to this

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

I would say that distance is sometimes limited by course architecture. There is no universal design where every hole doglegs at 320, where a lake sits at 330. Rory literally drove a green at the API from 360 last month. The hole was designed to block that line to the green w/ tall trees. Rory just blew it over them. 

 

Regardless, there are plenty of dead straight par 4s and 5s where the course isn't limiting the player in anyway. Retief Goosen's solution is to ban the 60 degree wedge. He believes making the short pitch shot harder would force guys to lay back further. 

 

Well according to everyone in here it’s easy for pros to adjust. Getting rid of the  60 won’t solve anything not to mention a 58 will do the same job and bending it to 60 is easy.

 

[GoGoErky]

58 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I like Adam Scott's take better.  Shrink the driver head for elite players.  That would in effect shrink shaft length, and also shrink the sweet spot.  More variability, more chance for the best drivers to gain strokes on the field.  I expect that Rory would be one of those to benefit.

Won’t stop anything. The guys on tour aren’t backing off of their fairway woods, they won’t be backing off of smaller driver 

 

and it creates the boring golf you guys keep complaining about because it puts an emphasis on distance and you end up with a tour that all hits the ball the same distance 

Edited April 2 by GoGoErky

[Dutch1008]

4 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Well according to everyone in here it’s easy for pros to adjust. Getting rid of the  60 won’t solve anything not to mention a 58 will do the same job and bending it to 60 is easy.

 

 

Didn't say I supported Goosen's stance. Was simply sharing it. BTW in that hypothetical scenario where a 60 is outlawed, bending a 58 to a 60 would be illegal.  

[Dutch1008]

7 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Won’t stop anything. The guys on tour aren’t backing off of their fairway woods, they won’t be backing off of smaller driver 

 

I absolutely adore that every pro that agrees w/ you is logical, fact based, and smart while every pro that disagrees with you is an idiot. Adam Scott, Lee Westwood, Fools! They've only been elite level players for 2 plus decades 🤣

 

 

[GoGoErky]

3 hours ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

Didn't say I supported Goosen's stance. Was simply sharing it. BTW in that hypothetical scenario where a 60 is outlawed, bending a 58 to a 60 would be illegal.  

I doubt that would be outlawed as it’s still a 58 not a 60. Are they going to measure every wedge? Doubt it. But even if so a 58 rather than a 50 isn’t going to be that big of a change and most will be able to get away with a 56 even if they have to bend it

[GoGoErky]

3 hours ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

I absolutely adore that every pro that agrees w/ you is logical, fact based, and smart while every pro that disagrees with you is an idiot. Adam Scott, Lee Westwood, Fools! They've only been elite level players for 2 plus decades 🤣

 

 

Scott’s idea isn’t feasible at the moment and the rulings bodies have admitted as much, but they are looking at it and as soon as they figure out how to not impact all of us they will do it, but like with the ball the tours aren’t goin tt bifurcate and almost guarantee a lawsuit from the OEMs will come. 

 

There are logical things and there are things that aren’t logical. People assume because of a smaller head that pros are somehow going to choose to swing slower. They aren’t and we see plenty of distance with 195cc woods and there was plenty of distance won’t the sun 400cc drivers. It’s pretty logical to think that today’s golfers will stilll be hitting the ball as long as they did now kind of like Hank kuehne in 2003.

 

Weird that an anti rollback picks apart or disagrees with a pro’s stance and pot shots are taking at us, yet every anti rollbacked has said that JTs claim that he would have to redo his bag was met with doubt and that they wouldn’t and nobody took pot shots at them. Many if not all the pro rollback crowd who have zero data and experience doubt Dr Mackenzie, Lou Stagner and Broadie for whatever reason and even say they don’t know what they are talking about and no pot shots thrown. There’s been so much disingenuous posting from the pro rollback crowd and more than enough pot shots thrown at the anti rollback crowd, it’s crazy.

 

Time for a break from this. Wouldn’t mind seeing it locked up til 2028 or forever  

 

 

Edited April 3 by GoGoErky

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 hour ago, GoGoErky said:

Scott’s idea isn’t feasible at the moment and the rulings bodies have admitted as much, but they are looking at it and as soon as they figure out how to not impact all of us they will do it, but like with the ball the tours aren’t goin tt bifurcate and almost guarantee a lawsuit from the OEMs will come. 

 

There are logical things and there are things that aren’t logical. People assume because of a smaller head that pros are somehow going to choose to swing slower. They aren’t and we see plenty of distance with 195cc woods and there was plenty of distance won’t the sun 400cc drivers. It’s pretty logical to think that today’s golfers will stilll be hitting the ball as long as they did now kind of like Hank kuehne in 2003.

 

Weird that an anti rollback picks apart or disagrees with a pro’s stance and pot shots are taking at us, yet every anti rollbacked has said that JTs claim that he would have to redo his bag was met with doubt and that they wouldn’t and nobody took pot shots at them. Many if not all the pro rollback crowd who have zero data and experience doubt Dr Mackenzie, Lou Stagner and Broadie for whatever reason and even say they don’t know what they are talking about and no pot shots thrown. There’s been so much disingenuous posting from the pro rollback crowd and more than enough pot shots thrown at the anti rollback crowd, it’s crazy.

 

Time for a break from this. Wouldn’t mind seeing it locked up til 2028 or forever  

 

 

Your tone doesn’t foster honest discussion. You are extremely dismissive of any argument and make little to no concessions on anything. Why would anyone argue with you in good faith?

 

That being said I agree, lock it up.

Edited April 3 by TLUBulldogGolf

[bekgolf]

Like most golf fans I don't see the problem.  Men's professional golf is fun to watch as it is right now.  We are seeing the best golfers in exciting competition every weekend.  It requires great skill.  Why change that? 

 

[Dutch1008]

3 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

I doubt that would be outlawed as it’s still a 58 not a 60. Are they going to measure every wedge? Doubt it. But even if so a 58 rather than a 50 isn’t going to be that big of a change and most will be able to get away with a 56 even if they have to bend it

 

One, I doubt Goosen gets his wish so this is all moot. 

 

Two, a 58 bent to 60 is no longer a 58. The stamp on the bottom is meaningless. Recording 6’3” on my drivers license doesn’t make it so. The measurement will still say 6’1 regardless of what’s printed.

 

Three, no, in this alternate reality they wouldn’t check every wedge. Just like they don’t check the pine tar on every baseball bat, or pre check it for cork. Just as the don’t check every wedge for square grooves. But hit a zippy spinner from 30 yds that checks a little too quick and maybe an official wants to take a peak at that wedge after a round. 

 

Last year, Rory had to take his driver out of play because the face had got too hot. Nobody’s checking driver faces before every round but nobody wants to be the guy DQ’d because his driver fractionally exceeds COR limits. 

[Ty_Webb]

One thing that occurred to me this morning. I play (occasionally) at public courses in the metro NY area. These courses are pretty much always full to bursting and there are a ridiculous number of hopelessly bad players who play from the back tees because they "want to see the whole course". The USGA has spent a decent chunk of time trying to convince people to play it forwards - a policy with which I agree, but it doesn't seem to have made a jot of difference. They have however decided to make these people hit it even shorter than they already do. That means longer approach shots, more missed greens, longer playing times on what's already over 5 hours. Thanks guys - appreciate it.

[jjtour]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

One thing that occurred to me this morning. I play (occasionally) at public courses in the metro NY area. These courses are pretty much always full to bursting and there are a ridiculous number of hopelessly bad players who play from the back tees because they "want to see the whole course". The USGA has spent a decent chunk of time trying to convince people to play it forwards - a policy with which I agree, but it doesn't seem to have made a jot of difference. They have however decided to make these people hit it even shorter than they already do. That means longer approach shots, more missed greens, longer playing times on what's already over 5 hours. Thanks guys - appreciate it.

 

When you say hopelessly bad players playing form the back tees, are you saying high handicaps that hit it far but mishit it alot or shorter players that dont have speed and that's why they are bad? Either way these guys arent gonna play that different with a rolled back ball if it's done properly. Guys with less speed dont get the pop of the existing ball anyways, they hit it shorter and therefore distance lost to them will be less since it's a percentage not just "20 yards shorter for everyone". The guys that mishit it cant find the face often enough to tell what their distances should consistently be so I dont know if they are going to be able to tell what went shorter or not. The other thing is if they have a spinnier ball, it should go shorter and less off line. The problem now is these guys that swing out of their shoes at it like they are in a long drive competition, the ball spins less and knuckles more and goes farther off line. Atleast that's my understanding of it

 

Now regarding pace of play, I know the play it forward initiative hasnt been successful, mainly because it attacks the ego of alot of golfers. You dont want to play it shorter, as that somehow attacks your manhood if you take on less of a course. Meanwhile they go and shoot 90 like that's some kind of win. What I think would be really interesting is some sort of policy like you see in the UK at alot of clubs. Foursomes only during certain times. So basically maximum two golf balls in play at any time. That would speed up play, make you get to know your playing partners a little bit more, play a different game. I know it would be tough to implement but I think it would be an interesting gamble. 

[farmer]

A ball that spins more is not going to go less off line.  Maybe the gear effect will bring a not horrible mishit back a little, but a high spinning ball with an open clubface will result in a boomerang slice.

[Pnwpingi210]

27 minutes ago, jjtour said:

 

When you say hopelessly bad players playing form the back tees, are you saying high handicaps that hit it far but mishit it alot or shorter players that dont have speed and that's why they are bad? Either way these guys arent gonna play that different with a rolled back ball if it's done properly. Guys with less speed dont get the pop of the existing ball anyways, they hit it shorter and therefore distance lost to them will be less since it's a percentage not just "20 yards shorter for everyone". The guys that mishit it cant find the face often enough to tell what their distances should consistently be so I dont know if they are going to be able to tell what went shorter or not. The other thing is if they have a spinnier ball, it should go shorter and less off line. The problem now is these guys that swing out of their shoes at it like they are in a long drive competition, the ball spins less and knuckles more and goes farther off line. Atleast that's my understanding of it

 

Now regarding pace of play, I know the play it forward initiative hasnt been successful, mainly because it attacks the ego of alot of golfers. You dont want to play it shorter, as that somehow attacks your manhood if you take on less of a course. Meanwhile they go and shoot 90 like that's some kind of win. What I think would be really interesting is some sort of policy like you see in the UK at alot of clubs. Foursomes only during certain times. So basically maximum two golf balls in play at any time. That would speed up play, make you get to know your playing partners a little bit more, play a different game. I know it would be tough to implement but I think it would be an interesting gamble. 

The pace of play challenges I witness on the public course I play aren’t related to tee box choices.  It’s related to the amount of time it takes the foursome to hole out once they get within 20 yards of the green.  2-3 duffed chips and bunker shots then finally blading one over the green. Pacing off and lining up every putt like it’s worth a million dollars.   Hovering over putts for 30 seconds.   
 

most of those groups advance the ball from the tee to within in 15 yards of the green reasonable fast.  

[Titleist99]

12 hours ago, bekgolf said:

Like most golf fans I don't see the problem.  Men's professional golf is fun to watch as it is right now.  We are seeing the best golfers in exciting competition every weekend.  It requires great skill.  Why change that? 

 

Irresponsible leadership at the USGA & RA is the reason for changing a game that has reached its height of popularity. IMO

[jjtour]

3 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

The pace of play challenges I witness on the public course I play aren’t related to tee box choices.  It’s related to the amount of time it takes the foursome to hole out once they get within 20 yards of the green.  2-3 duffed chips and bunker shots then finally blading one over the green. Pacing off and lining up every putt like it’s worth a million dollars.   Hovering over putts for 30 seconds.   
 

most of those groups advance the ball from the tee to within in 15 yards of the green reasonable fast.  

I dont disagree. There are alot of issues with handicap golf, but again if you had a system where you take the number of balls in play and half it. That should cut down playing time. People are always gonna be neurotic on there little things about their "game". "I paid for this round therefore I'll do whatever I want" type attitudes. It should be a privilege to play and not at the expense of others.

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, jjtour said:

I dont disagree. There are alot of issues with handicap golf, but again if you had a system where you take the number of balls in play and half it. That should cut down playing time. People are always gonna be neurotic on there little things about their "game". "I paid for this round therefore I'll do whatever I want" type attitudes. It should be a privilege to play and not at the expense of others.

Very true.  But tee box choice and rolled back/non rolled back ball will have limited impact and n pace of play.  Almost inconsequential in my opinion.

[gvogel]

46 minutes ago, jjtour said:

 

When you say hopelessly bad players playing form the back tees, are you saying high handicaps that hit it far but mishit it alot or shorter players that dont have speed and that's why they are bad? Either way these guys arent gonna play that different with a rolled back ball if it's done properly. Guys with less speed dont get the pop of the existing ball anyways, they hit it shorter and therefore distance lost to them will be less since it's a percentage not just "20 yards shorter for everyone". The guys that mishit it cant find the face often enough to tell what their distances should consistently be so I dont know if they are going to be able to tell what went shorter or not. The other thing is if they have a spinnier ball, it should go shorter and less off line. The problem now is these guys that swing out of their shoes at it like they are in a long drive competition, the ball spins less and knuckles more and goes farther off line. Atleast that's my understanding of it

 

Now regarding pace of play, I know the play it forward initiative hasnt been successful, mainly because it attacks the ego of alot of golfers. You dont want to play it shorter, as that somehow attacks your manhood if you take on less of a course. Meanwhile they go and shoot 90 like that's some kind of win. What I think would be really interesting is some sort of policy like you see in the UK at alot of clubs. Foursomes only during certain times. So basically maximum two golf balls in play at any time. That would speed up play, make you get to know your playing partners a little bit more, play a different game. I know it would be tough to implement but I think it would be an interesting gamble. 

If moving up a tee was unsuccessful, playing foursomes would be even less so.  There is no tradition of that in the US.

Playing Stableford would make a difference, but that would also require a culture change.

[Titleist99]

Here's what I know:

 

Slow play is the bane of golf and golfers everywhere.... making the game harder will not help that.

 

IMO

[jjtour]

7 minutes ago, gvogel said:

If moving up a tee was unsuccessful, playing foursomes would be even less so.  There is no tradition of that in the US.

Playing Stableford would make a difference, but that would also require a culture change.

Yeah there's no tradition, there's a tradition of playing four balls and taking way too long. Sometimes you need to enforce new rules or bring in different ways of doing things. If you dont like the way things are, you try to bring about change. 

[jjtour]

6 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Here's what I know:

 

Slow play is the bane of golf and golfers everywhere.... making the game harder will not help that.

 

IMO

 

I agree that slow play isnt great. But all this equipment touted as "game improvement" now, where is the game improvement? If we are talking about people hacking it around, are they going to get even worse with worse equipment or they gonna stay pretty much the same? I doubt it's gonna make much of a difference. We had 300cc heads back in mid 2000s and that wasnt enough so then we made bigger, still not enough. Eventually we will be playing titanium tennis rackets essentially, still wont help the guys that cant hit the broad side of a barn. 

[radiman]

1 minute ago, jjtour said:

Yeah there's no tradition, there's a tradition of playing four balls and taking way too long. Sometimes you need to enforce new rules or bring in different ways of doing things. If you dont like the way things are, you try to bring about change. 

Ha, are they going to discount the rate by 50% if they're going to force alternate shot? I am not against a campaign to bring about a different scoring concept than what most people are used to.  But, forcing it seems kind of short sighted.  

But, if we're talking pace of play, I think there is A LOT more to it than the fact that there are 4 balls in play on the hole.  Tee times are usually way too compact.  And, sadly, a lot of people just have no interest in playing at a pace that forces them to actually be aware of those around them.  And, ultimately, I think that's the biggest issue.  Waaaaay off topic kind of.  But, go to Costco on a Sunday afternoon and witness the absolute lack of awareness of others.  Everyone is in their own world and couldn't care less about those around them.  

[jjtour]

I was thinking about this last night, what is it about golf that we have this ego that we need to have  by far longest flying ball/stick combo for a sport? Baseball by comparison, a home run goes 450 feet that's smoked, that's about a 8 iron for most people. You start hitting drivers and 250 yards wasnt enough, We have the biggest fields of any sport, why did we need to make them even bigger? Needs to just go bigger, go farther. We need latest and greatest equipment every year or two to "keep up". We created the inflation in the game ourselves, silly.

 

We could just enjoy the game for what it is, a game to enjoy outside with friends, some healthy competition thrown in. Yet we just keep advancing it beyond anything it used to resemble. I think the people that love the game will still love it regardless of what the equipment changes to. If they quit then so be it, take your ball and go home.

[radiman]

2 minutes ago, jjtour said:

I was thinking about this last night, what is it about golf that we have this ego that we need to have  by far longest flying ball/stick combo for a sport? Baseball by comparison, a home run goes 450 feet that's smoked, that's about a 8 iron for most people. You start hitting drivers and 250 yards wasnt enough, We have the biggest fields of any sport, why did we need to make them even bigger? Needs to just go bigger, go farther. We need latest and greatest equipment every year or two to "keep up". We created the inflation in the game ourselves, silly.

 

We could just enjoy the game for what it is, a game to enjoy outside with friends, some healthy competition thrown in. Yet we just keep advancing it beyond anything it used to resemble. I think the people that love the game will still love it regardless of what the equipment changes to. If they quit then so be it, take your ball and go home.

Because hitting it further makes the game easier.  It's not a matter of hitting a home run well beyond the 330 fence.  It's about getting closer to the hole to utilize less club into the green.  If it were a matter of hitting it as far over the green as you possibly could, I suppose that would make sense.  

 

OEMs pushed to the limits that were in place within the rules.  They saw that engineering would become an issue so they started imposing new limits.  

[jjtour]

8 minutes ago, radiman said:

Ha, are they going to discount the rate by 50% if they're going to force alternate shot? I am not against a campaign to bring about a different scoring concept than what most people are used to.  But, forcing it seems kind of short sighted.  

But, if we're talking pace of play, I think there is A LOT more to it than the fact that there are 4 balls in play on the hole.  Tee times are usually way too compact.  And, sadly, a lot of people just have no interest in playing at a pace that forces them to actually be aware of those around them.  And, ultimately, I think that's the biggest issue.  Waaaaay off topic kind of.  But, go to Costco on a Sunday afternoon and witness the absolute lack of awareness of others.  Everyone is in their own world and couldn't care less about those around them.  

So you associate your value of the course you play with the number of strokes you get to hit? Therefore someone taking a 100 strokes gets way more value than the one taking 70? I'm saying it's an idea, you dont even have to do it all the time. But if it's mornings or whenever, you want to play during that time it's alternate shot or whatever, then you enforce it. You dont want to follow the rules, you play at a different time or dont play. Everyone is basically saying "I need to be included and I want to do whatever I want out there", it's BS. 

 

How about this for an alternative.

 

You pay before your round, lets call it $100. If you come back to the shop with your receipt inside 4 hours, or whatever time you deem, you get $25 dollar refund or credit to the restaurant or sometime. If you dont, that's your penalty for slow play. Would people agree to that? I bet there would be alot more hussle up if something is on the line rather than just twiddling your thumbs with no consequnce.

[Titleist99]

3 minutes ago, jjtour said:

 

I agree that slow play isnt great. But all this equipment touted as "game improvement" now, where is the game improvement? If we are talking about people hacking it around, are they going to get even worse with worse equipment or they gonna stay pretty much the same? I doubt it's gonna make much of a difference. We had 300cc heads back in mid 2000s and that wasnt enough so then we made bigger, still not enough. Eventually we will be playing titanium tennis rackets essentially, still wont help the guys that cant hit the broad side of a barn. 

They might not get worse, but they will get shorter. Some will adjust and some won't we have no way of knowing. It's a crap shoot of the results.... which is my problem with this change in the golf ball. Testing should already have been done and the results made public. A discussion period only after tournaments with a manufactured ball would have been prudent.

[radiman]

2 minutes ago, jjtour said:

So you associate your value of the course you play with the number of strokes you get to hit? Therefore someone taking a 100 strokes gets way more value than the one taking 70? I'm saying it's an idea, you dont even have to do it all the time. But if it's mornings or whenever, you want to play during that time it's alternate shot or whatever, then you enforce it. You dont want to follow the rules, you play at a different time or dont play. Everyone is basically saying "I need to be included and I want to do whatever I want out there", it's BS. 

 

How about this for an alternative.

 

You pay before your round, lets call it $100. If you come back to the shop with your receipt inside 4 hours, or whatever time you deem, you get $25 dollar refund or credit to the restaurant or sometime. If you dont, that's your penalty for slow play. Would people agree to that? I bet there would be alot more hussle up if something is on the line rather than just twiddling your thumbs with no consequnce.

No.  But I do equate my value to be able to enjoy my round.  Being forced to play alternate shot sounds miserable to be honest.  And, as I mentioned, the tee time gap is too narrow.  They don't do that because they give a flip about pace of play.  They do it because they want our $$.  The take it or leave it attitude is not something most courses seem to be interested in implementing.  They could change tee time gaps to 12-15 minutes apart if they cared about pace of play that much. But, like I said.  They want our money.  

 

And do whatever we want lol.  It's just the way it has always been.  You show me a course that would even dare implement anything that drastic and waive good bye to their revenue. I suppose we could say that courses don't seem to have any trouble filling their tee sheets.  If you have to have things your way, well, play a 5+ hour round or don't play at all I guess.  The course won't miss you.  

[IndyArcher]

5 minutes ago, jjtour said:

How about this for an alternative.

 

You pay before your round, lets call it $100. If you come back to the shop with your receipt inside 4 hours, or whatever time you deem, you get $25 dollar refund or credit to the restaurant or sometime. If you dont, that's your penalty for slow play. Would people agree to that? I bet there would be alot more hussle up if something is on the line rather than just twiddling your thumbs with no consequnce.

 

So, you have one foursome of slow-movers who end up keeping 6 other groups just over the 4 hour mark, you penalize those 6 groups a total of $600 (if they are all foursomes) because of one slower group in front of them? I don't think that's a great way to make friends and influence people as a course that needs players to thrive. 

 

Maybe I misunderstand your plan? 🤔