what you want vs reality

Given that golf season is underway again for the majority of the country I am going to start posting the following information for my rounds: Type of Course (Public vs Private), Day of Week (note holiday, if applicable), Start Time, Total Elapsed Time. I will do this only when playing as a foursome or when playing as a twosome or threesome and having the foursomes in front of us setting the pace.

So far here are my three rounds of the year:

Public course - Sunday - 9:25 AM - 4 hrs 15 mins

Public course - Monday (Holiday) - 1:00 PM - 4 hrs 20 mins

Public course - Sunday - 9:55 AM - 4 hrs 35 mins

I encourage others to post there round information on this thread as well. As more data becomes available I'll post averages and statistical analyses as make sense.

My hypothesis going in is that as much as some people can and want to play 3 1/2 hours rounds that the majority of time this is not going to be a reality. Factors involved obviously will be Public vs Private courses (Private will be faster due to less crowding and generally better players), Day of Week (Weekends obviously would be slower), and Start Time (early mornings and other "off hours" will be faster). My other hypothesis going in will be how, for me at least, consistent the times will be in the 4:15-4:30 range.

I guess I missed the point of the study.

Hypothesis is fine but if the question has no meaningful answer then it is moot.

The second hypothesis is not a hypothesis but rather an observation.

Hypothesis: "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."

[quote name='GWD' timestamp='1398694460' post='9186475']
I guess I missed the point of the study.

Hypothesis is fine but if the question has no meaningful answer then it is moot.

The second hypothesis is not a hypothesis but rather an observation.

Hypothesis: "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."
[/quote]
You're right about the second "hypothesis". I guess I'm not proposing any explanation for my expectation that there will be very little variance in my (and I expect others') times.

But I'm not getting what you are saying with ,"[color=#282828]Hypothesis is fine but if the question has no meaningful answer then it is moot."[/color]

*inappropriate*

I don't think you need a statistical analysis to disprove the 3.5 hour weekend round notion. Golf takes too long when it's crowded. 4:30 is slow and 5 hours plus and I'm ready to go home.

But I realize reality.

[quote name='jewofgolf' timestamp='1398694739' post='9186497']
I don't think you need a statistical analysis to disprove the 3.5 hour weekend round notion. Golf takes too long when it's crowded. 4:30 is slow and 5 hours plus and I'm ready to go home.

But I realize reality.
[/quote]
I don't agree that 4:30 is "slow" for most people. 4:00-4:30 is "typical" for most people regardless of conditions. Most foursomes are not capable of 3:30 rounds in the best of conditions.

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1398694700' post='9186491']
[quote name='GWD' timestamp='1398694460' post='9186475']
I guess I missed the point of the study.

Hypothesis is fine but if the question has no meaningful answer then it is moot.

The second hypothesis is not a hypothesis but rather an observation.

Hypothesis: "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."
[/quote]
You're right about the second "hypothesis". I guess I'm not proposing any explanation for my expectation that there will be very little variance in my (and I expect others') times.

But I'm not getting what you are saying with ,"[color=#282828]Hypothesis is fine but if the question has no meaningful answer then it is moot."[/color]
[/quote]

To elaborate: If your data base gains 1000 instances of the four main variables you propose (as well as several other related variables) then how will that data be used to develop a conclusion that is meaningful. A "scientific method" study would best be conducted using only one variable. IE. "Eighteen hole golf rounds by foursomes following three sets of twosomes on Tuesdays before 9 AM average 3:45 to 4:00 hours." (as an example).

The proposed general hypothesis is that golf rounds will average more than 3.5 hours and you want to gather data that provides verification of the hypothesis. Then, what will the data be used to prove? A study would be more meaningful if it disproved a commonly held notion but given the posts here on GolfWRX the hypothesis will prove what is general knowledge.

I am not discouraging the study at all. Just suggesting a refinement of the factors to allow it to be a bit more scientific and worth your effort and the efforts of contributors.

Edit: Just saw your post in #6. It seems that your conclusion has already been reached.

GWD, don't get hung up on the word hypothesis. Here it is being used more in the sense of 'proposition' or even just 'idea'.

And, you most certainly can conduct a study or do data gathering across multiple variables as long as N (sample population) is large enough. This is what I do for a living. You just process the data across certain variable combinations of interest (Mean playing time for weekday/early morning/public = x.xx hrs)

[quote name='thug the bunny' timestamp='1398697492' post='9186803']
GWD, don't get hung up on the word hypothesis. Here it is being used more in the sense of 'proposition' or even just 'idea'.

And, you most certainly can conduct a study or do data gathering across multiple variables as long as N (sample population) is large enough. This is what I do for a living. You just process the data across certain variable combinations of interest (Mean playing time for weekday/early morning/public = x.xx hrs)
[/quote]

I don't disagree with your post in the slightest...especially since you are a professional. I defer to your expertise.

The OP used "hypothesis" so my follow-up was based on that term.

Your observation about processing the data, given a large enough data base, is consistent with my view IMO. In your example the variables are chosen after the data is gathered. That is certainly a valid method for analysis and drawing conclusions.

For what it is worth:

Michigan

4/26/2014 (Saturday): Public course, walking, 1:15pm, 4:30 duration
4/27/2014 (Sunday): Public course, walking, 12:30pm, 2.5 hour duration

It was sunny but a bit cold on Saturday (55 degrees). The course played is very popular, seen from a major highway, been in existence 50+ years so I knew it would be a bit slow. Hoped the weather would thin out the crowd (it didn't).

Sunday it was cloudy, windy and cool (50 degrees). The course I play is a bit out of the way, definitely not high end and most of the action is in the morning. I know I can walk on in the afternoon and usually play very quickly, which is what I got.

I don't know what one is going to do with this info but if you keep posting, I will also, for a while.

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1398695506' post='9186579']
[quote name='jewofgolf' timestamp='1398694739' post='9186497']
I don't think you need a statistical analysis to disprove the 3.5 hour weekend round notion. Golf takes too long when it's crowded. 4:30 is slow and 5 hours plus and I'm ready to go home.

But I realize reality.
[/quote]
I don't agree that 4:30 is "slow" for most people. 4:00-4:30 is "typical" for most people regardless of conditions. Most foursomes are not capable of 3:30 rounds in the best of conditions.
[/quote]

If your plumb bombing your 4th putt or looking for the mulligan you pulled into the woods for 10 mintues, it is not.

In the early season, I have played MANY 2:15 minute rounds as a twosome.

[quote name='bk52' timestamp='1398699194' post='9187015']
For what it is worth:

Michigan

4/26/2014 (Saturday): Public course, walking, 1:15pm, 4:30 duration
4/27/2014 (Sunday): Public course, walking, 12:30pm, 2.5 hour duration

It was sunny but a bit cold on Saturday (55 degrees). The course played is very popular, seen from a major highway, been in existence 50+ years so I knew it would be a bit slow. Hoped the weather would thin out the crowd (it didn't).

Sunday it was cloudy, windy and cool (50 degrees). The course I play is a bit out of the way, definitely not high end and most of the action is in the morning. I know I can walk on in the afternoon and usually play very quickly, which is what I got.

I don't know what one is going to do with this info but if you keep posting, I will also, for a while.
[/quote]
Both of those rounds were foursomes?

[quote name='tatertot' timestamp='1398699345' post='9187033']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1398695506' post='9186579']
[quote name='jewofgolf' timestamp='1398694739' post='9186497']
I don't think you need a statistical analysis to disprove the 3.5 hour weekend round notion. Golf takes too long when it's crowded. 4:30 is slow and 5 hours plus and I'm ready to go home.

But I realize reality.
[/quote]
I don't agree that 4:30 is "slow" for most people. 4:00-4:30 is "typical" for most people regardless of conditions. Most foursomes are not capable of 3:30 rounds in the best of conditions.
[/quote]

If your plumb bombing your 4th putt or looking for the mulligan you pulled into the woods for 10 mintues, it is not.

In the early season, I have played MANY 2:15 minute rounds as a twosome.
[/quote]
Twosomes don't count in the analysis. Only foursomes.

The only problem with the study is.....

Is anyone actually arguing that 3 1/2 hour rounds ARE the norm?

Of course not. Something between 4-5 hour rounds are generally accepted as being typical acrossed the board and I don't think that fact is debatable.

Everything on either side while certainly possible, are the exception.

Unless you arguing something contrary then I'm lost on the point.

Fwiw, I play mid mornings, mid week, solo at select local course and play 18 in 2 1/2 hours without rushing the slightest bit. And I am quite aware that is non typical. (although perhaps not under those specific circumstances. )

[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1398705945' post='9187973']
The only problem with the study is.....

Is anyone actually arguing that 3 1/2 hour rounds ARE the norm?

Of course not. Something between 4-5 hour rounds are generally accepted as being typical acrossed the board and I don't think that fact is debatable.

Everything on either side while certainly possible, are the exception.

Unless you arguing something contrary then I'm lost on the point.

Fwiw, I play mid mornings, mid week, solo at select local course and play 18 in 2 1/2 hours without rushing the slightest bit. And I am quite aware that is non typical. (although perhaps not under those specific circumstances. )
[/quote]
People argue this all the time. How many times have you read on here someone saying that, "there is no reason ever that a foursome should take more than 3 1/2 hours" or some such nonsense?

I played in a tourney this weekend on a private course in sacremento, six (6) hours on the course. I played the same tounament last year and was off the course in 4 hours ten minutes. The difference being last year my tee time was 9:15, this year it was 11:45. That hour and half difference was the difference between single digit players and high double digit players.

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1398706176' post='9187989']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1398705945' post='9187973']
The only problem with the study is.....

Is anyone actually arguing that 3 1/2 hour rounds ARE the norm?

Of course not. Something between 4-5 hour rounds are generally accepted as being typical acrossed the board and I don't think that fact is debatable.

Everything on either side while certainly possible, are the exception.

Unless you arguing something contrary then I'm lost on the point.

Fwiw, I play mid mornings, mid week, solo at select local course and play 18 in 2 1/2 hours without rushing the slightest bit. And I am quite aware that is non typical. (although perhaps not under those specific circumstances. )
[/quote]
People argue this all the time. How many times have you read on here someone saying that, "there is no reason ever that a foursome should take more than 3 1/2 hours" or some such nonsense?
[/quote]

I see that more as just bickering about time; they've played a 2.5 hour round when the course is empty, so they expect to be able to play in 3-3.5 hours when the course is crowded. Then during said crowded round, they see the group in front of them do just one little thing that slows them up a few minutes and they flip out, come home, log on to WRX, and complain about it. I think most people "know" that 4-4.5 hours is the "norm" for the average golfer (i.e, what the average, non-WRXer expects a round of golf to be), but they just don't want to succumb to it.

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1398706176' post='9187989']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1398705945' post='9187973']
The only problem with the study is.....

Is anyone actually arguing that 3 1/2 hour rounds ARE the norm?

Of course not. Something between 4-5 hour rounds are generally accepted as being typical acrossed the board and I don't think that fact is debatable.

Everything on either side while certainly possible, are the exception.

Unless you arguing something contrary then I'm lost on the point.

Fwiw, I play mid mornings, mid week, solo at select local course and play 18 in 2 1/2 hours without rushing the slightest bit. And I am quite aware that is non typical. (although perhaps not under those specific circumstances. )
[/quote]
People argue this all the time. How many times have you read on here someone saying that, "there is no reason ever that a foursome should take more than 3 1/2 hours" or some such nonsense?
[/quote]

The argument is 3 1/2 rounds SHOULD be the norm ... but they aren't.

[quote name='tatertot' timestamp='1398708170' post='9188213']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1398706176' post='9187989']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1398705945' post='9187973']
The only problem with the study is.....

Is anyone actually arguing that 3 1/2 hour rounds ARE the norm?

Of course not. Something between 4-5 hour rounds are generally accepted as being typical acrossed the board and I don't think that fact is debatable.

Everything on either side while certainly possible, are the exception.

Unless you arguing something contrary then I'm lost on the point.

Fwiw, I play mid mornings, mid week, solo at select local course and play 18 in 2 1/2 hours without rushing the slightest bit. And I am quite aware that is non typical. (although perhaps not under those specific circumstances. )
[/quote]
People argue this all the time. How many times have you read on here someone saying that, "there is no reason ever that a foursome should take more than 3 1/2 hours" or some such nonsense?
[/quote]

The argument is 3 1/2 rounds SHOULD be the norm ... but they aren't.
[/quote]
Keep thinking that and you are setting yourself up for years of frustrations. 3 1/2 hour rounds are not feasible for the majority of golfers.

Read this: [url="https://www.ngcoa1.org/images/ngcoa/Pace_of_Play.pdf"]https://www.ngcoa1.o...ace_of_Play.pdf[/url]

I've played golf for over 30 years. I've played with guys that can't break 120, low cappers, tournament players, etc. I've never played with a player who COULDN'T play a round of golf in 3 1/2 hours.

And yes, I realize it will never happen. But that doesn't mean I just give up and take it.

If you have to play at 8AM on a weekday morning on a popular public course in NJ you can expect a 4 1/2 hour round. There are the options if you can be flexible and a good one is playing in the early afternoon before the rates are lowered. I typically finish in 3 1/4 - 3 1/2 hours and if I take any longer its because I played a few holes again. And I am an 18 HCP and can play mediocre golf at a good speed. Just to add - at this time I am usually playing with one other person and sometimes we have our own cart.

As for the 5 and 6 hour rounds, I have only experienced this on Father's Day and Charty outings.

[quote name='NJpatbee' timestamp='1398710482' post='9188483']
If you have to play at 8AM on a weekday morning on a popular public course in NJ you can expect a 4 1/2 hour round. There are the options if you can be flexible and a good one is playing in the early afternoon before the rates are lowered. I typically finish in 3 1/4 - 3 1/2 hours and if I take any longer its because I played a few holes again. And I am an 18 HCP and can play mediocre golf at a good speed. Just to add - at this time I am usually playing with one other person and sometimes we have our own cart.

As for the 5 and 6 hour rounds, I have only experienced this on Father's Day and Charty outings.
[/quote]
Twosomes don't count.

I play the majority of my rounds as a single so I don't count either but I do wish you luck with your study and analysis. I'm interested to see what you turn up.

I surmise that you will gather little data and a great deal of bickering, but I've been proven wrong before.

[quote name='rbhan12' timestamp='1398694711' post='9186495']
What I want
[attachment=2197493:supermodel.jpg]

Reality
[attachment=2197495:fat chick.png]
[/quote]

Im thinkin this is the only true reality this thread will come up with. Well done by you sir.

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1398706176' post='9187989']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1398705945' post='9187973']
The only problem with the study is.....

Is anyone actually arguing that 3 1/2 hour rounds ARE the norm?

Of course not. Something between 4-5 hour rounds are generally accepted as being typical acrossed the board and I don't think that fact is debatable.

Everything on either side while certainly possible, are the exception.

Unless you arguing something contrary then I'm lost on the point.

Fwiw, I play mid mornings, mid week, solo at select local course and play 18 in 2 1/2 hours without rushing the slightest bit. And I am quite aware that is non typical. (although perhaps not under those specific circumstances. )
[/quote]
People argue this all the time. How many times have you read on here someone saying that, "there is no reason ever that a foursome should take more than 3 1/2 hours" or some such nonsense?
[/quote]

Arguing "should" and experiencing a different reality is not an aguement.

This "study" is designed to do nothing more than back up what everyone allready knows is fact.

And you've acknowledged this in you own OP statement.

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1398706176' post='9187989']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1398705945' post='9187973']

Is anyone actually arguing that 3 1/2 hour rounds ARE the norm?

[/quote]
People argue this all the time. How many times have you read on here someone saying that, "there is no reason ever that a foursome should take more than 3 1/2 hours" or some such nonsense?
[/quote]

Of course people argue that but I don't see that as the majority view. I sincerely think it adds nothing to the slow play discussion, in fact, it tends to diminish it because many will dismiss it entirely.

The focus should not be discrediting the 3.5 hour round argument.

I believe it can be easily agreed that on a typical course, a typical fourball can play 18 holes in ~ four hours WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT OF HURRY OR RUSHING. The issue is - this typical average has crept past 4.5 hours in the last 20 years and that's what the slow play discussion should center around.

My club enforces a strict 4hr round . Not a minute over, no excuse for play any slower

Every Saturday and Sunday: 7 am tee time. Public course. 4 some. 3 hours to 3:15. Every time. This is with us taking our time and BS'n quite a bit.

I think their is already sufficient data in existence that golf takes too long to play. Their is data also showing how the pace of play has slowed over time. I don't think their is a need for a collection of more data. What the industry needs is data collected on possible solutions.

[quote name='MNoonan' timestamp='1398810889' post='9198825']
My club enforces a strict 4hr round . Not a minute over, no excuse for play any slower
[/quote]

What is the consequence for a 4+ hour round?

What if only one in the group is cause for a over-limit round? All in the group are punished?

What about the other groups behind the slow group? Penalized as well?

Without clear and concise sanctions the rule is unenforceable.