What's wrong with fast?

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:  you're right, I made that way too simple.  So how about this:

Any round where I can play without delay - meaning I don't have to ever wait for the group in front of me, or make too many searches for golf balls - to me is perfect golf.

I probably left something out there, as well.

But my point remains not to quantify perfect golf, but rather to wonder how one goes about putting a time quantity on what constitutes too slow, just right, or too fast.  Again, to me there are way too many variables to put a time quantity on it.

TH

[Sean_A]

Sean:  you're right, I made that way too simple.  So how about this:

Any round where I can play without delay - meaning I don't have to ever wait for the group in front of me, or make too many searches for golf balls - to me is perfect golf.

I probably left something out there, as well.

But my point remains not to quantify perfect golf, but rather to wonder how one goes about putting a time quantity on what constitutes too slow, just right, or too fast.  Again, to me there are way too many variables to put a time quantity on it.

TH

AwsHuckster

I know what you mean.  Five years ago I would have said that a 4 ball is the best form of the game.   In recent years I have taken to enjoying 2-3 balls much more than 4 balls on courses I suspect could be difficult/awkward and therefore overly time consuming.  In fact, I now set up my links tour as 3 balls only because I can't stand being on the course too long.  Its probably a hang up of mine - especially as I am on holiday, but I just get bored after about 4 hours.  Many is the time I have walked off courses after 9 holes.  I just can't take it.  Where can I find help with this issue?

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...
Any round where I can play without delay - meaning I don't have to ever wait for the group in front of me, or make too many searches for golf balls - to me is perfect golf.
...

We have found the problem, and it is Huckaby! Sorry, but if you don't have to do any waiting, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Time to give up your "perfect golf" and get in position.

[Garland Bayley]

Did I forget the   on that last post?
Senior moment.

[Tom Huckaby]

LOL!

Damn right I am the problem.

But Sean, I can understand your take, for sure.  Attention spans do shorten over time.

As for me, I get to play so infrequently relative to how often I want to play, that any time I am playing golf, not much tends to bother me as I am just so happy to be playing AT ALL.

If I played all the time, I'd have a different attitude.

But I still don't think I'd have a quantified attention span after which I'd get bored... I still think that would change from course to course and situation to situation.

TH

[Bill_Yates]

The real problem is that when it comes to, "How long should it take to play 18 holes?" we need to establish some ground rules.  All of us can cite personal examples of what we have done under widely varying circumstances ie. we were first out, we were a twosome behind a bunch of foursomes, the course was full, the course was empty, we played on a traditional course in the UK, we played on a real estate developement course in the US, etc.  No wonder we don't agree or can't possibly understand the other person's point of view.

Here is the truth.  There is an objective measure that can predict how long it should take a foursome to play 18 holes on any course that is fully loaded.  And because this is an architecturally focused site, this subject is right on topic.  Let me tell you that "the course architect determines the time it 'should take' to play a course the moment he completes the routing plan."

Go to the "Feature Interview" page and look at question #4 that Ran asked me.  Perhaps with a different perspective and a common agreement on the ground rules for any pace of play discussion we can then have a constructive dialogue.

[Tom Huckaby]

Bill:  I am VERY familiar with your work, and with the interview Ran did with you.  I find you to be right on about all of this.

That's why I can't ever say "a round that takes over four hours drives me crazy."  At certain courses, in certain conditions, four hours could be lightning fast and/or feel perfect.

But Sean does come at this differently.. he does seem to have a time threshold after which he gets bored.  So the advice to him would be to only play certain courses at certain times, right?

TH

[Garland Bayley]

...
Go to the "Feature Interview" page and look at question #4 that Ran asked me.  Perhaps with a different perspective and a common agreement on the ground rules for any pace of play discussion we can then have a constructive dialogue.

Well that depends on the USGA. If they are handling time par as well as they are handling ball distance, we are all in trouble.

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
I'm generally with you on the fast play ideal. I used to get dropped off sometimes after school at the golf course with about 2 hours to play before someone would pick me up and I almost always finished as it was an easy time to fly around the course before usually running into the pack of golfers that teed off at 1:00. The fastest I played was about 1.5 hrs in a cart, but I wouldn't do that all the time.

One recent round I played near the end of the day behind some kind of outing and the day was painfully slow. That said, the group behind us all day long had to push us and drive up next to the tee while we were hitting etc etc. It got old very quickly when they kept asking why it was slow. It obviously wasn't us and we weren't going to go anywhere so at that point you might as well relax a little bit and enjoy the day as best you can. That's the type that gets people annoyed with "fast" players, but I haven't had enough people able to catch me otherwise to have that happen too often.

[Garland Bayley]

Andy,

You take the wrong attitude. When a group comes up behind you like that you commiserate with them about what's going on in front of you and make some new buddies.
 

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
We did commiserate with them and made the best of it, but at the same time it would have been nice not playing the entire round with them if you get my drift :-)

[Jason McNamara]

But Sean does come at this differently.. he does seem to have a time threshold after which he gets bored.  So the advice to him would be to only play certain courses at certain times, right?

Well, Sean just has a situation which suits his game perfectly.  He's most likely to play courses which are
(1) without housing
(2) older
(3) a bit shorter
(4) lesser-known, i.e. fewer Americans, Asians, and other *generally* poky types
(5) typically match-play.

Sean, say you were back in the States, and you played at a newer cart-ball course.  You never waited, but the round took 4:30 due to the routing (and stroke play).  Would that feel like eternity, even if you weren't playing with a bunch of plumb-bobbers?

In other words, more generally, should 3:20 at The Worcestershire have the same feel as 4:30 at TPC/Sawgrass?

(I am assuming for the sake of discussion that 4:30 is in fact a good time at Sawgrass.)

[Sean_A]

But Sean does come at this differently.. he does seem to have a time threshold after which he gets bored.  So the advice to him would be to only play certain courses at certain times, right?

Well, Sean just has a situation which suits his game perfectly.  He's most likely to play courses which are
(1) without housing
(2) older
(3) a bit shorter
(4) lesser-known, i.e. fewer Americans, Asians, and other *generally* poky types
(5) typically match-play.

Sean, say you were back in the States, and you played at a newer cart-ball course.  You never waited, but the round took 4:30 due to the routing (and stroke play).  Would that feel like eternity, even if you weren't playing with a bunch of plumb-bobbers?

In other words, more generally, should 3:20 at The Worcestershire have the same feel as 4:30 at TPC/Sawgrass?

(I am assuming for the sake of discussion that 4:30 is in fact a good time at Sawgrass.)

Jason

As all of this is purely from a personal perspective I will give you my truth of the matter.  If it requires (as much as the "require" is  appropriate here) a 4 ball 4.5 hours to get around then one or a combination of factors is in play.

1. The course is a championship course (usually stupidly long) and nearly everybody who plays it casually should not be allowed anywhere near the back tees.  I know a lot of low cappers will disagree with this, but thats life. For instance, if you want to play the back tees then get yer ass on the tee at 7:00am or some other time that is guaranteed not to muck up the course.  Of course, this is down to course owners, but if they were smart they wouldn't put out back tees or anything close to back tees on daily basis.  

AND/OR

2. The routing/design of the course is flawed or meant for only a specific class of golfer - in which case guys like me have no business playing the course.

AND/OR

3. The maintenance of the course is misguided.

Yes, I would feel that 4.5 hours to play a game, (btw its not just golf - its any game) is far too long no matter the reason why - again, assuming its a friendly game.  Why, because it doesn't matter what else is going on with the players or the course, a player doesn't take any longer to hit shots no matter the situation.  So that means if the game takes longer there is either more waiting and/or more looking.  The actual extra shot time due to difficulty is very limited, unless of course (and this is what I believe to be a very common problem even for decent players) the golfer is in hopelessly over his head.  

AwsHuckster - in a way you are right.  I often avoid playing championship courses because I know they take longer to play are generally less fun and more expensive - its a bad combination.  However, if championship golf is on the cards, I want to play well forward tees and not in 4 balls.  The outcome of not following these two rules is predictable and disagreeable.

BTW If a group wants to (and demonstrates that it is) play in less time than is the norm for a particular course - folks should invite them through no matter what is happening ahead.  Its not for your group to decide what the other groups ahead may think about letting fast players through.  In any case, they much more often than not will decline the invite if they can see situation.  Its just a common courtesy thats all.

Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

I never considered myself a slow player, but using many of the replies here as a guide, I guess I'm a snail.  Maybe I've been conditioned from years of crammed full publinx golf like Tom.  I can't remember the last time I've finished in under 3 hours, even alone, with nobody in front of me.  

BTW, Dave Schmidt gave me a pace of play rating of 3 on a scale of 1(fast) to 10(slow) when we last played, but maybe he was just being kind.

Cheers,
Brad

Brad,

I've noticed that when people are talking about their golf games, that there's a common thread in driving distance, scoring and pace of play.  That is, people tend to quote their best 10% of performance and if you question them on it, they have some excuse for why its an off day!

I finally played with the RSG guys at Lawsonia this past summer and I was amazed at slow the play was after years of reading about how everyone there hated slow play.  I can understand them not keeping up with me in the fairways because I walk much faster than most people, but even on the greens where I'm sometimes a bit slower than I should be I felt I was one of the faster players.  So I'd take some of the claims here about sub two hour rounds with a grain of salt, plus consider that maybe that's easier to do on some of those old dead guy courses that are well under 7000 yards and have a 20 yard walk from green to tee versus what we might play.

I have played 18 hours in under two hours maybe a few times when I'm playing alone on an empty course, but I never play that fast with anyone because hardly anyone really likes to play that fast, and when you are with someone you have to worry about keeping out of their way, waiting for their shots, marking balls on the green, and of course having conversations instead of everything being about playing shots and moving to the next shot.

PS - when I played with you the only thing I thought was slow about your play was your swing...we may hit it about the same distance but you make it look a lot more impressive, because if the look of effort in one's swing translated into distance I'd outdrive you by 100 yards!

[Garland Bayley]

Marking balls on greens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That must be what is wrong with you low handicappers. You all hit the ball in the same place. We high handicappers are seldom in anywhere each others line and seldom need to mark a ball. Forget honors, just step up and hit the putt. Why do you have to mark the ball when you can just get it out of the way.

[Jason McNamara]

As all of this is purely from a personal perspective I will give you my truth of the matter.

Sean, thanks for your perspective.  Clearly you are knowledgeable of and comfortable with your abilities (and limits) on a golf course.  Please come back here and set a good example for others!

The course is a championship course (usually stupidly long) and nearly everybody who plays it casually should not be allowed anywhere near the back tees.  I know a lot of low cappers will disagree with this, but thats life.

Would totally agree with this - of course even by the USGA system, a 5 hcp is in the top 15% of those with hcps, and probably is the top 2% of all golfers.  I got down to a 4.x at my last club, and didn't play the tips (7200) there - not even during f&f Texas summers.

For instance, if you want to play the back tees then get yer ass on the tee at 7:00am or some other time that is guaranteed not to muck up the course.  Of course, this is down to course owners, but if they were smart they wouldn't put out back tees or anything close to back tees on daily basis.  

Courses can't catch up once behind, can they?  If you mean limit early tee times to low hcps, I wouldn't object.  (Wouldn't ever help me, since I like to get up late.)  I bet Pebble could get away with this - you must have a 10 hcp or better to tee off before 9 am.  Not that I think they'd ever implement it....

And yes, I realize there are exceptions (like left-handed 25-hcp GCA members from Oregon) who play very quickly, but the *average* 80 shooter at Pebble is going to play faster than the *average* 100 shooter, period, end of story.

Yes, I would feel that 4.5 hours to play a game, (btw its not just golf - its any game) is far too long no matter the reason why - again, assuming its a friendly game.  

OK, just wanted to confirm you have the same attention span as I do!  

BTW If a group wants to (and demonstrates that it is) play in less time than is the norm for a particular course - folks should invite them through no matter what is happening ahead.

Hmmm... wouldn't there be some disruption if a twosome went out and tried to play its way through a course full of foursomes that were playing at an appropriate clip?  Bill Yates, do you have any info on this?  

[Garland Bayley]

On a course full of 4-ball matches, if you are in position, but not pushing the group in front of you, and the group behind you is obviously waiting on you all the time. Do you let them play through? Sounds like Sean is in favor of letting them play through.

[Jason McNamara]

I haven't been in this situation in a while, but if there's a way to do it such that the group behind them doesn't get on us immediately, then probably so.  But honestly, that's because I don't want the hassle of having the twosome behind me, not because I think there's really any place for them to go.  So I'd let them be someone else's problem.  If they go to a busy course with the expectation of playing their usual 3-hour round, it's probably not going to happen.

Not that such a situation should take place, because if the course is that busy, a starter should be pairing up that twosome with someone else anyway.  Then again, the starter is probably distracted, trying to get in on the side action of his buddies' sixsome that he just squeezed into the tee sheet.  

I think I remember seeing somewhere that if there's no room for anyone to go, letting an otherwise faster group through doesn't help any, because then it's start/stop the whole way.  Maybe Bill has some research on that, because I couldn't say for sure.

But at my last club I usually played at oddball times, and if I had slower-playing guests out on a holiday I'd check the tee sheet to make sure we were immediately ahead of the slowest members I could find.  Or we'd start on 6 or 14 or whatever...

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
I feel little obligation in cases like that to let those players through, they aren't going to get very far anyway if the course is crowded. If its a single or a twosome often I let them go through anyway just so they can run up the back of some other group and not mine. If its a foursome they might as well slow down, they aren't going through enough groups to make it worth their while.

I've been in twosomes playing at busy times on public courses and I just realize that I might as well take my time during those rounds and enjoy the scenery and hit some extra shots or whatever it takes to stay in position. If your priority is pace of play then play someplace that tends to move quickly, play early in the morning, or find an otherwise uncrowded course/time. Don't play at 11 AM on a weekend morning on a public course and think you can play in 3 hours.

[Kalen Braley]

This thread has been an interesting read, thanks for the topic Garland.

One of the few things that has mystified me about the general views in here is the "need" to play a fast round.  And I can't really understand this based on what GCA.com is supposed to about.  If golf is about the golf architecture and the enjoyment thereof then why rush around and not take a good look at it?  Sure I suppose if one is playing a doak 1 or 2, maybe there isn't anything look at, but I would suspect the vast majority here often plays courses that are rated much higher on the doak scale.

It seems the element of taking it all in gets left on the back burner and this baffles me.  Golf is not a chore but something to be enjoyed and if play is a little slow its extra time to look at the architecture, bond with your buddies, or even use your noggin and speculate how you would build certain features or route the course if you were running the show.  Analyze what works and what doesn't and why.  I love doing this while playing and playing fast for the sake of getting it over with has never made any sense to me.  I suppose if you have another engagement, then sure you may prefer to play quicker, but if its that important just bail on your round and get to it.

As for how long a course should take to play, I would very much agree with the group that claims it depends on the course.  I've played rounds in under 4 hours, (which is good for American courses), and felt like it was just a long grind.  And I've also played rounds in 4.5 hours plus and it felt like we were flying thru the course....it really just all depends on the day, weekday/weekend, weather conditions, whether or not your tee time is behind 4 groups of the men's club, etc, etc.  If I ever had a chance to play a Pine Valley, NGLA, Cypress, or something of that caliber, I woudn't mind one bit if it took 5+ hours.....just means more time on the course to take it all in.  

But either way, if your playing a course with interesting architecture, whats the rush??  Take what the playing time conditions allow for and study the course instead of getting steamed cause you have to wait.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm usually not one to bump threads, but I really am curious as said in my previous post as to why people want to rush around a course, especially if it is a nice one...I really don't get it.

[Greg Krueger]

I am the fastest player I know, but when it took almost 6 hours to play TOC, I loved every minute!!

[Garland Bayley]

Simple answer Kalen,

Any course you play multiple times does not need the slow play. For example, if a tour pro plays practice rounds Monday and Tuesday, a pro-am on Wednesday, by Thursday he should be able to do 18 with a single partner in 2 1/2 hours. What would he lose by not doing so?

Therefore, Gene S can play Augusta National in under 2 hours. Many pros like to play very quickly, because waiting only develops tension. E.g., Monty (a very quick player) at Winged Foot.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

I can appreciate that pros get around very quickly, and thats fine, I guess its just a job for them.

Perhaps I was unclear, but my question was intended to be specifically pointed at us in here.  Why do we feel the need to play super fast as opposed to just playing at a good pace and enjoying the architecure as we go along? And if its a slow round, all the more time to enjoy the course that much more.