[bstark]

  For about two years after I got married my wife thought a round of golf took 5 hours....then I made a major faux pas....I came right home after my  GOLF round.....game over.

[JC Jones]

What's wrong with the five hour round is that it sets the standard for everyone behind.  I wouldn't mind a bit people taking five or six hours to play, as long as they stood aside every couple of holes to let others play through them.

I do find as I get a bit older that we don't play as fast as we used to ... sometimes it takes 3 1/2 hours, and sometimes 4 1/2.  And I don't enjoy it a lot less when it's 4 1/2 hours, as long as I haven't been waiting on anybody, or holding anybody up.

P.S. to JC - I guess our bet is off, because there's no way I'm treating you to a five hour round at Crystal Downs.

your second paragraph is spot on.

I never advocated for the 5 hour round so I think you are calling off the bet out of fear

[A.G._Crockett]

For starters, if you add in driving to and from the course and a decent warmup before playing, you're talking about committing more like 6 hours to golf that day.  My wife is THE most understanding person in the world, but she has her limits.  So does my job and my yard and the rest of my life.

That's what's wrong with the 5 hour round.  For starters.

[Melvyn Morrow]

[Mark Chaplin]

Golf is a six hour effort, three hours for golf and three hours for lunch!!

[Tim Bert]

For my taste five hours is way to long though three hours is too short when playing with a foursome. I find that it takes me about 2.5 hours to play a comfortable round as a single.  Each additional player adds between 15 to 30 minutes, resulting in a range of 3:15 to 4:00.  Ideal for me on a walking friendly course is about 3:45.  On courses of greater difficulty I can enjoy myself at a 4:15 to 4:30 pace as long as I am not holding anyone up because it allows time to spend up to 5 minutes looking for stray balls that might be in play.  I have played 20 rounds or so at Bandon and have only finished under 4:00 probably once or twice but it has never been too slow and we've never held anyone up (unless someone in turn was hding us up.)

I played Pebble Beach on back to back days last year. One round took about 4:10 which felt perfect. The second day took about 6 hours which would have been murder except for the fact that I had great company, it was the second round of the day so the only thing being held up was dinner, and I was on vacation and had nowhere else to be.  It certainly wasn't ideal but there were worse places I could have been.

Again I will call 3:30 to 4:00 ideal but not every course is created equal.   

[Jack_Marr]

I've no objection to anyone taking five hours, as long as they're not playing with or in front of me. .

[jonathan_becker]

I lived in Chicago for nearly 5 years and loved every minute of it.....except for the 5+ hours rounds that are rampant throughout the public golf scene in the Chicagoland area.  Believe it or not, slow play was one of the reasons I moved back to my home state of Ohio.

The problem was that I lived in the city, was in my mid-20s, and didn't (and still don't   ) make the kind of money that it took to belong to a decent private club in the area.   What this equated to for me was getting up at 5 am and driving down to George Dunne on 164th and Central to be one of the first ones off.  That's the only way that you can get around in under 5 hours on a decent test of golf in that town....get up at the crack of dawn and try to beat the traffic.  

Now i'm sure that you Chi guys that have lived there your entire lives know more of the tricks than I did, but if you show up at any public course in the area on a saturday, you have..... drive time, warm up time, 5 hour + round, then drive time home.   This all equates to 8 hours for only 18 holes and regular public golf is not worth 8 hours of my time.

One time at Jackson Park, my roommate and I teed off at 8am and we were standing on #9 tee at 11:05am.  This is beyond ridiculous and for those of you that don't know the course....it's only 5500 yards from the tips.  On #9 tee that day I drove the green to a foot, tapped in for eagle, and then my roommate and I walked off the course and left.  Also, walking off that course isn't easy because #9 doesn't route back to the clubhouse.

I miss the city a lot, but I now live 1000 yards from my golf course and normally play in 3.5 hours.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

The individual and collective sum of your posts make your position quite clear.

You'd have to be on pretty heavy substances in order to deny them.

As to your position, you're advocating that there's nothing wrong with taking 5 hours to play a round.

You can deny that's your position all you want, but, your inititial post, individual and collective replies have cast the die.
Your replies speak for themselves, but, you're probably the only one viewing this thread who doesn't see that.
No need to respond because I'm not going to respond any further to your absurd denials.

[Niall C]

The problem with the 5 hour round is that I can play other courses in 3 1/2 hours. So if a course is playing at 5 hours, why would I bother to go there and probably pay a premium to wait for at least 1 1/2 hours. JC, tell me you don't go 1 1/2 hours early to watch a double feature "just for the experience" of watching a movie in a theater instead of at home.

Garland

Its not just the 1 1/2 hours wasted by waiting, its the 3 1/2 wasted playing golf badly because you have to wait the 1 1/2 hours waiting. Basically 5 hours on a golf course is 5 hours wasted. If anyone doesn't think so then ask themselves do they feel relaxed and happy when they walk of the course or do they feel tense and pissed off. If its the former then I hope you never play in front of me.

Niall

[George Pazin]

JC has been putting up some of the best commentary threads in recent months, which have really gotten my attention.

What is wrong with the 5 hour round?  
Do you have somewhere better to be than at the golf course?  If so, why not just go there and not to the course?

Perhaps I should have said "golf course commentary threads"...

That is one painful pic.

Can't really add anything to the discussion that hasn't already been said. I have no problem with someone playing a 5 hour round if there are no golfers behind them. But most people have other stuff to do.

[JC Jones]

Jason,

The individual and collective sum of your posts make your position quite clear.

You'd have to be on pretty heavy substances in order to deny them.

As to your position, you're advocating that there's nothing wrong with taking 5 hours to play a round.

You can deny that's your position all you want, but, your inititial post, individual and collective replies have cast the die.
Your replies speak for themselves, but, you're probably the only one viewing this thread who doesn't see that.
No need to respond because I'm not going to respond any further to your absurd denials.

Pat, you wonder why people don't find your arguments convincing.  The above post consists of these arguments:

"I'm right, here are my inferences, here is your position as I have declared it to be, I'm right, you're wrong."

Do you see the glaring hole in your argument?  Its called a healthy mix of facts and logic.  I now understand why you didn't respond to my question regarding certain logical fallacies.  You think those fallacies are sound methods of argument.

Here is an idea, why don't you ask me what my position is?  My initial post consisted of questions, not position statements, anything you read into that are your inferences.  You could also try actually reading my "collective and individual" posts to see where I revealed my position when concurring with someone's reply.

Don't worry Pat, we'll get you squared away soon.   You'll be unstoppable when you start using logic and facts.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

What is wrong with the 5 hour round?

Waiting to play your shot while the people in front faff around. I don't want to run round a golf course, but I like to be able to walk up to my ball and play the next shot when I get to it. Even if it were the most scenic course on earth I don't want to spend my time just standing in the middle of a fairway or on a tee waiting. Then I probably fluff the ensuing shot because the match behind is getting impatient.

I've told the story before, but my brother-in-law and I used to play The Old Course a lot (sometimes twice a day) in the 70s and 80s during the Easter Holidays. We would go there for a week. it didn't break the bank because green fees were comparatively inexoensive and the tourists hadn't started coming so there was no need to book starting times or have recourse to the ballot. We took about two hours for our round because we played matchplay, there were very few lost balls, there were no hold ups on the course, and we were (in those days) reasonably competent. Our best was 1'45" and we weren't running, just getting on with it.

Many years ago, while writing a book, I played all 83 courses then extant in Cheshire (it's now about 110). Because I was still in full-time employment I did this at 6 or 6.30 am. I allowed myself two hours to play the course, take notes and take photographs. True, I didn't always play a hole if it looked uninteresting, and I gave myself all 3-footers, but if the green looked interesting I might putt three or four balls from different spots to different spots. Quite often, if I hit a wrotten shot somewhere (a not infrequent occurrence) I would play a Mulligan. But two hours it usually was.

[Sean_A]

It is pretty funny reading about speed of play from GCAers - not an exactly quick bunch of guys from my experience.  I do think much of this sort of thing is cultural, but I haven't figured out the how yet.  I recall at Tobacco Road's Dixie Cup that Mid PInes was decent pace, Pine Needles was a poor pace and the pace at The Road was shocking - 4:45.  More recently, the pace for 2balls at Rye was a disgrace - 4 hours and I know it was our chaps causing it because the party in front of our groups was miles out front.  Yet, at Huntercombe we got a 4ball round in 3.5 hours and that was with two jet lagged chaps.  I don't really remember what happened at Hoylake so it must have been ok.  I can't make head nor tails of it all, but I do know that if someone needs an answer regarding why a 5 hour game is wrong - we are in big trouble.

Ciao  

[Mac Plumart]

Maybe I took what Jason/JC said different than others.

I am not sure he is saying that he would play a 5 hour round if the course was empty except for his foursome.  I think he is saying that if he is stuck on a slow course and his round took 5 hours he would find a way to enjoy it.  And frankly, if you don't skip out at the turn...isn't that what you should do?

Also, George P. brought up a good point in regards to one of my posts (I think it was on this thread...but it may have been on a similar one) and that is if you constantly catch the group in front of you...you can't go faster even if you are a single or a twosome.

[JC Jones]

Maybe I took what Jason/JC said different than others.

I am not sure he is saying that he would play a 5 hour round if the course was empty except for his foursome.  I think he is saying that if he is stuck on a slow course and his round took 5 hours he would find a way to enjoy it.  And frankly, if you don't skip out at the turn...isn't that what you should do?

Also, George P. brought up a good point in regards to one of my posts (I think it was on this thread...but it may have been on a similar one) and that is if you constantly catch the group in front of you...you can't go faster even if you are a single or a twosome.

You're spot on Mac.  My choice is to play a 3.5 hour round but, if circumstances are such that the round ends up being longer than 4 hours I don't let it ruin my otherwise good time on the golf course.  Tom Doak said it right on. 

Everyone assumes that if the round takes longer than 4 hours that people are lollygagging or you are waiting on the tee.  That isn't the case at all, sometimes you are just enjoying the round and having a good time and the round, for whatever reason, takes a bit longer than usual.  Case in point, EVERY round I've played at a GCA.com event. 

The point is, relax.  Enjoy the course, enjoy the day and have fun.  I understand that, for some, scoring well is part of the equation but if anything short of jogging between shots is going to throw you off then you aren't going to have fun most days.

BRENT HUTTO - Our round at Camden was longer than 4 hours.  Never once did we wait (we were the first group off), lolly gag or do anything other than play golf.  On top of that, we finished 3 holes ahead of the group behind us.

[Mark Pearce]

90+ posts on "What is wrong with the 5 hour round?"?

Has GCA jumped the shark?

[Matt_Ward]

Read plenty of the posts and simply many have failed to understand that certain courses are unlikely to be under five hours because of the walk between holes and the overall terrain encountered.

A good example if Bethpage Black. The course is quite rolling and the scale of the property is immense. Walking to and from elevated targets and then between holes can take a bit of time. Throw into the equation people looking for balls and making snowmen on more than a few holesand five hours is quite good given all that I mentioned.

[Brent Hutto]

The point is, relax.  Enjoy the course, enjoy the day and have fun.  I understand that, for some, scoring well is part of the equation but if anything short of jogging between shots is going to throw you off then you aren't going to have fun most days.

BRENT HUTTO - Our round at Camden was longer than 4 hours.  Never once did we wait (we were the first group off), lolly gag or do anything other than play golf.  On top of that, we finished 3 holes ahead of the group behind us.

I think it was around 4:10-4:15 including a couple of balls lost in the rough on the final hole. That's not particularly slow for 18 holes as a fourball (and there are a couple of longish walks involved at Camden CC) but it's pushing my limit. If I had been in the next group it would have been a very tedious day.

As for relax, enjoying the day, etc. that's nothing to do with scoring. I simply can not relax standing around. Sitting with my feet propped up an enjoying a beverage? Relaxing. Walking? Relaxing. Standing around waiting on someone to get out of my way? I am just not wired in a way to make that anything other than a PITA.

I tend to talk too much, weigh too much and worry about things outside of my control...and I hate standing and waiting on someone who is obstructing me. These are my crosses to bear.

[George Pazin]

It's interesting - I have no problem relaxing, standing around, shooting the breeze with my friends, etc.

But put a guy 150 yards in front of us, pacing and re-pacing, studying the green like he's Tiger preparing to overtake Jack...

that's a little hard to take.

Do I let it ruin my day? Nope.

Would I like to encourage it? NEVER.

[Dave Greene]

5 Hours for a round of golf seems to be a bit much for my taste. Our group walks a round in 3.5 to 4 hours. When we get slow and go just over 4 hours it feels like we have been out there for a long time. We enjoy each others company but I can't see how a round of golf can take 5 hours.

Sometimes I wonder if the super fast groups are worse. They get in there carts and try to play as fast as they can to finish a round in 2.5 to 3 hours. If you watch them they do not talk to each other very much and they certainly are not stopping to smell the roses or appreciate the natural surroundings. It is just get in the cart and fly. They get upset at the groups in front of them that are playing at a 3.5 to 3.75 hour pace.

[Bill_McBride]

It is pretty funny reading about speed of play from GCAers - not an exactly quick bunch of guys from my experience.  I do think much of this sort of thing is cultural, but I haven't figured out the how yet.  I recall at Tobacco Road's Dixie Cup that Mid PInes was decent pace, Pine Needles was a poor pace and the pace at The Road was shocking - 4:45.  More recently, the pace for 2balls at Rye was a disgrace - 4 hours and I know it was our chaps causing it because the party in front of our groups was miles out front.  Yet, at Huntercombe we got a 4ball round in 3.5 hours and that was with two jet lagged chaps.  I don't really remember what happened at Hoylake so it must have been ok.  I can't make head nor tails of it all, but I do know that if someone needs an answer regarding why a 5 hour game is wrong - we are in big trouble.

You are right, it's cultural.  At Huntercombe Philip made it very clear that we needed to haul ass or he'd be embarrassed playing a four ball a bit off schedule.

Rye is going to be a bit slow because of looking for balls.  Mayday and I were second or third off and I thought we kept up with the group ahead of us without waiting on them.  As you recall, it also poured down rain the first nine.

I have always thought a two ball singles match can be the same pace as a foursomes match or maybe a bit slower, not sure why.


Tobacco Road slow?  Go figure!   

[Sean_A]

It is pretty funny reading about speed of play from GCAers - not an exactly quick bunch of guys from my experience.  I do think much of this sort of thing is cultural, but I haven't figured out the how yet.  I recall at Tobacco Road's Dixie Cup that Mid PInes was decent pace, Pine Needles was a poor pace and the pace at The Road was shocking - 4:45.  More recently, the pace for 2balls at Rye was a disgrace - 4 hours and I know it was our chaps causing it because the party in front of our groups was miles out front.  Yet, at Huntercombe we got a 4ball round in 3.5 hours and that was with two jet lagged chaps.  I don't really remember what happened at Hoylake so it must have been ok.  I can't make head nor tails of it all, but I do know that if someone needs an answer regarding why a 5 hour game is wrong - we are in big trouble.

You are right, it's cultural.  At Huntercombe Philip made it very clear that we needed to haul ass or he'd be embarrassed playing a four ball a bit off schedule.

Rye is going to be a bit slow because of looking for balls.  Mayday and I were second or third off and I thought we kept up with the group ahead of us without waiting on them.  As you recall, it also poured down rain the first nine.

I have always thought a two ball singles match can be the same pace as a foursomes match or maybe a bit slower, not sure why.


Tobacco Road slow?  Go figure!   

Ace

Something was GolfClubAtlas amiss at Rye because we stood about every single shot - it was a long day.  Its a good thing the course is so compelling!  In fact, Dan and I had to scramble for our meal afterwards.  What is telling is that we only saw a few stragglers of the party ahead of us in the dining room and only met our GCA bretheren briefly before they went out in the pm.  I was expecting to break bread with them!  A singles match at Rye would probably feel slow to me even at 3:30.  I just get a feel for how long courses should take to play and Rye shouldn't be bad at all.  The walk is quite easy.  Fairways are fairly generous.  The course isn't long - only one par 5.  For instance, I think it takes longer to get round Pennard than Rye because the walk is tougher - a lot of up n' down - the terrain isn't ideal for golf.  If we get our 4balls round at Buda in under 4 hours I will be happy, but I have no illusions about 3.5 hour games.  In fact at Porthcawl, I weaseled an extra half hour between games knowing that our guys aren't getting back to the first tee in 4.5 hours.  Mind you, I never like the rushing of the meal between games and it is certainly something which puts me off 36 hole days.  To be honest, I would be happier with a 6 hour turn-over especially at a championship course.  The longer break also makes it easier to form fresh 4balls.  Jeepers, I can sit for an 1.5 hours over a few beers without a meal nor the shower/changing.  Why its de rigueur to get back to the tee in 4.5 hours is a mystery to me.  It must have its origins in pre-4ball days and the closing of the dining room.   

Ciao

[Dave Greene]

Maybe there should be a maximum combined handicap per group of around 45 to 50 +/-.

[Mark Pearce]

Maybe there should be a maximum combined handicap per group of around 45 to 50 +/-.

It usually is pretty close to that at our club. Typical "A, B, C and D" players. But most players are in the 12-18 range. Toss in the D player at 24 and we're now looking at 54 aggregate, before the "A" player is included. Our aggregate was probably in the 50 range, easily.

I guess the purpose of my post is that if we were miffed that a team scramble took 4:10, we are pretty lucky in the grand scheme of things.

The slowest groups at my club are the ones with the league team players.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()