Is it so wrong?

[Hampstead]

I just love it when the group I'm playing with lets a smaller group play through. Now, faced with the pressure of throwing in front of a gallery, someone in the smaller group shanks a drive and the smaller group then proceeds to spend a few minutes looking for the missing disc and follows that up by hitting every tree on the fairway. Yeah, I really love when that happens.

 

[ThrowBot]

The entire concept of letting people play through is predicated on the idea that it's a net gain considering all groups' interests. The slower group waits on one hole, then continues to play at the desired pace. That's definitely better than making the faster group wait on every hole.

That doesn't hold true on a course that's truly backed up. To play through would exchange one group's wait for another, but there's no net benefit. In those cases, no, it's not wrong to maintain a first come = first to play policy. It's called queueing; most people learn this basic social skill in kindergarten.

 

[Wasp]

If it was earlier in the round you should have let them play through. I've never had that many issues in either scenario. When I've been a small group on a crowded course I just ask if we can play through. I've never gotten a no. If I'm in a large group and there's a bunch of large groups in front of me AND there are only a few hole left I say "Hey guys I'd let you play through but it's so crowded it won't get you through the rest of the course faster". I've never had a problem with either scenario in the 11 years I've played.

It's usually just best to acknowledge another group and talk to them in a friendly matter. It literally solves all issues.

 

[KniceZ]

Yes, it was wrong. Course etiquette dictates that the smaller group gets allowed through. It always helps thin out the backups, which is why it is in the rules listed at most courses. Try it sometime and you'll see I'm right. They would've made it through the next big group, and so on, provided everyone else does the right thing. If all have the same attitude as you did; however, it will continue to be a cluster@#$^

Wow there's some anger - like the people in the OP, you need to chill. You must really love tournament play.

Honestly : If it really happened as stated - don't you see anything wrong with the way the smaller group behaved. They'd been waiting all of 30 secs. Here's the way I'd prefer the scenario play out. Group A and B should have greeted each other and Group A explain how long they've been waiting and that they'll let them play through on the next hole. Group B waits a few minutes while Group A plays the next hole. If group B arrives at the next tee and group A hasn't begun to tee, then B should ASK A and be allowed to play through. Or maybe A & B tee off and play the hole together and split on the next one. B shouldn't feel entitled and get rude.

Sarcastically : I know, how about we all pretend to split our groups in two-somes and demand to play through and if that doesn't work, go solo. Then all the dummies that stayed in larger groups can set and wait all day while the doubles / solos play through.

 

[josephreese]

How would someone play golf with a stick? Is this some crazy, awesome, new golf style game using a javelin? Please let the targets be huge groups of chuckers, drinking natty lite, and refusing to let people play through. I would so pay to play that.

Or did you mean golf? Either way, my idea is better.

Edit: I'm not implying the op is javelin target material.

Sometimes I wish I had a javelin on stick/ball golf courses. Every once in a while you get some dummy that hits into the group ahead. Entitlement abounds. Chucking a javelin back at them might be overkill, though.

 

[StevenSeagal]

The slower group should always yield to the faster group.

 

[Streets]

 

[Future_Primitive]

The entire concept of letting people play through is predicated on the idea that it's a net gain considering all groups' interests. The slower group waits on one hole, then continues to play at the desired pace. That's definitely better than making the faster group wait on every hole.

That doesn't hold true on a course that's truly backed up. To play through would exchange one group's wait for another, but there's no net benefit. In those cases, no, it's not wrong to maintain a first come = first to play policy. It's called queueing; most people learn this basic social skill in kindergarten.

99.3% of the time I believe in letting smaller groups play through, however maybe 2-3 times I have been on an extremely packed course and it is simply does not work to keep letting groups play through because they have 1-3 people less than your group.

I remember a summer round at Oshtemo :gross::doh: that was so packed everybody was waiting at every hole. Believe we had 4 or 5 people and let a group of two go through as is standard procedure. Then behind them is another twosome, then a threesome, then a solo, yadda yadda yadda. How long must the larger group wait to play their round? I believe we let 3 groups go through before saying F-it or our 18 hole round would have taken 4-5 hours. So crowded our 4/5 people kept up with the last twosome we let play through the last 7-8 holes.

On those rare occasions the course is extremely packed people just need to be understanding and realize it will be a long day. It can almost be rude of a twosome to think they can play through 14 other groups just so their round is quicker thus making everyone elses round longer. And another reason I only play Oshtemo in bad/cold weather or bright and really early in the morning before it bottlenecks.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Radical solution: break groups of 5+ players into smaller groups... swap tails at the pub later.

 

[DG_player]

This is slightly off topic, but is a fivesome the generally accepted maximum acceptable group size?

 

[DanJon]

How about those times at a really crowded course, when your foursome is waiting on hole #1 and you let one twosome go through, and then the next twosome, and the next and so on.

That's always super fun.

 

[ThrowBot]

This is slightly off topic, but is a fivesome the generally accepted maximum acceptable group size?

For competitive formats, yes. You might see a group of 6 if there's an odd number of Dubs teams. Aside from that, a 6-some will normally get split into to flights of 3.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Most tourneys I've played in limit cards to foursomes, but casual rounds are something else entirely.
I don't appreciate groups being larger than 4. On a busy day, large groups can slow down the whole course.

 

[Tim_the_Enchanter]

How about those times at a really crowded course, when your foursome is waiting on hole #1 and you let one twosome go through, and then the next twosome, and the next and so on.

That's always super fun.

In the rare case that I'd be in a foursome and actually stick around to play a course that crowded, in these kind of situations I'd explain that we let a group or two play through already and offer to let them play the hole along with us.

 

[Tim_the_Enchanter]

Most tourneys I've played in limit cards to foursomes, but casual rounds are something else entirely.
I don't appreciate groups being larger than 4. On a busy day, large groups can slow down the whole course.

Like you have a pack of dogs, a herd of cows, a murder of crows, etc., my friend came up with the term a "tromple" of disc golfers. I think 6+ constitutes a tromple.

 

[Noill]

How about a "bro" of disc golfers..?

no, ahh whatever :|

 

[Mr. Butlertron]

Etiquette is kind of a fluid thing with lots of variables to concider. I guess the question is whether it's a bigger party foul to be a group of 5 on a crowded course during peak hours, or try to snake your way through a course as a group of 2 when you're fully aware it's hopelessly backed up. Me personally, I simply wouldn't go to a course that has the potential for long waits during peak hours, especially with card of 5. If faced with the scenario, I'd probably make a compromise of letting the first couple of twosomes play through, then tell next twosy that they'll have to wait like everyone else or skip ahead.

 

[Noill]

on a crowded course, skipping ahead is a thing too... they usually cut in front of some other group and cause further backups...

when you're on a crowded course, just take the lumps associated with that... there's nothing more to be done if you choose to play there.

as others are saying, I'd rather go somewhere else... there are only some courses that get backed up like this anyway... an exception would be a really great destination course... I'd still play it even if it is backed up.

 

[Three Putt]

How about those times at a really crowded course, when your foursome is waiting on hole #1 and you let one twosome go through, and then the next twosome, and the next and so on.

That's always super fun.

Lol...just split into two twosomes and frolf on.

 

[Noill]

heh... split those two twosomes into four solos and really tear through that course... every group larger than one should let them through...