Should Pace of Play be Considered in Course Design?

[Space Bandito]

Whilst playing a notoriously slow course the other day, I realized the reason the pace here is so slow is due to its design, rather than the speed at which the players move. The front nine goes like this:

1. Reachable par 5 (there's always that one guy who insists he can get there, and then ends up in the barranca in front of the green, adding even more playing time)
2. Long Par 4
3. Short Par 4 (295 from the blues - almost everyone waits for the green to clear here )
4. Par 3
5. Reachable Par 5
6. Long Par 3 (225 from the blues - most folks don't hit the green, adding to the time it takes to play)
7. Par 4
8. Par 3
9. Reachable Par 5

On the front alone you find yourself bottlenecked on FIVE of the nine holes waiting for guys who are so sure they can reach the green (yet rarely do.) Combine that with three par 3s and you've got yourself into a serious wait time on nearly every tee.

The course is very popular amongst walkers, which I am all for, but the lay out doesn't help. In total, to walk, it is approximately 8 miles with an elevation change from front to back of 2000ft. The front nine plays under 3 miles, and the back nine over 5 miles. That difference adds up to an even slower pace than the front. The gaps between holes on the back are too large for walkers to expect to play at a reasonable pace. I timed the walk between 9 and 10 yesterday. Over 4 minutes! From 14 tee to 14 Fairway: 3.5 minutes! On a cart it's a 30 second drive.


So should course design like this be acceptable moving forward? It's a beautiful course, and it's very popular. Pace isn't keeping anyone away, but should governing bodies look at something like this and step in?

 

[CBaker]

That's rough. But yes, my short answer is yes, course design can absolutely play a huge role and should absolutely be taken into account. IMO there should really only be 1 reachable par 5 on the course, MAYBE 2 if you really get after one. You just listed 3 on the front 9. that's asking for back ups. And that's not even taking into account the "drive-able" par 4 at 295, and a par 3 (which IMO are the biggest roadblocks in general) at 225. Essentially it's a par 4 since as you said most people are missing the green anyway.

 

[DG_1234]

Excellent thread topic here. Absolutely course layout is relevant to pace of play.
In general, I think the "slowest played holes" are usually caused by too many players needing to spend time looking for golf balls. For example, a par 4 hole with a thick rough covered hillside to the right of the fairway 180 to 250 yards from the tee box. A hole like that will often have at least 1, sometimes all 4 players of the group, searching for golf ball (s).

 

[OldandStiff]

Absolutely.

3-9 there sounds like a nightmare.

And the reason I say absolutely is that I was getting a little defensive on behalf of friends while reading about 'that one guy', 'everyone waits for the green to clear', 'most folks don't hit the green', etc. That's not on those guys, that's on the layout/design like you said. It's like your handicap. It's supposed to represent your potential. Doesn't mean you hit it most of the time. Same with a reachable par 4 or 5. If someone has the potential to reach it they should wait. Doesn't mean they will and I won't judge them if the don't.

Whoever designed that ... oof. First glance I was like ' :/ 8 & 9 would grind everyone to a halt' That was assuming things had stretched out until then. The more I looked though, there is really no where to go on that entire layout. Probably not a lot of cheerful people at those tee boxes...

 

[DG_1234]

The "reachable par 5" issue I think should mostly come from players who are playing the wrong tee boxes. If someone is routinely able to hit 2 or more of the course's par 5's with two shots , he/she is playing too short of a tee box.And if from the back tees a large number of players can reach a par 5 in two, the course should probably change that hole to a par 4.
Regardless, if a player may hit the green , or even come within 30 yards of the green, he should wait until the green clears. There is never a good reason to endanger other players and, or, "hit into them".

 

[Space Bandito]

The "reachable par 5" issue I think should mostly come from players who are playing the wrong tee boxes. If someone is routinely able to hit 2 or more of the course's par 5's with two shots , he/she is playing too short of a tee box.And if from the back tees a large number of players can reach a par 5 in two, the course should probably change that hole to a par 4.
Regardless, if a player may hit the green , or even come within 30 yards of the green, he should wait until the green clears. There is never a good reason to endanger other players and, or, "hit into them".

Agreed. Though on this course, none of the par 5s on the front 9 play more than 525 from the tips. To a better (read: longer hitter) player, that's reachable from any tee box.

 

[Space Bandito]

Absolutely.

3-9 there sounds like a nightmare.

And the reason I say absolutely is that I was getting a little defensive on behalf of friends while reading about 'that one guy', 'everyone waits for the green to clear', 'most folks don't hit the green', etc. That's not on those guys, that's on the layout/design like you said. It's like your handicap. It's supposed to represent your potential. Doesn't mean you hit it most of the time. Same with a reachable par 4 or 5. If someone has the potential to reach it they should wait. Doesn't mean they will and I won't judge them if the don't.

Whoever designed that ... oof. First glance I was like ' :/ 8 & 9 would grind everyone to a halt' That was assuming things had stretched out until then. The more I looked though, there is really no where to go on that entire layout. Probably not a lot of cheerful people at those tee boxes...

We were commenting the other day that the course should build a snack shop and restroom by the 6th tee. There's always at least 3 groups standing there. Might as well sell some beer! The course is very well aware of the bottlenecks as well. They've gone so far as to add a second bench for groups to sit on 6.

 

[dsw1519]

I agree with the other comments in this thread. No question course layout and design can impact pace of play and should be a strong consideration in any new courses or redesigns.

 

[daemons26]

At our local course, there used to be high weeds/fescue in the boundaries to the right and left of the fairways. These were extremely punitive, which is ok, but also caused a lot of time for players looking for lost balls.

Then the course took out much of this fescue and replaced it with waste bunkers. Still punitive (though less so), but now nobody is losing their balls in it.

Pace of play was reduced by at least a half hour - since there were 4 or 5 holes in which this was the case.

Looking for lost balls is the biggest problem with slow play - so eliminate that by putting in sand or water in place of high rough. You wont lose a ball in sand, while still being penalized... and you won't look for a ball in water. But high rough is the worst, because people will look for 10 minutes for a ball - and even if they find it, they can't advance it very much anyway.

 

[DG_1234]

Agreed. Though on this course, none of the par 5s on the front 9 play more than 525 from the tips. To a better (read: longer hitter) player, that's reachable from any tee box.

Are the par 5 holes flat terrain, downward sloping, upward sloping ?

 

[wubears71]

That front 9 sounds like a course that was squeezed into two small of a property and not enough work was done terraforming to make it play better.

 

[Space Bandito]

That front 9 sounds like a course that was squeezed into two small of a property and not enough work was done terraforming to make it play better.

That's what it sounds like, but not at all what it is.

 

[Space Bandito]

Are the par 5 holes flat terrain, downward sloping, upward sloping ?

Remember the whole course is an 1800ft elevation change from back (high side) to front. So it just depends on which way the hole goes - but the degree at which the elevation changes is barely noticeable until you get toward the very back.

 

[goalie]

Yes.

A long 4 to start doesn't hurt. Two longer fours to start is even better. Not having a par three to start should be a rule.

People play slow enough without having super-obvious, course-induced bottlenecks to start the round.

 

[rollin]

Yes.

A long 4 to start doesn't hurt. Two longer fours to start is even better. Not having a par three to start should be a rule.

People play slow enough without having super-obvious, course-induced bottlenecks to start the round.

On the contrary. Imo a short 4 or a p3 or a reachable p5 is good for the first hole. You see this way its an automatic spacing between groups instead of tee times that are too close together which is a huge pace detriment in itself. I wish every course that has tee times of less than 11 mins would begin with one of those holes that way the groups have to be spaced better by default. Part of the reason we can wait on such holes is because we are not spaced far enough apart to begin with.

 

[InTheRough]

Yes. For the love of God, do not make the 2nd hole a par 3. I've played courses like this and no matter how they spread out the start, there is always a backup at the 2nd hole. I'd say don't make any hole shorter than 350 from the blues. And no par 3 longer than 190 from the blues. I don't believe in sadistic par 3 holes over 200 yds except from the tips.

Also keep the undergrowth in the woods trimmed back to reduce time people spend looking for lost balls. I know they're only supposed to spend 3 minutes, but even when it was 5 minutes, I remember people spending more than that looking around.

Fairway bunkers on golf courses that are open to the public should be kept to a minimum. Yes, they're challenging. Yes, they slow down play.

All this IMO which isn't worth ?

 

[DonJuan]

I agree with your overall premise on course design if it's a muni. I think I disagree with your assessment on some of the holes though.

1. Reachable par 5 with danger in front: If some one wants to try to make a par 5 in two, then that's they're decision. I don't think golfers should play or not play shots based on pace of play.

3. Yeah, most won't make it to 295 par 4 in two. There's nothing wrong with waiting for the green to clear just in case, or waiting out of courtesy so as to not breath done the players' necks.

6. I don't know coming up short on a long par 3 is any faster than reaching the green on a par 3. In my experience most play slows to a crawl on the green.

With that being said, my home course has a bottle neck where there is a par 5 over water, followed by a longish par 3 over water, followed by a long par 4, followed by another tricky par 5. There have been talks of changing some holes around.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

 

[Space Bandito]

I agree with your overall premise on course design if it's a muni. I think I disagree with your assessment on some of the holes though.

1. Reachable par 5 with danger in front: If some one wants to try to make a par 5 in two, then that's they're decision. I don't think golfers should play or not play shots based on pace of play.

3. Yeah, most won't make it to 295 par 4 in two. There's nothing wrong with waiting for the green to clear just in case, or waiting out of courtesy so as to not breath done the players' necks.

6. I don't know coming up short on a long par 3 is any faster than reaching the green on a par 3. In my experience most play slows to a crawl on the green.

With that being said, my home course has a bottle neck where there is a par 5 over water, followed by a longish par 3 over water, followed by a long par 4, followed by another tricky par 5. There have been talks of changing some holes around.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

1. It's absolutely their decision. But when guys who play the course regularly routinely try and come up short it becomes a bit of a problem. Should they not be considering others on the course? My assessment of the hole is that the course should take that into consideration. Don't give that player the option.

3. Again, no problem with people waiting for the green to clear. The point of this thread is to address whether the course designer should avoid making people wait, when you can stretch out the hole by 30 or 40 yards and waiting wouldn't even be a conversation for 99% of players (yes, there is room on this course to do so.)

6. More shots = more time for most players.

I'm glad you mention your home course. Do you think they'll follow through with changes? Are the only talks of changes due to pace of play?

 

[goalie]

On the contrary. Imo a short 4 or a p3 or a reachable p5 is good for the first hole. You see this way its an automatic spacing between groups instead of tee times that are too close together which is a huge pace detriment in itself. I wish every course that has tee times of less than 11 mins would begin with one of those holes that way the groups have to be spaced better by default. Part of the reason we can wait on such holes is because we are not spaced far enough apart to begin with.

I see your point, but then you are backed up before you even tee off.

I don't want my tee times to be 20 minutes or more late because of what you described.

I also try not to play courses that don't space the tee times appropriately for the starting holes.

 

[ntanygd760]

Depends on the course. A daily fee high volume course should be designed in part with pace consideration. A destination bandon type course should use the land to create the best hole possible even if it leaves the 9s uneven.

 

[YukonLiving]

This is something I honestly haven’t put a whole lot of thought into. But now that I’ve read what’s been posted so far, I can definitely think of times where pace was slow and it very well could have been due to course layout.

I’ve played a couple courses like the one you describe where the holes were incredibly far apart, and a cart was mandatory. I think that definitely helped with play, but that was sometimes negated by a zig-zag cart path that took you right into the line of another tee box. Needless to say, bottleneck.

Great topic.

 

[rollin]

fwiw , there is something that happens when pace is talked about and it goes on constantly. Pcae and slow play are two different things. And imo some waiting sometimes does not always mean the round is slow. Again , its two different things. I mean so what if we have to wait for a derivable par4 or a reachable par 5. That doesnt have to and does not always mean the round is playing slow. All we are really doing is taking one less shot and spending the time we would have spent taking the normal extra shot on a regular par4 or 5 to now wait out that time instead. That doesnt have to mean the round is moving too slow. It may be moving slow anyway for all the same reasons any round might be doing that, but even a course that is not moving slow and with players who dont cause slow play can still end up waiting for holes like this. This all doesnt mean the round is slow nor that this reachable thing in itself is a problem..

I seen more people than i can shake a stick at complain of waiting and slow play like they re dying all because they had to do "some amount" here and there of waiting and yet the round in the end was not at all any true slow round. happens constantly.

 

[uitar99]

Well, today was a prime example. Hit a decent drive of the tee and then hitting the second shot where I either chuck it or hit it fat. I cant be sure but I think I'm hitting slightly behind the ball.

fwiw , there is something that happens when pace is talked about and it goes on constantly. Pcae and slow play are two different things. And imo some waiting sometimes does not always mean the round is slow. Again , its two different things. I mean so what if we have to wait for a derivable par4 or a reachable par 5. That doesnt have to and does not always mean the round is playing slow. All we are really doing is taking one less shot and spending the time we would have spent taking the normal extra shot on a regular par4 or 5 to now wait out that time instead. That doesnt have to mean the round is moving too slow. It may be moving slow anyway for all the same reasons any round might be doing that, but even a course that is not moving slow and with players who dont cause slow play can still end up waiting for holes like this. This all doesnt mean the round is slow nor that this reachable thing in itself is a problem..

I seen more people than i can shake a stick at complain of waiting and slow play like they re dying all because they had to do "some amount" here and there of waiting and yet the round in the end was not at all any true slow round. happens constantly.

Yup-I think back to the number of times I have played a round and thought "man this is brutal" because I waited on three or four holes.

Then when finishing checked the clock and saw the round took 3:45, on a muni on Saturday afternoon.

I now sit when waiting and stare at the scenery (whether its nature or a woman) and stop fretting. Is my life really impacted by 3:45 vs 4:11

 

[ArmyGolf]

There's nothing worse for pace of play than the short par 4 & the reachable par 5. The fact is that I'm probably not going to hit the green from 230 or 240, but I'm fully capable if I nut the shot so I have to wait.

My main pet peeve at my home course is #8. It's a medium par 3 but the routing around an environmental area means you need to backtrack to get to the tee and then take the long way around to get to the green - it's not uncommon for 2 or 3 groups to be hanging out on the tee. The course tried to get players to hit up while the group ahead was walking around but unfortunately the average golfer is too braindead to make this simple solution work.
Then the icing on the cake is that everyone stops for their beer and hot dogs at the turn and you end up with the same 3 groups stacked up on #10 again. I've been saying for years they should just move the snack shack to the #8 tee and eliminate the problems.

 

[Space Bandito]

All we are really doing is taking one less shot and spending the time we would have spent taking the normal extra shot on a regular par4 or 5 to now wait out that time instead.

But this is almost never the case. For most players it ends up being taking the extra shot AFTER waiting thinking they were only going to hit two.