Evidently Jack Nicklaus wants to double the size of the hole in some settings?

At least according to a poll I just saw on BSPN. I'm not sure whether or not this is new or old news, but either way, what a freaking joke imho. How in the hell could Jack possibly want that? I'm not saying golf would be substantially easier for the weekend woodsman if the size of the hole was doubled, but that 77 I shot last week would have very easily been a 71-72 with a hole double in size. I'd prefer to leave the hole EXACTLY the way it is...just my opinion.

What say you?

Why not? If you read the article they were also going to play a 12 hole tournament and you had to play in 2.5 hours. It is about as close to real golf as a 4 ball scramble tournament is.

I suppose whether or not you consider a four ball scramble real golf determines your feelings on making the whole size double. I, personally, don't consider a 4 ball scramble golf, but rather a derivative game.

I think it's a great idea! Especially today where everything is expected to be instant...including positive results.

Iacas has it right. I'm not really sure what to add to his post.

Variety and experimentation is fine. There can and should be variants of golf out there.   And putting in supersize cups is easily done on any golf course.  Temporarily or permanently.   Courses can have a Newbie Day when huge plugs are taken out of greens and manhole cups put in.       Would cut scores by 20 strokes a round.  Lotsa holes in one.

However, I don't think the primary aggravation the beginner to average player feels is due to three, four or more putting.  It's the wild shots with wood or iron that get lost or end up in the next fairway.  Once you get to the green, you don't need hard-to-obtain golf skills to hole out.    Putting is the simple non-athletic game.  My opinion anyway.

20-30 years ago, Jack Nicklaus joined in an idea for making courses smaller by using a ball that could not be hit far.   Think about that!  Courses as challenging but half the length!   Less land means less aquisition cost for land, less development cost, less maintenance, faster play time, more golfers, more revenue, AND, unlike on a pitch and putt, you get to use your driver and woods.  IMO that was a great idea.

Maybe I'm old school but one of the things that attracts me to certain sports is their simularity to the the game I see played by professionals.  Scores are measures of success, I'd prefer to shoot 100+ on a regulation course versus 90 on a course that uses cups double the size.

While overall I agree with your statement iacas, I feel municipal courses offer perfect challenges for beginners of golf. I'm all for experimentation, as long as it doesn't branch out and turn out to be all the wholes are 8 inches wide. I guess it's all just one's own preference....it was just my two cents on the matter.

This^^^^

We are in the same boat here man. Golf, to me, is a personal challenge that pits you against the design of the course and nature. I have no problem scoring poorly on a particular course, in fact, it motivates me to play the course better next time. This is not to say that by enlarging the holes, one can't feel equally as challenged or satisfied, I just personally find the game perfect the way it is.

I'd still be missing 3 foot putts

lol

Is there a drought of executive courses around the country? Around the Twin Cities area I can think of just off the top of my head several execs and a number of sub 5500 yard courses that are known as beginner friendly places to play. I certainly agree the three points you made are important and necessary for the greater health of the game but I'm not sure how 12 holes is significant as opposed to 9. Wouldn't it create problems with managing tee-times for a course if there was a 12 hole option? I don't know know if he meant courses that are dedicated 12 hole layouts or current 18 hole (or in the case of my home course 27 hole) layout? And would there be 2 cups sizes per green? Maybe I am reading too much into all this but it's more confusing to me than enlightening. But I will be the first to admit I am not a great course managing mind either. I just show up on time and play.

Personally I was disappointed that there wasn't more support for the "Tee-It-Forward" program. A different topic I know but all the same I am glad ideas to boost participation and enjoyment are at least being tossed out there.

How similiar is close enough? Are you playing 7500 yard courses? Is riding a cart acceptable? And so on. Making the hole bigger is just another tweak. Letting a 30 handicapper sink a 20 footer isn't going to ruin the game and no one is going to mistake it for tournament golf.

Quote:

There is little similarity between the golf I play and the pros.

It's great for what people are mentioning, to learn.  These courses would need to be for learning purposes and the USGA would obviously not participate in judging them and allowing for scores.

It is a great way to get people to try golf and have a little fun before they pay too much money and waste too much time on real courses, designed to challenge players.

If courses want to appeal to beginners and ultra-high handicap golfers, there is a simple way:  For each hole offer a par 3 option.  That can be done without a lot of expense at most every course and every hole.  Just stick some tee boxes off the fairway at an angle 90-180 yards from the green.  Print Par 3 scorecards.  That way anybody can at any time at their choice turn an ordinary par 72 course into a par 54 focusing only on the short game.

Voila, instant pitch 'n' putt.

This doesn't make a long course newbie friendly when it comes to fees.   The fee would have to be unchanged, since the green area is the priciest part of the golf course to build and maintain and treating a hole as a par 3 relieves no pressure on critical parts of the course.  Plus either way, golfers would have to walk the full course or drive in a cart, which means play at a par 3 would be a little faster but not a lot.

The problem when lifelong golfers try to make the game great for beginners is that they are far removed from what it's like to be a beginner which influences their suggestions.  Having more decent 9-hole courses (par 3 and "regular" length) would be great IMO.  Promoting the Tee It Forward program is another good idea...for everyone including beginners.

However, the idea that golf would be more appealing to beginners if we had huge holes is a little "off the mark."  Who's most often concerned about short-game (putting) skills and shaving the last few strokes from their handicap.  More skilled golfers...that's who.   I would argue that (relatively speaking) there's less frustration by beginners over the 3 or 4 putt compared with tee and fairway shots.  Let's see.  A new golfer steps up to the tee where there's often onlookers nearby...especially the first tee.  The new golfer carefully addresses the ball and takes aim (as was shown in a previous golf lesson).  The new golfer swings and hits thin or fat and watches the ball travel 50', or if he/she is lucky and makes solid contact, watches the ball fly out of bounds, into rough, or into hazards.  The new golfer can almost hear the mumblings of people lined up at the firs tee (or arriving at subsequent tees) that sound something like, " we're going to be here all day ... , , ".  Our new golfer then proceeds to re-tee for another shot or walk the 50' to his/her ball for another attempt.  Another swing and a similar result.  The new golfer is now more than a little frustrated and embarrassed and wonders why golf seemed so much better during lessons and at the driving range.  By the time our new golfer gets to the green, a couple of chips and however many putts seems like fun in comparison.

Unfortunately, golf has extremely demanding requirements associated with balance, hand-eye coordination, and proprioception which makes golf inherently very difficult.  Practice and lessons are essential for most who do not have the genetics to quickly learn this game on their own, but the time and cost associated practice and lessons which increases golf's participation barriers which then increases golf's dropout rate and increases the portion of the population who simply decide "not to bother" trying golf.  I guess making huge holes is a lot easier than trying to otherwise address the inherent difficulty of golf which is probably not possible anyway.

Maybe stem cell research will allow future golfers to modify their athletic abilities so they can more quickly and easily learn the game.  I'll be waiting to in line for a little genetic engineering assistance when the day comes!

Let's see my vertical jump is lacking and I'm not 7' tall, maybe we could lower the basket on public basketball courts so the vertically challenged can dunk too.  I'm not a super fast runner so maybe the local running event organizers should offer me a head start so I can finish closer to the top, it's not fun finishing outside the Top 3.  Oh yeah, the bullseye on a dart board is pretty small, would like to see those be bigger too, maybe double the size....

Riding in or pushing a cart, or having a caddy carry your bag doesn't change the game.   I realize the course setup for pro tournaments isn't the same exact as what I'd get to play when the tournament is over, but it's close.   I was taught at an early age that nothing worth having or doing comes easy.  If the goal is to just make people feel better about their lousy games, then paint a ring about 1 foot in diameter around the cup.  Those that don't care about playing real golf can count any putt inside the ring the same as if they put it in the hole.  Most people who don't care about handicap or just like playing for fun don't hole out anyway, anything within 3 feet is considered good.