what you want vs reality

[rsj1360]

[quote name='az2au' timestamp='1404388248' post='9628967']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1404387054' post='9628887']
I don't have any "issue". I'm just reporting facts.[/quote]

Seems to me that your facts are the times reported but your opinion i.e., issue with my math, is that four 100 shooters aren't capable of finishing in 4:00. I am not giving you grief here. Just honestly trying to understand. Apologies if it is coming off the wrong way.
[/quote]
Obviously some foursomes of 100 shooters can and do play fast. My observations in 40+ years around golf show that the majority of foursomes of any level can't.

[cassel191919]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1404387054' post='9628887']
[quote name='az2au' timestamp='1404253421' post='9618927']
You propose a purely sequential order. That's not real. At least I hope not. If it is then I think I have found your issue. While mine was purely parallel I know that was false. Let's tilt it to your side and say that 75% is sequential. That still leaves plenty of time to get through 18 holes in four hours.
[/quote]
I don't have any "issue". I'm just reporting facts.
[/quote]

Are you sure that the group you play with isn't part of the slow play problem? Unless you are waiting on almost every hole 4 hours should be easy to accomplish. For the studies sake my foursome played 27 holes in just under 5 hours on one of the hardest courses in Michigan

[az2au]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1404390117' post='9629109']
Obviously some foursomes of 100 shooters can and do play fast. My observations in 40+ years around golf show that the majority of foursomes of any level can't.[/quote]
The only distinction that I want to make here is that I believe they choose not to rather than they can't. That was the whole point of my exercise above. If you are simply saying they don't. Ok, I agree. If you are saying that they can't then I don't and still haven't seen any facts to support it.

[az2au]

Two rounds yesterday:
Private, foursome two in carts, two walking, 7:00am-3:31
(Different) Private course, carts, 1:10pm-2:58

Scores out of interest
Morning-78 (me), 86, 90, 91
Afternoon-81, 8-freaking-7(me), 90, 93

I mean that's a serious avalanche of strokes to still play in under 3:00 and I alone added a ton so that should have taken longer right? I thought a bit about when we were playing and here's what I saw: my mistakes were tee balls so bad that I didn't even look for 3 of them as my provisional was already in the middle. The 90 shooters didn't ever really lose balls. Maybe 3 in 36 holes. They are short and straight but have horrible short games. Lots of strokes lost on putting and chipping.

I think the key (or at least a big one) for slow play has to be people hitting wild tee shots and then spending a bunch of time looking for them.
.

[rsj1360]

[quote name='cassel191919' timestamp='1404390228' post='9629123']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1404387054' post='9628887']
[quote name='az2au' timestamp='1404253421' post='9618927']
You propose a purely sequential order. That's not real. At least I hope not. If it is then I think I have found your issue. While mine was purely parallel I know that was false. Let's tilt it to your side and say that 75% is sequential. That still leaves plenty of time to get through 18 holes in four hours.
[/quote]
I don't have any "issue". I'm just reporting facts.
[/quote]

Are you sure that the group you play with isn't part of the slow play problem? Unless you are waiting on almost every hole 4 hours should be easy to accomplish. For the studies sake my foursome played 27 holes in just under 5 hours on one of the hardest courses in Michigan
[/quote]
I don't have a regular group. I play with variuos friends, relatives, and strangers.

[rsj1360]

[quote name='az2au' timestamp='1404391120' post='9629223']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1404390117' post='9629109']
Obviously some foursomes of 100 shooters can and do play fast. My observations in 40+ years around golf show that the majority of foursomes of any level can't.[/quote]
The only distinction that I want to make here is that I believe they choose not to rather than they can't. That was the whole point of my exercise above. If you are simply saying they don't. Ok, I agree. If you are saying that they can't then I don't and still haven't seen any facts to support it.
[/quote]
My contention is that most can't and yes, some don't. As I mentioned before, I'd say the vast manority of golfers would not want to, and would play worse, and have a less enjoyable time if for ed to play in 3 1/2 hrs.

Every single person I have mentioned these discussions to has responded with some variation of, "They are nuts." You fast golfers have to rea,ize you are the "tail" and not the mean of the distribution.

[az2au]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1404557724' post='9640677']
My contention is that most can't and yes, some don't. As I mentioned before, I'd say the vast manority of golfers would not want to, and would play worse, and have a less enjoyable time if for ed to play in 3 1/2 hrs.

Every single person I have mentioned these discussions to has responded with some variation of, "They are nuts." You fast golfers have to rea,ize you are the "tail" and not the mean of the distribution.[/quote]
This is why I gave them 4 hours instead of 3:30. I have already conceded that my preferred pace is not "possible" for most even though I see 70+ year old mid 80-low 90 shooters do it regularly walking (and two of them even carry most weeks). We will treat these guys as outside the norm because I know they are even though I still don't understand why. Again, I am not asking for my pace. Just a reasonable one.

The other thing I still maintain is that is a self-selecting phenomenon. I say this because I too have been discussing this the last few weeks and every single person I have mentioned it to has had the opposite reaction to the people you talk to. No one I know wants to play in 4:30. Even the slow people that think they play fast

[az2au]

And to continue the trend...
Saturday 8:00am private course, foursome with three walkers and one in a cart, 3:38.

[rsj1360]

[color=#282828]Public course - Sunday - 7:25 AM - four hours 15 minutes[/color]

[color=#282828]Average for eleven rounds: 4 hrs 34 mins[/color]

[deadsolid...shank]

Our fivesome waited on a foursome every hole stating on #3. Bumped us back to almost four hours, it felt like we were out there forever.

Hard to ask to play through when our pro was playing with us. He's not going to risk offending anyone, but it was pretty frustrating today.

[rsj1360]

Public course - Sunday - 11:25 AM - four hours 50 minutes

Average for twelve rounds: 4 hrs 35 mins

[rsj1360]

It isn't going to count since I was in a threesome, but FWIW:

Public course - Sunday - 6:00 AM (first group out) - three hours 20 minutes (the threesome behind us were not finished putting out on 17 when we finished)

[rsj1360]

Public course - Sunday - 12:10 - four hours 25 minutes

Average for 13 rounds: 4 hrs 34 mins

[rsj1360]

[color=#282828]Public course - Sunday - 12:10 - five hours 15 minutes[/color]

[color=#282828]Average for 14 rounds: 4 hrs 37 mins [/color]

[rsj1360]

[color=#282828]Public course - Saturday - 9:40 - five hours 0 minutes[/color]

and

[color=#282828]Public course - Sunday - 6:40 - three hours 55 minutes[/color]

[color=#282828]Average for 16 rounds: 4 hrs 36 mins [/color]

[az2au]

Private course, Saturday, 1 walking (me), 3 riding guests, 3:54

Interestingly I had 4 groups (one threesome, three foursomes) at my club and the last group still finished at 4:07 (estimate as I can't confirm their starting time since I was already on the course). This is a very difficult golf course and without a member providing lines off the tees there are a lot of mistakes that will be made. The fact that they still finished in that time is pretty good as we were all playing matches.

[ssf301]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1408383128' post='9957663']
[color=#282828]Public course - Saturday - 9:40 - five hours 0 minutes[/color]

and

[color=#282828]Public course - Sunday - 6:40 - three hours 55 minutes[/color]

[color=#282828]Average for 16 rounds: 4 hrs 36 mins [/color]
[/quote]

Wow.....just popped into this thread and saw this average. 16 rounds at an average of 4 hr 36 mins. I have to be honest, I would probably quit the game if that were the norm for me. I just don't have that much time. I am lucky enough to belong to a private club where that pace isn't tolerated. It is a championship level course (has held several pro tournaments) and the expected pace for the members is 4:05. Most of the time 4-somes run a little under that. Anything above 4:15 or so is pure torture for me at least.

[rsj1360]

[quote name='ssf301' timestamp='1409062457' post='10010381']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1408383128' post='9957663']
[color=#282828]Public course - Saturday - 9:40 - five hours 0 minutes[/color]

and

[color=#282828]Public course - Sunday - 6:40 - three hours 55 minutes[/color]

[color=#282828]Average for 16 rounds: 4 hrs 36 mins [/color]
[/quote]

Wow.....just popped into this thread and saw this average. 16 rounds at an average of 4 hr 36 mins. I have to be honest, I would probably quit the game if that were the norm for me. I just don't have that much time. I am lucky enough to belong to a private club where that pace isn't tolerated. It is a championship level course (has held several pro tournaments) and the expected pace for the members is 4:05. Most of the time 4-somes run a little under that. Anything above 4:15 or so is pure torture for me at least.
[/quote]
4 1/2 hours is always my expectation. As it seems to be for almost everyone I ask. The level of variability is somewhat of a surprise to me. I think it is because this year, as opposed to typical years, I am starting at more variable times and playing at more different courses.

[Pepperturbo]

[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]

Given how much I play, from what I have seen, I agree! What's constitutes 'slow' depends on someone's expectation, judgment and location. I play public courses during prime time AM, 2-3 times a week all over SoCA and AZ; 4:20-5hr rds are pretty much the norm on wkends. Depending on the course, 3:30-4:10 is rather common week days, but that too can be challenged is just one person of 4 is slow.

[ssf301]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1409170871' post='10020559']
[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]

Given how much I play, from what I have seen, I agree! What's constitutes 'slow' depends on someone's expectation, judgment and location. I play public courses during prime time AM, 2-3 times a week all over SoCA and AZ; 4:20-5hr rds are pretty much the norm on wkends. Depending on the course, 3:30-4:10 is rather common week days, but that too can be challenged is just one person of 4 is slow.
[/quote]

I think that the 4:20-5hr "expected" rounds is the #1 reason why golf is dying. Throw in travel time, hitting a few balls at the range and a meal after and you've pretty much chewed up a whole day. Perfect for retired folks and those that have not entered the workforce yet, but tough for most others.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='ssf301' timestamp='1409225542' post='10023633']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1409170871' post='10020559']
[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]

Given how much I play, from what I have seen, I agree! What's constitutes 'slow' depends on someone's expectation, judgment and location. I play public courses during prime time AM, 2-3 times a week all over SoCA and AZ; 4:20-5hr rds are pretty much the norm on wkends. Depending on the course, 3:30-4:10 is rather common week days, but that too can be challenged is just one person of 4 is slow.
[/quote]

I think that the 4:20-5hr "expected" rounds is the #1 reason why golf is dying. Throw in travel time, hitting a few balls at the range and a meal after and you've pretty much chewed up a whole day. Perfect for retired folks and those that have not entered the workforce yet, but tough for most others.
[/quote]

I suppose when all those influences are taken into account, that's more than likely why... Only I am not convinced, 4:20-5hr is as big a culprit as some on Golfwrx suggest. That all depends on regional influences. Its commonly understood in SoCA, weekend golf after 9:30ish, is going to take that much time, because course tee sheets are still filling up. That might not be the case in other states though. I agree with "retired folks" inclusion. But when that segment is looked at closely, they are cutting back too; most are on fixed incomes and golf costs are creeping upward. I know some people hate hearing it, but not every activity is meant for all to enjoy. I just don't see how, with the cost of golf courses, club houses and overall maintenance, golf can be kept open for everyone.

Let me go off topic for a moment. Recently I was in a meeting with School Superintendents about the influx of moderately wealthy Chinese into our CA schools system, and their massive purchases of homes and commercial RE. When delved into, it turns out, their motivation is to get away from China. My point is, even though Chinese government is pushing golf course development in China, it excludes most Chinese, including the moderately wealthy. Even there, its not for everyone. We know that pretty much the case in Japan too.

[ssf301]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1409249140' post='10025943']
[quote name='ssf301' timestamp='1409225542' post='10023633']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1409170871' post='10020559']
[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]

Given how much I play, from what I have seen, I agree! What's constitutes 'slow' depends on someone's expectation, judgment and location. I play public courses during prime time AM, 2-3 times a week all over SoCA and AZ; 4:20-5hr rds are pretty much the norm on wkends. Depending on the course, 3:30-4:10 is rather common week days, but that too can be challenged is just one person of 4 is slow.
[/quote]

I think that the 4:20-5hr "expected" rounds is the #1 reason why golf is dying. Throw in travel time, hitting a few balls at the range and a meal after and you've pretty much chewed up a whole day. Perfect for retired folks and those that have not entered the workforce yet, but tough for most others.
[/quote]

I suppose when all those influences are taken into account, that's more than likely why... Only I am not convinced, 4:20-5hr is as big a culprit as some on Golfwrx suggest. That all depends on regional influences. Its commonly understood in SoCA, weekend golf after 9:30ish, is going to take that much time, because course tee sheets are still filling up. That might not be the case in other states though. I agree with "retired folks" inclusion. But when that segment is looked at closely, they are cutting back too; most are on fixed incomes and golf costs are creeping upward. I know some people hate hearing it, but not every activity is meant for all to enjoy. I just don't see how, with the cost of golf courses, club houses and overall maintenance, golf can be kept open for everyone.

Let me go off topic for a moment. Recently I was in a meeting with School Superintendents about the influx of moderately wealthy Chinese into our CA schools system, and their massive purchases of homes and commercial RE. When delved into, it turns out, their motivation is to get away from China. My point is, even though Chinese government is pushing golf course development in China, it excludes most Chinese, including the moderately wealthy. Even there, its not for everyone. We know that pretty much the case in Japan too.
[/quote]

Cost is certainly a barrier as are other factors, but I think it's more that just "some Golfwrx members" that think slow play is a big problem. The USGA/PGA has done a lot of work/research in the area of declining play and are spending big $$ on both "Tee it Forward" and "While We're Young" campaign's and commercials aimed directly at slow play.

[rsj1360]

Public course - Saturday - 8:00 - four hours 15 minutes

Average for 17 rounds: four hours 35 minutes

[callawayjay]

I would pay a premium at a public course if they would just have a tee sheet with 9-10 intervals instead of 7-8 minute intervals.

The maximization of revenues by the courses are as much to blame as the players. You can't play fast if you're constantly waiting for others to hit.

[rsj1360]

Public course (Bethpage Black) - Tuesday 12:00 - four hours 55 minutes

Average for 18 rounds: four hours 36 minutes

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1409748910' post='10055485']
Public course (Bethpage Black) - Tuesday 12:00 - four hours 55 minutes

Average for 18 rounds: four hours 36 minutes
[/quote]

Now that one makes sense RS, very popular, very tough course. I bet that's actually a pretty good time isn't it?

[rsj1360]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1409756234' post='10056295']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1409748910' post='10055485']
Public course (Bethpage Black) - Tuesday 12:00 - four hours 55 minutes
E
Average for 18 rounds: four hours 36 minutes
[/quote]

Now that one makes sense RS, very popular, very tough course. I bet that's actually a pretty good time isn't it?
[/quote]
Just reporting the facts.

But it was so f'ing hot that if the pace was any quicker I just may have died out there.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='ssf301' timestamp='1409255593' post='10026577']

Cost is certainly a barrier as are other factors, but I think it's more that just "some Golfwrx members" that think slow play is a big problem. The USGA/PGA has done a lot of work/research in the area of declining play and are spending big $$ on both "Tee it Forward" and "While We're Young" campaign's and commercials aimed directly at slow play.
[/quote]

True, slow play is a problem, never suggested it wasn't. What I said was 4.20-5hrs in CA is common due to full tee sheets and tournaments, and I don't see it changing much. And there's a contingent on Golfwrx and elsewhere that want the game to be played at "their" pace, which is excessively fast. Neither, extremely fast or extremely slow are the answer for "all" golfers. And notwithstanding those USGA/PGA programs, they are just meant to improve pace of play. Those programs do not suggest, in any way, +/- 3.5hr rds should be the norm, as is suggested on Golfwrx, etc.

[ssf301]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1409761455' post='10056901']
[quote name='ssf301' timestamp='1409255593' post='10026577']
Cost is certainly a barrier as are other factors, but I think it's more that just "some Golfwrx members" that think slow play is a big problem. The USGA/PGA has done a lot of work/research in the area of declining play and are spending big $$ on both "Tee it Forward" and "While We're Young" campaign's and commercials aimed directly at slow play.
[/quote]

True, slow play is a problem, never suggested it wasn't. What I said was 4.20-5hrs in CA is common due to full tee sheets and tournaments, and I don't see it changing much. And there's a contingent on Golfwrx and elsewhere that want the game to be played at "their" pace, which is excessively fast. Neither, extremely fast or extremely slow are the answer for "all" golfers. And notwithstanding those USGA/PGA programs, they are just meant to improve pace of play. Those programs do not suggest, in any way, +/- 3.5hr rds should be the norm, as is suggested on Golfwrx, etc.
[/quote]

Don't you have to start somewhere to improve things though? If 4.20-5 hrs is the norm and you "don't see it changing much" then whether I think something faster should be the norm sort of becomes irrelevant. That's the tough thing about golf, you get one group of tools out there on a full course that thinks a 5 hour round is just fine and basically every group is stuck at that 5 hour pace. It's unfortunate part of golf that with a full course no one can really play faster than the slowest group. I know several times the pace has been really slow and I've gotten to the 12th hole for example and everything speeds up the last 6 holes. I know it was because the slow group that was holding up the entire course just finished the 18th hole. It's like the whole course just took a laxative.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='ssf301' timestamp='1409763030' post='10057091']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1409761455' post='10056901']
[quote name='ssf301' timestamp='1409255593' post='10026577']
Cost is certainly a barrier as are other factors, but I think it's more that just "some Golfwrx members" that think slow play is a big problem. The USGA/PGA has done a lot of work/research in the area of declining play and are spending big $$ on both "Tee it Forward" and "While We're Young" campaign's and commercials aimed directly at slow play.
[/quote]

True, slow play is a problem, never suggested it wasn't. What I said was 4.20-5hrs in CA is common due to full tee sheets and tournaments, and I don't see it changing much. And there's a contingent on Golfwrx and elsewhere that want the game to be played at "their" pace, which is excessively fast. Neither, extremely fast or extremely slow are the answer for "all" golfers. And notwithstanding those USGA/PGA programs, they are just meant to improve pace of play. Those programs do not suggest, in any way, +/- 3.5hr rds should be the norm, as is suggested on Golfwrx, etc.
[/quote]

Don't you have to start somewhere to improve things though? If 4.20-5 hrs is the norm and you "don't see it changing much" then whether I think something faster should be the norm sort of becomes irrelevant. That's the tough thing about golf, you get one group of tools out there on a full course that thinks a 5 hour round is just fine and basically every group is stuck at that 5 hour pace. It's unfortunate part of golf that with a full course no one can really play faster than the slowest group. I know several times the pace has been really slow and I've gotten to the 12th hole for example and everything speeds up the last 6 holes. I know it was because the slow group that was holding up the entire course just finished the 18th hole. It's like the whole course just took a laxative.
[/quote]

I fully agree, though know, extreme pendulum swings do not represent the masses. Taking your point one step further, in every avenue of our society, the fastest and brightest ship in the convoy must set the pace (note I didn't say the smartest). Those population segments do not represent the masses either. Socially, we have let the less capable and not too bright influence just about every aspect of our lives, including school grading scales, expectations, golf course design, equipment, relaxed rules, etc... it has to STOP!