Modern Course Architecture & Pace of Play

[Sean2]

Yes I know many of you are tired of pace of play thread, if that's you, please feel free to move on to another thread. :-)

 

Most of the old course designs allowed golfers to play the course on the ground. A lot of modern course design doesn't allow for this: forced carries, hazards galore, and trouble lurking everywhere.

 

There was a time when the average slope nationwide was 113. I don't know what it is now, but I doubt if it's that low.

 

That average golfer struggles to break 90, and if you look at a lot of the newer courses, the average slope from the middle tees is around 124 or so...at least in my area. That is a far cry from 113.

 

It's as if these modern course architects have the good and very good golfer in mind when they built/build these courses. You can't play these courses on the ground though...forced carries, a lot of hazards, and the like. They seemed to be designed for a small percentage of golfers, not the vast majority of golfers.

 

That said, is it any wonder there is a pace of play issue. Sure, there are a lot of other reasons one can enumerate, but when you have a bunch of foursomes that struggle to break 90 (and this in no way is a slight to these gentlemen), looking for golf balls on almost every hole, it's no wonder the pace slows down.

 

Even worse, people get frustrated losing golf balls, posting big scores, and what not. Being able to play the ball on the ground, less hazards, less forced carries, might not only speed up play, but might keep more people in the game as well. Which is good for everyone. :-)

[mark m]

Sean,

Here is some info on slope - from the popeofslope.com:

[url="http://www.popeofslope.com/magazine/aver_rating.html"]http://www.popeofslo...ver_rating.html[/url]

[left][b]Golf Digest, December, 2008

Handicaps - Your Questions Answered[/b]
[b]Average Slope Rating [/b][/left]

[b]I read that the average course Slope Rating is 113. I've never seen a Slope lower than 120. What gives?[/b]

A: A When I introduced the system in 1982, the theoretical average Slope Rating was 113 because USGA data showed that scores go up on average 1.13 strokes per handicap stroke. The actual average Slope Rating is 120. The majority of courses in coastal states have Slopes of 121 and higher. Many Slopes lower than 118 are mid-American public courses. The lowest is 55 (short par-3 course), and the highest is 155.

[i]By Dean Knuth, Golf Digest Professional Advisor. Former senior director of the USGA handicap department, Knuth invented today's USGA Course Rating and Slope system.[/i]

I agree with your general argument regarding many 'modern' courses built prior to the downturn. Lots not to like with many of them.

[nbg352]

[i]I have thought and stated this same thing for the last ten years or so.[/i]

[duffer987]

Sean please define 'modern course architecture' and 'old course design'.

Also you should go play some of those 124+ slope courses on a regular basis and see if the resulting pace of play and causes for it, jive with your preconceived notions.

[Sean2]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390260642' post='8497367']
Sean please define 'modern course architecture' and 'old course design'.

Also you should go play some of those 124+ slope courses on a regular basis and see if the resulting pace of play and causes for it, jive with your preconceived notions.
[/quote]

I already defined them Duffer. :-)

[2putttom]

Courses have gotten longer, equipment has gotten better, players are remaining unchanged. i.e...boy I sure hit this new driver a long ways...a long ways of line.

[mshills]

I believe course design is the primary factor in pace of play, with course management a close second.

[oldpalchamp]

I have played extremely difficult courses in less than 4-hours. Granted, most of them were private courses, but it can be done. Conversely, I have played short, open courses with unprotected greens and had 6-hour rounds. I know we have been discussing pace of play for a while, but I think the primary reason for slow play is over crowded courses.

Many, if not most of the newer designs, feature multiple tee boxes that affords the player lots of choices.

[duffer987]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1390260895' post='8497401']
[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390260642' post='8497367']
Sean please define 'modern course architecture' and 'old course design'.

Also you should go play some of those 124+ slope courses on a regular basis and see if the resulting pace of play and causes for it, jive with your preconceived notions.
[/quote]

I already defined them Duffer. :-)
[/quote]

So ground versus the air is the extent to which you would identify what a modern course is and what an old course is?

[Sean2]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390262026' post='8497545']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1390260895' post='8497401']
[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390260642' post='8497367']
Sean please define 'modern course architecture' and 'old course design'.

Also you should go play some of those 124+ slope courses on a regular basis and see if the resulting pace of play and causes for it, jive with your preconceived notions.
[/quote]

I already defined them Duffer. :-)
[/quote]

So ground versus the air is the extent to which you would identify what a modern course is and what an old course is?
[/quote]

No.

[Sean2]

[quote name='oldpalchamp' timestamp='1390261949' post='8497531']
I have played extremely difficult courses in less than 4-hours. Granted, most of them were private courses, but it can be done. Conversely, I have played short, open courses with unprotected greens and had 6-hour rounds. I know we have been discussing pace of play for a while, but I think the primary reason for slow play is over crowded courses.

Many, if not most of the newer designs, feature multiple tee boxes that affords the player lots of choices.
[/quote]

I am speaking in broad generalities. And, as I said in my original post, there are many other reasons as well...which have been discussed in a lot of other threads. However, if golfers can immediately find their golf balls and hit them again, as opposed to having to spend a few minutes looking for them, that would speed things up a bit. I'm not saying this is the sole reason, simply a contributing factor.

[duffer987]

[quote]Not totally. Why do you ask?[/quote]

You're blaming 'modern course architecture' as a key contributor to pace of play, especially in relation to 'older designs'.
I'm simply trying to gain a solid understanding of your definitions of each before offering a rebuttal

And all we have is this: allowed golfers to play the course on the ground vs forced carries, hazards galore, and trouble lurkin.

[Sean2]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390262517' post='8497605']
[quote]Not totally. Why do you ask?[/quote]

You're blaming 'modern course architecture' as a key contributor to pace of play, especially in relation to 'older designs'.
I'm simply trying to gain a solid understanding of your definitions of each before offering a rebuttal

And all we have is this: allowed golfers to play the course on the ground vs forced carries, hazards galore, and trouble lurkin.
[/quote]

I'm not "blaming" anything. I'm offering it as a contributing factor. :-)

[farmer]

Duffer, see what Phil had to say about modern architecture. Sean makes a point.

[Sean2]

[quote name='farmer' timestamp='1390264067' post='8497791']
Duffer, see what Phil had to say about modern architecture. Sean makes a point.
[/quote]

Thanks Farmer. :-)

I think Duffer likes to "troll" my threads. :-)

[Break81]

Played Saturday @ a course that schedules tee times in 5 minute intervals. By that logic they expect you to play in what.... 3 hours?

We started at 7:25 and by the time we hit the turn we could here the starter telling people they were about 15-20 minutes behind. That was around 9:30 and I bet they were further behind than that. By noon I bet it was horrible.

I also agree with design part as well, new courses have lots of par 5's that are reachable by even average length golfers so hit a drive 250 and have 200-220 left and now everyone is "going for it in 2!" when most end up with a bogey or worse.

Biggest factor though is greed. Pack in as many players as possible. IMO tee times should be 8 minutes apart minimum.

[MaydayGSXR]

I guess if the occasional "drop a ball and hit a second shot" adds up over the course and adds a significant amount extra time on each hole, it COULD be a factor (especially if most every hole has some sort of forced carry or issue).

But in all honesty, like in any other slow play thread, I think it really comes down to if the person is prepared for it and moves quickly to adapt and play.

I am just in the skill range where I am really able to start making course management decisions; What club to lay up to that position? What club will get me over the water if I choose to go for it? What club gets safely around or over that hazard? Etc.. I am really loving the decision process (as it is a bit of a milestone for me that I am able to play the course in a "new way"). Without rambling too much, I'll just say that I know when I am taking a risky shot, and I am also prepared for ANY shot I take to stray OB or into some water. So I am always ready to adapt to almost any situation; grab another ball and try another shot, or simply move on to the drop zone, whatever it may be.

Again, it's the mentality or personality of the golfer; the person that takes awhile to finish a hole will do so just the same, regardless of where the ball may go (and these kind of players may be used to having their balls stray off into the woods in the first place). Granted, it may go in more hazards, so if the person is the type of person that has to find every ball they lose, they may spend a lot more time looking. Other than that, I'm not sure I can think of a specific type of golfer that may be hugely affected by the course. If the person is the type that isn't prepared to move on after each shot, they won't necessarily navigate one course too differently from another. Just my opinion, but you bring up a good point, I'm interested to see what others think as well!

[Sean2]

I agree that there are MANY contributing factor to pace of play, but if golfers are looking for golf balls, instead of hitting them, that has to slow down the pace.

[nbg352]

[quote name='Break81' timestamp='1390264333' post='8497825']
Played Saturday @ a course that schedules tee times in 5 minute intervals. By that logic they expect you to play in what.... 3 hours?

We started at 7:25 and by the time we hit the turn we could here the starter telling people they were about 15-20 minutes behind. That was around 9:30 and I bet they were further behind than that. By noon I bet it was horrible.

I also agree with design part as well, new courses have lots of par 5's that are reachable by even average length golfers so hit a drive 250 and have 200-220 left and now everyone is "going for it in 2!" when most end up with a bogey or worse.

Biggest factor though is greed. Pack in as many players as possible. IMO tee times should be 8 minutes apart minimum.
[/quote]
It's tough to get your head around the fact that the average golfer doesn't hit it 250 off any tee to any par hole. He is not going for any par 5 in 2. Tougher, longer courses that require forced carries over a lot of tough terrain and hazards makes the average golfer's day a tough one. The average golfer would have a better day hitting a chip and run but modern design does not allow for it. The average golfer cannot hit out of thick, deep, damp rough. And yet he is expected to, if he first finds his ball in the process.
Design has a great deal to do with slow pace of play, but as sean keeps reiterating it is but one of the issues contributing to it. But, modern design is rarely brought up as being part of the problem. Perhaps that is because many of our wrx members don't remember the old courses?

[Left53]

Pace of play is in my opinion determined by stuffing as many foursomes as the joint can handle regardless of ability on a track for as shortly spaced times as they can,almost drive thru golf if the car at the window breaks down now we have a parking lot backed up.this is just my opinion

[arnold palmtree]

Meh, I would rather my round take longer and I be challenged than play faster but be bored.

[duffer987]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1390264254' post='8497815']
[quote name='farmer' timestamp='1390264067' post='8497791']
Duffer, see what Phil had to say about modern architecture. Sean makes a point.
[/quote]

Thanks Farmer. :-)

I think Duffer likes to "troll" my threads. :-)
[/quote]

Ha-ha. On the ego stuff, sure just trolling a spammer But hey you keep starting the same thread over and over it makes it easy

Seriously though, here they're genuine questions.
Which courses are you playing with a high slope rating where you see gentlemen struggle to find their golf balls, thus playing at a slower pace, compared to easier courses where players fly through?

I reckon if you were to rotate 4 or 5 different courses with different slope rating, playing them on noon Sat, with 8 min intervals, you would find the pace of play pretty much the same between them. In my experience the last two years in California, the difficulty level of a course has not meant longer rounds. Jammed munis have led to longer rounds.

[Break81]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1390266373' post='8498079']
[quote name='Break81' timestamp='1390264333' post='8497825']
Played Saturday @ a course that schedules tee times in 5 minute intervals. By that logic they expect you to play in what.... 3 hours?

We started at 7:25 and by the time we hit the turn we could here the starter telling people they were about 15-20 minutes behind. That was around 9:30 and I bet they were further behind than that. By noon I bet it was horrible.

I also agree with design part as well, new courses have lots of par 5's that are reachable by even average length golfers so hit a drive 250 and have 200-220 left and now everyone is "going for it in 2!" when most end up with a bogey or worse.

Biggest factor though is greed. Pack in as many players as possible. IMO tee times should be 8 minutes apart minimum.
[/quote]
It's tough to get your head around the fact that the average golfer doesn't hit it 250 off any tee to any par hole. He is not going for any par 5 in 2. Tougher, longer courses that require forced carries over a lot of tough terrain and hazards makes the average golfer's day a tough one. The average golfer would have a better day hitting a chip and run but modern design does not allow for it. The average golfer cannot hit out of thick, deep, damp rough. And yet he is expected to, if he first finds his ball in the process.
Design has a great deal to do with slow pace of play, but as sean keeps reiterating it is but one of the issues contributing to it. But, modern design is rarely brought up as being part of the problem. Perhaps that is because many of our wrx members don't remember the old courses?
[/quote]
One of the absolute slowest courses (6 hours) in the LA / OC / Inland Empire area is La Mirada golf course. Par 70 (6100 yards and slope 117) I and not long by any stretch, not really any forced carries or OB or water really. It's old school all the way.

They slam the course with 5'somes to the point to where you have a foursome? well here is Joe Golfer off the wait list to join you. On the other hand, take a "new" course that cost $80 a round and spreads the tee times out to where they should be and a course with a 130+ slope is a 4:15 - 4:30 round.

I will agree the new design could be a big part but I have seen people who shoot 110 play quickly and play ready golf. I million things contribute, how about low cappers who have a buzzillion bets with their buddies? The take 5 practice swings 20 capper? I can only share what my experience is in my own personal geographical location, but by far the #1 problem is over crowding and the weekends can be almost unbearable unless you spend on the high end.

[mr_divots]

As to finding one's ball: you have to first [u]watch[/u] it to find it. (Ooh, very Zen! ha! )
Playing as a single and getting paired up, I can't tell you how many people hit the ball and never even SEE it leave the teebox. They'll literally look to the opposite side of the hole to where it went. It baffles me. Close their eyes?

I have NO idea what they are watching or paying attention to, but these people will lose their ball regardless of venue, slope rating, or carry requirements. They'll be distracted by the bev cart girl they have no shot with. They'll drink 12 beers and stop to pee 12 times. On and on.

Tee time intervals and caring about those behind you. Pace of play threads, you have been served.

[Break81]

[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1390270872' post='8498563']
They'll be distracted by the bev cart girl they have no shot with. They'll drink 12 beers and stop to pee 12 times.
[/quote]
You just described my best golf buddy right there. He has been known to buy 2 beers on 17th hole even though he has 1 full one left from earlier just to take another gander. He's not really a slow player though, we always catch up. lol

[Sean2]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1390269919' post='8498433']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1390264254' post='8497815']
[quote name='farmer' timestamp='1390264067' post='8497791']
Duffer, see what Phil had to say about modern architecture. Sean makes a point.
[/quote]

Thanks Farmer. :-)

I think Duffer likes to "troll" my threads. :-)
[/quote]

Ha-ha. On the ego stuff, sure just trolling a spammer But hey you keep starting the same thread over and over it makes it easy

Seriously though, here they're genuine questions.
Which courses are you playing with a high slope rating where you see gentlemen struggle to find their golf balls, thus playing at a slower pace, compared to easier courses where players fly through?

I reckon if you were to rotate 4 or 5 different courses with different slope rating, playing them on noon Sat, with 8 min intervals, you would find the pace of play pretty much the same between them. In my experience the last two years in California, the difficulty level of a course has not meant longer rounds. Jammed munis have led to longer rounds.
[/quote]

Asked and answered Duffer. :-)

[Marrrk]

"[i]Something drastic ought to have been done years ago. Golf courses are becoming far too long. Twenty years ago we played three rounds of golf a day and considered we took a intermably long time if we took more than two hours to play a round. Today it not infrequently takes over three hours.[/i]" —Alister Mackenzie, 1933.

The good Doctor was speaking there of how the distances achieved by newer golf balls was resulting in overly long courses. However, since he was famously not a fan of penal course design, and since the rest of the book criticizes much of what we would consider "modern course design," I think the quote applies just as well to this discussion. He championed a style of course that was challenging for good players yet still fun and playable for lesser players—St. Andrews being his favorite example.

[Apex93]

Bring back the caddie. Decreases time looking for lost balls, keeps groups on pace, plus a whole host of other benefits (including growing the game organically to kids).
Downside is obviously the increased cost of the round which will price out a considerable amount of play. But at the risk of sounding callous, doesn't that, too, increase pace of play?

[JollyGreenBucket]

I think we spend a great deal of time looking for the magic bullet of slow play when in my opinion the truth is there are several factors causing pace of play to increase. Ideally there would be a comprehensive look at pace of play, beginning with making the goal of making the game more fun. Why? Because if it isn't more fun, the courses don't get the turn out they need, the club manufacturers don't sell merchandise, etc... In my view, that's why we're losing golfers year on year. It takes too much precious time. I'm 30 and I don't think the big golf organizations like the USGA, PGA, PGA Tour, etc, really understand what I want for me and my kids, which is a problem in my view.

[duffer987]

[quote name='duffer987']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1390271481' post='8498629']

Which courses are you playing with a high slope rating where you see gentlemen struggle to find their golf balls, thus playing at a slower pace, compared to easier courses where players fly through?

[/quote]

Asked and answered Duffer. :-)
[/quote]

Oh! Really? Apologies, but I didn't actually see an answer to that question.

Thought it would be interesting to look at the scorecards, maybe break out the 'ol Google maps, and compare the courses.