more 3-somes or fewer 4-somes

[redbill]

We have a very large league (80+ players split on 2 courses). we go back and forth on which is better for pace of play: a large number of 3-somes, or smaller # of 4-somes.

Is there a break-point where 4's are better than 3's? 16 3somes vs. 12 4somes? 12 3somes vs. 9 4somes? etc...

say we fill out 14 3-somes, at that point should we add more 3-somes, or start turning those 3somes into 4-somes.

The course is relatively short (all par-3), but a couple holes generally cause 1-card backups.

thoughts? I lean towards more 3somes are faster.

 

[biscoe]

If you have enough holes for all threesomes it is unquestionably faster to go that route.

 

[JC17393]

Threesomes beat foursomes pretty much every time with the only potential X factor being who is in those groups. If we're talking a divisional situation, I might go with a mix of 3 and 4somes with the typically slower divisions grouped in 3s and faster divisions in 4s. I'd combine that with strategic hole assignments that use any empty holes I have to spread people out in a way that will stave off any potential back-ups as long as possible.

 

[esdubya]

3-somes are faster, but is this necessarily what you want? 4-somes are more 'social' and some would argue more fun due to that fact. IE if you show up with a buddy or two and all want to throw together, it's easier to accommodate these things with larger group sizes.

 

[_MTL_]

I try to avoid 3 somes at all costs just because of the 2-some factor.