Can a course be considered great if .....

[Lou_Duran]

... par (expected time to complete a round) is five hours or more?


And with that as a goal, how likely is it that the groups starting in the second hour of tee times will achieve it?


Do architects and superintendents have any professional responsibilities in facilitating an enjoyable experience within a reasonable time frame?


Or does the retail golfer willing to pay large green fees find a 5:20 round off an early morning tee time "par for the course"? 

[JWinick]

Erin Hills is basically five hours.   I think it can be, but obviously it's not ideal.   

... par (expected time to complete a round) is five hours or more?


And with that as a goal, how likely is it that the groups starting in the second hour of tee times will achieve it?


Do architects and superintendents have any professional responsibilities in facilitating an enjoyable experience within a reasonable time frame?


Or does the retail golfer willing to pay large green fees find a 5:20 round off an early morning tee time "par for the course"?

[A.G._Crockett]

... par (expected time to complete a round) is five hours or more?


And with that as a goal, how likely is it that the groups starting in the second hour of tee times will achieve it?


Do architects and superintendents have any professional responsibilities in facilitating an enjoyable experience within a reasonable time frame?


Or does the retail golfer willing to pay large green fees find a 5:20 round off an early morning tee time "par for the course"?

Lou,

I am, of course, curious about what course(s) have a 5 hour stated pace of play expectation.  I don't remember coming across anything that long; I can only think of a few that even have a state pace of 4:30, and at least one of those (UNC Finley) is a serious mistake by pig-headed management.  Putting that aside for a moment, and allowing for exceptions to every rule, I'd say:

1. No, not really.  If it really takes that long to play the course, it's world-class difficult, not world class. 


2. There is no way to answer the second question about the second hour because pace of play depends so much on the culture of the course, regardless of the stated pace of play.  At Chris Cupit's Rivermont, the club's culture simply doesn't tolerate slow play, especially from the early groups, and I think it's fair to say that you can expect to play, and will be expected to play, at the stated pace or better ALL day.  At the aforementioned UNC Finley, on the other hand, where players are NEVER held to the stated pace of 4:30 (4:44 when it's cart path only!) rounds that exceed the stated pace of play become the norm as the day grinds on.  And, on top of that, there is a mountain of data that indicates that adhering to tee times helps the pace, while running more groups out as soon as the group on #1 has hit their second shots overcrowds and slows the course.  So it just depends...

3. Yes, I think a GCA and a super DO have "professional responsibilities in facilitating an enjoyable experience within a reasonable time frame".  But I would insist that the pro shop and the starters and the marshals have an ongoing responsibility to set expectations and to enforce a reasonable pace of play; when the ball is dropped, at least in my experience, that's more likely to be where the problem lies.

4.  A qualified "not really" when you are talking about the early morning guys.  Generally, and again, this is MY experience, the earlier the tee time, the more intentional players tend to be about playing, finishing, and going home or to work.  That doesn't mean that they necessarily play FAST, but they typically are less likely to be slow at least compared to guys later in the day.  However, I AM familiar with the issue of "I paid my money, and a lot of it, and I'll play at the pace I choose!" as a retail attitude, regardless of time of day.

But 5:20?  Where?

[Peter Pallotta]

When I lived in Toronto there was a high end CCFAD north of the city that proudly advertised itself as the 'home of the 4:30 hour round'. It could do so because, like at the several other sprawling, high-end, mid 90s-early 2000 courses in the area, 4:30 hours was just about the minimum amount of time it took to get around:

which was (or so it seemed to me) precisely what the corporate-credit-card wielding clientele actually wanted for their $130 plus cart plus lunch plus drinks, i.e. a sense of 'ownership' and 'respect' and 'privilege' that manifested itself as a very slow and deliberate and highly-self regarding pace of play, taking plenty of time to smoke a cigar or plumb-bob a putt for double bogey or not even starting preparation for their shot until they watched everyone else in the foursome prepare and then hit their own shots. (I played each of these courses at least once, and one of them 3 times).
 
Was this course (and the others like it) a great one? No - though it and the others did feature near the top of Canada's golf rankings for a while, with raters apparently fooled by their golden-age-lite aesthetics. But were these courses 'not great' *because* they were big and sprawling and routed with carts in mind and took 5 hour to play? I suppose I should answer 'not necessarily'. It's just that such big, sprawling, poorly routed, cart-dependent and views-and-vista-heavy courses tend to attract a kind of clientele that, far from abhorring the 5 hour round, actually revels in it.

Golf as symbol of self indulgence for someone who aspires to be a pompous ass -- though again, I couldn't say that this necessarily disqualifies a course from being 'great'. It simply disqualifies it for me.             

[Lou_Duran]

I was not thinking of Erin Hills when I posed the questions.  My style of play and Type A personality prejudice me toward architecture and maintenance and administrative policies which promote fast play (which to me is under four hours for normal play in benign conditions).  Other people clearly have different perspectives.  I haven't reached any conclusions; just trying to expand my POV and understanding.

[jeffwarne]

... par (expected time to complete a round) is five hours or more?


No


And with that as a goal, how likely is it that the groups starting in the second hour of tee times will achieve it?
Rarely


Do architects and superintendents have any professional responsibilities in facilitating an enjoyable experience within a reasonable time frame?
yes


Or does the retail golfer willing to pay large green fees find a 5:20 round off an early morning tee time "par for the course"?

NA

[Bill Seitz]

I am, of course, curious about what course(s) have a 5 hour stated pace of play expectation.  I don't remember coming across anything that long; I can only think of a few that even have a state pace of 4:30, and at least one of those (UNC Finley) is a serious mistake by pig-headed management.  Putting that aside for a moment, and allowing for exceptions to every rule, I'd say:

As mentioned above, Erin Hills has a "time par" of five hours.  It does take a long time to play, and there is a ton of green to tee walking.  I think I measured it at about a half mile more than my home club from the men's tees.  So that's a good 10-15 minutes extra.  The real problem, however, isn't budgeting for five hour rounds, it's posting that five hour rounds are acceptable.  When a bunch of GCAers were up there the year before the Open, a group of us were playing our second round of the day, and got behind a very slow group that was at least 2 holes behind the group in front of them, and we were waiting on every shot.  We spoke to the marshal at the turn, and he told us there was nothing he could really say to them.  They were on pace for five hours, and they, like everyone else, had been told that was the time in which they were expected to finish, and that doing so was acceptable.  It really shouldn't be acceptable to expect five hour rounds.  But even if your business models factors them in, you sure as hell shouldn't strive for five hour rounds.

[Jason Topp]

Lou:

Hard to imagine such a course as great. 

The closest I can come is Pebble Beach.  Based on my one round 20 years ago I would expect a five hour round, at least later in the day.  There are a lot of distractions and the course is crowded.   

[Kalen Braley]

Bethpage Black may factor in here due to its difficulty and group aggregate time spent looking for balls.....


But Pebble Beach looks like the winner so far, likely due to its small greens and being a "Bucket List" type thing...

[A.G._Crockett]

With the exception of the green-to-tee walks at Erin Hills, most of the comments so far seem to be about management, rather than GCA, and that certainly has been my experience. 


It's an oversimplification, and, to be clear, I do NOT go to the golf course to see how fast I can play and get home, but golf courses get what they allow when it comes to pace of play.  The problem with ANY stated pace of play is that it becomes the MINIMUM amount of time that many golfers seem to find acceptable, rather than a maximum.  If the management posts 4:30, then players who are coming in a 4:45 tend not to feel like they are especially slow.  And they will ALWAYS blame pace of play problems on externals; the next guy that I hear say, "I'm a slow player!" will be the first!


I'll also stipulate that there are enforcement issues at high end resort courses; it's VERY difficult to charge a couple of hundred bucks and then bust players' chops about the speed at which they are playing.  But even there, the culture of the course and clear expectations up front can help a lot.  I just see no benefit from telling people in advance that 5 hours is in any way acceptable.

[Ira Fishman]

I could not agree with AG more about how critical culture is to a golf course or any organization for that matter.


To the very limited extent anyone cares about what I consider great, pace of play certainly influences my consideration. Kapulua Plantation, Castle Stuart, and Kingsbarns disappointed the most on trips the last few years, and they were also the only 5 hour rounds. I would like to think that I still would not consider them great if they played faster, but who knows.


Ira

[A.G._Crockett]

Are much (of what passes for) thought, here I am:

1. To the extent that a course actually requires 5 hours or more to play, without regard to management questions, and without regard to rubbernecking and picture taking, then I think my answer would be "No, it isn't a great golf course".  It may be great as landscape art, or in some other limited ways, but purely for golf, no; not likely.  (I'll allow for exceptions.)

2. Restating the qualifier that I am not interesting in setting land speed records, almost every too-long round I've ever played has had to do ONLY with management; low expectations, not adhering to tee times, refusal to make players correct poor pace, etc.  It has had zero, or nearly so, with GCA. 

[Ira Fishman]

Are much (of what passes for) thought, here I am:

1. To the extent that a course actually requires 5 hours or more to play, without regard to management questions, and without regard to rubbernecking and picture taking, then I think my answer would be "No, it isn't a great golf course".  It may be great as landscape art, or in some other limited ways, but purely for golf, no; not likely.  (I'll allow for exceptions.)

2. Restating the qualifier that I am not interesting in setting land speed records, almost every too-long round I've ever played has had to do ONLY with management; low expectations, not adhering to tee times, refusal to make players correct poor pace, etc.  It has had zero, or nearly so, with GCA.

No question that for two of the three I mentioned—Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns—it was culture and expectations that caused most of the slowness. And at both, a back up at Number 10 because of people dawdling at the halfway house clearly a management decision. Kapulua Plantation is more of a GCA issue. It is on a very severe hill and working around it and up it would slow down play no matter what. I am not sure that Coore and Crenshaw could have done too much about it though given the site. Of course the fact that it is a resort courses whose views inspire photo taking does not help.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Fast play culture is not an easy thing to pull off.  One of my early clients was a stickler for four-hour rounds on his public course; the staff were told to enforce it diligently.  But it came across as heavy-handed and they lost a lot of customers.  That's one reason the course is now NLE.

[Tim Pitner]

I'd be very wary of a course that advertised a 5 hour round, but I just returned from Cabot where we experienced several 5 hour rounds, especially on the Cliffs, and I rate both courses very highly. I think Cabot suggested 4 for the Links and 4.5 for the Cliffs, but rounds were typically longer than that. As mentioned, some of the added time is spent on enjoying the scenery and taking photos, and there are some holes (e.g. Cliffs #17), that take some figuring out, but I attribute most of the superfluous time to not being ready to play, especially on the greens. It's just a pervasive problem in our game today. Like Tom D said, it's not easy to achieve golf as it was meant to be.

[A.G._Crockett]

Fast play culture is not an easy thing to pull off.  One of my early clients was a stickler for four-hour rounds on his public course; the staff were told to enforce it diligently.  But it came across as heavy-handed and they lost a lot of customers.  That's one reason the course is now NLE.

Tom,

I agree with you completely that establishing a culture can be difficult, and I, too, have experienced attempts to "enforce" pace of play that have come across as heavy handed, especially when the staff doesn't pay particular attention to where on the course the problems actually are.  It may well be that, especially for a public course, enforcement of a 4:00 pace will become difficult as the day goes on, assuming that it's reasonable in the first place.


But there is a BIG difference between a pace of 4:10 or 4:15, and one of 5:00 or more like Lou is referencing.  And I'd guess (and it's ONLY a guess) that the number of courses that have become NLE due to enforcement of faster pace of play standards is dwarfed by NLE courses that lost business/market share due to play being especially slow.

[Ian Mackenzie]

SAND VALLEY!!


Pace of play IS an issue there and it's one of the reasons that I am not rushing back for a third visit.
Yes, a course can be "great" even if it does foster 5+ hour rounds: Pebble, Castle Stuart, SV/Mammoth, etc.


Sadly, the common denominator is the "retail golfer".
Dont know of any private clubs where 5 hour rounds exist. Most are 4 and under.


You want to kick a hornet's nest for a new topic, then ask why public golf at hi-end courses takes so much effing time to play....?

[Tim Martin]

You want to kick a hornet's nest for a new topic, then ask why public golf at hi-end courses takes so much effing time to play....?

Ian-There is not that level of scorn for slow play at public courses as there is at private clubs. If you get known as a perpetually slow player at a private club that has a culture that espouses fast play your days are probably numbered.

[Sean_A]

Sweet Lou

Yes, a course can be great even if its design "mandates" a 5 hour round...in theory anyway.  I may not be keen on such a course, in fact I bet I would dislike a course like this because it has to mean either long added walks and/or serious hills.  Lots of folks don't mind that sort of thing. 

Ciao

[Michael Whitaker]

Are you guys of the opinion that caddies speed up or slow down the game?


My experience is they slow down the game... especially at places like Erin Hills or any high end facility.


Whenever I’m following a group of four golfers, each with his own caddy, I know I can add 45 minutes (minimum) to my round. The player/caddy conversations about EVERY shot and EVERY putt drives me crazy!!!    The players think they must consult with the caddy like a tour pro, and the caddies are trying to make their service meaningful, so the problem just feeds on itself.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Are you guys of the opinion that caddies speed up or slow down the game?


My experience is they slow down the game... especially at places like Erin Hills or any high end facility.


Whenever I’m following a group of four golfers, each with his own caddy, I know I can add 45 minutes (minimum) to my round. The player/caddy conversations about EVERY shot and EVERY putt drives me crazy!!!    The players think they must consult with the caddy like a tour pro, and the caddies are trying to make their service meaningful, so the problem just feeds on itself.

Depends on the caddy.


But, in general, I agree that caddies at hi-end "pay-to-play" courses can add 45 mins+ to a round. Especially the case with a caddy who is "double-bagging".


I see too many golfers at, for example, Sand Valley who wont even start their "putting process" until the effing caddy has given them a line for their 26' par putt.


Too many "12 hdcp-ers" having a dialogue with their looper about every shot like it's the Bones/Michelson show.


Slow play is all about 1) pre-shot routines and 2) being READY when it's your turn to hit. The math will back that up QUANTIFIABLY AND OBJECTIVELY.






I play with plenty of 15s+ who can play a 4-ball in 3 hours.

[Eric LeFante]

Bethpage Black may factor in here due to its difficulty and group aggregate time spent looking for balls.....


But Pebble Beach looks like the winner so far, likely due to its small greens and being a "Bucket List" type thing...

I second Bethpage Black. I've played it many times, don't think I've made it in under 5 hours. There are foursomes off every tee time (15 years ago it was every 6 minutes, now every 9 minutes), the course is very long (6,650 from whites), difficult, and the bunkers take forever to get into and rake.


Even if tee times were every 15 minutes I still think it would take 4 1/2 hours for a foursome to play the Black due to the length and difficulty.


There are 5 courses at Bethpage, I don't think Tillinghast should have made the Black easier to get people around faster. It's a great golf course and worth the time it takes to play it.

[Ira Fishman]

I amend my prior post.  It took us 5 hours to play Ballybunion.  In part, a function of the architecture or at least maintenance--a lot of balls in the high stuff not far off the fairways. It is a great course.


Ira

[Sean_A]

I amend my prior post.  It took us 5 hours to play Ballybunion.  In part, a function of the architecture or at least maintenance--a lot of balls in the high stuff not far off the fairways. It is a great course.

Ira

While I agree that Ballybunion is filled with idiotic rough and it is a great course, I don't think the design and presentation require 5 hours.  4 hours is plenty around Ballybunion as a 4 ball.  The walk is straight-forward with very managable elevation changes.

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

Sean,


I was one of two four balls of Americans on a tour, and although I am not very good, I play fast. Not so true of my group. Plus it was packed because it was high season. Having said that, Ballybunion is a Four Hour Plus Round other than when empty which probably is never.


Ira