I was thinking about

[Paul Gray]

Generally speaking....

Par 3s take 9-11 minutes to play, depending upon difficulty
Par 4s take 12-15, depending upon difficulty
Par 5s take 15-17, depending upon difficulty

Obviously, there are exceptions at both ends, but these are pretty good guidelines if you're studying pace of play (which I have - I once spent half a day timing the intervals between the flagstick going into the hole on the 18th green). Generally speaking, would you want to have play start on a Par 3 where you know that it's hit or miss whether the group in front clears in time? If you have 10 minute intervals, and every 4th group takes 11 minutes, you're a group behind by 9am. On a typical driving hole, it takes about 6-8 minutes for the group to clear the landing zone UNLESS it's a reachable par 5 or drivable par 4. If the opener was drivable/reachable and one guy in a group has a chance, that means likely 12-15 minutes to clear the tee or landing area.

It's not rocket science, but math certainly helps.

Doug,

If it takes 9-11 minutes to play a par 3 and only 6-8 minutes to clear the landing zone on par 4's/5's which will increase pace of play more ?

And here in lies in the point.

You will speed up play by LENGTHENING the gaps, i.e 9-11 minute gaps makes for quicker play than 6-8 minute gaps. You can of course get more people onto a golf course with smaller gaps, but that means traffic jams. Have you ever seen a traffic jam on an empty road?

There was a good instruction film about this on the While We're Just About Still Breathing website. I would have thought it was fairly obvious for a group of GCAers but apparently not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If it takes 9-11 minutes to play a par 3 and only 6-8 minutes to clear the landing zone on par 4's/5's which will increase pace of play more ?

[/size][/color]

And here in lies in the point.

You will speed up play by LENGTHENING the gaps, i.e 9-11 minute gaps makes for quicker play than 6-8 minute gaps. You can of course get more people onto a golf course with smaller gaps, but that means traffic jams. Have you ever seen a traffic jam on an empty road?

Paul,

I suspect that you and the others don't have any experience on crowded courses on Saturday and Sunday in the U.S.

TEE TIMES

If you have TEE TIMES at 8, 9 or 10 minute intervals, you can't have the first hole taking 11 minutes or more to play.
Shirley you understand that.
In your 9-11 minute par 3, first hole example, imagine if a golfer can't find his ball.
Now add 5 minutes to your 11 minutes and the entire day will never recover in terms of the tee times being adhered to.

Likewise, there's not a club I know of that has 6 minute tee times.
Could you list five clubs that have 6 minute intervals ?

Slow play isn't a function of the first hole, it's an 18 hole issue.
There's an ebb and flow to playing golf.
Some holes you play quickly, others not so quickly, but, in the end, there's a finite goal that clubs set, based upon their culture.
With some clubs it's 3:30, others 4:00 and still others 4:30.

There was a good instruction film about this on the While We're Just About Still Breathing website. I would have thought it was fairly obvious for a group of GCAers but apparently not.

Films are really great, but, reality is often left on the cutting room floor.

If I take your's and other's proposals, and accept a par 3 opening hole, with a 12 minute interval ( a little margin), I can get six foursomes off in the first hour, and only five foursomes off in each succeeding hour.  I think that's 41 foursomes or 164 golfers in 8 hours of teeing off.

If I use 10 minute intervals on a par 4 or par 5, I can get 7 foursomes out the first hour and six foursomes off every other hour.
That's 49 foursomes, or 196 golfers.

If you owned a course, from a revenue stream perspective, which would you prefer ?

Those 32 additional golfers represent a 20 increase in revenue, just ON the golf course, not to mention food and beverage.

And, if you're a private club, with reasonable couples and women's play in the afternoon, you'll need those 8 extra tee times.

A par 3 is probably the worst possible starting hole if you have starting times.

If you don't have starting times, the first hole doesn't impact the overall time the round takes.
[/quote]

[Jason Thurman]

Pat, your numbers are wrong. There are plenty of courses that start on par 3s. All the ones I'm familiar with have 10 minute intervals, at most. And they maintain them just fine.

Sure, it might occasionally take a group 12 minutes to play the hole if they have extenuating circumstances, just like a group teeing off on a par 4 might lose a ball, search for five minutes, come back to the first tee, hit again, and take more than 12 minutes total to clear the landing area. But in real life, it doesn't take over 10 minutes for the average group to play a par 3 opening hole.

Can you name three courses that start on a par 3 with a tee interval of over 10 minutes? Or three that have regular difficulty maintaining such an interval?

I suspect you don't have much experience on crowded courses on Saturdays and Sundays if you think groups teeing off on a par 4 always wait the full tee interval before hitting as opposed to wailing away when the landing zone clears. If a group waits the full interval, it doesn't really matter much what the starting hole's layout is from a pace of play standpoint. But in the real world, where groups often don't wait the full interval and hit when the coast is clear, a straightforward par 3 opening hole has real pace of play benefits that can't be denied. Maintaining the full interval is the real key, and a par 3 opener virtually assures that this goal is achieved in a way that par 4s and 5s can't. Starters and rangers can also accomplish the task, as can intelligent players. But those are not architectural features.

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

I have a busy evening ahead/day tomorrow so will have to get back to you but, for now, Jason seems to have more than adequately pointed you in the right direction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, your numbers are wrong. There are plenty of courses that start on par 3s.
All the ones I'm familiar with have 10 minute intervals, at most.
And they maintain them just fine.

Would you name them for us.

Sure, it might occasionally take a group 12 minutes to play the hole if they have extenuating circumstances, just like a group teeing off on a par 4 might lose a ball, search for five minutes, come back to the first tee, hit again, and take more than 12 minutes total to clear the landing area. But in real life, it doesn't take over 10 minutes for the average group to play a par 3 opening hole.

Upon what data do you base the above statement ?
Have you ever played Westchester ?

What clubs, start with Par 3 holes, where play on the first hole takes less than 10 minutes ?

Can you name three courses that start on a par 3 with a tee interval of over 10 minutes?
Or three that have regular difficulty maintaining such an interval?

Westchester, but, they reversed the nines and now start on a short par 4.
I wonder why they did that ?

It couldn't be pace of play, keeping tee times accurate and the number of golfers teeing off per hour could it ?

I suspect you don't have much experience on crowded courses on Saturdays and Sundays if you think groups teeing off on a par 4 always wait the full tee interval before hitting as opposed to wailing away when the landing zone clears.

I'd say that you don't know what you're talking about.
Especially since clubs that have starting times, almost always have a starter monitoring times and groups.
I'd also say that my experience is exponentially greater than yours.


If a group waits the full interval, it doesn't really matter much what the starting hole's layout is from a pace of play standpoint.
That's the purpose of properly spaced tee times and a starter.

But in the real world, where groups often don't wait the full interval and hit when the coast is clear, a straightforward par 3 opening hole has real pace of play benefits that can't be denied.

What real world is that ?
Can you cite the clubs where golfers ignore tee times and just hit when they feel like it ?

Maintaining the full interval is the real key, and a par 3 opener virtually assures that this goal is achieved in a way that par 4s and 5s can't.

Par 3 openers limit the number of tee times and almost always guarantee an early bottleneck.


Starters and rangers can also accomplish the task, as can intelligent players.

Rangers, at private clubs can be totally ineffective.
It's the culture of the club that determines pace of play not an employee who has to confront a member/s.

But those are not architectural features.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I have a busy evening ahead/day tomorrow so will have to get back to you but, for now, Jason seems to have more than adequately pointed you in the right direction.

I too have a busy schedule, but, suspect that Jason's anecdotal response is seriously flawed.
When you're not so busy, you might want to consider offering a more reasoned response.

Have you and Jason served on a club committee specifically dedicated to reducing the time to play ?

[Jason Thurman]

Pat, you're asking inane questions again trying to distract everyone from how short-sighted your argument is.

Prove your thesis. Name three courses that open with a medium-length par 3 and cannot maintain a ten minute interval on average. There are HUNDREDS of them in the world. Surely you can find 3 if your argument holds any water at all. In the meantime, I don't generally argue with people who shape their realities without the assistance of logic. You're welcome to believe anything you want.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, you're asking inane questions again trying to distract everyone from how short-sighted your argument is.

Not at all, I'm just trying to show how foolish your argument is, partially evidenced by the fact that you've been unable to cite courses that you yourself claimed, started with par 3's with 10 minute starting time intervals.
Why have you been unable to cite the very courses you referenced ?
Or, did you just make that stuff up, never dreaming that you'd be called to verify your claim ?

Prove your thesis. Name three courses that open with a medium-length par 3 and cannot maintain a ten minute interval on average.

That's NOT MY thesis, it's your thesis and the burden of proof is on you to cite courses that open with Par 3's that maintain a 10 minute starting time interval like clockwork.  And, why did you just now add a caveat, trying to narrow the opening par 3's to only medium length par 3's ?

A proof that your theory is flawed is the very lack of opening par 3's on so many golf courses.
If it was good for flow and fast play modern designers would be gobbling up your theory.
but, I don't see any evidence of that.

Sebonack = short par 4
Streamsong Blue = short par 4
Streamsong Red = Long par 4
Hidden Creek = Medium par 4
Sand Hills = par 5
Bandon Dunes
Pacific Dunes
Bandon Trails
Old Macdonald
Dismal River
Ballyneal

Where are these opening par 3's you speak of ?

I asked you to identify those courses YOU CITED, that open with a par 3 that maintain 10 minute intervals and you CAN'T do it.

YOU STATED that you were FAMILIAR with courses that opened with par 3's where play on those holes was completed in 10 minutes and I asked you to name them.   And, you've FAILED TO DO SO.

you can't name them, because you're NOT familiar with courses that open with par 3's and you have no clue as to their starting time and pace of play issues.

There are HUNDREDS of them in the world.


Then why haven't you named them, especially the ones you claimed that you were familiar with.

Here's what you stated in reply # 27

There are plenty of courses that start on par 3s.
All the ones I'm familiar with have 10 minute intervals, at most. And they maintain them just fine./

[/i][/u][/size]


So, what are the ones that you're familiar with ?


Surely you can find 3 if your argument holds any water at all.
In the meantime, I don't generally argue with people who shape their realities without the assistance of logic.


You'll find my logic is geometric like in its precision, not anecdotal like yours.
The FACT is that you haven't been able to back up your statement by citing the courses you referenced.

You're welcome to believe anything you want.

Thanks, I've always exercised that freedom.

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

I can see this being another fishing expedition I continually tell myself I'm about to give up on, only to see you bite again. Maybe it's the other way round. I wish I was passed caring.

Golf courses which begin with par 3's simply can't inherantly pack as many people onto the course and therefore aren't suitable if you want to maximise revenue. Once you have people on the course, bottleneck or not, you haver their money. It really doesn't matter, at least from a purely short sighted financial perspective, whether it takes three hours to complete a round or five hours.

You may well think you're getting everyone progressing well at your course with a short par 4 to start with and, for exactly one hole, you'll be doing a great job. However, if no one cancels their tee time and you continue to force too many people onto the course at intervals which equal less than the time it takes to play the first par 3 on the course, you will struggle to get round in three/three and a half hours.

Again, have a look at the While We're Young vid about this. It's simple logistics which no one should struggle to understand. And (apologies to TD et al for the further bastardisation of a members' catchphrase), with reference to your work with your fellow masons, do try to remember that nobody ever went broke from underestimating the intelligence of a Greens Committee.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I can see this being another fishing expedition I continually tell myself I'm about to give up on, only to see you bite again. Maybe it's the other way round. I wish I was passed caring.

Golf courses which begin with par 3's simply can't inherantly pack as many people onto the course and therefore aren't suitable if you want to maximise revenue.

And what "for profit" club doesn't want to try to maximize revenue ?

Once you have people on the course, bottleneck or not, you haver their money. It really doesn't matter, at least from a purely short sighted financial perspective, whether it takes three hours to complete a round or five hours.

Sure it does, it's called repeat play.
And it does matter because a five hour round means that each hole is taking 16.66 minutes to play, thereby destroying the tee time schedule for those who follow.

Didn't any of you morons take "math" and "logic" in school ?

You may well think you're getting everyone progressing well at your course with a short par 4 to start with and, for exactly one hole, you'll be doing a great job. However, if no one cancels their tee time and you continue to force too many people onto the course at intervals which equal less than the time it takes to play the first par 3 on the course, you will struggle to get round in three/three and a half hours.
So you struggle a little, no big deal.
Three to three and a half hours is great time and under four hours more than acceptable at the great majority of courses.

I've never seen daily tee times at a club of less than 8 minutes or more than 10, and the trend seems to be toward 10.
And, depending upon the culture of the club, play is accomplished in acceptable time frames of four hours and under.

Again, have a look at the While We're Young vid about this. It's simple logistics which no one should struggle to understand. And (apologies to TD et al for the further bastardisation of a members' catchphrase), with reference to your work with your fellow masons, do try to remember that nobody ever went broke from underestimating the intelligence of a Greens Committee.  

I can't say that I'm surprised that you don't know that "Pace of Play" does NOT come under the domain of the Green Committee.
Maybe you meant the "entertainment" or "pool" committee, but it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
Then again, maybe you meant the "locker room" committee.
 

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

I can see this being another fishing expedition I continually tell myself I'm about to give up on, only to see you bite again. Maybe it's the other way round. I wish I was passed caring.

Golf courses which begin with par 3's simply can't inherantly pack as many people onto the course and therefore aren't suitable if you want to maximise revenue.

And what "for profit" club doesn't want to try to maximize revenue ?

To the best of my knowledge, none of them. And that is the juxtaposition between good pace of play and profitability.

Once you have people on the course, bottleneck or not, you haver their money. It really doesn't matter, at least from a purely short sighted financial perspective, whether it takes three hours to complete a round or five hours.

Sure it does, it's called repeat play.
And it does matter because a five hour round means that each hole is taking 16.66 minutes to play, thereby destroying the tee time schedule for those who follow.

SHORT TERM Pat, SHORT TERM. Crazy though it may seem, some people are in positions which well exceed their abilities. And (we'll try this one more time) 16.66 per hole doesn't mean 16.66 minutes to clear the first tee. Remember that bottleneck AFTER the first tee.

Didn't any of you morons take "math" and "logic" in school ?

I've never heard of a class entitled 'logic.' I can only think, based on the evidence immediately available to me, that U.S educators should consider abandoning it. Clearly it isn't working for all.
 
You may well think you're getting everyone progressing well at your course with a short par 4 to start with and, for exactly one hole, you'll be doing a great job. However, if no one cancels their tee time and you continue to force too many people onto the course at intervals which equal less than the time it takes to play the first par 3 on the course, you will struggle to get round in three/three and a half hours.
So you struggle a little, no big deal.

By your standards, that's almost a concession.

Three to three and a half hours is great time and under four hours more than acceptable at the great majority of courses.

Three and a half hours if fine. Four hours and more - enjoy.

I've never seen daily tee times at a club of less than 8 minutes or more than 10, and the trend seems to be toward 10.
And, depending upon the culture of the club, play is accomplished in acceptable time frames of four hours and under.

Which only goes to serve the point that I and others have been making: spreading out tee times more (a natural occurrence where a course begins with a par 3) leads to happier, quicker rounds.

Again, have a look at the While We're Young vid about this. It's simple logistics which no one should struggle to understand. And (apologies to TD et al for the further bastardisation of a members' catchphrase), with reference to your work with your fellow masons, do try to remember that nobody ever went broke from underestimating the intelligence of a Greens Committee.  

I can't say that I'm surprised that you don't know that "Pace of Play" does NOT come under the domain of the Green Committee.

It does here. And I dare say that would be the case at a lot of lesser known courses on your side of the pond.

Maybe you meant the "entertainment" or "pool" committee, but it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
Then again, maybe you meant the "locker room" committee.
 

Thankfully, I'm not a member anywhere that feels the need to appoint an extended, self important bureaucracy.