What Constitutes Slow Play?

[CrashTestDummy]

4:15 minutes is very fast pace if 4 players are walking. If using carts, I can see 4:15 minutes being ok. Just a steady good pace (not too slow, not too fast) for around 4.5 to 5 hour round seems to be good.   There is usually plenty of time to read your shots waiting for other players because you can do that standing there. However, on the green you can't read your putts much until it is your turn. I like to read my putts. 

[klineka]

8 hours ago, CrashTestDummy said:

However, on the green you can't read your putts much until it is your turn. I like to read my putts. 

Sure you can. What makes you think otherwise?

I do aimpoint express to read greens and 75%+ of the time I'm done with my read before it's my turn to putt. Especially if I'm like 30 feet away or something and someone else has a chip shot from just off the green. They aren't going to be aiming at me/my line, so I can absolutely be standing over my line, feeling the break (or crouched down behind my ball reading the green while they are chipping)

Or if I'm walking up to mark my ball and know that I want to read the putt from behind the hole to confirm my line or something, I'll start moving that direction in between shots/putts from my playing partners and almost always have that behind the hole read done by the time it's my turn to putt.

There's usually what, at least 30 seconds from the time one playing partner hits their putt/shot until the next one does? If you're the 3rd closest or the closest to the pin, you'd have at least a minute before it's your turn to read your putt. That should be plenty of time. 

[DaveP043]

9 hours ago, CrashTestDummy said:

4:15 minutes is very fast pace if 4 players are walking. If using carts, I can see 4:15 minutes being ok. Just a steady good pace (not too slow, not too fast) for around 4.5 to 5 hour round seems to be good. 

I think that blanket statements like this are likely to be accurate for a single course, or group of players, and way off base in other circumstances.  I've played in Scotland, where much faster play is the norm, where 4 hours is considered pretty slow for 4 walkers, and 3:30 is easily done at some courses.  At my home course in Virginia, 4:15 is a pretty good pace for 4 walkers, due to up and down hills, and some long walks between holes.  Personally, I've never played a course where I was allowed to walk, and where a 5-hour round would be anywhere near acceptable.

[jsgolfer]

7 hours ago, CrashTestDummy said:

4:15 minutes is very fast pace if 4 players are walking. If using carts, I can see 4:15 minutes being ok. Just a steady good pace (not too slow, not too fast) for around 4.5 to 5 hour round seems to be good.   There is usually plenty of time to read your shots waiting for other players because you can do that standing there. However, on the green you can't read your putts much until it is your turn. I like to read my putts. 

I'm not sure you'll find too many people on here, who think a 4.5-5 hour round is OK, maybe on a muni in the middle of the summer.  In fact, you probably wouldn't want to play most private courses, which tend to have a 4:15 time requirement and my club is going to a 4 hour round come April when the golf season opens up.  For a 4.5 hour round that is 15 minutes per hole, on average. That's quite a bit of time to play a hole, even a Par 5.

 

 

[CrashTestDummy]

2 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

I'm not sure you'll find too many people on here, who think a 4.5-5 hour round is OK, maybe on a muni in the middle of the summer.  In fact, you probably wouldn't want to play most private courses, which tend to have a 4:15 time requirement and my club is going to a 4 hour round come April when the golf season opens up.  For a 4.5 hour round that is 15 minutes per hole, on average. That's quite a bit of time to play a hole, even a Par 5.

 

 

13.33 minutes per hole seems a little quick even for a private course with 4 people walking with plenty of groups on the course. I have played enough on private courses, but 4 hours still seems fast for private courses. They say even 4 hours for 4 walkers?

Do you guys read your putts at all? It is easy to speed up play from tee to green because you can make all your decisions when other people are playing, but on the greens it is difficult to read your putts until it is your turn. 

I have been playing golf my entire life since 5 and a steady pace walking is good. 15-30 minutes here or there is not a big deal in my book as long as the rounds don't go above 5 hours.  When rounds go past 5 hours and you are waiting a lot that is not good, but I'm playing the public tracks. 

Edited January 30 by CrashTestDummy

[DaveP043]

39 minutes ago, CrashTestDummy said:

13.33 minutes per hole seems a little quick even for a private course with 4 people walking with plenty of groups on the course.

Again, it depends on where you are, but 4 hours can actually feel pretty slow.  If you get a chance to play in the UK, you'll find that 4 hours is generally the maximum time expected for a round, 4 players, all walking.  You'll get used to it, you'll expect it.  You can find the standard scorecard for the Old Course at St Andrews, it actually shows expected (latest) time for finishing each hole, and the total is 3:57.  That's everyone walking on a completely full golf course, and one where you're often sharing a fairway with the players coming the other direction!  

[jsgolfer]

1 hour ago, CrashTestDummy said:

13.33 minutes per hole seems a little quick even for a private course with 4 people walking with plenty of groups on the course. I have played enough on private courses, but 4 hours still seems fast for private courses. They say even 4 hours for 4 walkers?

Do you guys read your putts at all? It is easy to speed up play from tee to green because you can make all your decisions when other people are playing, but on the greens it is difficult to read your putts until it is your turn. 

I have been playing golf my entire life since 5 and a steady pace walking is good. 15-30 minutes here or there is not a big deal in my book as long as the rounds don't go above 5 hours.  When rounds go past 5 hours and you are waiting a lot that is not good, but I'm playing the public tracks. 

It's not fast at all, and yes 4 hours, even if all 4 are walking, there is no time discount for walking.  And yes I read putts, but I do so while everyone else is putting. I'm already looking at the break on a green while I'm walking to mark my ball and then I'm ready to go when it's my turn.  5 hours rounds are brutal, that's a lot of standing around twiddling the thumbs. 

And as @DaveP043 noted, the Old Course is 3:57 for 4 walkers.  And they figure about 8 minutes for a Par 3, 13 minutes for a Par 4 and 17 minutes for a Par 5.  I did a back of the napkin calculation, with 4 players on a 350 yard par 4, and came up with 12.3 minutes - walking at 3 mph (4.4 fps), taking on average 25 seconds for every shot and each making a bogey on the hole. I did the same for a 500 yard par 5 and a 160 yard par 3 and came up with 15.7 and 8.5 respectively.  Pretty close to the St. Andrews numbers. 

 

[CrashTestDummy]

8 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

It's not fast at all, and yes 4 hours, even if all 4 are walking, there is no time discount for walking.  And yes I read putts, but I do so while everyone else is putting. I'm already looking at the break on a green while I'm walking to mark my ball and then I'm ready to go when it's my turn.  5 hours rounds are brutal, that's a lot of standing around twiddling the thumbs. 

And as @DaveP043 noted, the Old Course is 3:57 for 4 walkers.  And they figure about 8 minutes for a Par 3, 13 minutes for a Par 4 and 17 minutes for a Par 5.  I did a back of the napkin calculation, with 4 players on a 350 yard par 4, and came up with 12.3 minutes - walking at 3 mph (4.4 fps), taking on average 25 seconds for every shot and each making a bogey on the hole. I did the same for a 500 yard par 5 and a 160 yard par 3 and came up with 15.7 and 8.5 respectively.  Pretty close to the St. Andrews numbers. 

 

 

No time discount for walkers? Carts are definitely faster than walking which is why many courses like only people who cart. Today I played a 4:15 round with two walkers and two people carting. Not much waiting and it didn't see overly fast, but I was in a cart. Had I been walking, it may of felt faster. 

 

So, I guess no looking for lost balls and reading your putts. 25 seconds per shot sounds fast to me and I am not a slow player.  

 

One thing to mention is that higher handicaps should take less time to take shots in order to keep pace though. For example if one player shoots 75 and another shoots 95. 20 strokes more would equate to 20 minutes more taking shots if taking one minute to take a shot. 

[boogielicious]

7 hours ago, CrashTestDummy said:

No time discount for walkers? Carts are definitely faster than walking which is why many courses like only people who cart.

I think this depends on the course. If it’s older style with tees and greens adjacent, walkers can be just as a fast. If it’s cart path only, like our outing in Ohio last year, walking is way faster. If it’s a newer style with long distance between green and the next tee, carts are definitely faster.

My course in Rhode Island is old style with some tees 10 paces from the last green. I’ve played with three older women in the first group in the morning with two of us walking in 3:15 and it didn’t feel fast. Same course later in the day with a group in front of us in carts, 5 hours. We were walking, they were slow. Carts can be faster if the player know cart etiquette.

[jsgolfer]

7 hours ago, CrashTestDummy said:

 

No time discount for walkers? Carts are definitely faster than walking which is why many courses like only people who cart. Today I played a 4:15 round with two walkers and two people carting. Not much waiting and it didn't see overly fast, but I was in a cart. Had I been walking, it may of felt faster. 

 

So, I guess no looking for lost balls and reading your putts. 25 seconds per shot sounds fast to me and I am not a slow player.  

 

One thing to mention is that higher handicaps should take less time to take shots in order to keep pace though. For example if one player shoots 75 and another shoots 95. 20 strokes more would equate to 20 minutes more taking shots if taking one minute to take a shot. 

If you're going to walk, you need to keep pace, even with groups in carts.  The pace of play, is the pace of play, regardless of the method of how you get around.  As for average of 25 seconds, my assumption is the first person in the foursome is taking longer, but each successive golfer would be less, thus not needing as many seconds to hit once it's their turn. And I would hope it doesn't take anyone 25 seconds to knock in a 1 foot putt or a tap in. My last shot into the hole doesn't typically take long, even if I'm grinding over a four foot putt. My last putt, if I miss, will likely take a second. And I think the PGA tour was trying to get the Pro's to play their shot within 40 seconds, which is slow.

Yes, looking for balls takes time, but again, the pace is the place.  You need to pick it up, if you fall behind. And again, it doesn't matter the number of shots on pace of play.  We have good players who are really slow, and they have to pick up the pace. And if you have 4 players shooting 100, and they take 40 seconds per shot, that is a 4.4 hour round, before they have walked the course, which for a 6500 yard course, is another 1.2 hours.  As they say in my home state, that would be "Wicked Slow", so have to pick up the pace.  Waiting on every shot is probably the killer for me, waiting makes everything seem slow, even if it's a 4 hour round or less. And few people play as fast I as do (don't blink or you'll miss my shot, @coachjimsc, ), but far too many people do not know how to play quicker, without being overly fast. 

 

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, CrashTestDummy said:

Carts are definitely faster than walking which is why many courses like only people who cart.

Carts have the POTENTIAL to be much faster, given an open course and efficient players.  That situation can (and should) lead to rounds completed in under 3 hours.  But efficient players walking on old-style courses (short walks from green to tee) can often be done in 3-1/2 hours, and 4 hours is very reasonable.  I know I mentioned it previously, "tourist" courses in Scotland generally allow about 4 hours, less well-known courses will expect you to get done in 3:45 or less.  That's not rushing, its a nice steady pace.

[CrashTestDummy]

3 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

If you're going to walk, you need to keep pace, even with groups in carts.  The pace of play, is the pace of play, regardless of the method of how you get around.  As for average of 25 seconds, my assumption is the first person in the foursome is taking longer, but each successive golfer would be less, thus not needing as many seconds to hit once it's their turn. And I would hope it doesn't take anyone 25 seconds to knock in a 1 foot putt or a tap in. My last shot into the hole doesn't typically take long, even if I'm grinding over a four foot putt. My last putt, if I miss, will likely take a second. And I think the PGA tour was trying to get the Pro's to play their shot within 40 seconds, which is slow.

Yes, looking for balls takes time, but again, the pace is the place.  You need to pick it up, if you fall behind. And again, it doesn't matter the number of shots on pace of play.  We have good players who are really slow, and they have to pick up the pace. And if you have 4 players shooting 100, and they take 40 seconds per shot, that is a 4.4 hour round, before they have walked the course, which for a 6500 yard course, is another 1.2 hours.  As they say in my home state, that would be "Wicked Slow", so have to pick up the pace.  Waiting on every shot is probably the killer for me, waiting makes everything seem slow, even if it's a 4 hour round or less. And few people play as fast I as do (don't blink or you'll miss my shot, @coachjimsc, ), but far too many people do not know how to play quicker, without being overly fast. 

 

It does matter how many shots you take. The more shots you take the slower the player IF they are taking the same amount of time per shot as a player taking less shots. If a player is taking more shots, they have to take less time per shot. It is simple math. Yes, there are slow better players, but still have to look at the total time it takes for them to take all their shots to really see how slow a player really is. Your example of 4 players shooting 100 shows that. 

 

Just like my example. If you had two players both taking the same amount of time per shot (40 seconds). One shooting 75 and another shooting 95. The player shooting 75 would take 50 minutes to take all their shots. The player shooting 95 would take 63.33 minutes to take all their shot. That is roughly taking 25% more time to take all their shots. So, the player shooting 75 actually in reality could take 50 seconds per shot and their total time taking shots would be similar to someone who is taking 40 seconds per shot. 

 

 

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, CrashTestDummy said:

It does matter how many shots you take. The more shots you take the slower the player IF they are taking the same amount of time per shot as a player taking less shots. If a player is taking more shots, they have to take less time per shot. It is simple math. Yes, there are slow better players, but still have to look at the total time it takes for them to take all their shots to really see how slow a player really is. Your example of 4 players shooting 100 shows that.

I think we are all capable of doing basic math.

In reality, good players often take longer to slightly longer to play than higher handicappers because they often consider more “things” per shot and are more selective (wind and the elevation and the lie and the different shots available to them).

When I was first beginning I played significantly faster per shot than I do now because my seven iron might go 150 or it might go 15.

I’ve played 18 holes in a twosome in under 2 1/2 hours walking and were held up on the last three holes by a single, so it’s not like I’m dawdling out there but it does take more time when you consider more things and get a precise yardage and so on.

[CrashTestDummy]

37 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Carts have the POTENTIAL to be much faster, given an open course and efficient players.  That situation can (and should) lead to rounds completed in under 3 hours.  But efficient players walking on old-style courses (short walks from green to tee) can often be done in 3-1/2 hours, and 4 hours is very reasonable.  I know I mentioned it previously, "tourist" courses in Scotland generally allow about 4 hours, less well-known courses will expect you to get done in 3:45 or less.  That's not rushing, its a nice steady pace.

Yes, I agree with that. Carts are faster if the course is open to carts and not cart path only. However, the total time it takes for players to take all their shots not just their time of their pre-shot routine should be taken into consideration.  The more shots players take, the longer it takes for them to take all their shots and their total time of play is longer.  Total time of all shots should be definitely be taken into consideration pace of play, but not really mentioned. Everyone only talks about their shot time. 

[CrashTestDummy]

Just now, iacas said:

I think we are all capable of doing basic math.

In reality, good players often take longer to slightly longer to play than higher handicappers because they often consider more “things” per shot and are more selective (wind and the elevation and the lie and the different shots available to them).

But it doesn't seem you are calculating and comparing a player's "total shot time" because it is directly related to pace of play.  You only think that a players "single  shot time" is the barometer of how fast a player is which does not determine the real pace of play of that player. There are good players that are faster as well, however, good players can take longer per shot because their total shot time is faster than higher handicappers. Total shot time is definitely related to pace of play. 

 

I'll post my example again. If you had two players both taking the same amount of time per shot (40 seconds). One shooting 75 and another shooting 95. The player shooting 75 would take 50 minutes to take all their shots. The player shooting 95 would take 63.33 minutes to take all their shot. The player shooting 95 is roughly taking 25% more time to take all their shots. So, the player shooting 75 actually in reality could take longer to take their shots (50 seconds per shot) and their total time taking shots would be similar to someone who is taking 40 seconds per shot. 

 

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, CrashTestDummy said:

Yes, I agree with that. Carts are faster if the course is open to carts and not cart path only. However, the total time it takes for players to take all their shots not just their time of their pre-shot routine should be taken into consideration.  The more shots players take, the longer it takes for them to take all their shots and their total time of play is longer.  Total time of all shots should be definitely be taken into consideration pace of play, but not really mentioned. Everyone only talks about their shot time. 

I'm not really interested in going into details.  You suggested that 4 hours is really fast, I'm just saying 4 hours or even less is recognized MAXIMUM duration for a round of golf for 4 walkers in some parts of the world.  

 

[iacas]

36 minutes ago, CrashTestDummy said:

But it doesn't seem you are calculating and comparing a player's "total shot time" because it is directly related to pace of play.

I'm saying we can all do simple math, but the truth is not nearly just a math problem.

Some courses are faster to play than others. Some players are faster to play than others. There's actually very little correlation to scoring and pace of play, and FAR more to do with how the course is set up, the weather, restrictions like cart path only… etc.

36 minutes ago, CrashTestDummy said:

You only think that a players "single  shot time" is the barometer of how fast a player is which does not determine the real pace of play of that player.

Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? Because… I've never said anything like that, while you seem to be stuck on this math problem.

36 minutes ago, CrashTestDummy said:

Total shot time is definitely related to pace of play.

Who is saying it's not? But it's not the dominant factor.

36 minutes ago, CrashTestDummy said:

I'll post my example again.

We don't need your example. We can all make up whatever example we want. Your example overlooks a lot of things, too. Namely, that two players can be preparing to hit a shot while others are hitting theirs, that there are tap-ins and pick-ups in a round, etc. And… that even though you can get to an hour with a contrived math problem… that's still only 25% of the time spent on the golf course, and the difference between the two players is 25% of that (0.25 * 0.25 = 6%).

36 minutes ago, CrashTestDummy said:

One shooting 75 and another shooting 95. The player shooting 75 would take 50 minutes to take all their shots. The player shooting 95 would take 63.33 minutes to take all their shot. The player shooting 95 is roughly taking 25% more time to take all their shots. So, the player shooting 75 actually in reality could take longer to take their shots (50 seconds per shot) and their total time taking shots would be similar to someone who is taking 40 seconds per shot. 

Again, we can all do simple math, but the thing you're not getting is… it doesn't generally work that way.

Also, 4 hours is S-L-O-W. I regularly play 18 holes in threesomes or foursomes in < 3 hours (in carts).

[CrashTestDummy]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I'm saying we can all do simple math, but the truth is not nearly just a math problem.

Some courses are faster to play than others. Some players are faster to play than others. There's actually very little correlation to scoring and pace of play, and FAR more to do with how the course is set up, the weather, restrictions like cart path only… etc.

Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? Because… I've never said anything like that, while you seem to be stuck on this math problem.

Who is saying it's not? But it's not the dominant factor.

We don't need your example. We can all make up whatever example we want. Your example overlooks a lot of things, too. Namely, that two players can be preparing to hit a shot while others are hitting theirs, that there are tap-ins and pick-ups in a round, etc. And… that even though you can get to an hour with a contrived math problem… that's still only 25% of the time spent on the golf course, and the difference between the two players is 25% of that (0.25 * 0.25 = 6%).

Again, we can all do simple math, but the thing you're not getting is… it doesn't generally work that way.

Also, 4 hours is S-L-O-W. I regularly play 18 holes in threesomes or foursomes in < 3 hours (in carts).

 

Yes, pace of play is different for every course, but there is a pace of play that is average for a particular course. However, you keep bringing up calculations of shot time and walking time, but refuse to acknowledge or say that is irrelevant that taking more shots takes more time. If all things being equal with shot time, taking more strokes takes more time, period.  Shot time is shot time. The clocks starts when it is your turn to play. The more strokes a player takes, the less shot time they should take to keep pace. The more strokes a player take, the more total time it takes to play their shots if other players taking less shots have the same shot time. Not sure why you don't acknowledge that fact.  Not sure you are really concerned with improving pace of play then. 

 

We don't you need my example? Who is we? Am I debating against a gang? 😜 I'm just debating the issue. This is a forum for discussion and debate, isn't it?  Also, why do you not want my examples when you keep hounding me for examples on rules of etiquette when it is obvious what rules of etiquette that many don't know or don't follow on the golf course.  😜😂