[Mike Bowline]

If the standard hole in the green was enlarged (6", 8" or even larger), what would be the effects on the game? Faster pace of play, more enjoyment (from bad putters), less enjoyment (from good putters), claims of irreverance by purists, claims of historical irrelevance by historians, cries of outrage from good putters?

I have heard of some clubs having a "bigger hole" day for something different. What have been their thoughts on the different hole size?

Of all arguments, speeding up pace of play makes a lot of sense. The "tap-in" range would extend outward from 18" today to 30"-36", thereby speeding up play on the greens. The "must-make" range would extend outward from today's 3-footer to the new 6-footer.

But this may not be worth the price paid by the negatives mentioned above.

How much bigger would the hole need to get to begin to have an influence on architects' green designs, if any?

[Kyle Harris]

If the standard hole in the green was enlarged (6", 8" or even larger), what would be the effects on the game? Faster pace of play, more enjoyment (from bad putters), less enjoyment (from good putters), claims of irreverance by purists, claims of historical irrelevance by historians, cries of outrage from good putters?

I have heard of some clubs having a "bigger hole" day for something different. What have been their thoughts on the different hole size?

Of all arguments, speeding up pace of play makes a lot of sense. The "tap-in" range would extend outward from 18" today to 30"-36", thereby speeding up play on the greens. The "must-make" range would extend outward from today's 3-footer to the new 6-footer.

But this may not be worth the price paid by the negatives mentioned above.

How much bigger would the hole need to get to begin to have an influence on architects' green designs, if any?

Speed would be almost insignificant. You'd just have to ram it at the hole and it would go in.

Chipping would be MUCH easier as finding the line with any sort of power to the shot would find the hole.

"Must" Make range would be more like 30 feet, maybe 40 as keeping the ball the same size and increasing the diameter of the hole would make it far more likely for the putt to drop in if it hits the hole. The great diameter would virtually eliminate the lip out.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
The integrity of the playing process would suffer, it gets more intense the closer one gets to the hole.
  

[Scott Warren]

I can't see that the pace of play would improve much, if at all.

The time spent sizing up short putts that would become no brainers if the hole were 8" would quite possibly be used agonising over 20-30 footers and chips from near the fringe.

In any case, the speed of play could and should be addressed in other ways, which wouldn't render a major skill of the game less valuable.

But you'd probably get some support from Scott Hoch 

[Brent Hutto]

In his first book Bob Rotella describes an experiment decades ago where some tournamets were played with a double-sized cup. The result was the best putters made even more putts and the guys with good short games chipped in a lot. His takeaway was that you can't minimize the importance of putting and short game by making them easier.

[Tim Gavrich]

With an enlarged cup, this weekend's Bob Hope event would've been won at -50 rather than -32.  For good players, par would become utterly irrelevant because birdies would be a relative cinch if you can put the ball on the green in regulation.

I see nothing wrong with the size of the hole as it is.

[Charlie Goerges]

Changing the size of the hole would be the ultimate bifurcation...Before and After. If it were only increased by 1/4 inch, all ability to relate to the past would be lost. Bifurcating equipment rules, doing away with par, legalizing/banning various implements... etcetera, would all be far preferable to changing the diameter of the hole.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike

Enlarge the hole,

I could say 

For Christ sake what are we talking about, lets make it easy, lets reduce our score by making it all so easy, in fact why the hell even both to play golf in the first place.

Why not enlarge the hole, we are already catering for the lazy by allowing carts for everyone and having No Walking courses. No objections for carts if required for the disadvantages to enable them to get around a course.

Enlarge the hole, as we have allowed distance and electronic aids for the mentally disadvantage or those so greedy that they seek every advantage to win.

Enlarge the hole, and then of course we have the best of all, building a course in unsuitable locations costing the earth and crippling the golfer to pay for expensive build projects not to mention the ongoing maintenance.

Problem with all this is that we have forgotten what the game is all about, no sorry I stand corrected its all about MONEY, sod the game just money – the Pro’s get money, the developers get money, Celebrity Pro get a load of money, but what about the designers who can’t get credit for his/her design or for that matter the poor old golfer who just want to play a game of golf.

Who really cares, very few as long as they can play THEIR game of Golf. Hell, wonder why numbers are falling, why clubs with waiting list no longer have a waiting list. But of course you have to care, yet I don’t see our Governing bodies caring about golf, they are leading the rush for money. Where are our men of honour, the guardians of golf.

Nothing is sacred any more in our disposable society.

But Mike, do you really want to know my opinion on enlarging the hole? 

Melvyn   

[Bradley Anderson]

Melvyn,

Are there any legends around St. Andrews that tell the tale of how we ended up with the hole dimensions that we have today? I had heard once that someone at St. Andrews used a length of drain tile to shoreup the hole from falling in, and that became the size of the hole cup.

Say, I hope this doesn't piss you off, but I was thinking of making the hole smaller. 

[John Moore II]

I say make the hole about the size of a 5 gallon bucket. And allow only 1 putt per green. That should take roughly 18 strokes off everyones round and speed up play quite a bit. Great idea i think....

[Pat Burke]

Good putters would still make more than bad putters.   Simple!

[Adam Clayman]

We use to play at one muni (Bensenville, Il) in the wintertime that would use enlarged cups. Bigger than a coffee can, smaller than a 5 gal bucket. It was a hoot on frozen turf because you were actually trying to hole everything out from inside 150 yards. But, there was no mistaking it for golf. We were just happy to be out swinging the golf club and figuring out the thump.

[Bill_Yates]

The speed of play of the game of "golf" would not improve, but it might make the game of "hit a hard little white ball into a gargage can sunk in the ground" take a little less time to play.

Change the size of the hole and it's no longer golf!

[Greg Murphy]

If the size of the hole were doubled, the number of putts would go down. A lot. According to a simulation model (see: www.informs-sim.org/wsc08papers/356.pdf.) doubling the hole size would cause the expected number of putts per round to decrease from 29.3 to 24.3 for professional golfers and from 33.6 to 26.8 for amateur golfers. Holing out from off the green would probably go up too, further reducing the number of putts per round.

Clearly, this would be a fundamental change to the game, but it's not as crazy an idea as some would make out unless champions like Sarazen, Miller and Hogan were all lunatics for thinking that the game as it has been played promotes a less than ideal balance between putts and all other golf shots. Then again, I come from the land of three down football.

It is an interesting architectural question: how a bigger hole might influence green designs. It could have a very significant effect, encouraging more dramatic internal contouring and the utilization of pin positions on slopes rather than flats.

[David Ober]

Lower scores.

 

[David Ober]

If you doubled the size of the hole, I think everyone's index would drop three to four strokes at least -- maybe even five or six.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't see the harm of doubling the hole size for leisure/non-tourney type rounds.  I think it would speed up pace of play as people would only spend half the time on the greens that they do now which means you wouldn't see long backups at par 3's anymore. To boot, it'd be fun to chip in a lot more shots and getting more birds/par saves.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kalen

You want to speed up the game, why not just change it from 18 holes to a 9 hole round. One set of players play the odd another set play the even numbers - boy that would be fun too.

If players want to keep changing the game I honestly have to question if they really do care for the game as much as they seem to claim?

Whatever Kalen, I do hope you enjoy your game however easy it becomes 

Melvyn

[Anthony Gray]

  Melvyn,

  Could you share why the golf hole is the size that it is?

  Thanks,

  Anthony

[Kalen Braley]

Melyvn,

As plenty of people before me have said, golf is different for everyone.  There is no one way to play the game that works for everyone.  Its not a zero-sum/all-or-nothing game in how golf is implemented and enjoyed the world over.  I'd rather play in whatever form is available to me, over not playing at all, even if that form seems bastardized to you.

So when I talk of speeding up the game, it isn't because I can't play a fast round.... its because others don't.  So unless I'm 1st one off, or the course is empty, I'm at the mercy of everyone else.

This is a good way to get all the same holes in and provide more fun in lower scores and quicker rounds as well.  I'm not seeing who loses in this scenario??  This works because for 98% of golfers its not about low scores, tourney golf, grinding over every shot, or making a living.... its simply about playing with your buddies and having fun. I'm not sure why this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp because it been written by many others in response to your similar posts.

In the end just remember that I'll take golf however I can get it.  As Huck always says, it'd be awesome to enjoy golf how you do in Scotland on the links. But I don't live there, I live here.  And while there is plenty of sand here, and the occasional windyness, there is little else that resembles Scottish golf.  So I play my Utah golf as I can get it...its really no more complex than that.

[Craig Sweet]

I hate these arguments...one summer our summer soccer league decided to widen the goals by 2ft on either side...they figured Americans hated 1-0 games and that is why they had no interest in soccer...and this would lead to more scoring....it did, but no one cared....Americans still hated the game...

When you think of all the close plays at first base....you know the distance is perfect...can you say the same for the hole size?

[Pete_Pittock]

Golf is the game that cannot be won. Significant enlargment of the hole size would destroy that.

[Peter Pallotta]

"...the integrity of the playing process would suffer..."

Jim K - that's a nice answer, and a very useful phrase

Mike - I'd still miss on the low side.

Peter

[Joe Hancock]

Of course, maintenance expenses would go up....let me explain:

The average density of greens soil is approx. 108.37 pounds/ cu. ft. If the hole diameter is enlarged by 50%, that means the amount of soil that needs to be removed will nearly triple. The extra weight that a green keeper needs to handle in changing all 18 holes plus any practice holes will not only require more time, but also potentially cause injury to the employee's back and other extremities. This would mean more man hours, an increase in workman's comp insurance and possible employee turnover.....

....not really.

The fact is, Peter would still miss on the low side.....

 

[Kalen Braley]

How can anyone possibly be against this.  And when Joe gets too annoying we just shove em in one of these and make him promise to behave before we'll let him out!   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()