Getting really frustrated by the length of rounds.

[radiman]

I'll put it this way: Why are people playing "as fast as they want" vs. "as fast as they can"? Does your game suffer when you play ready golf? Or do you just not care about other people's time?

 

Some people are just not capable of playing that fast. Plain and simple. Their skill level may not be there, or they just don't enjoy rushing everything. It is a leisure activity. I am fine with 4 hours, that's what it was growing up, and it's what I am accustomed to. If there is no one ahead of us, we can play significantly faster. But, if the pace is alright and we aren't waiting at each tee box for 5 minutes before we can tee off, I am ok with it. I enjoy the outdoors and I enjoy spending time with my friends. While there are some situations where I want to get done in a hurry, I don't typically plan other activities immediately after a round of golf.

 

When things go past 4 hours, I get frustrated. 4:30 is too long in my opinion, but it won't stop me from playing. I was playing in our club championship (1st flight not championship flight) and we were keeping pace with the group ahead of us (on pace for 4 hours). The group behind us called the clubhouse and had someone come out to tell us we had to pick up the pace. These were the guys that get pissed if they have to wait at all. They jump all over the course during the weekend trying to find an opening, cutting in front of other groups, causing traffic jams for everyone else because they're in a hurry. Anyways, we were at a good pace with the group ahead of us. I was pissed, it rattled me, and my round fell apart. Long story short, there is a thing as too fast and too impatient. You aren't the only ones on the course.

[Hunter90]

I find that the biggest proponent of some of these rounds taking forever is not playing ready golf, especially in carts. You'll have two people in a cart, Player A and B hit their drives in the fairway maybe twenty yards apart. Rather than grabbing their rangefinder or whatnot and a couple clubs and walking to their ball, Player B sits in the cart, waits, and watches Player A hit, etc. The same can be said on the greens. You always see one person putting while the other three stand still and spectate. As long as I'm not in someones line, I just go about my business rather than watching someone else.

[rsj1360]

I'll put it this way: Why are people playing "as fast as they want" vs. "as fast as they can"? Does your game suffer when you play ready golf? Or do you just not care about other people's time?

In my observation and talking to others, it is commonly accepted that when poor golfers try to rush, they play worse, and then end up playing slower.

[Ironmaster Oddities]

At one time, we had a "slow Player" list. If you were reported 3 times for being over one hole behind the group in front of you, you got added to the list.

Slow Play guys were not able to book a tee time before 9:30 on Saturday or Sunday mornings, or before 1:30 on Wednesday afternoons. And they could not play in a foursome during that time. It was not well-received because some members thought it was unfair. (most of the protesters were either on the list or golfing buddies of members that were). So, the idea was dumped later that year. Keep in mind that this was at a reasonably expensive country club and not at a municipal or public course. But I think the program could get traction at a course where the pro and or owner do not have to kow-tow to influential members. "unofficially the faster players still get the first 3 tee times on Saturday and Sunday. Those guys tee it up before 7:45 and are home mowing their lawns before 11:00

[thug the bunny]

 

 

Sounds like you'd be a nightmare to play behind. 4.5 hour round?!! Your group is the entire problem. Face it, you're a slow player...

 

I believe you misunderstood my statement. I don't have a problem with 4.5 hour rounds if my group is moving along fairly steadily with a little WAITING. Meaning we are behind other groups. If we are the lead group with no one in front we'll finish in 3:45, 4 at the absolute slowest. I think thats an acceptable pace for a foursome. If you disagree so vehemently then maybe you are one of the people that develops a rage if they can't play every round in 3 hours.

 

I honestly don't know why we can't expect a 3 hour pace--10 minutes per hole. That said, if the new norm was 3:30 I'd be pretty happy. 12 minutes per hole is plenty.

 

Are you being serious right now?

 

Yes. I can easily play first off with a foursome in 3 hours. 10 minutes per hole is plenty.

 

Ever play with someone who has been playing only 2 years once every 2 months and has adult ADD?

 

"It's your turn to putt"

 

"Huh? Look, a squirrel..."

[MidMOGolfer]

For those of you that want to play slower rounds have at it, but the rules clearly state, allow faster players to play through. I've seen way too many people comment that they think a certain time is perfectly acceptable and that is incorrect. If someone is behind you and it is open ahead of you, let them play through, period, end of discussion.

[om18v]

For those of you that want to play slower rounds have at it, but the rules clearly state, allow faster players to play through. I've seen way too many people comment that they think a certain time is perfectly acceptable and that is incorrect. If someone is behind you and it is open ahead of you, let them play through, period, end of discussion.

 

I'm not arguing and generally will let a group of any size play through if appropriate. But, where does the rules "clearly state" allow faster players through? I don't disagree. I just cannot locate it published anywhere.

[wrmiller]

I'll put it this way: Why are people playing "as fast as they want" vs. "as fast as they can"? Does your game suffer when you play ready golf? Or do you just not care about other people's time?

 

Some people are just not capable of playing that fast. Plain and simple. Their skill level may not be there, or they just don't enjoy rushing everything. It is a leisure activity. I am fine with 4 hours, that's what it was growing up, and it's what I am accustomed to. If there is no one ahead of us, we can play significantly faster. But, if the pace is alright and we aren't waiting at each tee box for 5 minutes before we can tee off, I am ok with it. I enjoy the outdoors and I enjoy spending time with my friends. While there are some situations where I want to get done in a hurry, I don't typically plan other activities immediately after a round of golf.

 

When things go past 4 hours, I get frustrated. 4:30 is too long in my opinion, but it won't stop me from playing. I was playing in our club championship (1st flight not championship flight) and we were keeping pace with the group ahead of us (on pace for 4 hours). The group behind us called the clubhouse and had someone come out to tell us we had to pick up the pace. These were the guys that get pissed if they have to wait at all. They jump all over the course during the weekend trying to find an opening, cutting in front of other groups, causing traffic jams for everyone else because they're in a hurry. Anyways, we were at a good pace with the group ahead of us. I was pissed, it rattled me, and my round fell apart. Long story short, there is a thing as too fast and too impatient. You aren't the only ones on the course.

 

Man, I've been hearing these complaints about slow play for at least 30 years. Probably longer. ;)

 

I'm one of those ones who like to play at a decent pace, but have gotten used to slow(er) play over the years. I think I acclimated to slower rounds many years ago playing USGA tournaments. If you couldn't mentally pace yourself to a 4.5-5 hour round, you may as well stay home. I'm mostly OK with rounds at 4.5 hours, but much prefer 4 hours.

 

Now that I'm retired and playing with the Old Guys during the week at the local club I don't think I've had a round yet over 3-3.5 hours. The long round was when I decided to go ahead and just play behind the foursome in front of me and just play two balls. :)

 

I find myself enjoying the round more when I'm not trying to rush to the finish line.

[MidMOGolfer]

For those of you that want to play slower rounds have at it, but the rules clearly state, allow faster players to play through. I've seen way too many people comment that they think a certain time is perfectly acceptable and that is incorrect. If someone is behind you and it is open ahead of you, let them play through, period, end of discussion.

 

I'm not arguing and generally will let a group of any size play through if appropriate. But, where does the rules "clearly state" allow faster players through? I don't disagree. I just cannot locate it published anywhere.

 

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!etiquette

 

 

"It is a group's responsibility to keep up with the group in front. If it loses a clear hole and it is delaying the group behind, it should invite the group behind to play through, irrespective of the number of players in that group. Where a group has not lost a clear hole, but it is apparent that the group behind can play faster, it should invite the faster moving group to play through."

[om18v]

For those of you that want to play slower rounds have at it, but the rules clearly state, allow faster players to play through. I've seen way too many people comment that they think a certain time is perfectly acceptable and that is incorrect. If someone is behind you and it is open ahead of you, let them play through, period, end of discussion.

 

I'm not arguing and generally will let a group of any size play through if appropriate. But, where does the rules "clearly state" allow faster players through? I don't disagree. I just cannot locate it published anywhere.

 

http://www.usga.org/...html#!etiquette

 

 

"It is a group's responsibility to keep up with the group in front. If it loses a clear hole and it is delaying the group behind, it should invite the group behind to play through, irrespective of the number of players in that group. Where a group has not lost a clear hole, but it is apparent that the group behind can play faster, it should invite the faster moving group to play through."

 

"it should invite the faster moving group to play through"

 

It says should not must. That is not a rule. That is a suggestion.

[NEhomer]

I can play fast or slow but I think we all hate flying around the course and then hitting a traffic jam on the 15th tee. That always screws me up. It's hard enough to close out the last few trying to hold down a good score without having to stand around.

 

....I couldn't add anything to what radiman said above. That's spot on.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

We have it pretty good here in western New York... With the exception of 1 course near me with sucky management, most rounds, even teeing off at 10am finish in less than than 4.5 hours. Often right around 4 is typical.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I read somewhere a question: Why is golf the only recreational sport where everyone wants it to be over with quickly? Don't shoot the messenger!

Not about wanting to get done quickly, it's about cadence and not having to wait to hit your next shot.

[MidMOGolfer]

For those of you that want to play slower rounds have at it, but the rules clearly state, allow faster players to play through. I've seen way too many people comment that they think a certain time is perfectly acceptable and that is incorrect. If someone is behind you and it is open ahead of you, let them play through, period, end of discussion.

 

I'm not arguing and generally will let a group of any size play through if appropriate. But, where does the rules "clearly state" allow faster players through? I don't disagree. I just cannot locate it published anywhere.

 

http://www.usga.org/...html#!etiquette

 

 

"It is a group's responsibility to keep up with the group in front. If it loses a clear hole and it is delaying the group behind, it should invite the group behind to play through, irrespective of the number of players in that group. Where a group has not lost a clear hole, but it is apparent that the group behind can play faster, it should invite the faster moving group to play through."

 

"it should invite the faster moving group to play through"

 

It says should not must. That is not a rule. That is a suggestion.

 

You won't incur penalty strokes for doing it, it is in the etiquette section of the rulebook. However, here is the definition of "should":

 

"used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions"

 

When would you say it is incorrect to allow faster players behind you to play through assuming open holes in front?

[BlackDiamondPar5]

For those of you that want to play slower rounds have at it, but the rules clearly state, allow faster players to play through. I've seen way too many people comment that they think a certain time is perfectly acceptable and that is incorrect. If someone is behind you and it is open ahead of you, let them play through, period, end of discussion.

 

I'm not arguing and generally will let a group of any size play through if appropriate. But, where does the rules "clearly state" allow faster players through? I don't disagree. I just cannot locate it published anywhere.

 

http://www.usga.org/...html#!etiquette

 

 

"It is a group's responsibility to keep up with the group in front. If it loses a clear hole and it is delaying the group behind, it should invite the group behind to play through, irrespective of the number of players in that group. Where a group has not lost a clear hole, but it is apparent that the group behind can play faster, it should invite the faster moving group to play through."

 

"it should invite the faster moving group to play through"

 

It says should not must. That is not a rule. That is a suggestion.

 

You won't incur penalty strokes for doing it, it is in the etiquette section of the rulebook. However, here is the definition of "should":

 

"used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions"

 

When would you say it is incorrect to allow faster players behind you to play through assuming open holes in front?

About the only time I finally said no was after letting a procession of singles and doubles through our 4 some. The last single was the final straw... I said, sorry we need to finish tonight and you singles and doubles should have been pairing up.

[om18v]

For those of you that want to play slower rounds have at it, but the rules clearly state, allow faster players to play through. I've seen way too many people comment that they think a certain time is perfectly acceptable and that is incorrect. If someone is behind you and it is open ahead of you, let them play through, period, end of discussion.

 

I'm not arguing and generally will let a group of any size play through if appropriate. But, where does the rules "clearly state" allow faster players through? I don't disagree. I just cannot locate it published anywhere.

 

http://www.usga.org/...html#!etiquette

 

 

"It is a group's responsibility to keep up with the group in front. If it loses a clear hole and it is delaying the group behind, it should invite the group behind to play through, irrespective of the number of players in that group. Where a group has not lost a clear hole, but it is apparent that the group behind can play faster, it should invite the faster moving group to play through."

 

"it should invite the faster moving group to play through"

 

It says should not must. That is not a rule. That is a suggestion.

 

You won't incur penalty strokes for doing it, it is in the etiquette section of the rulebook. However, here is the definition of "should":

 

"used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions"

 

When would you say it is incorrect to allow faster players behind you to play through assuming open holes in front?

 

I wouldn't. Assuming open holes. Lots of should's under etiquette. No penalty? No rule.

[wkuo3]

We were discussing this last week with the guys we golf together weekly at the 19th with a pitcher or two of the Boston Lager.

 

One guy mentioned the equity boom through last year had boosted the golfers or golfers wanna be to buy new golf equipment ( the higher price range kinds ), spend more on the green fees ........... just wait for the equity market correction and /or the realization of the inflation rates really takes away most of the "feeling good" elements.

 

In the meantime, can't even avoid the golfers crowding , even with the early tee times, and the early birds don;t move swiftly like they used to.

 

We've decided to golf somewhere a bit out of the way to get a better golf course with similar green fees, carpooling is not too bad for the trip for sharing the travel expense and be able to use the HOV lanes on the freeway .

[justincredible04]

Serious question: is a 4.5 hour round with a foursome walking considered slow? I just played this morning and nobody waited on us and we didn’t have to wait either (course was a little empty) and played 18 holes in about four hours and twenty minutes. I thought we were playing at a reasonable pace

[North Butte]

Serious question: is a 4.5 hour round with a foursome walking considered slow? I just played this morning and nobody waited on us and we didn’t have to wait either (course was a little empty) and played 18 holes in about four hours and twenty minutes. I thought we were playing at a reasonable pace

 

It feels like forever to me.

 

Our course is an old fashioned “core routing” where most greens are only a short walk from the next tee. Wide fairways, no knee deep rough. It just isn’t a very long walk, we don’t spend a lot of time looking for balls and the usual four guys walking pace is around 3-1/2 hours.

 

Add an extra full hour of standing around to the normal pace and it feels very tedious and frustrating. After about 4 hours, if I’m not finished or at least on the final hole I start losing interest.

[MountainGoat]

Serious question: is a 4.5 hour round with a foursome walking considered slow? I just played this morning and nobody waited on us and we didn’t have to wait either (course was a little empty) and played 18 holes in about four hours and twenty minutes. I thought we were playing at a reasonable pace

 

4:20 is the guideline at my local muni. Feels about right for me in a foursome.

[North Butte]

25 years ago it seemed to me that the typical good players I’d encounter on a public course, let’s say, played at what now would be considered a fairly quick pace. Most slow play was from poor players needing way too many shots, looking for lost balls on every hole or freezing forever over the ball before swinging. The only slow good players tended to be the ones who liked 3-4 practice swings before each shot or maybe the ones who stalked every 8-foot putt from every conceivable angle.

 

Then the so-called mental game coaches appeared on the scene and convinced even the best players in the world that they’d be making a huge mistake to hear any shot without a long sequence of preparations, superstitious nonsense, fiddling around, procrastination and...the most important of all...backing off and starting over if a butterfly flaps its wings in China.

 

So now you can’t really says the good players are any faster than the hacks, on average. We have redefined average down to what would once be considered a glacial pace.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Serious question: is a 4.5 hour round with a foursome walking considered slow? I just played this morning and nobody waited on us and we didn’t have to wait either (course was a little empty) and played 18 holes in about four hours and twenty minutes. I thought we were playing at a reasonable pace

 

4:20 is the guideline at my local muni. Feels about right for me in a foursome.

Depends on the course. I think that would be very slow on a shorter course with short distance between greens and next tee. For longer more spread out courses that may be the pace on the card.

[NEhomer]

I believe that it's entirely the culture of the golf club itself. If management tactfully and consistently preaches and encourages "ready golf," nobody has to feel rushed or stifled.

[Hilltopper413]

Serious question: is a 4.5 hour round with a foursome walking considered slow? I just played this morning and nobody waited on us and we didn’t have to wait either (course was a little empty) and played 18 holes in about four hours and twenty minutes. I thought we were playing at a reasonable pace

 

It’s perfectly acceptable at 95% of the golf courses in the country. Some would have you believe otherwise. They also pick up 5 footers, hit without aiming, sprint to the next tee, and could care less what they shoot. I don’t really get the fun in playing golf just to see how fast you can play, but to each their own.

[Man_O_War]

i don't even bother playing on the weekends any more.

[jargon360]

A couple of interesting facts ...

90% of all golfer do not fix there pitch marks and/or replace there divot or rake bunkers at public and private links alike Not to mention they play from the wrong tee boxes for their skill level !90% of all golfer today do not know the rules ,

And are blissfully unaware of pace of play and golf etiquette in general .

You ask Why ? Well take a

Look at society in general,

And you will have your answer.

The answer ...

It’s up to us as Stewart’s of the game to instill these values from an early age and reinforce acceptable behavior in the course , which as we know may carry over to real life .

I speak to you as a golf professional and GM .

We are aware of these challenges and work hard every day to re-educate the playing public of expectations on the golf course .

Unfortunately,

The “ME” mentality gets in the way ... most days .

On the lighter side we are noticing an up tick in golf rounds and popularity.

 

[deadsolid...shank]

Serious question: is a 4.5 hour round with a foursome walking considered slow? I just played this morning and nobody waited on us and we didn’t have to wait either (course was a little empty) and played 18 holes in about four hours and twenty minutes. I thought we were playing at a reasonable pace

 

It’s perfectly acceptable at 95% of the golf courses in the country. Some would have you believe otherwise. They also pick up 5 footers, hit without aiming, sprint to the next tee, and could care less what they shoot. I don’t really get the fun in playing golf just to see how fast you can play, but to each their own.

 

You do realize that many fast players putt out, always aim, walk or ride to the next tee, and care greatly what they shoot.

 

They're just very efficient and always ready.

[Big Ben]

Serious question: is a 4.5 hour round with a foursome walking considered slow? I just played this morning and nobody waited on us and we didn’t have to wait either (course was a little empty) and played 18 holes in about four hours and twenty minutes. I thought we were playing at a reasonable pace

 

It’s perfectly acceptable at 95% of the golf courses in the country. Some would have you believe otherwise. They also pick up 5 footers, hit without aiming, sprint to the next tee, and could care less what they shoot. I don’t really get the fun in playing golf just to see how fast you can play, but to each their own.

I don't buy that for a second!

[justincredible04]

Serious question: is a 4.5 hour round with a foursome walking considered slow? I just played this morning and nobody waited on us and we didnt have to wait either (course was a little empty) and played 18 holes in about four hours and twenty minutes. I thought we were playing at a reasonable pace

 

Its perfectly acceptable at 95% of the golf courses in the country. Some would have you believe otherwise. They also pick up 5 footers, hit without aiming, sprint to the next tee, and could care less what they shoot. I dont really get the fun in playing golf just to see how fast you can play, but to each their own.

 

I forgot to add to my original post. The course I was playing was longer than a normal course and was a nicer course in a neighborhood. So not all tee boxes are linked up. For example you gotta go through the neighborhood to get from hole 2 to hole 3.

 

It’s weird because I prob walked around 8 miles and if I was walking 8 miles in a straight line briskly it would probably take me 2 hours and 40 minutes.

 

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Serious question: is a 4.5 hour round with a foursome walking considered slow? I just played this morning and nobody waited on us and we didn’t have to wait either (course was a little empty) and played 18 holes in about four hours and twenty minutes. I thought we were playing at a reasonable pace

 

It’s perfectly acceptable at 95% of the golf courses in the country. Some would have you believe otherwise. They also pick up 5 footers, hit without aiming, sprint to the next tee, and could care less what they shoot. I don’t really get the fun in playing golf just to see how fast you can play, but to each their own.

I don't buy that for a second!

I don't either. Very few courses have a 4.5 hour pace on their card. Most I've seen fall between 4-420.