Who was right, me or the ranger?

[larrybud]

> @MountainKing said:

> The one thing I'm confused about in all of these pace of play posts, since when did a 3 1/2-4 hour round of golf become "speed golf"?

 

In the 90s when course designers decided to spread everything out, driving through sub divisions for 10,000 yards and keeping carts 50 yards from the green, which is why having the same absolute time for every course doesn't make sense.

 

Can I walk my 6000 yard muni is 3.5 hours? Sure, because every green is on top of every tee box, but you won't be walking my old home course as a 4-some in that amount of time, so it wouldn't make sense to have the same play time for each course. The muni has one little pond, and maybe 5 bunkers and is dead flat. My old home course has penalty areas on about 14 holes, has a couple hundred yards between holes in some cases, difficult greens, and elevation changes.

 

[larrybud]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Warrior42111 said:

> > I think we really try to over complicate everything. If there's a faster group AND a hole open in front let them play through unless it's the last couple holes.

>

> Not quite. Groups don't play at a steady pace. One open hole could close in just a few minutes. It's much more complicated than just "let them play through".

 

Exactly, which is why proper tee time spacing is the most important thing when it comes to pace of play. Every group will have "slow holes". Looking for balls, taking a few extra shots, etc. Proper tee time spacing minimizes any backup and automatically creates a buffer between groups.

 

Had a slow hole yesterday. Tough par 4, ob left, water right and in front of the green. The following hole is a short par 4, pretty wide open. We took an extra 5 min on the hard hole, and the group in front of us had left the green by the time we were teeing off. We caught IMMEDIATELY up and had to wait for a few seconds on the tee box of the next hole.

[scratchswinger10]

Just hit into the group and send a girl up there and have her say she didnt think she could hit it that far haha

[kekoa]

At most courses, pace of play is determined by keeping up with the group in front of you. With that ideaology, groups should finish in 4 hours right? Wrong.

If the group ahead of you is on pace to finish their round in 3 hours, the group behind them should do very close to the same. If the group behind is on pace for a 3.5 hr round, the marshal could say your are behind pace and to speed things up. I've been on both sides of this.

 

If you are at a local muni, slow play is just a part of it unfortunately. Some of you guys should come out to California where 5 hr rounds are not that uncommon. Unfortunately a majority of golfers just aren't good at sucking fast.

[Roadking2003]

> @kekoa said:

> At most courses, pace of play is determined by keeping up with the group in front of you. With that ideaology, groups should finish in 4 hours right? Wrong.

> If the group ahead of you is on pace to finish their round in 3 hours, the group behind them should do very close to the same.

 

So, if the group in front of you is on a five-hour pace, then that's just fine? Why do you think the group in front of you should determine your pace of play?

[davep043]

> @kekoa said:

> At most courses, pace of play is determined by keeping up with the group in front of you. With that ideaology, groups should finish in 4 hours right? Wrong.

> If the group ahead of you is on pace to finish their round in 3 hours, the group behind them should do very close to the same. If the group behind is on pace for a 3.5 hr round, the marshal could say your are behind pace and to speed things up. I've been on both sides of this.

 

Many courses, especially at resorts, use a published pace of play as one method of encouraging a reasonable pace. Of course it gives a group who is behind the preceding group but still "on time" a reason to resist being told to speed up, but that problem is MUCH less common than groups playing much slower than reasonable. If there's a defined pace, published and posted visibly, a ranger has a specific tool to evaluate any one group. Its one thing to tell a slow group that they're playing "too slow", the group will often argue about the ranger's judgement. Its a completely different thing to tell that same group that they've taken 2 hours 40 minutes to play 10 holes, the published "time par" is 2:10, so they're a half hour behind acceptable pace. Numbers like that can be valuable tools.

I was impressed playing at Talamore this past weekend, the GPS units on the carts clock your elapsed time and location and blink to tell you if you're behind the expected pace. The "time par" was based on 18 holes in 4:10, pretty aggressive for most resort golf, but the pro told me that its been effective in quickening the pace of play even in the busiest seasons.

[MooJersey]

7 minute tee times are the problem. When you are booking so many people so close, guess what ?

[kekoa]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @kekoa said:

> > At most courses, pace of play is determined by keeping up with the group in front of you. With that ideaology, groups should finish in 4 hours right? Wrong.

> > If the group ahead of you is on pace to finish their round in 3 hours, the group behind them should do very close to the same.

>

> So, if the group in front of you is on a five-hour pace, then that's just fine? Why do you think the group in front of you should determine your pace of play?

 

No, it's not fine at all. The marshal should be on the group ahead.

I guess my statement applies to the first 2-3 groups out since that is when I normally play. A few times, we were the 3rd or 4th group out as a walking 5-some and on pace for a 3.5 hr round, but the two some ahead of us had carts and were on pace for a 3 hr round. The marshal gave us a hard time saying we need to speed up.

[JSPXXVII]

I have played with early bird rabbits who walked 6500yds par 70 course in little over 3 hours. I didnt keep their scores but they all probably shot high 80s to low 90s. I have also played with guys who regularly shoots high 70s to low 80s that are extremely slow, taking their time with their pre-shot routine, not being prepared to hit your next shot etc....

 

Slow play sucks and it’s frustrating because none of us likes to wait. Some are faster than others, some are more skilled than others. However, if a group finishes a round within reasonable time frame. No one should be complaining. You should expect to spend 4.5 hours for a round in a public golf course.

[davep043]

> @JSPXXVII said:

> Slow play sucks and it’s frustrating because none of us likes to wait. Some are faster than others, some are more skilled than others. However, if a group finishes a round within reasonable time frame. No one should be complaining. You should expect to spend 4.5 hours for a round in a public golf course.

I certainly didn't expect to play 4.5 hour rounds on the public courses in Scotland or Ireland when I've been there. Every course is different, cultures vary, there is simply no single correct time to play that applies across the board. In a perfect world, every course would find a way to define the expectations for pace of play, and enforce it, but we know that doesn't happen.

The pace of play policies that the OP has a problem with are one tool for the course to use. I've found that many people approach the suggested duration as the norm, rather than as a maximum, so I'd suggest that courses set their time-par pretty aggressively.

[Habrownlee]

My group plays every day at 10. We are usually done with everything and settling bets at 130. Our usual group has 12-20 players in groups of 4. With 16 ish being about average. 3 1/2 hours isn’t too much to ask. Is it? People who don’t let others through are a problem on public courses. Glad I’m here. Lol