USGA decides to go to 8 inch holes!

[DirtCheap]

Got your attention, didn't I???

Actually, in Golf Magazine there is an article this month about that very thing.

The author of the article makes a VERY, VERY, (did I mention VERY) good arguement to open the holes up to 8 inches across. Evidently this has been proposed before.

Without stepping on copywright laws, I will tell you that IMO the best argument he made for it (among others) was to increase the pace of play.

Now, I have read a TON of threads on this forum, and the number one complaint I hear from you guys is pace of play . Problem solved!

He also went into why holes were the size that they are. Once you learn the reason that holes are only 4.5 inches across (happened completely by chance) then I think more people would support making the holes a more reasonable (IMO) size.

It's a really good article. Every point he made was very valid and made a believer out of me.

Opinions?

[MunkeyGolfer]

My question is, will this automatically affect the course ratings? Wouldn't an 8 inch hole pretty much take a stroke off of every hole (or every two - three holes more realistically) . Most of my missed puts are within 8 inches.

[iacas]

Without stepping on copywright laws, I will tell you that IMO the best argument he made for it (among others) was to increase the pace of play.

I don't think this would affect pace of play at all. Most people seem to give themselves the four or five footers anyway.

Pace of play is bad because people don't take several clubs. They park in the wrong place. They wait for the green to clear from 270 out. They aren't ready to hit when it's their turn. They line up their putts from every side of the hole.

He also went into why holes were the size that they are. Once you learn the reason that holes are only 4.5 inches across (happened completely by chance) then I think more people would support making the holes a more reasonable (IMO) size.

They're 4.25", not 4.5", and in Ben Hogan's day they made the holes something like five inches wide (clarification: not officially, just as a test or something, IIRC). All they found was that the good putters made even more putts, while the average and poor putters made very few more. Why? Because good putters rarely missed by much (so they made some of those), and the bad putters still missed by a good bit.

And anyway, no, since we've had 4.25" for so long, there's no way in heck I'd ever want to change it.

Most of my missed puts are within 8 inches.

They'd have to be within two inches for this to matter. The hole's already four inches wide (4.25) and so you add two inches on each side and you're at 8 (really 8.25).

[MunkeyGolfer]

oh duh. I didn't think of it that way. I guess it wouldn't drop any strokes for me. Just makes the next putt a gimme

[DirtCheap]

And anyway, no, since we've had 4.25" for so long, there's no way in heck I'd ever want to change it.

Using that logic, we should still be playing featheries and wooden clubs.

[QWKDTSN]

No - the whole point of golf is to get a tiny ball into a small hole 400+ yards away in just a few strokes, right?

I know that statistically, making the hole a little less than twice the size doesn't make the game easier, but I think most of us, in our hearts, wouldn't consider the game as challenging.

[dave39]

Got your attention, didn't I???

"Would you support going to 8 inch holes?"

-Not a chance. That is actually one of the dumbest things that I have ever heard. If one wants to increase the pace of play than a course can set etiquette rules such as: Pick up your ball after 10 strokes and move to the next hole. My girlfriend has only played golf a couple of times and she has yet to make a 10 on a hole. So in my opinion making the hole bigger isn't the solution. Etiquette rules are. The game of golf is about as pure as any game can be and making an 8 inch hole would make the game more of a joke. The hole is fine the way it is and it will NEVER go to 8 inches. Heck, if it went to 8 inches (which it never will) it would be hard to find the "Greats" because everyone would be shooting lower scores. Tiger's lazer like putting would merely be the same as everyone else's who can roll the ball even half decent.

[Dent]

That's wayyy to big, there are other things to be changed in golf, why change something that doesnt need to be changed?

[Lange]

What are we trying to turn this into???.... disk golf?

[Fourputt]

Quite frankly, I think it's just about the stupidest idea I've yet heard. What would happen is that course would just cut the holes in more difficult places and it wouldn't change anything. It certainly won't help in pace of play. Most casual players give themselves anything within 3 feet anyway, so it's really not going to speed up that part of the game. Slow play doesn't happen on the greens alone, it happens everywhere on the course, and trying to change every course to the point where pace would actually be affected would make the game unrecognizable.

Have courses designed or maintained to be more player friendly. A golf course doesn't need water in play on all 18 holes, out of bounds within 20 yards of the fairway, 15 bunkers on each hole, and 2 foot deep rough. Make the average course so that the average player can actually play it. When he slices that tee shot 30 yards right, give him an out... maybe not a clear shot to the hole, but a chance for a recovery shot of some kind, and a reasonable chance at finding the ball. I was watching a local show today on a Colorado course that I wouldn't even want to step up to the 1st tee on. Every hole had OB on one side and water on the other (or water on both sides), and at least 6 or 7 bunkers on every hole. The fairways looked as narrow as US Open fairways. Any average golfer would shoot a bout 120+ and take 6 hours to do so there. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Ruckus]

That's like changing the basketball hoop to 12 feet, or making a football field 110 yards. All previous records would be meaningless. I can't believe that this was even entertained in a mainstream publication. I can't believe we are entertaining this discussion

[QWKDTSN]

That's like changing the basketball hoop to 12 feet, or making a football field 110 yards. All previous records would be meaningless. I can't believe that this was even entertained in a mainstream publication. I can't believe we are entertaining this discussion

Nicely stated!

[Shindig]

So, one thing I like is the ratio of ball size to hole size, as far as accuracy on putting. And how big would our drivers be if we adjusted the ball size?

In any case, I don't like the idea of a bigger hole for the same reason I switched irons: if the hole were larger, I could get lazier in my putting and then I'd make fewer.

[Garthmo]

I don't think they "whoever they are" would never do it. I wonder what a round of golf would be like if they were that big?

[nlowplacez]

terrible idea now if i was inventing golf for the first time i would do it just to put a bigger emphasis on ball striking. but golf has always been a putters game and always will be, so changing it now would cause rioting in the streets and armageddon. hell no

[Dub]

terrible idea now if i was inventing golf for the first time i would do it just to put a bigger emphasis on ball striking. but golf has always been a putters game and always will be, so changing it now would cause rioting in the streets and armageddon. hell no

I hear ya!!!!! I'm in agreement....leave the hole size alone. If they want to change anything...make the dang things less deep so us old geezers don't have to bend down so far to get our balls.

[mikelz]

I'm a Mac O'Grady and Ben Hogan fan.

After he retired from competition, so I read somewhere, Hogan did not putt much when he played. He thought it was unfair that if you hit it 10 feet and someone else hits it 35, the second guy can win. Most of his games were 'closest to the hole'.

Mac retired from the tour at around 37 years old. Paraphrasing, he said we was retiring because, "I can't stand the agony of putting one more day."

If all the work I put in this week doesn't pay off today, I'm definitely going with eight inches (and avoiding the obvious puns).

[iacas]

Using that logic, we should still be playing featheries and wooden clubs.

No, that's not using "that logic." That's taking "that logic" to an absurd extreme in order to make a point: pure reductio ad absurdum. The point is simply that it's a fundamental change to the game, while no previous changes were as fundamental (unless you go back to the days when there were only 6 or 12 holes on some courses or something) as changing the size of the hole.

That's like changing the basketball hoop to 12 feet, or making a football field 110 yards. All previous records would be meaningless.

Yup.

Heck, why not eliminate putting altogether and just make golf a distance competition. Put the hole 400 yards away, call it a par three, and make the hole ten feet wide. There's some reductio ad absurdum in the other direction.

Heck, if it went to 8 inches (which it never will) it would be hard to find the "Greats" because everyone would be shooting lower scores. Tiger's lazer like putting would merely be the same as everyone else's who can roll the ball even half decent.

Not true. You didn't read what I wrote above about the experiment in Ben Hogan's day. He too felt that ballstriking should be rewarded more (given his ballstriking skills), and all he found was that the good putters putted even better while the average and poor ones putted about the same.

terrible idea now if i was inventing golf for the first time i would do it just to put a bigger emphasis on ball striking. but golf has always been a putters game and always will be, so changing it now would cause rioting in the streets and armageddon. hell no

Ditto what I just said. Making the hole bigger puts MORE emphasis on putting.

Make the hole smaller and you'll just add emphasis to short putts, like those inside of six feet, because people aren't going to make many putts into a 3" hole outside of six feet. I think the PGA Tour average is only 50-60% from that range already. I think 4.25" is pretty darn good. Sure, it may have been a bit of luck that put us at that number, but then again someone, somewhere had to decide what size pipe to use, and I think they chose very wisely. In their day, a two-foot putt wasn't a tap-in, given how bumpy their greens were.