Super Slow At Oakmont?

Now posted is my Los Angeles Times story on the potential for slow play problems at Oakmont.

I'm curious what you all think of the USGA's new slow play policy (reportedly working wonders at its other 12 championships), and what it will take to get it in place at the U.S. Open?

The consensus within the USGA (at least with those I talked to) seems to be that they will have a hard time implementing this policy at the Open without the PGA Tour adopting a similar policy at its events.

Comments

[Honest Abe]

The pace of play will be really slow. BUT! the real culprit will be the course and the set up. 18 inch putts will have to be marked and read. Nothing about the greens will lead to quick play. Players will face shots around the green that will be "new" to them and they will take their time figuring out what shot to play. Oh yea! Looking for balls will take time even if they have 1000 spotters out there. As a general rule, a USGA set up adds at least 45 minutes to the round.

[Stephen]

As I fail to see how equipment manufacturers can sue them on this one, I see the U$GA acting "for the good of the game."

Although: would NBC still cover as much, and advertise as much, if Tiger took the stage more briefly? In which case, the U$GA may revert to form.

[86general]

That's a thought-provoking post if I've ever read one, Abe. The last line, I mean. The set up will ad _forty-five MINUTES_?? Forty-five more than what? Than Oakmont's normal set up? More than a British Open (sorry to my golf friends across the pond, but I still get confused if I call it simply 'the Open', although I do acknowledge that it is The open of all opens...)?

But absolutely everything you said makes perfect sense. They will be marking 18 inchers, because the greens will be silly fast, and if they miss those the ball will end up on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. And they'll be studying the shots around the green like someone examining hair fragments on CSI. The difference in surfaces from green to greenside rough (excepting where they may try "chipping areas") will be like linoleum v. iceplant. Maybe it's the synergy of that questionable course set up with today's anal-retentive professional golfer.

We had a great discussion of slow play following the Players and Sean O'Hair's glacial pace of play that day. I wish jneu would restate is opinion on today's "it's all about me" pro.

They set a _terrible_ example.

I played 2 holes yesterday with two elderly Japanese gentlemen who are visiting NJ for our state open this week, one round of which I believe will be played near my home. One man was 55, and the other 70. The 55 year old is competing in the event. They both walked the hilly course, the younger man carrying a tour bag absolutely stuffed to the gills with gear. The older man had slightly less tackle, but was carrying what is pretty typical and certainly no Sunday bag.

The older man hit everything smack on the screws, and took less time from "pull club from bag" to "ball on green" than I do trying to figure out which end of the club to grip. It was astonishing. I try to move it along, but it amazed me how fast one can really play--and play well--and how even I could speed it up considerably.

The only thing close to this that I've ever experienced was playing with a man in Denver when we were trying to get in 18 holes in about 90 minutes before sundown. We took a cart, but we were basically jogging to every shot, taking almost no time to prepare. It was an absolute blast, and I played better than normal on the full shots, but worse on the putting. And we did get in 18 before sundown.

Not that we should use pace of play as a standard of excellence, but it is a matter of etiquette that definitely must improve in the US.

Anything the USGA can do is appreciated, and nothing will do more in this regard than to make it visible in the US Open. The PGA Tour should do the same thing. It will ruffle some feathers, but will be better for them and all of us in the long run.

[JPB]

It is crazy the USGA wants to get the PGA Tour on board. They should enforce the rules. The rules require playing without undue delay. If pros generally unduly delay play with a given preshot routine, simply hit them with strokes then a DQ. If the tour doesn't like it too bad. This is one area where the USGA needs to restore the old contempt for professional golfers. The 4 hole station bit is better than nothing, but any group punishment is antithetical to the spirit of golf IMO. The US Open is an individual competition, not a team event. No player should suffer for the slow play of another. The solution is simple. Tell the players golf is a 3 hour sport. Tell them to play without undue delay. Tell them taking a minute lining up the line on their ball to putt will be hit with 2 strokes then a DQ. If you DQ 30 guys the first 2 hours, the players will get it. A modest proposal.

[Dick Mahoon]

Hey 86general,

If you want to experience more of the quick play you described, make a trip to Australia. I played for a number of years at a small, beautiful, 100-year old, tree-lined course between Sydney and Brisbane. If you enjoyed the view or so much as waggled one time to many, you'd get an earfull. In the beginning, it was a tad unnerving but after a while you got used to making quick decisions and I know it made me get around the course quickly. Other friends of mine that visited Australia (and played different courses) also mentioned how quickly people get around the courses too. And, like you, I still played ok.

As for the pros, well, they really are slooooowwwww (even the Aussies). The only way to get them to speed up is to penalise them but you can imagine the outrage if they did.

Because of where I live, the US Open will be on in the middle of the night so I'll be taping it, then fast-forwarding to speed up play during those one-footers.

[Adam]

Penalize the individuals who exhibit repeated undue delay. Which implies there are situations where there is due delay.

Golf is not an exact science.

Having pre-conceived hole times seems wrong. How do you know how many times a player will need five minutes to find their ball?

If a group falls behind, they should be given the opportunity to catch up.

[jneu]

"A leading difficulty with the average player is that he totally misunderstands what is meant by concentration. He may think that he is concentrating when he is merely worrying." -- Robert Trent Jones

Obviously no one at Oakmont this week is an "average player," but the point is still valid. The difficulty of the setup should not add to the time per shot, but it will.

Players will take as long as they feel they need to unless someone tells them they can't. This is one of the USGA's jobs this week, and the PGA Tour's job most other weeks.

The baseball writer Bill James has suggested that there are some rules whose purpose is to tell people to stop screwing around and just play the game. The shot clock in college basketball was one example -- yes, it was in some team's interests to hold the ball and never attempt a shot when leading a better team, but it messed up the game and would ultimately drive spectators away. In football (real football), it used to be ok for the keeper to use his hands when someone on his side passed the ball back to him; that was eliminated, because the endless spectacle of playing the ball back defensively for him to punt it down the field was getting repetitious and boring. (I'm guessing here -- how'm I doing, Hawkeye?)

Tournament golf needs something like this to address slow play. There ought to be a limit -- even a generous one -- on the time between the start of a player's turn to play and his actual swing. One (or two) violations per round are free, to allow for unanticipatable situations. Each one after is a penalty. Put a shot-clock on the scoring standard for each group, so the golfer (and every spectator) knows where things stand.

What's essential is that there be clear standards and mandatory responses. As long as the remedies are discretionary, the governing bodies will find a way to justify nonenforcement.

[Hawkeye]

jneu, the only time a keeper can touch the ball with his hands if a teammate passed it is if he did so with a header. So I'd say you did a good sum-up of one of the better rules changes in old-world football the last few years!

[86general]

Great post, jneu. To expand a bit, the point of the Bill James article you referenced was that, in the case of baseball, the irritating practices for which he proposes rule changes (throwing to first, shuffling in 4 relievers per inning, etc.) are harmful to the game because they detract from the excitement and drama. I believe he says it's 'rude' to make fans sit through some of this crap.

I believe it's rude of the players, and ultimately the tour, to make fans--paying customers at the course and those watching on TV--sit through the tedium. Like watching paint dry, or a cat lick itself, or maybe watching someone tune a piano.

Yes, establish objective standards, with clear penalties, and enforce them. No reason you can't have a tour official with each group handling the timing.

[86general]

As an aside on the psyche of professional golfers, some of them, anyway:

In my job, I am as anal-retentive as one can be. I can be looking on a microscope slide for five cancer cells among 300k total cells. You don't survive in my business without being methodical and careful.

Anyway, I watched a Dave Pelz bit on TV and went out and bought a thingie to put a line on my ball. The next time I went out to play, I eagerly grasped my thusly-lined ball and proceeded to try to line up my first putt. I realized instantly--and maybe this is because of my training in a visual profession, I don't know--that it was folly to think I could use this tiny, 1.5 inch line and accurately point it at my aim line on a putt of almost any length, save maybe a 3 footer or shorter.

I immediately stopped trying to do it.

[Hank]

Check out the updated profile of Oakmont in Golfclubatlas.com. Absolutely fabulous

[BF]

If they implemented a shot clock at the big events, maybe the crowd in the stands can start chanting a countdown when a player is nearing the end of his time.

"Here's Ben Crane on 12....he's checking the wind direction...he better hurry up if he's going to avoid a shot clock violation, Rossie"

CROWD: "10!!! 9!!! 8!!! 7!!! 6!!!"

Pace of play improves, crowd gets to participate, everybody wins.

[Geoff]

BF,
You joke (I think) but part of me actually thinks the USGA policy would make for great television!

[Honest Abe]

While pace of play is clearly a problem, I laugh at the suggestion that a couple of "older guys" or "trying to get in 18 before dark" should be the yardstick of what is important. I suggest that pace of play would seriosly slow down if there was a wager of say $500 per shot. No more looking at the green and picking a club and hoping it is the right one, especially, when playing a new course. The players that qualified for a chance to win the U.S. Open would never forgive themselves if they lost by a shot, and that shot was a result of negligence. I dislike slow play as much as anyone. I find it the most selfish thing a golfer can do, but let's not put the blame entirely on professional golf. Most regular golfers don't even putt out every putt. Shouldn't that be equally offensive to a golf traditionalist? I would also argue that those "fast players" at the club become much slower when it really counts, like a club championship match. Putt every putt and try to shoot the lowest score you can and let me know how long it takes.

[86general]

I said that pace of play shouldn't be a standard of excellence, and was pointing out that brisk pace of play can be enjoyable, and intimated that slowing down may not guarantee a better result.

I never suggested speed golf for the US Open.

OK, so how much leeway do we give the pros, given the gravity of competing for the national championship?

Relatively speaking, you got me--if it's for the club championship or 20x my usual bet, I'll probably slow down. But there has to be a standard somewhere. Just as we don't have unlimited real estate for building courses, we don't have unlimited daylight.

I think 3 hours is plenty of time for an ordinary round of golf, and maybe you make it 3.5 or 4 for a USGA championship.

Is that asking too much?

[Anyonymouse]

"I think 3 hours is plenty of time for an ordinary round of golf, and maybe you make it 3.5 or 4 for a USGA championship.

Is that asking too much?"

Yes.

Put three players who are playing for their livelyhood and one of the two most prestigious titles in the world on a golf course that is setup crazy hard and there is absolutely no way it can be played that fast. Certainly not for 52 straight groups and not even for 1.

There is a significant difference between the golf that you and I play on any given weekend and the type of golf they will be playing at Oakmont this week. Both in the challange and the importance.

I guarantee you that every group has an official with it who is keeping track of the time and if his group gets out of position and is behind on time they will call the rovers, who will put them on the clock if they don't get caught up in a hole or two. I worked a US Senior Open and my group was put on the clock almost immediately after it got behind due to one bad hole even though we had been waiting all day until that hole.

Remember when Tom Meeks put the final group of the 1998 US Open on the clock and gave Payne Stewart a warning for slow play. What did he get for that? He got roasted by many in the media for doing that to the final group.

[Jerry]

It's not the course, it's the fact that about a third of the field don't belong there. The Open's qualifying format opens itself to slowplay.

[86general]

Mouse: Okay, I'll concede the point that the professional game, given what's at stake, will always play slower than what we think of today as a brisk, recreational round. The more prestige and difficulty involved, the slower.

Does this mean that we are doomed to endure PGA Tour and USGA-like playing practices at regular golf courses around the US? Is there anything pro golf can do to combat the problem of slow play.

Maybe you don't think slow play is a big problem. Maybe it isn't.

But one of the problems with golf in the US is declining participation, and I think the length of time it takes to play a round figures heavily in this issue.

[JPB]

I have been thinking about the argument of play naturally slowing down when a lot is at stake. And an idea came about that I mentioned in the proposed question to David Fay above. Naturally play will be a bit slower at a very difficult course in a stroke play format. Clearly 3 hour rounds at Oakmont with 156 or whatever players are not going to happen. That, however, does not mean slow play is OK. The defenders of playing slower when a lot is at stake provide a basis for an argument that slow play is cheating. Rule 6-7 bans undue delay. Regardless of any other slow play policy in effect, the committee or a tour etc... may not waive the rule. If a player slows down because it helps him score better, how is it not a deliberate violation of the rules in order to gain an advantage over the field, if the delay is in fact undue delay? Rule 6-7 is a rule where the breach can confer an advantage. A breach of it can also be seen to affect the rights of another competitor. So rather than be excused, deliberate delay to gain an individual advantage should be dealt with. That leaves the problem mentioned by others of having a rational definition of undue dely. The decisions on the rules don't give us much. I also think it can depend on the situation. Taking a bit of extra time hitting a tricky shot out of a divot is different from agonizing over a 1 foot putt. I guess we are left with the old definition of obscenity, the "I know it when I see it" definition. IMO you also have to look at the cumulative effect of things that delay play. Taking a bunch of extra time lining up the line on the ball to putt should be added up. If a player consistently takes an extra 20 seconds over the ball, that adds 10 minutes to the round if he takes 30 putts. The 10 minute delay should be viewed, not the 20 second delay. It is another matter of a player takes one extra minute over a very difficult shot.

I know that this might cause controversy and be somewhat difficult to enforce. However, the USGA does not mind enforcing other rules that can make things difficult. So why not on slow play? And why justify slow play if the justification essentially boils down to getting an advantage over the field?

[Carl Rove]

When golf balls spun more players had more SPIN control over their shots. That changed in favor of professionals having the ability to hit 350 yard drives because the ball was spinning less, much less. The WOW factor has backfired on the platforms and brand awareness.

a) The normal pace of play during a typical PGA Tour event was always 4.5 hrs for 3-somes, and 3.5 hrs for 2-somes. They haven't come close to those times in the past 3 years.

b) With balls going 350yrds off the tee a larger percentage of professionals (over 50%) are having to search for balls.

c) With the advent of 350yrd WOW drives we're witnessing train wrecks in turn 1, turn 2, turn 3 and turn 4. The rubber necking takes time.

d) With balls going 350yrds golf courses have been stretched as many times as Liz Taylor, it's not pretty and takes a lot longer getting excited about playing. Not to mention the extra time required to walk the longer distances. When a 5 iron traveled 180 it didn't take long to get to the green, with 5 irons going 235yrds the player still has to hit his chip or pitch, plus walk the extra distance.

e) Who really cares? I quit the game, taking 6 hours for me to play just wasn't working any more.

f) I enjoyed the game better when a professional got up and beat a drive 280 yards down the middle,grabed the tee out of the ground, walked to his bag inserting driver before the ball landed. That was truly AWESOME!