[BHoover]

Let the market dictate whether the 15 inch cup is a viable way to grow the game.  If a golf course adopts it and is successful, more power to them.  I just hope it's not at my home course because I still think it's a dumb idea.  I think it could be a good fit at the local muni or a 9 hole course.

As for growing the game, maybe golf just isn't meant to be more than a niche sport?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bcowan, Not sure how this keeps getting back to caddies for you, but its irrelevant.

Brian Hoover, I agree with the post above. Not advocating every golf course adopt it.  Some should try, some should put both cups out.  See below, but I just don't see basing a business model on giving up market share willingly.

JeffW, while I mentioned minorities, your post (and its figurative and literal black and white thinking) sort of misses the point.  I am sure we will attract white suburban young adults, teenagers and kids with some money well before the poorer get involved.

I see no value in wringing out the excess golfers.  Certainly, existing facilities have to profit to bring any golf at all to the masses.  You certainly can't base an industry model on driving away "undesirables" and hope to survive, even if golf effectively limited minorities, women, etc. for centuries.  The big question is whether golf can survive as a relic for another generation?  Or does it have to change?  Or, at least, offer its version of street basketball?

Again, in even framing the question in golf strategy terms, it shows how set we are in our ways to new ideas that let others like golf the way they like it, and us like it the way we like it.

BTW, I agree that shorter courses plus large cups would be good starter grounds.  I was impressed with the par 3 Challenge Course at MD.  They still had 5 tees, with the shortest being chipping on to the green, second requiring maybe 9 iron, then a few more getting closer and closer to the variety of traditional par 3 lengths.  Staff there tells me the chipping tees are popular.  They also give new golfers a cheat sheet.  Some are afraid to try golf because they don't even understand how to pay, get to the first tee, etc.  I know, we laugh, but those are the kinds of things stopping GenX who would maybe try the game, but didn't grow up with caddie experience, golf in the family, etc.

It's funny because I know par 3 courses have never attained much popularity.  I am skeptical that they will gain great ground now, but I have to tell you, the shorter course was made every shot doable and relevant to final score.  Tee shots and long par 4 and 5 tweener shots really aren't that interesting.  Playing all approach shots is sort of like skipping the commercials by using the VCR, or watching the highlights on ESPN without watching the boring 3 hour baseball game, and that kind of "hurry up" mentality, while not part of traditional golf, might appeal to our "yutes" and their shortened attention span......

Again, don't know, but certainly willing to think outside the box rather than just assume golf is best off by staying firmly rooted in the past.  If anything, BTW, my gut tells me that a bunch of golfers playing the watered down version would make institutions like the Masters even more revered, as a nod to old school.  Sort of like going to the prom to dress up....even with 100 tattoos.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff, respectfully, that's where we disagree.
I'm not suggesting an "industry model"
I'm speaking about golf the game, and all it has to offer.
I embrace and accept the tatoos and the piercings, I ask them to embrace golf, not some watered down version of it.
If they want to build courses in their backyards with 15 inch cups, a la pickup basketball, so be it.

[Brent Hutto]

I can see why a "smaller" game akin to a Par 3 might appeal to some people for the reasons you mention, Jeff. But as you also mention, the profound non-popularity of Par 3 courses (which are not rare) argues that it's not a very large-scale preference if it exists at all.

But with the 15-inch cup thing, I keep getting back to this question. Is your thinking that the particular difficulty of putting to a 4-1/2" cup is a specific turnoff to all those un-golfed masses out there? Because that's what I just don't see.

I honestly can't imagine one single person who does not want to play a given type of course (Par 3, executive, full length, whatever) with a 4-1/2" cup who would per persuaded by hogging out to the hole to triple its diameter. Just who the heck is it you're imagining.

To me it sounds like a gimmick, hoping that some huge wave of publicity would accompany the Big Cup or Big Gulp or whatever. One time gimmicks like that are not going to grow the game...or any alternative form of the game. Reeks of desperation, really. Like stunt casting on a dying sitcom or a minor-league baseball game umpired by guys dressed in gorilla suits or something.

[Zack Molnar]

I just talked to a couple of my co-workers who have played but rarely play golf. They both said that a 15-in cup does not entice them to play more. Their problems are not on the green, but getting to the green. And for the better player, putting and short game are the more difficult areas, and this eliminates that difficulty. So if anything, this INCREASES the playing gap.

But to Mike's original question, I agree that because putting skills and being in the correct spot on the green are loss important, a lot of strategy is eliminated. There is an enticement to get as close as possible and try to wedge it in, rather than making sure to be on the correct side of the fairway

[Thomas Dai]

15-inch cups would mean that the 'course' could be used for Foot-golf as well
atb

[David Kelly]

I think you guys cannot even see the point.  Golf works great for about 8M old white guys like us, for whom it is great just the way it is.  Why change?  Why should anyone ever want something different that what is traditional golf?

Does the NBA fight street basketball?  Stop anyone from playing in the driveway?  Does the MLB fight softball?  Why shouldn't there be cheaper, easier versions of golf to access for the masses?  Heck, if there were, more folks would enjoy the essense of the game - hitting a ball with a club.  Maybe some (like Japan) never get out of the Top Golf driving range, and others never get off the 12 hole challenge courses with big cups.  So what?

Well, tradition is great, and change is constant.  While we all love golf as it is, it is not out of the question that it will be forced to change with the times to survive, even having done quite well for 500 years without a lot of change (although, we can all argue that, and often do when it comes to tech, turf and whatever else)  For that matter, is the "golf is meant to be tough?" really true?  Or was golf meant to be fun?

I think what the USGA gets stuck on is the "one rules" setup.  However, its not like every course will have 15" (or pick a more reasonable size) but that some will offer an alternative.  I see a lot of housing courses converting parts of golf to more residential for profit, but also horseshoes, dog parks, skateboard parks, whatever, leaving the 9-12 hole challenge course (or whatever the site dictates) as one recreation option, not the only one.  We have so many more recreation options, it could be the "market" will tell developers.

More than that, just as modern courses got more visual because we were the TV generation, I fully expect some design changes for the next "play station" generation.  Not sure what it may be, but will center on more tech and more "instant information" to reflect life as it is and will be.  Probably more like Top Golf, with computer chips embedded in the ball for total shot link type info on every shot in the players Google Golf Glasses, or something like that.

Of course, none of us can say, but it may be that golf has a tough choice - remain an old world game that a few play in secret, and a few others try every few years on a lark, or get with the times.  Most here will protest, but again, none of us can say if golf can stick its head in the sand and survive.

Or, with 15K golf courses, some blend of both.  Now, you might be like the USGA guy who said Hack Golf can do whatever they want, but we won't call it golf.  Fine, although I think keeping the loose affiliation with golf as the ancestor is probably inevitable (Top Golf.......I am your father......)  Or not. Maybe the generations of minorities and poor that have a bad image of golf might be more likely to take it up in some other version called something totally different.

Post of the month. Comedy division.

[George Pazin]

I think you guys cannot even see the point.  Golf works great for about 8M old white guys like us, for whom it is great just the way it is.  Why change?  Why should anyone ever want something different that what is traditional golf?

Does the NBA fight street basketball?  Stop anyone from playing in the driveway?  Does the MLB fight softball?  Why shouldn't there be cheaper, easier versions of golf to access for the masses?  Heck, if there were, more folks would enjoy the essense of the game - hitting a ball with a club.  Maybe some (like Japan) never get out of the Top Golf driving range, and others never get off the 12 hole challenge courses with big cups.  So what?

Is someone out there stopping the golf changes?

[DMoriarty]

I don't think "street" basketball was a contrivance of an equipment manufacturer trying to push product.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

As I mentioned earlier, its mostly tradition, and the USGA and PGA really still in the mindset of preserving golf as it is for those 8M core golfers.  Just the reaction here shows the resistance to change by many.  And, don't get me wrong, I am one of those 8M who love golf as it is.  I was surprised at how much hooting and hollering went on in our little 12 hole match, and no, we weren't drinking.  Mentions of video games, tattoos, "you da man" and what not. I can just see how many might love golf in a slightly easier and less stuffy form, and wonder how golf would accommodate that?

David,

I understand your point, but find it a bit cynical.  Yes, Taylor Made funds Hack Golf, probably for reasons you mention, although there are street specific basketballs put out by Rawlings, or whoever, probably a tougher synthetic, so they do have some value in increased participation.  There is nothing inherently evil in the industry trying to promote participation in what we all agree is a great game.

[BHoover]

I can just see how many might love golf in a slightly easier and less stuffy form, and wonder how golf would accommodate that?

It's simple, a golf course can make the decision to adopt larger cups, set up the course to play shorter, etc.  Nothing is holding this back.  If people want these things, then the market will bear it out.  It's the free market.

No one is stopping this from happening.  But if it makes you feel better to think that, go for it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian,

Well, it would certainly need promoting, a la Hack Golf, which it would take off better than a few individual courses adopting it.  And, when the USGA say "you can't call it golf" (which an official did) and you get lukewarm reception, it is a barrier.  Maybe that's the way it has to go, either a brave individual course (like Monarch Dunes) or a "rogue" organization.

But, for me, its really just a discussion point.  Obviously, this site isn't the place to discuss golf evolving, having not being able to get over the fact that architecture moved on from the 1920's.......but golf has changed a lot over the years (generally getting easier, as I have read the outcry when Old Tom converted some fairways to turf, and those said it would be too easy....)

I do believe that others will seek ways to continue to involve more tech, etc. to fashion golf to the tastes of a wider audience.  And yes, I believe they will do so for profit, not that there's anything wrong with that.  It is just interesting to contemplate how that might happen, even if its not 15 inch cups specifically.  If you don't care to participate in a fit of futuristic thinking, so be it.  But, no need to be snotty about it either.

I'm not putting any money it, but actually have a few money losing projects we are conducting studies for that might try a more creative solution in their situations, so I could recommend it.  I am sure there will be business consultants who will tell them no, no one has done that, but again, time will all tell. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

There is nothing inherently evil in the industry trying to promote participation in what we all agree is a great game.

The point of my thread was that a 15" cup is not a great game because of how it impacts the "green" design.

Shivas said this recently ... golf would be fun on a giant pool table, but it is way more fun with bumps.
So of course we'd have fun playing a round of 15" golf, but for how long?

And my good friend Don adds "Anyone can putt. People quit the game because they can't hit the ball, not because they can't putt."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

First, I will disagree with Don.....at least I sure can't putt well!

In my recent play with 15" cups, our group holed out a wedge, chipped in a few, and holed several long putts - all for a nickel.  I was surprised how fun it was (granted, those nickel bets really made a difference) but the thrill of making those shots was the same, and they happened more frequently.  Aren't those the kind of shots that keep you coming back?

I understand the point. Golfers want to shoot their normal score, and don't want the course too easy, or too hard.  On the other hand, over 5 centuries scores just haven't gone down for average golfers either....we know increasing tech hasn't helped, IF we want some better scores (not all do) then maybe its time to look a different direction.  Cup size, course length, etc. could all be one way to do it.  Not sure which is the best.  And, do we know the inherent difficulty of golf is currently "just right?" In perfect balance?

To answer your strategic question, presuming a regulation course went with bigger cups, does cup size really affect how close I aim?  Maybe. In general, it would make us all more conservative playing to the middle of the green, since easier putts reduce the need to be within say 8 feet for a reasonable chance at birdie. On the other hand, if your opponent hits it close in this theoretical nickel a hole game, do you not need to consider aiming it a little closer yourself?

What about playing for your personal best, even if not in a competition?  If you scored twelve straight 75's, would you aim closer to attain a 74?  Don't know how everyone would react, but in some ways, the essence of golf would remain.

[Brent Hutto]

Any change in so-called strategy would be minimized by the fact that so few golfers think about anything other than aiming at the flag anyway.

But aside from the interesting hypothetical question of how "strategy" might differ on a course with huge holes, there's still the unanswered real-world question of how would the game be improved. It might or might not make the game by played in a slightly different manner but what problem is the proposal addressing? What shortcoming of the game will be overcome by making the hole larger? What about the game will be better, rather than just different?

[David Kelly]

I don't think the 15" cup has anything to do with growing the game.  I think it is a misguided attempt by some in the industry to hold on to the marginal golfers who probably aren't long for the game anyway.

Does anyone believe that people are saying the following:
"Hey, Let's go play golf."
"Nah, golf sucks."
"They've got big holes now."
"Oh, Ok, Let's go!"

[JBovay]

In the hypothetical world where we were trying to (re)design courses that preserved the game of golf as we know it, but with 15-inch cups, I think the approach to design and green surrounds depends on your exact goals.

We know from the Snead-era experiment that better putters would improve their competitive edge with larger holes.

We know that larger holes would make putting easier for everyone, and chipping in much more common among better players.

If your goal was to retain the current par/scoring average for a golf course, you'd have to make the green much more difficult. Green surrounds would have to become more penal, too, to reduce the frequent one-hop-and-in shots better players would learn to make. (Beginners, of course, would fare little better with chipping and pitching than they do now.)

If your goal was to preserve scoring differentials, you would need to flatten everything and reduce the severity of hazards, to allow worse players a chance against the long hole-outs of better players (substitute "players" for "chippers" or "putters" if you'd like). You would also probably want to make the green bigger.

If, however, your goal was to preserve strategies [as in Mike's original question], I think that hazards would need to be exaggerated in severity and proximity to the green. This would make better players think more carefully before trying difficult shots with the hope of rolling it within 7.5 inches of the flag.

In the end, designing strategic courses under a 15-inch-hole regime would turn beginners away from the game. As has been noted repeatedly in this thread, beginners tend to putt okay but whiff and top their full swings often.

I think there's some connection here with the appendix to Geo. Thomas' book, in which he discusses the advantages of a scoring system where putts only count for half a shot. That's sufficiently different from the topic of this thread that I'll save thoughts on it for another time.

JB

[Jeff_Brauer]

Got to thinking about this, but has it ever been written down as to just how exactly golf cups came to be 4.25"?

I think about the story of the width of the railroad tracks somehow deriving from ancient roman chariots, and being maintained over some overlapping transport modes until it was sort of more or less adopted at 4'8.5" for US railroads.  Sure, there were some broader and narrower gauges over the years, but that was standardized.  Someone studied it and found that it wasn't too far off the best value from an engineering standpoint.  If memory serves, perhaps a few inches wider would have provided more stability for the least amount of cost.

Sorry to ramble, but it makes me wonder if it was simply the width of a tin can, shovel, etc. or if Old Tom and others put some thought it in.  For that matter, was it standardized later?  I am sure someone has written this story, but frankly, I can't seem to recall reading it.  If any place would be able to conjure it up, I am sure someone here can!

Not hard to imagine some current statster would find a way to prove pro tour cups ought to be slightly less, and am course cups maybe slightly wider, depending on whosever definition of "ideal" is used.  He would get some free publicity in many quarters that's for sure.

[Greg Murphy]

Got to thinking about this, but has it ever been written down as to just how exactly golf cups came to be 4.25"?

I think about the story of the width of the railroad tracks somehow deriving from ancient roman chariots, and being maintained over some overlapping transport modes until it was sort of more or less adopted at 4'8.5" for US railroads.  Sure, there were some broader and narrower gauges over the years, but that was standardized.  Someone studied it and found that it wasn't too far off the best value from an engineering standpoint.  If memory serves, perhaps a few inches wider would have provided more stability for the least amount of cost.

Sorry to ramble, but it makes me wonder if it was simply the width of a tin can, shovel, etc. or if Old Tom and others put some thought it in.  For that matter, was it standardized later?  I am sure someone has written this story, but frankly, I can't seem to recall reading it.  If any place would be able to conjure it up, I am sure someone here can!

Not hard to imagine some current statster would find a way to prove pro tour cups ought to be slightly less, and am course cups maybe slightly wider, depending on whosever definition of "ideal" is used.  He would get some free publicity in many quarters that's for sure.

Jeff - found what you were looking for:

"The children of the chosen did arrive at Mount Hue & Cry and the Mount was covered by cloud for six days and on the seventh day the leader of the children went into the midst of the cloud and remained in the Mount for forty days and forty nights, and in the morning of the forty first day of their encampment there were thunders and lightnings and the leader appeared from amidst the thick cloud upon the Mount, and the voice of a trumpet came upon them exceedingly loud as they assembled at the base of the Mount and the Voice of Heaven spoke, "Thou shalt deposit thy ball in a round hole four and one quarter wide."

The first keeper of the green was struck dead by lightning when he dug a hole four and a quarter feet wide.

[Tim Liddy]

It would be MUCH simpler to slow the greens down than to enlarge the cup. And it keeps strategy intact. The USGA / PGA should maximize green speeds at 10. It will speed up the game just as much as enlarging the cup.

[BCowan]

George,

As I mentioned earlier, its mostly tradition, and the USGA and PGA really still in the mindset of preserving golf as it is for those 8M core golfers.  Just the reaction here shows the resistance to change by many.  And, don't get me wrong, I am one of those 8M who love golf as it is.  I was surprised at how much hooting and hollering went on in our little 12 hole match, and no, we weren't drinking.  Mentions of video games, tattoos, "you da man" and what not. I can just see how many might love golf in a slightly easier and less stuffy form, and wonder how golf would accommodate that?

David,

I understand your point, but find it a bit cynical.  Yes, Taylor Made funds Hack Golf, probably for reasons you mention, although there are street specific basketballs put out by Rawlings, or whoever, probably a tougher synthetic, so they do have some value in increased participation.  There is nothing inherently evil in the industry trying to promote participation in what we all agree is a great game.

Jeff,

    When was the last time you played a muni?  Many of the younger folk on here aspire for some change in golf stuffiness, but to use change to alter a hole to 4 times or so its original size is bumper bowling.  Bumper bowling is giving a kid an A on a test when he got a D, sorry it is dumbing down of society.  I really think you should throw some money at this stupid Idea.  I also think you and the CEO should tee it sometime at a Muni.  I doubt you or the Taylor Made CEO have played a muni especially in the inner city, and I would love for you to ask players about this stupid idea.   Jeff, the FED is working on negative interest rates, then Archies can get back to building water falls and or housing development courses that so many NON GCA folks hate!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Got to thinking about this, but has it ever been written down as to just how exactly golf cups came to be 4.25"?

I think about the story of the width of the railroad tracks somehow deriving from ancient roman chariots, and being maintained over some overlapping transport modes until it was sort of more or less adopted at 4'8.5" for US railroads.  Sure, there were some broader and narrower gauges over the years, but that was standardized.  Someone studied it and found that it wasn't too far off the best value from an engineering standpoint.  If memory serves, perhaps a few inches wider would have provided more stability for the least amount of cost.

Sorry to ramble, but it makes me wonder if it was simply the width of a tin can, shovel, etc. or if Old Tom and others put some thought it in.  For that matter, was it standardized later?  I am sure someone has written this story, but frankly, I can't seem to recall reading it.  If any place would be able to conjure it up, I am sure someone here can!

Not hard to imagine some current statster would find a way to prove pro tour cups ought to be slightly less, and am course cups maybe slightly wider, depending on whosever definition of "ideal" is used.  He would get some free publicity in many quarters that's for sure.

I've read that a piece of pipe with an O.D. of 4.25" was used to line a crumbling hole at St. Andrews and was 'adopted' as the standard. It became the official size in 1891, the first year it was mentioned in the rules.

No science, just happenstance.  


p.s. I'd like to follow the hole cutter around and see how many pieces the 15" plug breaks into when he lifts it out of the green, and the jig-saw puzzle intricacy of placing the pieces into the old hole. Should be some real fun to watch on sand based greens

[Jeff_Brauer]

BCowan,

You have asked me that a few times now, and really, I am a muni golfer!  (granted mostly for free on muni's I have designed or remodeled, but muni nonetheless) And I do make a point to play with Joe Sixpack, women golfers, etc., rather than "serious" golfers, always looking to see how they would play a course and make it more suitable to their game.

I have played with some golf execs on these courses.  I have relayed this before, but one told me "We have never had a complaint when we made a public course easier......"  So, I think I have made more study of what the average golfer in America likes, needs, etc. than you, based on your posts. I could be wrong.

For the record, I have 2 flowing streams and maybe 3 small waterfalls on my 50 new course designs (not all of my doing....and one only at the clubhouse, not on the course)  Not sure where you get your perception of me, or golf architecture in general, but the fact that Trump builds waterfalls really has absolutely nothing to do with the average golf course in America.  Throwing out whacked out ideas as part of any discussion usually isn't productive, as witnessed on our national political scene, where such ideas seem to drive the discussion.

I get it...you are one of the 8M core golfers that see no need for change, and I respect that.  But, those CEO's who (apparently shamelessly) trying to make a living in golf need to get a broader base of opinions to make decisions on.  BTW, I am not sold on 15" cups and wonder how they came up with that number, just as I wondered how the 4.25 size came about.

Jim, thanks. That rings a bell.  Interesting to note, as mentioned before if somehow science today could determine what, if any benefit could be had with different size cups, given not much thought was put in to what has been a standard now for over 120 years (or more)  I'm not sure what that answer might be, but it occurs that if selected merely because that was the size of a pipe laying around, it might NOT be 4.25"!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
When you think about it the original unlined hole that was crumbling was most likely very near the 4.25 mark. If it was much larger they'd have gone looking for a bigger pipe. 

....and most of the stories of doubles and triples and quadruple bogeys that are retold to me aren't usually about the green, they're mostly about the horrors of getting there. As those operators said, make the course easier (if you must), so I say leave the cup alone. Doing the former should balance out the challenge of the latter.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim, I understand where the bogey plus comes from, and holing a long putt to save 8 is probably like putting whip cream on a turd.....still not tasty. However, golfers all talk about the "one great shot that brings them back" despite all the misery.  If some courses want to offer that, and some golfers prefer it that way, I have no problems with that.

I will try to ask Monarch Dunes how many of their challenge course players play to the big hole, rather than the small one, since they have both cut on their greens.  Its actually a perfect combo - a regulation course that is quite nice, and with not enough land left over, but a desire for fairway lots, they settled on the 12 hole challenge course.  Seems to be quite popular with the residents, but my sample size was small at one, perfect, sun kissed California Day where the weather could only have been better if dollar bills were dropping out of the sky.  That and good company might have skewed my enthusiasm for the place.  Would be interesting to see which course I would  play if I went back.....

I also think (seen this stat somewhere, don't recall where) that the average golfer averages closer to 3 putts than 2.  While 15" may be a bit clownish,  I still think the one rules mentality may have a short shelf life.  You could make a case that since the rules suggest 2 putts as standard, they should experiment with cup size until the average number of putts by handicap golfers is 2, not 3.  Hey, maybe the "tour courses" would end up getting smaller cups.....

Probably, someone will file a lawsuit under ADA or something to make that happen! Just kidding (kind of) and musing on some out of the box thinking.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()