Experience comes with play. You wanna play more? Play faster. It's a nice positive reinforcement feedback loop. -- jim
That you say as a player with 3000+ scenarios under your belt. The other proponents of chessclocks in this thread are also extremely experienced players to the man as far as I can tell.
Of course, experience comes with a lot of play, which in turn increases the pace of play. But it might be a good idea to recall that all the things that you do not even need to think about any more (rules, DRMs, gut feeling, etc. Though you still have merely memorized the IFT and not the IIFT with CTC...) and thus don't require any time for, can pose serious challenges for average players and of course even more so for novices.
The perception of what is 'fast' and 'slow' is affected by experience.
But this is not all. While some people like the fast style in the line of 'let's move and see what happens', others have a completely different mindset and want to know 'what would happen if I moved that way'. These two mindsets or rather playing styles don't go well together, regardless of experience but surely the issue is made worse if there is a wide gap in experience levels.
This is not to deny that there are exceedingly slow players by all standards. But there might also be too fast players for most of the flock.
That extremes are matched happens rather rarely. In friendly games you can ask about the playing style and pace of your potential opponents. In tournaments, later rounds naturally tend to match 'winning' (i.e. more experienced and thus often faster players) and 'losing' ones (i.e. the less experienced and often slower ones) together.
I advise just to allow generous leeway. Rather than chess clocks.
Slow players will likely be annoyed by them. Fast players don't need them.
von Marwitz