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

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by lipout

In the UK, they trialled something called "powerplay golf".  I hate it, it misses the point totally.  However, one aspect is relevant to the hole size debate:  in PP golf there were two holes and flags per green.

What happens if you pull your putt 2' left 'cuz you suck (hence the Power Golf) and it falls in the wrong hole? Just curious as to how that eventuality is addressed.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

What happens if you pull your putt 2' left 'cuz you suck (hence the Power Golf) and it falls in the wrong hole? Just curious as to how that eventuality is addressed.

Found my own answer, probably should have done that in the first place.

Holing in the Wrong Hole
If a ball finished in the wrong (non target) hole, a player may Lift & Replace that ball to the nearest point of relief, no nearer to the target hole, that gives a clear path to the target hole.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lipout

If I recall reading about this correctly, the origin of the 4.25" hole goes back to the size of a piece of drain pipe that was used to cut holes on one of the original courses in Scotland ages ago.  In other words, it was an accident.

Of course, but it doesn't really matter whether it was an accident, random selection, or carefully thought-out process - what matters is, "Is there a reason to change it?"

Quote:

All that marking and lining up of 3 foot putts takes time....

And making the hole bigger will just cause people to take more time with their *6* foot putts. Other than the obvious side effect of reducing putts/scores, all that a larger hole size would do is slightly change the gimme, knee knocker, and lag ranges.  And yes, slightly reducing the number of putts might slightly reduce the total playing time, but it's small potatoes compared to some of the other time wasters in a round. And if time is an issue, you can always play 9 holes instead of 18.

Quote:

A larger hole, would, IMO:  make golf less frustrating, quicker, more positive.

Personally the fact that golf is frustrating makes it sweeter when you get it right. If everything in life were easy, it wouldn't be as rewarding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awmgolfer

We adopted the family tees at our course... You can also play all 18 holes in just under 2 1/2 hours.

Great! More tee options is one of many examples where the game of golf is already providing variety, without having to resort to something like changing the regulation hole (or ball) size.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJBenn85

For those that want to be able to enjoy the game more by making it easier and reducing the overall time commitment, why not present them the option?  As others have said, you could have rounds based on twelve holes and each green could have two different cup sizes as an OPTION to players.  Any other sport, you see variations in how amateurs play the games except for golf in which amateurs try to play from tees they have no business playing from and swing clubs they should put in a closet (drivers, long irons).  Golf does not have the number of participants it once had and it needs to be addressed; if courses can make rounds easier and shorter time while preserving the option of playing traditional setups, the only question is WHY NOT?  No one complains when football is played with a non-regulation size ball, or basketball is played on a half court or hockey is played with a ball and rollerblades.  But try to make a change in amateur golf and the purist amateurs, who typically cannot play worth a damn (and that is FINE), are entirely against change.  Meanwhile, the pros recognize the game may need to adapt to keep attendance figures and overall interest in the game.

Those who want to play an easier game already have the option of par 3 courses. Or they can play the shorter tees at regulation courses. Or they can just play easier courses. Those who want to spend less time already have the option of 9 hole rounds. (As someone said, not all courses provide 9 hole options but the majority do, so just go to one of those.)  You mention other sports that allow variations in how the game is played but golf has examples of that too in the form of scrambles (with that format's myriad of options for mulligans, string games, etc.), night glow ball, miniature golf, etc... And by the same token, the other sports you mentioned are rarely played with anything other than a regulation size ball, hoop, goal width, etc. Changing the hole size for golf is analogous to using a bigger basket size in basketball, and I don't hear of many people doing that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vladimir Puttin'

Mark King: "When bowling alleys started to resemble ghost towns, the industry attracted new players by making the game easier. They installed automatic scoring systems, put guards up along the gutters, and provided light balls that kids could roll. Today, bowling alleys are packed. We can do the same in golf by encouraging beginners to play the forward tees, to tee the ball in the fairway, and to call gimmes within five feet of the cup. We could even increase the size of the cup for beginners' leagues."

And I don't think anyone would have a problem with any of that *except* for the last part: hole size. Everything else is up to the individual to decide how they want to play the game in their own way, but once you've changed the cup size now you're forcing everyone to play the game that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lipout

The key to all of this, IMO, is the willingness of the governing bodies to sanction varieties of the game.  If they could sanction one official large hole size and 9,12,18 hole formats for scoring, then perhaps that would release course owners to try differnt things without the fear of becoming "not golf".  Offer variety and see what happens.  Right now we are offering no variety and are in an over supply situation.  Rather than just keep closing courses until supply meets demand, wy not at least try some varieties to see if there really is a demand for something else?

Again, I would say the variety is already there. You've got a spectrum from pitch and putt courses to very difficult ones and everything in between.  You can play 9 holes if you don't have time for 18 - is there that much of a need for, or a benefit gained, from playing 12 instead of 9? You can use whatever rules you like and still have fun hitting the ball around with a stick.  You can put on tournaments with whatever crazy mulligan rules you like. All that is already happening, and that's great, and none of it affects the person playing the game the way it always has been played... but changing the cup size does.

Now, a couple of folks have mentioned putting an extra cup with a bigger size on every green.  I suppose that still allows the "purists" (i.e., the vast majority of golfers I would guess) who want to keep playing the same game to do so. But some things to consider: Who eats the cost of the extra labor to cut twice as many holes every day? What system are you going to use to color code the flags to tell me which one I should be aiming for on my approach shot? What's the rule I should use when the big cup is in my line to the little cup I want to play to? Certainly all those problems are solvable, but how about instead we don't try to solve a problem that doesn't exist in the first place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

Why not just have a drop area 300 yards out to hit irons from instead of hitting from the tee? Why not allow 5 feet worth of gimmies? Why not just give everyone a par and a trophy and go get snow cones?

We have mini golf and par 3 courses, not to mention a lot of pathetically short 9 hole courses. If you just want to putt, play mini golf. If you want to just practice approach and short game, go to a pitch and putt. If you want to hit driver and other long clubs, hit the 2700 yard 9 hole course where you can drive over the par 4s. If you want to play a real game of golf, play a full length course and get your ass handed to you. It doesn't have to be a 7800 yard championship layout to do that.

Amen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

Nor do I think it would be all that popular, honestly.  Those who play "real" golf now and are leaving arn't going to stay because you made the hole bigger.  Thats ridiculous.  Right now, *you have a way to make the course easier* - move up tee boxes.  You already have it!  Why add a second?  And how many threads do we have complaining about people who play from the wrong tee boxes?  Like two per day.  Why do you think this would be any different?  What would make the 30 capper any more likely to say "lets go play the course with the big holes" than he is to say "lets move up to the senior tees"?  Its the same thing.  You guys are just re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic.

...

So, thats what I think.  Why would people use the big holes if they don't already use the forward tee boxes?

Excellent points.

[sean_miller]

Maybe you guys aren't the target audience for this course. I'm not either, but I appreciate the possibility having a relaxing round with my family and part of that is not spending an extra 1/2 hour on the greens watching people burn the hole back and forth and back and forth. Experienced golfers don't need this any more than experienced (and skilled) skiers needed more green runs. But somebody needs them or this wouldn't be a discussion at any level anywhere. Nobody says you guys would ever have to tee it up there, so why do you even care? Seriously, why?

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

Nobody says you guys would ever have to tee it up there, so why do you even care? Seriously, why?

First, people were talking about cutting two holes on one green, so that clearly would affect us.

Second,even if it wasn't two holes on one green, it introduces stuff to the game that, in my opinion, should not be there.  Golf is a game played against nature.  It is a different animal and that is why some love it and some hate it.  I honestly believe that.

Other sports have these types of distinctions.  Metal bats are legal in amateur baseball and not pro, and the 3 point line is significantly up on basketball courts for non-pro play.  However, in other sports, there is absolutely no chance a weekend warrior could do something like a pro.  However, that is the greatness of golf - that once or twice a round, nearly everyone has a single pro-level shot - in my first golf round, I hit a 56* sand wedge to inside a foot, and I rolled in a 40 foot or so putt.  It was a great feeling.  That feeling goes away on greens with big holes.

Big holes make the game feel like a novelty.  It detracts from it, IMO.  See, with basketball 3 point line moved in, relaxed icing rules in hockey, etc... you are still playing the basic game.  I feel like this with moved up tee boxes - you are still playing the basic game, just easier.  Big holes, IMO, makes it not golf.  It makes it something else that is tacky and weird.

Finally, I don't understand the point of it.  I would actually be all for removing certain ball and equipment restrictions for amateurs (like COR, etc...).  That is like metal bat versus wood bat.  I've heard a ton of beginner complaints after a round (30+ handicappers) and very rarely are the complaints about "those damn 4 putts".  usually its about hitting shots fat and not getting off the tee.  I think this "solution" solves a problem - beginners quitting the game due to frustration with putting - that doesn't actually exist.  I know the next argument is that it will speed up rounds BUT if that is the problem, there are *way* better solutions that bigger holes to that problem.

I don't understand what bigger holes solves.  It allows players easier putts, which means their iron shots do not have to be as precise.  It doesn't really speed up the game I'm willing to bet, as people will still stop for the cart girl, hit balls in the woods and hit again, spend 5 minutes looking for their ball, etc... However, the "problem" of players quitting golf because they hit their iron shots on the green just not close enough to two putt is NOT the problem.  The problem is that golf is inherently a boring game (in contrast to, say, basketball where everyone has a role every minute of the game), and we have nothing, right now, to make it exciting for someone who doesn't play it.

[sean_miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

Quote:

Nobody says you guys would ever have to tee it up there, so why do you even care? Seriously, why?

First, people were talking about cutting two holes on one green, so that clearly would affect us.

Second,even if it wasn't two holes on one green, it introduces stuff to the game that, in my opinion, should not be there.  Golf is a game played against nature.  It is a different animal and that is why some love it and some hate it.  I honestly believe that.

Other sports have these types of distinctions.  Metal bats are legal in amateur baseball and not pro, and the 3 point line is significantly up on basketball courts for non-pro play.  However, in other sports, there is absolutely no chance a weekend warrior could do something like a pro.  However, that is the greatness of golf - that once or twice a round, nearly everyone has a single pro-level shot - in my first golf round, I hit a 56* sand wedge to inside a foot, and I rolled in a 40 foot or so putt.  It was a great feeling.  That feeling goes away on greens with big holes.

Big holes make the game feel like a novelty.  It detracts from it, IMO.  See, with basketball 3 point line moved in, relaxed icing rules in hockey, etc... you are still playing the basic game.  I feel like this with moved up tee boxes - you are still playing the basic game, just easier.  Big holes, IMO, makes it not golf.  It makes it something else that is tacky and weird.

Finally, I don't understand the point of it.  I would actually be all for removing certain ball and equipment restrictions for amateurs (like COR, etc...).  That is like metal bat versus wood bat.  I've heard a ton of beginner complaints after a round (30+ handicappers) and very rarely are the complaints about "those damn 4 putts".  usually its about hitting shots fat and not getting off the tee.  I think this "solution" solves a problem - beginners quitting the game due to frustration with putting - that doesn't actually exist.  I know the next argument is that it will speed up rounds BUT if that is the problem, there are *way* better solutions that bigger holes to that problem.

I don't understand what bigger holes solves.  It allows players easier putts, which means their iron shots do not have to be as precise.  It doesn't really speed up the game I'm willing to bet, as people will still stop for the cart girl, hit balls in the woods and hit again, spend 5 minutes looking for their ball, etc... However, the "problem" of players quitting golf because they hit their iron shots on the green just not close enough to two putt is NOT the problem.  The problem is that golf is inherently a boring game (in contrast to, say, basketball where everyone has a role every minute of the game), and we have nothing, right now, to make it exciting for someone who doesn't play it.

You honestly think you're hitting pro level shots in golf that an amateur couldn't in basketball? Take a shot from the NBA 3-point line distance. The ball still fits in the hole. Can I dunk it? Can you hit a 340 yard drive on demand? Amateurs are playing hockey like the professionals when they're in a league. Icing rules speed up the game and make it safer. Professional leagues are considering no touch icing and it's alreasdy the international standard. How about blocking a 100mph slap shot then going up the ice on a breakaway and beating an NHL goaltender. Ain't gonna happen. People like to pretend they're playing the same game as professionals, but in the end it's just make believe. Why not pretend there's a gallery surrounding the green and that the other, bigger, hole isn't even there.

PS. That second hole and flag would bug me too ; )

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Maybe you guys aren't the target audience for this course. I'm not either, but I appreciate the possibility having a relaxing round with my family and part of that is not spending an extra 1/2 hour on the greens watching people burn the hole back and forth and back and forth. Experienced golfers don't need this any more than experienced (and skilled) skiers needed more green runs. But somebody needs them or this wouldn't be a discussion at any level anywhere. Nobody says you guys would ever have to tee it up there, so why do you even care? Seriously, why?

I'm not at all opposed to the occasional "large cup" day as part of a course's schedule of events, scramble tourney, etc.  I'm just against this catching on as a permanent change to any course in my area. That would affect me because that's one less course I have the option of playing "real" golf at - which would be particularly disappointing if it happened to be one of my favorite courses.

I'm all for being democratic about it and giving people options, but as I've said lots of options already exist to make courses with regulation hole sizes easier and/or more fun, without actually changing the playing field.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Maybe you guys aren't the target audience for this course. I'm not either, but I appreciate the possibility having a relaxing round with my family and part of that is not spending an extra 1/2 hour on the greens watching people burn the hole back and forth and back and forth. Experienced golfers don't need this any more than experienced (and skilled) skiers needed more green runs. But somebody needs them or this wouldn't be a discussion at any level anywhere. Nobody says you guys would ever have to tee it up there, so why do you even care? Seriously, why?

I'm not at all opposed to the occasional "large cup" day as part of a course's schedule of events, scramble tourney, etc.  I'm just against this catching on as a permanent change to any course in my area. That would affect me because that's one less course I have the option of playing "real" golf at - which would be particularly disappointing if it happened to be one of my favorite courses.

I'm all for being democratic about it and giving people options, but as I've said lots of options already exist to make courses with regulation hole sizes easier and/or more fun, without actually changing the playing field.

But aren't people suggesting forcing poor players play a shorter course already? How is forcing someone to bypass a good chunk of the course not detracting from their experience? Personally I'd love it if everyone in the groups ahead dropped a ball 300 yards out and limited their putts to 2 on every green, but if someone made me do that I'd never return.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

People want to hit all the golf shots, including hitting the driver. They don't want to spend 6 hours doing it. Why require everyone to play 18 holes on a regulation length course, especially on a weekend. There's talk of 9-hole rounds, but a lot of courses don't allow that on the weekend. It's 18 holes or nothing. More and more people are choosing the nothing route. One could argue that a 30 capper who insists on spending 1/2 his Saturday on a golf course rather than getting on with something more productive is the crackpot, but that's taboo.

There was an article in a Canadian golf magazine that outlined the decline of ski hills a few seasons ago and part of it was because of the focus on expert terrain. Once they improved the experience for beginner and novice skiers, there was a resurgence. Golf will either adopt similar attitudes or it will continue the sharp downward decline.

If that was directed at me, I'm not exactly a 30 handicap (I haven't played a round since I got my game sorted out) and I never play on weekends. It's too expensive, you can't walk in some places, it's crowded, and hard to get on. I play twilight rates normally, and I get it done in 3 hours when I'm on my own. With others, perhaps a different story. I wouldn't

One tournament with big holes was polled about the fun level, and interestingly the high cappers didn't get much benefit from the big holes, and scored about the same. The low handicappers scored about the same, and hated the change. The middle handicappers were the ones who liked it the most.

The thing is, there are 2 parts of the game: ballstriking and scoring. By making putting easy, you essentially remove the aspect of scoring and strategy on approach. As someone pointed out, beginners and high handicappers don't take a long time and get frustrated because of scoring, it's the fact they mishit everything and don't have enough distance to get around the course. This cannot be helped unless they can practice a lot or get lessons without paying a ton of money.

Beginners in this game, unless they have a parent or friend to teach them, just have to learn via sink or swim or choose to pay hundreds of dollars for lessons on top of hundreds for equipment and a steady stream of cash for practice and greens fees. Even then, they won't get any lower than a 12 or so unless they play for many years or are very talented. In my case, I decided to take up the game last spring, and my dad, who sucks at the game, handed me a copy of Ben Hogan's 5 lessons and an ancient set of clubs. That book, by the way, is great for teaching yourself if you have a similar mindset to Hogan and want to learn your own swing, but it isn't as effective as lessons would probably be.

I made the decision over the winter to really challenge myself and try to get a whole lot better, and I won't improve my game by shooting at 8" holes. I play my best when I'm challenged, and I get lazy when there's nothing there. I don't aspire to get to a scratch handicap in wuss golf, I'd rather be a high capper in a tougher game where improving means something.

12 holes is another issue; I don't mind people building a 12 hole course, but don't convert existing courses. 9 holes should be allowed more often. Courses should not be shortened, but the ball ought to be curtailed both for pros and amateurs. The pros don't hit it too long; they're not such great athletes that they're super human. If I can hit it as far as they do, with my scrawny behind, believe me it's the equipment.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Maybe you guys aren't the target audience for this course. I'm not either, but I appreciate the possibility having a relaxing round with my family and part of that is not spending an extra 1/2 hour on the greens watching people burn the hole back and forth and back and forth. Experienced golfers don't need this any more than experienced (and skilled) skiers needed more green runs. But somebody needs them or this wouldn't be a discussion at any level anywhere. Nobody says you guys would ever have to tee it up there, so why do you even care? Seriously, why?

I'm not at all opposed to the occasional "large cup" day as part of a course's schedule of events, scramble tourney, etc.  I'm just against this catching on as a permanent change to any course in my area. That would affect me because that's one less course I have the option of playing "real" golf at - which would be particularly disappointing if it happened to be one of my favorite courses.

I'm all for being democratic about it and giving people options, but as I've said lots of options already exist to make courses with regulation hole sizes easier and/or more fun, without actually changing the playing field.

But aren't people suggesting forcing poor players play a shorter course already? How is forcing someone to bypass a good chunk of the course not detracting from their experience? Personally I'd love it if everyone in the groups ahead dropped a ball 300 yards out and limited their putts to 2 on every green, but if someone made me do that I'd never return.

Sorry, I'm not following you... What does playing the appropriate tees for your skill have to do with the large cup issue? Are you saying that since people aren't responsible enough to play the appropriate tees, we need to make the game easier by making the hole bigger instead?   Clearly the issue here is not about forcing people to play an easier game, because by that logic we wouldn't just be talking about bigger holes, we'd also be talking about roping off any tee boxes longer than the reds and not building any more courses longer than 4000 yards. The issue is whether large holes are necessary to increase beginner's enjoyment of the game, and my argument is that if you *want* to play an easier game the options already exist.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Maybe you guys aren't the target audience for this course. I'm not either, but I appreciate the possibility having a relaxing round with my family and part of that is not spending an extra 1/2 hour on the greens watching people burn the hole back and forth and back and forth. Experienced golfers don't need this any more than experienced (and skilled) skiers needed more green runs. But somebody needs them or this wouldn't be a discussion at any level anywhere. Nobody says you guys would ever have to tee it up there, so why do you even care? Seriously, why?

I'm not at all opposed to the occasional "large cup" day as part of a course's schedule of events, scramble tourney, etc.  I'm just against this catching on as a permanent change to any course in my area. That would affect me because that's one less course I have the option of playing "real" golf at - which would be particularly disappointing if it happened to be one of my favorite courses.

I'm all for being democratic about it and giving people options, but as I've said lots of options already exist to make courses with regulation hole sizes easier and/or more fun, without actually changing the playing field.

But aren't people suggesting forcing poor players play a shorter course already? How is forcing someone to bypass a good chunk of the course not detracting from their experience? Personally I'd love it if everyone in the groups ahead dropped a ball 300 yards out and limited their putts to 2 on every green, but if someone made me do that I'd never return.

Sorry, I'm not following you... What does playing the appropriate tees for your skill have to do with the large cup issue? Are you saying that since people aren't responsible enough to play the appropriate tees, we need to make the game easier by making the hole bigger instead?   Clearly the issue here is not about forcing people to play an easier game, because by that logic we wouldn't just be talking about bigger holes, we'd also be talking about roping off any tee boxes longer than the reds and not building any more courses longer than 4000 yards. The issue is whether large holes are necessary to increase beginner's enjoyment of the game, and my argument is that if you *want* to play an easier game the options already exist.

I was commenting on one portion of your post - the last part where you didn't agree with someone "changing the playing field."

I've only been forced to play up by the marshal a couple times (as a group) and in my opinion making the playing field shorter when we had no problem reaching the greens in regulation from the tips removed much of the strategy. We saw one playing field waiting for people to play, then were forced to play a dumbed down playing field. It was poor customer service and I've never been back to either course.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Maybe you guys aren't the target audience for this course. I'm not either, but I appreciate the possibility having a relaxing round with my family and part of that is not spending an extra 1/2 hour on the greens watching people burn the hole back and forth and back and forth. Experienced golfers don't need this any more than experienced (and skilled) skiers needed more green runs. But somebody needs them or this wouldn't be a discussion at any level anywhere. Nobody says you guys would ever have to tee it up there, so why do you even care? Seriously, why?

I'm not at all opposed to the occasional "large cup" day as part of a course's schedule of events, scramble tourney, etc.  I'm just against this catching on as a permanent change to any course in my area. That would affect me because that's one less course I have the option of playing "real" golf at - which would be particularly disappointing if it happened to be one of my favorite courses.

I'm all for being democratic about it and giving people options, but as I've said lots of options already exist to make courses with regulation hole sizes easier and/or more fun, without actually changing the playing field.

But aren't people suggesting forcing poor players play a shorter course already? How is forcing someone to bypass a good chunk of the course not detracting from their experience? Personally I'd love it if everyone in the groups ahead dropped a ball 300 yards out and limited their putts to 2 on every green, but if someone made me do that I'd never return.

Sorry, I'm not following you... What does playing the appropriate tees for your skill have to do with the large cup issue? Are you saying that since people aren't responsible enough to play the appropriate tees, we need to make the game easier by making the hole bigger instead?   Clearly the issue here is not about forcing people to play an easier game, because by that logic we wouldn't just be talking about bigger holes, we'd also be talking about roping off any tee boxes longer than the reds and not building any more courses longer than 4000 yards. The issue is whether large holes are necessary to increase beginner's enjoyment of the game, and my argument is that if you *want* to play an easier game the options already exist.

I was commenting on one portion of your post - the last part where you didn't agree with someone "changing the playing field."...

Ah, gotcha. Well that is unfortunate about you being forced to move up to different tees, but isn't that a pretty rare occurrence? It definitely is around these parts. Rare or not, the possibility of it can't really compare to the certainty of a different size hole affecting *everybody*, all the time.

[lipout]

If we talk about whether golf on TV is interesting, then I think the biggest issue is that it is the longest game by far (except cricket, which I won't attempt to explain).  4-6 hours of coverage on 4 consecutive days before you get a result.  Who has 16-24 hours in a week to watch all of this coverage?  It is not as if anything is happening on TV much of the time.  And I agree with some of the previous posts about not really having a reason to strongly root for one player over another.

So, if tournaments were 4 rounds of Nicklaus golf, 12 hole rounds taking 2 and a half hours each, you could fit 2 rounds in each day (as I mentioned in an earlier post).  And you could get all of the action from 2 rounds into the same TV time slot as one current 18 hole round.  Cameras would have only 12 holes to cover, not 18, so we could see a bigger proportion of the action.  AND, we would spend less time watching them lining up short putts.  You could pick the 12 most interesting holes as well, to build on another point from the previous post.

Now, here is my latest question:  if golf did that, do you think it would be a good idea to schedule golf tournaments mid week?  What I am thinking of is finding a couple of nights when there is less other sport on TV.  What are the days of the week, in the US, where there are fewer competing sports?  Are there any?  In the UK, the weekend is full of sport of all sorts, and there is also football (soccer) on Monday night.  Tuesday to Friday has less sport on TV.  How about Nicklaus style golf on Tuesday and Wednesday?

I know that this would likely lead to fewer people going to watch the actual tournament on the course, but if it meant that more people watched on TV (and saw more action and a faster result), might that not be better for the game?

When you start to open things up for questioning, as Jack Nicklaus has done, some of the things we take as "given" in golf start to look pretty strange IMO.  I am starting to think that a resistance to change might be the thing that kills golf.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

. . . certainty of a different size hole affecting *everybody*, all the time.

I think I covered that. Don't play there. That's the choice I made when forced to play what should have been a 6900 yard course as a pitch and putt.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by lipout

. . . it is the longest game by far (except cricket, which I won't attempt to explain).  4-6 hours of coverage on 4 consecutive days before you get a result.  Who has 16-24 hours in a week to watch all of this coverage?  It is not as if anything is happening on TV much of the time.  And I agree with some of the previous posts about not really having a reason to strongly root for one player over another.

Ever watched a tennis major?

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

If we talk about whether golf on TV is interesting, then I think the biggest issue is that it is the longest game by far (except cricket, which I won't attempt to explain).  4-6 hours of coverage on 4 consecutive days before you get a result.

Eh, I think this is overblown.  The final day of majors get really good ratings in the grand scheme of sports coverage.  When Tiger was in his heydey, the Sport did huge ratings despite it being really long.  I think the big problem is that, well, its not interesting.  You can see the same thing in tennis - when Roddick was challenging for #1 in the world, and Sampras was playing Aggasi in the semifinals or finals of every major, the sport was much more popular on TV here in the US.  You need something to create dynamic tension and emotion in the tournament.

Personally, I've posted this before and I still really believe it despite the criticism I've gotten for this stance, I think the problem is the courses.  They are so boring.  The general public, who we are trying to get interested in golf, doesn't care about the difference between a 610 yards par 5 that doglegs left (and is maybe/maybe not reachable in two) and a 560 yard par 5 relatively straight which must be reached in two.  They just see tree-lined fairways and the same thing over and over and over.  I would be hugely in favor of courses for the PGA Tour that required intense strategy.  I'm not sure how to pull this off, but it struck me after I played a really neat course in New Hampshire's White Mountains during a vacation last year.  That course was cool and unusual - two of the greens were on top of little mountains - like you have 270 yards to a severe upslope.  They were short par 4s but the greens were almost like islands the hills up to them were so high and steep.  One of the holes was an elevated tee box to an island fairway in a lake, to a downhill green.  The green was about 280 severe downhill so you are tempted to try to reach with a driver, but water everywhere, or you can "lay up" into the fairway island 160-240 but it is really hard to judge the distance because you are basically teeing off off a cliff.  A fourth cool hole has a river running in the middle of it (yes, a river, not a creek).

This type of course would be really itneresting to watch the pros play.  Once they get off Pebble, if you look at the Tour schedule, its like 7 weeks in a row of courses with Par 4s 380-500, par 5s 520 - 610, and par 3s 170 to 210, all tree-lined, perfectly manicured courses.  Its so boring!

They need to spice up the tour somehow.  In football, they've done this - more defensive rules for backs to encourage scoring.  In basketball too, with the 3 point line and the shot clock.  Baseball has a designated hitter.  They need to do something because its not interesting as it is currently set up.  I don't think time is the issue, I think repetition is the issue - its the same thing over and over and over.  Something needs to be done about that, IMO.  Put them on some really exciting courses with unique features and tons of trouble!

IMO, people take up sports for three reasons: someone in their family (usually a parent, but not necessarily) introduces them to the sport young, they start playing it in school, or they see it on TV and say "wow, that looks cool".  The second in golf is nearly impossible because of startup costs - very few public high schools have golf teams.  We can't control number 1.  Our only option is to make the TV game as exciting as possible.  We can't control who plays professional golf, so that leaves the courses, IMO.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

. . . certainty of a different size hole affecting *everybody*, all the time.

I think I covered that. Don't play there. That's the choice I made when forced to play what should have been a 6900 yard course as a pitch and putt.

Ok, so essentially you feel you've lost the option of ever playing that course again because of an unwarranted and unnecessary decision on someone's part. That's how I would feel about the possibility of a course changing to larger holes.

[Gresh24]

The great thing is that this would very quickly work itself out.  IF a course did this, one of two things would happen, an increase or decrease in business.  Demand would quickly tell us if it is a good idea.

The reality is, courses all over the country are failing and/or declining.  A lot has to do with the economy but some has to do with the game.  I'd rather see at least as many, or more options for all golfers, than the closing of courses.

I don't think anyone has to ever worry about every golf course having a second large cup in the greens...