Grappling with the Tension
Between Good for Golf
and Good for Operators
By Adam Fonseca
Pace of play in golf has been discussed for decades. The time it takes to play a round of golf will differ from one course or golfer to the next, making the establishment of a “standard time” impossible. Regardless, any mention of “pace of play” to a seasoned golfer will likely be met with an eye roll or scowl.
Is there a pace of play problem in golf? Does the setting – public, private, or competitive round – matter? Or is this simply an individual’s problem based on their preconceived expectations?
Pace of Play and Customer Expectations
With notable exceptions, golfers must pay to play the game on a golf course. Golf is both an activity and a product; a game that can be played anywhere, but often confined to a specific location. The experience of the golfer – the customer – is most often defined by that location and the company they keep. The transactional nature of golf as a product opens the conversation to the concept of customer expectations.
In 2015, the Royal & Ancient Golf Club (R&A), one of golf’s main governing bodies, conducted a survey focused on pace of play. The survey received more than 56,000 responses from golfers across 122 countries. Sixty percent of golfers said they would enjoy golf more if they played in less time. For those golfers, an expectation would be more favorable if the game was faster.
Golf, by nature, takes longer to play than other sports or activities. The very structure of the game, including its hazards and yardages, establishes an experience that requires substantial time to complete. In a sense, golf is what it is, no matter the player or course.
Golf as a product is also subject to those who pay to participate, and as with most things, money has a way of muddying the waters. What one person is willing to accept for their dollar is different from another’s. Except for tee time pricing changes, all golfers must pay a similar fee to visit a course of their choosing. While the price of entry may be the same, what a golfer expects in return for that investment can differ widely.
If a golfer chooses to play a more expensive course, they might expect immaculate conditions and amenities coupled with an unforgettably positive experience. Pace of play factors into this experience, but perhaps not as much as it would at a less expensive municipal course. If you have an ocean or mountains to take in while playing your round, for example, you might be more likely to overlook a particularly slow round.
Golfers are Not Observers
Where golf differs from other recreational activities is that we are all active participants rather than just observers. Whereas a movie theater, professional sporting event, or concert can take a long time to enjoy, we are not the actors, players, or musicians. We are passive costumers who must accept what we get in return for our investment. This is not the case with golf.
One of the findings in the R&A survey conducted in 2015 was that comparative research shows golfers are willing to pay 9.1 times more in green fees for “a significant improvement in pace, with significant defined as 15-30 minutes.” Golfers under the age of 40 would pay 14.2 percent more.
To some, this finding will be staggering. Golfers are willing to pay 10 percent more money to save as little as 15 minutes of time. This is despite the camaraderie spent with friends in a foursome, admiring the course itself, or purely participating in an activity meant to be enjoyed. Knowing that an average golfer takes about 15 minutes to complete a golf hole adds more intrigue to this finding.
To me, this suggests golfers need to be more patient and perhaps stop to smell a rose or two. However, we’ve all experienced slow rounds in our playing careers, and some of us (including myself) have chosen to drive off the course early. It is at that moment, which is rare, where the return on investment is so poor that the better option is to leave. This is not ideal in any way and can leave a lasting negative impression on the golf course.
The Four-Hour Round is a Myth
If we understand that golf takes a long time to play due to its nature, then the responsibility of enhancing a customer’s experience falls on the golf course operators. People are unpredictable by their nature, and even the most veteran golfers can have a bad day. As seen in the era of COVID, an influx of new golfers often requires extra leeway to participate in the game they are still learning. When this happens, golf course operators can be our best allies or our worst enemies.
Course setup and adequate tee time gapping are two immediate and controllable factors that directly impact pace of play. A golf course that sends groups off the first tee at 8-minute intervals is artificially “jamming” a tee sheet that will, almost guaranteed, lead to a backup later in the round. As I’ve been told by more than one course operator: eight-minute times benefit the course and not the golfer.
I’ve also been reminded that I, in fact, do not operate a golf course and “have a lot to learn” when it comes to doing so. Having played thousands of rounds over 25 years and working at a course for a decade, however, I think it’s safe to say that I know when a course is worried more about the bottom line and less about the customer experience.
The problem is compounded when the same course posts “expected playing pace” alerts or signage in the pro shop, on golf carts, scorecards, or elsewhere. Like speed limit signs, simply implying or even overtly defining how long a round of golf “should” take is meaningless if never enforced. While the job of a golf course ranger/marshal is not for the faint of heart, these brave souls are the only officials tasked with actively enforcing pace.
This brings the topic back to expectations, which often includes the myth of a four-hour round. As explained in the excellent Pace of Play manual authored by the National Golf Course Owners Association, the idea of a four-hour round likely originated at the Old Course at St. Andrews in Scotland, which was also the source for making 18 holes the standard for a round of golf. Unfortunately, this baseline does not and should not define slow play on any other course in the world.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Golf is a complex process, and as such, presents an immense challenge when the output of the process fails to meet an expected result. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution, as it is unlikely all golfers experience the same problem, if at all.
I am a big believer in process enhancement, which starts upstream and right on the first tee. Golf course operators have a responsibility to adequately space tee times that are relative to the course, minimize the interference of one group to the other, and providing the “playing field” on which all golfers can play. As the R&A suggests in their findings discussed earlier, dynamic tee-time spacing based on group size (twosomes vs foursomes, for example) is one approach to consider.
However, I’m also a big believer in the people side of change. The best technical solution in the world will fail if people fail to accept it. People must understand and agree with a change for it to be successful.
As golfers, we hold a massive responsibility in policing our own behaviors and tendencies on the course. We must do all we can to play ready golf while educating newer players on how to do the same. We must also carry realistic expectations for ourselves and for those enjoying the game around us. Just as we cannot control the playing ability of the group in front of us, golf course operators cannot control the expectations we have in our minds when booking a tee time.
With proper education, logistics and enforcement of pace of play best practices, I believe that the game can be optimized for all players regardless of ability or course.
. . .
This essay originally appeared on Adam’s website, Golf Unfiltered.
Adam Fonseca is the owner and host of the Golf Unfiltered podcast. He works in healthcare during the day and is based near Chicago, Illinois.
You might also enjoy reading…