No group behind you

[colin007]

The pace of play in the US has been slowing down, dramatically so, since the middle of last century. Because of this, people think that the nowadays acceptable 4-4.5 hours round is a good pace, and anything faster is considered "speed golf" or "rabbit golf". People used to play in closer to 3.5 hours than 4.5 hours. The fact that golf courses now have come to accept the 4.5 hour round as the standard doesn't mean it's always been that way or that it should be that way. For me, a stress free, relaxing, leisurely round takes 3.5 hours.

[Golfingdad]

The pace of play in the US has been slowing down, dramatically so, since the middle of last century. Because of this, people think that the nowadays acceptable 4-4.5 hours round is a good pace, and anything faster is considered "speed golf" or "rabbit golf". People used to play in closer to 3.5 hours than 4.5 hours. The fact that golf courses now have come to accept the 4.5 hour round as the standard doesn't mean it's always been that way or that it should be that way. For me, a stress free, relaxing, leisurely round takes 3.5 hours.

My experience is that the pace has gotten a little better of perhaps at least held steady in the last several years. Probably has a lot to do different areas and courses I've played too though.

[Fourputt]

The pace of play in the US has been slowing down, dramatically so, since the middle of last century. Because of this, people think that the nowadays acceptable 4-4.5 hours round is a good pace, and anything faster is considered "speed golf" or "rabbit golf". People used to play in closer to 3.5 hours than 4.5 hours. The fact that golf courses now have come to accept the 4.5 hour round as the standard doesn't mean it's always been that way or that it should be that way.

For me, a stress free, relaxing, leisurely round takes 3.5 hours.

It's also true that architects seem to be going out of their way to build difficulty into modern courses.  They build them so that lost balls are a common result of a missed shot, rather than the exception.  Putting water in play on 3/4 of the holes.  Out of bounds 30 feet off the fairway.  Native rough left to grow unchecked (my home muni is guilty of this one).  50 years ago lost balls were more often  the exception.  1½ inch rough was all it took to make a flyer lie because the clubs hadn't yet gotten out of control.  That kept the rough pertinent without making a habitat that lions could hunt from.

The more that courses are built to PGA Tour difficulty standards, the less they favor the typical player.  You see it here and on other golf forums - the guys who love to put up the 147 slope, like it's a badge of honor or something.  The normal golfer is simply not good enough to play on such a course, but TV keeps telling him different, so he believes.  He believes that those shiny new irons will suddenly make him good enough, even though he's never broken 90.  He just might break 90 if he played a course designed for his talent level.

And he might be able to do so in under 4 hours.

[BrownCoast]

I like to play somewhat fast, but when its a fun outing with friends and no one is behind us then i dont mind if we lag behind a little due to horsing around. but i also dont want to be on the course for 5.5-6 hours. in a foursome 4.5 hours sounds about par for the course. if we're playing "serious" then i dont want to be much longer then that but if its a nice day no one behind us and we're having a good time then an extra 30 mins on the course won't hurt anyone.

[BuckeyeNut]

For me, a stress free, relaxing, leisurely round takes 3.5 hours.

My sentiments exactly........  a leisurely round for a 4-some shouldn't take any longer.

[colin007]

It's also true that architects seem to be going out of their way to build difficulty into modern courses.  They build them so that lost balls are a common result of a missed shot, rather than the exception.  Putting water in play on 3/4 of the holes.  Out of bounds 30 feet off the fairway.  Native rough left to grow unchecked (my home muni is guilty of this one).  50 years ago lost balls were more often  the exception.  1½ inch rough was all it took to make a flyer lie because the clubs hadn't yet gotten out of control.  That kept the rough pertinent without making a habitat that lions could hunt from. The more that courses are built to PGA Tour difficulty standards, the less they favor the typical player.  You see it here and on other golf forums - the guys who love to put up the 147 slope, like it's a badge of honor or something.  The normal golfer is simply not good enough to play on such a course, but TV keeps telling him different, so he believes.  He believes that those shiny new irons will suddenly make him good enough, even though he's never broken 90.  He just might break 90 if he played a course designed for his talent level. And he might be able to do so in under 4 hours.

You're probably right. It's just not a phenomenon I've seen around here. Just about all of the courses near me in the NY capital region were built in the 60s or earlier. Tee boxes are close to the previous green, courses are pretty short. Really no reason to take so long to play.