Players walking ahead to look at the hole

[bobfoster]

I kind of see why they do things like this. Every single shot on tour - especially when you are close to the top of the leaderboard on the final day - is worth potentially huge amounts of money.

 

Scottie missed a five foot putt on 18 yesterday. Missed forcing a playoff and potentially getting a win. The result? Payout to Jaeger was $1,638,000. Payout to Scottie (and the rest of the T2 finishers) was $553,735. On the surface it looks like he potentially blew over a million bucks with that putt, but of course it wasn't just that putt - every stroke in the round is a number on the card. Point is, these guys aren't playing a friendly weekend skins game for a buck a hole. So I really don't mind at all - especially watching on TV, as the broadcast can, and often does, just cut to another camera/player. 

 

What is irritating (as a couple others have mentioned) is amateurs mimicking the behavior of the pros on a busy weekend course that is already backed up. I mean, c'mon dude, knowing the exact contours of the green might help you shoot a 96 instead of a 97 (assuming you don't take all that time and then totally shank it into a trap on the adjacent hole), but is it really that important in the larger scheme of things? 😅

Edited April 1 by bobfoster

[Hawkeye77]

12 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Point missed.

 

Not really, maybe he didn't really care, maybe if he did he understood it happens sometimes, maybe it pissed him off and he overcame it - he and someone else on the tee are the only people affected.  Doesn't affect any viewer.

[tatertot]

21 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

I kind of see why they do things like this. Every single shot on tour - especially when you are close to the top of the leaderboard on the final day - is worth potentially huge amounts of money.

 

Scottie missed a five foot putt on 18 yesterday. Missed forcing a playoff and potentially getting a win. The result? Payout to Jaeger was $1,638,000. Payout to Scottie (and the rest of the T2 finishers) was $553,735. And on the surface it looks like he potentially blew over a million bucks with that putt, but of course it wasn't just that putt - every stroke in the round is a number on the card. Point is, these guys aren't playing a friendly weekend skins game for a buck a hole. So I really don't mind at all - especially watching on TV, as the broadcast can, and often does, just go to another camera/player. 

 

What is irritating (as a couple others have mentioned) is amateurs mimicking the behavior of the pros on a busy weekend course that is already backed up. I mean, c'mon dude, knowing the exact contours of the green might help you shoot a 96 instead of a 97 (assuming you don't take all that time and then totally shank it into a trap on the adjacent hole), but is it really that important in the larger scheme of things? 😅

This is why the tours need a shot clock. Every shot of the round and tournament should be governed by the same rules. You should have the same time to hit your last approach as your first. Importance should not equal time. Part of being a good golfer should be the ability to process info,Ina timely manner. 

 

This is also what bothers fans of other sports ... The rules should be the same in the first quarter as the final 2 minutes. 

[North Butte]

23 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

I kind of see why they do things like this. Every single shot on tour - especially when you are close to the top of the leaderboard on the final day - is worth potentially huge amounts of money.

 

Scottie missed a five foot putt on 18 yesterday. Missed forcing a playoff and potentially getting a win. The result? Payout to Jaeger was $1,638,000. Payout to Scottie (and the rest of the T2 finishers) was $553,735. And on the surface it looks like he potentially blew over a million bucks with that putt, but of course it wasn't just that putt - every stroke in the round is a number on the card. Point is, these guys aren't playing a friendly weekend skins game for a buck a hole. So I really don't mind at all - especially watching on TV, as the broadcast can, and often does, just go to another camera/player. 

 

What is irritating (as a couple others have mentioned) is amateurs mimicking the behavior of the pros on a busy weekend course that is already backed up. I mean, c'mon dude, knowing the exact contours of the green might help you shoot a 96 instead of a 97 (assuming you don't take all that time and then totally shank it into a trap on the adjacent hole), but is it really that important in the larger scheme of things? 😅

I care far more about the difference in 96 vs. 97 on my own score than I care about any amount of money some guy on TV wins. 

 

What I really care about is that 18th hole I need to par to beat my friend Mike out of 5 bucks. That is insanely important to me, really. 

[SurfDuffer]

18 hours ago, gvogel said:

Watching Scottie Schefler and one other walking way ahead of their balls in the fairway to look at the exact hole location.  I cry bogus.  A player has an allotted amount of time to play his shot - that should not include walking up to the green and back.  Stroke penalty in my book.

 

If you want to know the exact pin location on a green, go out before your round and look at it then.

Simple solution, let the caddies use lasers for distances in tournament rounds.  Between the laser yardage, pin sheet and yardage book they'd never need to walk closer for a look.

[North Butte]

4 minutes ago, SurfDuffer said:

Simple solution, let the caddies use lasers for distances in tournament rounds.  Between the laser yardage, pin sheet and yardage book they'd never need to walk closer for a look.

If they had lasers, they would still pore over the yardage book, pace off distance, go up for a look at the green but they'd ALSO shoot four or five different things with the laser. 

[Duct Tape]

2 hours ago, Mrgreen36 said:

You guys sound like a ton of fun.  

I thought my post had some (attempted) humor in it! 

[bobfoster]

I have never really understood the seemingly continual presumption that the ideal is to make golf as fast as possible. It is a leisurely game, always has been. It is a six or seven mile walk over the course of four or five hours. Micro-examinations of every little behavior that might take a little time seem (to me) to miss the bigger picture.

 

I mean, really. Walking up to the green from 50 - 60 yards out takes what, three or four minutes (at most, quite often less), and is maybe done by a small handful of people maybe a few times a round? Is this really a problem in desperate need of a solution?

[m d g]

I will give pros a break on this as they can do things we can't dream of.

 

It's the weekend hacker who tops his drive 87 yards, and then waits for the green to clear from 320 out that tends to peeve me just a bit.

[m d g]

Also, to be fair, the elevated greens were really nasty and I'm sure they were trying to get a better sense of the landing area to prevent the ball from rolling off the green.

 

The greens this past weekend were anything but 'normal.'

[st1800e]

9 minutes ago, m d g said:

Also, to be fair, the elevated greens were really nasty and I'm sure they were trying to get a better sense of the landing area to prevent the ball from rolling off the green.

 

The greens this past weekend were anything but 'normal.'

To be fair, they all played them at a minimum  of 5 times before, have a pin sheet and probably some other green map.  And their caddie has seen them too.   Many tournaments I’ve played in it’s against the rules to “go ahead” to look at the hole. That’s what practice rounds are for.  
And the later groups can watch the earlier groups play the hole on tv, and / or the caddie can, as can another member of their team and advise the player/caddie of anything noteworthy before the round.  

[gvogel]

30 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

I have never really understood the seemingly continual presumption that the ideal is to make golf as fast as possible. It is a leisurely game, always has been. It is a six or seven mile walk over the course of four or five hours. Micro-examinations of every little behavior that might take a little time seem (to me) to miss the bigger picture.

 

I mean, really. Walking up to the green from 50 - 60 yards out takes what, three or four minutes (at most, quite often less), and is maybe done by a small handful of people maybe a few times a round? Is this really a problem in desperate need of a solution?

While you are correct, it can be a leisurely game; I think that most good players would prefer the game to be played at leisurely brisk pace, not a snail's pace.  Over 5 hours for a round of golf is too long.

[st1800e]

1 hour ago, SurfDuffer said:

Simple solution, let the caddies use lasers for distances in tournament rounds.

Adding lasers has not proven to shorten playing times for elite professionals.  

[miami1023]

8 minutes ago, st1800e said:

Adding lasers has not proven to shorten playing times for elite professionals.  

I feel like they barely even use them right? Can anyone back me up here

[st1800e]

3 minutes ago, miami1023 said:

I feel like they barely even use them right? Can anyone back me up here

Not sure, but what I’ve seen, it’s an added step, the caddie and player are always going to rely on their other traditional methods.  
Watching the PGA championship with this in mind will be revealing I would think.  

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, bobfoster said:

I have never really understood the seemingly continual presumption that the ideal is to make golf as fast as possible. It is a leisurely game, always has been. It is a six or seven mile walk over the course of four or five hours. Micro-examinations of every little behavior that might take a little time seem (to me) to miss the bigger picture.

 

I mean, really. Walking up to the green from 50 - 60 yards out takes what, three or four minutes (at most, quite often less), and is maybe done by a small handful of people maybe a few times a round? Is this really a problem in desperate need of a solution?

I agree. I've played with a lot of people that complain about slow rounds at Municipal golf courses. A round of golf starts by making a decision, "Am I in a hurry or not" Your enjoyment of the day is based on that decision. 

 

People need to keep in mind that the other bane of golf is the speedy golfer who hits into the group in front of him or rushes the pace of play for his playing partners unnecessarily.

Edited April 1 by Titleist99

[bobfoster]

49 minutes ago, st1800e said:

Adding lasers has not proven to shorten playing times for elite professionals.  

Yes - and lasers would be irrelevant to what we are talking about here anyway. The distance isn't the issue, especially when players are 40 yards (or something) from the green. Their caddies have great yardage books and are almost universally good at estimating - they do this for a living. They'll know the raw distance from ball to flag to within a yard or two. But the players that do walk up are looking at green contours, looking specifically for landing spots and determining what they want ball behavior to be - which on fast, undulating greens with tricky pin positions is a pretty serious consideration. Fly the pin and spin it back? Land it three yards left knowing it will roll down to where the hole is? Etc., etc. On courses with tough greens, like this last one or, for instance, Augusta, a lot of the time you aren't necessarily aiming directly at the pin at all - you are aiming at a spot that will have the ball get close to the pin after it lands and releases. The players are looking for what spot that should be.

 

So yes, lasers in general wouldn't help the pros much, but would be absolutely no aid in this situation. They solely measure distance, but that isn't the variable those guys are trying to figure out when they walk up. They are basically doing the same thing as reading a putt (where you also are often not aiming directly at the flag, but rather on a line that will get it to the flag if you read the break right). 

Edited April 1 by bobfoster

[st1800e]

6 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

Yes - and lasers would be irrelevant to what we are talking about here anyway. The distance isn't the issue, especially when players are 40 yards (or something) from the green. Their caddies have great yardage books and are almost universally good at estimating - they do this for a living. They'll know the raw distance from ball to flag to within a yard or two. But the players that do walk up are looking at green contours, looking specifically for landing spots and determining what they want ball behavior to be - which on fast, undulating greens with tricky pin positions is a pretty serious consideration. Fly the pin and spin it back? Land it three yards left knowing it will roll down to where the hole is? Etc., etc. On courses with tough greens, like this last one or, for instance, Augusta, a lot of the time you aren't necessarily aiming directly at the pin at all - you are aiming at a spot that will have the ball get close to the pin after it lands and releases. The players are looking for what spot that should be.

 

So yes, lasers in general wouldn't help the pros much, but would be absolutely no aid in this situation. They solely measure distance, but that isn't the variable those guys are trying to figure out when they walk up. They are basically doing the same thing as lining up a putt (where you also are often not aiming directly at the flag, but rather on a line that will get it to the flag if you read the break right). 

Hi Bob, just want to be clear.  Since you quoted me, I assume that after you said “Yes” , that everything that followed wasn’t directed at me , or was it?   

[bobfoster]

16 minutes ago, st1800e said:

Hi Bob, just want to be clear.  Since you quoted me, I assume that after you said “Yes” , that everything that followed wasn’t directed at me , or was it?   

Was completely agreeing with you - and amplifying your argument. Lasers would have very little effect on PoP in professional golf in general, and have absolutely no effect on this situation.

 

Your larger point is spot on correct. Pro caddies are good. They have excellent yardage books, and are excellent at interpreting them. We often hear player/caddy conversations on TV. They'll be 150, 160 out and will be talking with ridiculous precision ... "yes, you want to aim for that tower, cut it against the wind, and land it 154 - 156". Certainly a lot of shots miss, but virtually never because the caddy got the distance itself wrong. Lasers can be very useful at the amateur level - where courses commonly only have 200, 150, and 100 yard markers and almost no one has a yardage book - but they'd be pretty much meaningless at the pro level.

Edited April 1 by bobfoster

[toddbournes]

The problem lies in amateurs differentiating between the pro game and what the see on tv versus what they do on Saturday at the local muni. It’s two completely different things. I don’t have a problem with a professional golfer doing whatever makes him feel comfortable when he’s playing for his livelihood. It doesn’t affect me and could potentially affect them very significantly. 

[Nickb333]

2 hours ago, bobfoster said:

I have never really understood the seemingly continual presumption that the ideal is to make golf as fast as possible. It is a leisurely game, always has been. It is a six or seven mile walk over the course of four or five hours. Micro-examinations of every little behavior that might take a little time seem (to me) to miss the bigger picture.

 

I mean, really. Walking up to the green from 50 - 60 yards out takes what, three or four minutes (at most, quite often less), and is maybe done by a small handful of people maybe a few times a round? Is this really a problem in desperate need of a solution?

With all due respect Bob, I've never understood why it takes more than 4 hours to play a round. I'm just beginning to get my wife out regularly to walk 9. She can't hit her driver past 150yds yet and still plays in 2 hours without rushing at all. 

 

5 hours is outrageous IMO. 

[Dutch1008]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Not really, maybe he didn't really care, maybe if he did he understood it happens sometimes, maybe it pissed him off and he overcame it - he and someone else on the tee are the only people affected.  Doesn't affect any viewer.

 

It does affect the viewer. The same way a 4 hour baseball game affected the viewer. It's an unnecessary time suck. A batter doesn't need to step out of the box after every pitch to refocus. A pitcher doesn't need to walk around the mound after every pitch. Stop over thinking and just get on with it. Golf is no different. Sure, the putt to win or make the cut is a big deal. So is throwing the pitch in the bottom of the 9th w/ a full count while staring at Mike Trout. Suck it up and perform. 

 

Further, how often are the final groups finishing in the dark? How often does any weather delay necessitate a next day finish? Those scenarios can be minimized if pros are finishing closer to 4 hours vs 5 hours. 5 Hour rounds are for munis where half the players are losing 6 balls per round and hitting half their fairway shots from the wrong fairway. These people are the best of the best. They play practice rounds, have pin sheets, have ball spotters. 4 hours shouldn't be a problem. 

 

Lastly, I think pace of play also affects how many people participate in no-cut signature events. Greed is certainly the primary factor, but they also want to go off in twosomes for all four days to help speed up play. Players enjoy it and it helps the TV product. There is no reason 3 pros can't play sub 4 hours. Me and my hack friends can easily go sub 4 when the course permits and we're not hitting 70% of our fairways and greens. 

 

Copy MLBs lead. Implement changes at the KFT level. Elevate what works. Players will whine and complain. After a few months, they'll get over themselves and it will all become standard operating procedure. 

[bobfoster]

40 minutes ago, Nickb333 said:

With all due respect Bob, I've never understood why it takes more than 4 hours to play a round. I'm just beginning to get my wife out regularly to walk 9. She can't hit her driver past 150yds yet and still plays in 2 hours without rushing at all. 

 

5 hours is outrageous IMO. 

True, but in truth, I played twice this past weekend on public courses, and both rounds came in slightly under 4 hours. Even during the peak of the summer season I'd say my rounds likely average between 4 and 4:15, now and then 4:30 depending on the course (and I live in a place with a lot of golfers). Which often includes a bit of time ordering food at the turn. I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

I agree that when you start hitting the 5 hour mark it gets a bit irritating. Standing around and waiting for five or 10 minutes on every tee box affects my game ... breaks up the flow. But in my experience (at least where I live) 5 hours is a real outlier. Maybe once or twice a season will something like that happen. And when it does, it is usually due to some anomalous situation. (Last time it happened to me, it was because I was one of the first to go out following the tee times of a bachelor party outing with a half dozen foursomes, and seemingly enough alcohol for a dozen foursomes.)

 

When I was younger, I was a lot more intense. And impatient. Waiting even a couple minutes on the tee box had me grumbling under my breath. I was 100% about golf. As time goes by I've gotten a lot more relaxed. Still really into golf, but also appreciate and enjoy the scenery, being outdoors in (usually) beautiful places. Enjoy the people I'm playing with. So if I'm playing on a busy weekend on a public course so long as a round comes in between 4 and 4:30 (which they do the vast majority of the time), I'm quite content. 

Edited April 1 by bobfoster

[GoGoErky]

29 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

It does affect the viewer. The same way a 4 hour baseball game affected the viewer. It's an unnecessary time suck. A batter doesn't need to step out of the box after every pitch to refocus. A pitcher doesn't need to walk around the mound after every pitch. Stop over thinking and just get on with it. Golf is no different. Sure, the putt to win or make the cut is a big deal. So is throwing the pitch in the bottom of the 9th w/ a full count while staring at Mike Trout. Suck it up and perform. 

 

Further, how often are the final groups finishing in the dark? How often does any weather delay necessitate a next day finish? Those scenarios can be minimized if pros are finishing closer to 4 hours vs 5 hours. 5 Hour rounds are for munis where half the players are losing 6 balls per round and hitting half their fairway shots from the wrong fairway. These people are the best of the best. They play practice rounds, have pin sheets, have ball spotters. 4 hours shouldn't be a problem. 

 

Lastly, I think pace of play also affects how many people participate in no-cut signature events. Greed is certainly the primary factor, but they also want to go off in twosomes for all four days to help speed up play. Players enjoy it and it helps the TV product. There is no reason 3 pros can't play sub 4 hours. Me and my hack friends can easily go sub 4 when the course permits and we're not hitting 70% of our fairways and greens. 

 

Copy MLBs lead. Implement changes at the KFT level. Elevate what works. Players will whine and complain. After a few months, they'll get over themselves and it will all become standard operating procedure. 

Golf is scheduled to 6pm eastern for almost every tournament. The number that finish in the dark is small. A weather delay is a weather delay and 15 mins less of play time before the delay isn’t going to change the outcome.

 

As mentioned pace of play isn’t an issue for the viewer because you aren’t watching the same group all day but cut away shots to other golfers, cutting to a rules decision or some kind of intriguing situation for a golfer, a replay of a putt or a shot.

 

Nobody is forced to spend 5-6 hours watching golf.

[Creedo77]

1 hour ago, toddbournes said:

The problem lies in amateurs differentiating between the pro game and what the see on tv versus what they do on Saturday at the local muni. It’s two completely different things. I don’t have a problem with a professional golfer doing whatever makes him feel comfortable when he’s playing for his livelihood. It doesn’t affect me and could potentially affect them very significantly. 

Bingo, nail on the head 

 

There’s about 4/5 other components that I do with my pro to eventually get to a point to hit a shot 

 

It’s not just the number and hitting it at the flag, not even close 

[North Butte]

3 hours ago, bobfoster said:

I have never really understood the seemingly continual presumption that the ideal is to make golf as fast as possible.

I occasionally have played a round as fast as possible but a more leisurely 3-hour or so pace is actually more enjoyable.

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

It does affect the viewer. The same way a 4 hour baseball game affected the viewer. It's an unnecessary time suck. A batter doesn't need to step out of the box after every pitch to refocus. A pitcher doesn't need to walk around the mound after every pitch. Stop over thinking and just get on with it. Golf is no different. Sure, the putt to win or make the cut is a big deal. So is throwing the pitch in the bottom of the 9th w/ a full count while staring at Mike Trout. Suck it up and perform. 

 

Further, how often are the final groups finishing in the dark? How often does any weather delay necessitate a next day finish? Those scenarios can be minimized if pros are finishing closer to 4 hours vs 5 hours. 5 Hour rounds are for munis where half the players are losing 6 balls per round and hitting half their fairway shots from the wrong fairway. These people are the best of the best. They play practice rounds, have pin sheets, have ball spotters. 4 hours shouldn't be a problem. 

 

Lastly, I think pace of play also affects how many people participate in no-cut signature events. Greed is certainly the primary factor, but they also want to go off in twosomes for all four days to help speed up play. Players enjoy it and it helps the TV product. There is no reason 3 pros can't play sub 4 hours. Me and my hack friends can easily go sub 4 when the course permits and we're not hitting 70% of our fairways and greens. 

 

Copy MLBs lead. Implement changes at the KFT level. Elevate what works. Players will whine and complain. After a few months, they'll get over themselves and it will all become standard operating procedure. 

Pros aren’t making decisions about playing in signature events based on place of play, lol, that’s fantasy. 
 

Golf isn’t baseball.  No need to get onto to all the reasons that what baseball did and why have little to do with golf. One important aspect already mentioned - you watch a baseball game that’s it - you watch golf they cut from shot to shot unless there is some drama with the shot at hand. Someone not ready to play they go to Cookie at the 13th. The whole done past dark is way overblown. Most tourneys end by the scheduled time absent a playoff or weather intervention. Majors sometimes run longer and nobody cares. 
 

But it’s, “I want them to play fast!” Tempest in a teapot. 

Edited April 1 by Hawkeye77

[Shilgy]

6 hours ago, gvogel said:

It was towards the end of the round yesterday, and Jaeger was waiting on the tee for 12 - 13 minutes while the group ahead did the march to the green.  Talking about icing your opponent.

I was watching but don’t recall….was the group in front of him behind?  Or were they waiting as well?  I don’t recall any group being out of position yesterday.

[bobfoster]

23 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Pros aren’t making decisions about playing in signature events based on place of play, lol, that’s fantasy. 
 

Golf isn’t baseball.  No need to get onto to all the reasons that what baseball did and why have little to do with golf. One important aspect already mentioned - you watch a baseball game that’s it - you watch golf they cut from shot to shot unless there is some drama with the shot at hand. Someone not ready to play they go to Cookie at the 13th. The whole done past dark is way overblown. Most tourneys end by the scheduled time absent a playoff or weather intervention. Majors sometimes run longer and nobody cares. 
 

But it’s, “I want them to play fast!” Tempest in a teapot. 

Was going to make this point. There's a fundamental difference between MLB and professional golf broadcasts. All team sports - MLB, NFL, NBA, NFL and etc. - have a specific thing that is being broadcast: A "game". Time matters, because you pretty much have to broadcast games in their entirety. It is required by media contracts. (No network is going to start a MLB broadcast in the fifth inning, or stop an NFL broadcast halfway through the fourth quarter - that's just not how it works). 

 

Golf is entirely different. A golf broadcast is simply a set period of time. A PGAT tournament day will have 150 players or so on Thursday/Friday, and 70 or so on Saturday/Sunday. They start first thing in the morning, and often go until late afternoon. The norm is for quite a bit less than half of the full day to be covered on TGC or network TV. There's a specific time slot, and whoever happens to be playing during that window is who viewers see. And there are multiple cameras doing coverage, both fixed and roaming. So "slow" play is going to have absolutely zero effect on how much golf a viewer is going to watch within the window of that three or four hour time slot. There are always golfers all over the course hitting shots, and broadcasters have gotten very good at switching between cameras. Only problem might come in on the final day, when a tourney runs over (due to a playoff or something), but the networks almost always extend the window and just delay the evening news (or whatever).

 

So speeding up a baseball game does mean that the time it takes to watch a game on TV (or see it in the stands) is going to be shorter. But speeding up PoP in golf would do nothing. The three or four hour broadcast window would be the same, you'd see the same amount of golf on TV, and the on course spectators are going to be there long before broadcasting begins. A PGAT tournament day is not a "game", it is 150 individual games, played over the course of an entire day. 

[Dutch1008]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Pros aren’t making decisions about playing in signature events based on place of play, lol, that’s fantasy. 
 

Golf isn’t baseball.  No need to get onto to all the reasons that what baseball did and why have little to do with golf. One important aspect already mentioned - you watch a baseball game that’s it - you watch golf they cut from shot to shot unless there is some drama with the shot at hand. Someone not ready to play they go to Cookie at the 13th. The whole done past dark is way overblown. Most tourneys end by the scheduled time absent a playoff or weather intervention. Majors sometimes run longer and nobody cares. 
 

But it’s, “I want them to play fast!” Tempest in a teapot. 

 

When did I say anything about players making a decision to play signature events? 

 

Golf isn't baseball. But both share an older demographic and have historically struggled to attract a younger audience. Baseball made some bold decisions in hopes of delivering a more attractive product to fans. Early returns have been hugely promising. The tour can choose to innovate or continue to stagnate. Tiger 2.0 isn't walking through that door any time soon.