The Only Realistic Solution For Whiners Of Slow Pace Of Play

[mr_divots]

Now its 3 and 1/3 hours. People get kinda tired of you moving the goalposts to fit your argument whenever you see fit, rsj1360.
No one is telling 80 year old 20 handicaps to play in 3 and 1/3 hrs. We are saying that nothing should balloon rounds to the 5 hour point. That one has to really work at being slow to achieve such a glacial pace. That is in no way, shape or form manifested in the suggestion of 3 and 1/3 hr rounds of golf being the "norm." We'd like you to recognize what we are saying and not respond with these ridiculous strawman arguments.

[rsj1360]

[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389378966' post='8436201']
Now its 3 and 1/3 hours. People get kinda tired of you moving the goalposts to fit your argument whenever you see fit, rsj1360.
No one is telling 80 year old 20 handicaps to play in 3 and 1/3 hrs. We are saying that nothing should balloon rounds to the 5 hour point. That one has to really work at being slow to achieve such a glacial pace. That is in no way, shape or form manifested in the suggestion of 3 and 1/3 hr rounds of golf being the "norm." We'd like you to recognize what we are saying and not respond with these ridiculous strawman arguments.
[/quote]
Typo - meant to type "3 1/2". Fixed it.

And yes, many folks have expressed the believe that [i]no one[/i] should play slower than the pace they prefer.

[mr_divots]

Most have agreed that the Pace of Play paper you posted sounded reasonable in that people simply don't want to lean on their club all day waiting.
Waiting is the true issue at play here, but we have to gauge ourselves somehow as to our typical pace, and hours and minutes are the best we've come up with there. Any other ideas?

Based on our observations of time as it relates to golfing, 5 hours is too long. 4 hours is fine. Less is better. Who can argue with this??

[rsj1360]

[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389379638' post='8436295']
Most have agreed that the Pace of Play paper you posted sounded reasonable in that people simply don't want to lean on their club all day waiting.
Waiting is the true issue at play here, but we have to gauge ourselves somehow as to our typical pace, and hours and minutes are the best we've come up with there. Any other ideas?

Based on our observations of time as it relates to golfing, 5 hours is too long. 4 hours is fine. Less is better. Who can argue with this??
[/quote]
I think if you look back at every single post I have had on the subject over the past year or so, you'd see that nowhere do I advocate for people playing slowly. I'd agree that, "5 hours is too long". I'd amend, "4 hours is fine" to "4 to 4 1/2 hours is fine". I would not agree with, "Less is better". I mentioned before I played in Scotland in the fall of 2012. Now I am spacing out the number of rounds, but it was around seven or eight. All but one were in the 4:15 range, give or take - and I had a great time in all those rounds. One was around 3:30 and I didn't have a good time at all - I was exhausted by the 14th.

What I am advocating for, (for what seems like the millionth time) is for people to understand that not everyone is capable of playing a round of golf in "X" pace.Just as not everyone is capable of "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps". The sooner more folks had some empathy and understanding the better off we'd all be. Who can argue with this??

[DavePelz4]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389379376' post='8436267']
And yes, many folks have expressed the believe that [i]no one[/i] should play slower than the pace they prefer.
[/quote]

Since it seems ability is one of the foundations of your premise, let's use the PGA Tour where skill set is reasonably equal. Hopefully you agree with that. Using your [b]belief [/b]that [i]"no one should play slower than the pace they prefer"[/i], what happens when you have the first PGA Tour group of the day that prefers to play 18 holes in 5 hours and the second group of the day prefers a 3 hour pace of play?

The PGA Tour really isn't much different in terms of this issue than the members of this forum. There are a number of players who consistently talk about slow play being the biggest issue on tour.

Or...let's use Ben Crane who was notoriously slow. In a recent interview he was asked about the Sabbatini incident. His response was "I never knew I played so slow." Once he became aware that HE was a problem, he started to put more focus on his pre-shot planning and execution. Now you rarely, if ever, hear his name mentioned because of his current pace of play.

[mr_divots]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389380130' post='8436369']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389379638' post='8436295']
Most have agreed that the Pace of Play paper you posted sounded reasonable in that people simply don't want to lean on their club all day waiting.
Waiting is the true issue at play here, but we have to gauge ourselves somehow as to our typical pace, and hours and minutes are the best we've come up with there. Any other ideas?

Based on our observations of time as it relates to golfing, 5 hours is too long. 4 hours is fine. Less is better. Who can argue with this??
[/quote]
I think if you look back at every single post I have had on the subject over the past year or so, you'd see that nowhere do I advocate for people playing slowly. I'd agree that, "5 hours is too long". I'd amend, "4 hours is fine" to "4 to 4 1/2 hours is fine". I would not agree with, "Less is better". I mentioned before I played in Scotland in the fall of 2012. Now I am spacing out the number of rounds, but it was around seven or eight. All but one were in the 4:15 range, give or take - and I had a great time in all those rounds. One was around 3:30 and I didn't have a good time at all - I was exhausted by the 14th.

What I am advocating for, (for what seems like the millionth time) is for people to understand that not everyone is capable of playing a round of golf in "X" pace.Just as not everyone is capable of "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps". The sooner more folks had some empathy and understanding the better off we'd all be. Who can argue with this??
[/quote]
OK, when you begin with a starting point of 4.5 hours, you've already lost me (and others.)
What's the suggested pace time on the scorecard? I've asked you this countless times and why you ADD time automtically. I've yet to see a course with a pace time of 4.5 hours. I know those courses exist, but we have a lot of courses up here and I really don't see many with anything over 4:20 as a suggested pace time. Again, that is the MAX time, so don't do adding to that as you see fit. That is the definitition of not caring and doing your own thing before you even show up to the course if in your mind 4.5 is fine. Its not. It's not horrible, but you are immediately taking liberties and THAT is what I continually point out to you in these threads. YOU do not get to determine what is acceptable. Its already been determined. FOLLOW IT and stop making excuses. Its a simple as that.

[rsj1360]

[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389380491' post='8436417']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389380130' post='8436369']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389379638' post='8436295']
Most have agreed that the Pace of Play paper you posted sounded reasonable in that people simply don't want to lean on their club all day waiting.
Waiting is the true issue at play here, but we have to gauge ourselves somehow as to our typical pace, and hours and minutes are the best we've come up with there. Any other ideas?

Based on our observations of time as it relates to golfing, 5 hours is too long. 4 hours is fine. Less is better. Who can argue with this??
[/quote]
I think if you look back at every single post I have had on the subject over the past year or so, you'd see that nowhere do I advocate for people playing slowly. I'd agree that, "5 hours is too long". I'd amend, "4 hours is fine" to "4 to 4 1/2 hours is fine". I would not agree with, "Less is better". I mentioned before I played in Scotland in the fall of 2012. Now I am spacing out the number of rounds, but it was around seven or eight. All but one were in the 4:15 range, give or take - and I had a great time in all those rounds. One was around 3:30 and I didn't have a good time at all - I was exhausted by the 14th.

What I am advocating for, (for what seems like the millionth time) is for people to understand that not everyone is capable of playing a round of golf in "X" pace.Just as not everyone is capable of "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps". The sooner more folks had some empathy and understanding the better off we'd all be. Who can argue with this??
[/quote]
OK, when you begin with a starting point of 4.5 hours, you've already lost me (and others.)
What's the suggested pace time on the scorecard? I've asked you this countless times and why you ADD time automtically. I've yet to see a course with a pace time of 4.5 hours. I know those courses exist, but we have a lot of courses up here and I really don't see many with anything over 4:20 as a suggested pace time. Again, that is the MAX time, so don't do adding to that as you see fit. That is the definitition of not caring and doing your own thing before you even show up to the course if in your mind 4.5 is fine. Its not. It's not horrible, but you are immediately taking liberties and THAT is what I continually point out to you in these threads. YOU do not get to determine what is acceptable. Its already been determined. FOLLOW IT and stop making excuses. Its a simple as that.
[/quote]
Again, some people [i]can't.[/i]

Also - this is something I am not sure of - are you [i]sure[/i] that the time on the card is supposed to be a MAX as opposed to an AVERAGE? (Or ball park or something like that?)

Also, I'm saying that 4-4 1/2 would be OK with me if that is what it took. I wouldn't be fuming or irritated (because I'd have empathy and understanding for the group(s) in front of me). I'm not saying that is how long I think I'd take typically (which of course would depend on who I was playing with.)

[mr_divots]

You have not presented a premise wherein someone "can't" play a round of golf in 4 hours. Give us an example OTHER than how many strokes, as that will never preclude anyone from playing in 4 hours if they WANT to.

When courses are trying to accomodate hundreds of players a day, do you think it's suggested, or what they need people to abide by to keep the day enjoyable and moving for all? Why is it open for interpretation in your mind? Who are YOU that you look at anything and think its up for interpretation automatically? Speed limits are a mere suggestion? Waiting your turn in line is a mere suggestion? No.

This reminds me of my trip to Target the other day. I had the ten items for the express lane. Dippy boy in front of me had an entire grocery order of about 50 itmes, brought hippy dippy canvas sacks for everything to be packed into, called his wife for the pin for the credit card on his cell phone, and put his hat, gloves and jacket on in line without moving out of the way for others. His pace of play and consideration for others was most assuredly lacking. Its societal, not golf. Yeah, I gave him a good stink eye. People just need to give a d@mn. Its that simple. Too many taking liberties. It's always "their world" wherever they go. This isn't about allowing others to be their "own special person." It's reasobable expectations and outcomes. Its the only way the world of 6 billion plus has a chance to work.

[rsj1360]

[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389381578' post='8436499']
You have not presented a premise wherein someone "can't" play a round of golf in 4 hours. Give us an example OTHER than how many strokes, as that will never preclude anyone from playing in 4 hours if they WANT to.

[b]Age, physical shape, size, intellectual capacity, emotional capacity. I think evidence simply shows that most foursomes cannot play in four hours. Otherwise no one would be complaining about it. [/b]

[b]I simply don't agree with your premise that people play in more than four hours just because they are a*******. A few maybe. But nowhere near most. I'm going to stick with my assessment that most foursomes cannot play in four hours or less.[/b]

[b]And I think the survey that shows that 95.2% of golfers think they are Fast or Average players and that they think 56.2% of other golfers are Slow proves my point.[/b]


When courses are trying to accomodate hundreds of players a day, do you think it's suggested, or what they need people to abide by to keep the day enjoyable and moving for all? Why is it open for interpretation in your mind? Who are YOU that you look at anything and think its up for interpretation automatically? Speed limits are a mere suggestion? Waiting your turn in line is a mere suggestion? No.

[b]I'll look it up and see if I can find exactly what is meant. If it means max, then that is what it is. But that does not mean that everyone will be capable of that. (As a side note, it does appear that speed limits are suggestions for most folks. And even in the vast majority of the cases the cops will look the other way unless it is flagrant or some other special circumstance. the waiting in line analogy deserves no response.)[/b]

This reminds me of my trip to Target the other day. I had the ten items for the express lane. Dippy boy in front of me had an entire grocery order of about 50 itmes, brought hippy dippy canvas sacks for everything to be packed into, called his wife for the pin for the credit card on his cell phone, and put his hat, gloves and jacket on in line without moving out of the way for others. His pace of play and consideration for others was most assuredly lacking. Its societal, not golf. Yeah, I gave him a good stink eye. People just need to give a d@mn. Its that simple. Too many taking liberties. It's always "their world" wherever they go. This isn't about allowing others to be their "own special person." It's reasobable expectations and outcomes. Its the only way the world of 6 billion plus has a chance to work.

[b]Interesting that this would happen to you and it just happened to be a "hippy dippy". Methinks you are showing your bias here (and possibly always on the lookout for for those "damn hippies" breaking the rules.) I can't remember the last time anyone got in the express line in the grocery in front of me with significantly more than the allotted number of items. [/b]
[/quote]

[BlackDiamondPar5]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389380599' post='8436433']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389380491' post='8436417']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389380130' post='8436369']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389379638' post='8436295']
Most have agreed that the Pace of Play paper you posted sounded reasonable in that people simply don't want to lean on their club all day waiting.
Waiting is the true issue at play here, but we have to gauge ourselves somehow as to our typical pace, and hours and minutes are the best we've come up with there. Any other ideas?

Based on our observations of time as it relates to golfing, 5 hours is too long. 4 hours is fine. Less is better. Who can argue with this??
[/quote]
I think if you look back at every single post I have had on the subject over the past year or so, you'd see that nowhere do I advocate for people playing slowly. I'd agree that, "5 hours is too long". I'd amend, "4 hours is fine" to "4 to 4 1/2 hours is fine". I would not agree with, "Less is better". I mentioned before I played in Scotland in the fall of 2012. Now I am spacing out the number of rounds, but it was around seven or eight. All but one were in the 4:15 range, give or take - and I had a great time in all those rounds. One was around 3:30 and I didn't have a good time at all - I was exhausted by the 14th.

What I am advocating for, (for what seems like the millionth time) is for people to understand that not everyone is capable of playing a round of golf in "X" pace.Just as not everyone is capable of "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps". The sooner more folks had some empathy and understanding the better off we'd all be. Who can argue with this??
[/quote]
OK, when you begin with a starting point of 4.5 hours, you've already lost me (and others.)
What's the suggested pace time on the scorecard? I've asked you this countless times and why you ADD time automtically. I've yet to see a course with a pace time of 4.5 hours. I know those courses exist, but we have a lot of courses up here and I really don't see many with anything over 4:20 as a suggested pace time. Again, that is the MAX time, so don't do adding to that as you see fit. That is the definitition of not caring and doing your own thing before you even show up to the course if in your mind 4.5 is fine. Its not. It's not horrible, but you are immediately taking liberties and THAT is what I continually point out to you in these threads. YOU do not get to determine what is acceptable. Its already been determined. FOLLOW IT and stop making excuses. Its a simple as that.
[/quote]
Again, some people [i]can't.[/i]

Also - this is something I am not sure of - are you [i]sure[/i] that the time on the card is supposed to be a MAX as opposed to an AVERAGE? (Or ball park or something like that?)

Also, I'm saying that 4-4 1/2 would be OK with me if that is what it took. I wouldn't be fuming or irritated (because I'd have empathy and understanding for the group(s) in front of me). I'm not saying that is how long I think I'd take typically (which of course would depend on who I was playing with.)
[/quote]

The time on the scorecard is the maximum it should take. If the course is lightly loaded that day, there really isn't any valid reason why a group can't play in less time-- even hackers. It's all about playing ready golf, making your decisions before you arrive a the ball, then step up and hit. Some people simply lollygag, over analyze their shot and take too many practice swings and play from the wrong tees.

Managing such falls on the course management to set the proper expectation up front. A course by me markets their fast play policy. They set the exception at check in and again with the Starter at the first tee. They tell you no more than 4:15 for the round, play ready golf, no longer than 14 mins per hole otherwise pick up and move on to the next hole.

[rsj1360]

From the paper I posted in the other thread (emphasis mine):

"Remember the “myth of the 4-hour round” discussed in Chapter 1. When some courses
cause players to travel over 1.5 miles, taking 24 minutes or more just to get from greens
to tees, [b]how could they possibly expect to play in four hours? Most of the time they can’t.[/b]
Two courses might have the exact same playing yardage of 6,500 yards, but because of
differences in obstacle diffi culty and travel distances between greens and tees, the fi rst
course has a pace rating of 4:05 and the second has 4:30. [b]This means that the very best[/b]
[b]round time that course can expect when the course is full is 4:30. And as we’ve discussed [/b]
[b]earlier, most of the time it will be longer[/b]"

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389378528' post='8436143']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1389324415' post='8432683']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389300059' post='8429889']
Anyone who plays ready golf is welcome to play with me, and yes, we will finish in 4 hours or less please and thank you. Its so easy, I could literally sleep walk and do it.
[/quote]

If you always finish within 4 hours, why are you complaining about slow play?
[/quote]
Well, we can only control our [i]own[/i] actions. Did I have to pad my post with "on a completely empty course 1st tee time on a Tuesday morning?"
I guess I do for some... I can't control YOUR pace of play. (Until tazers are introduced to the game, of course.)

Let me be clear: I'm not mad at anyone in this thread or the others, I just say it like I see it. I just don't agree with what some are saying, and am offering my own take. [u]No insults, completely on topic. THAT is how you debate things.[/u] If you start calling names and whatnot, I might suggest you don't have much of a debate to present. It can remain civil. Maybe I capitalize or whatnot too much to prove my points, but its the only way to add inflection and emphasis in the written form. ;o)
[/quote]

You're not debating anything because you are unwilling to listen to the other side.

It's also intellectually disingenuous to argue that a tee time on a Tuesday morning on an empty course is comparable to a Saturday morning tee time.

What don't you understand about that?

[DavePelz4]

RSJ...a couple of questions and they are not intended with any other purpose than to learn and understand your premise. First, what is your handicap index or average score? Second, what is the length of the course you play most frequently from the tips...what is the yardage from the most forward tees and what yardage do you play at generally speaking?

Also, any thoughts on the PGA Tour and Ben Crane comments?

Thanks.

[mr_divots]

Evidence shows us that pace of play IS an issue, NOT that people [u]cannot[/u] play faster. Big difference.

Age? No. You take a cart if you have to. You don't walk, take 5 hours, and say "I'm OLD! What do you expect?" Especially when your green fee was less than mine. You take a cart if you need to. You hit ten or twelve for a score on a hole you pick up.

Played many rounds with a vietnam vet with one leg. One leg. He could play, with a cart, in 3.5 hours easy. EASY.

Size? What? Tim Herron and Aphibarnat called and says "non issue." He also suggested taking a cart if you need one.

Intellecutal capacity? How many are we going to apologize for in one wide swath? Sorry, but I don't see a lot of special needs people out there holding things up. And if you're too stupid to care for others out there, I won't miss ya. Leave the game.

Emotional capacity? Do you need a hug?? Wha?? Non-issue. Wha??? Wha??????

[mr_divots]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389383331' post='8436691']
From the paper I posted in the other thread (emphasis mine):

"Remember the “myth of the 4-hour round” discussed in Chapter 1. When some courses
cause players to travel over 1.5 miles, taking 24 minutes or more just to get from greens
to tees, [b]how could they possibly expect to play in four hours? Most of the time they can’t.[/b]
Two courses might have the exact same playing yardage of 6,500 yards, but because of
differences in obstacle diffi culty and travel distances between greens and tees, the fi rst
course has a pace rating of 4:05 and the second has 4:30. [b]This means that the very best[/b]
[b]round time that course can expect when the course is full is 4:30. And as we’ve discussed [/b]
[b]earlier, most of the time it will be longer[/b]"
[/quote]
You better fess up to having better reading comprehension than this, pal. Sorry. You know that tee time intervals were the big thing in your own source that dictated round times.

Again, you're falling back on time (which you continually take issue with others for doing, mind you) and changing the facts to support your own flawed arguments. It didn't say it was impossible, but that course practices put us up against it for pace of play. You know this to be fact. Don't play coy with us.

[rsj1360]

[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383353' post='8436701']
Evidence shows us that pace of play IS an issue, NOT that people [u]cannot[/u] play faster. Big difference.

Age? No. You take a cart if you have to. You don't walk, take 5 hours, and say "I'm OLD! What do you expect?" Especially when your green fee was less than mine. You take a cart if you need to. You hit ten or twelve for a score on a hole you pick up.

Played many rounds with a vietnam vet with one leg. One leg. He could play, with a cart, in 3.5 hours easy. EASY.

Size? What? Tim Herron and Aphibarnat called and says "non issue." He also suggested taking a cart if you need one.

Intellecutal capacity? How many are we going to apologize for in one wide swath? Sorry, but I don't see a lot of special needs people out there holding things up. And if you're too stupid to care for others out there, I won't miss ya. Leave the game.

Emotional capacity? Do you need a hug?? Wha?? Non-issue. Wha??? Wha??????
[/quote]
You asked me what factors could factor into a player (or group) playing slower than you'd like. I gave you several factors. You said, "no they're not". Well, "yes they are."

[mr_divots]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1389383341' post='8436693']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389378528' post='8436143']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1389324415' post='8432683']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389300059' post='8429889']
Anyone who plays ready golf is welcome to play with me, and yes, we will finish in 4 hours or less please and thank you. Its so easy, I could literally sleep walk and do it.
[/quote]

If you always finish within 4 hours, why are you complaining about slow play?
[/quote]
Well, we can only control our [i]own[/i] actions. Did I have to pad my post with "on a completely empty course 1st tee time on a Tuesday morning?"
I guess I do for some... I can't control YOUR pace of play. (Until tazers are introduced to the game, of course.)

Let me be clear: I'm not mad at anyone in this thread or the others, I just say it like I see it. I just don't agree with what some are saying, and am offering my own take. [u]No insults, completely on topic. THAT is how you debate things.[/u] If you start calling names and whatnot, I might suggest you don't have much of a debate to present. It can remain civil. Maybe I capitalize or whatnot too much to prove my points, but its the only way to add inflection and emphasis in the written form. ;o)
[/quote]

You're not debating anything because you are unwilling to listen to the other side.

It's also intellectually disingenuous to argue that a tee time on a Tuesday morning on an empty course is comparable to a Saturday morning tee time.

What don't you understand about that?
[/quote]
I added that as the premise as I know [u]those are the conditions by which to play a sub-4 hour round[/u] because you had to take issue with it as it was written. Now, you take issue again. (What a surprise.) You just want to argue with poor points. I can't help that.

[mr_divots]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389383730' post='8436751']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383353' post='8436701']
Evidence shows us that pace of play IS an issue, NOT that people [u]cannot[/u] play faster. Big difference.

Age? No. You take a cart if you have to. You don't walk, take 5 hours, and say "I'm OLD! What do you expect?" Especially when your green fee was less than mine. You take a cart if you need to. You hit ten or twelve for a score on a hole you pick up.

Played many rounds with a vietnam vet with one leg. One leg. He could play, with a cart, in 3.5 hours easy. EASY.

Size? What? Tim Herron and Aphibarnat called and says "non issue." He also suggested taking a cart if you need one.

Intellecutal capacity? How many are we going to apologize for in one wide swath? Sorry, but I don't see a lot of special needs people out there holding things up. And if you're too stupid to care for others out there, I won't miss ya. Leave the game.

Emotional capacity? Do you need a hug?? Wha?? Non-issue. Wha??? Wha??????
[/quote]
You asked me what factors could factor into a player (or group) playing slower than you'd like. I gave you several factors. You said, "no they're not". Well, "yes they are."
[/quote]
Provide examples for each premise as I did, please. "Yes they are" is a complete fail in logic and debate tactic. If that's all you got, go to the back of the class.

[rsj1360]

[quote name='DavePelz4' timestamp='1389383350' post='8436697']
RSJ...a couple of questions and they are not intended with any other purpose than to learn and understand your premise. First, what is your handicap index or average score? Second, what is the length of the course you play most frequently from the tips...what is the yardage from the most forward tees and what yardage do you play at generally speaking?

Also, any thoughts on the PGA Tour and Ben Crane comments?

Thanks.
[/quote]
16 Handicap and my scores can vary. I can get on a roll where I can put a few rounds in the mid-high 80's together. But also get in a funk where I'm luck y to break 100. I just took a look at two courses I play pretty frequently and one measure 6006 yards from the tees I play (white) - 6345 from the blues and the other 6237 yards from the tees I play (blue) - 5966 from the whites. Why?

I'm not familiar with Ben Crane's comments.

[DavePelz4]

From the paper I posted in the other thread (emphasis mine):

 

"Remember the “myth of the 4-hour round” discussed in Chapter 1. When some courses

cause players to travel over 1.5 miles, taking 24 minutes or more just to get from greens

to tees, how could they possibly expect to play in four hours? Most of the time they can’t.

Two courses might have the exact same playing yardage of 6,500 yards, but because of

differences in obstacle diffi culty and travel distances between greens and tees, the fi rst

course has a pace rating of 4:05 and the second has 4:30. This means that the very best

round time that course can expect when the course is full is 4:30. And as we’ve discussed

earlier, most of the time it will be longer"

 

The pic below is from Oak Grove in Harvard, IL. It's 7,000 from the tips and 5,300 from the most forward tee. We play the course around 6,600 which is rated/sloped at 73.1/138. The course has a fair amount of distance between holes and as you can see, the distance between the 9th green and the 10th tee is easily a 10 minute walk.

 

Including stopping for a bio break between 9's, we walk this course in about 4:05 although we've walked it in 3:45 on a weekday. The age range for our group is 40-61 and everyone walks. The handicaps for the group range from about 9 -15 so we're not what I would consider golfers with amazing ability. I've seen scores in the 100's posted as this course has some tough holes.

 

The point in all of this is that we expect to be done in + or -4 hours and we police ourselves as needed. If you go into a round and "prefer" to play in 4:30, you'll make it...even if the time par is significantly less.

 

[rsj1360]

[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383579' post='8436737']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389383331' post='8436691']
From the paper I posted in the other thread (emphasis mine):

"Remember the “myth of the 4-hour round” discussed in Chapter 1. When some courses
cause players to travel over 1.5 miles, taking 24 minutes or more just to get from greens
to tees, [b]how could they possibly expect to play in four hours? Most of the time they can’t.[/b]
Two courses might have the exact same playing yardage of 6,500 yards, but because of
differences in obstacle diffi culty and travel distances between greens and tees, the fi rst
course has a pace rating of 4:05 and the second has 4:30. [b]This means that the very best[/b]
[b]round time that course can expect when the course is full is 4:30. And as we’ve discussed [/b]
[b]earlier, most of the time it will be longer[/b]"
[/quote]
You better fess up to having better reading comprehension than this, pal. Sorry. You know that tee time intervals were the big thing in your own source that dictated round times.

Again, you're falling back on time (which you continually take issue with others for doing, mind you) and changing the facts to support your own flawed arguments. It didn't say it was impossible, but that course practices put us up against it for pace of play. You know this to be fact. Don't play coy with us.
[/quote]

This quote was a from a different section of the paper where it was describing how to come up with proper pace ratings.

"The USGA® Pace Rating System is made up of a set of
mathematical formulae that can fairly accurately predict the time it “should take” to play
a golf course when the course is full. It was developed with the proper assumption that
all golf courses should not take the same amount of time to play.
When a course is offi cially pace rated, course managers receive a pace rating for the
course, that is, the time it should take to play 18 holes when the course is playing to
capacity. This pace rating is the sum of eighteen individual “time pars,” one for each
hole. Each hole’s time par tells how long it should take to play that hole, an objectively
determined time that accounts for the playing length (length time) of the hole, the unique
obstacles on that hole (obstacle time), and the distance from each green to the next tee
(green to tee distance time). Also considered is whether carts are restricted to the cart
paths or given access to the fairways.
When courses are analyzed using all these variables, it makes sense that each course
should have its own unique pace rating. Pace ratings refl ect the fact that some courses
have park-like settings where the greens and tees are adjacent to one another, and where
there is minimal rough and little else in the way of severe trouble. Other courses are
situated in real estate developments where streets, marshes and roads must be crossed
between holes, and where heavy rough, water and trees are common."

If the course does not properly deal with tee time intervals then the Pace would be negatively affected, but not the Pace rating..

[rsj1360]

[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383817' post='8436761']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389383730' post='8436751']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383353' post='8436701']
Evidence shows us that pace of play IS an issue, NOT that people [u]cannot[/u] play faster. Big difference.

Age? No. You take a cart if you have to. You don't walk, take 5 hours, and say "I'm OLD! What do you expect?" Especially when your green fee was less than mine. You take a cart if you need to. You hit ten or twelve for a score on a hole you pick up.

Played many rounds with a vietnam vet with one leg. One leg. He could play, with a cart, in 3.5 hours easy. EASY.

Size? What? Tim Herron and Aphibarnat called and says "non issue." He also suggested taking a cart if you need one.

Intellecutal capacity? How many are we going to apologize for in one wide swath? Sorry, but I don't see a lot of special needs people out there holding things up. And if you're too stupid to care for others out there, I won't miss ya. Leave the game.

Emotional capacity? Do you need a hug?? Wha?? Non-issue. Wha??? Wha??????
[/quote]
You asked me what factors could factor into a player (or group) playing slower than you'd like. I gave you several factors. You said, "no they're not". Well, "yes they are."
[/quote]
Provide examples for each premise as I did, please. "Yes they are" is a complete fail in logic and debate tactic. If that's all you got, go to the back of the class.
[/quote]
You did not provide an examples. You in effect were saying, "No they're not."

[rsj1360]

From the paper I posted in the other thread (emphasis mine):

 

"Remember the “myth of the 4-hour round” discussed in Chapter 1. When some courses

cause players to travel over 1.5 miles, taking 24 minutes or more just to get from greens

to tees, how could they possibly expect to play in four hours? Most of the time they can’t.

Two courses might have the exact same playing yardage of 6,500 yards, but because of

differences in obstacle diffi culty and travel distances between greens and tees, the fi rst

course has a pace rating of 4:05 and the second has 4:30. This means that the very best

round time that course can expect when the course is full is 4:30. And as we’ve discussed

earlier, most of the time it will be longer"

 

The pic below is from Oak Grove in Harvard, IL. It's 7,000 from the tips and 5,300 from the most forward tee. We play the course around 6,600 which is rated/sloped at 73.1/138. The course has a fair amount of distance between holes and as you can see, the distance between the 9th green and the 10th tee is easily a 10 minute walk.

 

Including stopping for a bio break between 9's, we walk this course in about 4:05 although we've walked it in 3:45 on a weekday. The age range for our group is 40-61 and everyone walks. The handicaps for the group range from about 9 -15 so we're not what I would consider golfers with amazing ability. I've seen scores in the 100's posted as this course has some tough holes.

 

The point in all of this is that we expect to be done in + or -4 hours and we police ourselves as needed. If you go into a round and "prefer" to play in 4:30, you'll make it...even if the time par is significantly less.

 

 

That's great. I am happy that you're group is able to play at a pace that suites you. But this has nothing to do with what most, or the "average" would be.

[mr_divots]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389384456' post='8436841']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383817' post='8436761']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389383730' post='8436751']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383353' post='8436701']
Evidence shows us that pace of play IS an issue, NOT that people [u]cannot[/u] play faster. Big difference.

Age? No. You take a cart if you have to. You don't walk, take 5 hours, and say "I'm OLD! What do you expect?" Especially when your green fee was less than mine. You take a cart if you need to. You hit ten or twelve for a score on a hole you pick up.

Played many rounds with a vietnam vet with one leg. One leg. He could play, with a cart, in 3.5 hours easy. EASY.

Size? What? Tim Herron and Aphibarnat called and says "non issue." He also suggested taking a cart if you need one.

Intellecutal capacity? How many are we going to apologize for in one wide swath? Sorry, but I don't see a lot of special needs people out there holding things up. And if you're too stupid to care for others out there, I won't miss ya. Leave the game.

Emotional capacity? Do you need a hug?? Wha?? Non-issue. Wha??? Wha??????
[/quote]
You asked me what factors could factor into a player (or group) playing slower than you'd like. I gave you several factors. You said, "no they're not". Well, "yes they are."
[/quote]
Provide examples for each premise as I did, please. "Yes they are" is a complete fail in logic and debate tactic. If that's all you got, go to the back of the class.
[/quote]
You did not provide an examples. You in effect were saying, "No they're not."
[/quote]
Examples. Solutions. Common sense. Play semantics all you want and call it what you will, but I gave examples/solutions for each of your points.
How does one's "emotinal capacity" determine one's pace of play? You better give examples and explain these things or they just read like hogwash.

[rsj1360]

[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389384825' post='8436879']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389384456' post='8436841']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383817' post='8436761']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389383730' post='8436751']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383353' post='8436701']
Evidence shows us that pace of play IS an issue, NOT that people [u]cannot[/u] play faster. Big difference.

Age? No. You take a cart if you have to. You don't walk, take 5 hours, and say "I'm OLD! What do you expect?" Especially when your green fee was less than mine. You take a cart if you need to. You hit ten or twelve for a score on a hole you pick up.

Played many rounds with a vietnam vet with one leg. One leg. He could play, with a cart, in 3.5 hours easy. EASY.

Size? What? Tim Herron and Aphibarnat called and says "non issue." He also suggested taking a cart if you need one.

Intellecutal capacity? How many are we going to apologize for in one wide swath? Sorry, but I don't see a lot of special needs people out there holding things up. And if you're too stupid to care for others out there, I won't miss ya. Leave the game.

Emotional capacity? Do you need a hug?? Wha?? Non-issue. Wha??? Wha??????
[/quote]
You asked me what factors could factor into a player (or group) playing slower than you'd like. I gave you several factors. You said, "no they're not". Well, "yes they are."
[/quote]
Provide examples for each premise as I did, please. "Yes they are" is a complete fail in logic and debate tactic. If that's all you got, go to the back of the class.
[/quote]
You did not provide an examples. You in effect were saying, "No they're not."
[/quote]
Examples. Solutions. Common sense. Play semantics all you want and call it what you will, but I gave examples/solutions for each of your points.
How does one's "emotinal capacity" determine one's pace of play? You better give examples and explain these things or they just read like hogwash.
[/quote]
Ever experience the situation that the more you rush and get flustered the slower things turn out?

[mr_divots]

From the paper I posted in the other thread (emphasis mine):

 

"Remember the “myth of the 4-hour round” discussed in Chapter 1. When some courses

cause players to travel over 1.5 miles, taking 24 minutes or more just to get from greens

to tees, how could they possibly expect to play in four hours? Most of the time they can’t.

Two courses might have the exact same playing yardage of 6,500 yards, but because of

differences in obstacle diffi culty and travel distances between greens and tees, the fi rst

course has a pace rating of 4:05 and the second has 4:30. This means that the very best

round time that course can expect when the course is full is 4:30. And as we’ve discussed

earlier, most of the time it will be longer"

 

The pic below is from Oak Grove in Harvard, IL. It's 7,000 from the tips and 5,300 from the most forward tee. We play the course around 6,600 which is rated/sloped at 73.1/138. The course has a fair amount of distance between holes and as you can see, the distance between the 9th green and the 10th tee is easily a 10 minute walk.

 

Including stopping for a bio break between 9's, we walk this course in about 4:05 although we've walked it in 3:45 on a weekday. The age range for our group is 40-61 and everyone walks. The handicaps for the group range from about 9 -15 so we're not what I would consider golfers with amazing ability. I've seen scores in the 100's posted as this course has some tough holes.

 

The point in all of this is that we expect to be done in + or -4 hours and we police ourselves as needed. If you go into a round and "prefer" to play in 4:30, you'll make it...even if the time par is significantly less.

 

 

That's great. I am happy that you're group is able to play at a pace that suites you. But this has nothing to do with what most, or the "average" would be.

Since when are 40-60 year olds with 9-15 handicaps NOT an "average golfer?" You can't hit the demographics more perfectly than that.

Another example where one side will give examples and solutions, and the other won't acknowledge.

[rsj1360]

From the paper I posted in the other thread (emphasis mine):

 

"Remember the “myth of the 4-hour round” discussed in Chapter 1. When some courses

cause players to travel over 1.5 miles, taking 24 minutes or more just to get from greens

to tees, how could they possibly expect to play in four hours? Most of the time they can’t.

Two courses might have the exact same playing yardage of 6,500 yards, but because of

differences in obstacle diffi culty and travel distances between greens and tees, the fi rst

course has a pace rating of 4:05 and the second has 4:30. This means that the very best

round time that course can expect when the course is full is 4:30. And as we’ve discussed

earlier, most of the time it will be longer"

 

The pic below is from Oak Grove in Harvard, IL. It's 7,000 from the tips and 5,300 from the most forward tee. We play the course around 6,600 which is rated/sloped at 73.1/138. The course has a fair amount of distance between holes and as you can see, the distance between the 9th green and the 10th tee is easily a 10 minute walk.

 

Including stopping for a bio break between 9's, we walk this course in about 4:05 although we've walked it in 3:45 on a weekday. The age range for our group is 40-61 and everyone walks. The handicaps for the group range from about 9 -15 so we're not what I would consider golfers with amazing ability. I've seen scores in the 100's posted as this course has some tough holes.

 

The point in all of this is that we expect to be done in + or -4 hours and we police ourselves as needed. If you go into a round and "prefer" to play in 4:30, you'll make it...even if the time par is significantly less.

 

 

That's great. I am happy that you're group is able to play at a pace that suites you. But this has nothing to do with what most, or the "average" would be.

Since when are 40-60 year olds with 9-15 handicaps NOT an "average golfer?" You can't hit the demographics more perfectly than that.

Another example where one side will give examples and solutions, and the other won't acknowledge.

Talking about average pace of play not average age and/or handicap.

[mr_divots]

[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389384937' post='8436897']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389384825' post='8436879']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389384456' post='8436841']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383817' post='8436761']
[quote name='rsj1360' timestamp='1389383730' post='8436751']
[quote name='mr_divots' timestamp='1389383353' post='8436701']
Evidence shows us that pace of play IS an issue, NOT that people [u]cannot[/u] play faster. Big difference.

Age? No. You take a cart if you have to. You don't walk, take 5 hours, and say "I'm OLD! What do you expect?" Especially when your green fee was less than mine. You take a cart if you need to. You hit ten or twelve for a score on a hole you pick up.

Played many rounds with a vietnam vet with one leg. One leg. He could play, with a cart, in 3.5 hours easy. EASY.

Size? What? Tim Herron and Aphibarnat called and says "non issue." He also suggested taking a cart if you need one.

Intellecutal capacity? How many are we going to apologize for in one wide swath? Sorry, but I don't see a lot of special needs people out there holding things up. And if you're too stupid to care for others out there, I won't miss ya. Leave the game.

Emotional capacity? Do you need a hug?? Wha?? Non-issue. Wha??? Wha??????
[/quote]
You asked me what factors could factor into a player (or group) playing slower than you'd like. I gave you several factors. You said, "no they're not". Well, "yes they are."
[/quote]
Provide examples for each premise as I did, please. "Yes they are" is a complete fail in logic and debate tactic. If that's all you got, go to the back of the class.
[/quote]
You did not provide an examples. You in effect were saying, "No they're not."
[/quote]
Examples. Solutions. Common sense. Play semantics all you want and call it what you will, but I gave examples/solutions for each of your points.
How does one's "emotinal capacity" determine one's pace of play? You better give examples and explain these things or they just read like hogwash.
[/quote]
Ever experience the situation that the more you rush and get flustered the slower things turn out?
[/quote]
On a golf course? No. There are things like ESC that allow me to pick up and keep it moving.
Another "problem" another "solution."
If you're up to 10 or more strokes, do you flat out refuse to pick up regardless of your resulting pace of play?
If so, there is room for improvement.

I get the feeling even if someone is better or more capable than yourself at a task, you are too stubborn to try to learn from their example. It's your way. And you'll take as long as you wish to do it "your way" even if a more effective way is possible. Maybe you should do more asking of those who CAN rahter than declaring things impossible?

[rsj1360]

I repeat - in no way am I slow golfer. You'll have to accept this as truth.

[DavePelz4]

From the paper I posted in the other thread (emphasis mine):

 

"Remember the “myth of the 4-hour round” discussed in Chapter 1. When some courses

cause players to travel over 1.5 miles, taking 24 minutes or more just to get from greens

to tees, how could they possibly expect to play in four hours? Most of the time they can’t.

Two courses might have the exact same playing yardage of 6,500 yards, but because of

differences in obstacle diffi culty and travel distances between greens and tees, the fi rst

course has a pace rating of 4:05 and the second has 4:30. This means that the very best

round time that course can expect when the course is full is 4:30. And as we’ve discussed

earlier, most of the time it will be longer"

 

The pic below is from Oak Grove in Harvard, IL. It's 7,000 from the tips and 5,300 from the most forward tee. We play the course around 6,600 which is rated/sloped at 73.1/138. The course has a fair amount of distance between holes and as you can see, the distance between the 9th green and the 10th tee is easily a 10 minute walk.

 

Including stopping for a bio break between 9's, we walk this course in about 4:05 although we've walked it in 3:45 on a weekday. The age range for our group is 40-61 and everyone walks. The handicaps for the group range from about 9 -15 so we're not what I would consider golfers with amazing ability. I've seen scores in the 100's posted as this course has some tough holes.

 

The point in all of this is that we expect to be done in + or -4 hours and we police ourselves as needed. If you go into a round and "prefer" to play in 4:30, you'll make it...even if the time par is significantly less.

 

 

That's great. I am happy that you're group is able to play at a pace that suites you. But this has nothing to do with what most, or the "average" would be.

 

But you referenced ability as one of the biggest gating factors in pace of play. You're a 16...we have a 15 in our group so ability is really off the table. So then what would stop you from playing at a comparable pace...and...you can take a cart. Will guarantee that 10 minute walk we have between 9's would be no more than 2 minutes in a cart. The distance between holes would also be much faster in a cart than us walking so why couldn't you play at that pace?

 

Also...back to your round in Scotland that you played in 3:30. Why did you play faster that round...what led to the exhaustion and out of morbid curiosity, was it the most difficult course you played and was that the course with the highest score?