R&A Pace of Play Questionnaire

First topic message reminder :

R&A Pace of Play Questionnaire

I guess many of you may get this through your clubs from the R&A anyway but thought it might be worthy of sticking in a topic. Only takes a couple of minutes to do anyway (and probably won't make the blindest bit of difference). Sorry if the inserted link is cocked up the address is:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PaceofPlayTest

Had a very annoying guy in front of us last weekend. On each shot he took several practice swings, with the backswing gradually getting longer on each one. Then he stood absolutely motionless over the ball for about a minute before finally taking a swing. We can't afford to hang around playing twilight golf -- one practice swing at most.

It would be easier to demonstrate, i'm using the centre line of the ball (top to bottom) using my stronger eye, lined up with the shaft of the putter in line with the hole, the amount of borrow is reflected by which side of the shaft the hole appears on. I line the ball up on that line, and if I've got the pace right, it generally takes that line. It won't always drop, because there's more to putting than pace and line.

Could I see the break it without it? Probably, could I get down Villegas style and see it even more clearly? Probably. Does this work for me as a method of discerning the direction and general amount of break? Absolutely.

I have always been a pretty good reader of greens, but I find this gives me a point of reference, but it only works if you impart the correct pace for the break you see,if you can't match the two, I will concur that it is useless.

Look at it a bit like where you cue the red ball in snooker at the angle you want to hit the white ball into it to create the angle.

super_realist wrote:I'm using the centre line of the ball (top to bottom) using my stronger eye, lined up with the shaft of the putter in line with the hole, the amount of borrow is reflected by which side of the shaft the hole appears on. I line the ball up on that line, and if I've got the pace right, it generally takes that line.

Exactly

A lot is made here of Pros using their feet to sense the more subtle slope on greens.
I think it's all a very individual thing; greens-reading, and especially the requisite pace, is invariably a serious weakness in most hackers' games.
Just make sure that all greens-reading is done when others are doing their stuff so you're ready to go.

Plunky wrote:Our gap between tee times is 8 minutes so it doesn't take much to cause a hold up.

Plunky, Nairn used to be 8min/7min alternate times which resulted in excruciatingly slow golf.  It's now 10 minutes and this has made a huge difference.  Only trouble is, with there being fewer times available, it's wise to book well in advance to get the time you want.

... (and probably won't make the blindest bit of difference) ...

And this is why I didn't fill in the questionnaire Roller.  

The R&A needs to tackle how golfers play the game.  Until that happens, nothing will change.

28 of us from my club were at the Belfry earlier this month for a two round, one night stay. Including our club pro, president and captain and all competent and knowledgeable golfers. We paid the best part of £6,000 between us, plus several hundred across the bar in the evening no doubt and £400 in the pro-shop for prizes.

Played the Brabazon on the first day with our first group teeing off at 11.00am. Almost right from the start all the players on the course, including our group, were getting grief from the on course marshalls with comments such as "Guys I'm really worried that the golfers at the back are going to run out of daylight, you're all going to have to speed up your pace of play".

Really winds me up. Well here's an idea, don't put so many bloody people on the course then you greedy gits!

gaelgowfer wrote:

... (and probably won't make the blindest bit of difference) ...

And this is why I didn't fill in the questionnaire Roller.  

The R&A needs to tackle how golfers play the game.  Until that happens, nothing will change.

I don't get this. The R&A set up a questionnaire to find out what golfers think are the causes of slow play. Maybe they will ignore the results .. who knows ... but if they intend ignoring right from the start, then why bother setting it up in the first place?

Yet Gael won't fill it in because she is taking some sort of stand that will benefit no one. Fill it in, air your grievances - and then if it IS ignored you have (perhaps) a right to complain.

How are the R&A meant to tackle how golfers play the game, if other golfers don't identify the problems? Chances are, on the rare occasions the old farts of the R&A committee actually play 18 holes they are probably given a free run at the course and marshalled to death

super_realist wrote:
I also plumb bob chips, because i want the ball to run out towards the hole and my chipping is my best asset.

So you can't hit the St Andrews greens?

SR, appreciate the explanation but I still don't get it. If you've lined yourself up behind the ball and the hole, surely when you hold the shaft up the hole is behind it? And if it's not you've just lined up wonky?

super_realist wrote:Where I stand is completely irrelevant by and large, my feet have nothing to do with it, it's my eye that is vertical in line with the putter. I'm looking directly at the path from the ball to the hole. The free hanging putter, using my "sporting eye" is sufficient to INDICATE the break of the putt given on how my brain visualises the pace I hit it at.

It won't work for everyone, especially those without a dominant eye, or who try to do it with both eyes open or who aren't letting the putter hang freely.

I also plumb bob chips, because i want the ball to run out towards the hole and my chipping is my best asset.

Of course it's relevant where you stand and what the slope's like where you're at cf. where the ball's going and where the hole's at. It's also relevant how consistent you are re. how far your eye is from the putter etc etc. I'm afraid plumb bobbing makes no rational or scientific sense at all although, if it helps, whatever the veracity of what you do, that's all that really matters.
Best case scenario? It gives you a hint as to which way the borrow is at the hole. Nothing more than that.

super_realist wrote:

McLaren wrote:plum bobbing is equivalent to homeopathy.

Don't be absurd Mac, that's like saying cross hairs are irrelevant in a telescopic sight.

Except that he's right...

Davie wrote:

gaelgowfer wrote:

... (and probably won't make the blindest bit of difference) ...

And this is why I didn't fill in the questionnaire Roller.  

The R&A needs to tackle how golfers play the game.  Until that happens, nothing will change.

I don't get this. The R&A set up a questionnaire to find out what golfers think are the causes of slow play. Maybe they will ignore the results .. who knows ... but if they intend ignoring right from the start, then why bother setting it up in the first place?

Yet Gael won't fill it in because she is taking some sort of stand that will benefit no one. Fill it in, air your grievances - and then if it IS ignored you have (perhaps) a right to complain.

How are the R&A meant to tackle how golfers play the game, if other golfers don't identify the problems? Chances are, on the rare occasions the old farts of the R&A committee actually play 18 holes they are probably given a free run at the course and marshalled to death

Anyone with a modicum of golf knowledge would have known what I meant by "how golfers play the game" which was said in the context of the thread title.  However, just for your benefit Davie, I was referring to course management skills.  

I'm sure the R&A will ingather the information, write a nice report which will then be filed somewhere deep in the bowels of the R&A never to be seen again.

For what it's worth, I think the R&A should be encouraging clubs to invite all members (including juniors) to take part in course management classes which could take place in the winter months.  This would work better of course in private clubs but at least it would be a beginning.

MustPuttBetter wrote:SR, appreciate the explanation but I still don't get it. If you've lined yourself up behind the ball and the hole, surely when you hold the shaft up the hole is behind it? And if it's not you've just lined up wonky?

No, you are centering the shaft on the middle of the ball. The hole will appear on one side of the shaft should there be a borrow.

It is useful to see the direction from which the break comes from. I'd probably have to demonstrate and of course it's open to user error, beut it isn't supposed to give the exact line, it's really only there to indicate from which direction the break comes from.

I think the important thing with plumb bobbing is to understand the relevance of your dominant eye. NBS, it appears from your comments that you don't, so it's understandable that you can't appreciate how it works.

Does that come across as patronising enough? Sorry.

There are scientific papers which show it's not a valid method of determining the line of the putt or the degree of break, and I completely agree with that, however I can visually see the line anyway, but the same paper does show how plumb bobbing works for determining the break around the hole.
Much also depends on your ability to read a green and match your putting pace to that read.

super_realist wrote:

MustPuttBetter wrote:SR, appreciate the explanation but I still don't get it. If you've lined yourself up behind the ball and the hole, surely when you hold the shaft up the hole is behind it? And if it's not you've just lined up wonky?

No, you are centering the shaft on the middle of the ball. The hole will appear on one side of the shaft should there be a borrow.

It is useful to see the direction from which the break comes from.  I'd probably have to demonstrate and of course it's open to user error, beut it isn't supposed to give the exact line, it's really only there to indicate from which direction the break comes from.

Ok i think i'm with you. I will give it a go tomorrow and see if it helps, cheers

Don't hold anybody up though MPB

super_realist wrote:I'm using the centre line of the ball (top to bottom) using my stronger eye, lined up with the shaft of the putter in line with the hole, the amount of borrow is reflected by which side of the shaft the hole appears on. I line the ball up on that line, and if I've got the pace right, it generally takes that line.

Erm. Sorry for being dumb and it does sound like I need to be there to see the explanation in action because I think I'm still missing something, despite now having looked at the more recent SR/MPB suffix...

If you have two objects (ball & hole) directly in front of you, any straight line (shaft) will disect both objects in the middle won't it?

Where am I being silly?

(no wonder I hold people up trying to figure out simple premises like this one whilst on the green)

BlueCoverman wrote:Don't hold anybody up though MPB

Ha ha, it's a medal this weekend so likely to be near 5 hours anyway!

A couple of points...

I was not disparaging plumb bobbing as a method - I can imagine that having a vertical reference can help some people see the slopes on the horizontal plane better. I don't use it myself - I have mild astigmatism so in theory I can't actually focus on the vertical and the horizontal at exactly the same time - but I don't really know if that's why it doesn't work for me. I prefer a quick look from both sides, a visualisation of the line, pick a spot on that line and hit it. I find the more time I spend the worse I putt. I'm an ok putter - it's a reasonably strong part of my game most days.

I was moaning about players I've seen using three techniques, thus taking an age and still getting nowhere near the hole, and then repeat and rinse.

Roller_Coaster wrote:

super_realist wrote:I'm using the centre line of the ball (top to bottom) using my stronger eye, lined up with the shaft of the putter in line with the hole, the amount of borrow is reflected by which side of the shaft the hole appears on. I line the ball up on that line, and if I've got the pace right, it generally takes that line.

Erm. Sorry for being dumb and it does sound like I need to be there to see the explanation in action because I think I'm still missing something, despite now having looked at the more recent SR/MPB suffix...

If you have two objects (ball & hole) directly in front of you, any straight line (shaft) will disect both objects in the middle won't it?

Where am I being silly?

(no wonder I hold people up trying to figure out simple premises like this one whilst on the green)

I'm confused about that aswell Roller. but was afraid to ask. From super's account I gather the hole "appears" to be on one side of the shaft even though its being bisected down the middle.

I would've thought the hole would appear to 'tilt' in the direction of the break(relative to the vertical shaft), but I don't plumb bob, so that may be hogwash.

gaelgowfer wrote:
Anyone with a modicum of golf knowledge would have known what I meant by "how golfers play the game" which was said in the context of the thread title.  However, just for your benefit Davie, I was referring to course management skills.  

Utter rubbish. Course management (or lack of) would be WAY down the list of reasons for slow play

SmithersJones wrote:I think the important thing with plumb bobbing is to understand the relevance of your dominant eye. NBS, it appears from your comments that you don't, so it's understandable that you can't appreciate how it works.

Does that come across as patronising enough? Sorry.

Yes, it does. It also comes across as terminally stupid though.
Use of dominant eye, or not, is going to have no bearing for one thing - the appearance of the relative positions of ball and hole move equally in switching from dominant to subservient. You just move your head to re-align them when you switch from one eye to the other but it won't effect where you think the borrow comes from.
Your dominant (or any other) eye has no influence on, for example, differing parallax effects from putt to putt. It also has no effect on the differences in relative slope between where you're standing and where the hole is. It also has no effect on whether your head/body are perpendicular to the slope or not and if not, how far out from perpendicular you are. It has no effect on whether you're actually standing consistently in-line with ball and hole. Etc etc etc etc. Want me to go on?
Go and learn some basic physics/geometry.

Roller_Coaster wrote:If you have two objects (ball & hole) directly in front of you, any straight line (shaft) will disect both objects in the middle won't it?

Logically you would think so wouldn't you Roller, but curiously it doesn't. Just an illusion perhaps?

Place your two index finger tips together and bring them up almost to your eyes. Then pull them apart slightly. Where does that little bit left in the middle come from?

Davie wrote:

gaelgowfer wrote:
Anyone with a modicum of golf knowledge would have known what I meant by "how golfers play the game" which was said in the context of the thread title.  However, just for your benefit Davie, I was referring to course management skills.  

Utter rubbish. Course management (or lack of) would be WAY down the list of reasons for slow play

Why?

incontinentia wrote:

Roller_Coaster wrote:

super_realist wrote:I'm using the centre line of the ball (top to bottom) using my stronger eye, lined up with the shaft of the putter in line with the hole, the amount of borrow is reflected by which side of the shaft the hole appears on. I line the ball up on that line, and if I've got the pace right, it generally takes that line.

Erm. Sorry for being dumb and it does sound like I need to be there to see the explanation in action because I think I'm still missing something, despite now having looked at the more recent SR/MPB suffix...

If you have two objects (ball & hole) directly in front of you, any straight line (shaft) will disect both objects in the middle won't it?

Where am I being silly?

(no wonder I hold people up trying to figure out simple premises like this one whilst on the green)

I'm confused about that aswell Roller. but was afraid to ask. From super's account I gather the hole "appears" to be on one side of the shaft even though its being bisected down the middle.

I would've thought the hole would appear to 'tilt' in the direction of the break(relative to the vertical shaft), but I don't plumb bob, so that may be hogwash.

There are 3 objects, not two. The shaft, the ball and the hole. To line the ball up with the shaft indicates the break of the putt at the hole.
THe crucial element to this, and one I think people are missing is the use of the "sporting" eye. I think it's too difficult to describe exactly how I see it and what I'm considering when looking at the ball and also what I'm hoping to get out of it.

super_realist wrote:There are scientific papers which show it's not a valid method of determining the line of the putt or the degree of break, and I completely agree with that, however I can visually see the line anyway, but the same paper does show how plumb bobbing works for determining the break around the hole.
Much also depends on your ability to read a green and match your putting pace to that read.

I assume you mean this one maybe? The Abstract says it all I think:

Evaluation of the plumb-bob method for reading greens in putting

Also interesting, but with much the same conclusion:

http://www.drputt.com/deardrputt/plumbob.php

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:There are scientific papers which show it's not a valid method of determining the line of the putt or the degree of break, and I completely agree with that, however I can visually see the line anyway, but the same paper does show how plumb bobbing works for determining the break around the hole.
Much also depends on your ability to read a green and match your putting pace to that read.

I assume you mean this one maybe? The Abstract says it all I think:

Evaluation of the plumb-bob method for reading greens in putting

Also interesting, but with much the same conclusion:

http://www.drputt.com/deardrputt/plumbob.php

That's the article Navy, but you have to read the whole thing to get the actual picture. Yes, it shows that plumb bobbing doesn't show the exact line, and I don't think anyone claims it does, yes, it can be used to determine the break AT the hole.
In effect, it is simply a basic inclinometer to determine the DIRECTION of the break.

If you are going to believe in hocus pocus like the plumb bob method you may as well accept the premise that a god exists.

McLaren wrote:If you are going to believe in hocus pocus like the plumb bob method you may as well accept the premise that a god exists.

Why don't you get stuffed Mac, I'm talking about the direction of the break, not the amount of break itself, and the scientific peer reviewed paper backs that up, so get back to cleaning toilets or clipping bus tickets or whatever it is you do to supplement your meager living.

Except I can plumb bob a putt that I know breaks left to right, and the method will show me that. So I have some evidence that it provides an accurate reading, whereas I can't get any evidence that a god exists. So apart from being completely wrong, you're spot on Mac.

Up at the pearly gates stood 10 catholic priests. St Peter said to them "Before I let you into heaven if any of you have sexually abused any young boys you must turn around now and walk down to hell".

With that 9 of the priests turned around and began to walk away. St Peter called after them and said "Oi you lot, take this deaf bastard with you!"  

hmm. I can see that there's a theory in there and I can sort of grasp that something should be indicated by it and it is kind of logical with 3 objects plus your eye involved. Although I'm now stuck thinking it shows a break due to the slope you are stood on and not the break at the hole.

God. Now I have proved science doesn't exist you must tell me why I'm an idiot.

Just after I've held this 6 footer.

This 3 footer.

Gahhhhh. Tell me now, I've picked up.

gaelgowfer wrote:

Davie wrote:

gaelgowfer wrote:
Anyone with a modicum of golf knowledge would have known what I meant by "how golfers play the game" which was said in the context of the thread title.  However, just for your benefit Davie, I was referring to course management skills.  

Utter rubbish. Course management (or lack of) would be WAY down the list of reasons for slow play

Why?

Anyone with a modicum of golf knowledge would realize why. However just for your benefit Gael, I would point out that most of the things listed above in this thread (tee times too close together, excessive practice swings, long rough, slow walking, leaving bags in wrong places, etc etc et-bloody-c) are far more likely to cause slow play than bad course management

Poor course management combined with not looking where your ball is going and taking a long time to look for it is a consideration though.

I still think that poor course management is largely responsible for the average golfer being rubbish.

I reckon I could take at least 4 shots of the average 16 handicapper by simply pointing out issues in their decision making.

And another couple by explaining the art of plumb bobbing super?

super_realist wrote:Poor course management combined with not looking where your ball is going and taking a long time to look for it is a consideration though.

I still think that poor course management is largely responsible for the average golfer being rubbish.

I reckon I could take at least 4 shots of the average 16 handicapper by simply pointing out issues in their decision making.

Agree with that entirely super - I just don't think it's the prime reason as Gael stated

Davie wrote:

super_realist wrote:Poor course management combined with not looking where your ball is going and taking a long time to look for it is a consideration though.

I still think that poor course management is largely responsible for the average golfer being rubbish.

I reckon I could take at least 4 shots of the average 16 handicapper by simply pointing out issues in their decision making.

Agree with that entirely super - I just don't think it's the prime reason as Gael stated

Absolutely, only an idiot would suggest that course management was the only reason for slow play. You could have the best course management ever, yet still take 5 mins over every shot and walk between them like you were going to the gallows. It's quite a ridiculous claim for her to make, but we're used to her being contrary.

S_R and Davie ...

I've always regarded poor course management skills as being inclusive of slow play issues etc and pace of play is the subject matter ...

super_realist wrote:...I reckon I could take at least 4 shots of the average 16 handicapper by simply pointing out issues in their decision making.

This. Very much this. I know I probably "waste" a shot or two (maybe three) each round by taking on something that is too high risk.. Quite often I know I'm doing it too but then Del Boy whispers "He who dares wins Rodney" and I go for it. One time in ten I pull it off and feel like a golfing god for a short period of time.

super_realist wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:There are scientific papers which show it's not a valid method of determining the line of the putt or the degree of break, and I completely agree with that, however I can visually see the line anyway, but the same paper does show how plumb bobbing works for determining the break around the hole.
Much also depends on your ability to read a green and match your putting pace to that read.

I assume you mean this one maybe? The Abstract says it all I think:

Evaluation of the plumb-bob method for reading greens in putting

Also interesting, but with much the same conclusion:

http://www.drputt.com/deardrputt/plumbob.php

That's the article Navy, but you have to read the whole thing to get the actual picture. Yes, it shows that plumb bobbing doesn't show the exact line, and I don't think anyone claims it does, yes, it can be used to determine the break AT the hole.
In effect, it is simply a basic inclinometer to determine the DIRECTION of the break.

Sorry. It's just a Flying Spaghetti Monster by any other name. I don't have a problem if people think it helps them - just the reasons for why they think it does. Moving on...

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:There are scientific papers which show it's not a valid method of determining the line of the putt or the degree of break, and I completely agree with that, however I can visually see the line anyway, but the same paper does show how plumb bobbing works for determining the break around the hole.
Much also depends on your ability to read a green and match your putting pace to that read.

I assume you mean this one maybe? The Abstract says it all I think:

Evaluation of the plumb-bob method for reading greens in putting

Also interesting, but with much the same conclusion:

http://www.drputt.com/deardrputt/plumbob.php

That's the article Navy, but you have to read the whole thing to get the actual picture. Yes, it shows that plumb bobbing doesn't show the exact line, and I don't think anyone claims it does, yes, it can be used to determine the break AT the hole.
In effect, it is simply a basic inclinometer to determine the DIRECTION of the break.

Sorry. It's just a Flying Spaghetti Monster by any other name. I don't have a problem if people think it helps them - just the reasons for why they think it does. Moving on...

Well, if you're disagreeing with the findings of a peer reviewed paper then fine. No problem. Next time you want to build that wall on a slope, just use your eye, who cares if it's lop sided?

Don't know about anyone else but I'm loving the usually inscrutable s_r defending the sort of "science" that he normally scorns. Flying spaghetti monsters and witchcraft are so NOT s_r (usually)

Davie wrote:Don't know about anyone else but I'm loving the usually inscrutable s_r defending the sort of "science" that he normally scorns. Flying spaghetti monsters and witchcraft are so NOT s_r (usually)

Davie wrote:Don't know about anyone else but I'm loving the usually inscrutable s_r defending the sort of "science" that he normally scorns. Flying spaghetti monsters and witchcraft are so NOT s_r (usually)

I agree, he is hanging onto a slightly odd interpretation of one paper. Hardly the way of a man of evidence.

Here's a link to the PDF of the paper mentioned above:

http://people.stfx.ca/smackenz/Publications/plumbbob-paper.pdf

It does suggest it's a method that might be used to determine the slope direction at the hole but, I suggest, unless it's relatively large and/or one is close to the hole, one won't get a sure read. If it's large, it's pretty obvious anyway I would have thought. It's a pretty small positive to take from a paper that trashes pretty much anything else about plumb bobbing.

Then again, if someone believes it helps, it may well do +ve things for their confidence etc. So be it. To come back to the thread topic (finally!) - just don't mess about while you're doing it!

I'm an awful reader of greens. Plumb bobbing helps me when I literally have no clue which way a putt breaks. It doesn't give me a millimetre perfect measure of the break, but it does tell me if a putt that I can't read breaks slightly left or slightly right. Before I started using it it wasn't uncommon, particularly on greens built into the sides of hills, for me to read a putt with a foot or more of break one way as completely the other direction. It's not bunkum, any more than it's precise, but it is a good general guide.

Six balls (I have even seen an eight ball) are probably the most popular format played here in Thailand. My mate and I often get stuck behind them and they are oblivious to people waiting to play behind them. As they all usually have caddies, the green can look as crowded as a railway platform at rush hour. Asking them to be allowed to play through is not really an option as it is a Royal Thai Air Force Base and often there is some high ranking officer in the group and it is not the done thing. Play can be painfully slow.

McLaren wrote:

Davie wrote:Don't know about anyone else but I'm loving the usually inscrutable s_r defending the sort of "science" that he normally scorns. Flying spaghetti monsters and witchcraft are so NOT s_r (usually)

I agree, he is hanging onto a slightly odd interpretation of one paper.  Hardly the way of a man of evidence.

Mac, The paper mentions clearly that plumb bobbing can be used to determine the orientation of the break (i.e left to right, right to left). I don't see your issue.

Putting the correct pace on it, isn't something that people are claiming can be achieved with the method.

Pace is everything.