Garland,

I agree with you.

I don't think there's a valid reason for justifying slow play.

TV is part of the culture of slow play.
The snail like pace is emulated by low and high handicapper alike.

While some might say that 2 hours is too fast for a foursome, play in 3 hours is certainly obtainable.

To me, a good round is when a golfer doesn't have to wait to hit his ball due to the group in front of him or due to his playing companions.

What amazes me is when golfers who have been members of the same course for 20 to 40 years have to wait to ask a caddy who's been there for two weeks, how far it is or how the green breaks.

Quote from: Pat Brockwell on November 29, 2007, 08:09:00 PM

Ken, don't get me wrong, I think 4.5 is an hour or so too long.  I just know that marshalls only want to get everyone to go at the SAME pace, not a quick pace.  I played a round where the marshalls actually encouraged us to just take our time and enjoy the day, because they were unable or unwilling to try to get anyone to move along.  Haven't been back there.

I knew what you were getting at. The truth is, I have recently come to believe the Bill Yates, the expert behind http://www.pacemanager.com/ has it about right.

He says it's not the actual time a round takes that drives us nuts, but the flow of a round. He has said here that sometimes a faster round can be frustrating if it includes waiting to hit multiple times in a round.

I had my epiphany during our member guest we played in sixsomes, which took 5 1/2 hours, despite the slow pace, it wasn't frustrating because we never had to wait on a single shot in 18 holes.

Conversely, I play on Sunday with my wife, and anything over 3 1/2 hours means we'll be waiting to hit all day long.

Ken

Ken

If you are the last guy hitting in a 6some then you have to stand  around for something like 3 minutes (probably closer to 5 in reality) each shot before you hit.  The player has spent no more time with his own shot.  What increases is the standing around time.  No matter how you slice, if it takes 5.5 hours to play its slow.  I would take 3.5 hours as a 2 ball rather than 5.5 hours as a whatever anytime.  I don't see how anybody can pay attention or care about a golf game that drags on for anything remotely close to 5.5 hours.  

I also can't understand how anybody could castigate someone for quick play.  Play is slow because people accept it.  Remember that time Daly was fined for going round in some crazy time?  The powers that be thought he didn't take the game seriously.  Maybe not, but he should have won an award rather than be fined.

Ciao

,





What amazes me is when golfers who have been members of the same course for 20 to 40 years have to wait to ask a caddy who's been there for two weeks, how far it is or how the green breaks.

Pat,
The most amazing thing is that some of the most successful people in the world do exactly what you just said.
I often ask them how often do they bring the new mailboy into the Boardroom to advise on company matters.

I'm also amazed at how a caddie can convince a seemingly otherwise intelligent person that he hits his 8 iron 150 , yet his drives only go 180.
 "the wind is hurting and the air is thick, play it 150 " and he's two feet from the 100 yard mark.

I'm also amazed at how a caddie can convince a seemingly otherwise intelligent person that he hits his 8 iron 150 , yet his drives only go 180.
 "the wind is hurting and the air is thick, play it 150 " and he's two feet from the 100 yard mark.

Jeff,

That's not "convincing" the guy...it's letting him believe in the tooth fairy...

Played Lederach a week or so ago as a walking single.  (And at $25, a great deal.) Nobody out there.  I catch up to a foursome on #11.  Fly through them.  Fly through two more, then a complete standstill.


It's backed up two groups on the tee, and the guys on the green are plumb-bobbing.

Same guys were plumb-bobbing on every green the rest of the way, oblivious to the backup they were causing.

I left the 16th tee and walked to 18 where it was open and finished.


A great day almost ruined by ignorant putters.  I think they simply watch too many PGA players taking way too long to line up putts.

I understand as a single there are times where I will be held up which is fine.  But there is no excuse for what those guys were doing on every green with groups waiting.

Garland,

It is not, nor am I a nuisance to anyone on a busy course.

You would be Garland if you and your friend were trying to play your way through every other group out there, and you would be adding to the same problem you are against, slow play. I have an 85 year old woman who gets here first thing in the morning to play. She cruises around in a cart and regularly plays 9 in 55 mins to an hour. She says she doesn't like to be held up and she hates to feel like a pest. If someone does beat her out, she goes around them and plays some other hole twice. She chooses the correct time to race around and play.

You, Jim, simply accept the status quo. The nuisance is the people that think a foursome should take more than four hours to complete a round.

Generally we have few complaints about pace, but we do get them from both sides of the issue. There are those who complain about the slow group ahead of them and those who complain about the group who consistently runs up on them. We always remind the slow players to pick up the pace next time they play but invariably, those who gripe about being held up had no place to go anyway.      

If the course were full of foursomes, my buddy and I would be paired with another pair, and if everyone played at a 3.5 hour pace we would not stand out in the least.

Earlier I said to each his own as to how fast they play( you like to play in 2 hours) and that there's nothing wrong with being the fastest, as long as you aren't a bother to the rest of the golfers. Now you've just said that you, too, would try to fit in and not be a nuisance at the much slower 3.5 hour pace.

I would assume that means you realize my point.    


Lloyd,
I only meant that the rule is one of etiquette, and 'breaking' it carries no penalty in recreational play. If it were fully observed, especially the part about keeping up to the group ahead, we wouldn't be having this discussion.      

 
 

Garland,
Interesting question.  The answer is, what is wrong with playing too fast is the same thing that is wrong with playing too slow - you or your group are out of sync with the rest of the field.  

And since time has a subjective emotional component as well as an objective component, you or others will "feel" frustrated or even angry when your "too fast" or someone else's "too slow" play causes you to wait.

...
Generally we have few complaints about pace, but we do get them from both sides of the issue. There are those who complain about the slow group ahead of them and those who complain about the group who consistently runs up on them. We always remind the slow players to pick up the pace next time they play but invariably, those who gripe about being held up had no place to go anyway.      
...

What the heck does this mean? People are complaining that the foursome behind them is in position? I hope you let then know what's what about that!

If 18 is taking more than 4 hours, then those griping about being held up with no place to go have a valid complaint.

Garland,
You said to Bill:

I think your assessment is wrong. My example was of 2 players (me and my buddy, or Gene Sarazen and George Fazio) on an empty course.

This is not how you framed this thread. Nowhere did you say that this was about you and your buddy playing on an empty course in 2 hours, here's what you did say:

On an earlier thread about slow play, I commented that a high handicap buddy and I play our home course together in 2 hours. I, of course, was trying to counter all those who want to blame high handicappers for slow play.

You then follow, after a sentence about a negative reaction to your speed on another thread with this:

Last night I read a report that said Gene Sarazen and George Fazio were paired in the first pairing at the Masters in 1947. It said that Gene shot a 70 at Augusta National while the pair of them finished their round in 1 hour and 57 minutes.
Sorry guys. I'll take The Squire's idea of proper pace over yours

If you were trying to say that there's nothing wrong with playing extremely fast as long as you do it at a convenient time that won't interfere with other's enjoyment of the course, you did a poor job of it.  
 

If you were trying to say that there's nothing wrong with playing extremely fast as long as you do it at a convenient time that won't interfere with other's enjoyment of the course, you did a poor job of it.  
 

No, I was countering the arguments that others had made on the earlier thread that you can't enjoy the game when playing that fast, and you can't play well when playing that fast. Others jumped on the thread saying that fast players were a problem, and my following comments addressed that.

I'm all for taking my time in a roundof golf.
Usually I play eighteen holes in 3.5 hours and that is perfect.
Anything faster can start to get rushed.

Golfis supposed to be enjoyable, and two hous just isn't enjoyable for me.

3.5 hours is perfect.
Add a half hour for the cartgirl, and 4 hours isn't too bad either.
 

Jordan,

I once read that there are two types of golfers. One type is there for the golf. The other type is there for the socializing. I think you and I are in opposite camps.  

Jordan! Shut up and hit the ball!
 

Edit: By the way Jordan, how many shoe changes are figured into that 3.5 hours?
 

I find it interesting that so many can quantify how long is too long, or too short, or just right - that is, put it in a number of hours and minutes.  I sure can't.  There are just too many variables.  I just do believe that any round I can play without delay - that is, never waiting on a shot - is perfect golf, however long it takes.  And that will vary based on what the course is like.

Sadly I get to play oh so few rounds like this....

TH

AwsHuckster

By this reckoning a game can theoretically go on forever.  Looking for balls is just about as harsh as waiting for shots.  For sure, once I hit about 4 hours I lose interest in the game and my enjoyment factor slips dramatically (assuming its a friendly game) no matter where I am.  IMO, the game was never meant to take that long - though I understand everybody has their own threshold.  Perhaps this is why archies started to get creepy by trying to make golf courses beautiful rather than interesting!

Ciao