Design features that slow down play and are they worth it?

[Jerry Kluger]

Somebody please explain to me how ear infections relate to this topic?


I don't think courses have to be boring but aren't there some features that unnecessarily slow a course down.  There is a local course that when it was built had long grasses around the bunkers - I called them eyebrows - and balls would get lost in there and would really slow things down.  Another course has Zoysia grass around the bunkers and in the summer it seems to grow faster than the other grass and is difficult to cut because of the slopes so it is often very long and again causes players to look a long time for a ball (It also stops balls from rolling into bunkers so well designed bunkers don't come into play they way they were designed to.)

[Scott Weersing]

Here are some more design features which lead to slow rounds of golf, but it still has to do with slow players.


1. 7000 yard long courses where players play from the tips, even though they can't reach any of the par 4s in two shots.
2. Signature holes with waterfalls, this is where players have to stop for selfies.
3. Elevated tees. Why, golfer tend to swing hard and fast and so drives end up all over the place, resulting in a ball hunt. Or even worse, elevated tees where you can't see the landing area, resulting in a ball hunt.
4. Cart courses where each tee is a five minute drive from the last green.
5. Lots of rough around the greens. (see Pebble Beach during the ATT pro am)
6. Courses with poor drainage. Leads to cart on the cart paths only. Or players have to move ball to dry area to hit shot.

[Peter Pallotta]

No. 1 - thickly bunched trees 200 yards from the tee on the *right* side of the fairway.
No. 2 - thickly bunched trees 100 yards off the tee on the *left* side of the fairway.
No. 3 - a bunker *behind* the green on a short Par 3
No. 4 - a bunker in *front* of the green on a long Par 3.
That's it. In that order.

[Sean_A]

There is only one design concept which adds nothing to the game, but is a pace killer....long walks between greens and tees when there is no housing element.  More and more I think as a general concept this is bad design because it happens when archies think they can build a course for all golfers.  Yep, there are exceptions, but I am becoming less tolerant of the idea because archies say they are including some so called great holes so the sacrifice of the walk is worth it, but what these archies usually mean is that there is a viewing point from the awkward tee which is photo worthy or there is a certain yardage which the archie is trying to achieve...what a load of tosh. 


The other annoying stuff like trees, rough, water or bunkers lining fairways has a place in design if done sparingly. 

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

Sean, the word "sparingly" is critical. Designers who overuse deep bunkers in the line of play cause a slow play nightmare regardless of the diligence of the player. First, for all but excellent players, it is a difficult shot that leaves another shot from the bunker or a shot from another awkward position. Second, if not using a caddy, need to deal with the delay in raking the bunker. Well placed bunkers used sparingly are brilliant; too many ill placed ones are the opposite.

[Jerry Kluger]

Speaking of bunkers, I get really annoyed when rakes are left at the top of bunkers either by the maintenance crew or other players - it makes you take that into consideration when hitting your shot plus you have to walk around to the top of the bunker to retrieve the rake and back down to the low point where you are supposed to enter and this slows things down as well.

[Eric Smith]

Jerry,


Is there a handbook on proper bunker rake placement? My advice is to not let something as trivial as where the bunker rake is placed really annoy you. Golf can still be fun. Internet golf? I'm not so sure anymore.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The proper place for rakes is either all in the bunker, or all out.  Half in and half out drives mowers and bunker rakers crazy.


Adrian nails it, others have added some good points.  BTW, yes, clean edged water is generally considered to speed up play.  But, must not have safety shelves.  Balls under water appear bigger and thus closer than they are, making golfers think they can retrieve them, but often causing them to fall in the water themselves.....


The bigger, and so far ignored, part of the question is whether they are worth it?


Of course, there is no blanket answer, but I believe the 80% bell curve probably applies. 


For the bottom 10% of courses, which should be intro to golf, golf factories, etc., none of them are worth it. 


For the top10% of courses, some to many are worth it to create a unique and challenging course.


For the 60% of courses in between, they should be used sparingly, probably limited to where they are forced to occur naturally, with the designer consciously avoiding play slowing features of any other type.


Yes, it can reduce the quality of design, but only if you subscribe to the "there is only one way to skin a cat" theory of golf hole design.  Is a forced carry, sand bunker front right of green, or deep rough really the only way we can make that hole perfect?  And, for courses that seem to be an ever increasing difficult business proposition, is perfect design the real goal?  In theory, a good architect could design a great course with zero sand bunkers, using creativity.


In fact, one could theorize that the reduced popularity of golf is in part attributable to all us designers ignoring the real needs of the typical golf course in favor of self glorification (us or the owner) of a tough course, when its not needed.


Moving forward, if every golf survey says the decrease in players is linked to time to play, slow play, etc., it would follow one of the top design criteria would be to specifically design for speed of play, as form follows function.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John, not everyone knows how to play cart golf which impacts slow play  .  John, I'm low maint kinda guy.  I just want to golf, eat a burger and drink after the round.   I'm a happy golfer and would like others to have a chance at happiness. 

As far as reachable par 5's, I just try and lay up most of the time because I don't wanna hold anyone up and most times when you wait you hit a bad shot.  Good Karma.

First, right on to pp 1.


Second, I always wondered if I was the only one to do this, always being conscious of my group's pace of play.  In essence, I factor in the low % chance of success against waiting to enjoy that success, and figure it just isn't worth it, lay up to keep play moving.  It makes me feel better somehow, even perhaps if I had hit that green in two.  Less and less of a problem these days......

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean, the word "sparingly" is critical. Designers who overuse deep bunkers in the line of play cause a slow play nightmare regardless of the diligence of the player. First, for all but excellent players, it is a difficult shot that leaves another shot from the bunker or a shot from another awkward position. Second, if not using a caddy, need to deal with the delay in raking the bunker. Well placed bunkers used sparingly are brilliant; too many ill placed ones are the opposite.

If a bunker is ill placed then by definition it is seldom coming into play. It is the well placed bunkers that cause the delay. I agree a deeper bunker would cause delay.


What would really speed up play is greens that gather the ball from all sides to the middle so as soon as someone hits the green the shot is holed. This would speed up play. We could also shorten every hole to 50 yards so most people can complete the course in 18. My point really is there has to be a balance. Slow play really is about other things rather than the architecture.

[Ira Fishman]

Adrian, first I agree that it is all about balance--without design features that slow down play, courses would be uninteresting.  I also agree that it is mostly about the player--I play fast regardless of the course.


But let me offer an example of good versus not so good bunkers in terms of design integrity/interest versus pace of play.  Pine Needles is one of our favorite courses.  The bunker at the corner on 10 which is a shortish Par 5 presents terrific strategic decisions off the tee (let alone daunting execution risk).  If you hit in the bunker, you are not advancing it very far from there.  On the other hand, the bunker at the corner of 17 is redundant.  With the sharp dogleg, trees, and rough, the bunker adds little except a difficult long shot that will slow down play. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean, the word "sparingly" is critical. Designers who overuse deep bunkers in the line of play cause a slow play nightmare regardless of the diligence of the player. First, for all but excellent players, it is a difficult shot that leaves another shot from the bunker or a shot from another awkward position. Second, if not using a caddy, need to deal with the delay in raking the bunker. Well placed bunkers used sparingly are brilliant; too many ill placed ones are the opposite.

If a bunker is ill placed then by definition it is seldom coming into play. It is the well placed bunkers that cause the delay. I agree a deeper bunker would cause delay.


What would really speed up play is greens that gather the ball from all sides to the middle so as soon as someone hits the green the shot is holed. This would speed up play. We could also shorten every hole to 50 yards so most people can complete the course in 18. My point really is there has to be a balance. Slow play really is about other things rather than the architecture.

An exaggerated idea, but reduce "holed" to "held" and it makes sense.  Most of my greens are a bit concave at the front to hold shots with moderate side spin. 


Again, while most here love to discuss challenging architecture, when designing for the average Joe, the game is simply hard enough as it is, and concave greens, back to front slopes, bunkers well back from the front right corner, etc., all help make his round more enjoyable, even if at the expense of the 1% type golfer who might be playing there.


Of course, the other thing that comes to mind, is if the 1% player is playing there as a guest, it might be he has no problem playing an easier than normal course (to him) and shooting a lower score, even if that would be tiring for him day after day.


Somewhat OT, but if you can access JJ Keagan's blog (a golf biz consultant and author) a recent post surveyed what made a course popular, and folks seemed pretty neutral to Par (70-72 ok) and length.  From memory, one stat that draws play is a slope rating between the average 116 and no more than about 130.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian, first I agree that it is all about balance--without design features that slow down play, courses would be uninteresting.  I also agree that it is mostly about the player--I play fast regardless of the course.


But let me offer an example of good versus not so good bunkers in terms of design integrity/interest versus pace of play.  Pine Needles is one of our favorite courses.  The bunker at the corner on 10 which is a shortish Par 5 presents terrific strategic decisions off the tee (let alone daunting execution risk).  If you hit in the bunker, you are not advancing it very far from there.  On the other hand, the bunker at the corner of 17 is redundant.  With the sharp dogleg, trees, and rough, the bunker adds little except a difficult long shot that will slow down play.

Ira - I don't know the course to comment. I am really trying to make the point it is not really the design features, since you have to have these. I would say early par three holes slow down golf, it is probably a plus if you can make the first one the 5th, but many of the rules of golf design are simply trumped by the big over-rider of getting the best out of the land, so if the 2nd is a par 3 hole it is not really a flaw. You could say greens and tees close together slow down play but I am sure we all try and space things out when we can and sometimes we have to edge a bit closer than perhaps is best practice to get the best out of the land or maintain within the budget controls.

[Tom_Doak]

Somewhat OT, but if you can access JJ Keagan's blog (a golf biz consultant and author) a recent post surveyed what made a course popular, and folks seemed pretty neutral to Par (70-72 ok) and length.  From memory, one stat that draws play is a slope rating between the average 116 and no more than about 130.

That's interesting.  Jim Keegan has complained about my greens being too hard and how that's unpopular with golfers, yet very few of my courses have a slope rating above 130.

[JC Jones]

Speaking of bunkers, I get really annoyed when rakes are left at the top of bunkers either by the maintenance crew or other players - it makes you take that into consideration when hitting your shot plus you have to walk around to the top of the bunker to retrieve the rake and back down to the low point where you are supposed to enter and this slows things down as well.

I've found the solution to that is to not hit it in the bunkers.

[Jerry Kluger]

The whole point was the ball can't get to the bunker unless it flies directly in thereby not only slowing play down but defeating the reason that the bunker was part of the design.

[corey miller]

Who enters bunkers from the low side anyway? 

[Michael Whitaker]

The proper place for rakes is either all in the bunker, or all out.  Half in and half out drives mowers and bunker rakers crazy.

The captain of our club recently send out an email blast to all the members with instructions on "proper" rake placement in the bunkers... this is a links course with revetted bunkers. The rakes were to be entirely in the bunker with the head of the rake aimed at the front of the bunker. I think these instructions were issued because balls were often being stopped from going into the bunkers or being trapped against the walls after being "caught" by the rake. Anyway, it was the first time I have ever seen such a notice from any club!

Also, at our recent "Thaw Out" visit to Old Tabby Links they had painted marks on the bunker edge indicating where the rake handles should be located, so this has obviously been an issue there at some point.

[Michael Whitaker]

My most objectionable slowdown on a golf course is looking for golf balls. Wandering around searching for a lost ball is a true time (and fun) killer!

[A.G._Crockett]

Since everybody is playing every hole, I don't think that any design feature should be looked at as slowing down play; I think we're all in agreement that slow play is inevitably because of slow players.

That said, I'll offer two ideas.  I think that courses that open with a par 5 often experience delays on the first tee that cause things to get jammed up; groups wait for the green to clear, and this is often without regard to how far they are from the green while they wait.

But the single GOLF COURSE contributor to slow play that I've come across is early week rounds where the super has buried the pins on the edges to save the center of the green for later in the week.  We all know this needs to be done, especially in the heat of the summer, but carried to an extreme it causes players to spent inordinate amounts of time on each green.

[Michael Whitaker]

I read somewhere (you guys will probably help with where) that a golf course which begins with a par 5 followed by a par 3 is the worst beginning for pace of play. As I remember the theory, this configuration produces a serious traffic jam that sets everything way behind schedule.

As I think about it, the few courses I can think of that start 5-3 do have major delay problems from the very beginning of the round. For example, Charleston National. The last time I played there (many years ago) it took us quite a while to finish the first hole as there were too many groups on the hole... then, we pulled up on the second tee only to find two groups waiting and another on the green! We were looking at a minimum of 30 minutes before we got to play the hole!!!

Do you know any courses that begin 5-3? Do they have pace of play issues because of this?

[Ira Fishman]

Our course starts 4-3-3. When the tee sheet is full, it makes for slow start. Primland starts 5-3-5-3, but it is so freakin remote that they run the tee times 15 minutes apart so we have never had a problem. I assume that Steele took the relative lack of play into consideration when he designed the course.

[Jerry Kluger]

I have had quite a few discussions with Ran concerning Tobacco Road and part of my dislike is the very slow pace of play and why is that? Just think how many blind shots there are and I know that I have hit what I thought was a good shot and never found it.  Also, the high grass bordering some fairways also slows down play.  I was there once and there was a frost delay and I watched at least 5 groups tee off number 1 and it was an ugly scene. At least a third of the shots went into the high grass and guys were looking for what seemed like forever for their balls.  (I hit a good tee shot and what I thought was a good second shot but we never found my ball - I didn't dare to go back and play my 4th shot so technically I could not post my round.) When we came to 16 we were the third group waiting on the tee and a ranger came and stood so he could see the landing area and tell players where their balls were in order to try to help the pace of play. 

[Scott Weersing]

Ok, here is a another design feature which indirectly slows down play.


The course is designed with high maintenance costs. For example, your country club for a day model. Green fees above $100.


This type of course attracts customers who play there once a month or once a year are making it an all day experience. They are ok with a five hour round with multiple stops for food and drinks. They accept slow play.


I think the less expensive the course, the faster the pace of play. But maybe there is a course over $100 that has 3.5 hour pace of play. Let us know.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Since everybody is playing every hole, I don't think that any design feature should be looked at as slowing down play; I think we're all in agreement that slow play is inevitably because of slow players.

That said, I'll offer two ideas.  I think that courses that open with a par 5 often experience delays on the first tee that cause things to get jammed up; groups wait for the green to clear, and this is often without regard to how far they are from the green while they wait.

But the single GOLF COURSE contributor to slow play that I've come across is early week rounds where the super has buried the pins on the edges to save the center of the green for later in the week.  We all know this needs to be done, especially in the heat of the summer, but carried to an extreme it causes players to spent inordinate amounts of time on each green.

Not sure I agree.  There are certain design features (most identified here) that do cause slow play.  And, there isn't much we can do to alter human nature, and we don't want to tee off customers.  Like most of our problems, there is no silver bullet or single solution.  There is no doubt in my mind that with slow play being the number one concern about taking up golf, we should design in faster play to the degree we can.  It's certainly a big part of the solution.


As to burying pins, yes it happens.  And mostly, if you look closely, but tucking pins near the edges on the cart path side to limit walking traffic across the greens to save them for the weekend.  Of course, the solution to that might be cart paths on both sides of the green (which, IMHO would also speed play) but have had only 2 clients over 40 years believe in that particular solution.....for aesthetics and cost.  But, one who tried it showed it did limit cart and walking wear in typical areas if as little as 25% of players took the secondary cart route.