"A round here should take four hours."
It fits on a scorecard, a first-tee sign and the back of a buggy. It is also probably wrong for most groups reading it.
A one-ball on an empty course, a two-ball playing Stableford and a four-ball holing out in a medal are doing different amounts of work. If all three are given the same target, the number is usually generous for the smaller groups because it has to remain achievable for the four-ball.
Too loose a target does little to encourage good flow. One that ignores traffic can blame a small group for waiting behind the group in front.
The answer is not one magic pace. It is a small set of realistic targets based on how a particular course actually works.
Time par is meant to be local
The R&A uses the term "time par" for the time allocated to complete a hole, a section of the course or a full round.
Its Pace of Play Manual is unusually clear on one point: there is no single target for every facility. Course layout, form of play, weather and local expectations all affect a sensible result.
The same manual identifies the weakness in one course-wide time par. If four-balls are allowed, the single number normally has to cater for them. It therefore recommends separate time pars for two-, three- and four-balls.
That is not a demand to hurry everybody. It is an attempt to make the expectation believable.
Group size changes more than the number of shots
A four-ball does not simply play twice as slowly as a two-ball. Some activity happens in parallel.
Players walk together. While one golfer plays, another can prepare, and Ready Golf can remove dead time.
Even so, more balls normally mean more:
- pre-shot decisions;
- searches and provisional balls;
- bunker raking and pitch-mark repair;
- putts and score recording;
- opportunities for one unusual hole to interrupt the group.
The form of play matters too. A Stableford player can pick up when no score remains available. In a medal, the player may need to hole out. Foursomes has four people but only two balls in play. A match can end holes early through concessions.
"Four golfers" is therefore useful information, but not the whole explanation.
The target is not the same as the traffic
Suppose a two-ball has a target of three hours 20 minutes, but it starts among four-balls expected to take four hours.
They may play promptly and still finish in four hours because they spent 40 minutes waiting.
A round-time target becomes unfair when used without course position. The marshal sees a two-ball outside its target while the players see the four-ball still standing on the next tee.
Three separate questions are needed:
- How long has the group taken?
- Is the group in position behind the group ahead?
- Is there clear space ahead that the group could reasonably close?
Elapsed time describes the experience. Position identifies who can change it. A smaller group may be over its time par without causing delay, while a four-ball with an empty hole ahead may be inside a generous target and still hold up the field.
An example of what separate targets can look like
The following table is fictional, not a recommended benchmark. Imagine that a club measured comparable, uncongested rounds and selected these planning values:
| Group size | Illustrative 18-hole target | Clock format |
|---|---|---|
| One player | 175 minutes | 2 hours 55 minutes |
| Two players | 195 minutes | 3 hours 15 minutes |
| Three players | 220 minutes | 3 hours 40 minutes |
| Four players | 245 minutes | 4 hours 5 minutes |
The numbers are useful only if local evidence supports them. A compact links course may be quicker; a hilly course with several 300-metre (330-yard) transfers may be slower. Wind, wet ground, temporary routing or a medal format can change the day.
The important idea is the shape of the table: the expectation follows the work required.
A one-ball in a full field has almost no independent pace, so its target may apply only in defined quiet periods.
Start by measuring, not arguing
Clubs often set a target from memory:
"We used to play in three and a half hours."
Perhaps they did. That says nothing about group size, format, tee interval or waiting.
The R&A recommends collecting local data before setting pace expectations. The basic version is not complicated. Record:
- start and finish time;
- group size;
- format of play;
- starting interval;
- selected checkpoints, such as after 6, 9, 12 and 18 holes;
- whether the group was waiting or had open space ahead;
- relevant weather and course conditions; and
- unusual events, such as a ruling, injury or long ball search.
Measure busy competitions, member times, visitor periods and quiet days, then examine each group size before combining anything. The median describes a typical round; slower results show what most groups can achieve; quick uncongested rounds show what the course permits. One perfect summer week or wet October competition is not a representative sample.
Build the target hole by hole
A believable full-round number should also make sense around the course.
One hole may need 11 minutes and another 16. A long par 3, blind landing area, halfway-house stop and distant next tee have different demands. Dividing four hours equally may label normal play as slow at one checkpoint and miss a queue elsewhere.
The R&A appendices provide a method for constructing a time par and collecting data. A club can use those principles to allocate:
- playing time by hole;
- walking or driving time to the next tee;
- additional time for known pinch points; and
- separate totals by group size.
"Four-balls should reach the 6th tee in 1:18" is clearer than "Please avoid slow play". Test every figure on the ground; a spreadsheet cannot see an awkward crossing or morning queue.
Grouping policy and pace policy belong together
Separate targets expose a problem that one number hides: mixed group sizes do not flow naturally through a busy course.
The R&A notes that an unmanaged mix can create delay and conflict as smaller groups catch larger ones and requests to play through multiply.
Possible responses include:
- reserving an early block for two-balls;
- grouping singles and pairs during the busiest hours;
- using a four-ball target when mixed groups must share a full field;
- placing starter gaps in long sequences of tee times; and
- setting competition-specific targets for formats that require more or less time.
The management guidance recommends starting intervals of at least eight minutes for two-balls, at least ten for three-balls, and consideration of 11 or 12 minutes for four-balls. When sizes are mixed, the interval needs to cater for four-ball play.
A club cannot promise a quick two-ball experience, place the pair between four-balls and solve the contradiction with a sign.
The counterargument: several targets are too complicated
They can be.
A matrix for every format, weather condition, age category, tee and trolley type would be unusable. The starter would need a training course and the golfer would stop reading.
The practical version is small:
- one target for two-balls;
- one for three-balls;
- one for four-balls;
- a note that one-ball targets apply only during quiet periods; and
- a stated adjustment for clearly exceptional conditions.
If competition data shows that a medal consistently needs more time, publish a competition-day target. Do not create 27 theoretical categories before there is evidence of a real difference.
Simple is valuable. Oversimplified is not.
Use the targets to improve the operation
The point is not to produce a more precise way to scold golfers.
Separate targets can show that a four-ball field needs wider tee intervals, that early two-balls need protected space, or that one section of the course consumes the same extra minutes for everybody. They help the marshal distinguish a group that is delayed from a group that is causing delay.
Review the figures after a defined period. Did waiting fall? Did fewer groups finish beyond the target? Did the spread between early and late tee times narrow? Were marshal interventions aimed at groups with open space rather than groups trapped in traffic?
A pace target should describe a realistic, well-run round. If almost nobody can meet it, it is fiction. If every two-ball beats it by 40 minutes, it is decoration.
One number for everybody is easy to print. A small set of measured targets is more useful to run a golf course.
Primary sources
- The R&A Pace of Play Manual: Introduction and Data Gathering
- The R&A Pace of Play Manual: Management Practices, Group Size and Time Par
- The R&A Pace of Play Manual: Appendices and Time-Par Guidance
Evidence reviewed 24 July 2026. The example targets are invented to demonstrate the method and are not recommended round times. Each club should establish and test its own figures.