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

[sean_miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, that's what I said about not playing there. Other than the final putt, the course is the same for you. Gee whiz, you could even bring a cover for the larger cup with a regulation sized hole cut in it. Okay, so that would be lame, but my point was forcing people to play a shorter course is changing the playing field. Like when they change basketball courts for kids. Smaller court, lower net, and smaller ball. Actually sort of like 460 cc drivers, low spin low compression balls, super game improvement irons, and 2-ball belly putters. People are still generally awful and golf is still essentially boring as has been pointed out by others.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, that's what I said about not playing there. Other than the final putt, the course is the same for you. Gee whiz, you could even bring a cover for the larger cup with a regulation sized hole cut in it. Okay, so that would be lame, but my point was forcing people to play a shorter course is changing the playing field. Like when they change basketball courts for kids. Smaller court, lower net, and smaller ball. Actually sort of like 460 cc drivers, low spin low compression balls, super game improvement irons, and 2-ball belly putters. People are still generally awful and golf is still essentially boring as has been pointed out by others.

I could say that other than the tee shot, the course is the same for you.

And in both our cases, we're not playing the game we want to play.  And your situation is actually much better, for a couple reasons: One being that if you really like the course, then other than wanting to make a statement by staying away, there's no reason you couldn't go back and in all likelihood *not* be forced to move up a tee box (whereas I could never go to a course that had larger cups and have even a chance of playing how I want to play). The other being that even if you *are* forced to play a different tee box than you'd like, you can still use the slope and rating from whatever tees you played to get a legitimate differential that can be used for handicapping and/or comparison to your other scores at other courses. I can't do any of that if they change the hole size on me (at least not until they re-rate the course).

Ultimately though I agree, forcing people to play a shorter course is changing the playing field, just like forcing people to play larger cups is. I agree that it sucks being forced to play a different game than you wanted. You asked why we care about changing the cup size, that's my answer. You said "Just don't go to a large cup course", and my response is "I don't like the option of playing a particular course taken away from me, just like you don't."

I also agree that people are generally awful at golf, myself included.

[sean_miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, that's what I said about not playing there. Other than the final putt, the course is the same for you. Gee whiz, you could even bring a cover for the larger cup with a regulation sized hole cut in it. Okay, so that would be lame, but my point was forcing people to play a shorter course is changing the playing field. Like when they change basketball courts for kids. Smaller court, lower net, and smaller ball. Actually sort of like 460 cc drivers, low spin low compression balls, super game improvement irons, and 2-ball belly putters. People are still generally awful and golf is still essentially boring as has been pointed out by others.

I could say that other than the tee shot, the course is the same for you.

And in both our cases, we're not playing the game we want to play.  And your situation is actually much better, for a couple reasons: One being that if you really like the course, then other than wanting to make a statement by staying away, there's no reason you couldn't go back and in all likelihood *not* be forced to move up a tee box (whereas I could never go to a course that had larger cups and have even a chance of playing how I want to play). The other being that even if you *are* forced to play a different tee box than you'd like, you can still use the slope and rating from whatever tees you played to get a legitimate differential that can be used for handicapping and/or comparison to your other scores at other courses. I can't do any of that if they change the hole size on me (at least not until they re-rate the course).

Ultimately though I agree, forcing people to play a shorter course is changing the playing field, just like forcing people to play larger cups is. I agree that it sucks being forced to play a different game than you wanted. You asked why we care about changing the cup size, that's my answer. You said "Just don't go to a large cup course", and my response is "I don't like the option of playing a particular course taken away from me, just like you don't."

I also agree that people are generally awful at golf, myself included.

I thought Jack was talking about building a 12 hole course with lager holes, not converting existing ones, so maybe I was off the mark. I was simply doubting there would be a 12 hole course set up for beginners that would be on anyone's list of "places to play" regardless of the size of the holes.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I thought Jack was talking about building a 12 hole course with lager holes, not converting existing ones, so maybe I was off the mark. I was simply doubting there would be a 12 hole course set up for beginners that would be on anyone's list of "places to play" regardless of the size of the holes.

True, that's what started the thread but it evolved into a discussion that included another story about an existing course that did a large hole tournament, then a broader discussion of whether the larger hole sizes would be a good thing in general (and maybe even necessary) to improve participation in the game. So yeah, maybe you and I have been talking from different premises and probably would be in alignment if we hadn't been... I definitely agree with your comment above.

[newtogolf]

From what I've heard and read Jack is suggesting all of the above.  He'd like to build 12 hole courses and convert existing 18 hole courses so they can better accomodate 12 hole rounds.  As for the larger hole I've heard him suggest separate greens, greens with two holes (one large, one regulation) and courses with only large holed greens.  I guess it would be up to each course which changes they incorporate and how they do it.

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I thought Jack was talking about building a 12 hole course with lager holes, not converting existing ones, so maybe I was off the mark. I was simply doubting there would be a 12 hole course set up for beginners that would be on anyone's list of "places to play" regardless of the size of the holes.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

From what I've heard and read Jack is suggesting all of the above.  He'd like to build 12 hole courses and convert existing 18 hole courses so they can better accomodate 12 hole rounds.  As for the larger hole I've heard him suggest separate greens, greens with two holes (one large, one regulation) and courses with only large holed greens.  I guess it would be up to each course which changes they incorporate and how they do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I thought Jack was talking about building a 12 hole course with lager holes, not converting existing ones, so maybe I was off the mark. I was simply doubting there would be a 12 hole course set up for beginners that would be on anyone's list of "places to play" regardless of the size of the holes.

I'd rather play a large holed course than one with two holes. Ultimately I'd probably take a pass on both since there'd be too many greehorns there - slooooooow.

[Vladimir Puttin']

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?

This is exactly the issue.  The USGA and R&A; refuse to give in, rightfully so, IMO.  The question is can we meet some compromise, something

BTW, something that I haven't seen mentioned in previous posts, the vast majority of golfers aren't playing by the rules of golf anyway...breakfast ball, bumpin' it up, playing from the wrong place, etc.

[DnTheMiddle]

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?

@RyderJ , IMO, I believe the thought and discussion of a larger cup is meant to make the course slightly easier and improve the speed of play for the average golfer. You are not the average golfer if you're shooting sub-80 scores (above average). So many unique and innovative ideas are starting to be put on the discussion boards and I'm all for making the game more interesting and fun for the average/new golfer. The key is; however, is how do you accomplish or implement some of these strategies/goals with also keeping the game as traditional as possible for the golf purist? For golfers that are really good and for those that just love how the game is need to be a major factor in any game changing decisions.

I think an eight inch hole would be awesome, but there would need to be a way for the cup to remain at its current size and NOT having multiple holes per green. Some ideas can be used strictly for events and or periods of time with lower play (say Sat and Sun afternoon/evenings).

[DnTheMiddle]

I think it's fine for what Jack is doing. He's thinks it'll keep people in the game. He thinks golf is too hard and takes too long. So he had a 12-hole tournament that you had to play in 2.5 hours with holes 8 inches wide.

I think it's great, and I encourage experimentation like that. It's sad to me that there are so few good nine-hole courses on which beginners can learn the game. How much does it suck to be new to golf and stand on the tee of a hole which is 500 yards and has a creek, four bunkers, and a small pond, not to mention trees, long grass, and people in front of and behind you who are glaring at you while you duff your way to an 11 or something?

Golf - at the beginning level - needs to be fun. None of those new golfers are going to brag about shooting 71 (maybe for nine holes!). And better golfers won't play the bigger holes, because we find "fun" in playing well within the rules.

I think more needs to be done to encourage:

a) more people to play golf

b) more people to have FUN playing golf

c) people to play quickly

Jack's trying to accomplish all three.

Two of the biggest challenges, IMO, that golf faces is the time it takes to golf 18 holes and the cost of equipment and greens fees. Golf is a business and a sport, and I get that, but some of the costs associated with equipment is just ridiculous at times. $400 for a driver, $200 for a fairway wood, $400-$1000 for a set of irons. Wedges for $150 and putters from $75-$300. A big part of amateurs is being like the pros. Well, to look like a pro and play similar equipment will set you back a pretty penny. Thank gosh for ways of getting equipment at a reasonable cost.

Fortunately greens fees around here are very reasonable and I can visit a large number of decent courses for under $50 for 18 (with a cart). But I know that's different in some areas.

The speed of the game can be altered in a number of ways. I really don't know what option works best or if there is a way to effectively speed up the pace. It's just very hard to schedule away 6 hrs of a day to play golf when our lives are already fast paced and pretty full of many activities.

[Faksakes]

I hate the idea personally.

[Faksakes]

It's also not going to speed up play more than a few minutes a round. People are slow because they hit it into trees, hazards and just take a lot ofshots to get on the green. I've never played with a slow low handicap. I'm sure they're out there but its much rarer than a hacker taking 5+ hours to get around.

[iacas]

Two of the biggest challenges, IMO, that golf faces is the time it takes to golf 18 holes and the cost of equipment and greens fees. Golf is a business and a sport, and I get that, but some of the costs associated with equipment is just ridiculous at times. $400 for a driver, $200 for a fairway wood, $400-$1000 for a set of irons. Wedges for $150 and putters from $75-$300. A big part of amateurs is being like the pros. Well, to look like a pro and play similar equipment will set you back a pretty penny. Thank gosh for ways of getting equipment at a reasonable cost.

You can also buy a full set of clubs for about $400 if you know how to use eBay, or have a friend who golfs, etc. Yes, those are the retail costs of clubs, but you don't have to pay retail, and most beginner golfers don't, or they buy the sets hat include a bag, or something, for less about a single car payment.

It's also not going to speed up play more than a few minutes a round. People are slow because they hit it into trees, hazards and just take a lot ofshots to get on the green. I've never played with a slow low handicap. I'm sure they're out there but its much rarer than a hacker taking 5+ hours to get around.

There are plenty of slow low handicappers, and plenty of fast high handicappers.

The 15-inch holes sped up play by about 45-50 minutes. 8.5" holes would probably speed up play about 20-25 minutes or so. That's not insignificant.

How? It extends the tap-in (i.e. "don't read it, just walk up and tap it in") range to six, seven, even eight feet.

[Jeremie Boop]

The 15-inch holes sped up play by about 45-50 minutes. 8.5" holes would probably speed up play about 20-25 minutes or so. That's not insignificant.

How? It extends the tap-in (i.e. "don't read it, just walk up and tap it in") range to six, seven, even eight feet.

A large portion of my misses are well within a margin that would put them in the hole with these larger holes, but even saying that it wouldn't make much difference in my overall time to finish a round. Of course that's the impact for a solo player and not a foursome, so I assume you are basing the time savings on a foursome?

[iacas]

A large portion of my misses are well within a margin that would put them in the hole with these larger holes, but even saying that it wouldn't make much difference in my overall time to finish a round. Of course that's the impact for a solo player and not a foursome, so I assume you are basing the time savings on a foursome?

I'm basing it on the fact that from eight feet people might not need to read a putt or take much care in lining it up and the fact that 15-inch holes speed up a round 45-50 minutes.

[Jeremie Boop]

I'm basing it on the fact that from eight feet people might not need to read a putt or take much care in lining it up and the fact that 15-inch holes speed up a round 45-50 minutes.

A 15" hole is pretty ridiculously large, I guess I wouldn't even bother lining up any putt. Not sure I'd enjoy playing if they had holes that large, I'd just give myself 2 or 1 putts when I hit the green. Heck even chipping would be a whole lot easier if you don't have to worry so much about speed and line. I guess I can see how this would be beneficial for some people. They had those holes on the greens at Shelby Oaks when @mcanadiens and I were there. I just ignored it because it seemed goofy.

[iacas]

A 15" hole is pretty ridiculously large, I guess I wouldn't even bother lining up any putt. Not sure I'd enjoy playing if they had holes that large, I'd just give myself 2 or 1 putts when I hit the green. Heck even chipping would be a whole lot easier if you don't have to worry so much about speed and line. I guess I can see how this would be beneficial for some people. They had those holes on the greens at Shelby Oaks when @mcanadiens and I were there. I just ignored it because it seemed goofy.

A 15" hole extends the gimme range to about 15 feet for most people, 20 feet or so for me. My estimate of 15-20 minutes saved (again not an insignificant amount) was based on 8.5" holes.

We have another thread or two on 15" holes.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

A 15" hole is pretty ridiculously large, I guess I wouldn't even bother lining up any putt. Not sure I'd enjoy playing if they had holes that large, I'd just give myself 2 or 1 putts when I hit the green. Heck even chipping would be a whole lot easier if you don't have to worry so much about speed and line. I guess I can see how this would be beneficial for some people. They had those holes on the greens at Shelby Oaks when @mcanadiens and I were there. I just ignored it because it seemed goofy.

A 15" hole extends the gimme range to about 15 feet for most people, 20 feet or so for me. My estimate of 15-20 minutes saved (again not an insignificant amount) was based on 8.5" holes.

We have another thread or two on 15" holes.

They sure could use larger holes at the US Open this year!

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

Doubling the size of the hole isn't going to make it any easier to hit the ball long or straight. It will lower the scores of mid handicap golfers, but isn't going to do a thing for golfers who don't have the fundamentals of the swing down. These weekend warriors will still be looking for balls in the woods, fishing balls out of lakes, and cursing their wicked slice and topped irons. I don't think it would help "grow" the game one bit, if that's the idea?